Best Lightweight, Compact Landscape Kit

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
kolyy Senior Member • Posts: 1,109
Re: Fuji, Sony, Olympus or Leica
2

Greg7579 wrote:

kolyy wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

I have always believed that the best overall-ergo landscape kit was the XT-3 (or XH-1) and the Mighty 16. Or you could use any of the wonderful XF lenses, 8-16, 10-24, 14, 16, 18, 23, 35, 50, 56, 80, 90, 50-140, 100-400, 16-55 Brick.... I've owned and used them all for landscapes and hiked with them all. Well, I didn't hike with the 100-400. Well … once I did for about a mile.

But after 9 months of shooting Medium Format, I now know it is the GFX 50r and 23, 45, 32-64 and 100-200 if hiking and add in the 250 if it is near the car.

Don't forget a tripod.

But of course the GFX 100 is the best landscape camera in the world. But I haven't shot it yet because the damn thing has been on order for 3 months. It's big (about the size of a D850 with grip) but has IBIS and can be hiked with. The disadvantage of the GFX 100 is that it is ten thousand dollars for the body and may be sort of a niche machine.

But I told my Son-in-Law to get an Olympus system when he asked me that same question recently.

But for most of you, I believe FUJI X cameras and XF lenses are the answer.

I am temped by the alphasevenarefour, but I already have high res covered.

Many of you will ignore my advice about Fuji and just get the alphasevenarefour. I can understand that.

The Leica Q2 is also great for walking landscapes. But it is sort of expensive for a fixed lens camera. I just got it and will shoot next week and see if I like it....

Oh, don't forget the wonderful little Fuji X100F.

While the X-T3 could indeed fit the OP better ergonomically, the system is not more compact and the IQ is a clear downgrade from the A7RIII. The lack of stabilization for many lenses might also be a consideration, as all lenses are stabilized with the A7RIII.

It's unfortunate we don't hear from the OP more, to explain his priorities in more detail. Sony's strategy is to fit its great sensors into these compact bodies, even if ergonomics is an issue for some users. In that sense if fulfills the quest for "the best compact landscape camera". I suspect the OP might be actually searching for something different.

Hey, I like Sony. You sound like a Sony marketing rep with some clout. Can I get a good deal from you on the alphasevenarefour? Just kidding. I would buy it immediately, but I'm not ready to go down the Sony lens road because I have almost all the Sony APSC and MF lenses, which is a bit crazy I know. The Sony lenses are good, but very big and heavy. But I'm used to that with FF and MF gear.

Hey, I like Fuji. I actually had a Fuji system, but I sold it to fund my Sony FF upgrade (sorry, that might hurt, but I actually loved Fuji more than Sony). Anyway, I guess I don't have the "good" Sony lenses and I will probably never have, as I hate large, heavy and expensive stuff. I actually upgraded to FF because I like small and cheap lenses. Quite a paradox, isn't it? So I have the smaller ones from Sony. And I especially like the tiny ones, which are not from Sony, but from Samyang and Voigtlander.

I disagree with you on the "compact" argument on the high-res Sony gear. If he wants compact, go Fuji APSC or Olympus.

That's for a longer discussion, but neither Fuji nor Olympus have smaller equivalent lenses. Just two examples - what should I buy from Fuji or Olympus instead of my Sony 16-35mm/4 and Samyang 35mm/2.8 lenses?

One thing for sure - all the cameras are damn good and almost all of the lenses are really good these days.

That is true, but there are still big differences for a more demanding user. For example, one person might be happy with the detail he gets from the A7R III, while another will be searching for help for his broken knuckle bones. Or someone might be happy with the unique video features of the X-T3, while someone else might be frustrated by the overall lack of stabilization in the system. Etc.

But I'm surprised you said that the XT-3 and XF lenses are not more compact than Sony alphasevenarethree gear. It most certainly is. I'm also surprised you said the Fuji X-camera system IQ is a "clear" downgrade compared to the Sony FF gear. We could argue for a long time about that. I'm profoundly experienced at and sometimes enjoy arguing ergo and IQ (Sony vs Fuji) with my many Sony friends, but I'm not in the mood now. These boards that offer advice across several brand groupings and followers can get dicey fast and I avoid them usually.

