SGinNorcal wrote:
Yes, we do. I tried settling for a cell phone and to some degree it works. But then I would come across a epic view where I just couldn't capture the beauty in front of me. The X system compromise of weight to quality work for me and what I do. I do love going to a specific locations with Gfx, assorted lenses, tripod, filters, etc. But with the miles I cover and the places I go with the X, I come across the unexpected and unique view or light or something. Sure sometimes I wish I had my Gfx on me, but I know I can't take it to all of those places. My hiking buddies have grown to appreciate my photos which I share with them. And they know that they don't have to wait for me, I'll catch up quickly....Show more →
Out of curiosity what kind of walking do you do when you pack the X instead of the G?
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 →
Who said a FF or even APS-C system was junk? I just said they’re not the best. It’s not an attack, just the reality of the situation. In the right hands, any system can be fantastic; if people prefer a certain system for their work, I have no business correcting them.
The OP didn’t ask about their specific circumstance, and I’m not doing a “disservice” to anyone by giving an opinion grounded in evidence. If people don’t agree with it, they can scroll past it. This message board has been a great source of information to me for over 20 years but at the end of the day it’s not that serious.
PS. You probably don’t want to be scanning 8x10 film for a landscape photograph these days. 645 backs, I don’t know. It’s possible, but I think the latest medium format systems still have an edge. Digital 645 technology is kind of a dead end at this point.
bernardl wrote:
Out of curiosity what kind of walking do you do when you pack the X instead of the G?
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm a pretty serious hiker, its my main form of exercise. I do weekly day hikes that are typically 10-15 miles with 2,000 to 3,500 feet of elevation gain. Those keep me in decent enough shape for periodic back packing trips of up to a week on the trail, usually self supported. Meaning if you don't carry it, you don't have it. Every pound matters.
mdude85 wrote:
Who said a FF or even APS-C system was junk? I just said they’re not the best. It’s not an attack, just the reality of the situation. In the right hands, any system can be fantastic; if people prefer a certain system for their work, I have no business correcting them.
The OP didn’t ask about their specific circumstance, and I’m not doing a “disservice” to anyone by giving an opinion grounded in evidence. If people don’t agree with it, they can scroll past it. This message board has been a great source of information to me for over 20 years but at the end of the day it’s not that serious.
PS. You probably don’t want to be scanning 8x10 film for a landscape photograph these days. 645 backs, I don’t know. It’s possible, but I think the latest medium format systems still have an edge. Digital 645 technology is kind of a dead end at this point.
I've recently printed my first large GFX image (110cm on the long side) and I thought it might be useful to compare it to two other large images I have had printed. First was also 110cm on the long side and shot with a 24MP Sony A7ii, with an ancient Canon FD 20mm f2.8 lens, the other was printed to 90cm and shot with a 12MP Canon 5D classic and a 24-105mm f4 L. The first two were tripod shots, the 5D was shot handheld.
The GFX image holds the most detail in foliage and branches, but it only becomes noticeable when viewing from about 30cm away. The Sony and Canon shots I'd say were even.
In terms of what will be the best system, one really needs to decide what are their minimum requirements - e.g. viewing up close on a large 8k monitor, printing large and being able to see detail up close, being able to zoom in to detail at 100 per cent, etc?
Then just buy the camera system you are going to enjoy using the most, subject to it meeting your minimum requirements. Is the GFX more cumbersome and slower to use than the 5D? Yes. Do I enjoy shooting with it more? Hell yeah!
YMMV.
bernardl wrote:
Very good points yes. Some recent zooms, some of the Fuji X zooms or the Nikon 24-120mm f4 S come to mind, indeed offer such an impressive compromise between flexibility and image quality at landscape apertures that they make a very strong case vs primes.
However, having just tested the new Zeiss Otus ML 50mm f1.4 on the Z8, I think that I’ll nonetheless stick to primes for now. The degree of color purity, the micro detail, lack of fringing and of bokeh distractions remains to me too appealing to pass. Especially when combined with a stitching head.
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed, they are good, and if I want lightest weight or weather is poor (making changing lenses inadvisable) I will take a zoom. But even the best struggle to keep up with primes at the edges at the extremes of their range, and edge performance is surely important in many landscape shots. They also suffer from barrel or pincushion distortion at the extremes, needing correction which in theory at least lowers IQ, and even curvature of field which can't be corrected. As you say, give me a go9d prime if possible, even if a little cropping is needed occasionally.
Gerry
Sep 29, 2025 at 04:13 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
gyoung143 wrote:
I wouldn't normally choose a zoom for work where there is plenty of time to choose viewpoint anf angle of view. Why would you do that? Primes should be better.
Gerry
Hi Gerry,
There are times I do prefer primes for landscapes. When I know what I am going to shoot and know that a given prime will work for the framing I want, I would rather shoot a prime and I have lots of really nice manual focus primes that work wonderfully for landscapes. I used to shoot primarily that way when I shot near my home and had lots of really nice landscape subjects.
