Hi all,I've recently moved from Panasonic G9 to X-T4. I have the 16-55mm f2.8 and the 70-300mm for the Fuji.I've been doing some test shots with some kangaroos at my work to try and get a hang of the X-T4.Unfortunately the Panasonic is outshining the X-T4 quite noticably?!I tried to shoot back to back - same/similar settings of around 1/250th, base ISO shutter priority. 70-300mm on the Fuji and 100-400 PL on the G9.I think these screen grabs illustrate it fairly well assuming they don't end up compressed:They're 100% crops and screen grabbed with MacOS.(https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0-MboA0yPu2X6bzUGgGgAv0Ew#G9XT4for a link to full RAW files if you're interested).Uncompressed L size RAW on the fuji.To my eye the Fuji files look muddy and not sharp but not to my eye it seems like it's processing based not rubbish lens? The Panasonic image by comparison looks quite a lot sharper in the fur detail.It could been a little out of focus but literally every shot I've taken with this lens across two days shooting these roos has looked like this. I don't really want to go straight to piling blame on the AF system.Very keen on other's thoughts! So far I've been really disappointed with this lens - 16-55mm seems pretty good though.

On one hand it's not surprising that a lens that weigh half as much and cost ~40% as much is the softer lens in direct comparison. The XF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 would be the direct competitor to the 'Panaleica'.But just looking at the XF shot in isolation... Yeah it looks softer than it should be. MTF chart says it should resolve around 0.8 in the center for a 45 lines/mm target, which is better than this looks like.If you suspect you have a faulty lens, I recommend instructions from website of Jim Kasson, resident of the Medium Format subforum:https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/

Plunder wrote:Hi all,I've recently moved from Panasonic G9 to X-T4. I have the 16-55mm f2.8 and the 70-300mm for the Fuji.I've been doing some test shots with some kangaroos at my work to try and get a hang of the X-T4.Unfortunately the Panasonic is outshining the X-T4 quite noticably?!I tried to shoot back to back - same/similar settings of around 1/250th, base ISO shutter priority. 70-300mm on the Fuji and 100-400 PL on the G9.I think these screen grabs illustrate it fairly well assuming they don't end up compressed:They're 100% crops and screen grabbed with MacOS.(https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0-MboA0yPu2X6bzUGgGgAv0Ew#G9XT4for a link to full RAW files if you're interested).Uncompressed L size RAW on the fuji.To my eye the Fuji files look muddy and not sharp but not to my eye it seems like it's processing based not rubbish lens? The Panasonic image by comparison looks quite a lot sharper in the fur detail.It could been a little out of focus but literally every shot I've taken with this lens across two days shooting these roos has looked like this. I don't really want to go straight to piling blame on the AF system.Very keen on other's thoughts! So far I've been really disappointed with this lens - 16-55mm seems pretty good though.Hi,there could be a number of factors that explain happened here. It's possible that you have gotten a dud. I'd love to get a go at the raw files, but it seems the link you provided is only accessible to folks which have an iCloud account.

norjens wrote:On one hand it's not surprising that a lens that weigh half as much and cost ~40% as much is the softer lens in direct comparison. The XF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 would be the direct competitor to the 'Panaleica'.But just looking at the XF shot in isolation... Yeah it looks softer than it should be. MTF chart says it should resolve around 0.8 in the center for a 45 lines/mm target, which is better than this looks like.If you suspect you have a faulty lens, I recommend instructions from website of Jim Kasson, resident of the Medium Format subforum:https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/Ha! Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest I expected as good or better out of the far cheaper lens. I certainly was expecting more than I got though!Though to be honest I was maybe hoping (naively?) for bigger/newer sensor and newer lens to be pretty close to the older, smaller m43 setup.I am pleased that you also think the 70-300mm seems below par and that I'm not imagining things!Thanks for the link - I'll check it out now

I could improve on this, but it looks reasonably decent at my default import settings with Lightroom and Iridient X-Transformer. There is definitely less DOF to work with than you get with the m43 shot, and I think i'd want to be at a higher SS than 1/250" for best results with a shot like this. OIS/IBIS is wonderful and all, but it won't help with subject motion.

