Moving from Nikon to XT2, what will I really miss?

[mbrphoto]

Hey all, I have read with abandon the pros and cons of switching from FF Nikon gear to a mirrorless system and had basically settled in with an approach to use both. Nikon D850 for landscapes and the occasional sports, and the XT2 for everything else.

SO I recently purchased the XT2 and have been giving it a bit of a run and have to say I really enjoy it. Need to get used to the buttons/menu etc...

Now to my dilemma, what do I really miss in the landscape arena with moving to the smaller sensor? When I print, I largest I've gone is 24X30 with my D750 files. The whole idea of a kit weighing in at roughly half has me re-thinking things. Especially after taking this photo the other day....



Any thoughts from anyone who has moved from FF for landscape work would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[solamnus]

I'm not being flippant here. I'm being serious.... You won't miss a thing. You are going to be happy.

Many people won't miss a thing. Their photography just isn't good enough.

But to imply that somehow APS-C Fuji is the "best" place to be is just wrong. Just go m4/3. You won't miss a thing. Just go 1" sensor. You won't miss a thing. The IQ goes down with every decrease in sensor size.

Being a Fuji and Nikon FX shooter I am comfortable using either camera where it makes sense for my shooting. In some situations the Nikon is the easy choice. In others, I can comfortably get by with the Fuji. And make no mistake that I said "get by". I love Fuji, but it is not the better system for IQ.

 

[Greg7579]

I'm not being flippant here. I'm being serious.... You won't miss a thing. You are going to be happy.

Many people won't miss a thing. Their photography just isn't good enough.

But to imply that somehow APS-C Fuji is the "best" place to be is just wrong. Just go m4/3. You won't miss a thing. Just go 1" sensor. You won't miss a thing. The IQ goes down with every decrease in sensor size.

Being a Fuji and Nikon FX shooter I am comfortable using either camera where it makes sense for my shooting. In some situations the Nikon is the easy choice. In others, I can comfortably get by with the Fuji. And make no mistake that I said "get by". I love Fuji, but it is not the better system for IQ.

 

[Seth Lord]

I moved from the Nikon D810 to the X-T2. The 2 biggest adjustments for me was RAW editing and AF-C with the Fuji. I now have those almost sorted out, but, I enjoy shooting like I never before. I shoot only for personal enjoyment so I might not be in the same boat. I will tell you that I just got back from a beach vacation and I did some long exposures if sunrises and I’m really impressed! Even with the jpegs! I’m using more jpegs than ever before and I’m enjoying more shooting because of it!!!

 

[Greg7579]

No Truman. You keep saying that. And I keep telling you that you are wrong.

Your opinion. I say he's not wrong.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

No Truman. You keep saying that. And I keep telling you that you are wrong.

--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

And so does every review. The base ISO for the D850 is 64 which is 1 and 2/3's stop better than the Fuji (you give up quality on the extended ISO in any camera). The D850 sensor is probably the best on the market at this time. The sensor is larger.

All these things are a benefit in serious landscape. The two highest ranking sensors on DXO are the Sony AR7II and the D810. I expect the D850 will come in the same rarefied neighborhood.

Most serious landscape photographers in the film days used medium format or large format for landscape because landscape is one area where bigger is better. If land scape was the only thing I was interested in I would probably opt for a Fuji GFX50S. The bigger the sensor the smaller the enlargement ratio and the only biggest lost of IQ in a print is the enlargement ratio.

But today my climbing to high altitude lakes in the Rockies with a 45 pound pack carrying my 4x5, tripod, changing bag, film holders, etc. on a three day trip strictly for photography are over. I might ride a horse up with a pack mule carrying my gear but me being the horse and pack mule are gone.

For everything but landscape I prefer my Pro2. The right tool for the job. It's even replaced my Nikon for galloping and jumping horses. The occasional times I do serious landscape it is my trusty 4x5 with TriX loaded in the holder. For casual landscape I'll use my D800E. For everything else my Pro2. Not much different than 40 years ago, for landscape my 4x5 or RB67 and for everything else but where I needed a long lens, my Leica M4.

Don't get me wrong Fuji makes a good camera and if my goal was landscape I'd go with the GFX 50S.

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

 

[Greg7579]

Truman,

You are an old pro and know what you are talking about. You don't demagogue or troll the issue. But I argue with you on this from time to time....

I know there are tradeoffs on any system decision. I have said about 300 times that I think (yes, my opinion) that APS-C is the sweet spot right now for size, weight, ergo & glass design....

