0:00 - Intro 0:23 - Run through the lens features 1:52 - 1.4x Converter 1:56 - Focal length equivalents 3:05 - Construction, build and handling 3:40 - Image Quality 5:44 - Optical Stabilsation 6:07 - Stabilisation Demo 6:45 - Autofocusing 9:43 - Weather Sealing 10:02 - Price and Availability 10:24 - What this does for the Fujifilm X Series 11:22 - Summary 12:25 - Thanks and bye bye and subscribe! Thanks!
Great and clear video. Thanks. This Fuji lens is really awesome and your images very impressive. For ¼ of this price, you can also choose the 100-400 Panasonic (200-800 equivalent), wonderful on a G9 and probably more versatile.
But you cannot achieve that DOF.. it performs like a 200-800 f5.6-f8 full frame equivalent.. not a real 50-200mm f2.8.. whereas the Fuji is a 300mm f3 FF equivalent which is far brighter than MFT zoom.
Great lens but I'm not sure how well it'll sell, I say this as pro shooters don't really view Fuji as a sports system and I don't see that changing. Also if I were into wildlife/birds I would stear towards a D500 and combine it with the fresnel 300/500 lenses which are massively cheaper. It's a beautiful lens and on par with FF pro spec 300 2.8 lenses but so is the price and I don't feel that fits in with most Fuji users.
I agree somewhat, but you will never attract those shooters if you don’t have the lenses to be able to back up the camera. With the X-T3 having the 20fps mode with electronic shutter, and 30fps with the crop, the camera opens up the Fujifilm range for sports and wildlife a lot more. If the X-H2 arrives in the next couple of years with in-camera stabilisation and the same sensor with blackout free shooting at 20-30fps and the lenses are already out there then it could be a monster camera for sports and wildlife. If you’re shooting sports and you are taking literally twice as many images compared to the guy next to you, then you have a better chance of getting ‘that’ moment and selling your image. The reason Canon and Nikon dominate is legacy - they have decades of being at the top of the game in terms of cameras, but importantly have a huge range of lenses that is compatible. Also pro support at major sporting events. You don’t want to be thousands of miles from home and have your camera or lens fail with no on site support. Sony needed the lenses and pro support for the A9 to really enter that sports market and with the 400mm f/2.8 and the new pro services rolling out they have that. Sports and wildlife photographers are switching to Sony, slowly.... but it will be interesting to see cameras at the Olympics in two years time if Sony continue. Price - I’d think it’s priced accordingly; they won’t sell in huge numbers like a 50mm so all the R&D costs need to be factored in to fewer sales. It’s going to be interesting to see how it does as there isn’t a lot of competition for what the X-T3 can do on an APS-C sensor camera - DSLR or mirrorless. Personally I think they could do with a more ‘DSLR’ modern style ‘Pro’ camera - kinda like the XH-1 but with less of a retro design.
@Phil Jones65 They have plenty of inexpensive glass! Their entire range is "cheap," for the quality you get. I have almost all of the fast primes plus the 18-55, 55-200, 16-55, and 80/2.8 macro. If I were to kit up equivalently in FF (no, I don't want to start an equivalence discussion-I merely mean if I were to have a similarly low-light/high IQ capable kit), I would spend 2-3x more for native/OEM glass. Not all FL are cheaper, but most are, and the f/2 versions are quite affordable. They have almost covered the entire mid-range too (16/2.8 coming soon, 18/2, 23/2, 35/2, 50/2, 10-24, 18-55, 55-200). You can't really compare Fuji lenses to other APS-C systems because the quality is so much better than MOST other APS-C options. FF manufacturers who also make APS-C bodies want you to own FF bodies eventually, and focus their development of premium glass for FF, so the APS-C systems are pretty under-developed compared to Fuji's line. The D500 is intended by and large to be a complimentary body for FF shooters to get extra speed and crop from their top-shelf glass for sports and wildlife (like a teleconverter that boosts your focus/frame-rate speeds while giving you a longer effective FOV). Sure, they all make low-end plastic options, but that's not what the market wants right now. Cheap cameras are becoming a thing of the past as the market consolidates around high end/pro customers. Smartphones are the new $1000 camera system (for better or worse). Fuji still has some compelling sub-$1000 offerings, but I'm not really sure who buys those anymore... $350 lenses with stellar optics on the other hand (like the 35/2), are not very common (aside from nifty 50s), so I think they have the low-mid range ILC market pretty well covered. It's the top end market they want (need) to focus on, since poaching FF shooters is possible for some disciplines-hence optics like the 8-16/2.8 and 200/2.. They need to update some of their older 1.4/1.2 designs, and should probably focus on even longer ultra-fast primes... Maybe a faster variable tele? I would personally love to see a 23mm f/1 to compliment the 33mm f/1, but that would undoubtedly be surprisingly massive and super expensive (like the 33/1 will be). My current kit leaves not a whole lot to be desired, so I can see why they are filling out the extreme use-cases. I would also love it if Fuji would release some budget "cine" lenses, or at least lenses focused more on video (video optimized AF, clutch focusing with more precise control and weighting, detachable gearing rings, de-clickable aperture control). I think there is room for innovation in the run-and-gun video department now that Fuji knocked the ball out of the park with the X-T3, but the glass they currently have is a bit lacking (primes anyways), and the dedicated cine lenses they make are very expensive and require much larger rigs to use properly (and necessitate an AC or two to use properly).