Well, I hope you do not want argue that in terms of resolution, DR and SNR the A7RIII is not substantially above the X-T3. That would simply be foolish. I hope you might argue that the difference might not be worth it for many people, which is a fair point. The X-T3 is much cheaper than an A7R III or A7 III, that is one of its selling points. But the OP already has an A7R III, so in this case it's a moot point.

As for size, I don't see much difference. A few examples:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.681,800.448,ha,t

https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.662,800.772,ha,t

https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.440,800.584,ha,t

https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.392,800.621,ha,t

https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.660,800.513,ha,t

https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.396,800.359,ha,t

https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.580,800.408,ha,t

https://camerasize.com/compact/#800.596,724.667,ha,t

https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.639,800.456,ha,t

https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.512,800.677,ha,t

In many of these cases a high res FF camera has an advantage in equivalent aperture or reach. And then I am not even counting the APS-C lenses for Sony, like the 10-18mm/4 or the 18-135mm, which are are very compact and smaller than their Fuji counterparts.

They can get dicey when people make questionable statements about size, weight, ergo and IQ of one brand vs another.

Indeed.

 kolyy's gear list:kolyy's gear list
Canon G9 X II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7 III
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,740
Re: Par for the course

Golf and Kol,

I hear you. Hey Man, I've been shooting as a passion for a long, long time and I've had more gear than any sane person should ever have.

Any recommendation is always arguable on a thread like this because you get into brand, system and sensor size side arguments, and I understand them all.

Sensor size matters. I argued for years on the Fuji board that I thought Fuji APSC XTrans was very close to standard FF and that the ergo / size / weight along with world-class Fuji XF glass made it a fantastic alternative to FF with some big benefits and no real drawbacks.

But I don't argue that Fuji APSC is in the IQ league with high-res 50ish FF. But I do argue the Fuji APSC is the digital sweet spot for so many people. So many. Most? Who knows.

I left Canon FF DSLR for Fuji. Then I spent two years ranting that Canon and Nikon were screwed if they didn't go mirrorless FF with a bigger mount (thus killing their pro lens legacy lineup). Well, they finally did it and Nikon did great. Canon has to give it another (fast) generation and get it right, and they will.

Then about 9 months ago I just said to Hell with it and bought Fuji GFX Medium Format 50r and 6 GFX lenses. I kept all my Fuji APSC gear (which is a lot). I became so blown away by the MF files I was seeing on my big studio 4K monitor that I just couldn't believe it so it is all I have shot for 9 months.  It is amazing and very special.  So yes, sensor size matters.

Anyway, I came so close to buying in on the alphasevenarethree that you would not believe it. The alphasevenarefour makes me drool and I almost got it.  It took four guys on the MF Board to talk me out of it because I have high-res covered well with GFX.  So I instead went all-in and ordered the GFX 100.

So, don't do as I do. That would be insane. Do as I say, which is pick a system and buy as many lenses as you can. They are all so damn good now. I like Fuji and Sony. I recommended Olympus for my adult kids. Nikon is killing it. Canon has some work. Leica is hard to reach for with most sane people, but I just bought the Q2. I might recommend an X100F for that type of camera for 99.9 percent of people vs the Leica. For the Leica, you have to be rich, usually old and a bit nuts. But man is it sweet.

But, that said, most MF shooters have two systems and a lot of them use Sony FF along with GFX. A lot use Fuji APSC and I know one pro who shoots Olympus and Fuji GFX. A lot shoot Nikon and Fuji or Hassy MF.

Sorry - I babble.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
Fazal Majid
Fazal Majid Senior Member • Posts: 1,811
Re: Best Lightweight, Compact Landscape Kit
1

M43 has substandard image quality, and as noted, is not that much more compact than a Sony system. Fuji is the best APS option, but also not more compact than Sony.