yayatosorus wrote:Plunder wrote:Hi all,I've recently moved from Panasonic G9 to X-T4. I have the 16-55mm f2.8 and the 70-300mm for the Fuji.I've been doing some test shots with some kangaroos at my work to try and get a hang of the X-T4.Unfortunately the Panasonic is outshining the X-T4 quite noticably?!I tried to shoot back to back - same/similar settings of around 1/250th, base ISO shutter priority. 70-300mm on the Fuji and 100-400 PL on the G9.I think these screen grabs illustrate it fairly well assuming they don't end up compressed:They're 100% crops and screen grabbed with MacOS.(https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0-MboA0yPu2X6bzUGgGgAv0Ew#G9XT4for a link to full RAW files if you're interested).Uncompressed L size RAW on the fuji.To my eye the Fuji files look muddy and not sharp but not to my eye it seems like it's processing based not rubbish lens? The Panasonic image by comparison looks quite a lot sharper in the fur detail.It could been a little out of focus but literally every shot I've taken with this lens across two days shooting these roos has looked like this. I don't really want to go straight to piling blame on the AF system.Very keen on other's thoughts! So far I've been really disappointed with this lens - 16-55mm seems pretty good though.Hi,there could be a number of factors that explain happened here. It's possible that you have gotten a dud. I'd love to get a go at the raw files, but it seems the link you provided is only accessible to folks which have an iCloud account.Ah! I'll upload to onedrive.I'd be very happy to learn it's just me being a dud thoughEdit: I can't edit OP any longer. Onedrive link:https://1drv.ms/u/s!AvI_kD1P6hgNgcsukHoFDcd1l-vznw?e=LijIfMThey were quite still watching me so I thought 1/250th would be okay. Perhaps tomorrow I will try again with 1/400th perhaps?

This may sound strange, but I would recommend the opposite: try to experiment with slower shutter speeds like 1/100 or even 1/60. (I have the feeling that sometimes the IBIS works against you at higher shutter speeds, unless it's a fast moving subject.)

lengyel aron images wrote:This may sound strange, but I would recommend the opposite: try to experiment with slower shutter speeds like 1/100 or even 1/60. (I have the feeling that sometimes the IBIS works against you at higher shutter speeds, unless it's a fast moving subject.)If your subject is moving at all, you really don't want to be below 1/250", especially at a 450mm equivalent.

Just a quick process with C1 to see how it looks.

....Also, I really wouldn't expect a relatively cheap mid-line zoom at the extreme long end of it's focal range to outperform the much more expensive Leica/Panasonic in the middle of its range. I think your processing needs some refinement, but I don't think there's anything wrong with your 70-300. How does a SOOC jpeg look compared to your m43 camera?

I believe the 70-300 needs a bit of processing at the long end, especially when you get close to the diffraction limit. Here is a small test I did in Capture One 20. One thing you absolutely want to do when shooting base ISO is to get rid of any noise reduction that may be applied by default.Default settings: Noise reduction applied (Luminace +50, Detail +50)No noise reduction:No noise reduction + Diffraction correction applied:I think the difference is quite noticeable. All in all I think the picture looks fine and the lens seems to perform fine, but I'd double check to make sure your lens is not a dud.Here is my take on it:

Thanks all for the input so far.I'll try again tomorrow with faster shutter speeds.I appreciate the processing ideas also. I might see if I can get a trial of capture 1. It does seem a bit better than Lightroom but then to my eye it starts looking over processed.Perhaps I well and truely expected too much from this lens. I might need to get the 100-400mm instead after all. I really like the images with the 16-55mm and have had no issue with them so perhaps I've been spoiled by the expensive panaleica glass I've got for the G9.Oh, this is a SOOC jpg of the above RAW file. only setting changed from base is +1 sharpness. It looks like it's out of my iPhone to meWill report back with hopefully better images after work tomorrow

Most likely you just need to practice with the new equipment and experiment with the AF settings you are using.For this type of subject I would suggest:Focus PriorityA single AF box that is just a bit larger than the animals headGet the shutter speed up to at least 1/1000, maybe faster.OIS is not a "turn it on and forget about it" technology. It's a "use it when you can't get the shot otherwise" technology. So I leave it off unless I can't get the shot otherwise.Everyone uses their cameras differently and has different expectations for what constitutes "acceptable" so there'll be many different ideas and suggestions posted. Give them all a try! You'll learn a lot about the new gear and hopefully will figure out what works for you in the process.Hope that helps.