Phil Jones65 your points are solid for the most part, though I would say Fuji’s real competition is with Sony not DSLRs at the premium end. And yes, for many focal lengths the Sony is similarly priced or even cheaper than Fuji equivalents, but the equivalent lenses (f 1.8s and f2s) aren’t built mostly quite up to par with Fuji’s 1.4/1.2 offerings. Maybe I just have Fuji-fanboi goggles on, but I think the lenses below GM level lack a certain “magic” that the Fuji’s have. But hey, that’s entirely subjective 🤷🏻♂️ The big benefit I see with my Fuji system is that it’s so versatile-I can “build” my X-T3/X-T2 up and shoot all day at a music festival with a grip, 16-55 on one body (or 18-55 of I’m doing photo and video), plus another body with a fast prime. As for, my experience is somewhat skewed, I have to admit because I buy almost everything used, especially with everyone swapping systems so often, so I’ve typically payed 1/2-2/3rd price for glass (let someone else take the depreciation hit), and can swap systems at little to no loss if I really decide I “need” to for some reason. This seems like the smart move for anyone capable of buying/selling online and would no-doubt apply to Sony gear as well. I haven’t felt compelled to go Sony because while both systems have their merits, I simply prefer the Fuji shooting experience, and images I can get are not limited by my gear in almost all circumstances. For me the value lies in small but important things. Last year I brought 2 bodies, a gimbal, tripod, 12/2, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 80/2.8, 18-55, 56-200, speed-boosted Nikon 50mm 1.4 (for ultra low light stuff) and some audio equipment in a 70L f-stop backpack for a 6 week trip to work for 2.5 weeks at a music festival documenting the build and 4 days of music/art, and then travel up Guatemala doing a few photo/video gigs and personal projects. I could kit “down” with my 35/1.4 or 23/1.4 to hit the streets/bars/chicken buses, and never felt intrusive like I would with a DSLR or like I was advertising my wealth. These cameras draw the best kind of attention from street/festival subjects (a lot of what I photograph) because of their anachronistic/retro look. Sure, I could probably carry a similar Sony kit and get some more pixels and/or one or two lenses that would allow for even better low light capability (a 1.4) while keeping a similarly compact/light-(er, than a DSLR) bag of gear. Then again, if I were more weight conscious or shot less in low light, I could also choose to shoot Fuji’s f2 lenses and go much lighter than any comparable FF kit (in terms of lens IQ). Not many professional quality FF primes that I know of are as small as the “Fujicrons.” Size/weight flexibility with pro-level IQ is unmatched for Fuji at the moment, in my opinion. For my festival and travel shooting, the instax printer is also invaluable. Being able to instantly share physical shots (often with my contact info) has opened many doors. For me, the value proposition is there because of the above items, and the fact that I just enjoy shooting Fuji more than song. Most of my photos end up being delivered digitally to be seen on phones and computers. I almost never print work wider than 24”, and my Fuji files can look great at 30” x 40”. If I needed to deliver huge files regularly, Sony is GFX would probably be necessary. The truth is, I think we’re getting to a “peak camera” moment. There’s a lot less room for equipment to improve for most disciplines of photography, and there’s a lot of great gear out there saturating the used markets (more every year!). Demand for cameras in general are slumping, but I don’t think it’s because of price creep at the premium end-I think it’s because the mid/low tier camera market has been gutted by smartphone camera ubiquity (and increasingly, rapid advancements in computational photography and quality of miniaturized hardware capabilities). I think that most pros will continue to pay what they must to have the best gear they can, for as long as they can. Others who have a bad case of GAS, whether pro or enthusiast, will continue to buy new gear and swap systems-gear whores aren’t a new phenomena, they just have an increasingly wide range of excellent greener pastures to stare longingly at. Canon, dinosaur that it is in many ways, is “too big to fail” in the foreseeable future, and will just take a long time to catch up to the new wave of tech coming from the mirrorless mainstays. Nikon will probably die a long painful death, leaving behind a lot of great gear that will continue to work in the used market for decades after the final nail lands in its coffin. Sony will probably continue killing it, though it’s leads will probably diminish as everyone catches up and the laws of diminishing returns continue to make each generation less of an advancement than the last. Fujifilm is a much more than a camera company (as is Sony and Canon), and they have found some traction in niches not filled by the other big boys. Olympus? Pentax? Panasonic, perhaps? Probably the way of the dodo in the next few decades, if that. There simply isn’t the global demand for low/mid range cameras to support the costly R&D/manufacturing of the high end systems, which have functioned more as halo/brand identity products for these companies than cash cows. The prices are probably going up to reflect the shifting revenue supplies and account for the loss of sales in higher margin, higher unit volume low and mid tier offerings.
Phil Jones65 Phil Jones65 your points are solid for the most part, though I would say Fuji’s real competition is with Sony not DSLRs at the premium end. And yes, for many focal lengths the Sony is similarly priced or even cheaper than Fuji equivalents, but the equivalent lenses (f 1.8s and f2s) aren’t built mostly quite up to par with Fuji’s 1.4/1.2 offerings. Maybe I just have Fuji-fanboi goggles on, but I think the lenses below GM level lack a certain “magic” that the Fuji’s have. But hey, that’s entirely subjective 🤷🏻♂️ The big benefit I see with my Fuji system is that it’s so versatile-I can “build” my X-T3/X-T2 up and shoot all day at a music festival with a grip, 16-55 on one body (or 18-55 of I’m doing photo and video), plus another body with a fast prime. As for, my experience is somewhat skewed, I have to admit because I buy almost everything used, especially with everyone swapping systems so often, so I’ve typically payed 1/2-2/3rd price for glass (let someone else take the depreciation hit), and can swap systems at little to no loss if I really decide I “need” to for some reason. This seems like the smart move for anyone capable of buying/selling online and would no-doubt apply to Sony gear as well. I haven’t felt compelled to go Sony because while both systems have their merits, I simply prefer the Fuji shooting experience, and images I can get are not limited by my gear in almost all circumstances. For me the value lies in small but important things. Last year I brought 2 bodies, a gimbal, tripod, 12/2, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 80/2.8, 18-55, 56-200, speed-boosted Nikon 50mm 1.4 (for ultra low light stuff) and some audio equipment in a 70L f-stop backpack for a 6 week trip to work for 2.5 weeks at a music festival documenting the build and 4 days of music/art, and then travel up Guatemala doing a few photo/video gigs and personal projects. I could kit “down” with my 35/1.4 or 23/1.4 to hit the streets/bars/chicken buses, and never felt intrusive like I would with a DSLR or like I was advertising my wealth. These cameras draw the best kind of attention from street/festival subjects (a lot of what I photograph) because of their anachronistic/retro look. Sure, I could probably carry a similar Sony kit and get some more pixels and/or one or two lenses that would allow for even better low light capability (a 1.4) while keeping a similarly compact/light-(er, than a DSLR) bag of gear. Then again, if I were more weight conscious or shot less in low light, I could also choose to shoot Fuji’s f2 lenses and go much lighter than any comparable FF kit (in terms of lens IQ). Not many professional quality FF primes that I know of are as small as the “Fujicrons.” Size/weight flexibility with pro-level IQ is unmatched for Fuji at the moment, in my opinion. For my festival and travel shooting, the instax printer is also invaluable. Being able to instantly share physical shots (often with my contact info) has opened many doors. For me, the value proposition is there because of the above items, and the fact that I just enjoy shooting Fuji more than song. Most of my photos end up being delivered digitally to be seen on phones and computers. I almost never print work wider than 24”, and my Fuji files can look great at 30” x 40”. If I needed to deliver huge files regularly, Sony is GFX would probably be necessary. The truth is, I think we’re getting to a “peak camera” moment. There’s a lot less room for equipment to improve for most disciplines of photography, and there’s a lot of great gear out there saturating the used markets (more every year!). Demand for cameras in general are slumping, but I don’t think it’s because of price creep at the premium end-I think it’s because the mid/low tier camera market has been gutted by smartphone camera ubiquity (and increasingly, rapid advancements in computational photography and quality of miniaturized hardware capabilities). I think that most pros will continue to pay what they must to have the best gear they can, for as long as they can. Others who have a bad case of GAS, whether pro or enthusiast, will continue to buy new gear and swap systems-gear whores aren’t a new phenomena, they just have an increasingly wide range of excellent greener pastures to stare longingly at. Canon, dinosaur that it is in many ways, is “too big to fail” in the foreseeable future, and will just take a long time to catch up to the new wave of tech coming from the mirrorless mainstays. Nikon will probably die a long painful death, leaving behind a lot of great gear that will continue to work in the used market for decades after the final nail lands in its coffin. Sony will probably continue killing it, though it’s leads will probably diminish as everyone catches up and the laws of diminishing returns continue to make each generation less of an advancement than the last. Fujifilm is a much more than a camera company (as is Sony and Canon), and they have found some traction in niches not filled by the other big boys. Olympus? Pentax? Panasonic, perhaps? Probably the way of the dodo in the next few decades, if that. There simply isn’t the global demand for low/mid range cameras to support the costly R&D/manufacturing of the high end systems, which have functioned more as halo/brand identity products for these companies than cash cows. The prices are probably going up to reflect the shifting revenue supplies and account for the loss of sales in higher margin, higher unit volume low and mid tier offerings.
