Which FujiFilm for landscapes and seascapes?

[atyl1972]

Hi all, this is my first post on here and a complete amateur to boot. I am very keen to buy a new camera that I will enjoy shooting with and obviously I'd like the best image quality available, so can any of you guys please advise on any thoughts, ideas based on your experiences with these cameras for the kind of shooting I want to achieve, and any images to back suggestions up is of course more than welcome, thank you in advance guys.

PS, just wanted to say my budget is around £2750 gbp, for a camera, and 2 lenses if possible.📷👍😀

[Slugoon]

Excluding a couple of entry-level and smaller-sensor models, your choice will come down to one of the following series: X100, X-Pro, X-T, X-H and X-E. All of them from the past few years have 24/26 megapixel X-Trans III/IV sensors and there is very little to separate any of them in terms of raw image quality, they are all capable of spectacular images.

I'd say there are two things for you to consider. One, is that for landscapes and seascapes the lens you choose is just as important as the body and may even dictate which body you need as some of the larger lenses just don't balance well on the smaller bodies. Are you thinking of the larger zoom lenses or the small primes for your landscapes? Two, what else are you using the camera for? Is it solely landscapes or do you need versatility for other uses?

As well as lens choice, a lot will depend on personal preference of how each feels in your hand and which has the features you need or want.

[mawz]

The real question is do you want weather sealing or not? Because frankly from an landscape perspective there is VERY little reason to not shoot the inexpensive X-T200 for landscape if you don't need sealing. The base ISO IQ is on par with any of the other bodies and being a Bayer sensor camera, you don't have to be as particular about software as with the X-Trans (I still don't like LR with X-Trans although it is now usable, and stick to CaptureOne for that reason)

The challenge there is there is only 1 UWA option that is sealed. If you need sealing, you're basically stuck with the 8-16, and your budget is basically an 8-16 and a X-T3 at best (maybe fitting the 16-80 kit lens in there, I'm not 100% sure of what UK pricing is). Otherwise you have the Laowa 9mm f2.8, at least 4 different 3rd party 12mm options, the 14/2.8 and the 10-24/4 OIS.

Honestly on your budget I'd get the 10-24, 55-200 and whatever body you  can fit in with the leftover. You should be able to fit up to an X-T3 into that budget. I'd look at the X-T3, X-T200 and used X-H1 or X-T2's, I don't think the X-T30 as good as the X-T200 for landscape use due to the screen setup (single-hinged on the X-T30, fully articulated on the X-T200. The X-T2/X-T3 double-hinged screen is the best for tripod stills use)
 

[atyl1972]

On 6/16/2020 at 7:16 AM, Slugoon said:

Excluding a couple of entry-level and smaller-sensor models, your choice will come down to one of the following series: X100, X-Pro, X-T, X-H and X-E. All of them from the past few years have 24/26 megapixel X-Trans III/IV sensors and there is very little to separate any of them in terms of raw image quality, they are all capable of spectacular images.

I'd say there are two things for you to consider. One, is that for landscapes and seascapes the lens you choose is just as important as the body and may even dictate which body you need as some of the larger lenses just don't balance well on the smaller bodies. Are you thinking of the larger zoom lenses or the small primes for your landscapes? Two, what else are you using the camera for? Is it solely landscapes or do you need versatility for other uses?

As well as lens choice, a lot will depend on personal preference of how each feels in your hand and which has the features you need or want.

I agree on the lens choice for photography, always have had the mantra of  the best lens I can afford as they will way outlast a body, ok my initial thought for whatever camera I choose is a standard zoom, and a telephoto, I have never shot with primes to be honest, I'd like to as they are sharper, pretty much in every way I have heard. Fujifilm is an all rounder with good enough quality for sports, wildlife etc. but I will very very rarely use the camera for video, it will 99% stills, and as stated, seascapes and landscapes. I've seen some reviews of the 10-24, and the 16 and the 16-55, what are your thoughts?

