Towncaptain wrote: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 improvementYes that would be my suspicion too... shutter shock...

Yep. Just a theory but thought it would help

Erik Baumgartner wrote: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.Eric's statement about default settings is very important.  When one is working with RAW images, the RAW Converter's profile needs to be adjusted to match the camera.  The amount of sharpening applied during conversion is determined by the profile.  If you like to import sharp images, then you need to adjust to profile to do this.  I do the opposite turning off sharpening during import and instead sharpen at the end of my image processing.  Either method will work.Morris

Morris0 wrote:Erik Baumgartner wrote: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.Eric's statement about default settings is very important. When one is working with RAW images, the RAW Converter's profile needs to be adjusted to match the camera. The amount of sharpening applied during conversion is determined by the profile. If you like to import sharp images, then you need to adjust to profile to do this. I do the opposite turning off sharpening during import and instead sharpen at the end of my image processing. Either method will work.MorrisI leave import settings on default for sharpness but usually first thing I do is ramp it all way down to zero before working back to a reasonable level.am going to try EFC this afternoon.Again comparing the fancier lens to the 70-300 but I hand held 1/200th at full 400mm on a wolf with the G9 and it was tack sharp. So I’m sceptical how much effect it will have. I am hopeful I’ll be proven wrong though.

People keep going on about how the OP needs to do this and that because his 70-300 image looks lousy, it doesn't, his post processing is lousy. This is his 70-300 image at 100% (with some halfway decent basic processing) next to his Leica/Panasonic 100-400mm image. You'd expect the much more expensive lens in the middle of its range to outperform the cheaper Fuji at the long end of its range ...and it doesn't, not to my eyes anyway, the Fuji image looks fine. Could it be focused better? Yes. Would a faster SS help? Probably, but it really looks OK considering. There is nothing wrong with his lens.Fuji 70-300 (L), Leica/Panasonic 100-400 (R)

Jazz1 wrote: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!To OP:Ibis technology today behaves differently comparing to the OIS in the old stabilized tele lenses in the past. Here is Fuji’s official explanation of when you should turn off theIBIShttps://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/intermediate-month-3-motion-10-ois-and-ibis/It seems you DONT need to turn off IBIS when you shoot higher shutter speed. I didn’t do it on my XH1 when I pictured whale, dolphins, birds, planes, kids, and the images came out sharp. From what I saw, it’s either a firmware issue with the XT4 body or your lens is the problem. To check if not turning off IBIS is the problem here, try shoot at high shutter speed with other Fuji lenses to see if there is any softness.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:People keep going on about how the OP needs to do this and that because his 70-300 image looks lousy, it doesn't, his post processing is lousy. This is his 70-300 image at 100% (with some halfway decent basic processing) next to his Leica/Panasonic 100-400mm image. You'd expect the much more expensive lens in the middle of its range to outperform the cheaper Fuji at the long end of its range ...and it doesn't, not to my eyes anyway, the Fuji image looks fine. Could it be focused better? Yes. Would a faster SS help? Probably, but it really looks OK considering. There is nothing wrong with his lens.Fuji 70-300 (L), Leica/Panasonic 100-400 (R)There's more fur detail in the G9 photo. Your Fuji processing is warmer with more contrast. I'd honestly say the differences come down to a $2,000 CAD lens vs a $1,000 CAD lens. He should try renting the Fujinon XF 100-400 and then comparing. Alternatively, put the Olympus 70-300 or Panasonic 100-300 on the G9 and then compare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFUtPeRLVIUReview of lens. Kirk, the author, promises several episodes.

I went from an Oly EM1 with the HG 50-200 F43 plus 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters to an X-T1 and 55-200. It depended on the ISO which looked better but the Fuji mostly looked softer. That was a much more expensive though older lens on the Oly.So back to the same Oly body with the Pany 100-400 (and a couple other lenses) and was pleased with the Pany results over the Fuji. Then the X-T3 came along and when I saw that Fuji put a toy rear LCD on the X-T4, snapped up the T3 with 18-135 and am happy with the switch. The T3 is a vast improvement over the T1 and almost always superior to the Oly. For still subjects, the Oly AF is still more accurate but rarely so.Rented the 70-300 with TC2.0 for a week. Excellent build quality and IQ throughout the range provided it is stopped down 1 stop. Wide open was a bit soft (same for the Pan-Leica though 1/3rd-1/2 stop down is fine). With the TC2.0, the results were very good IF there was enough light to shoot at f/16 or f/22 (f/8-11 before compensating for the TC) and an ISO of no more that 500. It was much sharper up close, softer as the distance increased.I really don't understand the ISO impacts because I can comfortably shoot the 18-135 up to 4000 with only modest noise reduction in Lightroom. But anything over 500 with the 70-300 + TC2 just turned into mush. Perhaps a sensor engineer can explain it.Another poster shared some 70-300 shots with the TC1.4 and I think that's what I'd like to get. Though with the TC at over half the price of the lens, kind of a stretch. In the past, Fuji has periodically offered their better lenses packaged with the TC at an attractive price. My garden can keep me busy while I wait for a deal.

