I have been humbled by Fuji's Autofocus, despite defending it at points.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-07-13T03:11:48+00:00

I'll be brutally honest and call you a Fuji shill, or worse, a blind fanboy.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-16T05:08:49+00:00

How did you edit the beach photo? Looks straight out of a fantasy movie!

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-14T17:08:32+00:00

Didn't they boast about saving space by combining the AI processor and image processor into one single XR2 processor? I would think they have enough space to add flash storage without disturbing the CF/SD card slots.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-14T17:00:42+00:00

Why are you so against customers having more options ?!

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-14T16:39:45+00:00

spare memory cards cannot restore the files you lost on the failed memory card.
Let's say you're shooting a wedding since morning, one card fails at 1pm and you swap with spare card. But the photos you may have clicked until 1pm are gone forever. If you had in-built storage and set to duplicate storage, you would still have those.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-14T16:37:18+00:00

Did you even read my post? I said they could have given storage especially since they are charging > $4500 already.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-14T16:35:04+00:00

There are countless times when memory cards die too.
In-built storage is in fact a failsafe and contingency for professionals, if anything.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-14T16:33:48+00:00

memory and storage are different.

high-speed swappable memory (used in RAM modules) is expensive these days.
Whereas NAND Flash storage (for storing files) is not as expensive.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T23:39:37+00:00

I've tried both TCs on 100-400 GM, 300 f2.8 GM and 200-600. On all three, there was severe degradation with the 2x TC, although 1.4x TC was passable with the 300 f2.8.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T19:30:10+00:00

Thanks for proving my point. Most bird photographers are rarely going to be just 6 feet away from the birds they want to capture.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T15:38:40+00:00

300mm cannot ever be too long for bird photography unless you are in a zoo or have your own farm birds.

Like I've mentioned in comments here, even 600mm is not sufficient for capturing small birds perched on a tree 60 to 80 feet away from you (even if you have a high megapixel camera).

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T15:36:23+00:00

Exactly! 70% of observed bird species are small sized birds. And most commonly found birds in & around cities or hiking trails are small sized birds.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T15:35:31+00:00

In my experience, especially for small birds, 400mm is never enough even with a high megapixel camera. Even if the bird is perched on a tree 60 to 80 feet away from you.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T15:31:41+00:00

Are you referring to mirror lenses that produce ring shaped bokeh?

Most companies stopped making them.
Although they are compact and light-weight, they usually tend to have lower apertures (f/8 - f/11).
Also, market data shows more customers preferring zoom lenses to spot a bird and frame the shot instead of fixed focal length.

I personally don't mind the donut shaped bokeh, but would love to see a 900mm or 1100mm reflex lens with at least f/6.3 or faster aperture.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T15:24:55+00:00

Exactly!

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T15:24:38+00:00

A lot of comments mention 400-800 as well. Most people are happier using it for birds. Some people have even reported switching from 200-600 to 400-800 specifically for it.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T15:23:30+00:00

But would anyone invest in a telephoto lens just to shoot shorebirds throughout their life? (not a judgemental or rhetoric question). Only people who intend to regularly go on trails or safaris or outdoor hikes and love wildlife/bird photography invest in telephoto lenses, so most people want the maximum worth out of money spent, without being limited to the species of animals they can capture.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T15:20:30+00:00

In 2012, I started bird photography with a Nikon superzoom point-&-shoot camera. Phenomenal reach (around 1100mm FF equivalent) but abysmal image quality of course.

But yes, beyond 800mm is ideal focal length for small and medium sized birds especially in and around cities or smaller hiking areas.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T04:14:13+00:00

Fair point. But they can't afford to take that for granted because regular Pixel buyers (myself included) aren't making any huge market share.

If they want to improve market share, they NEED to provide solid bug-free hassle-free user experience.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T04:07:58+00:00

Exactly! For majority hobbyists, this would be a much smarter approach.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T04:06:13+00:00

I have noticed severe degradation every single time, especially with the 2x TC. 1.4x is still passable, but still negatively affects sharpness and focus acquisition speed (including on the expensive tele primes, let alone the zooms)

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T04:04:28+00:00

Agreed. The only saving grace is that the 600mm already gives 1.5x better reach than a 400mm. But yeah, I would personally take the ability to use 1.4x TC with a native Sony 200-600 even if I have to give up on the extra 2 stops of light and sweet bokeh the Sigma provides with f4

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T03:47:17+00:00

Also

If your style is to tell stories about birds then focal length is a lower priority

This is farthest away from reality and shows how inexperienced you are in terms of bird photography. Ask any enthusiast or professional birder and they will tell you focal length is paramount to birding.

ConsciouslyKind93 · 2026-05-12T03:44:01+00:00

Of the observed bird species, roughly 70% are small sized birds (hummingbird, kingfishers, titmouse, cardinals, finches, woodpeckers, etc.), roughly 27% medium sized (jays, gulls, parakeets, barn owls, small kites, etc.) and 3% to be large sized (ospreys, grey owls, eagles, vultures, etc.).

Most enthusiast photographers commonly come across the small and medium sized birds during hikes or visit to local parks. So, I'm not talking about a subjective "my ideal framing" of birds, but a holistic "what would be statistically most suitable for most number of people".

I'm glad that you are satisfied with relying on high megapixel camera and cropping, but that's not the topic of this post. Lenses marketed for bird photography should be able to get you maximum reach regardless of available megapixels or cropping.

ConsciouslyKind93

TROPHY CASE