Fuji shooter looking for advice re: possible system change (BIF, landscape, sports, astro)

[Steve Miller]

Steve-
My choice if I were to move off my OM-1 would be a Z-8/800PF and the new 180-600 zoom. Reason? I find 800mm reach advantageous most of the time. The Sony A1/200-600 is also a choice but when it comes to primes Nikon's PF lenses are seriously boss.
-Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your reply. That 800 mm looks awfully nice but even at the relatively "affordable" price of $6,500 for a huge prime, I don't see one in my future. The closest I'd come to that FL would either be a 1.4x TC with the 180-600 or the 500/5.6 PF. But one can dream!

Steve

 

[Kevin.M]

For reference, here are examples of the type of shots I like to capture.

View attachment 67124

View attachment 67125

View attachment 67126

View attachment 67127

View attachment 67128

Great photos, I have a Fuji system as well and agree with your findings about the system. I too am interested in going back to full frame. ~ Kevin

 

[Steve Miller]

Congratulations on the decision. The lens decision will not be quite as easy. Since birding is your primary requirement, I highly recommend that you not consider the 100-400. You don't need its close focussing capabilities and you certainly won't make use of it on the wide end. I think starting out with a 180-600 as a low cost entry into the ecospace makes a lot of sense. The effective Aperture for subject isolation would be F4 on your Fuji. This should be a lot better than what you are used to, but do not expect to melt away the background. You will have to work towards subject and background separation to make the most of it. Depending on what you shoot you will either fill the frame or you will be cropping do so/ tell a story. I honestly wouldn't sweat the reach at this point. The sensor resolution is high enough for you to do what you wish with the image.

Avoid buying native F mount glass for now, unless you are looking at the exotics. I think you could consider getting a 400 F4.5 with a Z mount 1.4 TC but first I'd shoot with the zoom and see how you feel.

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that figuring out the lenses won't be easy. Assuming it performs well, the 180-600 seems like a no brainer. Hope it won't be too tough to find one when they're released as I wouldn't buy the body until the lens is available. I'm trying to sort through the potential lens choices (in the price points that I could consider). I see the following:

• 180-600 with f/6.3 at 600mm, or f/9 at 840mm if I use a 1.4x TC
• AF-S 500/5.6 using the FTZ II adapter, or 700mm at f/8 with the 1.4x TC (can I use the Z 1.4x TC in this setup)?
• Z 400/4.5 or f/6.3 at 560mm using the 1.4x TC. This would be better than the 180-600 zoom at 400mm but it wouldn't provide much reach for BIF.
• The 800/6.3 is out of my price range
• Am I missing any other <$3k-ish long tele lens options?

For reference, the Fuji XF 150-600 f/5.6-8 gives me the following effective apertures on my X-H2s:

• f/6.4 at 300mm - equivalent to 450mm FOV and effective f/9.6 from a DOF perspective
• f/7.1 at 400mm - equivalent to 600mm FOV and effective f/10.7 from a DOF perspective
• f/7.1 at 500mm - equivalent to 750mm FOV and effective f/10.7 from a DOF perspective
• f/8 at 600mm - equivalent to 900mm FOV and effective f/12 from a DOF perspective

So focusing on the long end, the Z 180-600 with the 1.4x TC gives me about one extra stop of DOF compared to the Fuji XF 150-600 (f/9 at 840mm for the Z180-600+1.4x TC compared to an effective f/12 at 900mm for the XF 150-600). I'll lose maybe a 1/3 of a stop in light gathering ability, i.e. the actual aperture (f/9 with the Z180-600 at 600 vs f/8 for the XF 150-600 at 600 but I have to assume that this will be more than made up for by the cleaner files coming from the Z8 vs the X-H2s. Yes? Also, because of the larger FF sensor on the Z8, I'm also assuming that I'll be able to crop the Z8 files much more and end up with cleaner overall images vs the X-H2s. Yes?

FYI, I'm focused on the tele options because I'm quite certain that I'll easily find relatively affordable Nikon Z lenses for landscape and Milky Way astro photography (the other two primary reasons for looking at the Z8).

I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on my assumptions above and if I'm missing an obvious lens choice.

Thanks!

Steve

 

[Nimi]

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that figuring out the lenses won't be easy. Assuming it performs well, the 180-600 seems like a no brainer. Hope it won't be too tough to find one when they're released as I wouldn't buy the body until the lens is available. I'm trying to sort through the potential lens choices (in the price points that I could consider). I see the following:

• 180-600 with f/6.3 at 600mm, or f/9 at 840mm if I use a 1.4x TC
• AF-S 500/5.6 using the FTZ II adapter, or 700mm at f/8 with the 1.4x TC (can I use the Z 1.4x TC in this setup)?
• Z 400/4.5 or f/6.3 at 560mm using the 1.4x TC. This would be better than the 180-600 zoom at 400mm but it wouldn't provide much reach for BIF.
• The 800/6.3 is out of my price range
• Am I missing any other <$3k-ish long tele lens options?

