fredmiranda.com
Login

  

  Previous versions of aCuria's message #16900996 « It's happening again »
  

aCuria
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: It's happening again


Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:

Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
shoot more and edit less.
Bring the camera when you are with family
Only bring out 1 lens each day.
Use lighter lenses
Only edit pictures intended for prints 8x10 or bigger.
Shot RAW + JPEG
JPEG sidecar imports into Lightroom faster.
In Lightroom, select all and use auto settings on everything and export. Use that for socials.

Keep the A1 over the A7RIV. A1 is more capable.

Don't bother with the X100VI (521g), its 35/2.8 equivalent.. the FE 35mm F2.8 ZA is only 120g. In the end your camera bag will be the same size anyway.

Fujifilm X-T5 (557g)
XF16-55/2.8 R LM WR II (410g) = 24-82mm f/4 equivalent.
Total 967g

A7CR (515g) or A1 (737g)
24-50/2.8G (440g) = 75/f4 equiv in apsc mode.
Total 955g

APSC is not necessarily lighter than equivalent FF.

IMO just use the A1. You can save the 200g elsewhere. For example my 20k mah powerbank was ~550g. A smaller 5k one can be just 90g. the 200g gives you a much better viewfinder, ergonomics and higher fps

Don't bother with film simulations in-camera. In Lightroom paste a film simulation preset onto all your raw images and export... its kinda the same thing.

Loxia 25/35/50/85 can be sold. Kids move too fast to manual focus.

Keep the other lenses.

Try to use the 20-70 more. Its way lighter.

You want the 20G/35GM primes in low light.

I am not sure about the 50GM, I prefer to use 35mm over 50 but not everyone is the same.

Phone images look good on the phone screen but look like shit when printed 8x10 or bigger. All the flaws get revealed.

Your comparison to Fuji isn't really a fair comparison and is basically cherry picking a comparison to favor Sony. I think it makes sense to compare the X-T5 to the A7r V or compare the X-E5 to the A7Cr. It's not really fair to compare the bigger camera from Fuji with the smaller camera from Sony. Here are those fairer comparisons:

Fuji X-E5 445g; Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 II - 410g for a total of 855g
vs.
Sony A7Cr 515g; Sony 24-50 f/2.8 G - 440g for a total of 960g

So close in weight, but the Fuji kit will be a big lighter. The Sony kit will have more resolution and shallower depth o field on the wide end and the Fuji kit will have more resolution and bit more reach on the long end (40 MP vs. 26 MP when you need to use the Sony in crop mode and 55mm vs. 50mm) so not totally equivalent but not a bad comparison, IMO. This comparison, however, IMO, is still a bit apples to oranges.

You might want to get closer with

Fuji X-E5 445g; Sigma 17-40 f/1.8 Art - 530g total 975g
vs.
Sony A7Cr 515g; Sony 24-50 f/2.8 G - 440g total of 960g

So now we are very close in weight and capability, but the Sony is just a bit wider and the Fuji kit is a bit longer. I think if you want an f/2.8 FF capable kit this is the one that really makes sense to compare and I think the Sony does have the advantage of having a bit more resolution (60 MP vs. 40 MP) and a better ability to crop at a tiny bit less weight.

What if you would trade that f/2.8 FF capability on aperture for a bit less weight, however? There really isn't an option to do that for Sony. There is the old Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/4 that is not really a strong lens, but Sony when with the 20-70 f/4 G when they in effect replaced it. That lens plus the A7Cr gets you a considerably wider perspective, but pushed the kit to 1,000g instead of allowing a smaller kit like the Fuji X-E5 and their 16-55 f/2.8 II.

You could also compare

Fuji X-T5: 557g; Sigma 17-40 f/1.8 Art - 530g total 1087g
vs.
Sony A7r V: 730g; Sony 24-50 f/2.8 G - 440g total 1170g

Again we see a small weight advantage for the Fuji kit. This would of course be exaggerated if we went with f/4 FF equivalents for the zooms with this comparison

Fuji X-T5; 557g; Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 II - 410g total 967g
vs.
Sony A7r V: 730g; Sony 20-70 f/4 488g total 1218g

Here is where we get the notable weight difference, but of course the Sony kit is wider and has higher resolution, If you want a more full sized camera, which I do and you want an f/4 FF equivalent zoom to keep the kit small (I don't want a zoom really for this type of kit I want small MF primes but that is just me), then the Fuji kit can be smaller. At these wide to normal focal length ranges, however, APS-C doesn't gain you much in terms of keeping the kit small if you get equivalent lenses. Those gains occur as the focal lengths get longer. They are also bigger if you want apertures that aren't as wide to keep the size small.

This XE-5 is a new thing, didn’t know it came out. Good thing you mentioned it.

I do think the XT-5 and CR felt similar in hand though… I still believe this comparison to be fair.

The XE-5 may be in a different class (“tiny grip” or “no grip”) together with the sigma FP

You need a 13-70 to match the Sony 20-70… I think on apsc you need 2 lenses to match this range (20-70 is capable of 105mm in apsc mode!)

Not much gains in the medium telephoto space btw
Fuji 50-140 is heavy, so is the 200/2

300GM is lighter and 70-200/4 G2 should be similar or lighter IIRC

Yes, as I said there in no Fuji lens (or really any lens in any system) that matches the 20-70 f/4 G for that focal length range, but it has a 3.5X focal length zoom range and so does the Fuji 16-55, they just cover a different range. Sone will find a 24mm FF equivalent wide enough for such a lens others won't. If that is wide enough the Fuji lens would serve most people better. If it isn't then of course the Sony lens would be better.

You are also right that the Fuji 50-140 and the 200 f/2 are big and heavy (they could each use a revision that is lighter), but if you want to keep a light kit the standout is the 70-300 f/4-5.6. Sony has a pretty similar and almost as light 70-350 f/4.5-6.3 G for APS-C, but nothing in FF that comes close to the size and range of the Fuji lens. The new 500 f/5.6 is also a nice light long lens that pairs well with the X-H2S, IMO, for a very nice, quite light, and not too expensive wildlife (especially for smaller birds) setup.

And sorry to the OP for hijacking the thread. aCuria, if you want to discuss this more let's chat over PM or start another thread.

The Sony 24-50/2.8 is closest to the Fuji 16-55.

The Sony gets you an entire stop more background blur, it’s probably worth carrying the couple extra grams

I have some friends who use the 70-350 on FF as their “lightweight kit” It covers the FF image circle until you get closer to 350mm.

Tamron also has a FF 70-300 that’s lightweight

I find adapting to the way I shoot, to be important to my selection of gear, and when I get gear that adapts well to how I am shooting I want to shoot more. I hope the OP is able to do that and I think he is on the right track in his thoughts. For me and my landscape shooting I used to live near everything that I shot or I shot at places I visited regularly--like where I grew up and my parents lived. When I didn't travel far and knew the places well I could take bigger more capable gear. Now when I shoot landscapes it is almost always a day trip or even longer. I end up carrying the gear a long way and to adapt to that shooting I am taking a lighter kit and for me--at least for now--that means shooting APS-C. This is the landscape kit I am putting together:

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 good image stabilization which will hopefully let me leave the tripod at home

I am pretty sure I can carry this kit with little burden all day which will let me enjoy and adapt to a new style of shooting and which I believe will let me enjoy shooting more and may even lead to me shooting more often.

