Re the Fuji shutter speed dial - I'd have to recheck to be sure as I haven't used mine in months, but from memory the top dial sets full stops and you can fine tune 1/3 stop adjustments from there with the rear dial (the same way you adjust shutter speed with PASM controls).
The real comparison is the Z5 II, if you care about price shopping, and that gets you way more then the “lowly” Z50 II for less money still than say an X-T5. Fuji is in an awful segment of the market right now with aging hardware at crazy prices.
The difference between the X-H2 and the X-T5 is only in the controls, and the H2 has a slightly better viewfinder. For telephoto lenses, the larger X-H2 is probably a better choice. Personally, I wouldn’t choose Fujifilm for photographing animals or birds. The best option for wildlife is the OM-1 Mark II.
Plzenaak wrote:
The difference between the X-H2 and the X-T5 is only in the controls, and the H2 has a slightly better viewfinder. For telephoto lenses, the larger X-H2 is probably a better choice. Personally, I wouldn’t choose Fujifilm for photographing animals or birds. The best option for wildlife is the OM-1 Mark II.
No, the X-T5 also has a much smaller buffer and longer clear times due to the card setup.
RoamingScott wrote:
The real comparison is the Z5 II, if you care about price shopping, and that gets you way more then the “lowly” Z50 II for less money still than say an X-T5. Fuji is in an awful segment of the market right now with aging hardware at crazy prices.
There is no doubt that the Z5 II is an excellent value in FX for lower-magnification subjects, but that low-res sensor with huge pixels has not enough reach with a 100-400/5.6 class lens. 180- or 200-600 class lens is out of the question for the user other than safaris or something automobile based.
mawz wrote:
No, the X-T5 also has a much smaller buffer and longer clear times due to the card setup.
That is a downside for people who might push the abilities of burst mode for things like wildlife and sport. On the other hand, I’ve used mine successfully for bird photography. (I’m not so into relying on burst mode for that, at least for some subjects.)
As to lens size and body size, I no longer subscribe to the “must use big camera with large lenses” school of thought. I use the XT5 with the 100-400 and it is no problem at all. (With big lenses we don’t really support things by holding the camera as much as we support the lens anyway.)
As in all things, each option has its pluses and minuses. The important thing is aligning individual needs with those.
Because I tend to shoot my XT5 in aperture priority mode (getting the shutter speed I need by adjusting aperture, ISO, and EC) I have not noticed the “issue” of having only whole stop adjustments on the shutter speed dial. However, the camera does adjust shutter speed in smaller-than-whole-stop increments.
EB-1 wrote:
There is no doubt that the Z5 II is an excellent value in FX for lower-magnification subjects, but that low-res sensor with huge pixels has not enough reach with a 100-400/5.6 class lens. 180- or 200-600 class lens is out of the question for the user other than safaris or something automobile based.
EBH
Who's talking about going on safari in a thread about APS-C cameras
I'm missing the joke. My point is that the user is not going to be carrying around a large lens as a matter of practicality. A vehicular safari is an example where you are not carrying the gear any significant distance.
I've done 20-something safaris to Africa alone. I've seen people use just about every type of camera, from tiny sensors/film formats to medium format Mamiya. I never saw anyone with 4x5 or 8x10 in a vehicle though. There are plenty of APS-C cameras used on safari as there are though with the OM 150-400. But it is not really relevant.
EB-1 wrote:
There is no doubt that the Z5 II is an excellent value in FX for lower-magnification subjects, but that low-res sensor with huge pixels has not enough reach with a 100-400/5.6 class lens. 180- or 200-600 class lens is out of the question for the user other than safaris or something automobile based.
EBH
Ultimately I'll defer to more experienced photographers but I'm not understanding this logic. It seems as though you're suggesting that because of crop factor DX is always better than FX for further away subjects. If so my question would be 'what about IQ?'. Based on my limited experience (xt3, z50ii, z8) editing raw files FX is just an entirely different level of workability and, in less than ideal lighting, IQ.
