Dragonfire wrote:
There is a wildlife photographer that switched from Nikon to Fuji and all of his photos have been dramatically better in IQ, focus, color and noise. X-H2S XF150-600mmF5.6-8 R LM OIS WR lens
I have often considered that setup and keeping my Canon for landscapes and as a backup.
Having shot Fuji for years the IQ, noise and especially AF is not equal, let alone substantially better. With that said Morris is a very good photographer.
Dragonfire wrote:
There is a wildlife photographer that switched from Nikon to Fuji and all of his photos have been dramatically better in IQ, focus, color and noise. X-H2S XF150-600mmF5.6-8 R LM OIS WR lens
I have often considered that setup and keeping my Canon for landscapes and as a backup.
johnvanr wrote:
Your obvious answer is, and has been for a long time, to switch to Fuji.
If you think it is the “obvious answer” for me, I don’t think you understand what I’ve been saying. It _might_ be an answer, but it isn’t that simple.
Here’s a test of your “obvious answer” point: I’ve been pretty clear about the things that GFX could do well for me as well as the things it does not do well or at all that are critical in my photography. So, summarize the reasons I have given that explain why GFX is not quite the “obvious answer” for me in the context of my photography.
(Note: I’m not asking you to “help me make my decision.” I can do that. This is an exercise to test your understanding.)
Dragonfire wrote:
There is a wildlife photographer that switched from Nikon to Fuji and all of his photos have been dramatically better in IQ, focus, color and noise. X-H2S XF150-600mmF5.6-8 R LM OIS WR lens
I have often considered that setup and keeping my Canon for landscapes and as a backup.
A couple of things:
I’ve used the X-trans system to shoot wildlife, in my case with the XT5, which, aside from some aspects of burst mode functionally similar to the XH2 models in this context. I have not used Nikon, but I have used Canon extensively.
You can shoot wildlife (some kinds better than others) with Fujifilm x-trans gear, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that moving from contemporary Nikon gear to such Fujifilm gear will produce “dramatically better IQ, focus, color, and noise.” I’d say that “color and noise” aren’t all that different, perhaps, and that you can get excellent IQ from x-trans, but that focus is a challenge — and certainly not “dramatically better.”
On your second point, I do think that most people serious about very divergent photographic genres are likely to need two systems — or else make a lot of compromises.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If you think it is the “obvious answer” for me, I don’t think you understand what I’ve been saying. It _might_ be an answer, but it isn’t that simple.
Here’s a test of your “obvious answer” point: Assuming that you have read and understood my thinking about the pluses and minuses of alternatives from the three main FF brands and Fujifilm, summarize the reasons I have given that explain why GFX is not a slam-dunk “obvious answer” for me in the context of my photography.
I’ve been pretty clear about the things that GFX could do well for me as well as the things it does not do well or at all that are critical in my photography.
No system is perfect, and I have a very good idea of GFX pluses and minuses for my photography. The pluses are intriguing, but the minuses are not insignificant. The trick is matching the pluses and minuses to the photographer’s particular needs.
So, there’s your challenge. Based on your reading of my posts on the subject, what have I identified as the weaknesses of the GFX system relative to my specific photographic needs.
(Note: I’m not asking you to “help me make my decision.” I can do that. This is an exercise to test your understanding.)
A couple of things:
I’ve used the X-trans system to shoot wildlife, in my case with the XT5, which, aside from some aspects of burst mode functionally similar to the XH2 models in this context. I have not used Nikon, but I have used Canon extensively.
You can shoot wildlife (some kinds better than others) with Fujifilm x-trans gear, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that moving from contemporary Nikon gear to such Fujifilm gear will produce “dramatically better IQ, focus, color, and noise.” I’d say that “color and noise” aren’t all that different, perhaps, and that you can get excellent IQ from x-trans, but that focus is a challenge — and certainly not “dramatically better.”
On your second point, I do think that most people serious about very divergent photographic genres are likely to need two systems. (This also has the advantage of providing redundancy in the field.) I currently do something like that with my Fujifilm system — which is primary for street/travel and secondary for landscape and wildlife — and my Canon system (which is primary for landscape and other tripod-based photography and secondary for a few other things)....Show more →
I don’t think you should feel compelled to test my understanding. You want long reach, which the Fuji doesn’t provide. But even with a medium tele on a 100mp camera, you can still crop to half the frame to match your current resolution.