This is a great lens and it was needed in the lineup in my opinion. But Fuji needs longer lenses, like a 300 2.8, 300 F4, 400 F4, 500 F4, etc. Also a more affordable super telephoto would be great. They have amazing APS-C cameras and almost no long lenses above 300mm, except the 100-400
That was a Mandarin Duck. They seem to be getting more common here in the UK. Native to China, Korea, Japan - East Asia. Rarely seen in the wild elsewhere in the world, though I believe a month ago one turned up in Central Park and became a bit of a celebrity. They look unreal... like a kid has been left to colour in a normal duck.
Photogearnews unreal is right! Not surprised they’re from Asia after seeing the extra terrestrial looking fruit and land masses they have from over there! Thanks for the info!
Why did almost every camera youtuber attend that MLS game? I saw Chelsea and Tony, Matt Granger, the guy from Art of Photography, maybe Jared Polin was there too
I don't understand that lens. Is it the 300mm f2.8 equivalent? And why is that good when that prime used on crop sensor is 450mm. 300mm is short for wildlife, it is usable on crop sensor. Fuji is dx sensor so compete with lens on dx sensor. It is a good portrait lens equivalent. But Fuji still doesn't have good glass for wildlife. (Only the 100-400 what is again shorter than competitor lens in the same nitche.)
Technically is a 300mm f/3 equivalent, it's price is exactly the same as the 200mm f/2 from Canon and Nikon with the difference that you are "stuck" with a crop sensor so yea, this is not a miracle lens considering that you can buy a 300 f/2.8 for basically the same price and pair it with a much better sensor like a D850/A7rIII etc
This is another niche lens from Fuji that just a few people is going to buy, us$6000 !!...200mm is not long enought for wildlife unless you are shooting big animals...fuji needs more afordable prime lens for wildlife, this lens costs as much as a Canon 400mm F2, currently I have the Fuji 100-400 mm that I have been using for a couple of years but I think I will switch to canon eventually, there are a lot of more choices of lens for wild life for canon, and a lot more in the used market. And better yet, canon just released a mirrorless camera.
You won’t attract photographers who need telephoto lenses unless you have telephoto lenses. This lens is an absolute peach and in terms of IQ seems to be match for anything from another major manufacturer and is priced accordingly. I would be incredibly surprised if they didn’t follow this lens up with another fixed telephoto when the next roadmap is released - which I guess will probably be around the time of CP+ in February 2019. This new lens has clearly been timed for release with the X-T3 as they have a camera that can shoot 20/30fps with no viewfinder blackout - which currently only the Sony A9 can match.
Roman, Good points. How much are you currently making from wildlife photography? Why not switch to professional sports, save money on a Fuji system and come out ahead?
Yes... as I explained in the video. There is a 1.25x digital crop reducing the resolution. I even say that you can always get the same cropping in post afterwards. All in the video 👍
Yep, apologies. It’s there. It’s useable. To be honest I prob used it for less than a handful of shots as I simply didn’t need to as the AF did the job every time
Hmm... 500 mm? Where? it seems u have 420 FF equivalent focal lens distance. And AF tracking with TC also decrease, atmospheric condition is also another important fact for tele or super tele lens. With TC, things get worse in different environments. On some mirrorless systems like Fuji, Olympus we will need to see an AF master focus point (when you lock a subject), that can move with the subject along, not to jump at anothers points when the frame become busy. XT3 or even the new Olympus E-M1X OMD still not to do that... On DSLR professional camera D5 or 1dx II the situation is different. But mirrorless are not to far, maybe in 2-3 years alghoritim will evolve on a better direction.
Yes Lightroom. I’ve read all the comments and seen the examples of Lightroom/Capture One/Irident I really don’t get why people have a problem with it if you sharpen correctly and don’t start looking at 200-400% - it’s fine. Also you can’t judge the images 100% in terms of critical detail as they have been compressed from raw to JPEG, then again from the export from Premiere, then again when UA-cam does it thing.
Well, I did see it on compressed UA-cam film, I shut the GFX 50S myself, and before C1 supported the RAW files, I took the sharpening all the way down in Lightroom, and sharpened in Photoshop. But compered to C1 it’s no good. It’s not too be rude, but in your pictures in the video, I would not by the lens orre camera system. But I am using Fujifilm, so I now it can be better... And sorry, I didn’t read all your comment, before I answered..
What I find more interesting is that out of all the views the video has had and the images I have put on Facebook/Instagram/Twitter etc you are the only person who has seen this and commented. This tells me either people don’t actually see it/know about it/look for it, or in reality it doesn’t actually matter. I have used Lightroom for Fujifilm files since X-Pro1 and had them published in magazines with 100% pull ups and have never had comments... though Lightroom was awful for handling the files back then - colour, weird artefacts etc.
Photogearnews Maybe I’m just a bad photographer, that have bad eyes.. I have the newer Phase One XF, Canon 5D mk4, Sony A7R3 Fujifilm XT2 and Fujifilm GFX50S And it’s only the Fujifilm that has the problem, in Lightroom..
Haha! I’m sure you’re not! And I know that Lightroom doesn’t handle the files as well as it’s too treating them somewhat as normal bayer pattern. My point is that if you tweak the settings the images look perfectly acceptable unless you actually go looking for problems rather than appreciating images.
Well, 200mm or even 400mm are is to short for Wildlife. I know what I am talking about as this is the area I am working on. Here the fun starts all at 600mm 4.0 (prime). And sorry to say, even if this 200mm Fuji lens may be that good, almost 6k USD for an APS-C lens is crazy. Don't know what is on Fuji's mind. A Nikkor 200mm f/2 is cheaper, Full Frame and delivers on a Nikon D850 even better than a Fuji 200mm 2.0 on any Fuji X-Tx body. Don't get me wrong, I am invested also on Fuji (X-T2) but also on a Nikon D850. No, this lens I would never purchase for reasons mentioned.