In my mind this comes back to do you want images that in less than ideal lighting are 'here's a duck, here's a tree, here's a cardinal' or do you want images of those things that are above average and cause the viewer to linger over them. I enjoy Nikon's Z50ii greatly but it's the form factor and weight, NOT the IQ, that gets it in my hands. For street photography (which I enjoy greatly) I love compact and light but for birds and other critters I really enjoy feather and fur detail and those things, at least in my experience, are best reached with a full frame sensor.
Maybe if I had to summarize my feeling on this- I've got some astonishingly great images from crop sensor cameras but every single one was in near ideal lighting. On FX sensor the astonishingly great images are not just in great lighting.
RoamingScott wrote:
There’s no X system combo that approaches Expeed 7 cameras / Z lenses in terms of performance. You’ll find that AF-S is the most reliable focus mode.
The X-H2S is the only stacked sensor option in their ecosystem but you lose resolution by going in that direction. The X-H2 is the defacto DSLR style option but has a flippy screen. The X-T5 would be what I would get, personally. Many Fuji X lenses will be hamstrung by a combo of lame autofocus motors and a goofy AF algorithm.
Have fun 🫠
Having recently abandoned my Fuji system (X-T5 and a shitload of lenses), I cannot agree more. I would take the Z50II in a heartbeat over any Fuji body, for photography.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That is a downside for people who might push the abilities of burst mode for things like wildlife and sport. On the other hand, I’ve used mine successfully for bird photography. (I’m not so into relying on burst mode for that, at least for some subjects.)
As to lens size and body size, I no longer subscribe to the “must use big camera with large lenses” school of thought. I use the XT5 with the 100-400 and it is no problem at all. (With big lenses we don’t really support things by holding the camera as much as we support the lens anyway.)
As in all things, each option has its pluses and minuses. The important thing is aligning individual needs with those.
Because I tend to shoot my XT5 in aperture priority mode (getting the shutter speed I need by adjusting aperture, ISO, and EC) I have not noticed the “issue” of having only whole stop adjustments on the shutter speed dial. However, the camera does adjust shutter speed in smaller-than-whole-stop increments....Show more →
Your photos on Flickr using that camera really look great.
Edit: Not to be like.... Your photos look great, you must have a great camera. They all look great.
deadwolfbones wrote:
Having recently abandoned my Fuji system (X-T5 and a shitload of lenses), I cannot agree more. I would take the Z50II in a heartbeat over any Fuji body, for photography.
I'll take an image with Nikon's ancient 20mp DX and 24mp FX sensors over a Fuji 40mp any day thanks to better DR, better AF, big fat pixels, and excellent, realistic color.
There are many reasons one might want to shoot Fuji, but this is simply the worst time in the history of modern Fuji to buy in. I'd at least wait until September to see what the new cameras tout.
I don't see many photos in the picture galleries that would challenge the AF abilities of the Fujis. The very best tracking and burst performance is very rarely if ever needed by the vast majority of photographers, especially amateurs.
Lusting after performance you'll never need and haven't the experience or skill to use is an expensive and futile pastime.
Superscroll wrote:
Ultimately I'll defer to more experienced photographers but I'm not understanding this logic. It seems as though you're suggesting that because of crop factor DX is always better than FX for further away subjects. If so my question would be 'what about IQ?'. Based on my limited experience (xt3, z50ii, z8) editing raw files FX is just an entirely different level of workability and, in less than ideal lighting, IQ.
In my mind this comes back to do you want images that in less than ideal lighting are 'here's a duck, here's a tree, here's a cardinal' or do you want images of those things that are above average and cause the viewer to linger over them. I enjoy Nikon's Z50ii greatly but it's the form factor and weight, NOT the IQ, that gets it in my hands. For street photography (which I enjoy greatly) I love compact and light but for birds and other critters I really enjoy feather and fur detail and those things, at least in my experience, are best reached with a full frame sensor.
Maybe if I had to summarize my feeling on this- I've got some astonishingly great images from crop sensor cameras but every single one was in near ideal lighting. On FX sensor the astonishingly great images are not just in great lighting. ...Show more →
I was stating that the APS-C cameras have smaller pixels so more pixels per duck.