For reference, the Fuji XF 150-600 f/5.6-8 gives me the following effective apertures on my X-H2s:

• f/6.4 at 300mm - equivalent to 450mm FOV and effective f/9.6 from a DOF perspective
• f/7.1 at 400mm - equivalent to 600mm FOV and effective f/10.7 from a DOF perspective
• f/7.1 at 500mm - equivalent to 750mm FOV and effective f/10.7 from a DOF perspective
• f/8 at 600mm - equivalent to 900mm FOV and effective f/12 from a DOF perspective

So focusing on the long end, the Z 180-600 with the 1.4x TC gives me about one extra stop of DOF compared to the Fuji XF 150-600 (f/9 at 840mm for the Z180-600+1.4x TC compared to an effective f/12 at 900mm for the XF 150-600). I'll lose maybe a 1/3 of a stop in light gathering ability, i.e. the actual aperture (f/9 with the Z180-600 at 600 vs f/8 for the XF 150-600 at 600 but I have to assume that this will be more than made up for by the cleaner files coming from the Z8 vs the X-H2s. Yes? Also, because of the larger FF sensor on the Z8, I'm also assuming that I'll be able to crop the Z8 files much more and end up with cleaner overall images vs the X-H2s. Yes?

FYI, I'm focused on the tele options because I'm quite certain that I'll easily find relatively affordable Nikon Z lenses for landscape and Milky Way astro photography (the other two primary reasons for looking at the Z8).

I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on my assumptions above and if I'm missing an obvious lens choice.

Thanks!

Steve

At Native ISO, the Z8 sensor has a significantly higher dynamic range than the XH2S sensor, about 1.5 stops, so the files will be cleaner and easier to edit, especially bringing in the shadows. This isnimportant for outdoors where you often encounter blown highlights. You can underexpose a little to protect the highlights then recover the shadows. Harder to do with the Fuji. At ISOs 200-400, dynamic range is identical. Above that, the Nikon is about 1/2 stop better.

In addition to sensor size, the Z8 also has a pixel pitch which is a good 25% larger than the Fuji: less noise across the exposure range.

So net net net, before looking at MTF charts for the lenses of choice, the Z8 will give you a better, more pliable image.

 

[Steve Miller]

Hi Steve!

I shoot birds and wildlife. I have two Fuji X-H2S, I use one together with the Fuji 200/2 and the other with Nikon 500/5,6 PF. I am very happy with the performance of both combos. I use the Fringer adapter with the 500 PF (with and without 1,4x TC) and this works as good as a native Fuji lens!

As I have not used the 150-600 I can't compare with the 500 PF. But I think a faster lens can be better for the AF performance and the 500 PF is a stop better than your 150-600. And as you are thinking of the 500 PF with a Nikon Z maybe it could be a first step to buy the 500 PF and a Fringer adapter ($300) and try it with your X-H2S. If you are not happy with the performance you can go further and change to Nikon Z.

Hi Curt!

Great to hear that you're having success with he X-H2s. I'm guessing you have come across Morris Altman's BIF photos. He also uses the X-H2s paired with the Nikon 500/5.6 PF and Fringer adapter. I actually shot the Black Skimmer with him in Nickerson Beach on Long Island. I'm definitely able to get sharp photos using my Fuji setup (that Skimmer was heading straight at me and was only about 20 feet away when I got that shot above) but I find that I have to fight the system so much when I'm shooting and therefore feel that moving to the Z8 will make shooting BIF much easier. Sure, I'll still have to be able to keep the subject in the frame as I track it but I feel like the Fuji AF is too erratic, even when I'm locked on to a bird. I'm curious, what AF settings are you using (including custom AF settings)?

As you suggested, I have thought about getting the 500/5.6 PF on many occasions but am hesitant to commit more to the Fuji system if I am being drawn to the Z8 for other areas of photography as well (landscape and astro). Definitely an option though.

Thanks!

Steve

P.S. That 200/2 is a fantastic lens. However, even when used with a 1.4x TC, it only gives an effective FF reach of 420mm, albeit with an effective aperture of f/4.2 (from a DOF perspective). For closer BIF action, that's some serious subject isolation that it provides!

 

[Steve Miller]

At Native ISO, the Z8 sensor has a significantly higher dynamic range than the XH2S sensor, about 1.5 stops, so the files will be cleaner and easier to edit, especially bringing in the shadows. This isnimportant for outdoors where you often encounter blown highlights. You can underexpose a little to protect the highlights then recover the shadows. Harder to do with the Fuji. At ISOs 200-400, dynamic range is identical. Above that, the Nikon is about 1/2 stop better.

In addition to sensor size, the Z8 also has a pixel pitch which is a good 25% larger than the Fuji: less noise across the exposure range.

So net net net, before looking at MTF charts for the lenses of choice, the Z8 will give you a better, more pliable image.

All excellent points. Thanks!

 

[Steve Miller]

Thank you Steve

I posted a comparison shot a few weeks back. This is not a scientific or accurate result as they were taken on different days, different times, and different birds. However, IMO, it portrays the subtle differences one can expect between the Nikon Z 9 with 800mm PF and Fuji X-H2S and 150-600mm with regards feather detail. I'm personally happy with the results I get from both systems.