Yeah a full frame kit would be better technically, and a 44 X 33 sensor kit would be even better technically, but even a Sony FF kit (and Sony is good at making their gear small) that has this sort of flexibility would weigh a lot more. The comparable Sony FF kit would be:

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 - 1,395g
total weight: 3,197g and that is almost 1.3 kg or three pounds heavier and for me makes the difference between a kit that is easy to take on a day trip and kit that is a chore. Yeah the Sony kit would produce technically better photos, but would I enjoy the process as much? Would I wear out and go home early and end up missing photo opportunities?

All this is to say that I think the OP might want to think about more than technical excellence if he wants to reignite his passion for photography. That might be an issue, but it does not seem to be the overriding issue in this case, but maybe I am not completely understanding his situation. I would still encourage him to develop a kit that he finds is well adapted to the type of shooting he wants to do.

100-400GM does not belong in a landscape kit imo. Its rather heavy.

A7CR 515g
Sony 16-35/4G 353g
Tamron 50-300mm F/4.5-6.3 665g
Use APSC mode if you need longer than 300mm.
Total 1533g

Well that kit would never work for me. I hate power zooms for their ergonomics and a 6X zoom focal length range with an f/9.5 equivalent wide open aperture at the long end is putting that 6X zoom into pretty noticeable diffraction territory with an already lower MP count. And then you have zero coverage from 35mm to 50mm a very important range for me. No thanks.

Interestingly, when I posted about this plan on a landscape thread on the Fuji forum a different FM member who shoots Nikon suggested that Fuji 70-300 wasn't good enough and it would be a huge downgrade not to use the 100-400 for landscapes. My own view is that the Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6 sits in a sweet spot with a 4.3X zoom focal length range (like a 24-105 FF lens), a small size and weight, but just having a wide enough aperture to stay out of the more serious problems with diffraction. I will see if that is my experience as I try the kit. What is clear is that there is no FF lens that has a similar effective focal length range and effective aperture (i.e., similar entrance pupil and depth of field) as the Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6. On FF you either get a much bigger lens like the 100-400 that has a similar focal length range, or you get a lens that is just a little bigger with a bigger focal length range, a shorter effective focal length, and a smaller entrance pupil that let's in less light like the Tamron 50-300 f/4.5-6.3. Both lenses miss the sweet spot, IMO, and I don't think either of them would let me shoot landscapes the way I would like to.

By the way, here is what Fred had to say about the Fuji 70-300:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1869008/0&year=2024#16617040

It is actually a really good lens.


Steve Spencer wrote:
you have zero coverage from 35mm to 50mm a very important range for me.


FF 35mm in apsc mode is 53mm.
Below 53mm the effective sensor size exceeds apsc.

Complaining about coverage here is equivalent to saying that APSC image quality is not good enough for you.
But if that's the case why are you using an APSC kit?

Steve Spencer wrote:
I hate power zooms for their ergonomics


Tbh its very helpful if you do any video at all.
There ARE poor PZ implementations but Sony did a pretty good job of the zoom. Often I forget its actually a power zoom.
Its not like you are going to shoot sports with a 16-35 right..
And for landscapes it really does not matter.

You can use a 16-35GMii instead, its only 547g
or the 17-50

Steve Spencer wrote:
f/9.5 equivalent wide open aperture at the long end is putting that 6X zoom into pretty noticeable diffraction territory


Its f/9 equiv.
This also shows me your understanding of diffraction is faulty.
You do not use "equivalent" apertures to calculate diffraction.

Maybe a simple way to explain it to you is that If i take an image at 300/6.3 FF, there is no change in diffraction regardless of how I crop the image.


Steve Spencer wrote:
Both lenses miss the sweet spot,


I suppose your sweet spot is fueled by the incorrect diffraction understanding?

Steve Spencer wrote:
suggested that Fuji 70-300 wasn't good enough


Depends how picky you are... Ansel Adams used large format and primes

Wow, you certainly like to tell me what matters to me and what I know and don't know.

For the record, you clearly don't understand why I would like a zoom instead of cropping. One advantage of a zoom is that you can frame precisely. I fully understand what cropping does, and that from 35-50mm in your scheme I would have to crop and that sort of a crop will not wreck the image quality any more that shooting APS-C will, but and this is important to me, in that 35-50mm range I could not frame the shot precisely and I want to be able to do that to help me see the shot I want to take. Cropping does not allow that. I am all for cropping in some situations, but I know both what it can bring and what it can't and for me one of the things about landscape shooting is that framing the shot in camera can help me see the shot I want to get. Cropping doesn't allow that.

It is amazing that you think you can try to tell me what my ergonomic preferences should be. I know what a power zoom is. I have used them and find them annoying. I would think you would allow me that preference, but I guess you cannot tolerate people who have different preferences from you.

Please don't try to explain diffraction to me as it is clear you don't understand things as well as you think you do. The perception of diffraction is affected by among other things the magnification of the image. If you don't think so, then try viewing an image shot at f/16 at 25% magnification and 100% magnification. The effect of diffraction will be much more easily perceived at 100% magnification. Because cropping affects magnification of the image it does affect perception of diffraction, but not actual diffraction, but it is perception of diffraction that matters after all isn't it? So cropping an image does't affect the amount of diffraction, but it does affect the perception of diffraction. Just like cropping affects the perception of depth of field, so you are just wrong if you think cropping doesn't affect the perception of diffraction. And effective aperture is a really good guide to the increase in the perception of diffraction as cropping magnifies the image. It is pretty amazing that someone who cares so much about image quality doesn't understand this basic relation between diffraction and magnification and cropping.

And no my sweet spot is not fueled by my misunderstanding of diffraction. It is you who misunderstand diffraction. I know from my own shooting when it starts to be a nuisance to me and when it doesn't. You can try to tell me not to trust my eyes. That seems the road you are embarking down, but I think I will always be able to trust my eyes despite what you say.

You also seem to like to tell me I am not picky enough and I guess Fred isn't either as he likes the same lens that I do. Full of yourself much? There are real trade offs between size of a lens and capabilities of a lens and I find the Fuji 70-300 to hit the sweet spot in the tradeoff quite well. You don't have to suggest that I am not picky because I make tradeoff differently from you. Doing so is in fact quite rude, but you appear to very much like being rude and suggesting other people have inferior understanding to you. Sometimes people just disagree because they have different preferences, not because you know better than they do. You don't seem to appreciate that.




Steve Spencer wrote:
Wow, you certainly like to tell me what matters to me and what I know and don't know.


Steve, you have been quoting me in your replies and I have taken the time to respond to you. I am telling you what matters to me, you can decide if it matters to you or not.


Steve Spencer wrote:
you have zero coverage from 35mm to 50mm a very important range for me.


Steve Spencer wrote:
For the record, you clearly don't understand why I would like a zoom instead of cropping. One advantage of a zoom is that you can frame precisely. I fully understand what cropping does, and that from 35-50mm in your scheme I would have to crop and that sort of a crop will not wreck the image quality any more that shooting APS-C will, but and this is important to me, in that 35-50mm range I could not frame the shot precisely and I want to be able to do that to help me see the shot I want to take.


Steve, even without cropping in POST at all you do get full coverage in-camera.
Toggle APSC mode and you get a 24-53mm lens, then frame in camera as you will.
From 16-35mm you get FF image quality, and from 36-49mm you get APSC image quality.

Steve Spencer wrote:
It is amazing that you think you can try to tell me what my ergonomic preferences should be. I know what a power zoom is.