I'm not claiming the user is making great photos, but the IQ from the D7200 at ISO 100 is remarkably good for APS-C and I don't want less than that. For wildlife I do not suggest the user goes over 1600 if possible but now DXO probably makes a higher limit.
EB-1 wrote:
I was stating that the APS-C cameras have smaller pixels so more pixels per duck.
I'm not claiming the user is making great photos, but the IQ from the D7200 at ISO 100 is remarkably good for APS-C and I don't want less than that. For wildlife I do not suggest the user goes over 1600 if possible but now DXO probably makes a higher limit.
EBH
You can have a gazillion pixels on your duck, but if it's not in sharp focus, it's of little use. Unfortunately, Fuji still trails the rest of the pack in AF reliability.
EB-1 wrote:
I was stating that the APS-C cameras have smaller pixels so more pixels per duck.
I'm not claiming the user is making great photos, but the IQ from the D7200 at ISO 100 is remarkably good for APS-C and I don't want less than that. For wildlife I do not suggest the user goes over 1600 if possible but now DXO probably makes a higher limit.
EBH
Agreed that the D7200 is still very good for APS-C, even at higher ISO it is impressive what is recoverable/usable now with noise reduction software.
This was at ISO 12,800 from my D7200 in very dim light under a tree, after Lightroom Denoise and some other processing - not claiming its perfect but I was very impressed at that ISO from an APS-C camera that came out over 10 years ago.
Cliff L. wrote:
You can have a gazillion pixels on your duck, but if it's not in sharp focus, it's of little use. Unfortunately, Fuji still trails the rest of the pack in AF reliability.
But if you are doing the equivalent with a full frame camera then you will have a 600mm lens on it rather than 400, and the same number of pixels per duck if the cameras have the same mpx.
Smaller pixels usually mean more noise, but the difference is very small and not really a problem until absurd iso figures. And the Xt5 etc 40mpx manages to do it without any real penalty in noise over the 26mpx of the Xt3 etc.
It's noise performance that has really done well with sensor development, my old D7000 is superb at base iso but much worse at highrter iso than the Fujis I have. The Xpro2 when I got it was at least as good as the full frame Sony A7 I has because of newer sensor technology.
Lots of people gets harp ducks with Fuji, their technique is what matters, indeddwegot sharp ducks, and in my case racing cars, before AF was invented. If you rely on the technology to get you sharp pictures then you will often be dissapointed, and where is the self satisfaction I that anyway.
gyoung143 wrote:
I don't see many photos in the picture galleries that would challenge the AF abilities of the Fujis.
Gerry
Those "fails" don't show up in galleries - they do in real life. Focus beyond infinity and focus inconsistencies have caused more or less unsharp images for me in the beginning with Fuji. Now that I know how to use BBF, Distance Limiter, and MF double check properly, I am fine. But that can't be the what a good, reliable AF system is about.
I was not limiting my self to Fuji galleries, but ANY make on the forums.
I've had AF cameras since the Nikon F801. Which is dire even on its single point af-s.
If the very best tracking af-c is important to you to get shots for your employer then buy it, and learn how to use it which will not be easy or quick. Nothing works that well out of the box. But I don't want to lug that much heavy gear around if I don't use it, that's why I chose Fuji, small, light and easy to use for general photography. And even if you do want high performance for moving subjects there is the Xh2s which seems to be at least good enough for it.
gyoung143 wrote:
I was not limiting my self to Fuji galleries, but ANY make on the forums.
I've had AF cameras since the Nikon F801. Which is dire even on its single point af-s.
If the very best tracking af-c is important to you to get shots for your employer then buy it, and learn how to use it which will not be easy or quick. Nothing works that well out of the box. But I don't want to lug that much heavy gear around if I don't use it, that's why I chose Fuji, small, light and easy to use for general photography. And even if you do want high performance for moving subjects there is the Xh2s which seems to be at least good enough for it.
I am not even interested in AF for fast moving subjects! I don't care about subject detection and locked focus on a bird's eye. Just plain reliable AF-S for static scenes and subjects. Without focus beyond infinity and without varying distances when repeatedly focusing on the same subject or spot. That's not too much to ask, or is it?
