Headed on a once in a lifetime trip around the Mediterranean. I have shot with Fuji's for many years (since the xpro1 first came out). If I can use a tripod, I do and shoot at low ISOs to manage noise, but tripods are not allowed in many churches and museums. I started looking at the A7RV and honestly a bit of envy crept in. The thought of 1.5+ stops better DR is very appealing. Also it seems the ultra wide options for FF (especially Sony mount) are much stronger than options for Fuji. Both the Viltrox 13 and the Sigma 12 carry some concerns open wide, although reportedly great in the center and mid frame.
I could sell some older equipment to fund the A7RV and a lens or two if needed.
The whole reason I left Nikon all those years ago was weight and even though bodies like the A7RV are not that much larger than the XT5, the lenses are bigger and heavier.
Or, I could upgrade my 16-80 to the 16-55 ii which reviews say is sharp edge to edge at 2.8 at both 16 and 55 which would be a step up from my 16-80. I have extensively used the 16-80 around Europe and while super convenient, 16-18 and 65-80 are not strong areas for sharpness. I need to stop down to 5.6 to improve the corners which in dark churches pushes my ISO up. Being able to shoot at 2.8 would buy me two stops of lower ISO which would help the noise concerns.
I had originally planned to use my 18/1.4 and 33 as the main lenses for the trip, but the convenience and less weight of the 16-55 over two lenses is alluring.
The whole reason I left Nikon all those years ago was weight and even though bodies like the A7RV are not that much larger than the XT5, the lenses are bigger and heavier.
Below are some of the shots I got last week with the 10-24/4 up in St. Louis. Wanted to test to see if that lens would work in dark churches handheld.
We don't sell our kits for a single trip. We rent. And at this point, you'd be better off renting the VI instead of the V for the increased dynamic range for the exact thing you're worried about.
Honestly get a body with IBIS, negate the 16-55, get the Sigma 17-40 1.8 and also get the Sigma 12 1.4. People complain about the most minute nonsense that for the most part doesn't do anything to the end result.
JadedWriter wrote:
Honestly get a body with IBIS, negate the 16-55, get the Sigma 17-40 1.8 and also get the Sigma 12 1.4. People complain about the most minute nonsense that for the most part doesn't do anything to the end result.
I have the XT5, so IBIS is handled. I like the 1.8 over the 2.8 a lot. Could pickup up both sigmas for the price of the 16-55. Interesting suggestion, thanks.
I have been work horsing the Sigma 17-40 since I bought it, been very happy with it. pechance wrote:
I have the XT5, so IBIS is handled. I like the 1.8 over the 2.8 a lot. Could pickup up both sigmas for the price of the 16-55. Interesting suggestion, thanks.
I’m going in the opposite direction. For similar yet different reasons. I’m retired, now traveling 4 to 6 months each year, FF Sony, even apsc Sony was more than I wanted to cart around, A7’s are gone, apsc sitting on the pre sale shelf, bought an X100VI with the WCL. The Sony's are great cameras, Other than build quality and WR, they do a lot of things really well, Excellent lens line with 3rd party. Certainly better than my memories of my long gone D800 in terms of portability. But our travels are to Europe, typically some air travel involved, lots of bags as lot of time across different climate zones, we enjoy poking around into all sorts of nooks and crannies, cafe's, small restaurants, sitting on a wall in a piazza and taking life easy. An ILC became an object that delivered less on photographic grounds than the inconvenience of lugging it, and some associated lenses, around, For your use case, I’d go for it, But the renting idea, at least for the initial trip, might be considered,
laterplease wrote:
I’m going in the opposite direction. For similar yet different reasons. I’m retired, now traveling 4 to 6 months each year, FF Sony, even apsc Sony was more than I wanted to cart around, A7’s are gone, apsc sitting on the pre sale shelf, bought an X100VI with the WCL. The Sony's are great cameras, Other than build quality and WR, they do a lot of things really well, Excellent lens line with 3rd party. Certainly better than my memories of my long gone D800 in terms of portability. But our travels are to Europe, typically some air travel involved, lots of bags as lot of time across different climate zones, we enjoy poking around into all sorts of nooks and crannies, cafe's, small restaurants, sitting on a wall in a piazza and taking life easy. An ILC became an object that delivered less on photographic grounds than the inconvenience of lugging it, and some associated lenses, around, For your use case, I’d go for it, But the renting idea, at least for the initial trip, might be considered,...Show more →
Thanks - I will have my x100vi (and WCL) with me as a backup or for a night out and going super light.