The option that would make most sense to me would be to get a good compact prime wideangle lens in FE mount. Zeiss and Voigtländer have more than a few. Otherwise get a Leica M mount lens like the outstanding Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2.8 C-Biogon with an adapter.

If the OP really hates Sony ergonomics, Nikon and Canon have their own FF mirrorless systems. The next generation Canon R bodies should finally be up to the high standard of their RF lenses.

The upcoming Sigma FF system is going to be very compact with outstanding image quality. It won't be cheap, and this being Sigma, expect operational quirks.

Finally, it's worth considering compact fixed-lens cameras like the RX1RII, Leica Q2, Ricoh GRIII or even Sigma DP1 Merrill.

-- hide signature --

Fazal Majid (www.majid.info)

 Fazal Majid's gear list:Fazal Majid's gear list
Sony RX1R II Ricoh GR III Fujifilm X-T2 Leica M10 Nikon Z7 +28 more
DeathArrow Senior Member • Posts: 2,313
Re: Best Lightweight, Compact Landscape Kit
1

Bigger sensors have better noise, DR, color depth than smaller sensors. Also, using a large lens on a large sensor gives you better actual resolution.

If you shoot landscapes, noise doesn't matter much because you can use longer shutter speeds. You won't notice noise at base ISO unless the camera is really old and you look at very dark areas, or you lift the shadows or brighten in post.

DR might be important, but you can make up for it with time and patience by shooting a few exposures and stack them. That would also be good for noise reduction.

Color depth I doubt that someone would ever spot a difference that matters.

You can make up for a lower actual resolution by making panoramas. Or using super resolution modes in the cameras that have it. But since FF cameras have it too, they still have the resolution advantage.

So, at least theoretically, you can use whatever camera for landscapes and obtain about the same IQ. You would save time with a larger sensor and you would save weight by using a camera with a smaller sensor. Also, if things change very fast, like lighting conditions change some times, you might not have the time to do the things I described earlier.

I if would be obsessed with landscapes and want the best IQ and money wouldn't be an issue,  I would get A Fuji GFX 100, followed by Panasonic S1R, Followed by Sony A7RIV.

However, I do think that most of today's cameras will do a fine job for landscapes since you don't need very good low light capabilities or a very good AF system.

 DeathArrow's gear list:DeathArrow's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD +3 more
cosmicnode Veteran Member • Posts: 4,286
Re: Best Lightweight, Compact Landscape Kit

ChristianC1975 wrote:

I have the G9 and I like it.

Having said that, for landscapes you will have a bit less bit depth and dynamic range than the Sony- it is your decision if that is important for you.

APSC is 1.25 stops slower than FF, so are the dynamic range etc. If using APSC lenses, you get also that size advantage (for lower DR and equivalent aperture). Here the mirrorless king is probably Fuji, or the new Canon with EF lenses.

However, both Sony offerings and the Canon M series with adapter suffer the lack of specifity- the canons will be using the adapter so not size advantage whatsoever, + not so much great APSC glass. The Sony the same, not much APSC good glass that is not already FF glass (=wasted).

M43 is 3/4 of a stop slower than APSC. 2 stops less than FF. The format itself (4/3) tends to be in my opinion better for landscapes but YMMV.

Lower DR and bit depth may break the deal for you. It does not to me but my requirements are not yours.

For high DR, most photographers will bracket anyway. At base ISO (=landscape) the sony A9 or the Canon FF 6II have similar Dynamic range as the G9 or Oly EM1-II.

I am not happy with my astro with the G9- too much noise at very long exposure. I have seen a good friend having amazing astro with his Oly EM-1-II. that may be your way, as it also has some other very useful features like live composite and it is smaller.

The GX9 is smaller, same image quality as G9, just not as feature packed. Great for landscape though and much smaller and cheaper (also than the EM1-II). I have the similar GX85 and I use it with the grip. Great lil camera. Get a couple of good primes (I have the 15 panaleica, 30 and 56 sigma) and you can take that anywhere.

