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.
If one is okay with limited range, Fuji 15-45 kit lens is absolutely wonderful, especially at the wider end; at 15mm, it compared well against my Sony 16-35GM @ 24mm, the only downside is the power zoom.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think you make the mistake of equating more resolution with “best system for landscape photography.”
Not really. For me, I also factor in dynamic range, access to high quality lenses, weather sealing, rear LCD screen functionality, pixel shift shooting, and yes, higher megapixels that allow me to crop in when I screw up my composition. IMHO the GFX and Sony A7RV are the best compromises that give you the ability to achieve very high quality technical results. The Nikon Z8, Panasonic S1RII, and Canon R5II are also excellent but not quite as compact as the Sony and lower resolution and dynamic range than the GFX.
As to your comment on the portability of Fuji APSC, I can build a more compact system than Fuji APSC, using a Sony A7CR and have access to multiple small high quality light weight primes. I've owned Fuji APSC, Fuji GFX and Sony systems.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. If you can get results you are happy with using your camera, then that's awesome.
Jack Flesher wrote:
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
I often wonder how many people going on and on about how achieving The Highest Resolution In The Known Universe have ever visited a museum or gallery and actually looked at prints by their photographic heroes. I think they might be surprised by what they would see.
- - -
dakel wrote:
Not really. For me, I also factor in dynamic range, access to high quality lenses, weather sealing, rear LCD screen functionality, pixel shift shooting, and yes, higher megapixels that allow me to crop in when I screw up my composition. IMHO the GFX and Sony A7RV are the best compromises that give you the ability to achieve very high quality technical results. The Nikon Z8, Panasonic S1RII, and Canon R5II are also excellent but not quite as compact as the Sony and lower resolution and dynamic range than the GFX.
As to your comment on the portability of Fuji APSC, I can build a more compact system than Fuji APSC, using a Sony A7CR and have access to multiple small high quality light weight primes. I've owned Fuji APSC, Fuji GFX and Sony systems.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. If you can get results you are happy with using your camera, then that's awesome....Show more →
Your post confirms my points about a) there being no single best option, b) highest resolution, etc. often not being definitive, and c) things like gear size being significant. Indeed, it is possible to put together a relatively compact Sony system if it otherwise aligns with your circumstances.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I often wonder how many people going on and on about how achieving The Highest Resolution In The Known Universe have ever visited a museum or gallery and actually looked at prints by their photographic heroes. I think they might be surprised by what they would see.
- - -
Your post confirms my points about a) there being no single best option, b) highest resolution, etc. often not being definitive, and c) things like gear size being significant. Indeed, it is possible to put together a relatively compact Sony system if it otherwise aligns with your circumstances.
It is obviously a matter of taste, but the best landscape photographs I have seen were shot on film by Peter Jarver, Peter Lik and Ken Duncan. I have seen their work in galleries. They used large format panorama cameras and shot on velvia. Peter Lik and Ken Duncan have since gone digital but I don't like their digital work as much. I think with digital there can be a tendency to push things to the point of not being believable. Even though Velvia was an unrealistic film it did produce a wonderful look that was somehow controlled. Often part of the mystique of landscape photography is capturing a fleeting moment in a unique place where the light is great and being able to believe it actually briefly looked like what you see in the photo. As soon as something is too obviously post processed it loses that mystique, at least for me it does.
Andy Mumford produces great work and often uses mid level cameras and zooms, e.g Xf 16-80mm f4 and 55-200mm f3.5-4.8.
Sep 25, 2025 at 04:12 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
gdanmitchell wrote:
I often wonder how many people going on and on about how achieving The Highest Resolution In The Known Universe have ever visited a museum or gallery and actually looked at prints by their photographic heroes. I think they might be surprised by what they would see.
- - -
Your post confirms my points about a) there being no single best option, b) highest resolution, etc. often not being definitive, and c) things like gear size being significant. Indeed, it is possible to put together a relatively compact Sony system if it otherwise aligns with your circumstances.
And what works for each person can change over time as well. I used to shoot all my landscapes shots near where I lived or at my parents where I grew up. When I shot that way I knew exactly how I wanted to set up the shot and could picture it in my mind before I even got to the location. I simply knew the locations really well. I often would take only one lens, sometimes just a prime because I knew what I needed for the shot I was going to take.