Fuji have made a white elephant.. the average punter can’t afford this lens It’s way overpriced for an f2 200mm I have the xt2 and 100-400mm lens and I had to live under a bridge for months To afford that... so I’m sorry Fuji it’s a “No”. !
I think the point is that this lens isn’t for the average punter and is priced accordingly. Simple scales of economy, if they thought they would sell tens of thousands of this lens it could be priced cheaper to recoup design, development and tooling costs. They know they will sell, but in smaller numbers so it is priced accordingly to recoup costs and hopefully make a profit.
Nikon D850 plus a 70=200 lens is probably cheaper than this lens alone and I'm sure you would get better IQ! What are Fuji thinking?! I would never buy this in a million years even though I have an xt3. I love Fuji but this is absurd.
You’d be looking at a D850 + 300mm f/2.8 +1.4x teleconverter to be a like for like comparison So £3250 + £5000 + £250 = £8500 With 70-200mm you’d want the 2x converter for the extra reach, which still would produce quite the same reach, but you have the cotta pixels to crop to match it easily enough £3250 + £2560 + £430 = £6240 Better comparison would be D500 D500 + Nikkor 200mm f/2 + 1.4x £1700 + £5200 + £470 = £7370 X-T3 £1350 + 200mm f/2 and 1.4x tele £5400 = £6750 So it’s pretty close, can’t comment on image quality as I’ve not done a side to side, but as excellent as the 70-200mm is I doubt it is going to be as good at 200mm as a dedicated prime and matching the prime when the 70-200mm it has a 1.4x converter attached (to bring it closer to the same field of view) will also take the edge of image quality. Then the D850 doesn’t shoot at 20fps with a blackout free viewfinder (or 30fps with the crop). It obviously has a higher resolution and great dynamic range - so I guess it depends what you want to do with your camera. As for what Fujifilm are thinking it’s pretty clear they are going after a new market of wildlife and sports photographers and they need the lenses to do that now they have a camera such as the X-T3 If the sensor and processing power enters an X-H1 type camera in the future you will add in-camera stabilisation to this which becomes hugely attractive. It’s the same as Sony bringing out the 400mm f2.8... all of a sudden the A9 becomes a lot more attractive proposition for pro sports photographers
The D850 has an apsc crop mode so you could buy a 1.4x converter and still have a similar MP count as the Fuji. Or you could buy Nikon's 200=500 which is great by all accounts and you no longer need any converter. In crop mode you now have a 750mm equivalent. Yes, it's not an f2.8 but it's around 4 times cheaper. Don't know where you get your prices but I can pick up a d850 for $3500 and the 200-500 for $1500. A total of $5000, or approx. $7000 with the 70-200 and a 1.4 x converter. I know which I would prefer even as a Fuji shooter! Fuji need to stick with what they are good at, small bodies with compact good quality lenses. Or they need to get realistic with their pricing! $6000 for an apsc lens! like I said, ABSURD!
The problem is nowhere are you comparing like for like... Crop mode is 19MP v 26MP X-T3 Nikkor 200-500mm is f/5.6! Obviously huge focal length, but in terms of light that 3EV darker than than the 200mm! Trying to freeze some action or shoot in low light? That’s 3EV you’re pushing the camera - so a drop in image quality Fujifilm themselves have a 100-400mm And with no camera is there a 30fps/20fps shooting rate I find it bizarre people saying ‘it’s expensive! Who is going to buy this?’ The reason you don’t see sports photographers using Fujifilm is because up until now they haven’t had a camera that could do it. Now they have the camera they don’t have the lenses... so they start to bring out a high end line of lenses that can compete it terms of speed and quality with the likes of Canon and Nikon and people still moan.
Lens look fairly modern, I mean it looks almost exactly like Canon's white super tele, but the camera is made to imitate old school vintage film cameras style, they just don't look right when paired together, I just got that odd feeling. The shutter speed dial just can't be taken seriously on modern 2018 sport's shooter camera especially when paired with such a best of a lens. Let's be honest Fuji, perhaps it's time to stop with the rangefinder bullsheet and design a proper ergonomical usable body.
First of all, this ain't a rangefinder style body but slr style body. Second, who cares about how the camera and lens match when out in the field? Third, the speed dial is actually the fastest way to change the ss out of any camera. Fourth, if you do not like the ss dial you can assign it to any dial/button of the camera you want. Fifth: this is an allround camera, not only for shooting sports! I am sure you never even held the camera, leave alone tested it properly...
@@kearress7350 I smell a Fuji fanboy. Pssh, be gone pest. All your arguments are invalid. The camera is just god damn awful looking and is made to please 70's diehard hipster nerds crowd. Forget ergonomics, just make it retro and it sells.
Ergonomics are actually fine. You don’t need to use the dial. I generally selected the aperture and then ISO and let the shutter speed sort itself out... or selected aperture and shutter and then set Auto ISO to work within a range. Then I just used exposure compensation dial, which for me is the most used dial on a camera after the aperture. However. I do agree that whilst it works excellently as far as I’m concerned, a more modern style would be good. I think it would pair better with the X-H1, particularly in black. This would give it slightly better balance, but also just ‘look’ the part. As I replied in another comment, perhaps Fujiflm will introduce a more contemporary design now they have the technology and lenses in place.
@@KonicaHexanon "Your arguments are invalid"... Well, what a fantastic well-founded reply you got there mate! If you have nothing to say, you better don't!
The physical dials allow for the Fuji to have it's best UI feature, which is no PASM selector. Physical dials like Shutter, ISO and Aperture allows for the camera to have the most intuitive controls for pros and newbies alike. Moving into priority expose modes is as easy and changing the shutter speed from (A)uto to your desired number. It's simple and makes the most sense. I think it should be the opposite other camera manufacturers should put more physical controls on their cameras, not the other way around.
0:00 - Intro
0:23 - Run through the lens features
1:52 - 1.4x Converter
1:56 - Focal length equivalents
3:05 - Construction, build and handling
3:40 - Image Quality
5:44 - Optical Stabilsation
6:07 - Stabilisation Demo
6:45 - Autofocusing
9:43 - Weather Sealing
10:02 - Price and Availability
10:24 - What this does for the Fujifilm X Series
11:22 - Summary
12:25 - Thanks and bye bye and subscribe! Thanks!
Mine just arrived today I could not believe how is finish beautiful
Great and clear video. Thanks. This Fuji lens is really awesome and your images very impressive.
For ¼ of this price, you can also choose the 100-400 Panasonic (200-800 equivalent), wonderful on a G9 and probably more versatile.
But you cannot achieve that DOF.. it performs like a 200-800 f5.6-f8 full frame equivalent.. not a real 50-200mm f2.8.. whereas the Fuji is a 300mm f3 FF equivalent which is far brighter than MFT zoom.
I just bought 3 of this ones they are incredible
Thank you for your review I believe I will be getting this lens before spring next year
You’re a lucky man. It’s a great bit of glass!