As a person who uses both a full frame and an APS-C kit at times, I’d say that the answer to your question depends on the role photography plays in your travels, how you prefer to photograph, and what you’ll do with the photos.
For most travelers, including many like me who are pretty serious about their photography, the smaller APS-C systems are a great option. I used to travel with full frame gear (including large Canon L zoom lenses) but for about a decade now I have instead traveled (US, Canada, and Europe) extensively with a Fujifilm APS-C system, usually with a small set of primes (occasionally augmented by a zoom or two for special purposes). I typically shoot handheld, though I sometimes do pack a small “emergency tripod.” I also photograph urban scenes at night.
If your travels are not _just_ about photography, there’s a good chance that you’d prefer to not be burdened by a larger system. The smaller system is easier to pack, lighter to carry, and less obviously screams “I am a PHOTOGRAPHER!” to others. (That makes a difference when photographing around people, etc.)
There is no question that the best FF gear can have a bit of an edge when it comes to making extra large prints, especially if you work with a tripod and remote release. But that difference does not become significant, in my experience, until you start printing about about 20” x 30”. If you intend to do that… a high MP FF system with very good lenses, plus tripod and remote release may be called for. Otherwise… stick with the APS-C system. You’ll still get excellent photographs and you won’t be weighed down by bigger gear.
It looks to me like you are doing fine with the APS-C system. Are you seeing some problem with the results?
Enjoy that trip!
pechance wrote:
Headed on a once in a lifetime trip around the Mediterranean. I have shot with Fuji's for many years (since the xpro1 first came out). If I can use a tripod, I do and shoot at low ISOs to manage noise, but tripods are not allowed in many churches and museums. I started looking at the A7RV and honestly a bit of envy crept in. The thought of 1.5+ stops better DR is very appealing. Also it seems the ultra wide options for FF (especially Sony mount) are much stronger than options for Fuji. Both the Viltrox 13 and the Sigma 12 carry some concerns open wide, although reportedly great in the center and mid frame.
I could sell some older equipment to fund the A7RV and a lens or two if needed.
The whole reason I left Nikon all those years ago was weight and even though bodies like the A7RV are not that much larger than the XT5, the lenses are bigger and heavier.
Or, I could upgrade my 16-80 to the 16-55 ii which reviews say is sharp edge to edge at 2.8 at both 16 and 55 which would be a step up from my 16-80. I have extensively used the 16-80 around Europe and while super convenient, 16-18 and 65-80 are not strong areas for sharpness. I need to stop down to 5.6 to improve the corners which in dark churches pushes my ISO up. Being able to shoot at 2.8 would buy me two stops of lower ISO which would help the noise concerns.
I had originally planned to use my 18/1.4 and 33 as the main lenses for the trip, but the convenience and less weight of the 16-55 over two lenses is alluring.
The whole reason I left Nikon all those years ago was weight and even though bodies like the A7RV are not that much larger than the XT5, the lenses are bigger and heavier.
Below are some of the shots I got last week with the 10-24/4 up in St. Louis. Wanted to test to see if that lens would work in dark churches handheld.
p.1 #10 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
gdanmitchell wrote:
As a person who uses both a full frame and an APS-C kit at times, I’d say that the answer to your question depends on the role photography plays in your travels, how you prefer to photograph, and what you’ll do with the photos.
For most travelers, including many like me who are pretty serious about their photography, the smaller APS-C systems are a great option. I used to travel with full frame gear (including large Canon L zoom lenses) but for about a decade now I have instead traveled (US, Canada, and Europe) extensively with a Fujifilm APS-C system, usually with a small set of primes (occasionally augmented by a zoom or two for special purposes). I typically shoot handheld, though I sometimes do pack a small “emergency tripod.” I also photograph urban scenes at night.
If your travels are not _just_ about photography, there’s a good chance that you’d prefer to not be burdened by a larger system. The smaller system is easier to pack, lighter to carry, and less obviously screams “I am a PHOTOGRAPHER!” to others. (That makes a difference when photographing around people, etc.)