This is not telling you what your preferences should be. I am not saying “you shouldn’t hate power zooms” or “you must like them”.

I did acknowledged your critique (“There ARE poor PZ implementations…”).
Offered a counter-perspective (“Sony did a pretty good job…”).
Provided context/use-cases (video, not sports, landscapes don’t matter).
Gave personal testimony (“Often I forget it’s actually a power zoom”).


Steve Spencer wrote:
If you don't think so, then try viewing an image shot at f/16 at 25% magnification and 100% magnification. The effect of diffraction will be much more easily perceived at 100% magnification. Because cropping affects magnification of the image it does affect perception of diffraction, but not actual diffraction, but it is perception of diffraction that matters after all isn't it?


We were discussing shooting at f/5.6 - f/6.3, we are not diffraction limited at f/6.3 on the A7CR.

I don't see how shooting at f/16 is relevant but I will humor you here. I agree that if diffraction limited (eg: at f/16), diffraction effects will be more apparent the larger you print.

However an APS-C sensor requires more enlargement to reach the same final print size. A larger sensor (full-frame or medium format) needs less magnification for the same output. That’s why diffraction appears more obvious in prints from smaller sensors at the same f-number.

Steve Spencer wrote:
cropping affects the perception of depth of field


This is another can of worms. If you keep the same focal length, distance to subject and aperture, cropping does not affect the "real" depth of field measured in mm.

Its not so clear to me why you think the "perception" of depth of field will change when depth of field itself doesn't change.

Steve Spencer wrote:
you are just wrong if you think cropping doesn't affect the perception of diffraction. And effective aperture is a really good guide to the increase in the perception of diffraction as cropping magnifies the image. It is pretty amazing that someone who cares so much about image quality doesn't understand this basic relation between diffraction and magnification and cropping.


My position is that we are not diffraction limited at f/6.3. I have made no statement on the perception of diffraction

This is the classic straw-man fallacy. You have misrepresented my position in order to argue about "perception of diffraction" which is irrelevant to the original discussion

Steve Spencer wrote:
f/9.5 equivalent wide open aperture at the long end is putting that 6X zoom into pretty noticeable diffraction territory


Why don't you defend your position directly using facts?
We are not diffraction limited at 300/6.3 on the A7CR.
Where do you get f/9.5 from, and why are we in diffraction territory.

Steve Spencer wrote:
Interestingly, when I posted about this plan on a landscape thread on the Fuji forum a different FM member who shoots Nikon suggested that Fuji 70-300 wasn't good enough


aCuria wrote:
Depends how picky you are... Ansel Adams used large format and primes


Steve Spencer wrote:
You also seem to like to tell me I am not picky enough and I guess Fred isn't either as he likes the same lens that I do. Full of yourself much? There are real trade offs between size of a lens and capabilities of a lens and I find the Fuji 70-300 to hit the sweet spot in the tradeoff quite well. You don't have to suggest that I am not picky because I make tradeoff differently from you. Doing so is in fact quite rude, but you appear to very much like being rude and suggesting other people have inferior understanding to you. Sometimes people just disagree because they have different preferences, not because you know better than they do. You don't seem to appreciate that.


Steve, I think there’s a misunderstanding about my earlier comment. Let’s look at exactly what I wrote:

"Depends how picky you are... Ansel Adams used large format and primes"

First, the phrase ‘Depends how picky you are’ is a general qualifier it doesn’t address you or Fred personally. It’s just setting up a spectrum of how selective photographers can be.

Second, the reference to ‘Ansel Adams used large format and primes’ is an illustrative example of someone historically known for being very particular about gear. Again, it’s descriptive, not prescriptive.

Taken together, the comment is merely pointing out that photographers make different choices depending on how selective they want to be, it does not imply that your or Fred’s choices are insufficient or that you are ‘not picky enough.’ Any inference that it’s a critique of your preferences is a misreading of the text. My intent was simply to provide context about trade-offs in gear choices, not to comment on your judgment or understanding.


What is clear is that you don't understand my preferences and why I want a smaller kit for landscapes. My preferences are not driven by how picky I am. They are driven by my shooting now being primarily day hikes and how much I can carry for such hikes. If I decided to be more picky that wouldn't change what gear I bought or what I use to shoot landscapes. That you bring up that my decision depends on how picky I am is saying that if I was more picky I would make different decisions.That is what depends on means. I am not misreading what you wrote. You are simply wrong about my preferences and you are mischaracterizing them in a way I find rude,

Now in choosing between gear that I can carry for the types of hikes I do, quality does matter to me and I don't think that the Tamron 50-300 f/4.5-6.3 is anywhere near the quality of the Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6. I may be wrong, but your arguments are hardly convincing that somehow the Tamron would give me better images especially when it too would have to be cropped for much of its range.

Further although it is true that I you can of course visualize a 1.5X crop in the viewfinder on Sony cameras, and I find that works well on my A7r V, part of the reason I don't have an A7Cr as you recommend is that I rather hate the tiny viewfinder in the A7C cameras. What I was trying to say is not that you can't visualize the crop with the gear that you recommended, but the for me the visualization of the crop is inferior with the system your recommended and I know that using that viewfinder is something that I don't want to do. It is the same reason that I don't choose the Fuji X-E5 and one of the primary reasons I chose a Sony A7r V over the A7Cr in the first place.

Now let's talk about magnification and diffraction, and the relation between them that you do not seem to fully understand. Dan did a good job of trying to explain it to you as well, so I won't go into depth here, but the first thing you need to know is that thinking that there is some f/number when diffraction matters and it doesn't matter if you are below that f/number, what you seem to call diffraction limited, is not right. Diffraction begins to affect our images from the moment we stop down a lens. For almost all lenses, however, the reduction of aberrations improves the image as we stop down much more than diffraction limits the image. That changes as we stop down, however, as gains in aberration reduction diminish. The question isn't whether diffraction affects the image at all. It does, but typically the effect is so small at wider aperture that we can't perceive it at all. The question is when does diffraction become noticeable and that is a function of both how small the aperture is and how much we magnify the image. Cropping the image either in post-processing or by using a smaller part of the sensor magnifies the image and makes diffraction more noticeable at a wider aperture.

Now how do these basic facts about diffraction apply to the decision between the Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6 and the Tamron 50-300 f/4.5-6.3? I agree that on full frame I don't find diffraction noticeable at f/6.3. I do find diffraction just noticeable, but not objectionable on an APS-C sized sensor or part of the sensor at f/6.3. I start to find diffraction to be a little problematic only at f/11 on full frame and f/8 on an APS-C sensor or part of the sensor. What this means is that the Tamron lens can hardly be stopped down at all if you are cropping the images and taking a zoom with that large of a focal length range and expecting to use the long end without even really being able to stop it down a stop is in my estimation asking for frustration. Frankly, what I worry most about with the Fuji 70-300 is exactly this same issue. Will I be able to stop it down enough at the long end (from 312 to 450 FF equivalent)? It seems from the experience of people here on FM that with this particular lens that isn't necessary on the long end, which is rare for a zoom. I have serious doubts that the same would be true about the Tamron 50-300.