Everything else is wishful thinking, whether it’s Canon producing a high-mp camera or Fuji producing a longer lens.
johnvanr wrote:
Everything else is wishful thinking, whether it’s Canon producing a high-mp camera or Fuji producing a longer lens.
I’d say “reality” rather than “wishful thinking,” but otherwise you are getting closer. I now do not think that Canon is going to produce a higher MP camera in the foreseeable, or even one that equals what they formerly produced.
In fact, it is largely that realization that lies behind my point about looking more broadly at the pluses and minuses of options I would not have considered during the past two decades.
If the somewhat larger miniMF system seems compelling enough to sacrifice having lens types I rely on, that is one option — but I don’t take that limitation lightly. Of course, these days something with 60MP (rather than 45MP) from Sony looks increasingly interesting.
45mp ff to 60mp is the exact same % jump as 18mp aps to 24mp aps, which is little or nothing in terms of resolution.
Idk about the buffer on 100mp, but on, for instance, the 5D3 you have something like 12-16 RAW, Rebels it's pretty small, you see 5-6 in the Finder, might get one more. But I think DPR filled an 8gb card without hitting the buffer limit, on one Rebel, 5D3 it's something like 16,000, pretty much unlimited (non linear.) So that is probably one reason no high mp yet, can they sell <10 shot buffer,
That said I do think Canon is going to make higher mp at some point, might have already seen it except Covid happened. That said, nobody else has, either.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I now do not think that Canon is going to produce a higher MP camera in the foreseeable, or even one that equals what they formerly produced.
That is how I read the cards as well.
The new Sony IMX811-AAQR sensor (247 MP 54*36 mm) has a pixel architecture that is very likely to be used also in 44*33 mm and 36*24 mm. This will eventually result in Fuji making a GFX 200, and Sony making a 120 MP A7r series camera. The chances are that we well see all that before Canon ups the resolution again. I would love to be proven wrong, by the way.
robert_in_ca wrote:
Having shot Fuji for years the IQ, noise and especially AF is not equal, let alone substantially better. With that said Morris is a very good photographer.
If a good photographer gets better with different equipment then the equipment makes the photographer.
The news agencies buy the best equipment and send a staff of employees to the Olympics with the hope that someone will get the shot.
The photographers pictured below did nothing more than focus on one subject and press the shutter button until the end of the action and none of those photographers owned their equipment.
This thread seems to have repeated pretty much every major dubious anti-Canon talking point seen on FM lately. And added at least one new one
One of my personal favorites is "they just welded a 2x to the 400/2.8 to get 800/5.6!" Which I might buy into more if I didn't know much about optics, but for one thing if you look at the 2x III optical diagram it is pretty clear that they didn't just weld a 2x III on a 400/2.8.
alundeb wrote:
That is how I read the cards as well.
The new Sony IMX811-AAQR sensor (247 MP 54*36 mm) has a pixel architecture that is very likely to be used also in 44*33 mm and 36*24 mm. This will eventually result in Fuji making a GFX 200, and Sony making a 120 MP A7r series camera. The chances are that we well see all that before Canon ups the resolution again. I would love to be proven wrong, by the way.
Canon had an industrial 120mp aps-H sensor (tech radar says 247mp industrial) in 2010, has a 2018 YouTube video on a 120mp sensor, although it may be more surveillance. Phase One has 150mp already, potentially similar jump to this sensor 16mp vs 24mp Fuji or Nikon, not much. If it's produced in a consumer camera, not a given
Choderboy wrote:
Seriously, why do people even bother shooting the A9III with such terrible PDR? https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53876208900_d5977c1cae_o.jpg
Because it is the only camera in the world that has a global shutter? What more cope can you come up with
AmbientMike wrote:
This thread seems to have repeated pretty much every major dubious anti-Canon talking point seen on FM lately. And added at least one new one
One of my personal favorites is "they just welded a 2x to the 400/2.8 to get 800/5.6!" Which I might buy into more if I didn't know much about optics, but for one thing if you look at the 2x III optical diagram it is pretty clear that they didn't just weld a 2x III on a 400/2.8.
