p.1 #1 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
I currently shoot a Canon R7 with RF 100-400 for wildlife, mostly perched birds and sometimes birds in flight. I find the AF on the R7 to be amazing.
Recently I added the new X-H2 and was wondering if I could get away with selling the Canon stuff and getting the XF 150-600, to keep everything under one system.
I have looked everywhere and can't seem to find any articles, posts or videos from someone using this combo.
Hopefully someone here can share some thoughts on XH2+150-600 usefulness for tracking birds?
p.1 #2 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
If you want to do BIF you’re better off using the XH2S for a few reasons. The 150-600 will fill the frame with the bird so the lower res doesn’t matter as much.
The best BIF images on FM are being taken with the Nikon 500 PF.
p.1 #3 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
Yeah I guess but I don't want to spend the extra $500. The XH2 will also double as portrait camera, and for that I appreciate the extra resolution. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to rent the zoom, as I'm quickly approaching the return window on the Fuji.
p.1 #4 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
Ramirin wrote:
I currently shoot a Canon R7 with RF 100-400 for wildlife, mostly perched birds and sometimes birds in flight. I find the AF on the R7 to be amazing.
Recently I added the new X-H2 and was wondering if I could get away with selling the Canon stuff and getting the XF 150-600, to keep everything under one system.
I have looked everywhere and can't seem to find any articles, posts or videos from someone using this combo.
Hopefully someone here can share some thoughts on XH2+150-600 usefulness for tracking birds?
With the X-H2 becoming available for sale just last week on Thursday it's doubtful you will get any feedback on this combination. Keep in mind with the X-H2's 40MP sensor lens diffraction will start cutting into effective resolution at f/6.4. So the 150-600 5.6-8 is a better match for the X-H2S at 26MP with its diffraction starting a f/8. Also, the S model will have all the other advantages of a stacked sensor that will help with bird photos.
You know that RF100-400 is a nice compact lens. The XF150-600 is going to be a real BIG change, larger even than the Canon RF100-500. Do you really want that kind of girth? Running two systems is OK, I run three :-)
p.1 #6 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
Ramirin wrote:
Wow, never thought about diffraction at 40mp. You have a very valid point.
I did go to the local store and they let me try the 150-600 on the XH2. That lens is massive compared to the RF 100-400!
Yes, I learned about super telephoto zoom girth the hard way from one of my other systems (Sony). I bought the 200-600G. It ticked all the boxes: internal zoom, sharp, fast AF, reasonable price. But it turns out to be so large and unwieldy that it takes all the fun out of using it. I'll likely sell it early next year when the birders start gearing up for the northern migration.
p.1 #8 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
The only viable BIF camera from Fuji is the XH2S. The 100-400 is a stinker of a lens, soft and mushy and not worth the money or heft. So far the 150-600 looks markedly better but better comes at a cost. No free lunches for birding. The value proposition just isn’t there for birding on Fuji IMO.
p.1 #9 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
RoamingScott wrote:
The only viable BIF camera from Fuji is the XH2S. The 100-400 is a stinker of a lens, soft and mushy and not worth the money or heft. So far the 150-600 looks markedly better but better comes at a cost. No free lunches for birding. The value proposition just isn’t there for birding on Fuji IMO.
What would you consider a good value proposition for birding among the choices available today?
p.1 #10 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
goodbokeh wrote:
... Keep in mind with the X-H2's 40MP sensor lens diffraction will start cutting into effective resolution at f/6.4. So the 150-600 5.6-8 is a better match for the X-H2S at 26MP with its diffraction starting a f/8
....
That's a strange way to think about this - a 26MP sensor is not an advantage vs a 40MP sensor wrt diffraction. Even if X-H2 sensor is more diffraction limited than X-H2s sensor, it would still offer higher resolution than X-H2s.
p.1 #11 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
RoamingScott wrote:
The only viable BIF camera from Fuji is the XH2S. The 100-400 is a stinker of a lens, soft and mushy and not worth the money or heft. So far the 150-600 looks markedly better but better comes at a cost. No free lunches for birding. The value proposition just isn’t there for birding on Fuji IMO.
Thats a bit over the top, you only have to look at the images thread to find plenty of good stuff, by 'Morris' and others, with Xt3 & 4, and most reviews put the 100-400 onlý slightly behind the Canon 'gold standard'.
p.1 #12 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
curious80 wrote:
That's a strange way to think about this - a 26MP sensor is not an advantage vs a 40MP sensor wrt diffraction. Even if X-H2 sensor is more diffraction limited than X-H2s sensor, it would still offer higher resolution than X-H2s.
If you don't like or understand my diffraction explanation of the XF150-600 vis a vis the sensor MPs of the X-H2 & X-H2S, here's a link you may like more: https://www.photopills.com/calculators/diffraction
p.1 #13 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
goodbokeh wrote:
If you don't like or understand my diffraction explanation of the XF150-600 vis a vis the sensor MPs of the X-H2 & X-H2S, here's a link you may like more: https://www.photopills.com/calculators/diffraction
I understand how diffraction works and what impact the aperture and resolution has on it. However I am objecting to the conclusion you are drawing from that. Diffraction can only limit the resolution advantage that the 40MP sensor has over 26MP sensor, the 40MP sensor would never be worse than the 26MP sensor in terms of resolution. Let's say theoretically the 40MP sensor is supposed to have a 1.5x resolution advantage over the 26MP sensor. Then at f/6.4 that advantage would be a bit less than 1.5x because the 40MP sensor is not able to resolve its full resolution due to diffraction. It would still resolve more details than the 26MP sensor but the advantage might be only say 1.4x instead of 1.5x. At f8 the advantage might reduce a bit more and so on.
