p.2 #1 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
mjm6 wrote:
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....Show more →
I never said the X-H2 performance with the 150-600 would "go to shit". I said the 26MP stacked sensor of the X-H2S was a better match for that lens. The rest of your statement could well be true and would be a interesting subject for a real life test.
In terms of curious80 not being wrong, I would point you to my second link in my post above. I just don't keyboard, I provide verifiable backup.
p.2 #2 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
goodbokeh wrote:
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.
I'll just quote the conclusion in the link you just posted (bold and italics added so you don't have the read the whole thing):
-------- CONCLUSIONS
Thus far, you're probably thinking, "diffraction more easily limits resolution as the number of camera megapixels increases, so more megapixels must be bad, right?" No — at least not as far as diffraction is concerned. Having more megapixels just provides more flexibility. Whenever your subject matter doesn't require a high f-stop, you have the ability to make a larger print, or to crop the image more aggressively.
--------
What they are very briefly stating is exactly what u/Curious80 and I are saying. You get additional performance overhead with high MP sensors but it doesn't make the 40MP sensor perform worse at f8 or f11 compared to the 26mp sensor.
Yes, there will be differences because of the Bayer or X-filter but the 40MP image will push those artifacts down smaller into the image, so all created equal, you should have a slightly better performance with the higher MP sensor and rarely will it ever appear worse.
The one case where I could see it happening is if the frequence cycle of the image happened to overlay on the sensor pattern with an unfortunate cycle pattern interaction (moire, essentially). It's possible that the 40MP sensor could show moire or artifical colors worse in that circumstance than the 26MP sensor, but even so, it should still start at smaller scale deeper into the image where it becomes less of a concern.
p.2 #3 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
Oh, and I get what you are saying about the 26MP maybe being a better match, but frankly, there is no downside to the higher MP, and with other lenses for other applications, maybe he can take full advantage, etc.
I guess I feel that this level of theoretical decision-making doesn't aid in the overall process of photography. Now, if there is a focus difference; that will likely be in favor of the XH2S hands-down... but as I think you said, we haven't seen any reports on this just yet.
p.2 #4 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
goodbokeh wrote:
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.
p.2 #5 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
mjm6 wrote:
I'll just quote the conclusion in the link you just posted (bold and italics added so you don't have the read the whole thing):
-------- CONCLUSIONS
Thus far, you're probably thinking, "diffraction more easily limits resolution as the number of camera megapixels increases, so more megapixels must be bad, right?" No — at least not as far as diffraction is concerned. Having more megapixels just provides more flexibility. Whenever your subject matter doesn't require a high f-stop, you have the ability to make a larger print, or to crop the image more aggressively.
--------
What they are very briefly stating is exactly what u/Curious80 and I are saying. You get additional performance overhead with high MP sensors but it doesn't make the 40MP sensor perform worse at f8 or f11 compared to the 26mp sensor.
Yes, there will be differences because of the Bayer or X-filter but the 40MP image will push those artifacts down smaller into the image, so all created equal, you should have a slightly better performance with the higher MP sensor and rarely will it ever appear worse.
The one case where I could see it happening is if the frequence cycle of the image happened to overlay onthe the sensor pattern with an unfortunate cycle pattern interaction (moire, essentially). It's possible that the 40MP sensor could show moire or artifical colors worse in that circumstance than the 26MP sensor, but even so, it shold still start a s smaller scale in deeper into the image where it becomes less of a concern. ...Show more →
You are reading that wrong. The quote says in part "Whenever your subject matter doesn't require a high f-stop". The 150-600 has a wide-open high f-stop of 8.0 at its longer focal lengths. So your quote does not fit this lens discussion.
The 150-600 is not a high speed lens, it's a very slow lens with high f-stops (5.6-8.0) wide open which makes diffraction a problem to consider when considering what camera, X-H2 or X-H2S, is best suited for using with it.
p.2 #6 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
goodbokeh wrote:
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.
None of the links that you are sharing including this latest one is going against what I am saying. They support what I am saying. Note for example the comment at the end "Regardless, the onset of diffraction is gradual, and its limiting f-stop shouldn't be treated as unsurpassable". This is exactly what I am trying to explain to you. At f6.4 the resolution of the 40MP sensor will start getting limited by diffraction. That however does not at all mean that its resolution will become as low or worse than the 26MP sensor. All it means is that you won't be able to achieve the full 40MP resolution. And then as you stop down further to say f8 the diffraction will become stronger and the resolution you will be able to achieve will be even more limited and so on. What I am saying is completely consistent with what the link says and is about as clear as I can make it for you. I will leave you with that.
