Moving back to Full Frame from Medium Format
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 07. 2022
- I am considering a move away from medium format landscape photography back to full frame. My main reason for this consideration is the lack of telephoto options for the Fuji GFX camera system. In today's video I discuss the possible pros and cons of shooting with a Nikon Z7II, a 24-120 lens and a 100-400mm lens.
My New Print Packs: thomasheaton.co.uk/shop/
Go & See Simon & Joe's Exhibition: baxter.photos/woodland-photog...
Buy my Book: thomasheaton.co.uk/product/my...
My Website: www.thomasheaton.co.uk
Binge Watch My Entire 'On Location' Catalogue: • Binge Watch EVERYTHING...
SAVE MONEY
Did You Like the Look of My Camera Bag? Use: HEATON10 & Save10% at shimodadesigns.com/
For UK Photographers: Photography Gear Insurance. Save 10% at www.photoguard.co.uk/heaton
My Filters: kasefilters.com Use "Heaton" for 5% off.
My Entire Kit List: bit.ly/tomsgear
You Might be Interested in These:
My E-Book: geni.us/onlocation
My Facebook: / thomasheatonphotography
My Instagram: / heatonthomas
The Gear I use & Used to Make These Videos. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴.
Main Video Camera: geni.us/for-video
Tripod: geni.us/ELJmb3x
My Full Kit List: bit.ly/tomsgear
The Music in These Videos from Artlist & Epidemic Sound: 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘬s
artlist.io/artlist-70446/?art...
ttp://share.epidemicsound.com/t2V7R
#LandscapePhotography
Thanks for watching, everybody & be sure to tune in next week for the proper test of the Z7II. In the meantime, print packs are now in my shop. Signed, packed and shipped by me. Also, free shipping 👍thomasheaton.co.uk/shop/
I liked this video, i.e. your non-nerdy thoughts about gear 👍
I admit I have difficulties to understand, how one would have bought a GFX system with its really huge & heavy lenses, paired with limited versatility, and not been able to anticipate that they will be fed up with such focal range limitations paired with such inconvenient bulk and weight, already quite early. Also given that most GFX customers are probably guys who are either old/retired, or about getting older. Choosing a landscape system is about maintaining agility in the field, as most good locations are not those travel guide look-outs with an own car parking spot, but require miles of hiking.
Fuji X is probably not a good alternative, because the X lenses are as big as full frame (when netting off equivalence of course), but the X-Trans sensors introduce that watercoloring mushiness into distant landscape, i.e. with Fuji X, image degradation becomes evident. So, something like your Nikon (or the Sony & Canon which you mentioned at the beginning) seem to be a sweet spot indeed. As you say, no printing-relevant difference to GFX whatsoever, but being agile and versatile in the field again 😊
Hi Thomas, I switched several times from Canon to Nikon and back, even that Nikon Z7ll is a very good camera you need to try Canon R5 before deciding definitely for a full frame camera. I guessed you checked the specifications in between several cameras and basically even that Nikon and Canon has most the same MP resolution, most of the other specifications Canon win although it is more expensive. Also I would like to see you a comparison than by you. Just an idea.
Excellent video. I really wonder who will care whether the stones in the foreground are a bit sharper or not. Sure, it's part of the composition, but the lighthouse is the most important element...😉
@@tubularificationed There are many fine professional landscape photographers using Fuji X , not sure they would agree with you about your anti Fuji snobbery/prejudice.
@@andrewknowles6731 Just saying. An internet search
"fuji x" watercolor
yields 244,000 hits, and
"fuji x" wormy
even yields 430,000 hits.
"fuji x" waxy skin
even yields 452,000 hits for the portrait photographers (waxy skin is the direct portraits equivalent to the mushy watercoloring in distant landscapes).
This isn't snobbery, but just a sad burden for Fuji, which predominantly Fuji X users have been complaining about. And I guess this is one of the reasons why Fuji's market share never exceeded Olympus' in Japan. Fuji's insight to not destroy also their GFX with X-Trans was good, but they should have dumped X-Trans also for their APS-C stuff on that occasion. I'm sure that the Bayer license fee is affordable, if everyone else affords it 😉
There are no bad cameras and can all do the job. I love my Nikons but they’re not for everyone however really pleased for Nikon and the Z system that’s finding it’s feet. I especially love the lenses and my 70-200 2.8s
I agree. It all comes down to correct exposure and good glass. Buy a format and system that has the glass you want.
@@weisserth I’d argue that it all comes down to light and composition
You should be moving up to a GFX100S, it’s incredible…then you can really enjoy the pixels. 🤗 That 24-120 “kit” lens is never going to compete with the GFX glass and I suspect that it wasn’t lower DoF you were seeing but loss of edge sharpness compared to the 32-64. Even as a very keen photography enthusiast I always want to shoot with the best kit I can afford. No doubt the Nikon Z system is awesome… all modern camera systems are… but i don’t see why you would want to move away from the GFX. How often do you want to go “longer” than your 100-200?
I use all 3 main brands- I prefer certain sensors and lenses for very particular work. For landscapes, architecture and low light, I reach for my Nikon Z7 and S lenses for the ergonomics and the lens resolution and contrast. I prefer the RAW files from the Nikon for that kind of work. All of the camera systems today are all really excellent- you can’t go wrong with any of them. It’s all about finding a system that is a pleasure to use and gets you motivated to create.
What about portraits, wgat camera and lense do you prefere here? And what for a wedding? Thanks for your insight
I saw tests showing that Nikon is great if you wish for the best quality and handling. But you lose some smart features and the focus on Canon and Sony are faster. Personally I just went from a old Canon entry-level 550D to a old but powerful Nikon D800. Love how much I can pull the shadows and the greatly improved low-light performance and low noise. I am willing to trade features from slightly newer cameras like Canon 850D for the quality of a powerful full-frame. Can't afford any of the really new ones though I am sure even the entry level ones would not restrict me in terms of quality.
Interesing change ! As a landscape/studiophotographer I see no real difference between current models from any manufacturer. Its just which do you want to use, ergonomics etc... Image quality is on par on every pro-full frame camera - what comes to landscapephotography. Interesting to hear your future experiences. I did compare side-by-side GFX100R to A7r4. Yes, lot more pixels (to print) but end-customer will not notice the difference. As you said; only the photographer can enjoy the pixels!