[atyl1972]

22 minutes ago, mawz said:

The real question is do you want weather sealing or not? Because frankly from an landscape perspective there is VERY little reason to not shoot the inexpensive X-T200 for landscape if you don't need sealing. The base ISO IQ is on par with any of the other bodies and being a Bayer sensor camera, you don't have to be as particular about software as with the X-Trans (I still don't like LR with X-Trans although it is now usable, and stick to CaptureOne for that reason)

The challenge there is there is only 1 UWA option that is sealed. If you need sealing, you're basically stuck with the 8-16, and your budget is basically an 8-16 and a X-T3 at best (maybe fitting the 16-80 kit lens in there, I'm not 100% sure of what UK pricing is). Otherwise you have the Laowa 9mm f2.8, at least 4 different 3rd party 12mm options, the 14/2.8 and the 10-24/4 OIS.

Honestly on your budget I'd get the 10-24, 55-200 and whatever body you  can fit in with the leftover. You should be able to fit up to an X-T3 into that budget. I'd look at the X-T3, X-T200 and used X-H1 or X-T2's, I don't think the X-T30 as good as the X-T200 for landscape use due to the screen setup (single-hinged on the X-T30, fully articulated on the X-T200. The X-T2/X-T3 double-hinged screen is the best for tripod stills use)
 

liking the sound of the 10-24, and the 55-200 too, I don't shoot video, not sure if I'd take advantage of the ibis and shoot late in the day, I would like to use a L bracket so a little worried about the x-t4 and the screen, I think I'm better of with the screen on the x-t3 to be fair, I like the idea of that so I can shoot low without having do bend right down to view through the evf. but sorry to answer the question, I would prefer weather sealing yes, especially shooting seascapes. 

[Slugoon]

17 minutes ago, atyl1972 said:

I agree on the lens choice for photography, always have had the mantra of  the best lens I can afford as they will way outlast a body, ok my initial thought for whatever camera I choose is a standard zoom, and a telephoto, I have never shot with primes to be honest, I'd like to as they are sharper, pretty much in every way I have heard. Fujifilm is an all rounder with good enough quality for sports, wildlife etc. but I will very very rarely use the camera for video, it will 99% stills, and as stated, seascapes and landscapes. I've seen some reviews of the 10-24, and the 16 and the 16-55, what are your thoughts?

I have never used the XF10-24 as it's way too wide for me and I wouldn't have the skill to use it! Neither would I bother with a prime lens for landscapes (purely personal opinion) due to the sheer compositional inflexibility. You'll end up wanting other focal lengths and changing lenses is a pain and even inadvisable in inclement weather plus quite often a small turn of the focus ring is handy to get rid of an annoying element on the edge of the frame to save cropping later. If you're the sort of person who sticks their nose two inches from a 36" x 24" print or scrutinises images at 100% on a screen then maybe a prime lens might give you some extra sharpness but in the real world I don't think the trade off is worth it. A lot of time you'll be shooting closed down where the primes start to lose their advantage.

I have the XF16-55 and it is outstanding at every aperture and focal length and covers many of the focal lengths you need in a day's shooting. It is also waterproof but it's heavy and has no VR. I use it with an X-T3, battery grip and tripod over the Peak District so the weight and lack of VR is not a problem and it feels very balanced with the grip plus you get the two extra batteries to shoot all day.

If your primary use is landscapes and seascapes then my recommendation for the ultimate Fuji rig would be an X-T3, grip, XF16-55 and XF50-140, or the XF10-24 if you love the really wide stuff. I would also seriously, seriously consider finding a nice X-T2 instead of the X-T3. I've owned both and the IQ is every bit as good if you don't need the extra features of the X-T3.

With the X-T cameras you also have the option of stripping it back to just the body and a small prime like the 23mm or 35mm or even the ultra-light XC16-50 zoom, which is what I use a lot of the time instead of the XF16-55. This makes it a compact and lightweight combination for casual days out.

Let us know what you decide!

[atyl1972]

2 hours ago, Slugoon said:

I have never used the XF10-24 as it's way too wide for me and I wouldn't have the skill to use it! Neither would I bother with a prime lens for landscapes (purely personal opinion) due to the sheer compositional inflexibility. You'll end up wanting other focal lengths and changing lenses is a pain and even inadvisable in inclement weather plus quite often a small turn of the focus ring is handy to get rid of an annoying element on the edge of the frame to save cropping later. If you're the sort of person who sticks their nose two inches from a 36" x 24" print or scrutinises images at 100% on a screen then maybe a prime lens might give you some extra sharpness but in the real world I don't think the trade off is worth it. A lot of time you'll be shooting closed down where the primes start to lose their advantage.

