Fuji 100-400 vs Sony 100-400 + 1.4TC comparison

[klotzy]

I'm an amateur shooting the Fuji X-T2 with the XF 100-400 for a couple of years now. Coming from compact cameras I was blown away by the image quality improvements this combo gave me. As I'm getting used to this quality and my skills improve I'm wondering: Could it be better? I'm sometimes disappointed by long distance shots as they come out quite soft no matter what shutter speed. Having no experience with other camera systems at those focal lengths I wondered if that's due to physics (air diffusion) or due to the lens.

To find out the truth I rented a Sony A7 III with the Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS and the 1.4x TC.

Sony 100-400 gets excellent reviews in terms of sharpness at the long end so it's a good reference. I chose this combo because I don't consider lenses weighing more (like the Sony 200-600) or more expensive/higher resolution/non-mirrorless bodies. I'm usually photographing on long hikes and bicycle travels - and I don't feel dedicated enough to photography to justify that gear to myself.

Questions to sort out:

1. Does the Fuji 100-400 produce relatively soft images at long distances due to the lens itself or air diffusion?
2. Does the full frame combo provide a better image quality for about the same weight?
3. Is the Sony lens sharper at 400mm (without TC) than Fuji at the same equivalent focal length?

Procedure:

• Multiple shots with refocussing inbetween (at least 3). Then I chose the best one per combo.
• All handheld (I never use tripods).
• All shots outdoors in realistic situations except image sets Gull 1 and Gull 2
• I didn't try to keep equivalency of ISO/Aperture/Shutter speed. Light situation outdoors was changing and impact on image quality is insignificant if you don't pixel peep.
• All pictures processed in Lightroom with Adobe Color profile and manual adjustments to white balance and exposure to match them as close as possible. Sharpening for Fuji photos is set to Amount 100/Details 0 (read more on that at https://exploringexposure.com/blog/fujifilm/my-fujifilm-sharpening-workflow-in-lightroom)
• All shots resized to 4K resolution as this is how I look at them mostly.

You can find the comparison images in this album:

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3521449058/albums/fuji-100-400-vs-sony-100-400-1-4-tc

Results:

1. The relative softness at long focal lengths is not due to the lens. The pictures from the two combos look about the same. I just have too high expectations given the atmosphere on planet earth and I should listen to professional wildlife photographers: Get closer to your subject if you want better picture quality. Image sets: Heron, Crow, Pelican, Cormorant
2. In my opinion the full frame combo produces the same or slightly better pictures. But nothing which would improve my photography and justify the much higher cost. But: Variability between the multiple shots I took of the same subject is significantly higher on the Fuji combo. Something I observed with any lens on the on the XT-2 and I get more consistent results using electronic shutter (ES) at any shutter speed. XT-2 doesn't have electronic first curtain shutter and the shutter release button is quite stiff (I prefer the Sony one). XT-4/X-H2 might improve that but I don't wory about using ES.
3. Sony at 400mm (no TC) and Fuji at almost equivalent 261mm show no significant differences to me. Image set: Gull 2

Conclusion:

Changing the camera system would not improve my pictures and I can stay happy with what I have.

 

[MedicineMan999]

You put much effort into this comparison. Thank you. I looked at the images and can see why you concluded what you did, and in some cases the Fuji bested the Sony.

 

[George Pierre]

Conclusion:

Changing the camera system would not improve my pictures and I can stay happy with what I have.

Excellent post and I heartily agree with your conclusion!
George
www.flickr.com/photos/georgespierre

 

[Morris0]

I'm an amateur shooting the Fuji X-T2 with the XF 100-400 for a couple of years now. Coming from compact cameras I was blown away by the image quality improvements this combo gave me. As I'm getting used to this quality and my skills improve I'm wondering: Could it be better? I'm sometimes disappointed by long distance shots as they come out quite soft no matter what shutter speed. Having no experience with other camera systems at those focal lengths I wondered if that's due to physics (air diffusion) or due to the lens.

To find out the truth I rented a Sony A7 III with the Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS and the 1.4x TC.