Now, however, there really are very few interesting landscape opportunities near where I live in the suburbs. My parents have passed away so I don't visit where I grew up. Shooting landscapes now means at least a day trip and the last couple of years most of my landscape photography has been at National Parks. That means I don't know the locations as well. I need to figure out the shot at the location as I see it rather than seeing it ahead of time. I didn't use to need as much flexibility as I now do. At the same time I shoot landscape a lot less than I used to. It is now a once or twice a year thing. So, I don't want to invest in gear for landscapes the way I once did.
I figure I will use the gear I have for other types of shooting and/or maybe rent the once or twice a year I plan to seriously shoot landscapes. For Fuji I have a Sigma 10-18 f/2.8 for travel. That will probably be my ultra wide to wide for landscapes. I also plan to get soon a Fuji 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 for wildlife shooting. That will probably double as my long lens for landscapes. I figure I can rent (or maybe eventually buy) a Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 II and a 50-140 f/2.8 to give me the flexibility I want for the one or two trips a year when I will shoot landscapes seriously. Perhaps I will rent GF lenses (I have a GFX 50S but no zooms for the system). Perhaps I will rent Sony lenses (I have an A7r V but no zooms for the system). My needs and what works best may well change again. My point is that I don't think there is a one size fits all solution for even my shooting of landscapes. Let alone for people in general.
Almost the opposite of Steve above, I feel blessed to live in a place with many landscape photo opps just waiting to happen. Something I really enjoy is going for a walk with a random lens that seems like a bad choice. Lately its been portrait lenses with no portraits in sight. I figure a picture of an oak tree is still a portrait, at least from the trees perspective, lol. For me, I find it a learning experience to try to fit the "wrong" lens into a scene. I often find my pre-conceived notions were way off. I get the concept of a lens kit for travel. But the rest of the time, I want a whole range to suit whatever weird idea comes along. Now I going to go shoot the sunset with a macro lens, hah.
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 feel I'm getting plenty of detail on aps. Haven't shot fuji but I've been using mostly aps to shoot landscapes since going digital. Suppose ff has more DR but aps has some, not something I use anyway
I've had some interesting experiences recently, not as sold on resolution as I used to be.
Technically speaking a high quality medium format system would be best for landscape photography.
The Fuji is therefore not "the best" system for landscape photography, but it's the one you have, and it's good enough not to be a limiting factor. Therefore, only your own skill, resources and luck will separate you from the best landscape photographers at this point. Not your camera!
I want to again point out that attempting the impossible (determining the “best landscape system”) by looking at only single parameter (the size of the sensor) is like trying to determine the “best family car” by looking only at horsepower.
There are quite a few factors that determine the “best-ness” of a system for a particular use by a particular photographer: size, weight, lens availability, intended output and more.
No one system or format can be said to be the “best” for landscape or any other subject absent consideration of a wider range of factors.
darwinphoto wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if the high MP sensors are a cleaver plan by the manufactures to extract large piles of money out of us for replacement lenses.
A more clever plan is to invent mirrorless cameras and change all the mounts.
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are quite a few factors that determine the “best-ness” of a system for a particular use by a particular photographer: size, weight, lens availability, intended output and more.
No one system or format can be said to be the “best” for landscape or any other subject absent consideration of a wider range of factors.
Even if you consider the wider range of factors, the medium format system is still the best for this type of photography. It's not cheap, it's not light, it's not small, but it's the best.
It goes without saying that no system is going to be everything to everyone, and what's suitable for one person might not be suitable for another person.
To me image quality is essential in landscape and stitching remains the only way to make a real difference. Some raw converters are also better than others at extracting detail from raw files. Iridient Developer 5.0 comes to mind.
I currently have 2 main landscape set ups:
- Nikon Z8: Z 20mm f1.8 S/14-30mm f4/14-24mm f2.8, VC 50mm f2.0 APO-Lanthar/Otus ML 50mm f1.4, Z 105mm f2.8 MC, Leica 180mm f2.8 APO
- GFX-100II: 20-35mm f4, 120mm f4
Which one I use depending on the outing and need for tele reach. I use the Fuji 75% of the time these days.