The G9 has the very nice pixel shift. I think the EM1-II has some version, too? That may be the deciding factor? People who say that even the slightest movement will create blurr seem never to have shot with ND filters and long exposures- if that argument would hold water, nobody would do that.

So...

I would keep the A73R and get a brilliant prime (24GM) and a decent 2.8 ultra wide (tamron).

You may find this video informative, He is a landscape photographer who uses m4/3, no B/S in his video's, It's worth looking through his other video's for more information on m4/3, straight information in a calm style.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eI2mc_p8KE

-- hide signature --

Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 cosmicnode's gear list:cosmicnode's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D800 Nikon D500 Olympus E-PL8 Olympus E-M1 II +12 more
bob13bob Contributing Member • Posts: 954
Re: Best Lightweight, Compact Landscape Kit

DrewMarshall wrote:

Hi all, I currently have an A7RIII with a good amount of lenses. I definitely love the IQ coming out of it, but I miss my Canon 6D a lot of times. I am happier with the more MP though. I recently have been looking at the Lumix G9 4/3 camera, and it seems like it is designed by actual photographers unlike my Sony. I miss the layout of the buttons and the user interface of Canon as well.

The G9 seems to be super compact even with telephoto lenses, but my one hang-up with that system is that I DO like to shoot a lot of milky-way landscapes. Is there a compromise, some sort of system with more than 20MP that is great for landscapes and low-light and all the while is compact with lenses? I hadn't really looked into micro 4/3 before but it is intriguing to me.

Thanks!

what issues do you have with your a7r3 settings. after i followed up a setup guide, I very rarely have any issues with menus since I don't dive in to them.

mft for astro photography vs the a7r3 you already have... not good.

get ready for massive IQ drop. fyi a FF 1.4 gets 4x as much light as a mft 1.4 . and your a7r3 pictures will be 3x sharper in pmp too (check dxomarks for this). The FF lens are just much better and faster. Yes they are heavy; thats the price we pay.

for landscapes, pixel or iphone panoramic mode is the probably the best iq/weight youc an get if you don't want to lug your a7r3 around.

-- hide signature --

my equipment: a7iii. NATIVE: sony 50 1.8. samyang 35 2.8. ADAPTED: sigma mc11 adapter. canon 85mm 1.8. sigma (canon) 12-24 4-5.6. canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is ii.

kolyy Senior Member • Posts: 1,109
Re: Par for the course
1

Greg7579 wrote:

Golf and Kol,

I hear you. Hey Man, I've been shooting as a passion for a long, long time and I've had more gear than any sane person should ever have.

Any recommendation is always arguable on a thread like this because you get into brand, system and sensor size side arguments, and I understand them all.

Sensor size matters. I argued for years on the Fuji board that I thought Fuji APSC XTrans was very close to standard FF and that the ergo / size / weight along with world-class Fuji XF glass made it a fantastic alternative to FF with some big benefits and no real drawbacks.

I think Fuji did a fantastic job with its system. I would say the drawbacks in the beginning were autofocus, overall speed and video. And Fuji turned all of these weaknesses into its strengths. Especially the video revolution is jaw dropping. While Fujifilm's cameras were unusable for video just two generations ago, the X-T3 is now one of most advanced mirrorless video-cams available.

However, with the tremendous maturing of Sony FE and the introduction of Canon's and Nikon's FF mirrorless systems, new challenges have appeared. I see two major current drawbacks of X-mount, compared to the FF competition:

- the overall lack of stabilization. Because FE and Z cameras have IBIS, all lenses in those systems are stabilized. Canon is rumored to be working on IBIS as well. Given the lack of OIS in almost all primes and some premium zooms, Fuji needs to introduce IBIS throughout its lineup ASAP.

- the value proposition of high-end lenses (F1.4 primes, F2.8 zooms}. Almost all F1.8 primes for FE, Z and R are cheaper than F1.4 lenses on X-mount, some of which are not even weather sealed and have slower AF motors. F4 zooms for FE and Z are typically cheaper and smaller than the X-mount F2.8 zooms. For example, the Nikon Z6+24-70/4 costs $2400, while the X-T3+16-55/2.8 is $2700. And the Nikon combination is stabilized.