I just hate emphasizing IQ and straight up sensor-size as a big issue every time someone asks about switching to Fuji. That comment is easy troll bait, just like the worm thing.

I really believe that as time goes by, sensor size is going to be less of an issue as technology advances. I think the big beneficiary of that will be Olympus with MFT.

I hope Fuji does not go FF.

If I wanted FF, I would go Sony for sure.

 

[PSGimages]

There's a fabulous new Fuji flash option: it's called Godox.

 

[michaeladawson]

I'm not being flippant here. I'm being serious.... You won't miss a thing. You are going to be happy.

Many people won't miss a thing. Their photography just isn't good enough.

But to imply that somehow APS-C Fuji is the "best" place to be is just wrong. Just go m4/3. You won't miss a thing. Just go 1" sensor. You won't miss a thing. The IQ goes down with every decrease in sensor size.

Being a Fuji and Nikon FX shooter I am comfortable using either camera where it makes sense for my shooting. In some situations the Nikon is the easy choice. In others, I can comfortably get by with the Fuji. And make no mistake that I said "get by". I love Fuji, but it is not the better system for IQ.

 

[PSGimages]

Late to the thread but I shoot Nikon FX (since film days) and Fuji X more recently of course.

I'm not being flippant here. I'm being serious.... You won't miss a thing. You are going to be happy.

Many people won't miss a thing. Their photography just isn't good enough.

But to imply that somehow APS-C Fuji is the "best" place to be is just wrong. Just go m4/3. You won't miss a thing. Just go 1" sensor. You won't miss a thing. The IQ goes down with every decrease in sensor size.

Being a Fuji and Nikon FX shooter I am comfortable using either camera where it makes sense for my shooting. In some situations the Nikon is the easy choice. In others, I can comfortably get by with the Fuji. And make no mistake that I said "get by". I love Fuji, but it is not the better system for IQ.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Truman,

You are an old pro and know what you are talking about. You don't demagogue or troll the issue. But I argue with you on this from time to time....

I know there are tradeoffs on any system decision. I have said about 300 times that I think (yes, my opinion) that APS-C is the sweet spot right now for size, weight, ergo & glass design....

I just hate emphasizing IQ and straight up sensor-size as a big issue every time someone asks about switching to Fuji. That comment is easy troll bait, just like the worm thing.

I really believe that as time goes by, sensor size is going to be less of an issue as technology advances. I think the big beneficiary of that will be Olympus with MFT.

I hope Fuji does not go FF.

If I wanted FF, I would go Sony for sure.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Maybe having ISO range of 64 to 200. Other than that, no complaints from me.


Tunnel View of Yosemite Valley

--
Tim

No offense. However, Ansel Adams would classify this as soot and chalk. Strong global contrast does not make a good landscape. Too much loss of shadow detail. This is where dynamic range is important. APS-C has less dynamic range than FF which has less dynamic range than medium format like the GFX-50.

Look at this and go take a look at Ansel Adams shot of the same scene.

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

 

[Greg7579]

Truman,

With respect, I hate getting the AA (Ansel Adams) lecture when one is trying to convince one's audience just how superior Nikon FF is compared to Fuji APS-C (or in any sensor size argument).

Mr. Adams bears the brunt of many equipment board arguments and lectures, most of which are misapplied and even nonsensical.

My argument is better than your argument ... just look at this Ansel Adams Yosemite shot!

Please ... no. Did you dig that out of some photography class from 35 years ago?

Wait ... no you didn't. They didn't have digital then, and AA sure as Hell didn't have it.

The old Fuji is not optimal for landscapes is such total BS. Absolute nonsense.

Fake news man......

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Truman,

With respect, I hate getting the AA (Ansel Adams) lecture when one is trying to convince one's audience just how superior Nikon FF is compared to Fuji APS-C (or in any sensor size argument).

Mr. Adams bears the brunt of many equipment board arguments and lectures, most of which are misapplied and even nonsensical.

My argument is better than your argument ... just look at this Ansel Adams Yosemite shot!

Please ... no. Did you dig that out of some photography class from 35 years ago?

Wait ... no you didn't. They didn't have digital then, and AA sure as Hell didn't have it.

The old Fuji is not optimal for landscapes is such total BS. Absolute nonsense.

Fake news man......

 

[Tim C.]

Maybe having ISO range of 64 to 200. Other than that, no complaints from me.