Another favourite:
"Third, and against that lack of long lens innovation, it seems unsurprising that there isn’t a plan to produce new and exciting lenses as Nikon has done. Where are the lightweight options like the 800/6.3 and 600/6.3? Where is the 600 with the integrated TC? ***crickets***"
Nikon seems to be getting a lot of mileage out of copying old Canon technology, like lenses with built-in TC's (Canon started doing this in the 1970's) or lightweight telephotos with diffractive optics, which Canon introduced over 20 years ago. I even saw a lens review a while back talking about Nikon's "revolutionary" discovery of fluorite lens elements for the new Z 600mm f4 (which Canon has been doing since the 1960's...).
It seems that innovation is now synonymous with plagiarism.
So now we're comparing resolution on current Canon cameras to ones not even close to being produced, and saying Canon is no good. What next? When is the GFX200 even coming?
Canon led high resolution 2015-2019 took 4 years A7r4 to pass it, and then only marginally.
"Third, and against that lack of long lens innovation, it seems unsurprising that there isn’t a plan to produce new and exciting lenses as Nikon has done. Where are the lightweight options like the 800/6.3 and 600/6.3? Where is the 600 with the integrated TC? ***crickets***"
Nikon seems to be getting a lot of mileage out of copying old Canon technology, like lenses with built-in TC's (Canon started doing this in the 1970's) or lightweight telephotos with diffractive optics, which Canon introduced over 20 years ago. I even saw a lens review a while back talking about Nikon's "revolutionary" discovery of fluorite lens elements for the new Z 600mm f4 (which Canon has been doing since the 1960's...).
It seems that innovation is now synonymous with plagiarism. ...Show more →
I think some even said Sony the best because of their 400/2.8 . Canon had one on FD even, in addition to a full lineup, long before 2018.
Dragonfire wrote:
There is a wildlife photographer that switched from Nikon to Fuji and all of his photos have been dramatically better in IQ, focus, color and noise. X-H2S XF150-600mmF5.6-8 R LM OIS WR lens
I have often considered that setup and keeping my Canon for landscapes and as a backup.
And you really believe that? Are you not worried that these kind of statements may cast some doubts about the credibility of everything you write? How do you think you are helping the OP?
1. IQ
I have been using Fuji GFX for more than 5 years in parallel to Nikon top bodies. The resolution is obviously higher but that’s the only (obviously very important) aspect for which IQ is clearly better. DR is very similar (a bit higher but no practical difference for actual photographs), colors are very nice in both systems and really a matter of preference. Noise is probably a bit better on the Nikons but it’s a wash
2. Focus
That one is really hilarious. The Zf FB forums are full of people having moved from the XT-5 to the Zf because of the look similarities and they all describe the AF of the Zf as way better. And we know that the Zf is not in the same league as the Z6Iii/Z8/Z9. AF is very clearly universally seen as a major problem with Fuji. I experienced the same with their GFX bodies. And it’s not just the bodies, it’s also many of the lenses.
There many things to like about Fuji. I have 25,000+ US$ worth of their equipment, but let’s stick to facts guys.
I am impatiently waiting for your next claim that the new Chamonix 11x14 camera focuses way faster than the Z9.
The main thing this thread illustrates to me is that people have dramatically different approaches to, and standards for, wildlife photography. For example, some people are willing to get to a location 30 minutes prior to sunrise, set up a blind, and wait out a subject. They meticulously plan the light angle, the background, and the distance to the subject. But others get to a location well after sunrise and just stroll through, hoping for a decent chance at a grab shot.
The issue that keeps arising in this thread is that the two groups are trying to impose their standards on the other. For people in the first group, an f/11 lens or even a 500mm f/7.1 is unthinkably slow. But those lenses are perfectly acceptable for people in the latter group. I am not making a judgment about which group is better. Photography is a hobby for almost all of us that is simply meant to be enjoyed. So, people should do what makes them happy. But before passing judgement or even giving thoughts, one should try to put themselves in the shoes of the person they’re responding to because the groups have vastly different needs and preferences.