You can see the post here

Hi Richard,

That's a great set of images you posted. The comparison of the Eastern Yellow Robins is interesting but not totally surprising to me. In good light and with stationary objects, I love the Fuji setup. My frustration comes when I'm tracking BIF. Yes, it can definitely be done and photographers with much better skills than I have are making fantastic images. I'm just a bit tired of having to fight the Fuji AF tracking system to consistently nail focus.

Thanks again,

Steve

 

[Cameron T]

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that figuring out the lenses won't be easy. Assuming it performs well, the 180-600 seems like a no brainer. Hope it won't be too tough to find one when they're released as I wouldn't buy the body until the lens is available. I'm trying to sort through the potential lens choices (in the price points that I could consider). I see the following:

• 180-600 with f/6.3 at 600mm, or f/9 at 840mm if I use a 1.4x TC
• AF-S 500/5.6 using the FTZ II adapter, or 700mm at f/8 with the 1.4x TC (can I use the Z 1.4x TC in this setup)?
• Z 400/4.5 or f/6.3 at 560mm using the 1.4x TC. This would be better than the 180-600 zoom at 400mm but it wouldn't provide much reach for BIF.
• The 800/6.3 is out of my price range
• Am I missing any other <$3k-ish long tele lens options?

For reference, the Fuji XF 150-600 f/5.6-8 gives me the following effective apertures on my X-H2s:

• f/6.4 at 300mm - equivalent to 450mm FOV and effective f/9.6 from a DOF perspective
• f/7.1 at 400mm - equivalent to 600mm FOV and effective f/10.7 from a DOF perspective
• f/7.1 at 500mm - equivalent to 750mm FOV and effective f/10.7 from a DOF perspective
• f/8 at 600mm - equivalent to 900mm FOV and effective f/12 from a DOF perspective

So focusing on the long end, the Z 180-600 with the 1.4x TC gives me about one extra stop of DOF compared to the Fuji XF 150-600 (f/9 at 840mm for the Z180-600+1.4x TC compared to an effective f/12 at 900mm for the XF 150-600). I'll lose maybe a 1/3 of a stop in light gathering ability, i.e. the actual aperture (f/9 with the Z180-600 at 600 vs f/8 for the XF 150-600 at 600 but I have to assume that this will be more than made up for by the cleaner files coming from the Z8 vs the X-H2s. Yes? Also, because of the larger FF sensor on the Z8, I'm also assuming that I'll be able to crop the Z8 files much more and end up with cleaner overall images vs the X-H2s. Yes?

FYI, I'm focused on the tele options because I'm quite certain that I'll easily find relatively affordable Nikon Z lenses for landscape and Milky Way astro photography (the other two primary reasons for looking at the Z8).

I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on my assumptions above and if I'm missing an obvious lens choice.

Thanks!

Steve

As a note, you can't use z TCS with the ftz. You have to use f mount tc (in front of the ftz, just like you would on an f mount camera).

 

[Steve Miller]

As a note, you can't use z TCS with the ftz. You have to use f mount tc (in front of the ftz, just like you would on an f mount camera).

Thanks for the heads up. I kind of figured that was the case. Too bad since if I move to the Z system, I wouldn't want to invest too much in legacy glass...though I guess I can pick up a used legacy 1.4x TC for pretty cheap these days.

Steve

 

[theEntreriCode]

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that figuring out the lenses won't be easy. Assuming it performs well, the 180-600 seems like a no brainer. Hope it won't be too tough to find one when they're released as I wouldn't buy the body until the lens is available. I'm trying to sort through the potential lens choices (in the price points that I could consider). I see the following:

• 180-600 with f/6.3 at 600mm, or f/9 at 840mm if I use a 1.4x TC
• AF-S 500/5.6 using the FTZ II adapter, or 700mm at f/8 with the 1.4x TC (can I use the Z 1.4x TC in this setup)?
• Z 400/4.5 or f/6.3 at 560mm using the 1.4x TC. This would be better than the 180-600 zoom at 400mm but it wouldn't provide much reach for BIF.
• The 800/6.3 is out of my price range
• Am I missing any other <$3k-ish long tele lens options?

For reference, the Fuji XF 150-600 f/5.6-8 gives me the following effective apertures on my X-H2s:

• f/8 at 600mm - equivalent to 900mm FOV and effective f/12 from a DOF perspective

So focusing on the long end, the Z 180-600 with the 1.4x TC gives me about one extra stop of DOF compared to the Fuji XF 150-600 (f/9 at 840mm for the Z180-600+1.4x TC compared to an effective f/12 at 900mm for the XF 150-600). I'll lose maybe a 1/3 of a stop in light gathering ability, i.e. the actual aperture (f/9 with the Z180-600 at 600 vs f/8 for the XF 150-600 at 600 but I have to assume that this will be more than made up for by the cleaner files coming from the Z8 vs the X-H2s. Yes? Also, because of the larger FF sensor on the Z8, I'm also assuming that I'll be able to crop the Z8 files much more and end up with cleaner overall images vs the X-H2s. Yes?

