Please don’t beat me up to bad. I have been shooting the Fuji system since the XT1. I do love Fuji . It’s my favorite system fo use. I currently have the XT5. But I do keep asking my self if it is the best system for landscape. Referring to image quality and detail only. I do agree there is a lot of other reasons to use the fuji system . Just curious of some of your thoughts. Not trying to start an argument just curious if anyone wonders the same.
Lken wrote:
Please don’t beat me up to bad. I have been shooting the Fuji system since the XT1. I do love Fuji . It’s my favorite system fo use. I currently have the XT5. But I do keep asking my self if it is the best system for landscape. Referring to image quality and detail only. I do agree there is a lot of other reasons to use the fuji system . Just curious of some of your thoughts. Not trying to start an argument just curious if anyone wonders the same.
I do quite a bit of landscape photography, most of it with a larger format system.
Is APS-C “the best” option for landscape photography? On one hand, it is clear that larger formats have the capacity to capture greater amounts of detail and potentially have slightly less noise and somewhat larger dynamic range, all else being equal.
However, the question to ask is how much if any difference will those things make to your photography, and is the added potential worth the costs, financially and in terms of system size.
Unless you are regularly printing quite large (let’s say larger than about 20” x 30”), you are unlikely to see any really meaningful difference in print quality. And if you don’t print or you only print at smaller sizes (say on the ubiquitous 13” x 19” paper), your 40MP APS-C system will do very well.
Thanks for the reply. I have shot Nikon, Sony and Fuji for the last 12-14 years. I chased the other systems for BIF. But I have always kept Fuji. In fact I just sold my Sony A1 so Fuji is all I have now. Hopefully it will stay that way. But I have noticed excluding fast BIF they all seemed about the same results except when shooting foliage. When you zoom in it just seems that Fuji photos fell off quicker in sharpness. Probably just being to critical. I shoot purely for my pleasure. But I demand the best that I can do.
My main system is Sony but I use Fuji when I have to travel light and got some nice landscape and citiscape images. Unless I am printing big (which I rarely do) or comparing to the Sony 42MP, I don't see much difference.
I used to shoot m4/3, Fuji APS-C and Sony FF. I then decided being spread across three systems was silly, so I consolidated to M4/3 for compactness and Sony FF for quality, which for me was landscape and some travel where I thought M4/3 wouldn't quite cut it. After a few (lost) years and viewing old images I went back to Fuji because even with the old X-T10 the details and dynamic range were more than sufficient and the colours were way more pleasing and easier to adjust to my taste than Sony.
While I still have a couple of old M4/3 cameras and use my Sony A7Riii to digitise film, Fuji APS-c has become my main system.
With good technique (e.g. tripod, careful focus and f8-11) it will easily do up to a 30 inch print and, from my own experience, FF won't compensate for bad technique. On screen, it will be really hard to notice the difference compared to Sony FF, and for web publishing you won't see any difference.
I've recently picked up a GFX 50sii medium format and while that is the best of the bunch, the differences really only show in limited circumstances - think 30+ inch print viewed very close or situations where you need a lot of dynamic range.
You can also build a more compact equivalent setup with Fuji than Sony, though I will say the Sony 20-70mm f4 G lens looks interesting to me.
Currently have the 50f2 for street love it
Recently bought the new 16-55 seems like it will be a good one
100-400
I have owned most of their lens for the x system.
These are the ones I have settled on for various reasons.
Probably pick up a really wide lens at some point
My bigger concern about landscape applications on X is that the typical mid-tele-zoom lenses that are SO useful and excellent on full frame systems are more middling on X, the 16-80 in particular.
It really just depends on what your standards are, everyone has different standards. I personally only love a handful of landscape images I've take on X cameras, whereas I have hundreds and hundreds that bring me more joy from full frame systems with better sensors and glass.
I've owned many Fujii models (Pro1,3, T1,2,3,5), but foliage was always the kryptonite to xtrans IMO. I'm not talking about worms, which have mostly been resolved. But more of the detail, as you described. However, when considering other colors and subject in nature, the Fuji X is fantastic.