p.2 #7 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
curious80 wrote:
None of the links that you are sharing including this latest one is going against what I am saying. They support what I am saying. Note for example the comment at the end "Regardless, the onset of diffraction is gradual, and its limiting f-stop shouldn't be treated as unsurpassable". This is exactly what I am trying to explain to you. At f6.4 the resolution of the 40MP sensor will start getting limited by diffraction. That however does not at all mean that its resolution will become as low or worse than the 26MP sensor. All it means is that you won't be able to achieve the full 40MP resolution. And then as you stop down further to say f8 the diffraction will become stronger and the resolution you will be able to achieve will be even more limited and so on. What I am saying is completely consistent with what the link says and is about as clear as I can make it for you. I will leave you with that....Show more →
That is not "All it means". I've given you two viable sources now and you continue providing nothing but keyboard retorts. Further discussion with you is a waste of my time.
p.2 #8 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
goodbokeh wrote:
That is not "All it means". I've given you two viable sources now and you continue providing nothing but keyboard retorts. Further discussion with you is a waste of my time.
Sure, by the same token can you please explain where on these links is the information that the resolution of the 40MP senor will become equal to or worse than a 26MP sensor at f6.4? If you could show me how to establish that from these links I will gladly accept that I was wrong.
As you mentioned if you select an APS-C sensor, and set aperture to f/6.3 and set megapixels to 40MP, it shows you are diffraction limited. I hope you would agree that this itself doesn't tell us anything about how much actual resolution you will be able to achieve once the resolution becomes diffraction limited. It juts says that the resolution is diffraction limited.
Now lets try to use your calculator to understand how much resolution you can achieve at f/6.3 for an APS-C sensor. To do that you can start lowering the megapixel field in your calculator and you will see that at 33MP it says you are not diffraction limited. So as per your calculator an APS-C sensor at f/6.3 can offer 33MP of resolution without being diffraction limited. That can be used as a first order estimate that even though you can't expect the 40MP APS-C sensor to deliver its full resolution at f/6.3 you can still expect it to deliver at least about 33MP of resolution which is allowable at f/6.3 under diffraction limits. That still is a higher resolution than the 26MP sensor.
Of course that's a gross simplification. As your links explain the actual resolution is impacted by several other factors including lens design, the bayer-pattern (or x-trans pattern in fuji case), the micro-lens pitch, the wavelength of light etc.
p.2 #10 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
RoamingScott wrote:
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...
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....Show more →
I doubt you can tell so much from small jpegs, degraded by insertion into web software and displayed on a browser.
Lets see know, you obviously think very little of Fuji technology or equipment, and your profile says you dont own any, so what on earth oare you doing on a Fuji forum typing a lot of generalised denigration of the equipment, most of which is completely out of step with the experience of reviewers and those of us who USE the stuff, alongside other makes.
Wasting your time and ours.
p.2 #11 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
I had the Sony 200-600 which is an amazing lens, but I wasn't having fun with it because of the weight. I sold all my Sony gear and just kept my Leica M262 for a while, until the itch to photograph birds came back.
I wanted a setup that wasn't too heavy this time, so the R7 and the RF 100-400 made a lot of sense. I also wanted the R7 to double as my family documenting/portrait camera but it turns out Canon doesn't have any RF-S fast native glass I would want for that purpose. I tried the RF 50/1.8 and the 35mm L 1.4 II adapted but I am not happy with the results I'm getting. I'm struggling a lot with colors in post.
When at the camera store last week, I handled both the XH2 and the 150-600 and while bulky, the kit seemed reasonably lightweight. So I purchased the XH2 and they are holding the 150-600 for me for next weekend. My idea is to trade in the Canon stuff towards the 150-600.
I tested the XH2 with 16-80 at the pumpkin patch and got great photos of my family, great colors with minimum effort.
So now I'm stuck with a camera that works for family stuff but might suck for birds, or a camera that's great for birds but sucks at family photos.
p.2 #12 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
gyoung143 wrote:
I doubt you can tell so much from small jpegs, degraded by insertion into web software and displayed on a browser.
Lets see know, you obviously think very little of Fuji technology or equipment, and your profile says you dont own any, so what on earth oare you doing on a Fuji forum typing a lot of generalised denigration of the equipment, most of which is completely out of step with the experience of reviewers and those of us who USE the stuff, alongside other makes.
Wasting your time and ours.
Gerry
Turns out I'm the only one actually contributing to OP's question in this thread, so maybe mind your own business, Gerry. Or maybe you'd like to join the nonsensical rambling about diffraction that derailed this thread.
Imagine the cope of thinking that jpegs on a forum can't display the merits of a system. Absurd.
p.2 #13 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
Ramirin wrote:
I had the Sony 200-600 which is an amazing lens, but I wasn't having fun with it because of the weight. I sold all my Sony gear and just kept my Leica M262 for a while, until the itch to photograph birds came back.
I wanted a setup that wasn't too heavy this time, so the R7 and the RF 100-400 made a lot of sense. I also wanted the R7 to double as my family documenting/portrait camera but it turns out Canon doesn't have any RF-S fast native glass I would want for that purpose. I tried the RF 50/1.8 and the 35mm L 1.4 II adapted but I am not happy with the results I'm getting. I'm struggling a lot with colors in post.