FYI, I'm focused on the tele options because I'm quite certain that I'll easily find relatively affordable Nikon Z lenses for landscape and Milky Way astro photography (the other two primary reasons for looking at the Z8).

I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on my assumptions above and if I'm missing an obvious lens choice.

Thanks!

Steve

Hi Steve,

It is my pleasure!

I am quoting the much of the post as there are a few of things that I want to comment on and this would just be easier for someone referencing it in the future.

1) I wouldn't wait for the lens to become available to buy the body. It may take a while and you can spend the time getting used to the nuances of a new system

2) The question of reach and speed has never made for a more interesting thought as the current sensor sizes. In DX mode you get 20MP out of the sensor. That is plenty enough for a large sized print. Now this has the disadvantage of stopping down your DOF 1.5 Stops but it has the advantage of light gathering at the indicated F stop.

3) The reason I mentioned 2 is your conundrum with lenses, F stops, DOF and TCs. I am not a fan of using TCs when they get me down to F8 or lesser. They make for rather hairy AF situations (better than with DSLRs admittedly, but not something I would want to use); You could happily shoot at 400 or 500 mm wide open and then stop zoom in with the push of a button. A sort of an in-built TC if you will, albeit at the loss of resolution, but one that still allows you to print large sizes.

4) IMHO, you are overthinking reach. You are used to a crop sensor and the added reach it gives you, but, despite shooting Olympus before moving to Nikon APSC and eventually to Full Frame, I genuinely know that FF results are far superior (for me, I do not wish to get into a war with anyone, please, it is just my opinion) and the lesser reach has never been missed.

5) Take 4 with a pinch of salt because I am never the target market for the 800 mm lens. I think 500 mm is a sweet spot and getting it to 750 mm with crop mode or 700 mm with a TC is plenty good enough for any type of birding, but my thought process will always prioritise larger mammals for wildlife.

6) You will not be able to use Z mount TCs of F mount lenses.

7) You could consider the 500 F4 F mount lens. In G avatar it would easily fall within your budget (likely with some hunting) and pair it with a 3rd Gen 1.4TC for the F mount. If you can stretch however, the FL is the variant to get.

8) While the resolutions are comparable between your Fuji and the Nikon, the Pixel Density on the Z8 is lower and the files are cleaner. You also have the added advantage of a native ISO 64 which gets you really really close to those delicious FUJI GFX files (sadly still lacking in the colour space department) for DR and you will be able to really push the Post Processing whilst keeping a nice clean image. You may however, want to keep the histogram towards the right so that you collect all the data you need to make the image pop in the digital dark room.

Finally, buy the Z8 with the 24-120 F4 kit, add the 40 F2 as a low light street/family portrait option. Then build wider and longer as you see fit. I have a XT 30 and I shoot with it just for fun. It was my way of gauging my interest in mirrorless but no ways would I ever go back to any type of crop sensor. I would buy a GFX system for wildlife if I could afford both, but I would rather buy a Z400TC if that were the case.

 

[Steve Miller]

Hi Steve,

It is my pleasure!

I am quoting the much of the post as there are a few of things that I want to comment on and this would just be easier for someone referencing it in the future.

1) I wouldn't wait for the lens to become available to buy the body. It may take a while and you can spend the time getting used to the nuances of a new system

2) The question of reach and speed has never made for a more interesting thought as the current sensor sizes. In DX mode you get 20MP out of the sensor. That is plenty enough for a large sized print. Now this has the disadvantage of stopping down your DOF 1.5 Stops but it has the advantage of light gathering at the indicated F stop.

3) The reason I mentioned 2 is your conundrum with lenses, F stops, DOF and TCs. I am not a fan of using TCs when they get me down to F8 or lesser. They make for rather hairy AF situations (better than with DSLRs admittedly, but not something I would want to use); You could happily shoot at 400 or 500 mm wide open and then stop zoom in with the push of a button. A sort of an in-built TC if you will, albeit at the loss of resolution, but one that still allows you to print large sizes.

4) IMHO, you are overthinking reach. You are used to a crop sensor and the added reach it gives you, but, despite shooting Olympus before moving to Nikon APSC and eventually to Full Frame, I genuinely know that FF results are far superior (for me, I do not wish to get into a war with anyone, please, it is just my opinion) and the lesser reach has never been missed.

5) Take 4 with a pinch of salt because I am never the target market for the 800 mm lens. I think 500 mm is a sweet spot and getting it to 750 mm with crop mode or 700 mm with a TC is plenty good enough for any type of birding, but my thought process will always prioritise larger mammals for wildlife.

6) You will not be able to use Z mount TCs of F mount lenses.

7) You could consider the 500 F4 F mount lens. In G avatar it would easily fall within your budget (likely with some hunting) and pair it with a 3rd Gen 1.4TC for the F mount. If you can stretch however, the FL is the variant to get.