Tunnel View of Yosemite Valley

--
Tim

No offense. However, Ansel Adams would classify this as soot and chalk. Strong global contrast does not make a good landscape. Too much loss of shadow detail. This is where dynamic range is important. APS-C has less dynamic range than FF which has less dynamic range than medium format like the GFX-50.

Look at this and go take a look at Ansel Adams shot of the same scene.

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

I am not Ansel Adams nor do I aspire to be.

However, no offense taken. I won't disagree with you about APS-C having less dynamic range than FF and the GFX-50 since I owned the D800 and D810.

But every choice of camera has its pros and cons. It's up to the photographer if the pros are worth some of the cons. In my case, less dynamic range isn't that big of a compromise from switching over to the Fujifilm X-series cameras. The compact size, lighter weight, and the Fujifilm color output are worth it for me.

P.S. I added stronger contrast in Capture One anyway.

--
Tim

 

[Seth Lord]

"Anyway, on a different note.... what I find discouraging these days is how many customers/friends/acquaintances don't see the differences in IQ (in general) or even seem to care, even though I see it clearly.:

So true Cogset! I've used the D810 & D600 for theatre work for years. Happened to shoot a rehearsal recently and - not intending to shoot seriously - just ambled along with the X100s fitted with the TCL. Had enough light to focus, used f2.8, reasonable shutter speeds.

My wife - my sternest critic of images (an actress herself and vets everything before I send it out) - looked at the results after Lightroom and said - Wow, they look good ... lovely colours and exposure!

Did the lack of an artistic, shallow DoF cause her any angst? Not a bit. It has made me think.


regards
Dan

Loading…

danryan.photoshelter.com

 

[PSGimages]

Maybe having ISO range of 64 to 200. Other than that, no complaints from me.


Tunnel View of Yosemite Valley

--
Tim

No offense. However, Ansel Adams would classify this as soot and chalk.

No offense.....but you know that how?

Strong global contrast does not make a good landscape. Too much loss of shadow detail. This is where dynamic range is important.

Sometimes contrast and loss of shadow is what the artist is striving for. Loss of shadow detail can be intentional.... doesn't make it wrong. I would bet you Tim C can pull out a bunch of the shadow detail if he wanted to.... but if I were him I'd leave it as is (though I'd love to take a stab at a B&W conversion of that image).

APS-C has less dynamic range than FF which has less dynamic range than medium format like the GFX-50.

But APS-C in 2017 has more dynamic range than FF back in 2009 or 2010. So are you saying that any landscape taken 10 years ago is worthless because it doesn't have the DR of a current FF? Are all landscapes taken with Canons (with less DR than the X-series in many cases) also doomed? I hear Canon guys who adopted Fuji often say that X-series has more DR than their FF Canons. But no matter what, the Fuji has better DR than many cameras and it is absolutely capable of shooting great landscapes. I am always surprised what I can pull out of a Fuji raw and it doesn't feel lacking vs my D810.

Look at this and go take a look at Ansel Adams shot of the same scene.

Here you go

So two completely different shots from a surprisingly similar vantage point. Tim C's shot is of course in color, tighter, with direct sunlight peaking through a canyon. Because of the direct sun, it naturally has more contrast. AA's is the ultimate zone system shot in a low contrast scene. He certainly customized his exposure and negative processing knowing what he wanted (e.g the amount of contrast etc)... he may have also dodged El Capitan to lighten it up.... just as Tim could mess with his image in PP with digital tools.

AA's shot, being shot probably on an 8x10 view camera is somewhere in the 500 to 1000 megapixel (equivalent) realm maybe more (see http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-8764.html )

... so of course the detail is going to be better. But I've had a hard time finding evidence that film exceeds the DR of digital. I think with most films you are lucky to get 10 stops of DR maybe 11 or 12, but not over that... and in many cases much less than that.... like 7 stops. (Ansel, if anyone, could get more though). Here's a discussion on that topic

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/film-has-more-dynamic-range-than-digital-true.272500/

Point is, Ansel probably (I'm saying "probably" because I'd love to see some real literature on this) had less dynamic range available to him than a modern X-T2 shooter and he did just fine.

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

--
P. Guyton

Photography Falmouth, Maine - Maine Portrait, Pet, Sports & Editorial photography by Peter Guyton

Maine photography focusing on headshots, pets, sports

www.peterguyton.com

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

GuruShots | The World's Greatest Photography Game

Join GuruShots, the world's leading photography game, and compete in challenges, get inspired by amazing photos, and showcase your work to a global audience.

gurushots.com

Dpreview contributor since 2005

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Maybe having ISO range of 64 to 200. Other than that, no complaints from me.