More recently, however, I live in the suburbs and my landscape shooting is primarily day trips (or longer trips to National Parks) and I don't know the area well and I want flexibility in how I am going to shoot and don't want to take a bag full of of primes that will make walking around these locations onerous. As an example, the summer before last I went to Zion National Park. Super lovely location. Lots of wonderful opportunities for landscape shots, but I didn't have the flexibility I would have liked for some shots and I carried a bag that got very heavy by the end of the day. I got some good shots (see below) but there were others I could "see" in my minds eye that I wasn't able to take because I didn't have a suitable lens along.
ILCE-7RM5DT 100mm F2 SAM lens100mmf/5.61/1000s160 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5DT 25mm F2 SAM lens25mmf/5.61/400s160 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5DT 100mm F2 SAM lens100mmf/5.61/320s160 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5Voigtlander NOKTON 21mm F1.4 Aspherical lens21mmf/8.01/320s125 ISO0.0 EV
Sep 29, 2025 at 06:52 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
RoamingScott wrote:
And I would likely take 1% as many landscape photos were I to be tied to a tripod. I live on the move and am supremely grateful for modern IBIS
Poo-pooing non-tripod or non-stitched landscape photography is asinine. There are fantastic single-frame images to be made, even on the move (but try to stop moving for at least as long as the exposure!).
Portability is a big reason that I am moving to Fuji X mount for landscape shooting. I think my kit will be:
Fuji X-T5 - 557g
Sigma 10-18 f/2.8 - 250g
Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 VC - 530g
Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6 OIS - 580g
Total weight - 1,917g with very good stabilization so I think I can get by without a tripod
This compares really well to a Sony FF setup of:
Sony A7r V - 730g
Sony 16-25 f/2.8 G - 409g
Sony 24-105 f/4 G - 663g
Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM - 1,395g
total weight - 3,197g also with very good stabilization
I know myself and what I can carry for the type of day trip that I am likely to do these days. I can carry 2 kg pretty easily all day, but 3 kg gets to be a bit much by the end of the day. What I like about the Fuji APS-C option is that it gets me down to the 2 kg weight with good stabilization so I don't have to add the extra weight of a tripod either. I just want to be sure that I will be happy enough with the images the Fuji kit gives me.
mdude85 wrote:
Who said a FF or even APS-C system was junk?
No one literally wrote that “ a FF or even APS-C system was junk.” That was a rhetorical device (you know, irony?) to point out that the comparisons often overemphasize the significance of increases in sensor size and pixel resolution to suggest a much bigger difference in performance than what we really see.
The way I have made this point previously in other threads is that we aren’t comparing outstanding to mediocre, but more like outstanding to slightly less outstanding… if you happen to print really large and look really close.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Portability is a big reason that I am moving to Fuji X mount for landscape shooting. I think my kit will be:
Fuji X-T5 - 557g
Sigma 10-18 f/2.8 - 250g
Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 VC - 530g
Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6 OIS - 580g
Total weight - 1,917g with very good stabilization so I think I can get by without a tripod
This compares really well to a Sony FF setup of:
Sony A7r V - 730g
Sony 16-25 f/2.8 G - 409g
Sony 24-105 f/4 G - 663g
Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM - 1,395g
total weight - 3,197g also with very good stabilization
I know myself and what I can carry for the type of day trip that I am likely to do these days. I can carry 2 kg pretty easily all day, but 3 kg gets to be a bit much by the end of the day. What I like about the Fuji APS-C option is that it gets me down to the 2 kg weight with good stabilization so I don't have to add the extra weight of a tripod either. I just want to be sure that I will be happy enough with the images the Fuji kit gives me....Show more →
The FE 100-400 to X 70-300 is quite the downgrade of IQ/performance, but is giving you the most weight savings of course. The Sony 70-300 plus light cropping is a more appropriate comparison IMO and still saves you half a kg over the Sony.
It really comes down to what you value most. For me, I know I'm only going to be in some of these places one single time in my life, and often I have a tremendous amount of Type 2 fun while out in the field with my FF kit. There have been shots that I know would have really suffered with a similar Fuji kit, but the Sony or Nikon FF kit delivered in tough conditions with ease.
Sep 30, 2025 at 09:06 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
RoamingScott wrote:
The FE 100-400 to X 70-300 is quite the downgrade of IQ/performance, but is giving you the most weight savings of course. The Sony 70-300 plus light cropping is a more appropriate comparison IMO and still saves you half a kg over the Sony.
It really comes down to what you value most. For me, I know I'm only going to be in some of these places one single time in my life, and often I have a tremendous amount of Type 2 fun while out in the field with my FF kit. There have been shots that I know would have really suffered with a similar Fuji kit, but the Sony or Nikon FF kit delivered in tough conditions with ease. ...Show more →
Hi Scott,
Have you used the Fuji 70-300 or are you just speculating? I am sure that the Sony 100-400 GM would be a better lens, and produce better images, but I suspect that the Fuji will at least equal the Sony 70-300 up until the FF equivalent of 300 and be better once you start to crop the FF image to get the longer reach and the Sony is no lighter than the Fuji lens and Sony has a slower aperture in their shared focal length range except from 214 to 300mm FF equivalent.