8) While the resolutions are comparable between your Fuji and the Nikon, the Pixel Density on the Z8 is lower and the files are cleaner. You also have the added advantage of a native ISO 64 which gets you really really close to those delicious FUJI GFX files (sadly still lacking in the colour space department) for DR and you will be able to really push the Post Processing whilst keeping a nice clean image. You may however, want to keep the histogram towards the right so that you collect all the data you need to make the image pop in the digital dark room.

Finally, buy the Z8 with the 24-120 F4 kit, add the 40 F2 as a low light street/family portrait option. Then build wider and longer as you see fit. I have a XT 30 and I shoot with it just for fun. It was my way of gauging my interest in mirrorless but no ways would I ever go back to any type of crop sensor. I would buy a GFX system for wildlife if I could afford both, but I would rather buy a Z400TC if that were the case.

Wow! Thanks so much for your reply!

I have to run out now and may come back later with follow up questions. Very good points about reach and looking at the various options with f-stops, DOF and TCs. I totally forgot about the option of shooting in DX mode, which if my math is corrects should deliver an image that is around 5500 pixels on the long side...which is plenty large as long as it allows me to fill the frame with the subject. Which begs the question, is there any advantage (aside from visualizing the tighter crop) to shooting in DX mode in camera vs having the full resolution of the FX mode shot, then cropping in post?

I'd probably buy the Z8 with the 24-120 but the first prime I would get would be either the 20 or 24 f/1.8 for astro. For low light/street/family I use the Q3.

Thanks again!

Steve

 

[Anjin San]

Thanks, Anjin.

You're right, it sounds like I can’t go wrong with either the Z8 or A1 and accompanying lenses. My guy tells me I’ll enjoy the Nikon better (more of a camera experience), but I’m heading to my semi-local camera store to check them out for feel and usability.

You mention the various long zoom lens options as well as their use with TCs. That relates to one of the questions I have for you or others on this forum. I’m spoiled from a field of view perspective when using the Fuji 150-600 as it gives me a 225-900 equivalent FOV (at the cost of an effective aperture of f/8.4 to f/12 from a DOF perspective). Do the full frame sensors on the Z8 and A1, along with the wider apertures on relatively comparable lenses result in better image quality with these two cameras compared to something like the X-H2s? You probably haven't shot my Fuji setup but what I'm really asking is if the FF benefits (sensor, higher resolution, wider effective apertures) offset the fact that I'll have to crop Z8 and A1 images more than I would have to on the Fuji (or any other crop body)?

Thanks,

Steve

Might be a bit more cropping with the FF…but with the Z8 or Z9 or even the Z7II you’ve got more pixels so cropping doesn’t lose as many although you still get the more noise as Steve talked bout in a video. For me…I’ve got the 400/4.5 , the 100-400 and both TCs and since I am almost exclusively screen output I find that even the 2.0 TC is plenty sharp enough after PP, DeNoise, and sharpen. I don’t hesitate to use the 1.4…in fact it’s on more than it’s off with either lens…and the 2.0 is fine unless light is so low that ISO gets crazy high. I’m waiting on the reviews of the 180-600…and if as pre prod videos have said it’s as good or better than the 100-400 I will likely get one as well and perhaps trade in the 100-400. IMO the physics potential drawbacks of the MFT make it not enough of a kit to grow with…and Nikon’s DX Zs are too consumer oriented to be a choice for me…and I like tNikon ergonomics, menus, and feel so the Z8 and Z9 are it for me. If you decide to go with a Z7II based on budget or whatever…mine is for sale so DM me 8f you’re interested. The Z7II is fine for wildlife except BIF for small fast birds where the frame rate and slower AF fall down a bit compared to the more capable bodies…but I’ve still gotten keepers for BIF with it.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your reply. That 800 mm looks awfully nice but even at the relatively "affordable" price of $6,500 for a huge prime, I don't see one in my future. The closest I'd come to that FL would either be a 1.4x TC with the 180-600 or the 500/5.6 PF. But one can dream!

Steve

For BIF I routinely have my OM-1/100-400 at full zoom. True, you can shoot a Z-8 in DX mode which would get you what you are used to, but I am concerned that the lack of reach would disappoint you.

As an aside, the specs of the Fuji combo that you have look awesome. I am disappointed that the AF is so hit and miss. (I passed on a FUJI in favor of an OM-1 for that reason.) Can't you shoot at high frame rates so that while the % of in focus shots is low the # of focused shots is on par with other cameras?

Tom

 

[Cameron T]

For BIF I routinely have my OM-1/100-400 at full zoom. True, you can shoot a Z-8 in DX mode which would get you what you are used to, but I am concerned that the lack of reach would disappoint you.

As an aside, the specs of the Fuji combo that you have look awesome. I am disappointed that the AF is so hit and miss. (I passed on a FUJI in favor of an OM-1 for that reason.) Can't you shoot at high frame rates so that while the % of in focus shots is low the # of focused shots is on par with other cameras?

Tom

Well, the 180-600 with a 1.4x gets you to 840mm, with 45 mp. Dx mode gets you to 1200ish with 19 point something mp.