Finally you ask where I get the f/9.5 number from? That is easy it is a function of the entrance pupil of the lens which by the way is what is directly related to diffraction. The size of the entrance pupil is the focal length of the lens divided by the f/number. So when we say a 300mm lens has an effective focal length of 450mm, we are multiplying the the focal length by 1.5. If you do the algebra, then you will find that the actual size of the entrance pupil of a 300mm lens at f/6.3 is the same as a 450mm lens at f/9.5. And we know that when the 300 f/6.3 lens is used on an APS-C sensor or and APS-C size portion of a sensor, it will look just like a 450mm f/9.5 lens on FF in field of view, depth of field, and diffraction. It has the same depth of field and diffraction as such a lens because it has the same sized entrance pupil. If you don't want to do all the math just know that you can multiply the f/number by the crop factor and that will tell you about the depth of field and diffraction in FF terms. So, f/6.3 time 1.5 is f/9.5.

Steve Spencer wrote:
You don't understand my preferences and why I want a smaller kit for landscapes


I understood that part, which is why I proposed an even smaller kit for landscapes.

Steve Spencer wrote:
quality does matter to me


Ok, then we do agree on something.

Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think that the Tamron 50-300 f/4.5-6.3 is anywhere near the quality of the Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6


I cant comment on the quality of this Fuji lens, but I wont expect either to approach the level of a 70-200GMii

However, typically FF will produce higher real resolution unless the FF lens is really abysmal. For example if a lens produces 60 lp/mm then we will get 60 * 15.6 = 936 lp/mm on APSC, but on a FF sensor we will get 60 * 24 = 1440 lp/ph.

This advantage will drop off as we approach 450mm equivalent, but I would expect the FF system to produce more real resolution at 50-300mm, (and even above 300mm if you crop in POST) even if the Fuji lens is somewhat better.

Steve Spencer wrote:
although it is true that I you can of course visualize a 1.5X crop in the viewfinder on Sony cameras, and I find that works well on my A7r V, part of the reason I don't have an A7Cr as you recommend is that I rather hate the tiny viewfinder in the A7C cameras.


Lets drop the A7CR then, we both like nice viewfinders, and the A7RV has far and away the best one.
You don't like PZ lenses so lets drop that too
These are some examples of FF setups similar in weight to the X-T5 setup proposed.

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

Option 1
Sony A7r V - 730g
Sony 17-50/4 - 460g
Tamron 70-300mm F/4.5-6.3 - 545g
Total 1735g

Option 2
Sony A7r V - 730g
Sony 16-35GMii - 547g
Tamron 50-300mm F/4.5-6.3 - 665g
Total 1942g

Steve Spencer wrote:
Diffraction begins to affect our images from the moment we stop down a lens.


This is true in principle. Diffraction is always present at any finite aperture. The Airy pattern is there no matter what.

However it is also misleading. At wide apertures, the Airy disk is much smaller than the blur from lens aberrations, so diffraction has no practical effect on image resolution. The system is not diffraction-limited there it is aberration-limited. So, saying “diffraction always affects the image” is technically correct but functionally unhelpful, because its effect can be completely swamped by aberrations until you stop down.

Steve Spencer wrote:
There is no f/number where diffraction matters and doesn’t matter below that.


This misunderstands the conventional use of “diffraction-limited.” In optics, a system is “diffraction-limited” when its resolution is constrained only by diffraction, not by lens flaws. That does imply there is a practical f-number below which the lens is not diffraction-limited (because aberrations dominate), and above which diffraction sets the fundamental ceiling. So it’s incorrect to reject the idea that diffraction-limited apertures exist.

Steve Spencer wrote:
The question is when diffraction becomes noticeable … and that is a function of both aperture and magnification.


Cropping or magnifying an image does not alter diffraction itself, the size of the Airy disk is determined solely by wavelength and aperture. What cropping does is lower the effective line pairs per picture height (lp/ph), making the loss of resolution more apparent in the final output. We do not directly “see diffraction”. what we perceive is the reduction in lens resolution that diffraction, or other aberrations, produces. Whether this reduction becomes visible depends on how the effective image resolution compares to the eye’s angular resolving power at the chosen viewing distance. Once resolution drops below that threshold, the image appears soft, regardless of whether the limit is set by diffraction, aberrations, or both.



Steve Spencer wrote:
What this means is that the Tamron lens can hardly be stopped down at all if you are cropping the images and taking a zoom with that large of a focal length range and expecting to use the long end without even really being able to stop it down a stop is in my estimation asking for frustration. Frankly, what I worry most about with the Fuji 70-300 is exactly this same issue. Will I be able to stop it down enough at the long end (from 312 to 450 FF equivalent)? It seems from the experience of people here on FM that with this particular lens that isn't necessary on the long end, which is rare for a zoom. I have serious doubts that the same would be true about the Tamron 50-300.


What do you mean by "stop down enough"? Are you worried about insufficient depth of field?

I am glad we are finally getting on the same page, but I would think you could see why I have zero interest in either Option 1 or Option 2 that you propose. For option 1, do you mean the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 DC which is an APS-C lens for DSLRs? Sigma does not make a 17-50 f/4 FF 35mm AFAIK. They also make a 16-50 f/2.8 DC APS-C lens that is lighter than what you seem to be suggesting, but I don't know anyone who makes a 17-50 f/4 lens for FF Sony and even if they did I would like something just a little wider for my landscape kit. If you mean one of the f/2.8 APS-C lenses that kit isn't nearly wide angle enough for my needs. It is only the equivalent of 25-26mm at the wide end on FF. That just isn't going to work for me, and if you are trying to say I should try to use one of those APS-C lenses as a FF lens, I don't buy it especially for landscapes when you often have to shoot at or near infinity focus. I have adapted a lot of FF lenses to the Fuji GF system and adapting a lens made for a smaller format to a larger format generally has limitations. That can work for some things, but in my experience does not work for landscapes.

For Option 2 (and this applies to Option 1 as well), it should be obvious by now why I wouldn't want that Tamron 70-300 (or as we discussed the Tamron 50-300). I think the Fuji 70-300 is a much better bet and a much better lens. On the Fuji forum several people I trust (including Fred) and some with nice shots to illustrate it have argued that the Fuji lens can be used across its whole focal length range and is sharp wide open across the frame. Is that true for the Tamron 70-300? I doubt it and you haven't used the lens and seem to be just suggesting it only to offer a Sony alternative. Further at the long end either Tamron lens is f/6.3 and if the performance is only better when it is stopped down a stop or two, as is often typical for such zooms, then I would be stuck with either suboptimal performance at f/6.3 or performance affected by diffraction when stopped down. I am going with the lens for which people who I trust have suggested that it will do what I want it to do, rather than the lens that is unproven that you suggest when you haven't even used the lens and there is lots of reason to suspect the lens will be suboptimal for my needs.

I don't think it is too hard to figure out why I made the decision I made, and why I don't think either of your options will even come close to creating the kit I want to create.

By the way, I did consider a number of Sony kits when I was deciding what to buy. You got not too far from what I thought was the best Sony kit in your Option 2. That would be:

Sony A7r V - 730g
Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM II - 547G
Sony 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G OSS - 854g
Total: 2,131g
This kit is just over 200g and about half a pound heavier than the Fuji kit I ended up choosing and would be better for wide angle shooting, but I still expect the Fuji kit to be slightly better for most of the focal length range and I appreciate its smaller size. If I am dissatisfied with the Fuji kit for landscapes based on it performance, however, I might well turn to this setup.

https://www.tamron.com/global/consumer/lenses/a068/

Tamron 17-40/4

I am not a fan of the Sony 70-300.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHQFm0Ivi_w&t=1714s&pp=ygUGNTAtMzAw

I would rank the lenses in this order, considering quality and cost

1) Tamron 50-300 VXD
2) Tamron 70-300 RXD
3) Sony 70-300G (I feel its too pricey)


Oct 02, 2025 at 10:41 AM
aCuria
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: It's happening again


Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:

Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
shoot more and edit less.
Bring the camera when you are with family
Only bring out 1 lens each day.
Use lighter lenses
Only edit pictures intended for prints 8x10 or bigger.
Shot RAW + JPEG
JPEG sidecar imports into Lightroom faster.
In Lightroom, select all and use auto settings on everything and export. Use that for socials.