For what its worth, my favorite landscape kit was the z7. That sensor was just magical for me, but the autofocus is laughable in comparison to modern cameras (which is a weird thing to type as I now shoot Leica)
whiteonline wrote:
I've owned many Fujii models (Pro1,3, T1,2,3,5), but foliage was always the kryptonite to xtrans IMO. I'm not talking about worms, which have mostly been resolved. But more of the detail, as you described. However, when considering other colors and subject in nature, the Fuji X is fantastic.
For what its worth, my favorite landscape kit was the z7. That sensor was just magical for me, but the autofocus is laughable in comparison to modern cameras (which is a weird thing to type as I now shoot Leica)
AF is trivial for landscape, and the Z7 is certainly good enough for the job. I'm inclined to say it's the finest non-102mp sensor for landscape, rivaled perhaps only by the 42mp A7R3 sensor. In my eyes, there is no Fuji X body/lens combination that can approach the total IQ delivered by the Z7 and a good Z lens.
Sep 24, 2025 at 07:57 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
RoamingScott wrote:
My bigger concern about landscape applications on X is that the typical mid-tele-zoom lenses that are SO useful and excellent on full frame systems are more middling on X, the 16-80 in particular.
It really just depends on what your standards are, everyone has different standards. I personally only love a handful of landscape images I've take on X cameras, whereas I have hundreds and hundreds that bring me more joy from full frame systems with better sensors and glass.
Yeah, the 16-80 seems to be a decent kit lens but not really the quality of something like the Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 S. It seems to me the way to go on Fuji, however, is the 16-55 f/2.8 II and the 50-140 f/2.8. That combo ought to work reasonably well for that whole range. I would like to see a version II of the 50-140 f/2.8 that lost some weight and perhaps had a shorter MFD, but I don't think that combo is really holding back the X mount system much.
If one’s issue is being able to say that “I have the most detailed image files” or “my files still look pretty good when I inspect them at 500% magnification,” then get a miniMF body, the best lenses you can afford, focus manually, always use a tripod, and develop high level post-processing skills. And enjoy those really excellent 500% magnification images on your monitor and being able to say that “my images show a lot of detail when I magnify them a lot on my screen in Lightroom.”
If the the issue is what your photographs look like in the real world display formats that you actually use, the issue is more nuanced and complex.
The majority of photographers (especially advanced photographers who know what they are doing) will get very good real world results form an excellent APS-C system with good lenses, shot and post-processed skillfully.
Again, if you are a typical user who rarely if ever prints larger than 13” x 19”, there will be virtually no visible difference between MFT, AFS-C, FF, and miniMF in the vast majority of situations. If you don’t print and you only view on screens and share on social media and perhaps in the FM display forums, you’ll be fine with APS-C.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yeah, the 16-80 seems to be a decent kit lens but not really the quality of something like the Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 S. It seems to me the way to go on Fuji, however, is the 16-55 f/2.8 II and the 50-140 f/2.8. That combo ought to work reasonably well for that whole range. I would like to see a version II of the 50-140 f/2.8 that lost some weight and perhaps had a shorter MFD, but I don't think that combo is really holding back the X mount system much.
A Z7 + 24-120 can easily replace both of those lenses with a little light cropping and upressing. Things have progressed mightily in the last year.
I am also of the mind that 150-300mm is largely less interesting for landscapes than the 300-400 range, which opens up another can of worms. I can happily live without 120-180mm.
For most landscape images, supreme detail is overrated unless you’re printing very large regularly. By very large I mean 24” and bigger. And if you’re doing that regularly then a good 100mp or higher MF digital system is what you want. If you rarely go beyond 17”, the 40mp out of your XT5 with good lenses and technique is going to be more than adequate; and frankly doesn’t give hardly anything up to 45mp full frame. You might find a hair, and an albino’s eyelash worth at that, of gain from the best glass and technique on a 60mp full frame camera.