There is no question that the best FF gear can have a bit of an edge when it comes to making extra large prints, especially if you work with a tripod and remote release. But that difference does not become significant, in my experience, until you start printing about about 20” x 30”. If you intend to do that… a high MP FF system with very good lenses, plus tripod and remote release may be called for. Otherwise… stick with the APS-C system. You’ll still get excellent photographs and you won’t be weighed down by bigger gear.
It looks to me like you are doing fine with the APS-C system. Are you seeing some problem with the results?
Thanks - the corners are a bit messy even after I run LR denoise - I think it is a combination of the lens characteristics and the high ISO. So perhaps, I keep with my XT5 and adapt to embracing a slightly different style of shooting. If I shoot wide open on and don't try to have everything in focus but rather use the shallow DoF to my advantage. I have simulated that using the lens blur in LR to help me visualize - I think it might work. Thus, I would be able to lower the ISO 3-4 stops if I shot at 1.4/1.8 rather than 5.6.
p.1 #11 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
With today’s denoise software, you could even go MFT. Much smaller but excellent lenses, more depth of field and stellar IBIS that can really help in dark interiors shooting handheld.
FF to me is often more than I want to carry around unless I travel specifically for photography (and I don’t need long glass).
p.1 #12 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
For wide, have you tried the XF 14mm? It's an older one but in my usage of it it holds up quite well on the 40 MP sensor. It's limited to f/2.8 but in exchange it's small and light.
p.1 #13 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
mivadep wrote:
For wide, have you tried the XF 14mm? It's an older one but in my usage of it it holds up quite well on the 40 MP sensor. It's limited to f/2.8 but in exchange it's small and light.
I do have that lens and my copy struggles a lot in the corners at 2.8. I was hoping to use it with the 18/1.4 and 33 as my kit, but....ultrawides in the X system contain a lot of compromises.
p.1 #14 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
Βesides sharpness and low-light performance, would color rendition also be a consideration for you? I’m asking because, after many years of shooting Fuji, I tried Sony full frame and it didn’t work out for me, mainly because of the color rendition.
p.1 #15 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
pechance wrote:
Thanks - the corners are a bit messy even after I run LR denoise - I think it is a combination of the lens characteristics and the high ISO. So perhaps, I keep with my XT5 and adapt to embracing a slightly different style of shooting. If I shoot wide open on and don't try to have everything in focus but rather use the shallow DoF to my advantage. I have simulated that using the lens blur in LR to help me visualize - I think it might work. Thus, I would be able to lower the ISO 3-4 stops if I shot at 1.4/1.8 rather than 5.6. ...Show more →
I think that perhaps you have more of a lens issue than a format issue in this case.
From what I hear (and I do not own the lens), the 16-80 is a fine option for things like travel photography for many people, but it isn't going to have the best corner performance wide open.
So, a lens upgrade might be a more productive option. In my experience, the Fujifilm zoom lenses that I use (with pethe rhaps the exception of my 50-140 f/2.8) are not going to be as sharp in the corners, particularly at the largest apertures and the wide angle end. I have the original 16-55mm f/2.8, and while it can do a fine job stopped down a bit, my primes do better.
You could consider something like a wide prime for those low-light interior shots perhaps. With better corner performance you could shoot at less-than-wide-open apertures and use that Adobe AIDenoise to clean up the noise — it works remarkably well.
My wide lens for travel is the 14mm f/2.8. It does a pretty good job at higher ISOs and especially stopped down just a tiny bit. (That lens was mentioned by another poster earlier in the thread. It is a really great performer, and I think it is a bit of a hidden gem. Not inexpensive, but quite good.)
- - -
To be fair, some Sony folks will justifiably point out that a camera like the full frame Z7CR is pretty small and has excellent detail potential with the right lenses. The trick is finding lenses that meet your needs and which are as small as what will work on Fujifilm.
p.1 #16 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
I have the 18, 33 1.4's and the 56/1.2 which is what I was originally thinking of taking but the idea of a zoom for trips like this with my wife might be better. I have the 16-80 and have used in Ireland, Switzerland and the UK but the corners at f4 are a bit soft at 16 and the long end. It really behaves best, imo, at 20mm-55mm at 5.6.
So upgrading the lens leaves me two options: 16-55 ii or the Sigma 17-40/1.8.
Both are pretty good with the 16-55 ii being smaller but slower. - Ah decisions. The Sigma 17-40 is about the same length as the old 55-200 so I put that on the camera and asked myself how I would like to walk around with it all day. My first thought was "ugh"... but it is fast.