I'd say that counts pretty well for reach.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Well, the 180-600 with a 1.4x gets you to 840mm, with 45 mp. Dx mode gets you to 1200ish with 19 point something mp.

I'd say that counts pretty well for reach.

Camron,
For you and me yes BUT Steve is currently shooting a 36mp sensor at 900mm. I shot a D-500/500pf (750mm) and now shoot an OM-1/100-400 (800mm) with a 20mp image and fine it more than acceptable but am concerned that Steve may not.
Tom

 

[Steve Miller]

For BIF I routinely have my OM-1/100-400 at full zoom. True, you can shoot a Z-8 in DX mode which would get you what you are used to, but I am concerned that the lack of reach would disappoint you.

As an aside, the specs of the Fuji combo that you have look awesome. I am disappointed that the AF is so hit and miss. (I passed on a FUJI in favor of an OM-1 for that reason.) Can't you shoot at high frame rates so that while the % of in focus shots is low the # of focused shots is on par with other cameras?

Tom

Hi Tom,

I typically shoot at 15 fps mechanical shutter and on occasion will go to 20 fps (electronic). The X-H2s shoots up to 40 fps electronic shutter and while it’s great that it can shoot so fast, I rarely do that. I can’t even imagine sitting down in front of my computer and culling the keepers from more than twice as many shots as I already take when shooting BIF! But yes, in theory, the number of in focus shops would increase.

Steve

 

[curtf]

Hi Curt!

Great to hear that you're having success with he X-H2s. I'm guessing you have come across Morris Altman's BIF photos. He also uses the X-H2s paired with the Nikon 500/5.6 PF and Fringer adapter. I actually shot the Black Skimmer with him in Nickerson Beach on Long Island. I'm definitely able to get sharp photos using my Fuji setup (that Skimmer was heading straight at me and was only about 20 feet away when I got that shot above) but I find that I have to fight the system so much when I'm shooting and therefore feel that moving to the Z8 will make shooting BIF much easier. Sure, I'll still have to be able to keep the subject in the frame as I track it but I feel like the Fuji AF is too erratic, even when I'm locked on to a bird. I'm curious, what AF settings are you using (including custom AF settings)?

As you suggested, I have thought about getting the 500/5.6 PF on many occasions but am hesitant to commit more to the Fuji system if I am being drawn to the Z8 for other areas of photography as well (landscape and astro). Definitely an option though.

Thanks!

Steve

P.S. That 200/2 is a fantastic lens. However, even when used with a 1.4x TC, it only gives an effective FF reach of 420mm, albeit with an effective aperture of f/4.2 (from a DOF perspective). For closer BIF action, that's some serious subject isolation that it provides!

Ok, about my settings, I always use AF-C (also for perched birds) and completely manual exposure (no auto ISO!). Furthermore I always shoot with ES and mostly Hi 15-20 fps. I change the custom AF settings depending on the situation (I think you can use Morris settings as a very good starting point, especially for bigger birds ) , and I use areas from a small one point to 5x5 points. I let the camera find the bird with Bird ID (which it does very fast!) , then AFTER getting focus I press the shutter.

With the X-T3 and X-T4 I think the exact AF-custom setting was more important, with the X-H2S it is a bit less sensitiv/more forgiving, I think the faster processor and read-out time makes the difference.

Yes, the 200/2 often it is too short for birds, I guess I use the 200 only about 20% and the 500 PF 80%. But when the light drops it's very nice to have! And to my surprise it also works good with the 2x TC...

By the way, a few days ago, in the Forum for "Wildlife Photography (Presentation)" here on BCG I have uploaded some pictures taken with the 200/2+1,4x TC and X-H2S. Look for " Short-eared Owl hunting after sunset".

 

[Steve Miller]

Well, the 180-600 with a 1.4x gets you to 840mm, with 45 mp. Dx mode gets you to 1200ish with 19 point something mp.

I'd say that counts pretty well for reach.

Hi Cameron,

Yep, If I shoot the Z8/180-600 at 600 with a 1.4x TC in DX mode, that would give me plenty of reach at 1260mm with 20 MP. At an actual aperture of f/9, I’d definitely be bumping the ISO in lower light settings. But yes, it is possible to get crazy long effective focal lengths using the TC and shooting in DX mode, though I imagine AF tracking will be tougher. Fortunately though, I‘m not really looking for more reach than 850-900.

Steve

 

[Steve Miller]

Camron,
For you and me yes BUT Steve is currently shooting a 36mp sensor at 900mm. I shot a D-500/500pf (750mm) and now shoot an OM-1/100-400 (800mm) with a 20mp image and fine it more than acceptable but am concerned that Steve may not.
Tom

Hi Tom,

The X-H2s is actually 26 MP, not 36 MP, so shooting the Z8 in DX mode with 20 MPs wouldn’t be such a huge change (though I would definitely prefer to shoot in FX whenever possible).