p.1 #14 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
curious80 wrote:
I understand how diffraction works and what impact the aperture and resolution has on it. However I am objecting to the conclusion you are drawing from that. Diffraction can only limit the resolution advantage that the 40MP sensor has over 26MP sensor, the 40MP sensor would never be worse than the 26MP sensor in terms of resolution. Let's say theoretically the 40MP sensor is supposed to have a 1.5x resolution advantage over the 26MP sensor. Then at f/6.4 that advantage would be a bit less than 1.5x because the 40MP sensor is not able to resolve its full resolution due to diffraction. It would still resolve more details than the 26MP sensor but the advantage might be only say 1.4x instead of 1.5x. At f8 the advantage might reduce a bit more and so on....Show more →
Let's see your sourcing backup on that because it doesn't match up to the diffraction calculator I provided you.
p.1 #15 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
goodbokeh wrote:
Let's see your sourcing backup on that because it doesn't match up to the diffraction calculator I provided you.
The diffraction calculator is only telling you that at f6.3 the resolution from the 40MP sensor will start getting degraded due to diffraction, which is what I said as well. You should not interpret that to mean that the 26MP sensor will be better than that diffraction-degraded 40MP output. It just means that you won't be getting the full 40MP worth of resolution.
I don't have a reference handily available to share, what I am sharing is based on my prior knowledge. But you are welcome to research further on your own instead of taking my word on it.
p.1 #16 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
curious80 wrote:
The diffraction calculator is only telling you that at f6.3 the resolution from the 40MP sensor will start getting degraded due to diffraction, which is what I said as well. You should not interpret that to mean that the 26MP sensor will be better than that diffraction-degraded 40MP output. It just means that you won't be getting the full 40MP worth of resolution.
I don't have a reference handily available to share, what I am sharing is based on my prior knowledge. But you are welcome to research further on your own instead of taking my word on it.
Are you serious? No, I don't take your word for it.
I gave you a verifiable source with MP diffraction effects and corresponding apertures that you challenged. I asked for you to backup your challenge and you now respond with just more words typed on a keyboard and ask me to provide the research for your challenge.
p.1 #17 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
goodbokeh wrote:
Are you serious? No, I don't take your word for it.
I gave you a verifiable source with MP diffraction effects and corresponding apertures that you challenged. I asked for you to backup your challenge and you now respond with just more words typed on a keyboard and ask me to provide the research for your challenge.
What a joker.
Hmm no need for hostilities. I have explained to you that you are misinterpreting the information from the calculator. What you are claiming is not backed up by your own source. I have also explained to you what mistake you are making while interpreting the information from the calculator. I have derived and used the standard optical formulas that are used in these calculators and have a pretty good idea about what they mean. Please don't use your lack of knowledge about the optics as a valid excuse to attack someone. I was only trying to be helpful and correct your understanding. I will back off now, good luck!
p.1 #18 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
gyoung143 wrote:
Thats a bit over the top, you only have to look at the images thread to find plenty of good stuff, by 'Morris' and others, with Xt3 & 4, and most reviews put the 100-400 onlý slightly behind the Canon 'gold standard'.
Gerry
Not to be rude, but the critical sharpness and details exhibited by the BIF photos posted here in the Fuji forum pale in comparison to those posted in the full frame forums, and while they're indeed "good", they do lack the qualities that come with better suited kits.
Fuji, with a combination of soft teles and mushy pixel layouts thanks to X-Trans, is NOT a birding platform.
Now, maybe it's all someone can afford, and fair enough. But it's not even close to what can be achieved by other companies right now.
If I had a nickel for every person I've seen trying to muster a budget BIF kit, only to realize that it literally takes $10,000 to get into legitimate BIF, well...
Bisonbison wrote:
What would you consider a good value proposition for birding among the choices available today?
A used A9 and 200-600 is probably the best "budget" build if buying used. I'm not sure I see the point of moving away from the R7 with it's very good AF and good sensor.
Your money, if spent, would be much better spent on upgrading your 100-400 to the 100-500 IMO.
Understand I'm STRICTLY talking about actual in flight photography. Literally any camera can do perched birds.
p.1 #19 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
goodbokeh wrote:
Are you serious? No, I don't take your word for it.
I gave you a verifiable source with MP diffraction effects and corresponding apertures that you challenged. I asked for you to backup your challenge and you now respond with just more words typed on a keyboard and ask me to provide the research for your challenge.
What a joker.
You clearly don't understand what he is saying, and he's not wrong.
I think you are missing the point that he is making that while it is harder to maximize the optical performance for that sensor, it doesn't mean that it all goes to sh*t if you don't completely maximize the performance.
So, all things created equal, a shot at f8 from the lens on either sensor will have somewhat comparable performance optically but on one sensor, it will be at its' maximum performance and on the other sensor, there might have been slightly better performance possible if you could have used a larger aperture (and if the lens actually performs well at that aperture, of course).
I'm ignoring the difference the sensor density contributes to the noise, etc., since the main point has been focused on the presumed sharpness recording performance capabilities of the two sensors.
p.1 #20 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
curious80, just more keyboarding from you with no backup. Unless you are a graduate from the University of Troll, you need to walk your talk and layoff the keyboard excuses and victimization.