Basically, the gear you buy should be based on usage. Different kinds of photography need different strengths.
Landscape photography doesn't need high frame rates, or fancy eye detect autofocus. So, I was using a Canon 6D for a while for landscapes, and a 7D Mark II for fast action.
The 6D is a slow camera, and its autofocus system is extremely basic. But it has a decent full frame sensor, and with a good lens, it will still get good landscape shots.
Lots more pixels means lots more cropping capabilities. Which also means lots less lenses.
I reproduce artwork, pixels do matter! When a customer wants a large print, even 50mp or more isn't enough to print at 300dpi.
@@westonharby165
How did they manage years ago then? Some professional cameras were only 12 mp. We have stopped looking at the photograph and started looking for pixels!
@@petercollins7848 great question! For art repro drum scanned large format slides, large format digital scan backs, and multi-shot medium format backs/cameras, depending on the time. All of these mediums have pretty stellar spatial and color resolution (not demosaiced) and allow for large prints with great color reproduction.
I was an early adopter to the Z system, and I continue to be blow away by the glass they've been putting out for it.
The convenience of the 24-120mm is hard to beat when you can only carry 1 lens somewhere. I wish I could afford that 100-400. It is one spectacular piece of glass.
I just picked up the 105mm/2.8 macro, and I just can't stop using it.
I, too, am blown away by results from the 105mm S line Macro. One of my favourite lenses.
I bought the R5 for the glass I expected Canon to introduce. It's quality glass, of course. But the gimmicks on the lenses make them heavier and more expensive. Your comment about the 105mm macro is what prompted this. The RF version (100mm macro) has a fuzz ring. At least that's what I call it. It adds blur to the image. WTF! I think I would have been better served by either Sony or Nikon. /signed/ Very Disappointed.
@@jameskeener7251 The RF 100mm macro has a unique reproduction ratio of 1:0.71 which makes the lens heavier but also more useful for framing small things.
The 105mm is a killer🎉 I use it all the time
@@jameskeener7251 I find the Canon RF lenses on one hand interesting (external focusing 70-200 for shorter packed size), on the other hand outright embarrassing in comparison to the Nikon glass (35, 50, 85 f/1.8 lenses). My wife shoots with Canon EOS R, I use two Nikon Z6 II - I'm constantly thinking of just giving up Nikon Z and consolidating to a single system but the RF lens system just isn't appealing to me.
My wife's happy with her 24 to 120 f/4, a 35mm f/1.8, and an EF 70-300L lens, that's basically all she needs. I use the Z 28, 35, 40, 50, 85mm primes, as well as 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 zooms, sometimes combined with a 2x teleconverter. I probably should have gotten a Z7 II to have some more leverage with cropping, but since I can frame pretty much as need with my lenses, it hasn't been a problem. And when I compared shots side by side between a Z6 and Z7, while there is a difference, it really only matters if I were to print HUGE, which I rarely do and even there, it hasn't been a problem for me personally.
I've been doing travel and landscape with the Nikon Z7II for about a year now. I've had the 24-120 for several months and rarely took it off my camera on my recent trip to Europe. I love that lens. I went back and forth for months between the Fuji 50R and the Z7II and I'm happy with my choice. I hope you will be as well. I heard you on an interview when you spoke about possibly changing to the Nikon and was surprised. Good luck. The 20mm is a killer lens too.
That 24-120 is one of the finest lenses of its type. Christopher Frost did a great review of it and it has great sharpness throughout it’s focal range. All you need to do is add the 14-24mm and you’ve got yourself a great setup 👍🏼
That’s a 105 though. 120 is more unique. I have the 16-80 on the Fuji and I love having that extra reach. Both good lenses though
The 100-400 is equally outstanding. Although I did fine the autofocus annoying
I would actually go for the amazing 14-30 f4 lens. That with the 24-120 and the 100-400 is the ultimate landscape setup in my opinion. I take mine everywhere and it works so great for me.
@@zgw8 after shooting with the 14-24, I'd rather put my money there. Truly superior and so much lighter than its predecessor.
Yes, when it comes to hiking in the mountains, as you often do, saving weight is important. That's why I like my a7c, because it's very light and easy to fit in a backpack. Of course some people need higher resolution, but 24 mpx is enough for me. I think you'll be really happy with your choice of the z7 II. Great resolution, amazing dynamic range and that 24-120 lens seems like an amazingly versatile lens. One lens to do 80% of the work.
Many thanks for the exhibition shout-out, Tom. So pleased you enjoyed it! We have prints from a 24mp A7ii and they've rendered beautifully. Anyway, you know my feelings on the subject - I've had the same camera for almost 5 years 😁
I use the same camera, with the new upscaling software is easier print bigger 😌
Everyone knows that the latest gear is what makes you a “pro”
I Would have preferred if it could have been just whispered to me as it seems to be sold out now 😅
I made exactly the same move, well almost, GFX 50s & r to a Z7 / Z7II. The 24/120 is the best lens I have ever used and the image quality of the Z7 vs the GFX is so close that in practical terms you won’t be seeing the difference.
Nice one Thomas
You honestly can't go wrong with Z7II, R5, A7R4 for landscape photography. Differences are relatively minor. Image quality are all top notch. It really comes down to which lens system speaks to your needs/wants more and what you can afford obviously.
The truth is you can go wrong with any of those cameras you mentioned. Differences are much more than minor for color science, I found the hard way with buying a Sony A7S and then recently Fujifilm 50S. 50S can be amazing but a lot of pictures I've taken have a weird bluish/awkward green color that's hard to fix. Weird how I liked my old Canon EOS R with some premium L lenses than these 'next level' FF cameras. It's all about the lenses and color science..at least to me! But yes the heavy weight of these L lenses...ughh. Can't have it all..
@@af2w131f Are you not shooting RAW?
@@saaaaaad I only shoot RAW and wish not to fool around trying to make colors look “right.” I’m a minimalist in Lightroom also so trying to fix these funky colors irritate me.
