APSC Telephoto Photography - Sony Vs. Fujifilm
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- Fujifilm X-H2s + 70-300mm R LM OIS WR Vs. Sony A6700 + E 70-350mm
What is the best choice for landscape and wildlife photography if you want to stay on an APSC sized sensor?
Let's find out in my comparison, based on my user experience shooting both combinations for quite some time.
My detailed reviews:
Fujifilm 70-300mm: • My Review of the FUJIF...
Sony 70-350mm: • Sony E 70-350mm F4.5-6...
Fujifilm X-H2s: • [ENG] Fujifilm X-H2s L...
------------------------------------- Video Content -----------------------------------
00:00 - Intro
03:11 - Lenses
05:52 - Cameras
07:46 - Landscape
11:40 - Wildlife
21:54 - Conclusions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instagram & Facebook:
/ lucapetraliaphotography
/ lucapetraliastudio
/ streetsbylp
/ lucapetraliaphotography
Link to Sicilians On The Road:
/ @siciliansontheroad
Video Recorded with the following gear:
Camera: Fujifilm X-H2s
Lens: Fujifilm 18mm F1.4
Microphone: Rode VideoMic Go II
Various lights 
Наука
![[BLACKSWAN] ‘Roll Up’ Official Music Video](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ulvCwyKrwqw/mqdefault.jpg)
Exactly the comparison I was looking for! Thank you, Luca, excellent review as always! 🎉
Thanks you!
Thanks! Looking forward to that 150-600 review 🙂
I'm working hard on that. I've got thousands of shots to go through, but it's been fun
Excellent video Luca, when it comes to reviews and/or comparisons you’re are definitely second to none. You mentioned that the XF70-300 is not top of the line and I understand why, but honestly, for my iguana, alligator, bird and squirrel photography, the lens is really a great performer, even if I add the 1.4 TC there’s no image degradation whatsoever. If you don’t believe me, ask the thousands and thousands of my followers on Instagram, ok, so I only have ten followers, but they like my photos. I’m looking forward to the XF150-600 review. Be well and stay safe.
Agree, feels like the lens was designed to work with the 1.4x TC. The AF speed isn't impacted at all and there isn't any noticable image degradation. Only downside would be a -10% AF hit rate I say. 420mm ( 630mmFF) and 0.5x magnification for 700gr, amazing.
I completely agree too. I have the XF 70-300 and absolutely love it, and with very rare exceptions, the 1.4X teleconverter is virtually glued to it. As you said without any IQ deterioration. Awesome combination.
Thanks as usual Enrique! I definitely believe you and I'd love to have a 1.4x teleconverter to try. But it looks like it's impossible to find them, and those that are available are basically priced like they are new
@kliffot thanks for sharing that
@specialbrewcan thanks to you as well
Great video, Luca! I have the X-H2S and 70-300 as well. Most of my shooting is of my family's life and travels. (I mostly use the 18-120 f/4 or 33 f/1.4 lenses.) I'm planning to do some extreme wildlife photography on a trip to the US state of Alaska this summer. I plan to add the 1.4x teleconverter as well - I'm glad to see from other comments here that the image quality isn't noticeably impacted by the teleconverter. I'm pretty happy with the 70-300 so far, especially with its manageable size, compared to full-frame lenses I've owned before, like the Canon 100-400.
Thanks again for your great videos!
Thank you a lot for sharing your thoughts!
Excellent review. When you say the Fuji is a better experience, you really say it all. I appreciate the little things like noting softer shutter sound. But I'd add that the XH2/2S have way deeper buffers. That stuff counts for a lot for wildlife shooting. Pre-shot ES+CH shooting is a premium feature you just don't find on a lot of lower-end cameras, but Fuji stuck it even into my XT3. That can really increase the keeper rate even if I hit the buffer pretty fast. I think that the XH2 might actually be pretty great for wildlife, but you'd be stuck with the mechanical shutter since the rolling shutter performance and max speed is lower than my XT3 - and it creeps into my photos as it is.
There is something to be said about Fuji making lenses specifically for APS-C as well - to let you get the look you want at the expense of some compression, mainly. The majority of Fuji lenses have a very premium feel being metal and all that - which I think is worth a few extra grams.
BTW when you review the 150-600, can you/will you compare it to the Sony 200-600 mm on the 6700? No one puts that lens on a Sony APS-C sensor, and I have a feeling it will not outperform the Fuji.
I tried to retrieve a 200-600 but there was no way of doing it. I'll keep trying to find one before I have to return the 150-600.
I agree with all the rest that you said
Great video
Thanks!