The bottom line for me is that the Sony 100-400 just adds too much weight and the Sony 70-300 I don't think would bring anything to the table that the Fuji doesn't bring and still leave me with a kit that is about half a kilo/a pound heavier without any clear advantage to the heavier kit, and that heavier kit still pushes the weight to more than I will be comfortable carrying for a day.
And it isn't necessarily about what you value most, but also understanding your limitations. On the day I went to Zion and shot the pictures above, it was fairly hot (it often is at Zion I suppose) and I wore out. I was carrying just over 3 kilos of gear and ended the day early because I was tired. I didn't stay for sunset. I like the pictures I got and they are technically quite good, but would I have gotten shots I liked even more if I could have stayed longer and shot as the blue hour or during the golden hour? It isn't that I don't value having technical excellence, it is just that for this type of shooting that comes with the cost of higher weight and at this point that isn't something I can do for a long day. Since most of my shooting will be for such day trips, knowing my limitations means I want a lighter kit, but that doesn't mean I value weight over quality of the images, it just means I can't really carry much more than 2 kilos for a whole day of walking. When I was younger sure I could and I am in pretty good shape, but I don't have the stamina I used to have.
I'm not suggesting you use the Sony 70-300, I'm merely suggesting that the X 70-300 and FE 100-400 is a very apples/oranges comparison for a few meaningful reasons.
I personally wouldn't use either 70-300 for what I consider my "serious" photography but I get the appeal of the lighter kit.
I used to read pop photo lens tests, seems like every single 75-300 type lens they ever tested did great to 200mm. After that not so much.
The 75-300 I got ~$175 new in 2005 seemed excellent up to 200mm, so I'd guess the fuji is excellent to there. It's more expensive, the Canon L has come out since I bought mine, so it might be fine up to 300mm.
Of course only one has 400mm if you carry the heavier lens
AmbientMike wrote:
I used to read pop photo lens tests, seems like every single 75-300 type lens they ever tested did great to 200mm. After that not so much.
The 75-300 I got ~$175 new in 2005 seemed excellent up to 200mm, so I'd guess the fuji is excellent to there. It's more expensive, the Canon L has come out since I bought mine, so it might be fine up to 300mm.
Of course only one has 400mm if you carry the heavier lens
I have the Fuji X 70-300, and it is actually (surprisingly) quite good throughout the entire zoom range. This surprised me because I also assumed what you said about it going "meh" after 200 -- but not the case, at least with my copy.
I haven't used it a lot TBH, but it is basically just like this throughout the entire range -- though this shot is only at around 150mm, it is from a good couple miles away (70-300 on XH2):
Fwiw, I think the Fuji Xf 70-300mm is a bit better than the Sony G 70-300mm, including at 300mm. I've owned both but since sold the Sony. Modern lens designs and special elements are leading to far better lenses than those that would have been reviewed in photo magazines when that was a thing. The Fuji is a very capable lens at all focal lengths.
Disclaimer: I do not own and have not used the Fujifilm 70-300mm lens. I hear that it performs quite well, but that is all second-hand information.
What I do know is that, in general, the less-expensive Fujifilm lenses (that we might think of as “non-professional” lenses, to use the common though unfortunate shorthand) are often quiet good, at least optically. I did have the 55-200mm lens (similar design to the 70-300), and while it had/has its shortcomings, the image quality is quite good. The same is true of the so-called kit lens, at least the 18-55mm versions, of which I have used two versions.
One thing we need to be careful about in these forums is people turning small differences into major differences, often by using dismissive adjectives to characterize the lens they think of as being second-best. For them it isn’t enough to say, “Lens X can be a bit sharper than Lens Y” — they have resort to hyperbole implying that Lens Y is terrible, awful, no good.
One thing I think folks do need to consider about the less expensive lenses, especially the variable aperture zooms, is that their rather small maximum apertures at the long end don’t leave us with a lot of aperture options if we are trying to avoid diffraction blur.
My buddy in the rocks was barely visible to the naked eye. I was using the camera to watch him descend. Idaho Sawtooths at about 9,500' and the only telephoto I would carry up there.
X-T5 with 70-300 + 1.4x, 348mm f8
Sep 30, 2025 at 05:06 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Jack Flesher wrote:
I have the Fuji X 70-300, and it is actually (surprisingly) quite good throughout the entire zoom range. This surprised me because I also assumed what you said about it going "meh" after 200 -- but not the case, at least with my copy.
I haven't used it a lot TBH, but it is basically just like this throughout the entire range -- though this shot is only at around 150mm, it is from a good couple miles away (70-300 on XH2):
Thanks sharing your experience with the lens Jack, and that is a fantastic shot!