And then we have the third party revolution on E-mount. As the most significant example, Tamron's new 28-75mm/2.8 and 17-28mm/2.8 are under $1000 and a compact 70-180mm/2.8 is rumored to come soon. Everyone and its grandmother is now buying an A7III+28-75mm/2.8. Fujifilm has to adjust its pricing policy somehow.

But I don't argue that Fuji APSC is in the IQ league with high-res 50ish FF. But I do argue the Fuji APSC is the digital sweet spot for so many people. So many. Most? Who knows.

Quite possibly, it depends on the requirements. To me, F4 zooms on FF are the sweet spot, compact enough, but give me sufficient flexibility for indoor shooting and some subject separation. I would need F2.8 on APS-C and those are not available in the form and at the price I would like.

For many people F4 on APS-C (or F2.8 on M43) might be good enough and thus APS-C/M43 might be the sweat spot for them. A similar argument can be made with primes as well.

I left Canon FF DSLR for Fuji. Then I spent two years ranting that Canon and Nikon were screwed if they didn't go mirrorless FF with a bigger mount (thus killing their pro lens legacy lineup). Well, they finally did it and Nikon did great. Canon has to give it another (fast) generation and get it right, and they will.

Then about 9 months ago I just said to Hell with it and bought Fuji GFX Medium Format 50r and 6 GFX lenses. I kept all my Fuji APSC gear (which is a lot). I became so blown away by the MF files I was seeing on my big studio 4K monitor that I just couldn't believe it so it is all I have shot for 9 months. It is amazing and very special. So yes, sensor size matters.

Anyway, I came so close to buying in on the alphasevenarethree that you would not believe it. The alphasevenarefour makes me drool and I almost got it. It took four guys on the MF Board to talk me out of it because I have high-res covered well with GFX. So I instead went all-in and ordered the GFX 100.

So, don't do as I do. That would be insane. Do as I say, which is pick a system and buy as many lenses as you can. They are all so damn good now. I like Fuji and Sony. I recommended Olympus for my adult kids. Nikon is killing it. Canon has some work. Leica is hard to reach for with most sane people, but I just bought the Q2. I might recommend an X100F for that type of camera for 99.9 percent of people vs the Leica. For the Leica, you have to be rich, usually old and a bit nuts. But man is it sweet.

But, that said, most MF shooters have two systems and a lot of them use Sony FF along with GFX. A lot use Fuji APSC and I know one pro who shoots Olympus and Fuji GFX. A lot shoot Nikon and Fuji or Hassy MF.

Sorry - I babble.

Not at all, you start making sense!

 kolyy's gear list:kolyy's gear list
Canon G9 X II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7 III
bob13bob Contributing Member • Posts: 954
Re: Par for the course

- the value proposition of high-end lenses (F1.4 primes, F2.8 zooms}. Almost all F1.8 primes for FE, Z and R are cheaper than F1.4 lenses on X-mount, some of which are not even weather sealed and have slower AF motors. F4 zooms for FE and Z are typically cheaper and smaller than the X-mount F2.8 zooms. For example, the Nikon Z6+24-70/4 costs $2400, while the X-T3+16-55/2.8 is $2700. And the Nikon combination is stabilized.

And then we have the third party revolution on E-mount. As the most significant example, Tamron's new 28-75mm/2.8 and 17-28mm/2.8 are under $1000 and a compact 70-180mm/2.8 is rumored to come soon. Everyone and its grandmother is now buying an A7III+28-75mm/2.8. Fujifilm has to adjust its pricing policy somehow.

But I don't argue that Fuji APSC is in the IQ league with high-res 50ish FF. But I do argue the Fuji APSC is the digital sweet spot for so many people. So many. Most? Who knows.

