Nikon and Fujifilm mix-and-match telephoto comparisons

I've done some comparisons with my beloved Nikon d500, x-h2, and x-t3 (the latter basically as a control, although it did quite well) using the Nikon 500mm pf (with the Fringer AF adapter on the Fuji cameras) and the Fujifilm 70-300. Overarching goal is to see if I should keep my new x-h2 and possibly sell my d500. On paper, the 40mp x-h2 sensor with the 500mm lens should be the best. The x-t3 with the 70-300 should be the worst, only because I can't put that lens on the d500 (which has only 20mp compared to the 26mp of the x-t3).

I am sure there are problems with my testing, and I welcome feedback along those lines, but my goal was just to do comparisons that mirrored my real-world shooting conditions.

I'm starting with jpeg comparisons in this thread because I am having issues with the x-h2 raw files (discussed in another thread). Will get back to that at some point.

The Fuji and Nikon jpeg files are both as standard as I can get them, "standard" picture control in Nikon, "provia" in Fujifilm, everything at default values. There certainly are differences in how Nikon and Fuji engineers have chosen to pick defaults, but, what are you gonna do. I think the results are clear enough with the jpegs that the comparisons are still useful, to me at least.

The light was identical (within reason) in all comparisons. I did this before dawn with two LED spotlights on the dollar bill (these lights were about 5 feet away) and one overhead light, on my bathroom wall if you must know.

The five combinations being compared are:

1. x-h2 with 500mm pf.

2. x-h2 with 70-300mm at 300mm.

3. d500 with 500mm pf.

4. x-t3 with 500mm pf.

5. x-t3 with 70-300mm at 300mm.

They are always presented in that order, left to right.

All tests wide open at f/5.6.

Spot metering on George's face.

Handheld with VR/IBIS/OIS on.

AF-C on George's face.

The target is 14' away from me, at camera height.

Continuous shutter.

I took 3 bursts in each scenario, refocusing between bursts, and picked the best picture. There were usually about 10-12 photos to choose from.

My overall goal was to replicate my real-world shooting scenarios.

The height of George's likeness on a dollar bill is smaller than the smallest bird I've ever shot, save maybe hummingbirds: less than 1.5". So, we are talking about taking pictures of tiny birds at 14', quite optimistic.

The dollar bill itself is a bit over 2.5" tall.

I shot at 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, and 1/250, going from optimistic to reliable for birds on sticks.

I scaled the pics so that the subject (George's face standing in for a bird) was the same. I always started with the x-h2 and 100% and sized the others to match. Once I got the sizing acceptable, I used the same percentages for all comparisons (from left to right, 100%, 180%, 140%, 123%, 226%).

ISOs varied a bit given differences between systems, cameras, and what exactly was included in the "spot" that I was trying to land on George's eyes/nose. The x-t3 tended to have the largest ISOs but they were generally all within a stop for a given shutter speed.

First, at 1/30 (base ISOs on all combinations, and these pics are a touch overexposed (maybe 1/3 of a stop), really testing IBIS, VR, etc. here:

Seems to me that the x-h2 + 500mm pf is the clear winner (first shot), and the two Fuji cameras with the 70-300 are about the same and clear losers (second and fifth shots). The x-t3 + 500mm pf (fourth) and the d500 (third) with that same lens are quite close. I'd give the slight edge to the x-t3 (fourth) as I think we would expect given 26 v 20 mp. Really impressed with the sharpness of all pictures frankly, at 1/30! (although, keep in mind that in some cases there might have been only one or two good shots out of a dozen).

Now 1/60:

Similar, but the d500 + 500mm (third) falls noticeably behind the x-t3 + 500mm, presumably because the VR couldn't get me good shot out of a dozen. Maybe the sharp shot for the d500 + 500mm lens at 1/30 was a bit of a fluke? x-h2 (first) beats the x-t3 (fourth) with the 500mm lens but...it's darned close. Looks smaller than the difference at 1/30, maybe the IBIS is helping the x-h2 (first shot) at the longer shutter speed of 1/30.