Sony 100-400 gets excellent reviews in terms of sharpness at the long end so it's a good reference. I chose this combo because I don't consider lenses weighing more (like the Sony 200-600) or more expensive/higher resolution/non-mirrorless bodies. I'm usually photographing on long hikes and bicycle travels - and I don't feel dedicated enough to photography to justify that gear to myself.

Questions to sort out:

1. Does the Fuji 100-400 produce relatively soft images at long distances due to the lens itself or air diffusion?
2. Does the full frame combo provide a better image quality for about the same weight?
3. Is the Sony lens sharper at 400mm (without TC) than Fuji at the same equivalent focal length?

Procedure:

• Multiple shots with refocussing inbetween (at least 3). Then I chose the best one per combo.
• All handheld (I never use tripods).
• All shots outdoors in realistic situations except image sets Gull 1 and Gull 2
• I didn't try to keep equivalency of ISO/Aperture/Shutter speed. Light situation outdoors was changing and impact on image quality is insignificant if you don't pixel peep.
• All pictures processed in Lightroom with Adobe Color profile and manual adjustments to white balance and exposure to match them as close as possible. Sharpening for Fuji photos is set to Amount 100/Details 0 (read more on that at https://exploringexposure.com/blog/fujifilm/my-fujifilm-sharpening-workflow-in-lightroom)
• All shots resized to 4K resolution as this is how I look at them mostly.

You can find the comparison images in this album:

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3521449058/albums/fuji-100-400-vs-sony-100-400-1-4-tc

Results:

1. The relative softness at long focal lengths is not due to the lens. The pictures from the two combos look about the same. I just have too high expectations given the atmosphere on planet earth and I should listen to professional wildlife photographers: Get closer to your subject if you want better picture quality. Image sets: Heron, Crow, Pelican, Cormorant
2. In my opinion the full frame combo produces the same or slightly better pictures. But nothing which would improve my photography and justify the much higher cost. But: Variability between the multiple shots I took of the same subject is significantly higher on the Fuji combo. Something I observed with any lens on the on the XT-2 and I get more consistent results using electronic shutter (ES) at any shutter speed. XT-2 doesn't have electronic first curtain shutter and the shutter release button is quite stiff (I prefer the Sony one). XT-4/X-H2 might improve that but I don't wory about using ES.
3. Sony at 400mm (no TC) and Fuji at almost equivalent 261mm show no significant differences to me. Image set: Gull 2

Conclusion:

Changing the camera system would not improve my pictures and I can stay happy with what I have.

I agree that the camera system is not the issue. You are shooting at relatively short distances where all photos should be very sharp. Your results are inconsistent with some of each brand better. My conclusion is that you can improve the results by improving your technique. If you are shooting handheld up your ISO to increase your shutter speed. If you are having trouble keeping the focus point on the subject's eye use support. If using support, you need to use proper long lens technique: Left hand on lens closer to the front than the center of gravity and gently pushing down. Eye to viewfinder with eye or forehead pressing into the camera and pushing down.

Long lenses are not forgiving and every mistake we make are magnified.

Morris

 

[Alan Hewitt Photo]

A lot of people massively underestimate just how much atmospheric haze etc. can soften the apperance of distant subjects despite them being in focus.

Interesting post!


--
Wildlife Photographer, photo safari & workshop guide, freelance writer.
Insta: alanhewittphoto
Official FUJIFILM X-Photographer
Formatt-Hitech UK Brand Ambassador

 

[Morris0]

A lot of people massively underestimate just how much atmospheric haze etc. can soften the apperance of distant subjects despite them being in focus.
Interesting post!

Hi Alan,

I agree with this and heat waves as well. Neither is the problem here. The Fuji pelican image clearly shows front focus as the beak is sharp and the eye and back of head is not. As I think about this I had some thoughts as to why that might be:

- Use of AF-S lock and shutter tripped after head turned

- Use of zone focus with two large a box causing the beak to be tracked or selected

Morris

 

[Tkshaffer]

I appreciate your efforts. I find that Sony camera very appealing due to more telephoto options but it helps knowing the Fuji holds its own pretty well.

 

[Craig268]

As others have noted, your post is very sensible, well-thought-out and enjoyable.

