p.1 #1 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
Lenses are (edit--Zeiss Touit 12/2.8) and Fuji 16-55/2.8 II and 70-300/4-5.6, a couple CF Express B 512 cards, and 3 extra Fuji batteries.. This rig will replace my Sony--a7R V, Batis 18, Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II, Batis 85/1.8, and Tamron 50-300/4.5-6.3 III.
As I age (currently 82), get more feeble and lazy, and no longer print 24" wide, saving over a pound of weight becomes significant.. I was rather happy with my 1st X-H2 rig, but I fell into the Sony a7R n trap again with a version V; it was a fine set but every time I held it in my hand, my fingernails stopped on the lens and mount, and I got tired of that once too often.. I still have an Epson P800 (and its replacement, the P900), so I guess I'll be happy with 25-by-17s and 40MP.
p.1 #2 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
Jeffrey Behr wrote:
Lenses are 8-16/2.8, 16-55/2.8 II, and 70-300/4-5.6, a couple CF Express B 512 cards, and 3 extra Fuji batteries.. Had a Touit 12 in the order initially but changed it for a 10-24 and will exchange that for the 8-16/.. This rig will replace my Sony rig--a7R V, Batis 18, Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II, Batis 85/1.8, and Tamron 50-300/4.5-6.3 III.
As I age (currently 82), get more feeble and lazy, and no longer print 24" wide, saving over a pound of weight becomes more important.. I was rather happy with my 1st X-H2 rig, but I fell into the Sony a7R n trap again with a version V; it was a fine set but every time I held it in my hand, my fingernails stopped on the lens and mount, and I got tired of that once too often.. I still have an Epson P800 (and its replacement, the P900), so I guess I'll be happy with 25-by-17s and 40MP....Show more →
You talk about weight - and then get the biggest and heaviest lenses in the system?
p.1 #4 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
Nielk Mike wrote:
You talk about weight - (sic) and then get the biggest and heaviest lenses in the system?
First, they are not the 'biggest and heaviest lenses in the system'; Fuji makes many lenses that are heavier than any I will have.. Each of my Fuji lenses (except the 8-16) is lighter than each of the Sony counterparts, and I feel no need in the Fuji system for having primes which 'augment' the zooms and which increase the weight of my kit.. And each Fuji premium lens--and the body--are substantially less expensive than their Sony counterparts.
And why would you ridicule me for making very personal and careful choices in my gear? Don't you?
p.1 #5 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
Just let it go. I'm moving my Fuji prime primes to new homes, put the 33mm, 56mm and 90mm on the B&S board. Sometimes, you have to drop some gear, and weight. Even if you love them.
p.1 #6 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
I think you will be very happy with that trio. I use the 16-55 mkII, 70-300, and Sigma 12/1.4 for my lightweight hiking setup. The 16-55 is on my X-T5 most of the time and does most of the work. I still enjoy my primes in that range but for the hiking setup I use zooms to minimize lens swaps.
p.1 #7 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
Jeffrey Behr wrote:
First, they are not the 'biggest and heaviest lenses in the system'; Fuji makes many lenses that are heavier than any I will have.. Each of my Fuji lenses (except the 8-16) is lighter than each of the Sony counterparts, and I feel no need in the Fuji system for having primes which 'augment' the zooms and which increase the weight of my kit.. And each Fuji premium lens--and the body--are substantially less expensive than their Sony counterparts.
And why would you ridicule me for making very personal and careful choices in my gear? Don't you?
It is an observation based on your goal to reduce weight - not meant to ridicule.
p.1 #8 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
My quest for a lighter carry than my D800 started with an X100 and eventually led to 3 RX100’s as my default travel carries. I just ordered an X-M5 with a couple of primes for my edc.
p.1 #9 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
Congrats! Check out the 50 Touit!
Also for a lighter zoom the 55-200 is excellent
Also the kit 18-55 is smaller lighter and also excellent
Also pondering returning to Fuji - but GFX ;-)
p.1 #10 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
Happydan wrote:
Congrats! Check out the 50 Touit! Also for a lighter zoom the 55-200 is excellent. Also the kit 18-55 is smaller lighter and also excellent. Also pondering returning to Fuji - but GFX ;-)
TY.
Had a GFX 100s a couple times. EXCELLENT--as in best-ever!--rez, but too heavy for this oldfart. Fuji lenses are excellent; I used the 23 and 45-100. Going long was more...difficult; I used a Canon 70-300L on an adapter and was very happy with the results; it darkened corners hardly at all and had a very natural look.
p.1 #11 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
l just turned 80 this year and did a similar thing. I went from a Nikon Z6 system to a Fujifilm X-T5, 10-24mm, 16-50mm, 70-300mm, and a 60mm Macro. About have the total weight and a wider range. I've come a long way from a 4x5 field camera, four lenses, 12 film holders, and all the other necessary gear to say nothing about that large-heavy tripod. I can honestly say that I enjoy going out and taking photos much more now as I am much more mobile without all the size and weight.
p.1 #12 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
Age certainly makes us less able, and less inclined, to lug weight around. I was 72 when I decided I didn't want half a kilo of zoom and a heavier than necessary camera round my neck. That's why I forsook Nikon for Fuji.