Tunnel View of Yosemite Valley

--
Tim

No offense. However, Ansel Adams would classify this as soot and chalk.

No offense.....but you know that how?

Strong global contrast does not make a good landscape. Too much loss of shadow detail. This is where dynamic range is important.

Sometimes contrast and loss of shadow is what the artist is striving for. Loss of shadow detail can be intentional.... doesn't make it wrong. I would bet you Tim C can pull out a bunch of the shadow detail if he wanted to.... but if I were him I'd leave it as is (though I'd love to take a stab at a B&W conversion of that image).

APS-C has less dynamic range than FF which has less dynamic range than medium format like the GFX-50.

But APS-C in 2017 has more dynamic range than FF back in 2009 or 2010. So are you saying that any landscape taken 10 years ago is worthless because it doesn't have the DR of a current FF? Are all landscapes taken with Canons (with less DR than the X-series in many cases) also doomed? I hear Canon guys who adopted Fuji often say that X-series has more DR than their FF Canons. But no matter what, the Fuji has better DR than many cameras and it is absolutely capable of shooting great landscapes. I am always surprised what I can pull out of a Fuji raw and it doesn't feel lacking vs my D810.

Look at this and go take a look at Ansel Adams shot of the same scene.

Here you go

So two completely different shots from a surprisingly similar vantage point. Tim C's shot is of course in color, tighter, with direct sunlight peaking through a canyon. Because of the direct sun, it naturally has more contrast. AA's is the ultimate zone system shot in a low contrast scene. He certainly customized his exposure and negative processing knowing what he wanted (e.g the amount of contrast etc)... he may have also dodged El Capitan to lighten it up.... just as Tim could mess with his image in PP with digital tools.

AA's shot, being shot probably on an 8x10 view camera is somewhere in the 500 to 1000 megapixel (equivalent) realm maybe more (see http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-8764.html )

... so of course the detail is going to be better. But I've had a hard time finding evidence that film exceeds the DR of digital. I think with most films you are lucky to get 10 stops of DR maybe 11 or 12, but not over that... and in many cases much less than that.... like 7 stops. (Ansel, if anyone, could get more though). Here's a discussion on that topic

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/film-has-more-dynamic-range-than-digital-true.272500/

Point is, Ansel probably (I'm saying "probably" because I'd love to see some real literature on this) had less dynamic range available to him than a modern X-T2 shooter and he did just fine.

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

--
P. Guyton
http://www.peterguyton.com
https://www.instagram.com/psgimages/
https://gurushots.com/peteguyton/photos
Dpreview contributor since 2005

That image is in his wonder book, "Yosemite and the Range of Light." In the finely printed book there is more tonal gradation and much more shadow detail in the lower right hand part of the image while maintaining the highlight detail and DMax.

Of course it is difficult to capture that type of image on the an Internet display.

It was I am sure taken with his 8x10.

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

 

[Matt Fulghum]

You'll be giving up a little DR, and a little DoF control. It hasn't been a huge deal to me, personally, but I'm just an engineer that likes to take pictures, not an artiste.

 

[nptech]

Came here to post the exact same video

 

[Pepyn]

Hey all, I have read with abandon the pros and cons of switching from FF Nikon gear to a mirrorless system and had basically settled in with an approach to use both. Nikon D850 for landscapes and the occasional sports, and the XT2 for everything else.

SO I recently purchased the XT2 and have been giving it a bit of a run and have to say I really enjoy it. Need to get used to the buttons/menu etc...

Now to my dilemma, what do I really miss in the landscape arena with moving to the smaller sensor? When I print, I largest I've gone is 24X30 with my D750 files. The whole idea of a kit weighing in at roughly half has me re-thinking things. Especially after taking this photo the other day....

Any thoughts from anyone who has moved from FF for landscape work would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Landscape is the one genre where I think xtrans rapidly falls down the list of choices, in my opinion. Colours are good so overall the image will be pleasing (easily match the posted sample you had), DR is decent and shadow noise pretty good, but if you like well rendered fine detail in your shots, as I do, you might be disappointed unless you can figure the magic formula required to process the RAW files. I sure haven't. I wish I knew it, but foliage, surfaces like rock... eh yuk.

For landscape I prefer my m43, for many other things the Fuji especially street for the BW outputs it produces, just wish it had IBIS!