Get it now! Fuji's promo of $1,000 off this lens ends March 31st!
Great lens but I'm not sure how well it'll sell, I say this as pro shooters don't really view Fuji as a sports system and I don't see that changing. Also if I were into wildlife/birds I would stear towards a D500 and combine it with the fresnel 300/500 lenses which are massively cheaper.
It's a beautiful lens and on par with FF pro spec 300 2.8 lenses but so is the price and I don't feel that fits in with most Fuji users.
I agree somewhat, but you will never attract those shooters if you don’t have the lenses to be able to back up the camera.
With the X-T3 having the 20fps mode with electronic shutter, and 30fps with the crop, the camera opens up the Fujifilm range for sports and wildlife a lot more.
If the X-H2 arrives in the next couple of years with in-camera stabilisation and the same sensor with blackout free shooting at 20-30fps and the lenses are already out there then it could be a monster camera for sports and wildlife.
If you’re shooting sports and you are taking literally twice as many images compared to the guy next to you, then you have a better chance of getting ‘that’ moment and selling your image.
The reason Canon and Nikon dominate is legacy - they have decades of being at the top of the game in terms of cameras, but importantly have a huge range of lenses that is compatible. Also pro support at major sporting events. You don’t want to be thousands of miles from home and have your camera or lens fail with no on site support.
Sony needed the lenses and pro support for the A9 to really enter that sports market and with the 400mm f/2.8 and the new pro services rolling out they have that. Sports and wildlife photographers are switching to Sony, slowly.... but it will be interesting to see cameras at the Olympics in two years time if Sony continue.
Price - I’d think it’s priced accordingly; they won’t sell in huge numbers like a 50mm so all the R&D costs need to be factored in to fewer sales.
It’s going to be interesting to see how it does as there isn’t a lot of competition for what the X-T3 can do on an APS-C sensor camera - DSLR or mirrorless.
Personally I think they could do with a more ‘DSLR’ modern style ‘Pro’ camera - kinda like the XH-1 but with less of a retro design.
@Phil Jones65 They have plenty of inexpensive glass! Their entire range is "cheap," for the quality you get. I have almost all of the fast primes plus the 18-55, 55-200, 16-55, and 80/2.8 macro. If I were to kit up equivalently in FF (no, I don't want to start an equivalence discussion-I merely mean if I were to have a similarly low-light/high IQ capable kit), I would spend 2-3x more for native/OEM glass. Not all FL are cheaper, but most are, and the f/2 versions are quite affordable. They have almost covered the entire mid-range too (16/2.8 coming soon, 18/2, 23/2, 35/2, 50/2, 10-24, 18-55, 55-200). You can't really compare Fuji lenses to other APS-C systems because the quality is so much better than MOST other APS-C options.
FF manufacturers who also make APS-C bodies want you to own FF bodies eventually, and focus their development of premium glass for FF, so the APS-C systems are pretty under-developed compared to Fuji's line. The D500 is intended by and large to be a complimentary body for FF shooters to get extra speed and crop from their top-shelf glass for sports and wildlife (like a teleconverter that boosts your focus/frame-rate speeds while giving you a longer effective FOV). Sure, they all make low-end plastic options, but that's not what the market wants right now. Cheap cameras are becoming a thing of the past as the market consolidates around high end/pro customers. Smartphones are the new $1000 camera system (for better or worse). Fuji still has some compelling sub-$1000 offerings, but I'm not really sure who buys those anymore... $350 lenses with stellar optics on the other hand (like the 35/2), are not very common (aside from nifty 50s), so I think they have the low-mid range ILC market pretty well covered. It's the top end market they want (need) to focus on, since poaching FF shooters is possible for some disciplines-hence optics like the 8-16/2.8 and 200/2..
They need to update some of their older 1.4/1.2 designs, and should probably focus on even longer ultra-fast primes... Maybe a faster variable tele? I would personally love to see a 23mm f/1 to compliment the 33mm f/1, but that would undoubtedly be surprisingly massive and super expensive (like the 33/1 will be). My current kit leaves not a whole lot to be desired, so I can see why they are filling out the extreme use-cases.
I would also love it if Fuji would release some budget "cine" lenses, or at least lenses focused more on video (video optimized AF, clutch focusing with more precise control and weighting, detachable gearing rings, de-clickable aperture control). I think there is room for innovation in the run-and-gun video department now that Fuji knocked the ball out of the park with the X-T3, but the glass they currently have is a bit lacking (primes anyways), and the dedicated cine lenses they make are very expensive and require much larger rigs to use properly (and necessitate an AC or two to use properly).
Phil Jones65 your points are solid for the most part, though I would say Fuji’s real competition is with Sony not DSLRs at the premium end. And yes, for many focal lengths the Sony is similarly priced or even cheaper than Fuji equivalents, but the equivalent lenses (f 1.8s and f2s) aren’t built mostly quite up to par with Fuji’s 1.4/1.2 offerings. Maybe I just have Fuji-fanboi goggles on, but I think the lenses below GM level lack a certain “magic” that the Fuji’s have. But hey, that’s entirely subjective 🤷🏻♂️
The big benefit I see with my Fuji system is that it’s so versatile-I can “build” my X-T3/X-T2 up and shoot all day at a music festival with a grip, 16-55 on one body (or 18-55 of I’m doing photo and video), plus another body with a fast prime.
As for, my experience is somewhat skewed, I have to admit because I buy almost everything used, especially with everyone swapping systems so often, so I’ve typically payed 1/2-2/3rd price for glass (let someone else take the depreciation hit), and can swap systems at little to no loss if I really decide I “need” to for some reason. This seems like the smart move for anyone capable of buying/selling online and would no-doubt apply to Sony gear as well. I haven’t felt compelled to go Sony because while both systems have their merits, I simply prefer the Fuji shooting experience, and images I can get are not limited by my gear in almost all circumstances.
For me the value lies in small but important things. Last year I brought 2 bodies, a gimbal, tripod, 12/2, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 80/2.8, 18-55, 56-200, speed-boosted Nikon 50mm 1.4 (for ultra low light stuff) and some audio equipment in a 70L f-stop backpack for a 6 week trip to work for 2.5 weeks at a music festival documenting the build and 4 days of music/art, and then travel up Guatemala doing a few photo/video gigs and personal projects. I could kit “down” with my 35/1.4 or 23/1.4 to hit the streets/bars/chicken buses, and never felt intrusive like I would with a DSLR or like I was advertising my wealth. These cameras draw the best kind of attention from street/festival subjects (a lot of what I photograph) because of their anachronistic/retro look.
Sure, I could probably carry a similar Sony kit and get some more pixels and/or one or two lenses that would allow for even better low light capability (a 1.4) while keeping a similarly compact/light-(er, than a DSLR) bag of gear. Then again, if I were more weight conscious or shot less in low light, I could also choose to shoot Fuji’s f2 lenses and go much lighter than any comparable FF kit (in terms of lens IQ). Not many professional quality FF primes that I know of are as small as the “Fujicrons.” Size/weight flexibility with pro-level IQ is unmatched for Fuji at the moment, in my opinion.