To me the Xh2 is pointless, no more capability than X5t and more weight and bulk. Likewise no interest whatever in the likes of 8-16, or the 16-55 2.8, I'd rather take a set of small primes, a 9mm, 14mm and the trio of 23, 35 and 50 f/2s. I doubt they weigh any more, certainly not significant, and the weight round my neck is significantly less, quality too is better and wider apertures useful.
I'm 82 now and haven't changed my mind, indeed contemplating Xe5 if I coukd get used to the viewfinder
p.1 #13 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
Jeffrey Behr wrote:
…and 3 extra Fuji batteries..
I think your lens choices make sense. One comment about batteries though: I wonder if you really need three extras?
Back in the day’s of lower-capacity batteries I used to travel with quite a few of them. But since I got my XT5 I virtually never go through more than a battery in one day. It is good for something like 400 shots. I bought two extras when I got the camera, and I’m mostly stopped packing the back-ups these days.
That said, if you are photographing things that are shot-intensive like sports or birds, all bets are off.
In a different topic, I’m going to second the opinion in the post above mine about the XT5 and the XH2. Yes, the XH2 is the “top of the line” Fujifilm X-trans camera, but unless you need its specific features (deeper burst mode buffer for things like birds in flight, enhanced video capabilities) or you have a strong preference for its PASM interface, the XT5 is functionally more or less the same, very capable camera but in a more compact and lighter package.
In particular, since you are after a smaller and lighter system… I’d take a good look at it if I were you. I’ve very happy with mine.
One more thing…
I’m a little uncomfortable saying this, as a Fujifilm partisan, but I feel that there are some occasional issues with some of the Fujifilm zoom lenses. (I think the primes ate pretty uniformly excellent.) I have thee of the better Fujifilm zoom lenses: 16-55mm f/2.8, 50-140mm f/2.8, and the variable aperture 100-400mm lens.
When they work well, they are great. They can be — especially the 50-140mm — absolutely first-rate lenses. But I feel that they also can be a bit inconsistent. I’m reluctantly coming to this conclusion after using them for years, but especially after relying on two of them during some recent overseas travel that involved landscapes (which was done handheld) and after using two of them on tripods for similar work.
It is, I think, mainly a matter of inconsistency, and one might regard it as a less-than-major problem. But I definitely have more issues with achieving accurate focus with the 16-55 and 100-400 than I have with lenses with similar functionality on my full frame system from a different manufacturer.
What is perplexing is that many shots can be in very good focus, while others that should be are not. Earlier this year I used the Fujifilm system side-by-side with my FF system, and the larger system was consistently more accurate. But more confusing was a variability of the Fujifilm system with the 16-55 and 100-400 lenses. I have some shots with the latter the accurately capture a great deal of fine detail… and others made in similar considering where thing are just a little off.
I will admit that I’m pretty critical about accurate focus, and that photographers who might not look so closely may fail to see a critical difference. But on my recent trip too many of the shots from the 16-55 (which is in many ways a very fine lens) were just a little off, even though I’m a pretty careful shooter.
For me, the Fujifilm system is more and more about working with their excellent primes and, in my case, focusing on the small, light lenses that I use for travel and street photography.
p.1 #14 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
Jeffrey Behr wrote:
TY.
Had a GFX 100s a couple times. EXCELLENT--as in best-ever!--rez, but too heavy for this oldfart. Fuji lenses are excellent; I used the 23 and 45-100. Going long was more difficult; I used a Canon 70-300L on an adapter.
I hear you brother! In my case I also loved my 100mp GFX system and the files it produced, but because of its size I added a 40mp Fuji X system for travel. It served me well. But then with APSC, I sometimes missed the shallower DoF that larger sensors allow and also ran into a noise wall with the smaller 40mp sensor in my night street shooting, so I recently sold off my entire Fuji X system for a small Sony FF cam (A7Cii) and few lightweight lenses. It’s too early to say anything definitive, but so far it appears I made a good move for my preferences.
p.1 #15 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
gyoung143 wrote:
Age certainly makes us less able, and less inclined, to lug weight around. I was 72 when I decided I didn't want half a kilo of zoom and a heavier than necessary camera round my neck. That's why I forsook Nikon for Fuji.
To me the Xh2 is pointless, no more capability than X5t and more weight and bulk. Likewise no interest whatever in the likes of 8-16, or the 16-55 2.8, I'd rather take a set of small primes, a 9mm, 14mm and the trio of 23, 35 and 50 f/2s. I doubt they weigh any more, certainly not significant, and the weight round my neck is significantly less, quality too is better and wider apertures useful.