Well said
@@af2w131f gfx colors can be wonky especially at dusk
Did somebody say Nikon?
It never ends. I love my Pentax cameras. K1, K5 and even the K10 D, they all put out sharp images and take a wide variety of lens that swap about.
I just upgraded from my Nikon D600 to the Z5. Both great cameras but the modern technology, features and ergonomics of the Z series has been wonderful for helping me get great images much more easily. Ease of use can produce more great images in the long run than higher quality equipment.
I think you’re on point here. I shoot the Canon R5 with among other lenses the RF 100-500. It’s a phenomenal set up and I’m happy with it coming from the Nikon d850, however, the dynamic range isn’t quite as good. So for you, the Nikon is a good choice. I went with the R5 because the autofocus is much better for wildlife than anything Nikon has on offer except the huge and expensive Z9. The Bird Eye AF on the canon is extraordinarily. But for just landscape, I would have gone with the Z7ii. Enjoy!
24-120 S is hard to beat. I personally think it’s the best zoom on the market for general walk around and landscapes. After finishing the video I’m surprised you didn’t find the lens to be superbly sharp. It’s definitely sharper than the 100-400 and as sharp as any lens I’ve used. Instead of focusing on the lighthouse I’m wondering if results would have improved in foreground by shifting the focus point closer using a hyperfocal focus technique.
I think changing to f16 could have help solve this depth of field issue as well
@@martinsarre F16 on FF has enough diffraction that even the area of focus is getting soft. Besides you really want to compare the systems at equivalent apertures. So a better comparison would have been about f13, closer to the precise equivalent of the f16 on the Fuji (crop factor0.79).
@@daran0815 unlikely to see any deffraction at F16 on the new z mount lenses. Although I’ve not tested this one
@@martinsarre doesn‘t have to do anything with z mount lenses. Even zeiss is not able to produce a lens that wouldn‘t have diffraction on a sensor like the one in the z7 ;)
Nikon compensates for the effect of diffraction with more aggressive sharpening (even in the raw files)
I think everything you said was spot on. Most modern pro or semi-pro cameras are pretty much on part with each other, but the lenses, that is a different story. I've used the Sony a7riii the last few years for landscapes and really have enjoyed the results. But again it's the lenses that make such a huge difference. Even regarding print size, when stitching images (if done correctly), can produce huge file sizes for super large prints (if anyone ever wanted one). Plus, merging photos together helps a lot with sharpness in the foreground and background. And 99 times out of 100, no-one is going to notice the difference anyway. When you consider the history making images of the past, their cameras were nowhere near ours, yet have stood the test of time.
Every camera system today is fantastic, in their own ways. I have been using the Z cameras since the beginning of the ecosystem. For landscapes, the Z7II and 24-120f4 S lens are a fantastic travel combo. That lens is a beauty. An amazingly useful range and great image quality. Those Fujifilm medium format cameras are gorgeous too.
A person can know all the technicalities but without an eye for composition they will always struggle to achieve what you seem to be able to with ease. You are an inspiration....thank you.
cant wait to see how this goes for you brother! thanks for keeping us up to date on how and what your shooting. def helps quell some of the Gear Chasing
I recently wrote that larger resolution is simply for the benefit of the photographer. A decent photo when viewed on a large computet screen can look incredible. Take the 5d classic. Under 13MPs and produces amazing images. Never understand the need for huge resolution unless the photographer needs massive cropping and you'd have to wonder why it couldn't be captured in camera initially?!?
cropping in post can be alternative to carrying a longer telephoto lens
Sometimes I just don't have a long lens with me so cropping is the best alternative. Also for the times when you're absolutely sure of a composition but you get home to find it's a lot better with a heavy crop.
I used to think that. I have the 5d classic and 5d II. The resolution seemed large enough for anything but I recently printed out 24x36 and in that case resolution does make a difference if you're looking at the photo up close.
As a Z7 and 24-120 owner I can say from personal experience on what a great combo that is, especially for those long days out in the hills. Remember to put those Nikon files through Pure Raw as well. Camera aside, no such thing as a bad camera these days so get the setup that suits you best. 👍
Pure RAW?
@@MrBerry67 it's a pre-processing software package that enhances the detail in your raw files. Tom mentions it in his recent processing video and there is a deep dive video on my channel.
You are spot on Thomas, you can’t spend your life comparing our lives to others or we will never be happy! Enjoy the new Nikon!!
Thomas I’ll be honest I don’t think it matters what camera you get as your skill and expertise means you could make a Normal pic into an amazing pic no matter what camera or lens combo. I always think reviews, ease of use and how excited it makes you feel using it. I’ve tested a few cameras in my time and if they don’t meet that criteria there gone. I hope you enjoy using your new gear and can’t wait to see what amazing pics you capture👍
Welcome to the world of Z7 landscape photography. I’ve been using the Z7 (mark 1) for a couple of years now, having shifted from Fuji XT-2 and I absolutely love it. I doubt that you will be disappointed. I have the 14-30 f4, 24-70 f2.8. & 105mm f2.8 Z macro. The 24-120 wasn’t available when I got my Nikon, but I’d be tempted by it today.
I’ll send you some files from the 13-40 & 24-70 if your interested
Why Do you switch from fuji xt2 to Z7?
@@Rene-kr8lm hi, two things. Firstly I wanted higher resolution for my large prints, but the main reason was edge to edge sharpness. The Nikon Z lenses are amazing corner to corner. I had the Fuji 10-24 which I liked, but my copy had issues with edge sharpness and occasionally one side of the field being slightly soft. I think this was due to the lens stabilisation (switched off when used on a tripod). I had the lens serviced by Fuji and they replaced a lens group, but it was the same when I got it back. I know that many other people use this lens without issues and mine might have been a bad copy.
I bought an XT-4 with 16-80mm f4. This gives great focal length coverage in a pretty small package. The lens is plenty sharp for me and I can happily go on day hikes with just that and get 95% of the shots I would want to take. I print at 12x18 inches without any issue and could probably go up to an A2 size print if I wanted. Sure there's other options out there that are better, but for a single lens kit that costs around $2300 total, I'm happy.
Thomas, love your content! I couldn’t justify the cost moving to the Z system as photography is only a hobby for me. I’m still using my D700. Have had it since new. Love the film quality look and colours of the images, always have. Prints at A3+ no problems. Just have to make sure the composition is right as you can’t crop that much. With the battery grip it’s also a good workout, built like a tank. Keep the great content coming, especially the infrared stuff. Cheers from down under.
Still rocking my D700 too mate, bumped in to a wedding photographer with 2 Z6's and a D700, he still prefers the files.
@@catmonkey6826 I don’t know what it is about them, but it’s just “something” in the images? Plus less PC hard drive space and faster processing speeds. I’m probably going to get hated on for saying this, but I think images out of todays cameras look too clinical to me. Must be my old eyes.
@@dutchaus5813 What lenses are you using with the D700? I think the lenses are more responsible for the "clinical" look than the camera, especially staying in the "D700 lane" where many of the nuances of the image stayed consistent.
@@UnconventionalReasoning 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8
@@dutchaus5813 which "edition" of each matters a lot. The
24-70mm f/2.8G ==> f/2.8E VR ==> f/2.8S
get sharper and sharper, seeming more and more clinical. Similarly, the
70-200 f/2.8G VRI ==> f/2.8G VRII ==> f/2.8E VR ==> F/2.8S VR
also get more and more clinical.
I have been a Nikon shooter forever, I have transitioned from F to Z, firstly z6 and z7, currently z6ii and z9. I have also concentrated on the faster glass 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 which suits my style of shooting. I nearly turned to the dark side (Sony) as the z9 was delayed, but glad I waited. At the end of the day you should choose the gear that suits your style and budget. You carry your gear on your back, so weight is a major consideration.If you haven't already committed to the z7ii, theres always the Zx just around the corner.
Nikon does have some amazing lenses for landscape photographers looking to pack light! Your 24-120 as well as the 24-70/4 and the 14-30/4 are great glass and weigh so little and are so small. All Nikon needs now is a compact 70-200 f/4. Myself, I am looking to switch over to a Z6II or Z5 with the 24-70 and 14-30/4's from my DSLR kit.
I'm super excited to see how you go with the Nikon Z7 II, I currently shoot on an original Z6 and have been thinking of upgrading. Regarding the lens results, if you can deal with the slight gap in focal length, definitely give the 24-70 2.8 a try instead, the image quality is fantastic 👌
Don't forget to switch the 2-second timer back on! Every time you cycle the camera on and off the timer turns off when you turn the camera back on. This is my biggest gripe about a Nikon camera for landscape photography. In other areas, the timer is better than Canon. On your new Nikon, there are 2-second, 5-second, 10-second, and 20-second timer options available and you can set the camera to make from 1 to 9 shots when the time expires. Sweet!
you would think they would fix that with a firmware upgrade
One of my biggest gripes as well.
Same here, it is very frustrating!
The Fujifilm X-T series has the same frustrating problem with the timer.
There is already a solution for that. I had the same problem at first but a friend who is a long time nikon shooter helped me out with that. Go to the Menu "D4" which is in German "Belichtungsverzögerungsmodus" and use there 2s. Store that at Usersetting so that you do not have to go through the menu everytime you want to use it or not. Problem solved
great vid Thomas as usual! Im still using the d850 and perfectly happy with it, however if money was no object there's something about the hue of a medium format image, and the photos you have taken with it shown in your vids have been stunning
Tom I have the Z7ii and have been super happy with it, image quality with the 14-24 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 is incredible. The 14-24 2.8 is ridiculously light, worth a look.
An interesting video Tom, I think we are spoilt for choice when it comes to the choice of camera and gear we can get nowadays. I have a similar setup with the Z7, GFZ100S (and the X-T3) and I enjoy shooting with each system immensely. Each has their advantages but to be honest, there's not might between them. In the end, I often make my selection on which one I'm going to shoot based less on the technical photography side and more to do with the factors like access to the location and how long I'm going to spend in the field. Enjoy your trip mate and enjoy the Z7ii! 👍
I do love the convenience of my 24-120 (f-mount). The Z7.2 would be a no brainer for me as I've got easily adaptable Nikon glass already.
For practical reasons I love my Nikon Z6 with the Z 24-120mm F4.0 lens for landscape photography. Yes it's a compromise in image quality, but when I am on a hiking tour in our Swiss Alps where every gram of weight is of importance I seldom miss a promising shooting opportunity because I do not have to change lenses. Maybe I will upgrade to the Z7II in the near future, or to a forthcoming Z8 or Z6III. But for many applications even 24 MP are enough. Somtimes I also take the Z 14-30mm F4.0 with me for great scenic compositions, but 24-120mm covers over 80% of motifs in my landscape photography.
If you combine your Z7II with the best prime Nikkors you will narrow the gap to medium format.
Interesting to see you transition back to full frame. I switched from full frame to the Fuji X-T4 2 years ago mainly to cut weight for backpacking. I think your right on the sensor size only being an issue for pixel peeping photographers. Unless you’re doing mural-sized prints. I’ll be interested in seeing how you feel about your new rig after your trip.
I did the same, love my Fuji!
Same here I switch from Nikon FF to Fuji X-T3 clients can't tell on poster prints. I haven't even looked at new cameras since switching. Maybe the XT-5 is the next purchase.
I look forward to your results. I've shot Nikon since the early 80's and I'm currently looking at the Z7ii to upgrade my D750. Your style is perfect for this as scientific charts are great and all, but at the end of the day I just want a print that looks good and that is more about shooting technique and subject matter. I'm sure you could give Art Wolfe or Galen Rowell (RIP) an entry level camera and they would come back with fantastic images. Again, great video and take care.
I'm still rocking a D750 and D7200. One is full frame and the other is APS-C and I can get similarly sharp and detailed shots from both cameras. In fact I think I could take the same shit with both and most couldn't tell.
@@namboozleUK back in the early days of digital I was bought a Coolpix 995 for my wife. One day I used it to take some shots and got two great images that I printed to 11x14 and would sell. I framed them and had them in my photo booth and when people would ask about digital and print size I would ask them to find one of the images shot on a 3.1 megapixel camera: nobody ever found them.
@@namboozleUK same with my D610 and D7100! Even the colour rendition is similar. The only thing that gives it away is the depth of field.
I honestly expected the final results to be printed and compared side by side :)
I don't have a penny of my own and never put a hand on any of these cameras.But nowadays all cameras are amazing, I am sure that the differences between them would be barely noticeable when printed, which is the way to properly enjoy a good photo.
I love my Z6, I'm not a full-time photographer but have done the odd gig here or there, and take landscapes to print for my own home decoration - it works a treat. I don't even use native Z glass, but the power of the Z-mount, and all of the fantastic manual focus aids in the Z series cameras have is second-to-none. Plus, with the Z6 I can still shoot amazing looking 4K when I want to make a YT video with the same camera!
I have done a similar move, some time ago, from Canon FF to m43, and I now walk around with an E-M1mk2 and 12-100 (i.e. 24-200 eq) and some times also a G9 with a 100-400 (200-800 eq). Fun to use, great stabilization on both kits (lens and bodies are of the same brand, although cross compatible), very versatile and light. The IQ loss is there, but it doesn't make much of a difference for me: if I do everything right and do not surrender to lazyness, I like the results. The high res modes (80mp) are very good and print really large, whenever the subject allows you to use them.
Oh, and yes, do some video with Sean :-)
I think m4/3 is the ideal format for hiking. The weight saving on the lenses alone seems to justify the format. When we consider landscape telephoto shots, the weather conditions and atmospheric haze will have an enormous effect on clarity so any theoretical IQ advantages of larger sensors are negated.
Me too. Contemplated G9 but what holds me back is the 1s maximum exposure on the G9 in hires mode....It is also rather big and heavy but otherwise I prefer Panasonic over Olympus anyday due to the menusystem. I am wating for a G10 (not the 12 MP one..) nd hopefully it will have am even better hires mode. Good thing about PAnny in Hires is that it corrects for movement so well.
And the lenses are so small and good...Fits me. I bet I would be happy with a Nino Z7 or Funi XT5 or whatever, but to me it is m43s.
It really comes down to what you enjoy more. This is what I have found. I have recently gone back to a simple old fuji xpro 1 just because I have more fun using it. Love your work!
Canon r5 you can’t beat it the image quality is second to none imo.
Plus with the latest firmware update you can film all modes including 8k with no overheating.
Best bang for the buck out there.
I think you will notice the difference during the transition, but once you stop comparing the two you'll stop noticing it. Switching to a system that makes you more willing and motivated to shoot is always going to be better than a technically superior one.
First thing that i thought was you switch because of speed (fps, focusing, changing settings etc), also depth of field, but i was completely wrong 😁(one major difference between these cameras regarding image quality is iso handling, other stats are basically same but honestly i think in your hands does not matter how camera you use, your photos will be one of the best at any conditions 👍).
Looking forward to the journey. Thanks 🙏
This is exciting! I'm a Nikon shooter, so it'd great to see shooting with a system I'm familiar with. Hope it works out for you!
As a GFX100S user - I do find the lack of zoom length a little limiting at times - but I don't think I can compromise image quality - you're right, it's peerless. Just get stronger 😅
GFX100S is still a pretty small camera in the medium format class, though. Imagine carrying a Pentax 67 with something equivalent to 150-600 for 6x7 system. Think you are strong enough? :D
I’m a Canon guy but if I wasn’t, Nikon would be my pick. Love their glass and colors. I shoot RAW regardless but that system just feels right. I had the biggest crush for the D850 for the longest
Same, but for me I think in photography you pick the lenses first and then the body. Canon has always lacked somewhat in body in last 5 or so years but always excels in lenses.
@@af2w131f In the last five years what planet have you been on The R5 R6 + R3 are some of the best out and the expert reviews also regard them as top end cameras
Very interesting, down-to-earth point of view. I was interested in moving from my 7-year-old D750 to the gfx system, but a few arguments pushed me towards the Z7II. I already had a 100-400 tamron and a 35mm SIGMA that I could adapt. I did swap my old 50mm 1.8 and my macro lens for the Z versions as it was needed for my studio work and they improve sufficiently my process and the image quality. The in-body long exposure capabilities of the camera are also a very welcomed addition as it saves me space in my bag. The timelapse modes are fantastic. And finally, it allowed me to move from my beloved, yet very heavy, old 14-24mm to the new 400g lighter version than can take circular 112mm filters that I can snap on and off with a magnetic ring. And the image quality is amazing, especially in the corners. The absence of wide-angle lenses on the GFX and the weight made it truly difficult to consider in the end. Finally, the price of the Z7II body compared to the R5, and the A1 is to be considered.
You'll get great results no matter what system you use because you have a great eye and are a terrific photographer. That said, I do think the Fuji GFX system has that extra magic to it when everything goes right. Then again, your back is your back.
I use a Sony a7RIII and the FE 24-105/4 as one of my landscape cameras - it’s a nice package similar to your z7ii 24-120 kit. The kit works well but there are better lenses with less range that can provide a bump in quality if that’s important. However as you said it’s unlikely that the extra resolution is what sells an image. The composition and creative eye drive that. The sensor size itself is less important to depth of field than the apparent magnification. By cropping the Nikon you are increasing the apparent focal length reducing depth of field as I understand it. For hiking I’d pick something like what you have selected - or even an apsc or m43 camera. Your images are really quite lovely typically - I look forward to seeing what you do with the Nikon but I suspect two things: 1) you will be second guessing your decision. 2) the quick and easy aspect of less cumbersome gear may not evoke the same level of planning and introspection that goes into the shots with your medium format gear. This may drop the composition excellence if you aren’t careful. That’s not a knock on the gear, that’s a reminder to remain mindful.
The Nikon was a nice choice, great image quality for landscapes. You probably also would have been happy with the mk I version, as long as you but xqd cards
Congratulations Thomas Heaton. The Nikon Z7II is an amazing camera for landscape photography. I use the NIkon Z7II and Z6II with 20mm f/1.8, 24-70mm f/4 and 100-400mm Z lenses.
You are spot on with this one Thomas. Even if there is a comparable difference, the viewer will never know unless they have the alternative to compare it with. Then, as you said, in most online and printed publications it would be very difficult to see the difference anyway. I am not a gear nerd either, but I know what I like in my gear and that is, I need to be confident and capable of using it to get the desired result. Keep ikt simple and enjoy the art. Cheers and thanks once again for the video and content.
I’ve been on the Z’s for years now. Don’t overlook the 24-200mm. Yes it’s variable aperture, but for your use, it shouldn’t cause a problem.
Love the sun stars of the 24-120 and in a pinch it renders nice Milky Way
I recall Nigel Danson doing a side by side between the Nikon you have now, and the Fuji XT-3, and even printed REALLY big, you could just barely tell the difference in the edges. Which is why I still use the XT-3 for all my photography and haven't gone back to full frame.
That new Tamron 17-70 and the Fuji 70-300 is gonna blow some socks off.
Agree. There is so little difference now. The Fujis are that good and very close to FF IQ. When I had my D750/D850 I had to flick back and forth at 100% and to be honest the fujis always sharper! Also the dynamic range is very close! You can move both highlight/ shadow sliders 100% and there’s almost as much there as the FF Nikons….
@@jonfletcher147 I love Fuji because they make “35mm L grade glass” at 350 grams
You’ve definitely made the right choice!
Also saw that video and XT3 owner here. If I need more resolution I’ll just buy next gen Fuji… lens, size, functionality, etc, it’s a joy of a camera system. Bigger and it just starts getting in the way on family moments…
Very interesting change. I did the very same thing, coming from the Fuji XT crop camera to my current Sony A7RIV. Second place : Canon R5 and then Nikon Z7II, Fuji GFX as last. Only advice I can give you is: make your own comparison and if you can: compare with Canon and Sony too. Then make your choice.
I recently found myself in a similar debacle, in the end landed on A7IV coming from Fuji xt4 that my wife took over for video work. I must say, I'm very happy with the switch, I was choosing between Sony and Nikon. Ultimately came down to more lens choices for Sony and an excellent viltrox adapter that allows me to use old Canon lenses flawlessly.
My guess is that you will love the range flexibility. I have a similar overlap in a Sony 24-104 f/4 (very sharp through the whole range) + a Sony 100-400 paired with either my A7r III or A7 III. I have been thrilled since I put that combo together. I do have an Sony 85mm f/1.8 (rare portraiture/event) and a Sony 14mm f/1.8 (astro) for specialized situations, but the rest of my lenses largely don't get used anymore and it makes travel so much easier.
That´s so funny. I was thinking about the 24-105 sony and a 100-400mm (probably a Sigma to save money on the last one). Nice to hear that the 24-105 is sharp through the whole range.
@@kimkrikaujensen3084 I'd look at the Tamron 150-500 as it was rated sharper than the Sigma in almost every review I saw. I opted for a used Sony 100-400 in no small part but to not have to buy/carry 82mm filters.
@@KevinMullett Nice, thanks, didn
t knew that. 500mm just seems so overkill for landscape :-)
My Sigma 35mm 1.2 art is at 82mm, but i´ve seen Nisi has a v6 landscape kit. 82mm cpl and 100mm slots for filters. Might be a good solution.
Just know that with the Z mount you can adapt just about any lens to a Nikon Z body. Although the Z lenses are all superb, you're not limited to the Nikon Z lenses.
So cool that you and Sean Tucker just hang out!
Thank you Thomas, as a coincidence, I'm studying a Certificate in Photography course and our subject this month is gear. As my teacher says horses for courses. Love the print packs, what a good idea. Looking forward to the Scotland trip.
I use basically the same GFX setup, except I throw in the 23mm(incredible lens). I can't imagine a time in landscapes that I do where I'd need to go above maybe 200mm, and with the 100-200 GF lens, it almost gets to that point anyway. Only time I can think of is if I was trying to double as wildlife photos as well
The gf 250 the best image quality of any lens I have used
@@morgankarno7335 Haven't had a chance to use it myself. The 100-200 is amazing enough I don't feel the need. I thin kthe 23mm is probably my favorite overall but I really love my wide angle stuff.
@@DCAMM720 fully agreed, i had the 100-200 sold it but it was a great lens I just had to downsize now I only have the 23 45 250 the 250 I use for my moon work, are you looking at the 20-35mm when comes out? I picked up the z7ii and use it with zooms for versatility and still have gfx for primes.
Peace happy shooting
My advice before switching systems: Look at the metadata statistics in Lightroom to find out which focal lengths you are using most. This will help deciding which lenses do you really need. And then choose the camera system with best optics in your focal lengths.
for me it says canon 55-250! apparently i have only that lens. i am surprised .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
who all got pissed 😅🤣
@@rajeevatsamuelsohn Focal length is not the lens. You can change the column header in LR from "Lens" to "Focal length". Be surprised how few real focal lenghts you squeeze out of your 55-250.
@@andreasniggemann appreciate your reply and time sir but it was supposed to be a joke. Apologies that my comment took your time in clarifying what you meant. I knew what you meant :)
This is only part of the answer. He should also look at what images he actually carried into final form for display and publication. He may find that even though he shoot a huge amount of images in the long range, he almost never actually gets any of those to publication. That would tell him something about his true success rate.
I didn't know this was a thing. I went through the menus in Lightroom, but it's not apparent to me how to do this.
With advancing age, the mass and bulk of the equipment does, indeed, increasingly make a difference. Earlier today, I was discussing, with my wife, the idea of down-sizing some of our less-used equipment, particularly the larger/heavier lenses. If you do adopt Nikon FX format, I will be paying more attention to your presentations, as you will be working with image files closer to what we are shooting. (We have his-and-hers D850 cameras, and my wife has already started adding some Z equipment.)
I use the Nikon Z 7, I absolutely love this camera, it is versatile, easy access buttons fully programmable as well as lens buttons programmable. Great color love the dynamic range and with the ftz adapter I can use my older Nikkor lenses.
I love to watch these videos where the photographer is switching, jumping around with sensor formats. Why?Because it is pointless. I own full frame and m4/3 and love them both. If I was able to owned a medium format system, I’m pretty sure that I will love that too. Today the big brand names keep working hard on their products to deliver great features and quality, if you know how to use it, you will get great results out of any format!
Why not keep them both. Use the Nikon for hiking and the Fuji out of the van.
Looking forward to the upcoming series. When I upgraded to the Z7ii from my D750 I was very reluctant to give up my 24-120 for a 24-70. A very high percentage of my shots were in the 71-120 range and the 24-120 was so convenient that I rarely changed lenses. That said, I really like the Z7!
Hey Thomas, I totally get the reasons for the switch. Although I have long admired the GFX system, it was the lens selection, weight and overall cost that always made me take a step back. It was never about the quality. I think, like most people who know a little, when you are talking about the higher end cameras of any brand, they are all very good. I myself have just gone back to the Nikon D800 (yes DSLR I know) with the 24-120mm lens and it is very practical and the 36mp sensor is more than enough. I am sure you will love the Z7 II, goes without saying about the quality given the number of other (including yourself) professional photographers already using one. Best of luck. John Pouw, NZ.
I recently went from the Nikon D850 to the Nikon Z7II, and I am extremely pleased with the change. I believe both cameras use the same sensor, but the difference is in the image quality delivered by the Nikkor Z S Line lenses. I believe you will be quite satisfied with the Nikon Z System. I would suggest trying the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 S Line lens if you are looking for incredibly sharp images...the 14-24mm, 70-200mm, and 100-400mm S Line lenses deliver incredibly sharp images as well.
I was thinking to the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 S too.
@@jean-charles9931 My thoughts too, the 24-120 is not as sharp as the 24-70 F2.8
I thought the small and light aspect was already taken care of by your X-T4. Do you feel that's not up to the job? would have been interesting to add test shots with that camera into the mix.
Looking forward to those images from Scotland!
First thing, those images in the opening sequence are absolutely fantabulous. And they are of my favorite subject matter. Especially the grass clump. Second thing is that I have been all through that 35mm, medium format and large format thing years ago and came to the same conclusion that you did. For every advantage gained in increased format size there is a penalty. Usually depth of field and weight. And when I had a gallery exhibit the viewers didn't recognize the difference. But they were taken by the images and made lots of positive comments. The other thing is that for the last 8 or 9 years my two primary lenses have been the 24-120 f/4 and the 80-400 4.5/5.6 with my Nikon D800E and my D850. The two lenses don't get the highest acclaim from the pixel peepers but again my audience doesn't realize that. They love the images. I have a 105mm f/2.8 micro lens but I usually end up using the 80-400 for that work because I don't want to take the time and effort to change lenses. Again, my audience doesn't know. They love the images. Now here is one major difference: when I am shooting migrating warblers in the spring I use a 500mm f/4 lens with the D850. These little birds are so small that all of the images have to be cropped a great deal even when the birds are close. No one even notices that the 8x10 images with a large border are cropped. The 80-400 can't compete in that scenario.
I'm really not sure you can go wrong with modern full frame cameras. I'm sure this will work wonders for you! I'd suspect the hard part is usually just gaining the muscle memory for a new setup.
I mean, if you’re really looking to switch back to full frame, you certainly chose the best system for the job. ISO 64 is really such a boon for landscape.
Self deprecation aside, I think you made the right comparisons and points. It really is about the lens in my mind. Of course resolution and sensor size make a difference but all things being equal I do believe it all about the glass. Thanks Tom. @gjbushman
Love the Nikon Z7II. Great camera. The 100-400mm is an excellent lens. I use this for my landscape and portrait photography.
I have a Sony a7r IVa, I also have a lot of old Minolta glass (and some of the latest lenses). One advantage of 61MPx (or even 240MPx with pixel-shifting - I shoot a lot of still-life in the studio) is that you can shoot wide and crop out the distortions, vignetting, etc., that are generally to be found at the edges of the frame.
I have gone completely lightweight and never looked back after picking Olympus. Like you say, unless you are printing huge, you just can't tell. This means I can carry landscape, macro, and a 600mm equivalent for birds all in my pack and never have to worry about missing a shot. I really don't think you're going to lose anything with the Z7II, other than maybe envy from other photographers.
I agree totally, I dropped Nikon quite a while ago and went to Olympus (now OMDS). Often I shoot with just the 12-100 f/4 Pro (24-200mm FFE). It's a very good lens throughout the focus range. If you pair it with an OM-1 camera, you are looking at over 8 stops of handheld, it's not unheard of to shoot 5 second exposures handheld. Not to mention other things like even lighter weight, cost is half the Nikon, and the Olympus stuff is still years ahead technology wise over Nikon. Do you do focus stacking, it's cool that the Nikon can do the brackets for you, but you have to wait to get back to the computer to stack them, the Olympus does it in camera very quickly so you can see if you got it or not. I also don't think I could go back to 50 MP after shooting 80 MP with stacked images, no noise, very clean and they rival the high MP cameras. If you want you can shoot handheld high res at 50 MP, I managed to take very good shots from a boat. One of the new features is Live ND, that lets you stack images in camera to simulate using ND filters. It obviously isn't the same, but it works well probably 90 percent of the time on moving water without needing any filters.
I have a friend who shoots with Olympus and does photo trips. All the Olympus lenses are great.
Chris Hau did a great video about 12MP vs 102MP prints. Got a bunch of pro photographers to look at large high quality prints made with shots from a 12MP and 102MP camera - the differences are so subtle. A lot of people place too much significance on MP count.
I bought an A7 and a Z50 when the Z50 came out 2 1/2 years ago. I get excellent results from both cameras for stills or video. I have had the 24-70mm f4 since I bought the Z7. It is a superior lens that give excellent results. I have thought about trading it in for a 24-120 but I don't want to sell the 24-70 f4. It is that good. I have also bought the little 28mm f2.8 and 40mm f2 recently and those are light, super sharp lenses that are very inexpensive.
I also get excellent results out of the super light Z50. The Z7 is better in low light, but for most landscape the Z50 does an excellent job. Unless you pixel peep at 100% the Z50 with the 16-50mm it is hard to tell the difference between the full frame and the crop. I recently bought the Nikon DX 10-20mm AFS lens and adapted it to the Z50 using the FTZ. The results are super.
But the real reason for me to use the Nikons is the results. I love the way the Nikon files turn out using Lightroom for stills of Adobe Rush for video.
Another great video as always. I migrated from Nikon F to Nikon Z early on and have loved the images that I've created with them. The bodies and the glass keep getting better and better. A recent trip to Yellowstone National Park was my first time with both the 24-120 & 100-400 with me with my Z bodies, and they gave stellar performance. As you stated, it's about the images more than the gear. As other commenters have stated, the differences in cameras nowadays are minor. No wrong choices when it comes to art!
I know the feeling of change. I had Micro Four Thirds for over a decade and after I lost my baby and my girlfriend I lost all my photographic gear to paying debts. I started picking my life up again and this summer I managed to get the Sony a7R II (that's the best IQ I could get for my limited budget) and now I have the Tamron 150-500mm f 5-6.7 (technically it's a 6.3 on the long end because the histogram doesn't change at all from f 6.3 to f 6.7 so it's more of a mathematical aperture) and the Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 G2 (I got this lens over my preferred Tamron 28-200mm f 2.8-5.6 because I wanted a "winter" lens to deal with low light this year above a bit more versatility). Hope you enjoy your Nikon stuff ... I considered it but at the time I was researching the 24-120mm f 4 and 100-400mm f 4.5-6.3 wasn't out yet and the price of the Z7 was waaaaaaaaay higher then a7R II.
To be honest you could have stuck with your Fujifilm X-T4, Andy Mumford (a British landscape photographer based in Portugal) uses Fuji's X-T system for his work and has done so for almost 10 years now. I used the X-T4 for my masters degree work which was displayed on a A2 size screen with no pixilation, and if you really need a massive print you can use the high-resolution function in Lightroom which works really well. Also if you stick with the Fuji's X system they have their next gen higher resolution (40MP) sensor coming later this year for their next gen cameras like the X-H2R, X-T5 & X-Pro4. So to be honest I would ditch the full-frame & medium format and stick the Fuji's APS-C cameras especially as you want to keep weight down.
Another great video Thomas, keep it up ! Love your photos!
I moved from a Sony A7iii to the Nikon Z7ii about a year ago. It’s been great fun to use so far and helped to take some of my favourite images along with the 14-30,24-120 plus some primes.
Maybe, the 24-120 is not the right choice when you look for superb sharpness. The professional choice would be the 24-70 F2.8. For me, that lens would be awesome. I am using the 24-200 on the Z5, a compromise to my amateur status.
There is only slight differences in sharpness between those two lenses. Biggest difference is that the 24-120 has slightly more field curvature and is therefore wide open slightly less sharp at the edges (objects in image frame being completely at infinity). That effect is totally normal for a super zoom and Nikon has done a great job of reducing it to a minimum.
The 24-120 is tack sharp! No need to waste the money on the 24-70 2.8
They are indeed all amazing in the center.
I've just moved from the Z7ii to Fuji 50 Sii and in my opinion the output of the Fuji is astounding with the 32-64mm f4 - time will tell as you say the weight is about the same and I dont tend to use long lenses. So far not regretting saying goodbye to the Nikon.
Try the GF 110 f2… that lens is a beast in quality output… easily one of the very best 85-87 mm equivalent ff lenses in existence!
@@mortenthorpe I did think of getting that lens - I might hire it for a week or two to give it a try, but I am quite content with the zoom, its like having. bagfull of primes.
I love all your videos no matter what you do! I think I know why as well, because you tell the truth about what your doing. You come across as someone who really likes and enjoys sharing your knowledge and who freely admits that you don't know everything. You are humble and talented, funny and enthusiastic!! You are AWESOME!! je
I'm So happy that you came back to full frame, through Nikon Z, Tom.
I wish you the best and I hope you will enjoy as much as I enjoy my Nikon Z.
You got the best lens combo for landscape. Z 24-120 and Z 100-400.
I'm following you for a long time, not for your gear but for your style, but I'm glad that you choose Nikon.
I really love the way you do photography. (Despite the brand of your gear)
I like to travel with you through your videos.
Thank Tom for taking us with you during your photo journey.
Bonjour de France.
Karl.
Perhaps replacing the 24-120 with the 24-70 would give you the image quality equal to the Fuji lense. The downside would be the gap between 70mm and 100mm but this is quite small and might not be noticeable.
Don’t jump just yet man , the r5 is a phenomenal piece of kit !! Great video as usual
The Z7II is the better choice for landscape photography though. 64 base ISO, up to 900 seconds shutter speed for long exposure (R5 only goes up to 30 seconds), no AA filter, focus stacking feature, 24-120 is a better range than 24-105 in the rf mount. The R5 is indeed a phenomenal camera and a better choice for wildlife but he isn't a widlife photographer ;)
Wow impressive, well done. Thank you for sharing. Keep it up 💞
Glad you went with the Nikon Z7II. I've the same camera and it's fantastic for landscape, although I use it for everything. The Nikkor lenses are simply outstanding, I went with the 24-70 f2.8 (my most used lens)
Interesting as ever Tom. I can't disagree with any of the points you made - I think the differences between either APSC / Full Frame or Full Frame / Medium format are pretty small - certainly at low ISO values. I currently shoot Fuji APSC but have previously considered a move to FF or even MF. Ruled out FF on the basis of not enough improvement compared to the cost of a new system, ruled out MF on the basis of weight and the lack of a versatile 24-100 ish zoom (and also ££££££!!).
Just one thing to add - the Fuji XF 16-80 f4 (FF equiv 24-120) is excellent, small and relatively cheap. Would make a super lightweight proposition for hiking with your X-T3 / 4, though I can't comment on it's video performance
Not much to compare to, but at Christmas I upgraded from d750 to z7ii. No
looking back, it is a phenomenal camera. The Z lenses are also incredible.
I am definitely tempted by the 100-400mm! I currently shoot with the Sigma via the FTZ but would really prefer to go native.
I have the Nikon Z7II and have been very pleased with it. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens and have found it very sharp. I find the Z7II to be a good all around camera. I do mostly portraits and I do dabble in landscape. I've been very happy with the images I get.