Okay, I have both an xt5 and Z7ii and am trying to decide on which system I should get the long lens for? I do like the shooting experience of the fuji system better, but the full frame Nikon seems like the better choice for the pixel peeper in me.
Undecided!
Z7II image quality is unpaired indeed, but in your specific situation, I'd go Fuji for telephoto. If you had Z8 and X-H2 for instance I'd say Nikon, because to my sense, it should be more versatile for telephoto as a whole system.
So it can also depend on what camera you plan to buy next and how you want to invest in a system or the other.
Hi, I use the Fuji X-T5 with the Fuji 70-300 F4 lens and the 1.4 Teleconverter. This can give me a total reach of 630mm. I've been very satisfiend with this combination if you decide to go the Fuji route.
Tell us a little more about what you photograph. How will you be using a long lens - both subject matter and final output.
The Z7ii seems pretty compelling to me for most long lens situations. You'll need to decide whether you want the 180-600 or the 100-400. They each have slightly different uses and are both very good lenses.
For wildlife, it depends a bit on what you photograph. Mammals, large wading birds, and similar subjects work well at 400mm, so the 100-400 would be long enough. It also has a short minimum focus distance with good magnification so it works well for insects like dragonflies and butterflies. But if your subject matter is smaller birds or harder to approach subjects, you may want more reach. In this case, the 180-600 is both cheaper and a better option.
As far as the systems are concerned, I find there is a relatively big difference between APS-C and full frame. If you are standing at the same place, your FX image will be using a longer focal length that creates a much cleaner background. The other advantage to FX is when you are in lower light and ISO starts to increase. Noise is a much bigger deal with a smaller sensor - about 1.2 stops more noise with APS-C for a given ISO level. A full frame camera has a benefit of downsizing to APS-C proportions. Just having more pixels in an APS-C camera is not an advantage since the photosites are so much smaller.
Eric Bowles
www.bowlesimages.com
I would personally go for Nikon. Yeah, I'm a Nikon shooter though I also shoot micro four thirds.
The reason why I say Nikon is because if you ever decide to upgrade to more expensive glass, there are plenty of options. Long glass is addictive! Plus Nikon's Z lenses work decently well with TC's. Fuji has far fewer long options.
Thanks for the info!
Historically I shot mostley landscapes with my xt3 and used the 55-200 as my long lens. I acquired the z7ii last year along with the 14-30 and 24-120. I have started to get some GAS and would like the option to shoot wildlife while out on a landscape mission.
I am leaning towards the Z 100-400 and if I need a bit of more reach then I could use crop mode or a TC. The 180-600 is intreaging but it looks a bit too long to fit easily into my pack. If I get serious about long lenses then nikon has lots of other options.
That's a great but tough choice! If shooting experience and portability are your top priorities, the Fuji X system with the XF 100-400mm is a fantastic combo—lighter, well-balanced, and with great reach thanks to the APS-C crop factor. However, if you're after maximum image quality, dynamic range, and low-light performance, the Nikon Z7II paired with the Z 100-400mm will definitely edge out the Fuji, especially for detailed landscapes or large prints. Since you already enjoy the Fuji experience more, consider whether handling or resolution matters more to you day-to-day. If you're shooting fast-moving wildlife or want more resolution flexibility for cropping, the Nikon might be the better long-term tool. But for enjoyment, travel, and ease—Fuji is hard to beat.