When at the camera store last week, I handled both the XH2 and the 150-600 and while bulky, the kit seemed reasonably lightweight. So I purchased the XH2 and they are holding the 150-600 for me for next weekend. My idea is to trade in the Canon stuff towards the 150-600.
I tested the XH2 with 16-80 at the pumpkin patch and got great photos of my family, great colors with minimum effort.
So now I'm stuck with a camera that works for family stuff but might suck for birds, or a camera that's great for birds but sucks at family photos.
This was always my conundrum with Fuji. However, I think the XHS2 would be a great fit for your use case IF you are comfortable with the 150-600 size. You don't need more than 26mp for family photos.
The main use case for the XH2 would be more in the landscape/product photography genres than birds or family. Even then, there are far better landscape/high res sensors on the market around the same price point.
p.2 #14 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
Maybe return XH2 and put the money towards the RF 100-500? Although that wouldn't solve the family photos dilema. I know I can use my Leica M (I've done it for years) but my vision has gotten worse and the rangefinder focusing has become more challenging.
p.2 #15 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
Ramirin wrote:
Maybe return XH2 and put the money towards the RF 100-500? Although that wouldn't solve the family photos dilema. I know I can use my Leica M (I've done it for years) but my vision has gotten worse and the rangefinder focusing has become more challenging.
The R5/100-500 would solve all your problems
Otherwise, I'd consider giving the XH2S and 150-600 a try to see if you can make that work for birding, everything else will be cake with the XHS2.
p.2 #16 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
Ramirin wrote:
I had the Sony 200-600 which is an amazing lens, but I wasn't having fun with it because of the weight. I sold all my Sony gear and just kept my Leica M262 for a while, until the itch to photograph birds came back.
I wanted a setup that wasn't too heavy this time, so the R7 and the RF 100-400 made a lot of sense. I also wanted the R7 to double as my family documenting/portrait camera but it turns out Canon doesn't have any RF-S fast native glass I would want for that purpose. I tried the RF 50/1.8 and the 35mm L 1.4 II adapted but I am not happy with the results I'm getting. I'm struggling a lot with colors in post.
When at the camera store last week, I handled both the XH2 and the 150-600 and while bulky, the kit seemed reasonably lightweight. So I purchased the XH2 and they are holding the 150-600 for me for next weekend. My idea is to trade in the Canon stuff towards the 150-600.
I tested the XH2 with 16-80 at the pumpkin patch and got great photos of my family, great colors with minimum effort.
So now I'm stuck with a camera that works for family stuff but might suck for birds, or a camera that's great for birds but sucks at family photos.
Do you really need a 40MP sensor for family photographs? Maybe switch to a cheaper, smaller body like x-s10 or X-T3 which will work well for family shots and stick to R7 for birding?
Considering you have the X-H2 as well as R7, I think you are in a better position than anyone else on this forum to develop a sense of how well the X-H2 AF performs compared to R7. Short of actually trying your X-H2 with a birding lens I doubt you will be able to know if it will work for your birding needs. Anything anyone tells you here on this forum is primarily going to be speculation.
p.2 #17 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
UPDATE:
I ended up buying the XH2 and the 150-600mm. So far I have taken the kit out a couple of times with mixed results. The AF is nowhere nearly as good as the R7's. The bird detection finds the bird as long as it is reasonably big in the frame, however the tracking pulsates in and out of focus when AF-On is engaged.
Shooting at 15fps mechanical, I was able to have some keepers of perched birds. I haven't been successful yet in grabbing sharp shots of BIF.
The 150-600 is surprisingly light for it's size, and it seems to be pretty sharp. Unfortunately, DXO PureRAW 2 doesn't support Xh2 files yet.
For now, I'm running alongside R7 and will make a decision on what to keep at some point in the near future.
p.2 #18 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
On that last photo there are some blue colored pixels in the two highlight areas on the left side. Does that happen repeatedly? If so, run the Pixel Mapping and see if it goes away or it could be sensor trouble.
p.2 #19 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
Holy crap you have excellent eyesight. Those are Topaz DeNoise artifacts. My favorite software is DXO PureRaw2 but as of today it doesn’t support XH2 files yet.
p.2 #20 · Anyone tried X-H2 + XF 150-600 for birds in flight?
OK, that great news. I use Topaz on my all my Raws as a plug-in filter via Photoshop but haven't seen that issue yet but I will watch for it. As an aside Adobe Camera Raw has raw support for the X-H2 & X-H2S and its working well for me. Except Adobe truncated the Fuji film emulations by not having the most recent ones like Nostalgic Negative. The upside though is that Cobalt has their film emulation support out for both models now and I use them with my Raws a lot. I love their CCD pack :-)
BTW, I still think you would have been happier with the X-H2S and the 150-600.