I have the XF16-55 and it is outstanding at every aperture and focal length and covers many of the focal lengths you need in a day's shooting. It is also waterproof but it's heavy and has no VR. I use it with an X-T3, battery grip and tripod over the Peak District so the weight and lack of VR is not a problem and it feels very balanced with the grip plus you get the two extra batteries to shoot all day.

If your primary use is landscapes and seascapes then my recommendation for the ultimate Fuji rig would be an X-T3, grip, XF16-55 and XF50-140, or the XF10-24 if you love the really wide stuff. I would also seriously, seriously consider finding a nice X-T2 instead of the X-T3. I've owned both and the IQ is every bit as good if you don't need the extra features of the X-T3.

With the X-T cameras you also have the option of stripping it back to just the body and a small prime like the 23mm or 35mm or even the ultra-light XC16-50 zoom, which is what I use a lot of the time instead of the XF16-55. This makes it a compact and lightweight combination for casual days out.

Let us know what you decide!

my problem on a decision purely boils down to the fact that after owning a full frame Nikon D810 and seeing the results of that, real world results, I struggle psychologically to decide that an APSC is good enough and I wish there were more outlets online that I can view landscape and seascape images of the x-t3 or other x-t camera models, it's just getting past that psych that can a fuji APSC be as good as a full frame image, and baring in mind that I am not a professional or sell prints, this is an hobby and I would print and have printed for personal use. 

[Slugoon]

Compared to the D810 you're going to lose a bit of spatial resolution and around a stop of dynamic range.

With regard to spatial resolution, science would suggest that 24/26 megapixels is more than enough for anything unless you are severely cropping or printing large and pushing your nose up close. I rarely print larger than 8 x 10 for which I don't even need 9 megapixels.

With regard to dynamic range, well, you get a stop less. Bear in mind though for landscapes you're probably going to shoot at base ISO most of the time so does it really matter? The masters coped with 5 stops of Velvia dynamic range and inferior lenses. Current APS-C is over 10 stops. These cameras are more than capable of stunning, world class images. If you can't get one, it's not the camera! Picasso used basic house paint.

This guy used an X-T2 and X100F: https://www.uklandscapephotographer.com/fujifilm-x-in-the-faroe-islands/

[Herco]

The D810 is a beast of a camera and a professional workhorse pur sang. Depending on which Nikkors you had with that, you will definitely lose some image quality when you move to an APS-C platform like Fuji X. Whether you'll be able to tell, depends on what you do with the images. Printing them poster size at a very good lab, you will be able to tell the difference. Posting on Instagram, A4 prints and viewing on smaller screens, probably not.

Landscape and seascape usually involve big contrasts and large dynamic range. Esp. when you aim for interesting light or clouds. Technically a full frame has 1 to 2 stops extra DR, but usually you needn't notice. In post (using Capture One) you'll find that esp. the x-trans sensors have a huge flexibility when it comes to lifting the shadows. Just make sure you don't completely blow-out the highlights. That's why I wouldn't recommend the X-T100/X-T200 for this work considering you're used to a D810. The X-T20/30 have more 'room' in the shadows. If you can still find one, the X-H1 is an absolute briljant camera at the current price. It will also give you the professional feel you're used to with the D810. Alternatives are the X-T2 (second-hand) or X-T3 (on sale). 

For lenses the 10-24 is absolutely great for landscape/seascape. Don't worry about weather resistance. Just a bit of TLC goes a long way. Prime options are the 12mm from Zeiss, the 14mm and the 16mm f1.4 (though a bit more expensive). The 16-55 is a great allrounder, but the 16mm end is the weakest part of that lens in terms of overall sharpness. It's a reporter lens, less of a landscape lens. On the longer end the 55-200 is very good. The 50-140 too, but quite expensive and for landscape you need less of a fast aperture. For primes you can also take a look at the 60mm (f2.4) or the 80mm. Both are crazy sharp and esp. for the 60mm you can get good second-hand deals.