I am a Fuji user, I have xt5 and xt30 I like both but I am not satisfied with the Fuji lens lineup including its third-party ones for wildlife photographers. Unfortunately, there is no prime lens for wildlife shooters. 70-300 is a nice lens, in terms of size, image quality, and macro capabilities but it does not give me enough reach for the distant subjects. It can be a good secondary lens for wildlife photographers. A better option 150-600 is not fast enough aperture-wise. For flying birds, you may have to increase the shutter speed by more than 1/2000 sec and the widest aperture of f8.0 cannot compensate for this in many scenarios. I often digitally crop my photos to magnify the subject benefiting from the 40 MP sensor but the noise also becomes more obvious. On the other hand, the 25 MP sensor does not give you enough room for cropping even though it outperforms in low light conditions. Despite all the progress in sensor and processor technologies as well as the new telephoto lenses, Fujifilm is still lagging behind the other brands in wildlife photography. Great comparison by the way. Thank you!
Thank you. I believe the lens lineup will be expanded with faster telephoto options. For now you're right, the choice is limited, and I'll discuss this in my review of the 150-600
Nonsense - on a lens like the 150-600mm the quality/strength of light and distance to subject is way more important than the aperture. When shooting small birds and animals you need more depth of field, and f/8 isn't always enough - I would not shoot at f/4 even if I had it. Lightroom has recovered some shots I took at 1/2000 (no OIS), shot in pretty weak overcast skies at iso 12800. “Denoise” helps a ton and not so much because of noise but to recover detail, and on occasion I am shocked at how well it works to save shots for which the ISO had to be cranked. The Fuji 150-600 does a stellar job and an extra stop or two really wouldn’t be worth the weight and price to MOST people, IMO, if you want to actually drag it around all day. Wildlife photography is difficult and while big huge primes might be nice for some people, this latest generation of superzooms make it way easier and more fun.
@@matt88169 you are right but still... A good prime option should be there. When it comes to small birds having a zoom is a blessing, because finding them with a prime 600 and its narrow field of view can become a nightmare.
I'll discuss the aperture more in my 150-600 review, and I only partially agree with you. While it would be silly to hope for an F4 zoom, the simple fact that all the other 200-600 (180mm for Nikon) get to 6.3 at 600mm make the Fuji seem like a lower end option, which is not... But still, 2/3 of a stop in low light scenarios can make the difference.
Sure the Fuji weighs less than the competition, but this should be the case even at similar apertures because of the APSC sized sensor.
And most of the time these differences make a lens be perceived as less sexy than the competition
@@LucaPetraliaPhotography the way I look at it is that, if we’re comparing the Fuji lens to Nikon/Sony, and concerned about aperture, the relevant comparison is the 100-400 f/4-f/5.6. It provides 150-600mm “FF equivalent” and is faster glass with a broader zoom range. If we’re concerned about actual reach (more relevant for wildlife), you have to slap a 1.4x teleconvertor on the Nikon and Sony lenses to match the Fuji reach. Now the AF, image quality, and aperture all take a hit. Someone can also argue that they can simply crop the FF image, but to my knowledge only a 61mp FF sensor matches the Fuji’s pixel density-at 26mp-and once you crop hard most if not all the FF advantage is thrown away.
No one has yet compared the Fuji lens to the Nikon, Sony, or now Canon lens on equal footing (I.e. an APS-C body). That to me is the most relevant comparison. If it’s going to be FF vs. APS-C, the comparison is to a Fuji 100-400, IMO, because there is no 225-900+mm FF lens right now. The Canon 800mm zoom comes closest, but is an f/9 at the long end, and a “pumper” zoom.
Finally, the rationale for making the Fuji an f/8 was apparently to save a pound. But it is also internal zoom/made in Japan, pro “red badge” lens-the Sony and Nikon options are not treated as pro line. I wish I had gotten it on sale for $1400-such a steal at that price. I guess I am defending the Fuji lens hard-I think it deserves way more love than it has been getting. It has delivered some exceptional shots - including human portraits, and is super fun to shoot with being lighter weight and so well balanced.
Yes, Fuji should probably make a few primes in the 300-600m, range. But I personally would not pay to own one until Fuji addresses their autofocus shortcomings. They seem to have the hardware especially with the newer lenses. But a mid range Sony camera should not outperform a $2500 stacked APS-C camera. That is pretty embarrassing for Fuji.
I get your point, or points. And it's hard to argue with them.
I would love to test the 200-600 by Sony on the A6700, but I can't find one. And I'm not ready to purchase it only for the comparison... But I really am willing to compare those two.
As for Nikon, they have a lens that seems very good in the 180-600 but no decent APSC bodies
fuji does have little bit better aperture. little bit better for low light
True, but not a game changer
@@LucaPetraliaPhotographyyes i actually think the extra reach is more important 350mm is better