Keep the A1 over the A7RIV. A1 is more capable.

Don't bother with the X100VI (521g), its 35/2.8 equivalent.. the FE 35mm F2.8 ZA is only 120g. In the end your camera bag will be the same size anyway.

Fujifilm X-T5 (557g)
XF16-55/2.8 R LM WR II (410g) = 24-82mm f/4 equivalent.
Total 967g

A7CR (515g) or A1 (737g)
24-50/2.8G (440g) = 75/f4 equiv in apsc mode.
Total 955g

APSC is not necessarily lighter than equivalent FF.

IMO just use the A1. You can save the 200g elsewhere. For example my 20k mah powerbank was ~550g. A smaller 5k one can be just 90g. the 200g gives you a much better viewfinder, ergonomics and higher fps

Don't bother with film simulations in-camera. In Lightroom paste a film simulation preset onto all your raw images and export... its kinda the same thing.

Loxia 25/35/50/85 can be sold. Kids move too fast to manual focus.

Keep the other lenses.

Try to use the 20-70 more. Its way lighter.

You want the 20G/35GM primes in low light.

I am not sure about the 50GM, I prefer to use 35mm over 50 but not everyone is the same.

Phone images look good on the phone screen but look like shit when printed 8x10 or bigger. All the flaws get revealed.

Your comparison to Fuji isn't really a fair comparison and is basically cherry picking a comparison to favor Sony. I think it makes sense to compare the X-T5 to the A7r V or compare the X-E5 to the A7Cr. It's not really fair to compare the bigger camera from Fuji with the smaller camera from Sony. Here are those fairer comparisons:

Fuji X-E5 445g; Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 II - 410g for a total of 855g
vs.
Sony A7Cr 515g; Sony 24-50 f/2.8 G - 440g for a total of 960g

So close in weight, but the Fuji kit will be a big lighter. The Sony kit will have more resolution and shallower depth o field on the wide end and the Fuji kit will have more resolution and bit more reach on the long end (40 MP vs. 26 MP when you need to use the Sony in crop mode and 55mm vs. 50mm) so not totally equivalent but not a bad comparison, IMO. This comparison, however, IMO, is still a bit apples to oranges.

You might want to get closer with

Fuji X-E5 445g; Sigma 17-40 f/1.8 Art - 530g total 975g
vs.
Sony A7Cr 515g; Sony 24-50 f/2.8 G - 440g total of 960g

So now we are very close in weight and capability, but the Sony is just a bit wider and the Fuji kit is a bit longer. I think if you want an f/2.8 FF capable kit this is the one that really makes sense to compare and I think the Sony does have the advantage of having a bit more resolution (60 MP vs. 40 MP) and a better ability to crop at a tiny bit less weight.

What if you would trade that f/2.8 FF capability on aperture for a bit less weight, however? There really isn't an option to do that for Sony. There is the old Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/4 that is not really a strong lens, but Sony when with the 20-70 f/4 G when they in effect replaced it. That lens plus the A7Cr gets you a considerably wider perspective, but pushed the kit to 1,000g instead of allowing a smaller kit like the Fuji X-E5 and their 16-55 f/2.8 II.

You could also compare

Fuji X-T5: 557g; Sigma 17-40 f/1.8 Art - 530g total 1087g
vs.
Sony A7r V: 730g; Sony 24-50 f/2.8 G - 440g total 1170g

Again we see a small weight advantage for the Fuji kit. This would of course be exaggerated if we went with f/4 FF equivalents for the zooms with this comparison

Fuji X-T5; 557g; Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 II - 410g total 967g
vs.
Sony A7r V: 730g; Sony 20-70 f/4 488g total 1218g

Here is where we get the notable weight difference, but of course the Sony kit is wider and has higher resolution, If you want a more full sized camera, which I do and you want an f/4 FF equivalent zoom to keep the kit small (I don't want a zoom really for this type of kit I want small MF primes but that is just me), then the Fuji kit can be smaller. At these wide to normal focal length ranges, however, APS-C doesn't gain you much in terms of keeping the kit small if you get equivalent lenses. Those gains occur as the focal lengths get longer. They are also bigger if you want apertures that aren't as wide to keep the size small.

This XE-5 is a new thing, didn’t know it came out. Good thing you mentioned it.

I do think the XT-5 and CR felt similar in hand though… I still believe this comparison to be fair.

The XE-5 may be in a different class (“tiny grip” or “no grip”) together with the sigma FP

You need a 13-70 to match the Sony 20-70… I think on apsc you need 2 lenses to match this range (20-70 is capable of 105mm in apsc mode!)

Not much gains in the medium telephoto space btw
Fuji 50-140 is heavy, so is the 200/2

300GM is lighter and 70-200/4 G2 should be similar or lighter IIRC

Yes, as I said there in no Fuji lens (or really any lens in any system) that matches the 20-70 f/4 G for that focal length range, but it has a 3.5X focal length zoom range and so does the Fuji 16-55, they just cover a different range. Sone will find a 24mm FF equivalent wide enough for such a lens others won't. If that is wide enough the Fuji lens would serve most people better. If it isn't then of course the Sony lens would be better.

You are also right that the Fuji 50-140 and the 200 f/2 are big and heavy (they could each use a revision that is lighter), but if you want to keep a light kit the standout is the 70-300 f/4-5.6. Sony has a pretty similar and almost as light 70-350 f/4.5-6.3 G for APS-C, but nothing in FF that comes close to the size and range of the Fuji lens. The new 500 f/5.6 is also a nice light long lens that pairs well with the X-H2S, IMO, for a very nice, quite light, and not too expensive wildlife (especially for smaller birds) setup.

And sorry to the OP for hijacking the thread. aCuria, if you want to discuss this more let's chat over PM or start another thread.

The Sony 24-50/2.8 is closest to the Fuji 16-55.

The Sony gets you an entire stop more background blur, it’s probably worth carrying the couple extra grams

I have some friends who use the 70-350 on FF as their “lightweight kit” It covers the FF image circle until you get closer to 350mm.

Tamron also has a FF 70-300 that’s lightweight

I find adapting to the way I shoot, to be important to my selection of gear, and when I get gear that adapts well to how I am shooting I want to shoot more. I hope the OP is able to do that and I think he is on the right track in his thoughts. For me and my landscape shooting I used to live near everything that I shot or I shot at places I visited regularly--like where I grew up and my parents lived. When I didn't travel far and knew the places well I could take bigger more capable gear. Now when I shoot landscapes it is almost always a day trip or even longer. I end up carrying the gear a long way and to adapt to that shooting I am taking a lighter kit and for me--at least for now--that means shooting APS-C. This is the landscape kit I am putting together:

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 good image stabilization which will hopefully let me leave the tripod at home

I am pretty sure I can carry this kit with little burden all day which will let me enjoy and adapt to a new style of shooting and which I believe will let me enjoy shooting more and may even lead to me shooting more often.