Quite possibly, it depends on the requirements. To me, F4 zooms on FF are the sweet spot, compact enough, but give me sufficient flexibility for indoor shooting and some subject separation. I would need F2.8 on APS-C and those are not available in the form and at the price I would like.

bingo. when you start pricing whole systems, FF is actually cheaper and often times smaller than smaller sensor format bodies.

the value is clearly better in FF.  Alot of misconception surround smaller format "value" because they don't understand or factor in equivalence.

Fuji glass is not as sharp as FF glass on high res FF bodies, and it's a stop slower most of the time as well.

eg a $600 fuji 35 f1.4 is slower than a $250 sony 50 1.8.  The myth of fuji/mft being cheaper needs to die already.

-- hide signature --

my equipment: a7iii. NATIVE: sony 50 1.8. samyang 35 2.8. ADAPTED: sigma mc11 adapter. canon 85mm 1.8. sigma (canon) 12-24 4-5.6. canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is ii.

cosmicnode Veteran Member • Posts: 4,286
Re: Par for the course
1

bob13bob wrote:

- the value proposition of high-end lenses (F1.4 primes, F2.8 zooms}. Almost all F1.8 primes for FE, Z and R are cheaper than F1.4 lenses on X-mount, some of which are not even weather sealed and have slower AF motors. F4 zooms for FE and Z are typically cheaper and smaller than the X-mount F2.8 zooms. For example, the Nikon Z6+24-70/4 costs $2400, while the X-T3+16-55/2.8 is $2700. And the Nikon combination is stabilized.

And then we have the third party revolution on E-mount. As the most significant example, Tamron's new 28-75mm/2.8 and 17-28mm/2.8 are under $1000 and a compact 70-180mm/2.8 is rumored to come soon. Everyone and its grandmother is now buying an A7III+28-75mm/2.8. Fujifilm has to adjust its pricing policy somehow.

But I don't argue that Fuji APSC is in the IQ league with high-res 50ish FF. But I do argue the Fuji APSC is the digital sweet spot for so many people. So many. Most? Who knows.

Quite possibly, it depends on the requirements. To me, F4 zooms on FF are the sweet spot, compact enough, but give me sufficient flexibility for indoor shooting and some subject separation. I would need F2.8 on APS-C and those are not available in the form and at the price I would like.

bingo. when you start pricing whole systems, FF is actually cheaper and often times smaller than smaller sensor format bodies

Olympus 12-14mm F2.8 £899. Sony 24-70 f2.8 £1799, Nikon 24-70 f2.8 £2019.

There are many examples like this, Just expand your horizon and look for yourself

the value is clearly better in FF. Alot of misconception surround smaller format "value" because they don't understand or factor in equivalence.

Equivalence is generally understood by m4/3 users, the doubling of the focal length, the extra depth of field in low light for the same F stop with equivalent field of view. which does not require higher iso, smaller f stops,or longer exposures that is required by larger formats to obtain that extra depth of field.

Fuji glass is not as sharp as FF glass on high res FF bodies, and it's a stop slower most of the time as well.

eg a $600 fuji 35 f1.4 is slower than a $250 sony 50 1.8. The myth of fuji/mft being cheaper needs to die already.

-- hide signature --

Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 cosmicnode's gear list:cosmicnode's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D800 Nikon D500 Olympus E-PL8 Olympus E-M1 II +12 more
kolyy Senior Member • Posts: 1,109
Re: Par for the course
1

cosmicnode wrote:

bob13bob wrote:

- the value proposition of high-end lenses (F1.4 primes, F2.8 zooms}. Almost all F1.8 primes for FE, Z and R are cheaper than F1.4 lenses on X-mount, some of which are not even weather sealed and have slower AF motors. F4 zooms for FE and Z are typically cheaper and smaller than the X-mount F2.8 zooms. For example, the Nikon Z6+24-70/4 costs $2400, while the X-T3+16-55/2.8 is $2700. And the Nikon combination is stabilized.

And then we have the third party revolution on E-mount. As the most significant example, Tamron's new 28-75mm/2.8 and 17-28mm/2.8 are under $1000 and a compact 70-180mm/2.8 is rumored to come soon. Everyone and its grandmother is now buying an A7III+28-75mm/2.8. Fujifilm has to adjust its pricing policy somehow.