For my festival and travel shooting, the instax printer is also invaluable. Being able to instantly share physical shots (often with my contact info) has opened many doors.
For me, the value proposition is there because of the above items, and the fact that I just enjoy shooting Fuji more than song. Most of my photos end up being delivered digitally to be seen on phones and computers. I almost never print work wider than 24”, and my Fuji files can look great at 30” x 40”. If I needed to deliver huge files regularly, Sony is GFX would probably be necessary.
The truth is, I think we’re getting to a “peak camera” moment. There’s a lot less room for equipment to improve for most disciplines of photography, and there’s a lot of great gear out there saturating the used markets (more every year!). Demand for cameras in general are slumping, but I don’t think it’s because of price creep at the premium end-I think it’s because the mid/low tier camera market has been gutted by smartphone camera ubiquity (and increasingly, rapid advancements in computational photography and quality of miniaturized hardware capabilities).
I think that most pros will continue to pay what they must to have the best gear they can, for as long as they can. Others who have a bad case of GAS, whether pro or enthusiast, will continue to buy new gear and swap systems-gear whores aren’t a new phenomena, they just have an increasingly wide range of excellent greener pastures to stare longingly at.
Canon, dinosaur that it is in many ways, is “too big to fail” in the foreseeable future, and will just take a long time to catch up to the new wave of tech coming from the mirrorless mainstays. Nikon will probably die a long painful death, leaving behind a lot of great gear that will continue to work in the used market for decades after the final nail lands in its coffin. Sony will probably continue killing it, though it’s leads will probably diminish as everyone catches up and the laws of diminishing returns continue to make each generation less of an advancement than the last. Fujifilm is a much more than a camera company (as is Sony and Canon), and they have found some traction in niches not filled by the other big boys. Olympus? Pentax? Panasonic, perhaps? Probably the way of the dodo in the next few decades, if that.
There simply isn’t the global demand for low/mid range cameras to support the costly R&D/manufacturing of the high end systems, which have functioned more as halo/brand identity products for these companies than cash cows. The prices are probably going up to reflect the shifting revenue supplies and account for the loss of sales in higher margin, higher unit volume low and mid tier offerings.
Phil Jones65 Phil Jones65 your points are solid for the most part, though I would say Fuji’s real competition is with Sony not DSLRs at the premium end. And yes, for many focal lengths the Sony is similarly priced or even cheaper than Fuji equivalents, but the equivalent lenses (f 1.8s and f2s) aren’t built mostly quite up to par with Fuji’s 1.4/1.2 offerings. Maybe I just have Fuji-fanboi goggles on, but I think the lenses below GM level lack a certain “magic” that the Fuji’s have. But hey, that’s entirely subjective 🤷🏻♂️
The big benefit I see with my Fuji system is that it’s so versatile-I can “build” my X-T3/X-T2 up and shoot all day at a music festival with a grip, 16-55 on one body (or 18-55 of I’m doing photo and video), plus another body with a fast prime.
As for, my experience is somewhat skewed, I have to admit because I buy almost everything used, especially with everyone swapping systems so often, so I’ve typically payed 1/2-2/3rd price for glass (let someone else take the depreciation hit), and can swap systems at little to no loss if I really decide I “need” to for some reason. This seems like the smart move for anyone capable of buying/selling online and would no-doubt apply to Sony gear as well. I haven’t felt compelled to go Sony because while both systems have their merits, I simply prefer the Fuji shooting experience, and images I can get are not limited by my gear in almost all circumstances.
For me the value lies in small but important things. Last year I brought 2 bodies, a gimbal, tripod, 12/2, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 80/2.8, 18-55, 56-200, speed-boosted Nikon 50mm 1.4 (for ultra low light stuff) and some audio equipment in a 70L f-stop backpack for a 6 week trip to work for 2.5 weeks at a music festival documenting the build and 4 days of music/art, and then travel up Guatemala doing a few photo/video gigs and personal projects. I could kit “down” with my 35/1.4 or 23/1.4 to hit the streets/bars/chicken buses, and never felt intrusive like I would with a DSLR or like I was advertising my wealth. These cameras draw the best kind of attention from street/festival subjects (a lot of what I photograph) because of their anachronistic/retro look.
Sure, I could probably carry a similar Sony kit and get some more pixels and/or one or two lenses that would allow for even better low light capability (a 1.4) while keeping a similarly compact/light-(er, than a DSLR) bag of gear. Then again, if I were more weight conscious or shot less in low light, I could also choose to shoot Fuji’s f2 lenses and go much lighter than any comparable FF kit (in terms of lens IQ). Not many professional quality FF primes that I know of are as small as the “Fujicrons.” Size/weight flexibility with pro-level IQ is unmatched for Fuji at the moment, in my opinion.
For my festival and travel shooting, the instax printer is also invaluable. Being able to instantly share physical shots (often with my contact info) has opened many doors.
For me, the value proposition is there because of the above items, and the fact that I just enjoy shooting Fuji more than song. Most of my photos end up being delivered digitally to be seen on phones and computers. I almost never print work wider than 24”, and my Fuji files can look great at 30” x 40”. If I needed to deliver huge files regularly, Sony is GFX would probably be necessary.
The truth is, I think we’re getting to a “peak camera” moment. There’s a lot less room for equipment to improve for most disciplines of photography, and there’s a lot of great gear out there saturating the used markets (more every year!). Demand for cameras in general are slumping, but I don’t think it’s because of price creep at the premium end-I think it’s because the mid/low tier camera market has been gutted by smartphone camera ubiquity (and increasingly, rapid advancements in computational photography and quality of miniaturized hardware capabilities).
I think that most pros will continue to pay what they must to have the best gear they can, for as long as they can. Others who have a bad case of GAS, whether pro or enthusiast, will continue to buy new gear and swap systems-gear whores aren’t a new phenomena, they just have an increasingly wide range of excellent greener pastures to stare longingly at.
Canon, dinosaur that it is in many ways, is “too big to fail” in the foreseeable future, and will just take a long time to catch up to the new wave of tech coming from the mirrorless mainstays. Nikon will probably die a long painful death, leaving behind a lot of great gear that will continue to work in the used market for decades after the final nail lands in its coffin. Sony will probably continue killing it, though it’s leads will probably diminish as everyone catches up and the laws of diminishing returns continue to make each generation less of an advancement than the last. Fujifilm is a much more than a camera company (as is Sony and Canon), and they have found some traction in niches not filled by the other big boys. Olympus? Pentax? Panasonic, perhaps? Probably the way of the dodo in the next few decades, if that.
There simply isn’t the global demand for low/mid range cameras to support the costly R&D/manufacturing of the high end systems, which have functioned more as halo/brand identity products for these companies than cash cows. The prices are probably going up to reflect the shifting revenue supplies and account for the loss of sales in higher margin, higher unit volume low and mid tier offerings.