Yeah a full frame kit would be better technically, and a 44 X 33 sensor kit would be even better technically, but even a Sony FF kit (and Sony is good at making their gear small) that has this sort of flexibility would weigh a lot more. The comparable Sony FF kit would be:

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 - 1,395g
total weight: 3,197g and that is almost 1.3 kg or three pounds heavier and for me makes the difference between a kit that is easy to take on a day trip and kit that is a chore. Yeah the Sony kit would produce technically better photos, but would I enjoy the process as much? Would I wear out and go home early and end up missing photo opportunities?

All this is to say that I think the OP might want to think about more than technical excellence if he wants to reignite his passion for photography. That might be an issue, but it does not seem to be the overriding issue in this case, but maybe I am not completely understanding his situation. I would still encourage him to develop a kit that he finds is well adapted to the type of shooting he wants to do.

100-400GM does not belong in a landscape kit imo. Its rather heavy.

A7CR 515g
Sony 16-35/4G 353g
Tamron 50-300mm F/4.5-6.3 665g
Use APSC mode if you need longer than 300mm.
Total 1533g

Well that kit would never work for me. I hate power zooms for their ergonomics and a 6X zoom focal length range with an f/9.5 equivalent wide open aperture at the long end is putting that 6X zoom into pretty noticeable diffraction territory with an already lower MP count. And then you have zero coverage from 35mm to 50mm a very important range for me. No thanks.

Interestingly, when I posted about this plan on a landscape thread on the Fuji forum a different FM member who shoots Nikon suggested that Fuji 70-300 wasn't good enough and it would be a huge downgrade not to use the 100-400 for landscapes. My own view is that the Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6 sits in a sweet spot with a 4.3X zoom focal length range (like a 24-105 FF lens), a small size and weight, but just having a wide enough aperture to stay out of the more serious problems with diffraction. I will see if that is my experience as I try the kit. What is clear is that there is no FF lens that has a similar effective focal length range and effective aperture (i.e., similar entrance pupil and depth of field) as the Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6. On FF you either get a much bigger lens like the 100-400 that has a similar focal length range, or you get a lens that is just a little bigger with a bigger focal length range, a shorter effective focal length, and a smaller entrance pupil that let's in less light like the Tamron 50-300 f/4.5-6.3. Both lenses miss the sweet spot, IMO, and I don't think either of them would let me shoot landscapes the way I would like to.

By the way, here is what Fred had to say about the Fuji 70-300:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1869008/0&year=2024#16617040

It is actually a really good lens.


Steve Spencer wrote:
you have zero coverage from 35mm to 50mm a very important range for me.


FF 35mm in apsc mode is 53mm.
Below 53mm the effective sensor size exceeds apsc.

Complaining about coverage here is equivalent to saying that APSC image quality is not good enough for you.
But if that's the case why are you using an APSC kit?

Steve Spencer wrote:
I hate power zooms for their ergonomics


Tbh its very helpful if you do any video at all.
There ARE poor PZ implementations but Sony did a pretty good job of the zoom. Often I forget its actually a power zoom.
Its not like you are going to shoot sports with a 16-35 right..
And for landscapes it really does not matter.

You can use a 16-35GMii instead, its only 547g
or the 17-50

Steve Spencer wrote:
f/9.5 equivalent wide open aperture at the long end is putting that 6X zoom into pretty noticeable diffraction territory


Its f/9 equiv.
This also shows me your understanding of diffraction is faulty.
You do not use "equivalent" apertures to calculate diffraction.

Maybe a simple way to explain it to you is that If i take an image at 300/6.3 FF, there is no change in diffraction regardless of how I crop the image.


Steve Spencer wrote:
Both lenses miss the sweet spot,


I suppose your sweet spot is fueled by the incorrect diffraction understanding?

Steve Spencer wrote:
suggested that Fuji 70-300 wasn't good enough


Depends how picky you are... Ansel Adams used large format and primes

Wow, you certainly like to tell me what matters to me and what I know and don't know.

For the record, you clearly don't understand why I would like a zoom instead of cropping. One advantage of a zoom is that you can frame precisely. I fully understand what cropping does, and that from 35-50mm in your scheme I would have to crop and that sort of a crop will not wreck the image quality any more that shooting APS-C will, but and this is important to me, in that 35-50mm range I could not frame the shot precisely and I want to be able to do that to help me see the shot I want to take. Cropping does not allow that. I am all for cropping in some situations, but I know both what it can bring and what it can't and for me one of the things about landscape shooting is that framing the shot in camera can help me see the shot I want to get. Cropping doesn't allow that.

It is amazing that you think you can try to tell me what my ergonomic preferences should be. I know what a power zoom is. I have used them and find them annoying. I would think you would allow me that preference, but I guess you cannot tolerate people who have different preferences from you.

Please don't try to explain diffraction to me as it is clear you don't understand things as well as you think you do. The perception of diffraction is affected by among other things the magnification of the image. If you don't think so, then try viewing an image shot at f/16 at 25% magnification and 100% magnification. The effect of diffraction will be much more easily perceived at 100% magnification. Because cropping affects magnification of the image it does affect perception of diffraction, but not actual diffraction, but it is perception of diffraction that matters after all isn't it? So cropping an image does't affect the amount of diffraction, but it does affect the perception of diffraction. Just like cropping affects the perception of depth of field, so you are just wrong if you think cropping doesn't affect the perception of diffraction. And effective aperture is a really good guide to the increase in the perception of diffraction as cropping magnifies the image. It is pretty amazing that someone who cares so much about image quality doesn't understand this basic relation between diffraction and magnification and cropping.

And no my sweet spot is not fueled by my misunderstanding of diffraction. It is you who misunderstand diffraction. I know from my own shooting when it starts to be a nuisance to me and when it doesn't. You can try to tell me not to trust my eyes. That seems the road you are embarking down, but I think I will always be able to trust my eyes despite what you say.

You also seem to like to tell me I am not picky enough and I guess Fred isn't either as he likes the same lens that I do. Full of yourself much? There are real trade offs between size of a lens and capabilities of a lens and I find the Fuji 70-300 to hit the sweet spot in the tradeoff quite well. You don't have to suggest that I am not picky because I make tradeoff differently from you. Doing so is in fact quite rude, but you appear to very much like being rude and suggesting other people have inferior understanding to you. Sometimes people just disagree because they have different preferences, not because you know better than they do. You don't seem to appreciate that.




Steve Spencer wrote:
Wow, you certainly like to tell me what matters to me and what I know and don't know.


Steve, you have been quoting me in your replies and I have taken the time to respond to you. I am telling you what matters to me, you can decide if it matters to you or not.


Steve Spencer wrote:
you have zero coverage from 35mm to 50mm a very important range for me.


Steve Spencer wrote:
For the record, you clearly don't understand why I would like a zoom instead of cropping. One advantage of a zoom is that you can frame precisely. I fully understand what cropping does, and that from 35-50mm in your scheme I would have to crop and that sort of a crop will not wreck the image quality any more that shooting APS-C will, but and this is important to me, in that 35-50mm range I could not frame the shot precisely and I want to be able to do that to help me see the shot I want to take.


Steve, even without cropping in POST at all you do get full coverage in-camera.
Toggle APSC mode and you get a 24-53mm lens, then frame in camera as you will.
From 16-35mm you get FF image quality, and from 36-49mm you get APSC image quality.

Steve Spencer wrote:
It is amazing that you think you can try to tell me what my ergonomic preferences should be. I know what a power zoom is.


