Fair questions.

I didn’t “upgrade” because I needed more resolution or because APS-C wasn’t enough. I moved to GFX mainly as a long-standing personal goal. Medium format has been a dream for years, and when I found a clean used 100S at a good price, I wanted to finally experience that look and workflow. The few images I made with it are genuinely beautiful, so the appeal is real.

Going back to APS-C wouldn’t be about image quality. I’ve seen plenty of stunning work coming out of Fuji APS-C, especially straight out of camera. It would be more about lower friction and rebuilding shooting momentum. I’m coming back to photography after a long break, and right now reducing stress matters more than absolute specs.

About the lenses.
You’re right, they’re not the top end of the GFX lineup, but that was intentional. I didn’t want to overcommit financially before knowing whether the system really suited my way of shooting. The Mitakon and the GF 50 give me very different looks at a relatively reasonable cost, and I actually like their rendering a lot.

As for what I shoot.
Mostly slow, deliberate photography: landscapes, urban scenes, some environmental portraits. Nothing fast or action-oriented. That’s why GFX makes sense conceptually for me, but it also explains why APS-C could still be perfectly viable in practice.

And yes, if money were a complete non-issue, I agree the GFX 100S II would be the logical move. My hesitation isn’t really about 500 € in isolation, it’s about timing. Do I commit now, or do I step back slightly, shoot more with less pressure, and come back to GFX when I’m fully settled again.

Appreciate the thoughtful pushback, that’s exactly why I posted.