And then… What really makes the best landscape is way more based on image content over technical perfection. Or stated another way, I’d rather have a slightly fuzzy rendering of an outstanding concept than a perfect rendering of a fuzzy concept.
My .02
Sep 24, 2025 at 10:24 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
RoamingScott wrote:
A Z7 + 24-120 can easily replace both of those lenses with a little light cropping and upressing. Things have progressed mightily in the last year.
I am also of the mind that 150-300mm is largely less interesting for landscapes than the 300-400 range, which opens up another can of worms. I can happily live without 120-180mm.
I'm not sure I would call a 1.75X crop a light crop, but full-frame does have more leeway for cropping for sure. My goal when putting together a kit for landscapes, however is to have a set of zooms that lets me avoid cropping and frame in the viewfinder. For Nikon Z mount that would mean for me a 14-24 f/2.8 S or a 14-30 f/4 S, a 24-120 f/4 S, and a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. I would need 4 lenses to cover that with Fuji X mount, but I would probably use the Sigma 10-18 f/2.8, the 16-55 f/2.8 II, the 50-140 f/2.8, and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. There isn't much difference in size in these two kits, but the Fuji kit would be substantially cheaper and build on what I already have. A FF kit would have potential advantages for image quality, but I am not sure I would see it for the sizes I print.
Along with the X-T5, I have a Gfx100S. I love the Gfx but the X-T5 goes places that I'm not willing to lug a Gfx and lenses. For me, the type of landscape dictates the camera chosen. You gotta get there first. The new version of the 16-55 is my current workhorse lens. Honestly, I wouldn't want it any sharper.
RoamingScott wrote:
My bigger concern about landscape applications on X is that the typical mid-tele-zoom lenses that are SO useful and excellent on full frame systems are more middling on X, the 16-80 in particular.
It really just depends on what your standards are, everyone has different standards. I personally only love a handful of landscape images I've take on X cameras, whereas I have hundreds and hundreds that bring me more joy from full frame systems with better sensors and glass.
For me it is the reverse. I have many images i really like that were shot on Fuji cameras, while only a few I like that were shot with my Sony A7iii and A7Riii.
Is the Fuji XT-5 the best system for landscape photography? Nah. In my humble opinion the two best camera systems for landscape right now are the Fuji GFX + GF lenses OR if you want something more compact and not as expensive, a Sony A7RV + lenses.
Is the XT-5 and lenses good enough for high quality landscape photography. Absolutely!
dakel wrote:
Is the Fuji XT-5 the best system for landscape photography? Nah. In my humble opinion the two best camera systems for landscape right now are the Fuji GFX + GF lenses OR if you want something more compact and not as expensive, a Sony A7RV + lenses.
Is the XT-5 and lenses good enough for high quality landscape photography. Absolutely!
I think you make the mistake of equating more resolution with “best system for landscape photography.”
If all else is equal, a larger format system can, indeed, record more detail and potentially hold it in extremely large prints. But all else is not equal. For example, imagine that you are a backpacker, for whom bulk and weight are significant issues… and/or that you share your photographs on social media, perhaps never printing larger than 13” x 19” or possibly never printing at all.
The expense, weight, bulk, and functional limitations of the miniMF system would be significant negatives with no corresponding positives. The miniMF system would most certainly not be the “best” landscape system for you.
I use two systems, one a high MP full frame system with fairly large and bulky lenses, typically shot from a big, heavy tripod. I do print — I have an in-house Epson P9000. When operating from a vehicle or over short hiking distances, this system works really well. In some cases I’ll even backpack (short trips) with it.
However, I’ve also switched to the Fujifilm APS-C system for some situations in which the smaller size and lighter weight are important. I can produce excellent 20” x 30” prints from that system, and occasionally a bit larger.
All photographic gear decisions are compromises — weight, bulk, speed of operation, format, lens and accessory availability,and more. The “best” system is the one that provides the best set of compromises for the work at hand and the intended output.