This is not telling you what your preferences should be. I am not saying “you shouldn’t hate power zooms” or “you must like them”.

I did acknowledged your critique (“There ARE poor PZ implementations…”).
Offered a counter-perspective (“Sony did a pretty good job…”).
Provided context/use-cases (video, not sports, landscapes don’t matter).
Gave personal testimony (“Often I forget it’s actually a power zoom”).


Steve Spencer wrote:
If you don't think so, then try viewing an image shot at f/16 at 25% magnification and 100% magnification. The effect of diffraction will be much more easily perceived at 100% magnification. Because cropping affects magnification of the image it does affect perception of diffraction, but not actual diffraction, but it is perception of diffraction that matters after all isn't it?


We were discussing shooting at f/5.6 - f/6.3, we are not diffraction limited at f/6.3 on the A7CR.

I don't see how shooting at f/16 is relevant but I will humor you here. I agree that if diffraction limited (eg: at f/16), diffraction effects will be more apparent the larger you print.

However an APS-C sensor requires more enlargement to reach the same final print size. A larger sensor (full-frame or medium format) needs less magnification for the same output. That’s why diffraction appears more obvious in prints from smaller sensors at the same f-number.

Steve Spencer wrote:
cropping affects the perception of depth of field


This is another can of worms. If you keep the same focal length, distance to subject and aperture, cropping does not affect the "real" depth of field measured in mm.

Its not so clear to me why you think the "perception" of depth of field will change when depth of field itself doesn't change.

Steve Spencer wrote:
you are just wrong if you think cropping doesn't affect the perception of diffraction. And effective aperture is a really good guide to the increase in the perception of diffraction as cropping magnifies the image. It is pretty amazing that someone who cares so much about image quality doesn't understand this basic relation between diffraction and magnification and cropping.


My position is that we are not diffraction limited at f/6.3. I have made no statement on the perception of diffraction

This is the classic straw-man fallacy. You have misrepresented my position in order to argue about "perception of diffraction" which is irrelevant to the original discussion

Steve Spencer wrote:
f/9.5 equivalent wide open aperture at the long end is putting that 6X zoom into pretty noticeable diffraction territory


Why don't you defend your position directly using facts?
We are not diffraction limited at 300/6.3 on the A7CR.
Where do you get f/9.5 from, and why are we in diffraction territory.

Steve Spencer wrote:
Interestingly, when I posted about this plan on a landscape thread on the Fuji forum a different FM member who shoots Nikon suggested that Fuji 70-300 wasn't good enough


aCuria wrote:
Depends how picky you are... Ansel Adams used large format and primes


Steve Spencer wrote:
You also seem to like to tell me I am not picky enough and I guess Fred isn't either as he likes the same lens that I do. Full of yourself much? There are real trade offs between size of a lens and capabilities of a lens and I find the Fuji 70-300 to hit the sweet spot in the tradeoff quite well. You don't have to suggest that I am not picky because I make tradeoff differently from you. Doing so is in fact quite rude, but you appear to very much like being rude and suggesting other people have inferior understanding to you. Sometimes people just disagree because they have different preferences, not because you know better than they do. You don't seem to appreciate that.


Steve, I think there’s a misunderstanding about my earlier comment. Let’s look at exactly what I wrote:

"Depends how picky you are... Ansel Adams used large format and primes"

First, the phrase ‘Depends how picky you are’ is a general qualifier it doesn’t address you or Fred personally. It’s just setting up a spectrum of how selective photographers can be.

Second, the reference to ‘Ansel Adams used large format and primes’ is an illustrative example of someone historically known for being very particular about gear. Again, it’s descriptive, not prescriptive.

Taken together, the comment is merely pointing out that photographers make different choices depending on how selective they want to be, it does not imply that your or Fred’s choices are insufficient or that you are ‘not picky enough.’ Any inference that it’s a critique of your preferences is a misreading of the text. My intent was simply to provide context about trade-offs in gear choices, not to comment on your judgment or understanding.


What is clear is that you don't understand my preferences and why I want a smaller kit for landscapes. My preferences are not driven by how picky I am. They are driven by my shooting now being primarily day hikes and how much I can carry for such hikes. If I decided to be more picky that wouldn't change what gear I bought or what I use to shoot landscapes. That you bring up that my decision depends on how picky I am is saying that if I was more picky I would make different decisions.That is what depends on means. I am not misreading what you wrote. You are simply wrong about my preferences and you are mischaracterizing them in a way I find rude,

Now in choosing between gear that I can carry for the types of hikes I do, quality does matter to me and I don't think that the Tamron 50-300 f/4.5-6.3 is anywhere near the quality of the Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6. I may be wrong, but your arguments are hardly convincing that somehow the Tamron would give me better images especially when it too would have to be cropped for much of its range.

Further although it is true that I you can of course visualize a 1.5X crop in the viewfinder on Sony cameras, and I find that works well on my A7r V, part of the reason I don't have an A7Cr as you recommend is that I rather hate the tiny viewfinder in the A7C cameras. What I was trying to say is not that you can't visualize the crop with the gear that you recommended, but the for me the visualization of the crop is inferior with the system your recommended and I know that using that viewfinder is something that I don't want to do. It is the same reason that I don't choose the Fuji X-E5 and one of the primary reasons I chose a Sony A7r V over the A7Cr in the first place.

Now let's talk about magnification and diffraction, and the relation between them that you do not seem to fully understand. Dan did a good job of trying to explain it to you as well, so I won't go into depth here, but the first thing you need to know is that thinking that there is some f/number when diffraction matters and it doesn't matter if you are below that f/number, what you seem to call diffraction limited, is not right. Diffraction begins to affect our images from the moment we stop down a lens. For almost all lenses, however, the reduction of aberrations improves the image as we stop down much more than diffraction limits the image. That changes as we stop down, however, as gains in aberration reduction diminish. The question isn't whether diffraction affects the image at all. It does, but typically the effect is so small at wider aperture that we can't perceive it at all. The question is when does diffraction become noticeable and that is a function of both how small the aperture is and how much we magnify the image. Cropping the image either in post-processing or by using a smaller part of the sensor magnifies the image and makes diffraction more noticeable at a wider aperture.

Now how do these basic facts about diffraction apply to the decision between the Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6 and the Tamron 50-300 f/4.5-6.3? I agree that on full frame I don't find diffraction noticeable at f/6.3. I do find diffraction just noticeable, but not objectionable on an APS-C sized sensor or part of the sensor at f/6.3. I start to find diffraction to be a little problematic only at f/11 on full frame and f/8 on an APS-C sensor or part of the sensor. What this means is that the Tamron lens can hardly be stopped down at all if you are cropping the images and taking a zoom with that large of a focal length range and expecting to use the long end without even really being able to stop it down a stop is in my estimation asking for frustration. Frankly, what I worry most about with the Fuji 70-300 is exactly this same issue. Will I be able to stop it down enough at the long end (from 312 to 450 FF equivalent)? It seems from the experience of people here on FM that with this particular lens that isn't necessary on the long end, which is rare for a zoom. I have serious doubts that the same would be true about the Tamron 50-300.

