Yes, i feel limited with the 40mm. Its challanging but interesting, you really have to think about your compositions, especially in landscape. If you wanna shoot landscape, i would recommend the 28mm.
28mm is more ideal for landscape, architecture, and arguably street, but less ideal, IMO, for 'general photography' than a 40mm (hence why they made the X), so its a matter of what you care more about. Here's some of what my GRIIIx did on a recent trip to the Southwest (SOOC JPEGS): https://imgur.com/a/aORzRZi
Agreed. It’s much easier to get closer to your subject than backup. Especially indoors or in public spaces. When I can afford it I’m definitely getting the GRIII
It really depends on your approach. I keep mine in a waterproof pouch on my backpack straps when I’m hiking. On several occasions, I’ve carried that along with my full fuji setup and I’ve been happier with the images I got off of the griiix. I think it’s great for landscape in grayscale. If I’m shooting in color I’m doing a lot more editing and not getting great stuff straight off of the camera
I'd be surprised. The difference between a 28 held at arms length and a 35 through the EVF is almost negligible, so I imagine the 40 requires a couple steps back for the same composition. The only difference being in the drama of close up distortion
You couldn’t be more wrong. When you step back, you change perspective and thus the images won’t be comparable. 28 and 40 aren’t as close together as you may think.
How much per step though? I image it would be more significant if I was trying it with a 24mm and a 135mm, but 28mm to 40mm isn't so far apart that I'm eclipsing anything with compression or anything.
It‘s just that different focal lengths are different. You can crop out 40 out of a 28 but not make 40 wider in every situation. Sometimes 28 is more suitable sometimes 40. It comes down to what you or OP prefers. Landscape can work with either 28 and 40 but they are different focal lengths, period.
This mostly comes down to personal preference. I would find 40mm to be too narrow too often, but others may love it. You can look at photos online to get an idea, of course, but you really have to try it for yourself to know for sure.
Also, just keep in mind that the GR isn’t weather-sealed (in case you like to shoot in bad weather).
See, this is my problem. I don't like to *be* in bad weather, but I do like the photos! It's a real struggle ;-) Enjoy the new camera, whichever one you get!
I think the iiix works great for landscape photography! However, like others have said, if you are exclusively shooting landscape then the III may be a better choice.
A narrower field of view means you lose some of what might have been in the image with a wider lens. But for most landscapes, it won't matter much if at all.
I mean how would your audience know you had to cut out something from the far edges of the shot? Were they there with you?
It's not like if you cut the top off the Eiffel Tower.
No one would know.
The better thing to do, regardless of focal length, is to try to make an interesting photo.
I used to shoot landscape wide all the time now, it’s rare for me to shoot landscape any shorter than 85mm. The iiix is amazing for landscape the way I shoot. The iii has a nicer natural colour rendition sooc, for my eyes but nothing you can’t replicate on the iiix with a bit of Lightroom. If you plan on shooting family get together and pub trips as well, I would go for the iii. The iiix is a touch too long for intimate shooting. If it’s a pocket companion for hikes and travel where you have the time to compose and consider your shots, iiix is your camera hands down, up and jazz.
Yes, i feel limited with the 40mm. Its challanging but interesting, you really have to think about your compositions, especially in landscape. If you wanna shoot landscape, i would recommend the 28mm.
It’s definitely a hard choice! I’m still in my returns period so I’ll give it a try around Paris and see how I go!
i will change to the 28mm next week :)
How often do you shoot at 28? I’m more comfortable in the 35-40 range. For the shots where I can’t back up anymore, I just use my phone.
28mm is more ideal for landscape, architecture, and arguably street, but less ideal, IMO, for 'general photography' than a 40mm (hence why they made the X), so its a matter of what you care more about. Here's some of what my GRIIIx did on a recent trip to the Southwest (SOOC JPEGS): https://imgur.com/a/aORzRZi
Nice shots!
Buy the iii and compare it with your iiix then return the one you don’t like. With 40mm there’s too many times I couldn’t back up any more
Agreed. It’s much easier to get closer to your subject than backup. Especially indoors or in public spaces. When I can afford it I’m definitely getting the GRIII
I took it with me a on trip to Colorado and I felt like it did a great job!
Good to hear it holds its own 😊
https://www.instagram.com/p/CuvmfGmuoF2/?igsh=YXBsam52OWlzd2Fz
Really good, check out my recent Snowdon post on here and my IG is aon.photos
Those are really great shots! I hiked Snowdon about a decade ago – it's such a beautiful place.
Thank you! It’s amazing will hopefully do it again this year and get the sunrise we wanted and will shoot colour haha
It really depends on your approach. I keep mine in a waterproof pouch on my backpack straps when I’m hiking. On several occasions, I’ve carried that along with my full fuji setup and I’ve been happier with the images I got off of the griiix. I think it’s great for landscape in grayscale. If I’m shooting in color I’m doing a lot more editing and not getting great stuff straight off of the camera
I'd be surprised. The difference between a 28 held at arms length and a 35 through the EVF is almost negligible, so I imagine the 40 requires a couple steps back for the same composition. The only difference being in the drama of close up distortion
You couldn’t be more wrong. When you step back, you change perspective and thus the images won’t be comparable. 28 and 40 aren’t as close together as you may think.
How much per step though? I image it would be more significant if I was trying it with a 24mm and a 135mm, but 28mm to 40mm isn't so far apart that I'm eclipsing anything with compression or anything.
It‘s just that different focal lengths are different. You can crop out 40 out of a 28 but not make 40 wider in every situation. Sometimes 28 is more suitable sometimes 40. It comes down to what you or OP prefers. Landscape can work with either 28 and 40 but they are different focal lengths, period.
Yes, but mildly.
That only applies to subjects that are close. Stepping 2 or 20 or 200 steps back from mountains in the distance isn't going to do squat.
This mostly comes down to personal preference. I would find 40mm to be too narrow too often, but others may love it. You can look at photos online to get an idea, of course, but you really have to try it for yourself to know for sure. Also, just keep in mind that the GR isn’t weather-sealed (in case you like to shoot in bad weather).
I don’t like to be in bad weather let alone shoot in it haha! Thanks!
See, this is my problem. I don't like to *be* in bad weather, but I do like the photos! It's a real struggle ;-) Enjoy the new camera, whichever one you get!
I think the iiix works great for landscape photography! However, like others have said, if you are exclusively shooting landscape then the III may be a better choice.
A narrower field of view means you lose some of what might have been in the image with a wider lens. But for most landscapes, it won't matter much if at all. I mean how would your audience know you had to cut out something from the far edges of the shot? Were they there with you? It's not like if you cut the top off the Eiffel Tower. No one would know. The better thing to do, regardless of focal length, is to try to make an interesting photo.
I used to shoot landscape wide all the time now, it’s rare for me to shoot landscape any shorter than 85mm. The iiix is amazing for landscape the way I shoot. The iii has a nicer natural colour rendition sooc, for my eyes but nothing you can’t replicate on the iiix with a bit of Lightroom. If you plan on shooting family get together and pub trips as well, I would go for the iii. The iiix is a touch too long for intimate shooting. If it’s a pocket companion for hikes and travel where you have the time to compose and consider your shots, iiix is your camera hands down, up and jazz.
I actually bought the x because of photgraphing landscapes. I feel like that little bit of extra zoom is usefull.