I am confident I will come back with nice shots regardless of which I choose - but this is a good opportunity to upgrade glass.
I have gotten spoiled with my small MF glass (43 and 49mm filters).... If I had the courage, I'd take my 18/2.8 skopar, 27/2 Ultron and 50/2 APO Lanthar - no camera bag - just a fanny pack. But it doesn't really help in low light.
I realize I have a real "first world" issue with too many lenses to choose from and thinking of getting another lens or two is almost silly. Most of my purchases in the last couple years have been primes and no excellent zooms.
p.1 #17 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
pechance wrote:
If I had the courage, I'd take my 18/2.8 skopar, 27/2 Ultron and 50/2 APO Lanthar - no camera bag - just a fanny pack. But it doesn't really help in low light.
Well, now that you mention it... that is approximately what I carry. I travel with the following Fujifilm lenses:
14mm f/2.8
27mm f/2.8 pancake
50mm f/2
The tiny 27mm f/2.8 almost is glued to the camera — I use it for probably 80%-90% of my photographs. The other lenses typically come out in specific situations. The 14mm gets used for some interiors and on some narrow streets and occasionally for a wider, landscape-like shot. the 50mm gets me a bit "closer" (2:1 focal length ratio to the 27mm) and is useful for portrait style shots where I want less and softer background.
One thing that you may learn if you try this is that you'll find ways to make photographs with those lenses that you might have thought would require longer or shorter focal lengths or larger apertures. I describe this as "seeing with the lens you have." Even though I'm an enthusiastic user of rather long focal lengths in my landscape photography, I almost never am stymied by having only 50mm APS-C while traveling. (There are exceptions — recently I was in northwest Scotland with a lot of landscape opportunities so I brought along the 16-55 and the 50-140 plus a 1.4x TC, but that was an exception to my usual rule.)
I know that it is hard to believe that one can shoot this way while traveling – and ultimately it may not be for everyone — but it works so well for me that I would not go back to carrying larger and more lenses.
YMMV.
(Edited after the fact to correct some egregious typos!)
p.1 #19 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
The 16-55II is excellent wide open, I used it alot. Paired with it I have the Sigma 12/1.4 for wider and faster. Its a great little lens. But sometimes I want primes and the 18/1.4 is my fave.
p.1 #20 · Move to FF or Stay with my beloved Fujis
pechance wrote:
Headed on a once in a lifetime trip around the Mediterranean. I have shot with Fuji's for many years (since the xpro1 first came out). If I can use a tripod, I do and shoot at low ISOs to manage noise, but tripods are not allowed in many churches and museums. I started looking at the A7RV and honestly a bit of envy crept in. The thought of 1.5+ stops better DR is very appealing. Also it seems the ultra wide options for FF (especially Sony mount) are much stronger than options for Fuji. Both the Viltrox 13 and the Sigma 12 carry some concerns open wide, although reportedly great in the center and mid frame.
I could sell some older equipment to fund the A7RV and a lens or two if needed.
The whole reason I left Nikon all those years ago was weight and even though bodies like the A7RV are not that much larger than the XT5, the lenses are bigger and heavier.
Or, I could upgrade my 16-80 to the 16-55 ii which reviews say is sharp edge to edge at 2.8 at both 16 and 55 which would be a step up from my 16-80. I have extensively used the 16-80 around Europe and while super convenient, 16-18 and 65-80 are not strong areas for sharpness. I need to stop down to 5.6 to improve the corners which in dark churches pushes my ISO up. Being able to shoot at 2.8 would buy me two stops of lower ISO which would help the noise concerns.
I had originally planned to use my 18/1.4 and 33 as the main lenses for the trip, but the convenience and less weight of the 16-55 over two lenses is alluring.
The whole reason I left Nikon all those years ago was weight and even though bodies like the A7RV are not that much larger than the XT5, the lenses are bigger and heavier.
Below are some of the shots I got last week with the 10-24/4 up in St. Louis. Wanted to test to see if that lens would work in dark churches handheld.
I traded my Sony A7 for an Xpro2 nearly ten years ago, and have never regretted it for a moment, especially when travelling. For that sort of thing the weight and bulk advantages are great, the only relevant technical difference is high iso noise performance, and that is very marginal, and no problem now with software noise reduction.
But you certainly could do with something better than tge 16-80.