[Slugoon]

Good advice from Herco. Why do you no longer have or want the D810 if you owned one? That might also offer a clue as to what will suit you best.

[atyl1972]

10 minutes ago, Herco said:

The D810 is a beast of a camera and a professional workhorse pur sang. Depending on which Nikkors you had with that, you will definitely lose some image quality when you move to an APS-C platform like Fuji X. Whether you'll be able to tell, depends on what you do with the images. Printing them poster size at a very good lab, you will be able to tell the difference. Posting on Instagram, A4 prints and viewing on smaller screens, probably not.

Landscape and seascape usually involve big contrasts and large dynamic range. Esp. when you aim for interesting light or clouds. Technically a full frame has 1 to 2 stops extra DR, but usually you needn't notice. In post (using Capture One) you'll find that esp. the x-trans sensors have a huge flexibility when it comes to lifting the shadows. Just make sure you don't completely blow-out the highlights. That's why I wouldn't recommend the X-T100/X-T200 for this work considering you're used to a D810. The X-T20/30 have more 'room' in the shadows. If you can still find one, the X-H1 is an absolute briljant camera at the current price. It will also give you the professional feel you're used to with the D810. Alternatives are the X-T2 (second-hand) or X-T3 (on sale). 

For lenses the 10-24 is absolutely great for landscape/seascape. Don't worry about weather resistance. Just a bit of TLC goes a long way. Prime options are the 12mm from Zeiss, the 14mm and the 16mm f1.4 (though a bit more expensive). The 16-55 is a great allrounder, but the 16mm end is the weakest part of that lens in terms of overall sharpness. It's a reporter lens, less of a landscape lens. On the longer end the 55-200 is very good. The 50-140 too, but quite expensive and for landscape you need less of a fast aperture. For primes you can also take a look at the 60mm (f2.4) or the 80mm. Both are crazy sharp and esp. for the 60mm you can get good second-hand deals.

not sure about the x-h1 I have held it and don't like the bulk, kind of missing the point of mirrorless, yes I would usually expose for the highlights as long as the DR is not that massive, and the D810 is a good few years old now and the APSC cameras have caught up a little it seems, I won't print that big and not that often really, I'll have to see what I can produce and to be honest a few of my favourite images have been from a Nikon D7100 (APSC) but it seems now I am a bit more of a pixel peeper, and I do not care what people say, we all are to some extent.

The lenses is interesting, especially for the x series, and yes the 10-24 is on the top of my list, if I go fuji, that is. 

[Herco]

If you want to find out how good RAF-files are compared to the NEF-files of a D810, you can go to DPreview.com and download sample RAF-files (24Mp and 26Mp) and work on them in your favourite software... They usually have a bunch for download and maybe a few that resemble your shooting style.

[atyl1972]

5 minutes ago, Herco said:

If you want to find out how good RAF-files are compared to the NEF-files of a D810, you can go to DPreview.com and download sample RAF-files (24Mp and 26Mp) and work on them in your favourite software... They usually have a bunch for download and maybe a few that resemble your shooting style.

Awesome, thanks for the tip, just had a quick browse, come across the Nikon z7 and there's nothing decent showing landscapes there whatsoever, unbelievable isn't it...and I seen a Sony a7riii and I'm so underwhelmed when in at 100%, x-t3 not showing anything like what I shoot, but I will download some Fuji files and have a tinker, thanks. 

[jlmphotos]

APSC is good enough.  Many years ago I shot with Nikon - D800 and D800e with the trinity of lenses, as well as with film Medium Format Mamiya 645 AFD's.  My first mirrorless Fuji was an X-E1, then the XT1, 2, and the XH1.  I've made 36 x 24 prints from the XT1 which was "only" 16mp that will blow anyone away.  It all comes to shot discipline -- Tripod, focus, exposure, etc. etc.  I sell thousands of images around the world and many prints as well.  I've never, ever had anyone ask me, nor say to me anything about not having enough pixels.  It's all about YOU and how you approach the subject.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.