Finally you ask where I get the f/9.5 number from? That is easy it is a function of the entrance pupil of the lens which by the way is what is directly related to diffraction. The size of the entrance pupil is the focal length of the lens divided by the f/number. So when we say a 300mm lens has an effective focal length of 450mm, we are multiplying the the focal length by 1.5. If you do the algebra, then you will find that the actual size of the entrance pupil of a 300mm lens at f/6.3 is the same as a 450mm lens at f/9.5. And we know that when the 300 f/6.3 lens is used on an APS-C sensor or and APS-C size portion of a sensor, it will look just like a 450mm f/9.5 lens on FF in field of view, depth of field, and diffraction. It has the same depth of field and diffraction as such a lens because it has the same sized entrance pupil. If you don't want to do all the math just know that you can multiply the f/number by the crop factor and that will tell you about the depth of field and diffraction in FF terms. So, f/6.3 time 1.5 is f/9.5.

Steve Spencer wrote:
You don't understand my preferences and why I want a smaller kit for landscapes


I understood that part, which is why I proposed an even smaller kit for landscapes.

Steve Spencer wrote:
quality does matter to me


Ok, then we do agree on something.

Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think that the Tamron 50-300 f/4.5-6.3 is anywhere near the quality of the Fuji 70-300 f/4-5.6


I cant comment on the quality of this Fuji lens, but I wont expect either to approach the level of a 70-200GMii

However, typically FF will produce higher real resolution unless the FF lens is really abysmal. For example if a lens produces 60 lp/mm then we will get 60 * 15.6 = 936 lp/mm on APSC, but on a FF sensor we will get 60 * 24 = 1440 lp/ph.

This advantage will drop off as we approach 450mm equivalent, but I would expect the FF system to produce more real resolution at 50-300mm, (and even above 300mm if you crop in POST) even if the Fuji lens is somewhat better.

Steve Spencer wrote:
although it is true that I you can of course visualize a 1.5X crop in the viewfinder on Sony cameras, and I find that works well on my A7r V, part of the reason I don't have an A7Cr as you recommend is that I rather hate the tiny viewfinder in the A7C cameras.


Lets drop the A7CR then, we both like nice viewfinders, and the A7RV has far and away the best one.
You don't like PZ lenses so lets drop that too
These are some examples of FF setups similar in weight to the X-T5 setup proposed.

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

Option 1
Sony A7r V - 730g
Sony 17-50/4 - 460g
Tamron 70-300mm F/4.5-6.3 - 545g
Total 1735g

Option 2
Sony A7r V - 730g
Sony 16-35GMii - 547g
Tamron 50-300mm F/4.5-6.3 - 665g
Total 1942g

Steve Spencer wrote:
Diffraction begins to affect our images from the moment we stop down a lens.


This is true in principle. Diffraction is always present at any finite aperture. The Airy pattern is there no matter what.

However it is also misleading. At wide apertures, the Airy disk is much smaller than the blur from lens aberrations, so diffraction has no practical effect on image resolution. The system is not diffraction-limited there it is aberration-limited. So, saying “diffraction always affects the image” is technically correct but functionally unhelpful, because its effect can be completely swamped by aberrations until you stop down.

Steve Spencer wrote:
There is no f/number where diffraction matters and doesn’t matter below that.


This misunderstands the conventional use of “diffraction-limited.” In optics, a system is “diffraction-limited” when its resolution is constrained only by diffraction, not by lens flaws. That does imply there is a practical f-number below which the lens is not diffraction-limited (because aberrations dominate), and above which diffraction sets the fundamental ceiling. So it’s incorrect to reject the idea that diffraction-limited apertures exist.

Steve Spencer wrote:
The question is when diffraction becomes noticeable … and that is a function of both aperture and magnification.


Cropping or magnifying an image does not alter diffraction itself, the size of the Airy disk is determined solely by wavelength and aperture. What cropping does is lower the effective line pairs per picture height (lp/ph), making the loss of resolution more apparent in the final output. We do not directly “see diffraction”. what we perceive is the reduction in lens resolution that diffraction, or other aberrations, produces. Whether this reduction becomes visible depends on how the effective image resolution compares to the eye’s angular resolving power at the chosen viewing distance. Once resolution drops below that threshold, the image appears soft, regardless of whether the limit is set by diffraction, aberrations, or both.



Steve Spencer wrote:
What this means is that the Tamron lens can hardly be stopped down at all if you are cropping the images and taking a zoom with that large of a focal length range and expecting to use the long end without even really being able to stop it down a stop is in my estimation asking for frustration. Frankly, what I worry most about with the Fuji 70-300 is exactly this same issue. Will I be able to stop it down enough at the long end (from 312 to 450 FF equivalent)? It seems from the experience of people here on FM that with this particular lens that isn't necessary on the long end, which is rare for a zoom. I have serious doubts that the same would be true about the Tamron 50-300.


What do you mean by "stop down enough"? Are you worried about insufficient depth of field?

I am glad we are finally getting on the same page, but I would think you could see why I have zero interest in either Option 1 or Option 2 that you propose. For option 1, do you mean the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 DC which is an APS-C lens for DSLRs? Sigma does not make a 17-50 f/4 FF 35mm AFAIK. They also make a 16-50 f/2.8 DC APS-C lens that is lighter than what you seem to be suggesting, but I don't know anyone who makes a 17-50 f/4 lens for FF Sony and even if they did I would like something just a little wider for my landscape kit. If you mean one of the f/2.8 APS-C lenses that kit isn't nearly wide angle enough for my needs. It is only the equivalent of 25-26mm at the wide end on FF. That just isn't going to work for me, and if you are trying to say I should try to use one of those APS-C lenses as a FF lens, I don't buy it especially for landscapes when you often have to shoot at or near infinity focus. I have adapted a lot of FF lenses to the Fuji GF system and adapting a lens made for a smaller format to a larger format generally has limitations. That can work for some things, but in my experience does not work for landscapes.

For Option 2 (and this applies to Option 1 as well), it should be obvious by now why I wouldn't want that Tamron 70-300 (or as we discussed the Tamron 50-300). I think the Fuji 70-300 is a much better bet and a much better lens. On the Fuji forum several people I trust (including Fred) and some with nice shots to illustrate it have argued that the Fuji lens can be used across its whole focal length range and is sharp wide open across the frame. Is that true for the Tamron 70-300? I doubt it and you haven't used the lens and seem to be just suggesting it only to offer a Sony alternative. Further at the long end either Tamron lens is f/6.3 and if the performance is only better when it is stopped down a stop or two, as is often typical for such zooms, then I would be stuck with either suboptimal performance at f/6.3 or performance affected by diffraction when stopped down. I am going with the lens for which people who I trust have suggested that it will do what I want it to do, rather than the lens that is unproven that you suggest when you haven't even used the lens and there is lots of reason to suspect the lens will be suboptimal for my needs.

I don't think it is too hard to figure out why I made the decision I made, and why I don't think either of your options will even come close to creating the kit I want to create.

By the way, I did consider a number of Sony kits when I was deciding what to buy. You got not too far from what I thought was the best Sony kit in your Option 2. That would be:

Sony A7r V - 730g
Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM II - 547G
Sony 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G OSS - 854g
Total: 2,131g
This kit is just over 200g and about half a pound heavier than the Fuji kit I ended up choosing and would be better for wide angle shooting, but I still expect the Fuji kit to be slightly better for most of the focal length range and I appreciate its smaller size. If I am dissatisfied with the Fuji kit for landscapes based on it performance, however, I might well turn to this setup.

https://www.tamron.com/global/consumer/lenses/a068/

Tamron 17-40/4


Oct 02, 2025 at 09:13 AM





  Previous versions of aCuria's message #16900996 « It's happening again »