The Z7II was an even better landscape camera than the Z8 being more compact but I couldn’t afford to keep it. The Z7III should fix that. Btw the Z7II fixed the deep shadow banding issue of the Z7.
mdude85 wrote:
Even if you consider the wider range of factors, the medium format system is still the best for this type of photography. It's not cheap, it's not light, it's not small, but it's the best.
It goes without saying that no system is going to be everything to everyone, and what's suitable for one person might not be suitable for another person.
No, it is not “best.”
A number of the “best” landscape photographer — most successful, most-often exhibited, published, etc. — will disagree with you. Of such folks that I know personally, one or two use miniMF and most use FF. Why? Because for their landscape photography the system they choose is the “best” for them.
If the bigger format is always “best,” then the best digital format would be one of the super-expensive approximately 645-size back systems. Or perhaps a scanning back. or perhaps scanned 8x10 film.
You can safely say that miniMF has higher system resolution than, say, FF or APS=C, and you can even claim that it has things like more dynamic range.
But those other systems/formats aren’t junk. High resolution FF systems with excellent lenses can produce very large, detailed prints of the highest quality. They can also use a range of lenses that simply are not available on miniMF at this point.
We do photographers a disservice when we make blanket “this is the best” claims without taking into consideration their specific circumstances.
If you find detail and dynamic range lacking with Fuji APS-C, I’d recommend using DXO’s PureRaw 5 with XD3 for X-Trans demosaicing. As long as the lens is supported it adds impressive detail, and shadow recovery. I’m a wedding photographer who shoots Sony, but will often have a second shooter who shoots Fuji. Fuji files run through DXO (with great lenses) are hard to distinguish from full frame images.
In DXO I’d recommend leaving the lens correction to standard, and luminosity to zero. The trial is a great way to see if Fuji is able to keep up. It’s an additional hassle to run all of your files through DXO, but I find it nicer than hiking with heavier gear.
A number of the “best” landscape photographer — most successful, most-often exhibited, published, etc. — will disagree with you. Of such folks that I know personally, one or two use miniMF and most use FF. Why? Because for their landscape photography the system they choose is the “best” for them.
If the bigger format is always “best,” then the best digital format would be one of the super-expensive approximately 645-size back systems. Or perhaps a scanning back. or perhaps scanned 8x10 film.
You can safely say that miniMF has higher system resolution than, say, FF or APS=C, and you can even claim that it has things like more dynamic range.
But those other systems/formats aren’t junk. High resolution FF systems with excellent lenses can produce very large, detailed prints of the highest quality. They can also use a range of lenses that simply are not available on miniMF at this point.
We do photographers a disservice when we make blanket “this is the best” claims without taking into consideration their specific circumstances....Show more →
All in all my personal view is that the Fuji GFX-100II is the best landscape camera at the moment for the following reasons:
- excellent Sony sensor with great DR and resolution
- fully weather sealed system (body and lenses)
- brilliant lenses for landscape with excellent sharpness (20-35mm, 55mm, 120mm f4)
- good colors
- good price to performance ratio compared to Hasselblad
Yes the Phasone IQ4-150 has even better image quality but is very heavy, very expensive and lacks a high quality wide lens, and even more a zoom wide lens.
The OP actually asked if Fuji APS-c was the best system for landscape photography with regards to image quality and detail only. I think it is probably safe to say while is it is very capable, it is not the best. We can debate ad nausium which is the best.
Landscape is generally a far from challenging application. Usually shot at base iso any advantage a larger sensor is likely to have in noise or DR theeoretically is unlikely to be visible on a monitor or a print if viewing the whole scene without significant crop. The APS-C Fuji cameras are small and the best lenses are relatively modest in price and bulk, a good little 'un will beat a modest big 'un and you're more likely to have a good choice with you. An xt5 and a selection of rhe best primes will surely produce a3 prints and 4k monitor images unlikely to be distinguishable from ones taken on cameras with larger sensors in those circumstances, especially if less than the best lenses are used on that camera.
It's an age old argument, 35mm often produced better IQ than 6x6 simply because the cameras were better made and better lenses were available for 35mm.
The best camera is one you have with you, and you have to afford it, and carry it.