This is a great lens and it was needed in the lineup in my opinion. But Fuji needs longer lenses, like a 300 2.8, 300 F4, 400 F4, 500 F4, etc. Also a more affordable super telephoto would be great. They have amazing APS-C cameras and almost no long lenses above 300mm, except the 100-400
That pearl finish on the 200mm is VERY nice! What featured bird was that?
That was a Mandarin Duck. They seem to be getting more common here in the UK. Native to China, Korea, Japan - East Asia. Rarely seen in the wild elsewhere in the world, though I believe a month ago one turned up in Central Park and became a bit of a celebrity.
They look unreal... like a kid has been left to colour in a normal duck.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandarin_duck
Photogearnews unreal is right! Not surprised they’re from Asia after seeing the extra terrestrial looking fruit and land masses they have from over there! Thanks for the info!
Great review and very helpful! I must have one!
Did you get one :D?
Nice review and stunning images! Don't think I'll be buying it but would love to rent it to shoot wildlife.
Version 3.0 firmware state that their AF speed and accuracy will be up to 300% improved.
Fuji should put a red badge on lens like this and the 50mm f1.0 not just the zoom
How good is this lens with the X-T4?
Why did almost every camera youtuber attend that MLS game? I saw Chelsea and Tony, Matt Granger, the guy from Art of Photography, maybe Jared Polin was there too
I don't know if this would be that great for wildlife unless you can get pretty close. BUT I wonder how awesome it would be as a concert lens?
Wow. God-tier lens! Unfortunately, I doubt anyone can afford it.
But a lot of people can afford to rent it when needed. A lot of this big, expensive glass is, in fact, rented. Even by professionals.
I don't understand that lens. Is it the 300mm f2.8 equivalent? And why is that good when that prime used on crop sensor is 450mm. 300mm is short for wildlife, it is usable on crop sensor. Fuji is dx sensor so compete with lens on dx sensor. It is a good portrait lens equivalent. But Fuji still doesn't have good glass for wildlife. (Only the 100-400 what is again shorter than competitor lens in the same nitche.)
Technically is a 300mm f/3 equivalent, it's price is exactly the same as the 200mm f/2 from Canon and Nikon with the difference that you are "stuck" with a crop sensor so yea, this is not a miracle lens considering that you can buy a 300 f/2.8 for basically the same price and pair it with a much better sensor like a D850/A7rIII etc
Does it have an Aperture ring? Couldn’t really see one on footage.
Yes it does. Mentioned it in the video towards the start 😉
Nice lecture Sir.
If I should use this lens with my Fuji XT30, what range will the lens give me?
Why this lens is more expensive than lenses for fuji gfx??????
This is another niche lens from Fuji that just a few people is going to buy, us$6000 !!...200mm is not long enought for wildlife unless you are shooting big animals...fuji needs more afordable prime lens for wildlife, this lens costs as much as a Canon 400mm F2, currently I have the Fuji 100-400 mm that I have been using for a couple of years but I think I will switch to canon eventually, there are a lot of more choices of lens for wild life for canon, and a lot more in the used market. And better yet, canon just released a mirrorless camera.
You won’t attract photographers who need telephoto lenses unless you have telephoto lenses. This lens is an absolute peach and in terms of IQ seems to be match for anything from another major manufacturer and is priced accordingly.
I would be incredibly surprised if they didn’t follow this lens up with another fixed telephoto when the next roadmap is released - which I guess will probably be around the time of CP+ in February 2019.
This new lens has clearly been timed for release with the X-T3 as they have a camera that can shoot 20/30fps with no viewfinder blackout - which currently only the Sony A9 can match.
@@Photogearnews Good points! And how much is the Sony A9 system + comparable lens?
Roman, Good points. How much are you currently making from wildlife photography? Why not switch to professional sports, save money on a Fuji system and come out ahead?
You are wrong about the 525 focal length of this lens when camera is cropping at 30fps. The lens remain 420mm FF equivalent but the crop is digital.
Yes... as I explained in the video. There is a 1.25x digital crop reducing the resolution. I even say that you can always get the same cropping in post afterwards. All in the video 👍
You've totally forgot to tell about focus ring and manual focusing :(
Yep, apologies. It’s there. It’s useable. To be honest I prob used it for less than a handful of shots as I simply didn’t need to as the AF did the job every time
very expensive :((
Hmm... 500 mm? Where? it seems u have 420 FF equivalent focal lens distance. And AF tracking with TC also decrease, atmospheric condition is also another important fact for tele or super tele lens. With TC, things get worse in different environments. On some mirrorless systems like Fuji, Olympus we will need to see an AF master focus point (when you lock a subject), that can move with the subject along, not to jump at anothers points when the frame become busy. XT3 or even the new Olympus E-M1X OMD still not to do that... On DSLR professional camera D5 or 1dx II the situation is different. But mirrorless are not to far, maybe in 2-3 years alghoritim will evolve on a better direction.
it crops at 16 not 13, definately my next lense replacing the 100-400
'Bambi vs Godzilla'
Are you using Lightroom for the RAW files?
It looks like that on the out of focus arias..
Use Capture One..!
Lightroom for Fujifilm is garbage!
Yes Lightroom. I’ve read all the comments and seen the examples of Lightroom/Capture One/Irident I really don’t get why people have a problem with it if you sharpen correctly and don’t start looking at 200-400% - it’s fine.
Also you can’t judge the images 100% in terms of critical detail as they have been compressed from raw to JPEG, then again from the export from Premiere, then again when UA-cam does it thing.
Well, I did see it on compressed UA-cam film, I shut the GFX 50S myself, and before C1 supported the RAW files, I took the sharpening all the way down in Lightroom, and sharpened in Photoshop.
But compered to C1 it’s no good.
It’s not too be rude, but in your pictures in the video, I would not by the lens orre camera system.
But I am using Fujifilm, so I now it can be better...
And sorry, I didn’t read all your comment, before I answered..
What I find more interesting is that out of all the views the video has had and the images I have put on Facebook/Instagram/Twitter etc you are the only person who has seen this and commented.
This tells me either people don’t actually see it/know about it/look for it, or in reality it doesn’t actually matter.
I have used Lightroom for Fujifilm files since X-Pro1 and had them published in magazines with 100% pull ups and have never had comments... though Lightroom was awful for handling the files back then - colour, weird artefacts etc.
Photogearnews Maybe I’m just a bad photographer, that have bad eyes..
I have the newer Phase One XF, Canon 5D mk4, Sony A7R3 Fujifilm XT2 and Fujifilm GFX50S
And it’s only the Fujifilm that has the problem, in Lightroom..
Haha! I’m sure you’re not! And I know that Lightroom doesn’t handle the files as well as it’s too treating them somewhat as normal bayer pattern. My point is that if you tweak the settings the images look perfectly acceptable unless you actually go looking for problems rather than appreciating images.