 

[Justin Cider]

I didn't want to quote the giant wall of text but what Morris is saying above about technique is huge. It was the tip from Morris about putting your left hand on top of the lens that solved the vast majority of my issues shooting long. Especially when I'm shooting at 500-600mm this is a must. No joke, this transformed my shooting from getting 20% great photos at 600mm to 80%+. These kind of tips cut months off the learning curve. So thanks Morris and keep those tips coming!

 

[Morris0]

I didn't want to quote the giant wall of text but what Morris is saying above about technique is huge. It was the tip from Morris about putting your left hand on top of the lens that solved the vast majority of my issues shooting long. Especially when I'm shooting at 500-600mm this is a must. No joke, this transformed my shooting from getting 20% great photos at 600mm to 80%+. These kind of tips cut months off the learning curve. So thanks Morris and keep those tips coming!

I'm glad the tip has helped. While I learned of this technique from others, Moose Peterson is credited with inventing it and I've thanked him in person.

Morris

 

[rwbaron]

Interesting post and a "real World as I would use them" comparison.

Some people fail to grasp that given identical resolution an APS C sensor has a significant advantage over FF when one is FL limited. Virtually every long zoom lens is the sharpest at its short end and the weakest at its longest. This puts the FF Sony 100-400 at 400mm at an immediate disadvantage to the Fuji at 261mm for identical framing and pixels on the subject. The Fuji is still in the "sweet spot" of its IQ where the Sony is at it's weakest. Adding an extender always comes with some compromise in IQ so having to shoot the Sony with a 1.4 against the Fuji bare at 400mm again gives Fuji the advantage.

This is why IMHO it makes no sense to shoot FF for subjects like wildlife or any time one is FL limited. If one is skilled at knowing the habits and patterns of their subject and shoots from a blind and is willing to schlep large heavy equipment into the wild then sure, a FF with a 600f4 or 800f5.6 will provide that last bit of IQ maybe missing from APS C with lesser glass but at a significant sacrifice.

Bob

 

[norjens]

Interesting post and a "real World as I would use them" comparison.

Some people fail to grasp that given identical resolution an APS C sensor has a significant advantage over FF when one is FL limited. Virtually every long zoom lens is the sharpest at its short end and the weakest at its longest. This puts the FF Sony 100-400 at 400mm at an immediate disadvantage to the Fuji at 261mm for identical framing and pixels on the subject. The Fuji is still in the "sweet spot" of its IQ where the Sony is at it's weakest. Adding an extender always comes with some compromise in IQ so having to shoot the Sony with a 1.4 against the Fuji bare at 400mm again gives Fuji the advantage.

Not necessarily. If the sensors have the same pixel density you can simply shoot the Sony at the same 400mm in APS-C crop mode and get the same result if everything else, including lens quality, is equal. But then you probably are paying a lot more for that 40+ megapixel FF camera.

This is why IMHO it makes no sense to shoot FF for subjects like wildlife or any time one is FL limited. If one is skilled at knowing the habits and patterns of their subject and shoots from a blind and is willing to schlep large heavy equipment into the wild then sure, a FF with a 600f4 or 800f5.6 will provide that last bit of IQ maybe missing from APS C with lesser glass but at a significant sacrifice.

Bob

I actually agree in general. If you know you'll be shooting long, then there are some inherent advantages to the smaller sensor system.

1: While the big front glass will be the same for equivalent results, the lens elements closer to the sensor can be a bit smaller and lighter to cover the smaller sensor.

2: While an equivalent 400mm/2.8 lens will be as fat as a 600mm/4, it will still be shorter! Together with reason 1, there actually is an advantage even when taking account for equivalence. Not as at the level of making the Olympus 300mm/4 a competitor to the Nikon 600mm, but there is an advantage.

3: The smaller sensor, with same technology, should scan faster and give higher framerates, and/or be cheaper with less power consumption.

There are some downsides, as a 400mm lens needing to be sharper than a 600mm one to give the same final resolution, but with the bottlenecks of shutter speed and atmospheric effects it becomes quite irrelevant.