APS-C question - Nikon vs Fuji

Sootchucker

Sootchucker

Messages
2,486
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
As some of you may have seen yesterday from my Jay images, I do quite a lot of my current bird shooting with my Micro Four Thirds setup. As good as this set-up is (and it is incredibly good, especially with the 40-150 F2.8 and 300mm F4 pro lenses), when the light levels drop (which they tend to do at this time of year), and the EM1 MK II hits ISO 3200-ISO 6400 or higher, despite the admirable battle put up by M4/3, the image quality does start to suffer, and no amount of world class IBIS is going to help when the shutter speeds drop to 1/80 or 1/60 sec wide open with fast moving darting birds.

There's been talk (or should I say rumours) that the new Olympus EM1-X to be launched next year will be some sort of game changer, but that's in the future, and we all know promises don't always make a good reality.

I have therefore been looking at my alternative options for bird and wildlife shooting equipment as a back up to the Olympus stuff. To date, I have to say the best system I ever had was my Nikon D500 coupled with the stellar Nikon 300mm F4 AF-S and one of the teleconverters (or my slightly less sharp Tamron 150-600). The 300mm F4 with the 1.4x converter would net me approx 630mm focal length at F5.6, so typically ISO's would be up at ISO 6,400 or even in some case ISO 12,800, but despite reviews to the contrary on the web, my little D500 was stellar, and with a bit of NR, the images came out superb (see images below for example), and the AF was just incredible. Now I did sell off all my Nikon gear last year including the D500 as mine had a persistent battery issue that Nikon UK couldn't or wouldn't fix that would flatten a battery in around 250-350 shots when it was supposed to go over 1000 (the same batteries did on my D750, D810 etc.).

Fast forward to now, and I am totally without any Nikon gear at all (glass or bodies), but I do have the Fuji X-H1, however my longest lens is the still great 55-200 F3.5-4.8 (300mm max in FF terms). So I've been debating if the Fuji system coupled with a long lens (like the Fujinon 100-400), at these high ISO's can compete with what I used to get from my Nikon D500. Reading reviews on line seems to indicate that the X-H1's high ISO is at least as good as the D500, but without a proper lens try it with at these ISO's I'm not 100% sure. Has anyone shot with both systems and can comment or instead shot with an X-T2, X-H1 or X-T3 etc. with a long lens and can comment or post some examples at ISO's 3200, 6400 or 12,800 please ? Obviously it woudl be great if the X-H1 could complete as I'd rather not switch or add yet another system, even though I know the D500's AF still probably rules.

Anyway, here's a shot I got on the D500 at ISO's 12,800 and 8000 as examples (funnily enough these are Jay's as well :D)



 
Interested in replies myself. Like you I have D500 and H1
Personally as long as I need long lens and fast AF I’m sticking with the Nikon. Nothing against the H1 but I can’t afford the 100-400 just to give it a go.
D500 AF as you know is class leading.
 
Andrew,

I have a pair of X-T2's, so the same sensor as your X-H1. All of the shots in the link below were shot with my Fuji kit, many of them with the 100-400, and most of those with the 1.4TC. As Trevor knows, my main subject is wildlife, although I haven't really had much chance to get out lately, and I've been very pleased with my Fuji set up. I regularly shoot at 1600 & 3200 ISO without issue, and 6400 isn't a problem as long as you expose correctly.

My previous kit was a 7D2 & 300 f4 with 1.4TC or Sigma 150-600 Sport. The Fuji set up is so much lighter, I can carry it around all day.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevejelly/albums/72157693603347985


Edit: This one was shot at 560mm & 6400 ISO - https://flic.kr/p/21DtUu5
 
Last edited:
I think one of the biggest issues is how you view your files. If they're viewed on screen or as relatively small prints of maybe A4 viewed normally that's one thing but gallery quality at 1m wide and viewed closely is something else. These days most of my pictures are viewed on screen although some do get printed.

I do wonder what gear wont give acceptable pictures when viewed normally or even quite closely at a these days relatively forgiving ISO 6,400.
 
I have an xt2 and d500. I don’t own any long Fuji lenses but use the 300f4 of plus tc on my d500. IMO the Fuji does not focus as fast as the 500 and I doubt if any Fuji can keep up with the Nikon.
 
I've had the 100-400 / XT2 combo before and used it for motorsport and fast moving dogs and it was brilliant. Also if it's good enough for world class motorsport photographers like Jeff Carter and George's crew on an XT2 or XH1 it should be fine for BIF

I've seen some huge prints of Jeff's from Le Mans, fantastic.
 
imattersuk said:
Also if it's good enough for world class motorsport ... it should be fine for BIF
Click to expand...
Motorsports and BIF are two different worlds of difficulty. BIF is more akin to photographing the ball during a sports game.

IMO, the most important aspect for wildlife/BIF is autofocus and exposure (accuracy/leniency)... in that order.
 
OK thanks all for your comments. Looks from this that from an IQ perspective the X-H1 can hold it's own against the D500, but the D500 bests it for AF speed and accuracy?

So, one more question. For long glass (excluding the mortgage creating new 200mm F2), the only Fuji lens appears to be the 100-400, which is quite expensive new at over £1,500. That being said, (although I've never done it before), I think one of the good things about mirrorless and Fuji in particular is using adapted glass. That being said, what other options are there for good long affordable zooms in the 400-500mm range and adaptors for the Fuji X series please? I've used the Nikon 200-500 and that was a stellar lens, but I don't believe there's a dedicated electronic adaptor yet for Fuji?

Pretty sure as well that Sigma and Tamron doesn’t make native lens mounts for Fuji-X so what does that leave (I've never used a Canon lens in my life - just so you know).
 
Last edited:
There's very little "native" glass out there for Fuji, and nothing other than OEM at the long end, but that 100-400 is damned good.... I've never used an adaptor, but there's a few people on the X-T series thread (and X-H1 thread) that have, that may be a better place to ask.
 
Didn't know that Tamron and Sigma make lenses with Fuji mounts.

Fuji glass is always excellent. IMO it's whether you like the AF. I've not taken much interest in the X-T3. Does the AF beat the X-H1?
 
Last edited:
Peter123 said:
Didn't know that Tamron and Sigma make lenses with Fuji mounts.

Fuji glass is always excellent. IMO it's whether you like the AF. I've not taken much interest in the X-T3. Does the AF beat the X-H1?
Click to expand...

There’s no tamron on sigma glass in with Fuji mounts as far as I know.
Xt3 af is very, very good. Certainly another step up from the x-h1.


View: https://youtu.be/-oXHiORuRk0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top