I just returned from the Norwegian Arctic. This was my first all mirrorless trip. I took my old Canon gear but never felt I needed to use it. For lenses, I took the pancake lens,, the 10-24, the 28-55 and the 100-400. I took the 1.4 teleconverter too but never used it (still need more testing on the TC). I did birds in flight from the ship using the the fuji options. I wanted to try Morris' suggested settings but never got to it. I won't comment until I review all my images but I think it went well. The thihng I really appreciated was the ability to see the exposure in the viewfinder. As you may imagine the all white environment was a challenge but easy with the Fuji. The other big advantage was the weight and bulk of my kjit.. I just started editing my images but one caught my eye. More o follow.
dimi wrote:
Nice polar bear shot. How did you find the 100-400? I'm debating between it and a fringer adapter and Canon glass in the same range.
I'll jump in here since I also have the 100-400 lens. No complaints about it on my end - it's relatively lightweight and the image quality from mine is great.
I have found the Fuji 100-400 very sharp. The Canon 1-4 mk2 is my favorite lens but the Fuji is right there too. I am planning to get an adapter to use my Canon 400DO with TC.
Fred Amico wrote:
I'll jump in here since I also have the 100-400 lens. No complaints about it on my end - it's relatively lightweight and the image quality from mine is great.
I see you're shooting with d500/500mm f5.6 pf combo, as well. I don't know why I'm hanging in that thread, 500pf is totally out of my reach, but I'm hoping one day...
Would you mind to compare them, please? I know, it's a totally different lens, but how does x-t3 compares to d500, at least?
cvrle59 wrote:
I see you're shooting with d500/500mm f5.6 pf combo, as well. I don't know why I'm hanging in that thread, 500pf is totally out of my reach, but I'm hoping one day...
Would you mind to compare them, please? I know, it's a totally different lens, but how does x-t3 compares to d500, at least?
Both lenses are sharp enough for me, and sometimes having the versatility of a zoom lens is a big help. There have been times with the 500pf on my D500 that I was too close and couldn't get a good composition.
Comparing the bodies is easier for me. I love shooting with my Fuji gear - great ergonomics, lightweight, stellar lenses, easily accessible dials, etc. At one time I shot mostly with my X-T2, then X-T3. That was when most of what I shot was family, landscapes, and some slow-action sports.
About a year or so ago I got very interested in bird photography. It was quite a challenge, and I had a fairly steep learning curve. I found that, in my hands, the Fuji combo (T3/100-400) did OK for birds in flight, but I had to work a little too hard to get the results I wanted, and my keeper rate of in focus shots was too low.
Since I already had a D500 I bought a used 200-500 to use for BIF. Almost immediately my keeper rate improved and I was having more fun shooting them. Got lucky enough to pick up a used 500pf recently, and now having even better success with my BIF shooting. The D500 with either lens is a wonderful body for BIF stuff. The AF is much better than the X-T3 for initial lock and tracking of a fast moving subject.
If I gave up bird photography tomorrow (won't happen ), then would happily go back to shooting my Fuji gear most of the time. Hope that helps.
Fred Amico wrote:
Both lenses are sharp enough for me, and sometimes having the versatility of a zoom lens is a big help. There have been times with the 500pf on my D500 that I was too close and couldn't get a good composition.
Comparing the bodies is easier for me. I love shooting with my Fuji gear - great ergonomics, lightweight, stellar lenses, easily accessible dials, etc. At one time I shot mostly with my X-T2, then X-T3. That was when most of what I shot was family, landscapes, and some slow-action sports.
About a year or so ago I got very interested in bird photography. It was quite a challenge, and I had a fairly steep learning curve. I found that, in my hands, the Fuji combo (T3/100-400) did OK for birds in flight, but I had to work a little too hard to get the results I wanted, and my keeper rate of in focus shots was too low.
Since I already had a D500 I bought a used 200-500 to use for BIF. Almost immediately my keeper rate improved and I was having more fun shooting them. Got lucky enough to pick up a used 500pf recently, and now having even better success with my BIF shooting. The D500 with either lens is a wonderful body for BIF stuff. The AF is much better than the X-T3 for initial lock and tracking of a fast moving subject.
If I gave up bird photography tomorrow (won't happen ), then would happily go back to shooting my Fuji gear most of the time. Hope that helps....Show more →
That's exactly what I wanted to hear, from someone who's using such a prized wild life combo, as well as Fuji combo.
I like a lot my x-t3/100-400mm, it works pretty good, but more I'm getting engaged to wild life photography, more I'm thinking about d500/300pf/1.4tc combo, with some provision for 500pf in the future.
I understand, it's not time to deep into DSLR system, but how long is it gonna take, before we see some ML-PF version, from any manufacturer.
Some people may disagree, but OVF is still way to go, for this kind of photography (I haven't tried A9), IMO.
Thanks for your response!
dimi wrote:
Nice polar bear shot. How did you find the 100-400? I'm debating between it and a fringer adapter and Canon glass in the same range.
Just got back from Kenya with my Fuji 100-400. I used it mainly on my XT2 but also on the XT20. Flawless on both though heavy and odd weighting on the smaller XT20.
Not one single regret with the lens performance, focus or sharpness. Expensive, yes. Worth it, yes.
), then would happily go back to shooting my Fuji gear most of the time. Hope that helps.