But I don't argue that Fuji APSC is in the IQ league with high-res 50ish FF. But I do argue the Fuji APSC is the digital sweet spot for so many people. So many. Most? Who knows.

Quite possibly, it depends on the requirements. To me, F4 zooms on FF are the sweet spot, compact enough, but give me sufficient flexibility for indoor shooting and some subject separation. I would need F2.8 on APS-C and those are not available in the form and at the price I would like.

bingo. when you start pricing whole systems, FF is actually cheaper and often times smaller than smaller sensor format bodies

Olympus 12-14mm F2.8 £899. Sony 24-70 f2.8 £1799, Nikon 24-70 f2.8 £2019.

There are many examples like this, Just expand your horizon and look for yourself

the value is clearly better in FF. Alot of misconception surround smaller format "value" because they don't understand or factor in equivalence.

Equivalence is generally understood by m4/3 users, the doubling of the focal length, the extra depth of field in low light for the same F stop with equivalent field of view. which does not require higher iso, smaller f stops,or longer exposures that is required by larger formats to obtain that extra depth of field.

Fuji glass is not as sharp as FF glass on high res FF bodies, and it's a stop slower most of the time as well.

eg a $600 fuji 35 f1.4 is slower than a $250 sony 50 1.8. The myth of fuji/mft being cheaper needs to die already.

LOL

 kolyy's gear list:kolyy's gear list
Canon G9 X II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7 III
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,740
Re: Par for the course

bob13bob wrote:

bingo. when you start pricing whole systems, FF is actually cheaper and often times smaller than smaller sensor format bodies.

the value is clearly better in FF. Alot of misconception surround smaller format "value" because they don't understand or factor in equivalence.

Fuji glass is not as sharp as FF glass on high res FF bodies, and it's a stop slower most of the time as well.

eg a $600 fuji 35 f1.4 is slower than a $250 sony 50 1.8. The myth of fuji/mft being cheaper needs to die already.

No Bob, this is 95% wrong both in facts and tone.  No offense.  I could tear this apart piece by piece and give you example after example to counter your points.  You have cherry-picked equipment here and even compared a world-class and very expensive Fuji lens to a plain consumer FF lens.

I could write you 10 pages on why I prefer the Fuji gear to the gear you mentioned, but I would be wasting my time doing so on this Board.

Buy what you like and feel good about it.  It's all good stuff.   Fuji has the sweet spot in terms of APSC and MF.  There is a bloody full-frame war going on right now and there is a lot of new FF mirrorless gear to choose from.  I like FF a lot and have shot it since the dawn of digital.  Just bought a Q2 in fact.

Carry on.  Have a nice day.  Keep on shooting.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Fujifilm X100F Leica Q2 Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
kolyy Senior Member • Posts: 1,109
Re: Par for the course

Greg7579 wrote:

bob13bob wrote:

bingo. when you start pricing whole systems, FF is actually cheaper and often times smaller than smaller sensor format bodies.

the value is clearly better in FF. Alot of misconception surround smaller format "value" because they don't understand or factor in equivalence.

Fuji glass is not as sharp as FF glass on high res FF bodies, and it's a stop slower most of the time as well.

eg a $600 fuji 35 f1.4 is slower than a $250 sony 50 1.8. The myth of fuji/mft being cheaper needs to die already.

No Bob, this is 95% wrong both in facts and tone. No offense. I could tear this apart piece by piece and give you example after example to counter your points. You have cherry-picked equipment here and even compared a world-class and very expensive Fuji lens to a plain consumer FF lens.

Well the 35mm/1.4 has a nicer feel to it, that's for sure. But the slow AF (unit focusing group), low border sharpness wide open or lack of weather sealing is common for both. Sony's focusing is at least quiet though.

I think Fuji really has to update its 35mm/1.4 to something more modern. The current lens could still be sold at a discount as a siren call to the Fuji system with its legendary rendering.

 kolyy's gear list:kolyy's gear list
Canon G9 X II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7 III
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads