I downloaded your RAWs and tried the following in Lighroom: -Enhance the Nikon and the Fuij RAW, with minimal denoising (about 20). -Align exposure settings -Give a little yellow to the Fuji RAW -Sharpen the Fuij RAW a bit The result is that both look almost the same, even at 100% view. Even the photo with the Fuji Tamron lens. If you own Topaz Denoise AI: Do not sharpen in Lighroom, but minimally sharpen the enhanced Fuji.dng in Topaz Denoise AI. Now the photos show identical details. The Nikon files look over-sharpened with Topaz Denoise AI even at the minimum sharpening level. The big advantage of Nikon is that the photos already look great without these editing steps. I often hike with my camera gear. That's why I personally prefer a little photo editing than lugging around the extra weight :-) Thanks for providing the raw files. I now know that Fuji APS-C meets my needs :-)
I’ve gone with Fujifilm X for now purely for the lightweight, low cost 70-300. Paired with an X-T5 16-55 And a little samyang 12mm that’s a very wide focal range and excellent IQ for the weight and with the correct processing I doubt anyone other than a pixel peeping photographer would really notice a substantial difference in image quality, certainly not any client. Also recently bought a used 1.4x TC to experiment with on the 70-300. I can get all that in a Tenba 10l BYOB which I put in a regular lightweight Osprey backpack which also saves a lot of weight over a dedicated camera bag.
Food for thought there Matt, I personally think that the difference in image quality between FF & APSC has become much less thanks to Fuji, some of their new prime lenses offer incredible quality. Also, I've used Capture One for a few years now since switching ti Fuji, I recently tried some RAF files in Lightroom and I don't know what Adobe have done but there really wasn't much difference between Lr & C1, on the odd image where I thought Lr wasn't as good, I ran the file through the Lr denoise feature and the resulting DNG was as good if not better than C1.
I formally shot with a Nikon D750 and I'm now shooting with the XT5. I love the XT5 and the great Fuji glass. What I miss the most about full frame is the low light performance. The D750 was superb. I would not go back full time to the Nikon but I've considered getting another D750 and a few prime and using that for low light. There are always compromise with gear.
Hi Matt. Tamron 17-70. Mine is very sharp and only a mere fraction off the Fuji 16-28. They render colours slightly differently however the weight difference and stabilisation make it a clear winner. In fairness the Tamron does get a bit soft at 70mm, though that is longer than the 55 obvs. That is when the 70-300 steps in. I've downloaded the images and the one of the dome is quite interesting. The auto settings haven't done a particularly good job in either case. With a bit of fettling both look better and the difference between them isn't that much and wouldn't show up in a magazine or even in quite big prints unless you got really close in. I'm not sure you are comparing fairly. I'd like to see the exercise repeated with the Nikon at f8 as well. I know of a landscape pro in the UK who has his own gallery and sells large prints. His main body is a Sony A7R II and his other camera is an X-E3. When asked if he could only have one he answered the Fuji.
Mine is pretty sharp too, i regret a bit selling the fuji 16-80 f4 though. It was lighter and had similar IQ. On an Xt4 it was easier to hold the tamron makes it a bit front heavy for the grip of the camera.
The subtle differences in technology across the platforms will always make it difficult in choosing but I think for many people, cost will be a key driver and there will be a point where you will reach a state of diminishing returns for your investment. I think before investing serious money it is important to decide what your main interest/genre will be as that will act as an initial influence on what to buy but the downside to that is either if your interests change over time or you have a broad interest. I think your rationale Matt for getting the Nikon system is logical as it is influenced by meeting the needs of clients and at the end of the day you have the luxury of choice so that is a nice place to be
Matthew, is nice to see you in the field ... I hard to comment to your comparison , mainly because I don't have Fuji system. But I really enjoy to photograph with my Nikon gear .....
I moved from a Fujifilm XT3 to a Nikon Z8, no mistake it’s a huge step up. The Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 is so much better than the Fujifilm 50-140mm, the IQ and AF speed are in a different league. Same deal for the Fuji 16-55mm 2.8 and the Nikon 24-70 f4. These last two lenses are comparable price wise, dof, weight and size wise. The IQ of the Nikon is again much better. The Fuji was soft in the corners. Still love and use the Fuji 35mm 1.4 and the 56mm 1.2 though, because of their size and character 😉
you should’ve chosen the widest fuji zoom lens to compare - 8-16 mm f2.8 - insanely great lens! also, the 16-55 2.8 is rrally nice for the 24-70 equivalent
I work both in APSc (my own) and FF (my employer's), and to be honest, if I'd find myself on my own, I'd skip FF in general and go straight to medium format. But with that being said, my line of work is quite different than yours...
Hey Mat, I've just been watching several of your videos, which came about as I was looking at reviews such as for your Viltrox and Samyang lens as I'm considering doing the opposite as you - going Nikon FF to Fuji lol! I'm still not sure though... For this comparison I think it would have helped to at least try match the white balance and tweak the exposure to be the same. However, it is awesome you include the photos to download! That is super helpful, I've already downloaded a few to check out the image quality of different camera / lens combos. Anyway, great job on the videos! Cheers.
@@matthewstorerphotography Haha nice! I just purchased a used XT2 with 16mm f2.8 :) If I like this camera / Fuji enough I might sell my Nikon D810 and Olympus EM5ii and lenses as the Fuji should sit nicely in the middle and hopefully almost be the best of both worlds. I'll test all three out and compare once I get it. The Fuji system can almost be as small as the Olympus setup which is great. The XT5 looks like a really awesome upgrade from all the previous models, all the typical improvements like AF, video etc, but 40 mega pixels for an APSC sensor is impressive! Good to see the Fuji APSC system is progressing unlike MFT which is not moving forward much. Nikon on the other hand have really made some strides with the Z mount which is great to see! Enjoy your new Nikon gear!
Great content as always Matthew! Thanks a lot for such a well done comparison, it would be great to have more content like this as more often than not there aren't really much "real life" comparisons such as yours with the plus of having the raw files to see for ourselves. I was very curious about the differences in lens sharpness but to my surprise, where I expected to find anything noticeable I didn't find any and where I expected to see the least difference it was quite the opposite, which was between the XF 70-300mm and the Z 100-400mm. There should be some nag with either your 70-300mm or your test because I also have that lens and mine is tack sharp. As a Fuji user I often find myself contemplating the idea of moving to either Nikon or Sony FF, but after seeing this I think I'll just keep to my beloved X-T2 for long. But anyways, the Nikon Z are lovely as well and if I could justify I would have both ahah.
I have both a Nikon Z7 and a Fuji XT5, and for me, it's no contest when it comes to landscape. Nikon wins easily. Granted, everyone has their use case. The Fuji 10-24, even the second version, does not compare to the 14-30 F/4 of the Nikon Z7. Your only advantage is the 70-300 Tamron you keep raving about. My primary lenses for landscape are the 14-30 F4 Z, 70-180 2.8, and now on order, the 180-600 5.6 -6.3 VR. I mainly use the XT5 for street and travel.
@@Gundolf300 bullshit! All of them are pro lenses in their own way! I've made covershots, fullspread magazine articles etc with both the 35mm1.4 and 55-200mm. The 50mmf2 is even sharper and has better close focus than those two, but the renderingis a bit to clean. I've shot Canon, Nikon, Sony and Lumix over the years. On my 20x28 inch / 50x70cm prints I can't tell any difference accept the Fujifilm prints feels more organic/analogue in a good way. Last week my Fujifilm images was shown on a 6x4 meter cinema screen in front of 400 people without any issues. Nikon has better autofocus and the look is more digital but that's about it. I work professionally with Fujifilm gear and I have never had any complaints from big magazines, newspaper, fineart buyers, billboard printers, modells, bookpublishers or other photographers. I've sold fineart to Leica nerds and Hasselblad medium format photographers who both though the 120cm print was shot on medium format when in fact it was shot on the XT2 with the 18-55mm kit lens at f8. I never pixelpeep because most of my images are printed and I like to look at the full image no matter the size from a viewing point where I can see the full image. I actually compared some prints with the Nikon D850 to some I took with the 16mp Fujifilm XE1 and I actually prefer the Fujifilm prints better. Www.stayuntilforever.com
@@Swingkid14 Never said that they dont work at all. Thats pretty much your take on what i said. The entire anwser seems a bit riddled with your own experience rather than actual facts actually. Never said they dont work for you either, they obviously do very well. Thumbs up! Also doesnt mean that other people experiences wont differ from yours so really no need to go all fujifilm fanboi cult about it.... But anyhow. Ive used fujifilm for years now with varied results. Some really good, some very much not so. The 35/1.4 probably is the lens ive like the least. Wet toilet paper is sharper than this lens, even if it renders quite nice otherwise. Now this might be due to fujifilms quite awefull and infamous production tolerances where some batches of lenses seems to vary alot from others. However, sharp it is not and i ive had other photographers comfirmed this. 55-200 is probably the lens ive used the most. I renders quite well and sharp between 55 and 150 on objects closer to you. Above 150 and objects further away is another story completely. Laowa 9mm. Saw Frosts review on this one and didnt even bother to pick it up. The distortion and edge unsharpness just seems wildly off the charts on this one. 50/f2. If i ever go back to fuji, this is probably one of the lenses i would pick up. However. Still really dont com up to nikon standard it seems... th-cam.com/video/xXoUwdFQgm0/w-d-xo.html Nikon af... Well. My old d90 had an easier time to latch on to subjects than my x-t2 did so i wouldn´t say its better in that regard. Its not so much of a competetion at all. Something like the h2s though seems to latch on and track very very nice. Of course, its my take on it and its completely fine if you dont agree. Just no need to be an ass about it.
Your take on the 24-120 is odd. I’ve looked at every comparison and all shows negligible difference between the legendary 24-70 2.8 when pixel peeping. I picked it up as well and don’t have any sharpness issues when zooming in 200%
Interesting comparison, how would you say the Fuji 16-80 would compare to the Nikon 24-120? I understand why you use the 17-70 for your chanel but the 16-80 is the same equivalent focal range as the 24-120 and is smaller and lighter. Personally as a hobbiest im quite happy with the image quality of apsc and cant justify the large price difference when im on a budget for a hobby. I can understand why professional photographers shooting for clients would desire more though.
Yeah but there is much myth to it too. The same thing if you get a video gig you're sort of expected to show up with a cinema rig with matte box, camera cage and the whole nine yards, but you don't even know how to use the dang matte box, it's just so your gear look expensive making it worth the client's money. Full frame in photography goes similar ways, it has its real world advantages, but the average client doesn't know most of them if any at all, then you get Mr photographer with a 10+ years old FF camera and sells you the idea the FF is bigger so it's better sales pitch, and they say look at your friend's wedding photos they were shot in FF and cha-ching there is a sale. Photography is about know how experience in composition and handling light scenarios. I know photographers that can shoot weddings with their mobile phones and it still looks great, and yes that the extreme scenario, but knowledge can go a long way no matter the gear. I shoot Fuji aps-c and it suits my needs, but for some M4/3 is more than enough, while for others medium format is the rule. Full frame is what's most popular, but unless you understand its strengths VS its shortcomings you really aren't going to instantly become a better photographer or videographer by simply upping your sensor size or spend more on gear. 😎 👍
It would be amazing to see something like the Tamron 70-300mm on the Z7II and cropped to equivilent 'focal length' vs the Fuji... in terms of compromising for weight. I'm really jealous of Canon users and their access to the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS. It seems to have an unbelievable range / weight / price / performance ratio!
Nikon colors seem deeper to me and Fuji colors in low light seem to turn magenta. The Nikon's colors are incredible and realistic. The sky is gray but the mountains are very red/orange. I love Nikon colorimetry even though I'm a Fuji user. The Z50 or Z6 Mark I are cheap used and could make me switch to Nikon if I have them in my hands because used Nikon lenses are not more expensive than Fuji but are above all much more numerous and easier to find
How much editing do you need to process the purple out of those fuji files? Just asking because it is clearly purple heavy, and I've been contemplating going with some fuji gear.
That's not the default case, he shot with auto white balance, no matter what camera brand you buy auto white balance can be inconsistent. Hence why most people shoot raw and deal with white balance in post. Personally I shoot both jpeg + raw, and the whole trick to nail white balance is to either take a custom white balance shot on a piece of paper, or just wear a gray t-shirt and that pulls the trick, or just set your Kelvin scale and that's that. Also what can lead to what seems color shift or cast is your film simulation settings, só just be sure you haven't changed anything and forgotten that way because it will mess with those jpeg files.
I find these videos highly triggering. I went from Nikon to Fuji about a year ago. There are advantages and downsides to both. For me it came down to portability as a system. If that wasn’t a priority for me - or I could afford their long primes then I would be using Nikon.
Sony A7R IV and a set of lenses was too much for my dodgy knee and as I get older I just don't want the weight. A mate of mine went OM-1. An X-T5 plus the Tamron 17-70 and the Fuji 70-300 makes a fine light kit with room for food and water for both me and the dog on a day out.
Matthew your comment about lightroom being a terrible processing program with Fuji Raw files seriously hurts your credibility. I know there are photographers that prefer Capture One with fuji but in ten years I've never heard anyone on youtube even come close to your statement.
I downloaded your RAWs and tried the following in Lighroom:
-Enhance the Nikon and the Fuij RAW, with minimal denoising (about 20).
-Align exposure settings
-Give a little yellow to the Fuji RAW
-Sharpen the Fuij RAW a bit
The result is that both look almost the same, even at 100% view. Even the photo with the Fuji Tamron lens.
If you own Topaz Denoise AI: Do not sharpen in Lighroom, but minimally sharpen the enhanced Fuji.dng in Topaz Denoise AI. Now the photos show identical details. The Nikon files look over-sharpened with Topaz Denoise AI even at the minimum sharpening level.
The big advantage of Nikon is that the photos already look great without these editing steps.
I often hike with my camera gear. That's why I personally prefer a little photo editing than lugging around the extra weight :-)
Thanks for providing the raw files. I now know that Fuji APS-C meets my needs :-)
I’ve gone with Fujifilm X for now purely for the lightweight, low cost 70-300. Paired with an X-T5 16-55 And a little samyang 12mm that’s a very wide focal range and excellent IQ for the weight and with the correct processing I doubt anyone other than a pixel peeping photographer would really notice a substantial difference in image quality, certainly not any client. Also recently bought a used 1.4x TC to experiment with on the 70-300. I can get all that in a Tenba 10l BYOB which I put in a regular lightweight Osprey backpack which also saves a lot of weight over a dedicated camera bag.
Food for thought there Matt, I personally think that the difference in image quality between FF & APSC has become much less thanks to Fuji, some of their new prime lenses offer incredible quality. Also, I've used Capture One for a few years now since switching ti Fuji, I recently tried some RAF files in Lightroom and I don't know what Adobe have done but there really wasn't much difference between Lr & C1, on the odd image where I thought Lr wasn't as good, I ran the file through the Lr denoise feature and the resulting DNG was as good if not better than C1.
I formally shot with a Nikon D750 and I'm now shooting with the XT5. I love the XT5 and the great Fuji glass. What I miss the most about full frame is the low light performance. The D750 was superb. I would not go back full time to the Nikon but I've considered getting another D750 and a few prime and using that for low light. There are always compromise with gear.
Hi Matt.
Tamron 17-70. Mine is very sharp and only a mere fraction off the Fuji 16-28. They render colours slightly differently however the weight difference and stabilisation make it a clear winner. In fairness the Tamron does get a bit soft at 70mm, though that is longer than the 55 obvs. That is when the 70-300 steps in.
I've downloaded the images and the one of the dome is quite interesting. The auto settings haven't done a particularly good job in either case. With a bit of fettling both look better and the difference between them isn't that much and wouldn't show up in a magazine or even in quite big prints unless you got really close in.
I'm not sure you are comparing fairly. I'd like to see the exercise repeated with the Nikon at f8 as well.
I know of a landscape pro in the UK who has his own gallery and sells large prints. His main body is a Sony A7R II and his other camera is an X-E3. When asked if he could only have one he answered the Fuji.
Mine is pretty sharp too, i regret a bit selling the fuji 16-80 f4 though. It was lighter and had similar IQ. On an Xt4 it was easier to hold the tamron makes it a bit front heavy for the grip of the camera.
The subtle differences in technology across the platforms will always make it difficult in choosing but I think for many people, cost will be a key driver and there will be a point where you will reach a state of diminishing returns for your investment. I think before investing serious money it is important to decide what your main interest/genre will be as that will act as an initial influence on what to buy but the downside to that is either if your interests change over time or you have a broad interest. I think your rationale Matt for getting the Nikon system is logical as it is influenced by meeting the needs of clients and at the end of the day you have the luxury of choice so that is a nice place to be
Matthew, is nice to see you in the field ...
I hard to comment to your comparison , mainly because I don't have Fuji system. But I really enjoy to photograph with my Nikon gear .....
I moved from a Fujifilm XT3 to a Nikon Z8, no mistake it’s a huge step up. The Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 is so much better than the Fujifilm 50-140mm, the IQ and AF speed are in a different league. Same deal for the Fuji 16-55mm 2.8 and the Nikon 24-70 f4. These last two lenses are comparable price wise, dof, weight and size wise. The IQ of the Nikon is again much better. The Fuji was soft in the corners.
Still love and use the Fuji 35mm 1.4 and the 56mm 1.2 though, because of their size and character 😉
you should’ve chosen the widest fuji zoom lens to compare - 8-16 mm f2.8 - insanely great lens! also, the 16-55 2.8 is rrally nice for the 24-70 equivalent
Yeah they’re also 2x the cost & weight of Nikon FF counterparts…
@@rvpcqpuntrue… Nikon FF equivalent lenses - and yes you can get inferior series plasticky crap optic lenses too - are more expensive!
I work both in APSc (my own) and FF (my employer's), and to be honest, if I'd find myself on my own, I'd skip FF in general and go straight to medium format. But with that being said, my line of work is quite different than yours...
Hey Mat, I've just been watching several of your videos, which came about as I was looking at reviews such as for your Viltrox and Samyang lens as I'm considering doing the opposite as you - going Nikon FF to Fuji lol! I'm still not sure though... For this comparison I think it would have helped to at least try match the white balance and tweak the exposure to be the same. However, it is awesome you include the photos to download! That is super helpful, I've already downloaded a few to check out the image quality of different camera / lens combos. Anyway, great job on the videos! Cheers.
Hahaha if it helps, I have kept a lightweight Fujifilm setup because I just couldn't get rid of it!
@@matthewstorerphotography Haha nice! I just purchased a used XT2 with 16mm f2.8 :) If I like this camera / Fuji enough I might sell my Nikon D810 and Olympus EM5ii and lenses as the Fuji should sit nicely in the middle and hopefully almost be the best of both worlds. I'll test all three out and compare once I get it. The Fuji system can almost be as small as the Olympus setup which is great.
The XT5 looks like a really awesome upgrade from all the previous models, all the typical improvements like AF, video etc, but 40 mega pixels for an APSC sensor is impressive! Good to see the Fuji APSC system is progressing unlike MFT which is not moving forward much. Nikon on the other hand have really made some strides with the Z mount which is great to see! Enjoy your new Nikon gear!
Great content as always Matthew! Thanks a lot for such a well done comparison, it would be great to have more content like this as more often than not there aren't really much "real life" comparisons such as yours with the plus of having the raw files to see for ourselves.
I was very curious about the differences in lens sharpness but to my surprise, where I expected to find anything noticeable I didn't find any and where I expected to see the least difference it was quite the opposite, which was between the XF 70-300mm and the Z 100-400mm. There should be some nag with either your 70-300mm or your test because I also have that lens and mine is tack sharp.
As a Fuji user I often find myself contemplating the idea of moving to either Nikon or Sony FF, but after seeing this I think I'll just keep to my beloved X-T2 for long.
But anyways, the Nikon Z are lovely as well and if I could justify I would have both ahah.
Have a z6 and a xt4. Cant say that nikon is really ahead, except for night and darker scenes. In daylight they peform pretty equally.
I have both a Nikon Z7 and a Fuji XT5, and for me, it's no contest when it comes to landscape. Nikon wins easily. Granted, everyone has their use case. The Fuji 10-24, even the second version, does not compare to the 14-30 F/4 of the Nikon Z7. Your only advantage is the 70-300 Tamron you keep raving about. My primary lenses for landscape are the 14-30 F4 Z, 70-180 2.8, and now on order, the 180-600 5.6 -6.3 VR. I mainly use the XT5 for street and travel.
For the price of a used Nikon Z7 without a lens I can get a used Fujifilm XT2 with 35mm1.4, 50mmf2, 55-200mm and Laowa 9mm2.8 and a camera bag.
@@Swingkid14 And 3 of thoses lenses doenst come anywhere near Nikon image quality.
@@Gundolf300 bullshit! All of them are pro lenses in their own way! I've made covershots, fullspread magazine articles etc with both the 35mm1.4 and 55-200mm. The 50mmf2 is even sharper and has better close focus than those two, but the renderingis a bit to clean. I've shot Canon, Nikon, Sony and Lumix over the years. On my 20x28 inch / 50x70cm prints I can't tell any difference accept the Fujifilm prints feels more organic/analogue in a good way. Last week my Fujifilm images was shown on a 6x4 meter cinema screen in front of 400 people without any issues. Nikon has better autofocus and the look is more digital but that's about it. I work professionally with Fujifilm gear and I have never had any complaints from big magazines, newspaper, fineart buyers, billboard printers, modells, bookpublishers or other photographers. I've sold fineart to Leica nerds and Hasselblad medium format photographers who both though the 120cm print was shot on medium format when in fact it was shot on the XT2 with the 18-55mm kit lens at f8. I never pixelpeep because most of my images are printed and I like to look at the full image no matter the size from a viewing point where I can see the full image. I actually compared some prints with the Nikon D850 to some I took with the 16mp Fujifilm XE1 and I actually prefer the Fujifilm prints better.
Www.stayuntilforever.com
@@Swingkid14 Never said that they dont work at all. Thats pretty much your take on what i said. The entire anwser seems a bit riddled with your own experience rather than actual facts actually. Never said they dont work for you either, they obviously do very well. Thumbs up!
Also doesnt mean that other people experiences wont differ from yours so really no need to go all fujifilm fanboi cult about it....
But anyhow. Ive used fujifilm for years now with varied results. Some really good, some very much not so.
The 35/1.4 probably is the lens ive like the least. Wet toilet paper is sharper than this lens, even if it renders quite nice otherwise. Now this might be due to fujifilms quite awefull and infamous production tolerances where some batches of lenses seems to vary alot from others. However, sharp it is not and i ive had other photographers comfirmed this.
55-200 is probably the lens ive used the most. I renders quite well and sharp between 55 and 150 on objects closer to you. Above 150 and objects further away is another story completely.
Laowa 9mm. Saw Frosts review on this one and didnt even bother to pick it up. The distortion and edge unsharpness just seems wildly off the charts on this one.
50/f2. If i ever go back to fuji, this is probably one of the lenses i would pick up. However. Still really dont com up to nikon standard it seems...
th-cam.com/video/xXoUwdFQgm0/w-d-xo.html
Nikon af... Well. My old d90 had an easier time to latch on to subjects than my x-t2 did so i wouldn´t say its better in that regard. Its not so much of a competetion at all. Something like the h2s though seems to latch on and track very very nice.
Of course, its my take on it and its completely fine if you dont agree. Just no need to be an ass about it.
Your take on the 24-120 is odd. I’ve looked at every comparison and all shows negligible difference between the legendary 24-70 2.8 when pixel peeping. I picked it up as well and don’t have any sharpness issues when zooming in 200%
Interesting comparison, how would you say the Fuji 16-80 would compare to the Nikon 24-120?
I understand why you use the 17-70 for your chanel but the 16-80 is the same equivalent focal range as the 24-120 and is smaller and lighter.
Personally as a hobbiest im quite happy with the image quality of apsc and cant justify the large price difference when im on a budget for a hobby.
I can understand why professional photographers shooting for clients would desire more though.
Yeah but there is much myth to it too. The same thing if you get a video gig you're sort of expected to show up with a cinema rig with matte box, camera cage and the whole nine yards, but you don't even know how to use the dang matte box, it's just so your gear look expensive making it worth the client's money.
Full frame in photography goes similar ways, it has its real world advantages, but the average client doesn't know most of them if any at all, then you get Mr photographer with a 10+ years old FF camera and sells you the idea the FF is bigger so it's better sales pitch, and they say look at your friend's wedding photos they were shot in FF and cha-ching there is a sale.
Photography is about know how experience in composition and handling light scenarios. I know photographers that can shoot weddings with their mobile phones and it still looks great, and yes that the extreme scenario, but knowledge can go a long way no matter the gear.
I shoot Fuji aps-c and it suits my needs, but for some M4/3 is more than enough, while for others medium format is the rule. Full frame is what's most popular, but unless you understand its strengths VS its shortcomings you really aren't going to instantly become a better photographer or videographer by simply upping your sensor size or spend more on gear. 😎 👍
Wow dude I was itching just watching this video, fair play to enduring that and lugging that weight up there 👍
It would be amazing to see something like the Tamron 70-300mm on the Z7II and cropped to equivilent 'focal length' vs the Fuji... in terms of compromising for weight.
I'm really jealous of Canon users and their access to the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS. It seems to have an unbelievable range / weight / price / performance ratio!
Nikon colors seem deeper to me and Fuji colors in low light seem to turn magenta. The Nikon's colors are incredible and realistic. The sky is gray but the mountains are very red/orange.
I love Nikon colorimetry even though I'm a Fuji user.
The Z50 or Z6 Mark I are cheap used and could make me switch to Nikon if I have them in my hands because used Nikon lenses are not more expensive than Fuji but are above all much more numerous and easier to find
How much editing do you need to process the purple out of those fuji files? Just asking because it is clearly purple heavy, and I've been contemplating going with some fuji gear.
That's not the default case, he shot with auto white balance, no matter what camera brand you buy auto white balance can be inconsistent. Hence why most people shoot raw and deal with white balance in post. Personally I shoot both jpeg + raw, and the whole trick to nail white balance is to either take a custom white balance shot on a piece of paper, or just wear a gray t-shirt and that pulls the trick, or just set your Kelvin scale and that's that.
Also what can lead to what seems color shift or cast is your film simulation settings, só just be sure you haven't changed anything and forgotten that way because it will mess with those jpeg files.
NIKON is very nice for landscape forography….
But
Fujifilm GFX is the best System for the job.
Fuji . For me if ever have extra money GFX100II 😂
I find these videos highly triggering. I went from Nikon to Fuji about a year ago. There are advantages and downsides to both. For me it came down to portability as a system. If that wasn’t a priority for me - or I could afford their long primes then I would be using Nikon.
i have a full canon system but when im using fuji i have to double check ive got everything in the bag because its so light.
Sony A7R IV and a set of lenses was too much for my dodgy knee and as I get older I just don't want the weight. A mate of mine went OM-1.
An X-T5 plus the Tamron 17-70 and the Fuji 70-300 makes a fine light kit with room for food and water for both me and the dog on a day out.
P r o m o S M
Matthew your comment about lightroom being a terrible processing program with Fuji Raw files seriously hurts your credibility. I know there are photographers that prefer Capture One with fuji but in ten years I've never heard anyone on youtube even come close to your statement.