Small update to this thread. Though not a very good one.I ended up going to a camera store and testing out the 100-400mm and the other intermediate length red badged lenses. They were definitely better than what I was seeing from the 70-300mm but I made the mistake of also playing with an EOS R5 and decided to go down that silly and overkill route instead.Thanks for everyone's assistance and ideas in this thread.

Plunder wrote:Small update to this thread. Though not a very good one.I ended up going to a camera store and testing out the 100-400mm and the other intermediate length red badged lenses. They were definitely better than what I was seeing from the 70-300mm but I made the mistake of also playing with an EOS R5 and decided to go down that silly and overkill route instead.Thanks for everyone's assistance and ideas in this thread.If you're going to go all-in, I guess that's one way to do it. Did you play with the Z7 or Z7 II, as well? Nikon is pretty hard to beat in the wildlife space for size with the PF lenses.

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.Fuji and Pana are surprisingly close in C1?But Lr and C1 are very different!Your Lr on the left and the C1 on the rightlr left, c1 rightC1 original both output to 5000 on the wide and 4:3 ratio for better comparison with m43 resolution

unhappymeal wrote:Plunder wrote:Small update to this thread. Though not a very good one.I ended up going to a camera store and testing out the 100-400mm and the other intermediate length red badged lenses. They were definitely better than what I was seeing from the 70-300mm but I made the mistake of also playing with an EOS R5 and decided to go down that silly and overkill route instead.Thanks for everyone's assistance and ideas in this thread.If you're going to go all-in, I guess that's one way to do it. Did you play with the Z7 or Z7 II, as well? Nikon is pretty hard to beat in the wildlife space for size with the PF lenses.My wife has an EOS R so I figured if I was going to be stupid I may as well at least be stupid and be able to share lenses... I have quite a soft spot for Nikon film cameras but I don't think I've ever actually held a Nikon digital somehow.And-roid 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.Fuji and Pana are surprisingly close in C1?But Lr and C1 are very different!Your Lr on the left and the C1 on the rightlr left, c1 rightC1 original both output to 5000 on the wide and 4:3 ratio for better comparison with m43 resolutionYeah okay they do look far more comparable in those samples using C1. Not too proud to say my money setting on fire adventure may have been a little hasty based on this.  Did you need to do much fiddling with adjustments in order to achieve this?

Plunder wrote:unhappymeal wrote:Plunder wrote:Small update to this thread. Though not a very good one.I ended up going to a camera store and testing out the 100-400mm and the other intermediate length red badged lenses. They were definitely better than what I was seeing from the 70-300mm but I made the mistake of also playing with an EOS R5 and decided to go down that silly and overkill route instead.Thanks for everyone's assistance and ideas in this thread.If you're going to go all-in, I guess that's one way to do it. Did you play with the Z7 or Z7 II, as well? Nikon is pretty hard to beat in the wildlife space for size with the PF lenses.My wife has an EOS R so I figured if I was going to be stupid I may as well at least be stupid and be able to share lenses... I have quite a soft spot for Nikon film cameras but I don't think I've ever actually held a Nikon digital somehow.And-roid 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.Fuji and Pana are surprisingly close in C1?But Lr and C1 are very different!Your Lr on the left and the C1 on the rightlr left, c1 rightC1 original both output to 5000 on the wide and 4:3 ratio for better comparison with m43 resolutionYeah okay they do look far more comparable in those samples using C1. Not too proud to say my money setting on fire adventure may have been a little hasty based on this. Did you need to do much fiddling with adjustments in order to achieve this?That makes perfect sense. If I had someone to share lenses with, I would do that too. Well, my sister does shoot Canon EF, but I would never dream of asking to borrow lenses she uses for her professional work.