That’s a $6,000 lens! Wth
Well, 200mm or even 400mm are is to short for Wildlife. I know what I am talking about as this is the area I am working on. Here the fun starts all at 600mm 4.0 (prime). And sorry to say, even if this 200mm Fuji lens may be that good, almost 6k USD for an APS-C lens is crazy. Don't know what is on Fuji's mind. A Nikkor 200mm f/2 is cheaper, Full Frame and delivers on a Nikon D850 even better than a Fuji 200mm 2.0 on any Fuji X-Tx body. Don't get me wrong, I am invested also on Fuji (X-T2) but also on a Nikon D850. No, this lens I would never purchase for reasons mentioned.
i dunno why im watching this. I can never afford it
Fuji have made a white elephant.. the average punter can’t afford this lens
It’s way overpriced for an f2 200mm
I have the xt2 and 100-400mm lens and I had to live under a bridge for months
To afford that... so I’m sorry Fuji it’s a “No”. !
I think the point is that this lens isn’t for the average punter and is priced accordingly.
Simple scales of economy, if they thought they would sell tens of thousands of this lens it could be priced cheaper to recoup design, development and tooling costs. They know they will sell, but in smaller numbers so it is priced accordingly to recoup costs and hopefully make a profit.
How much! What the! For crop sensor lens you havin a laugh!? 😂
Ignorance at its finest?
We seem to begoing back up to large formats with mirrorless.. what gives..
6000usd?? 🙄
Nikon D850 plus a 70=200 lens is probably cheaper than this lens alone and I'm sure you would get better IQ! What are Fuji thinking?! I would never buy this in a million years even though I have an xt3. I love Fuji but this is absurd.
You’d be looking at a D850 + 300mm f/2.8 +1.4x teleconverter to be a like for like comparison
So £3250 + £5000 + £250 = £8500
With 70-200mm you’d want the 2x converter for the extra reach, which still would produce quite the same reach, but you have the cotta pixels to crop to match it easily enough
£3250 + £2560 + £430 = £6240
Better comparison would be D500
D500 + Nikkor 200mm f/2 + 1.4x
£1700 + £5200 + £470 = £7370
X-T3 £1350 + 200mm f/2 and 1.4x tele £5400 = £6750
So it’s pretty close, can’t comment on image quality as I’ve not done a side to side, but as excellent as the 70-200mm is I doubt it is going to be as good at 200mm as a dedicated prime and matching the prime when the 70-200mm it has a 1.4x converter attached (to bring it closer to the same field of view) will also take the edge of image quality.
Then the D850 doesn’t shoot at 20fps with a blackout free viewfinder (or 30fps with the crop). It obviously has a higher resolution and great dynamic range - so I guess it depends what you want to do with your camera.
As for what Fujifilm are thinking it’s pretty clear they are going after a new market of wildlife and sports photographers and they need the lenses to do that now they have a camera such as the X-T3
If the sensor and processing power enters an X-H1 type camera in the future you will add in-camera stabilisation to this which becomes hugely attractive.
It’s the same as Sony bringing out the 400mm f2.8... all of a sudden the A9 becomes a lot more attractive proposition for pro sports photographers
The D850 has an apsc crop mode so you could buy a 1.4x converter and still have a similar MP count as the Fuji. Or you could buy Nikon's 200=500 which is great by all accounts and you no longer need any converter. In crop mode you now have a 750mm equivalent. Yes, it's not an f2.8 but it's around 4 times cheaper. Don't know where you get your prices but I can pick up a d850 for $3500 and the 200-500 for $1500. A total of $5000, or approx. $7000 with the 70-200 and a 1.4 x converter. I know which I would prefer even as a Fuji shooter! Fuji need to stick with what they are good at, small bodies with compact good quality lenses. Or they need to get realistic with their pricing! $6000 for an apsc lens! like I said, ABSURD!
The problem is nowhere are you comparing like for like...
Crop mode is 19MP v 26MP X-T3
Nikkor 200-500mm is f/5.6! Obviously huge focal length, but in terms of light that 3EV darker than than the 200mm!
Trying to freeze some action or shoot in low light? That’s 3EV you’re pushing the camera - so a drop in image quality
Fujifilm themselves have a 100-400mm
And with no camera is there a 30fps/20fps shooting rate
I find it bizarre people saying ‘it’s expensive! Who is going to buy this?’
The reason you don’t see sports photographers using Fujifilm is because up until now they haven’t had a camera that could do it. Now they have the camera they don’t have the lenses... so they start to bring out a high end line of lenses that can compete it terms of speed and quality with the likes of Canon and Nikon and people still moan.
Prices were all UK retail prices from Jessops- for all products except the 1.4x converter which was an Amazon price.
Lens look fairly modern, I mean it looks almost exactly like Canon's white super tele, but the camera is made to imitate old school vintage film cameras style, they just don't look right when paired together, I just got that odd feeling. The shutter speed dial just can't be taken seriously on modern 2018 sport's shooter camera especially when paired with such a best of a lens. Let's be honest Fuji, perhaps it's time to stop with the rangefinder bullsheet and design a proper ergonomical usable body.
First of all, this ain't a rangefinder style body but slr style body. Second, who cares about how the camera and lens match when out in the field? Third, the speed dial is actually the fastest way to change the ss out of any camera. Fourth, if you do not like the ss dial you can assign it to any dial/button of the camera you want. Fifth: this is an allround camera, not only for shooting sports!
I am sure you never even held the camera, leave alone tested it properly...
@@kearress7350 I smell a Fuji fanboy. Pssh, be gone pest. All your arguments are invalid. The camera is just god damn awful looking and is made to please 70's diehard hipster nerds crowd. Forget ergonomics, just make it retro and it sells.
Ergonomics are actually fine. You don’t need to use the dial. I generally selected the aperture and then ISO and let the shutter speed sort itself out... or selected aperture and shutter and then set Auto ISO to work within a range. Then I just used exposure compensation dial, which for me is the most used dial on a camera after the aperture.
However. I do agree that whilst it works excellently as far as I’m concerned, a more modern style would be good. I think it would pair better with the X-H1, particularly in black. This would give it slightly better balance, but also just ‘look’ the part.
As I replied in another comment, perhaps Fujiflm will introduce a more contemporary design now they have the technology and lenses in place.
@@KonicaHexanon "Your arguments are invalid"... Well, what a fantastic well-founded reply you got there mate! If you have nothing to say, you better don't!
The physical dials allow for the Fuji to have it's best UI feature, which is no PASM selector. Physical dials like Shutter, ISO and Aperture allows for the camera to have the most intuitive controls for pros and newbies alike. Moving into priority expose modes is as easy and changing the shutter speed from (A)uto to your desired number. It's simple and makes the most sense. I think it should be the opposite other camera manufacturers should put more physical controls on their cameras, not the other way around.