I think shooting the 180-600 at 600 with a 1.4x TC gives me a nice reach. That would be a 45 MP sensor with 840mm at f/9 (light gathering as well as from a DOF perspective) compared to a 26 MP APS-C sensor with 900mm at f/8 but f/12 from a DOF perspective. Given the better pixel density and sensor on the Z8 vs X-H2s, I think that’s an easy trade off in favor of the Z8/180-600 setup.

Steve

P.S. Do I sound like someone rationalizing a system switch?!

 

[Richard_M]

Hi Richard,

That's a great set of images you posted. The comparison of the Eastern Yellow Robins is interesting but not totally surprising to me. In good light and with stationary objects, I love the Fuji setup. My frustration comes when I'm tracking BIF. Yes, it can definitely be done and photographers with much better skills than I have are making fantastic images. I'm just a bit tired of having to fight the Fuji AF tracking system to consistently nail focus.

Thanks again,

Steve

Thank you Steve.

My experience using the Z 9 with 500mm PF, 100-400mm, and 800mm PF is they all suffer focus freeze when birding. If the lens is focused past the subject the Z 9 in most instances refuses to refocus. However, if the lens is focused closer to the camera it will focus no problems. The Fuji X-H2S does suffer a similar issue but it will refocus more times than not. I have the function button on the Nikon lenses, which have them, and the Fuji 150-600mm to set focus at close to MFD. This allows the AF to work and focus on the subject. Sometimes if the subject is slower moving I will let the AF focus on a nearby subject which is vertical e.g. tree trunk which will also kick the AF into gear.

For BIF I find the Fuji will find the bird against a plain sky quite quickly without making any changes to AF mode. The Z 9 is very hit and miss for me. I know some will start with wide area tracking and when the bird is in the frame, using a function button, switch to 3D tracking. Considering the Fuji is at effective 900mm and the Nikon 800mm, the Nikon should have an advantage with a slightly wider FOV.

The images in the post above the one I linked of the Eastern Yellow Robin’s were taken using the Z 9, 800mm PF and a monopod. I usually handhold the combo, but this day I wanted to see if using a monopod would make life easier. It didn’t, but that’s another story.

The white-faced heron #5 was flying from left to right at a reasonably constant level. It had just taken off the ground so wasn’t moving very fast at this stage. While the bird was in focus for the majority of the sequence the eye was not in focus on the previous, and next image in the sequence. Yes, 3D tracking tracked the bird, eye detection had issues with the bird. I’m not having a dig at Nikon or their animal detection, it does a much better job than I can do.

Likewise image #2 in the same post, the close-up of the Tawny Frogmouth. Eye detection was switching from the eye to the tip of the beak. I did create a focus stack from the sequence which didn’t turn out too bad.

What I’m alluding to with this post, is it possible for you to rent a Sony and/or Nikon combo and try it in the field before you commit? From my experience using various brands they all have idiosyncrasies which may or may-not frustrate you. Myself personally will be moving the Fuji combo on at some stage, possibly when the Nikkor 180-600mm has been out in the field for a little while and I get real world feedback, plus see the results.

 

[dabhand16]

I'm also assuming that I'll be able to crop the Z8 files much more and end up with cleaner overall images vs the X-H2s. Yes?

Check out Steve's results on cropping:

Does Cropping Make Your Photos Noisy?! - Backcountry Gallery

Does cropping fill your photos with more noise? Is not filling the frame killing your images? Is there any way to stop it? In this video, we’ll explore comparative output and see first-hand the effects that cropping can have on the noise of our final output image. This is one video every...

backcountrygallery.com

Cropping? Better Drop Your ISO! - Backcountry Gallery

Let’s face it – sometimes we need to crop. However, when you’re faced with a photo in the viewfinder that’s gonna need an appointment with the crop tool, you gotta be careful. Noise is a tricky thing and it’s especially hard on images where cropping is required. In this video, we’ll take a look...

backcountrygallery.com

The Cropping Epidemic - Backcountry Gallery

I see it all the time – lens jockeys hacking off pixels and tossing them out like they were last week’s kitty litter. It pains me to witness such rampant cropping with so little regard for the consequences – especially since I know how potentially devastating it is to a photo. What really makes...

backcountrygallery.com

Cropping Full Frame Vs Shooting A Crop Camera - Backcountry Gallery

So, here’s a question to chew on. What will give you a better image – a crop camera (DX, APS-C) with a subject that fills the frame OR just shooting the same scene with a full frame camera and then cropping the photo to the same field of view? I see this come up all […]

backcountrygallery.com

 

[Patrick M]

“P.S. I'm surprised that you find you have to alter your shooting style with the Z9 by taking small bursts to ensure accurate focus tracking. Is that what most people encounter?”
This suggests the shutter button is used for focus. Half depress, that’s to tell the camera to focus, when ready fully depress to get the image, and then release. That tells the camera to stop focussing. Nikon Ricci knows nobody able to release the shutter 1/2 way - it’s not possible.
Now use BBF, that’s Back Button Focus using the Af-On button. Depress and hold tells the camera to focus. Press the shutter release while still holding in the Af-On and you’re telling the camera to take a picture and keep focussing. It will keep trying to focus while the button is pressed.