I'm 82 now and haven't changed my mind, indeed contemplating Xe5 if I coukd get used to the viewfinder
PS Just to be clear, I am not averse to zooms when they offer an advantage, at the longest end we have little choice and I have had a 55-200 since the beginning, and also an 18-55 for when the subjects are unpredictable (e.g. grandchildren!) or when weather makes it unwise to change lenses. It's light and capable. I also have a Sigma 100-400,which is lighter and much cheaper than Fuji.
p.1 #16 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
I thank all of you for constructive comments and observations.. This is my fourth (I think) period with Fuji APSC cameras, and I've learned a little about them v. Sony a7Rns:
1. The X-H2 is probably the best-feeling, most-comfortable body I've ever had in my hands, while every time I pick up an a7Rn body, I don't like the way it feels.
2. We fotogs are truly blessed with so many excellent-imaging sensors, so I feel a bit...ungenerous when I say that while the 33x22" images from 40MP sensors look very well resolved, I can see the difference between those '40s' and those produced by the 60MP Sonys.. I can also see that the images produced by the 102MP Fujis are significantly better than those from the 60MP Sonys.. I truly wish I had what it takes to roll about* and use the 102MP Fujis, but I don't.
3. I've changed my alleged mind again on my choice for an ultra-wide lens; I'm going back to the Zeiss Touit 12, which I've had and loved, just as I love the Zeiss Batis 18 on the Sony bodies.. The total weight of body and three lenses is just under five pounds, and I'm very happy about that.
4. Since I've figured out over the decades how to use the EPSON SureColor 17"-paper printers so that they produce EXCELLENT results and I have both a P800 and P900, I'll soon be selling my 24" EPSON P7570 printer.. Printing 'only' 17"-wide will help prevent me from wanting more MPs. :-)
My Fuji stuff is arriving (from B&H) this week in three batches; I hope I can keep up with them.
* I've been using a ThinkTank Airport Roller for maybe 15 years and LOVE it.
p.1 #17 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
Jeffrey Behr wrote:
3. I've changed my alleged mind again on my choice for an ultra-wide lens; I'm going back to the Zeiss Touit 12, which I've had and loved, just as I love the Zeiss Batis 18 on the Sony bodies.. The total weight of body and three lenses is just under five pounds, and I'm very happy about that.
Don’t overlook the Fujifilm 14mm f/2.8. I’ve had one since the beginning, and it is really excellent.
p.1 #18 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’m a little uncomfortable saying this, as a Fujifilm partisan, but I feel that there are some occasional issues with some of the Fujifilm zoom lenses. (I think the primes ate pretty uniformly excellent.) I have thee of the better Fujifilm zoom lenses: 16-55mm f/2.8, 50-140mm f/2.8, and the variable aperture 100-400mm lens.
I believe your comments are based on the original 16-55/2.8, correct? The MkII is on par with the later primes to me although I didn't ever use the original to make a direct comparison. It feels to me that Fuji is slowly improving the lenses as well as the bodies and that newer ones seem better in general.
p.1 #19 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
SGinNorcal wrote:
I believe your comments are based on the original 16-55/2.8, correct? The MkII is on par with the later primes to me although I didn't ever use the original to make a direct comparison. It feels to me that Fuji is slowly improving the lenses as well as the bodies and that newer ones seem better in general.
Indeed, the original version.
What is starting to aggravate me about it is that it can be very sharp... but then it isn't. (Same with the 100-400. I don't have the issue with the 50-140.)
I understand that there are situations in which my technique could explain the situation — for example, a lot of the recent stuff was shot handheld. But, first of all, I'm pretty careful and I don't have these issues with other lenses on the same camera when shooting handheld. Second (or maybe it should be first), I've had the issue even when shooting this lens from the tripod.
(Beyond that, I know know the symptoms of motion blur and of missed focus, and it is the latter that I'm seeing all too often.)
It is the inconsistency that is disappointing me at the moment. The 16-55 is capable of producing quite sharp images... but then it doesn't.
p.1 #20 · BACK TO FUJI with my 2nd X-H2-based system
gdanmitchell wrote:
Indeed, the original version.
What is starting to aggravate me about it is that it can be very sharp... but then it isn't. (Same with the 100-400. I don't have the issue with the 50-140.)
I understand that there are situations in which my technique could explain the situation — for example, a lot of the recent stuff was shot handheld. But, first of all, I'm pretty careful and I don't have these issues with other lenses on the same camera when shooting handheld. Second (or maybe it should be first), I've had the issue even when shooting this lens from the tripod.
(Beyond that, I know know the symptoms of motion blur and of missed focus, and it is the latter that I'm seeing all too often.)
It is the inconsistency that is disappointing me at the moment. The 16-55 is capable of producing quite sharp images... but then it doesn't....Show more →
How you describe this reminds me of some recent experiences with the 70-300. Often/most of the time, no complaints. But I've noticed on two occasions where my photos of an elk herd were slightly out of focus. The first time, I thought I had let shutter speed drop a little too low. But again last week I experienced it again on the same subject. Good light and good shutter speed, but same result. My theory is that its a low contrast situation, the elk are brown and close to the same color as the grassy brush they are moving in. In the same set of photo's I have birds in flight in excellent focus at 420mm (w/ 1.4) while the elk are blurry. Even those at lower focal lengths don't look as sharp as they should.
