He switched over to Nikon Z7 though from the Fuji x series.
I think Nigel switched from Nikon full frame to Fuji before that. At the end of the video, it sounds like he might be going to Fuji medium format (although he did note the weight of the system, so he might be going back to the Fuji X system later
). It looks like the eternal pursuit of the "perfect" camera. But then his goal is to make technically perfect 50" prints of landscapes that can be viewed close up (what would have his conclusion been if he was a street or documentary shooter?). It looks like the optics are the limiting factor, not the sensor size or resolution--at least that is his conclusion (and the Fuji GFX prime was just going to perform better then either of the less expensive zooms).
What would be a really interesting comparison is if each one of those 50" prints were hung at a separate location and you had the viewers at that location rate the quality of the image on a scale. Without a comparison and a broad selection of viewers would any of those prints get a higher ranking than the others based on their merits alone? And even in the video, Nigel was making very subjective determinations on things like detail and rendering that could have easily been explained because the light had changed during the exposures.
While we have sort of come the the same conclusion, but with a different result (I took up the Fuji X, but I hung on to my MFD gear, so I have the best of both worlds). I think the bottom line is, at least for me, if I had to present my work in an exhibition, could I present high-quality images to the audience? Given my experience (and I have been shooting and printing images for decades and not just for myself, but for clients such as other artists and museums), the photographer's control of the process will be a far more important factor in that than the equipment per se. I also know the equipment is not irrelevant. If I need to meet his criteria of a technically perfect print at 50", I would be shooting MFD with excellent prime lenses. But then I am solving a technical problem, not an aesthetic one. And no matter if I am working with APSC or MFD, I still need to apply my skills to create an aesthetically pleasing image. 19th century photography is technically inferior, but not aesthetically inferior--whether you like it or not.
Sorry for the long post. I have been thinking about this for some time. We think of photographic quality as a single dimension pointing toward better technical quality. We seldom talk about the perception of that work. Yes, you can maximize technical quality, but will that be either perceptible or important. I think when you have to get to close views of 50" prints to detect difference with direct comparison, you are really getting to extremes. This really says to me that my equipment is not the real limitation to the quality of my work.