Homo erectus wrote:snipOIS is not a "turn it on and forget about it" technology. It's a "use it when you can't get the shot otherwise" technology. So I leave it off unless I can't get the shot otherwise.snipI have an X-H1, and a 50-140mm lens, both with IBIS. I'm wondering what kind of circumstances I should turn it off. Mostly I'm using it for wildlife shots (usually with a teleconverter).I have to admit that I have IBIS on most of the time, and I do get mixed results. I know that the teleconverters are not optimal for getting sharp pictures. That is why I'm looking at the 70-300mm.Thanks anyone for any guidance here on when to use or not use IBIS.I join the OP on the disappointment on the sharpness of the example pictures. I truly hope it is not the lens, and that adjustments in setting or even technique will make the lens a keeper.

Jazz1 wrote:Homo erectus wrote:snipOIS is not a "turn it on and forget about it" technology. It's a "use it when you can't get the shot otherwise" technology. So I leave it off unless I can't get the shot otherwise.snipI have an X-H1, and a 50-140mm lens, both with IBIS. I'm wondering what kind of circumstances I should turn it off. Mostly I'm using it for wildlife shots (usually with a teleconverter).You may want to switch IBIS off when using a high shutter speed. Generally, once you get over 1/1000th, IBIS may reduce I.Q. I'd recommend running some tests for yourself, to see if there's significant enough reduction to warrant switching it offI have to admit that I have IBIS on most of the time, and I do get mixed results. I know that the teleconverters are not optimal for getting sharp pictures. That is why I'm looking at the 70-300mm.The 50-140 + 1.4x tc is a very capable kit. I doubt the 70-300 will be better at similar FL. If you want a lighter kit though, the latter is the way to go.Thanks anyone for any guidance here on when to use or not use IBIS.I join the OP on the disappointment on the sharpness of the example pictures. I truly hope it is not the lens, and that adjustments in setting or even technique will make the lens a keeper.

yayatosorus wrote:snipThe 50-140 + 1.4x tc is a very capable kit. I doubt the 70-300 will be better at similar FL. If you want a lighter kit though, the latter is the way to go.snipI really do like my 50-140mm. If with the 1.4x I get similar/better sharpness to the 70-300mm, in the comparable zoom range, I would be satisfied. I just take photos to please myself. It is not a business venture.I will say the IMHO the 50-140mm without a teleconverter does really well for sharpness.Frankly I don't mind the weight of the 50-140 at all (with our without a teleconverter). I have grips on both my XPro-3 and X-H1 that help with bigger lenses.I think I will try to up my shutter speed without using IBIS in good light conditions.Thanks for the sage advice!

Jazz1 wrote:Homo erectus wrote:snipOIS is not a "turn it on and forget about it" technology. It's a "use it when you can't get the shot otherwise" technology. So I leave it off unless I can't get the shot otherwise.snipI have an X-H1, and a 50-140mm lens, both with IBIS. I'm wondering what kind of circumstances I should turn it off. Mostly I'm using it for wildlife shots (usually with a teleconverter).I have to admit that I have IBIS on most of the time, and I do get mixed results. I know that the teleconverters are not optimal for getting sharp pictures. That is why I'm looking at the 70-300mm.Thanks anyone for any guidance here on when to use or not use IBIS.I join the OP on the disappointment on the sharpness of the example pictures. I truly hope it is not the lens, and that adjustments in setting or even technique will make the lens a keeper.I have an X-Pro 2 and an X-T3. I went from the 50-230 straight to the 100-400 for my telephoto lens.There is some sort of firmware issue right now that makes the 70-300 work badly on the X-H1. Fuji has said they have a firmware fix in development. If I had an X-H1, I'd hold off on buying the 70-300 until that firmware is available and other users report it is working.OIS / IBIS works differently in different bodies and lenses and different companies technology works differently too so it's really hard to boil all the variables down to a few simple rules.That being said, in general OIS / IBIS should be used when you need it and turned off when you don't need it. Avoid using it with fast shutter speeds (fast is relative and could be anywhere above 1/250th for some lenses / bodies / manufacturers implementations).The pictures posted look like focus misses to me. Literally every Fuji lens I own, or have rented, is sharper than those pictures including the 50-230.Hope that helps.

are you sure ?

And keep IBIS ON when you use EFCS too

Hey friend!Can you try shooting with Electronic Front Curtain Shutter (not mechanical or electronic shutter)? Make sure you shoot below 1/1000. as well please. Let me know if there is an improvement