Sorry. I wanted to address this here where it was posted. Didn’t intend to hijacker’s the thread!
Thanks

 

[bleirer]

“P.S. I'm surprised that you find you have to alter your shooting style with the Z9 by taking small bursts to ensure accurate focus tracking. Is that what most people encounter?”
This suggests the shutter button is used for focus. Half depress, that’s to tell the camera to focus, when ready fully depress to get the image, and then release. That tells the camera to stop focussing. Nikon Ricci knows nobody able to release the shutter 1/2 way - it’s not possible.
Now use BBF, that’s Back Button Focus using the Af-On button. Depress and hold tells the camera to focus. Press the shutter release while still holding in the Af-On and you’re telling the camera to take a picture and keep focussing. It will keep trying to focus while the button is pressed.

Sorry. I wanted to address this here where it was posted. Didn’t intend to hijacker’s the thread!
Thanks

There have been folks here in other discussions that insist they have no problem with shutter half press shooting a burst then releasing back to just half press. I don't feel coordinated enough to try that, but apparently it's not that big a deal.

 

[Cameron T]

There have been folks here in other discussions that insist they have no problem with shutter half press shooting a burst then releasing back to just half press. I don't feel coordinated enough to try that, but apparently it's not that big a deal.

Once you get used to it it's pretty easy. It's all personal preference though

I find using the half press for af and full press for shutter release makes it easy to also use other buttons for other concepts, rather than needing to contort my hands in possibly uncomfortable (especially given some shooting positions I've been in) ways.

 

[EricBowles]

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that figuring out the lenses won't be easy. Assuming it performs well, the 180-600 seems like a no brainer. Hope it won't be too tough to find one when they're released as I wouldn't buy the body until the lens is available. I'm trying to sort through the potential lens choices (in the price points that I could consider). I see the following:

• 180-600 with f/6.3 at 600mm, or f/9 at 840mm if I use a 1.4x TC
• AF-S 500/5.6 using the FTZ II adapter, or 700mm at f/8 with the 1.4x TC (can I use the Z 1.4x TC in this setup)?
• Z 400/4.5 or f/6.3 at 560mm using the 1.4x TC. This would be better than the 180-600 zoom at 400mm but it wouldn't provide much reach for BIF.
• The 800/6.3 is out of my price range
• Am I missing any other <$3k-ish long tele lens options?

For reference, the Fuji XF 150-600 f/5.6-8 gives me the following effective apertures on my X-H2s:

• f/6.4 at 300mm - equivalent to 450mm FOV and effective f/9.6 from a DOF perspective
• f/7.1 at 400mm - equivalent to 600mm FOV and effective f/10.7 from a DOF perspective
• f/7.1 at 500mm - equivalent to 750mm FOV and effective f/10.7 from a DOF perspective
• f/8 at 600mm - equivalent to 900mm FOV and effective f/12 from a DOF perspective

So focusing on the long end, the Z 180-600 with the 1.4x TC gives me about one extra stop of DOF compared to the Fuji XF 150-600 (f/9 at 840mm for the Z180-600+1.4x TC compared to an effective f/12 at 900mm for the XF 150-600). I'll lose maybe a 1/3 of a stop in light gathering ability, i.e. the actual aperture (f/9 with the Z180-600 at 600 vs f/8 for the XF 150-600 at 600 but I have to assume that this will be more than made up for by the cleaner files coming from the Z8 vs the X-H2s. Yes? Also, because of the larger FF sensor on the Z8, I'm also assuming that I'll be able to crop the Z8 files much more and end up with cleaner overall images vs the X-H2s. Yes?

FYI, I'm focused on the tele options because I'm quite certain that I'll easily find relatively affordable Nikon Z lenses for landscape and Milky Way astro photography (the other two primary reasons for looking at the Z8).

I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on my assumptions above and if I'm missing an obvious lens choice.

Thanks!

Steve

My main lenses with the Z8 - and the Z7ii before that - are the 800mm PF and the 400mm f/4.5. The 400mm f/4.5 with the 1.4 TC is a dream to carry - and my first choice for bird walks. When I'm more serious and have time, the 800mm PF gets a lot of use. It's a bit heavier but reasonable to handhold.

The 500mm PF is an older lens but is quite sharp. It's a good option. There are also some fantastic deals on exotic F-mount lenses like the 500mm f/4 and even the 600mm f/4. Those are bigger lenses, but prices are amazing.

I find I'm always looking for more light to keep my shutter speed up and my ISO down. The faster apertures can be helpful.

The Z 1.4 TC is excellent, and on most lenses is perfectly usable. The 2X TC is probably the best Nikon has produced, but it's better with f/2.8 and f/4 lenses than with anything slower. I'd consider the 180-600 and 1.4 TC for occasional use, but it's going to require great technique to be usable at the long end. 900mm effective focal length is a very narrow field of view. You'll probably need to use IBIS to stabilize the EVF if you don't use a tripod.