1/125:

Dang that x-h2 + 500mm shot (first) is sharp, probably the sharpest shot in all the comparisons. X-t2 (fourth) not far behind and noticeably better than the d500 (third) when both have the 500mm lens attached. Both 70-300 shots (second and fifth) are worst, but the d500 (third) did not do well here. This is the danger zone for shutter speed for the VR problem of this lens that you either believe in or don't. I do.

[as an aside, if you are curious, here's a shot where I doubled the size of each picture for the 1/125 comparison; when I look at the detail in George's left eye in the x-h2 + 500mm image, at 14', I am thoroughly impressed]

And 1/250, all combinations should be solid in terms of IBIS/VR at this shutter speed.

Not much at all between the x-h2 (first) and x-t3 (fourth) shots with the 500mm lens here. d500 (third) has come back into shape and is again clearly better than the two shots with the 70-300 (the second and fifth).

I will say that the differences between the best and worst pictures was obvious at "fill" size, "fit" size, and 50% in LR. To tease apart the x-h2 and x-t3 pictures took 100% views or more.

Anyway, there you have it. Love to hear what you all think.

If, and only if I understood your comparison correctly.
Your results are definitely skewed!
Never zoom in more than 100%, otherwise blurry photo assured, We never look at a photo on a computer beyond 100%. Especially if you want to assess the quality of an image.

For a fair comparison, you must enlarge the least defined image, here the JPGs of the D500 of 20mp at a maximum of 100%, and readjusted the images to 26mp and 40mp to make them match the 100% of the Nikon.

It's normal for your photos to be blurry, with magnifications of 140, 180, and 226%.
Hoping to have been clear.

Well you have probably proven to yourself that the X-H2 + 500 PF is a good combination and also that the 70-300 is an inferior lens to the 500 PF.

Comparing the JPEG of a Nikon body to a Fuji body at default settings will result in different sharpening yet what each manufacture considers good looking so it's not terrible yet not necessarily an accurate comparison.  I still feal you have answered your question of what works best and worst.

US Law prohibits the photo reproduction of complete views of us currency.  Your last sample comes close to violating this.  Please be carful, you don't what the US Secret Service knocking on your door.

Morris

Morris0 wrote:

Well you have probably proven to yourself that the X-H2 + 500 PF is a good combination and also that the 70-300 is an inferior lens to the 500 PF.

Comparing the JPEG of a Nikon body to a Fuji body at default settings will result in different sharpening yet what each manufacture considers good looking so it's not terrible yet not necessarily an accurate comparison. I still feal you have answered your question of what works best and worst.

US Law prohibits the photo reproduction of complete views of us currency. Your last sample comes close to violating this. Please be carful, you don't what the US Secret Service knocking on your door.

Morris

Yep, I think I've answered my questions.

Hey Moderator, can we get rid of that last picture as Morris mentioned?

The 500 PF is clearly the better lens, but given that it costs exactly 4.5 times as much as the 70-300, I’d say the Fuji holds up pretty well indeed.

xtabber wrote:

The 500 PF is clearly the better lens, but given that it costs exactly 4.5 times as much as the 70-300, I’d say the Fuji holds up pretty well indeed.

I agree, and not only the cost but the weight, flexibility as a zoom, etc., I love my 70-300. I just did some comparisons between the 16-80 that I got as part of the x-h2 kit and, while the 16-80 did not fare too well in any of the comparisons with my existing lenses (27mm, 60mm, etc.), the biggest and most obvious difference was against the 70-300 in their overlapping ranges.

1000DTL wrote:

Thanks for the comparisons. I have been very happy with the Fringer adapter. I skipped the Fuji 70-300 because I have been using the Nikon AF-P 70-300 FX with the Fringer adapter. I know the Fuji 70-300 focuses closer but I haven't been able to find a comparison of the two lenses. The Nikon AF-P 70-300 FX has received glowing reviews but no direct comparison with the Fuji version.

Sure, they were interesting.

I've only had the Fringer for a couple of days, but I immediately noticed that the 500mm pf seemed to be focusing a bit slower on the x-h2 than on the d500. Not that it was ever lightning fast, but it's a notch below I think. Actually, I should qualify that because I just now updated the Fringer firmware, so I should hold off on my conclusion there.

I love my Fuji 70-300 but have certainly also heard very good things about Nikon's 70-300s.