A conundrum. Stay with Fuji or give in to Full Frame.....

This is true to a point, however it’s the time and process that it takes to get a file to where I want it to be where Color science does matter.

I know that Fuji’s RAW colours are a lot closer to where I want them to be than any other camera I’ve shot (Canon does come close though) which in turn means a lot less processing for me.

Of course this is purely subjective but it’s certainly a consideration for me.

Having had a good think since posting this thread (and crunching some numbers) it probably does make more (financial) sense to stay on the Fuji side at present. If I source a 16-55 and upgrade to the X-T3 I’ll have a more than capable system for a fairly minimal cost.

I also think that part of the reason that this has all come to mind is that I’ve had very little time to actually shoot lately. And that means more time pouring over Internet forums and the like which does nothing to help GAS.....

I’m also going to take the X-T2 out tomorrow morning to get reacquainted with it and I think that’s something that’s long overdue!
Sony's colour science has improved with every revision, I disliked the earlier Sony's colour, it improved with the a7rii and is great on the MK3. I'm fussy about skin tones. I'd suggest you try find some raw files and tweak.

View: https://youtu.be/EMfCDujQywY
 
Last edited:
Then you could buy the cheaper Fe 50 1.8 which is CHEAPER than Nikon's 50mm 1.8g! Don't compare a Zeiss to a 50mm 1.8g.
I was referring to Nikon's Z 50mm (y)
 
Not really depends on the quality which it doesn't disappoint on. You can't compare it to a nifty fifty.
True, it does all depend on quality. Trouble with the Z series, like the FE series when it started, is that they clearly start with premium lenses meaning that the system is very expensive to buy into.
 
Sony a7RII? A bargain now and easily capable of the subjects you're shooting. I don't get the obsession with colour, I shot an a7III alongside an a7RII for a year and the output was pretty much exactly the same, I processed them the same and I'd never know which was which when delivering a wedding.
 
The downside with the Sony system for me is the size and price of the lenses. Granted the body is small but bar a couple (28-70 + 28mm etc) most of the lenses are just huge.

If you are a FF DSLR shooter moving to Sony you will probably be fine but moving from APS-C or M43 the difference is huge ! The selection of lenses although getting better is still limiting.

I was in a similar position though - I just had to try FF and bought a Sony. There were occasions when I could see a difference (inside churches at high ISO in particular) but most of the time I couldn't see any difference (maybe I'm not a good enough photographer ?) Like most things these days where the internet rules, FF has been over-hyped slightly. In saying that I wouldn't argue with anyone who said they needed FF - its horses for courses...

So I'm back with Fuji and so far enjoying it. The camera is just so much nicer to use - a cliche I know but it feels so much more like a camera ! It makes me want to use it. The 10-24 I have bought to replace the 16-35 is soooo much nicer to use. It just feels right and I didnt realise just what a difference internal zooming (is that a term?) makes !!

And yes I didn't mind the Sony colours but for a mainly JPEG shooter the Fuji film simulations really take some beating.

Of course I wouldnt rule out a fit of GAS in the future !! The Nikon Z lenses look a bit smaller but I think I'd wait for them to catch up with Sony in other areas...
 
Sony a7RII? A bargain now and easily capable of the subjects you're shooting. I don't get the obsession with colour, I shot an a7III alongside an a7RII for a year and the output was pretty much exactly the same, I processed them the same and I'd never know which was which when delivering a wedding.

Me neither. On an almost serious note :D

Some men aren't too good at distinguishing colour whereas some women can be excellent at it. Those of us who have a lady in their life who can be persuaded to look at pictures and give a serious opinion could maybe gain some insight and help.
 
True, it does all depend on quality. Trouble with the Z series, like the FE series when it started, is that they clearly start with premium lenses meaning that the system is very expensive to buy into.

Indeed. Same goes for EOS RF and Panasonic L.
At least with Canikon you have the adapter support for those who already have DSLR lenses. There is no such thing for L and sigma glass are all HUGE. One more reason I don't think Panasonic will sell.
 
Last edited:
The downside with the Sony system for me is the size and price of the lenses. Granted the body is small but bar a couple (28-70 + 28mm etc) most of the lenses are just huge.

If you are a FF DSLR shooter moving to Sony you will probably be fine but moving from APS-C or M43 the difference is huge ! The selection of lenses although getting better is still limiting.

I was in a similar position though - I just had to try FF and bought a Sony. There were occasions when I could see a difference (inside churches at high ISO in particular) but most of the time I couldn't see any difference (maybe I'm not a good enough photographer ?) Like most things these days where the internet rules, FF has been over-hyped slightly. In saying that I wouldn't argue with anyone who said they needed FF - its horses for courses...

So I'm back with Fuji and so far enjoying it. The camera is just so much nicer to use - a cliche I know but it feels so much more like a camera ! It makes me want to use it. The 10-24 I have bought to replace the 16-35 is soooo much nicer to use. It just feels right and I didnt realise just what a difference internal zooming (is that a term?) makes !!

And yes I didn't mind the Sony colours but for a mainly JPEG shooter the Fuji film simulations really take some beating.

Of course I wouldnt rule out a fit of GAS in the future !! The Nikon Z lenses look a bit smaller but I think I'd wait for them to catch up with Sony in other areas...

I think the big lens thing is becoming common as lenses get better. Look at the latest and best lenses from just about any manufacturer (Sigma Art?) and they're probably going to be better than what came before but also bigger and heavier. This is doubtless driven by IS and AF demands but also by lenses getting better at wide apertures and becoming less prone to displaying optical issues as people want perfect lenses with sharpness across the frame from wide open these days.

I'm mostly into the 24 to 85mm range and with the Sony 35mm f2.8 or 55mm f1.8 I don't find my A7 significantly bigger than my GX80 and GX9 with similar FoV lenses. The Sony A7 with 85mm f1.8 is significantly bigger than my Panasonic cameras with Oly 45mm f1.8 though and I'd expect the new Canon and Nikon FF mirrorless systems to have very good but larger lenses too. So I think you can keep FF bulk and weight down if you're most interested in the 35/50mm sort of range. With something like a f2.8 zoom the FF kit from any manufacturer is probably going to be noticeably bigger, heavier and more expensive.
 
The downside with the Sony system for me is the size and price of the lenses. Granted the body is small but bar a couple (28-70 + 28mm etc) most of the lenses are just huge.

If you are a FF DSLR shooter moving to Sony you will probably be fine but moving from APS-C or M43 the difference is huge ! The selection of lenses although getting better is still limiting.

I was in a similar position though - I just had to try FF and bought a Sony. There were occasions when I could see a difference (inside churches at high ISO in particular) but most of the time I couldn't see any difference (maybe I'm not a good enough photographer ?) Like most things these days where the internet rules, FF has been over-hyped slightly. In saying that I wouldn't argue with anyone who said they needed FF - its horses for courses...

So I'm back with Fuji and so far enjoying it. The camera is just so much nicer to use - a cliche I know but it feels so much more like a camera ! It makes me want to use it. The 10-24 I have bought to replace the 16-35 is soooo much nicer to use. It just feels right and I didnt realise just what a difference internal zooming (is that a term?) makes !!

And yes I didn't mind the Sony colours but for a mainly JPEG shooter the Fuji film simulations really take some beating.

Of course I wouldnt rule out a fit of GAS in the future !! The Nikon Z lenses look a bit smaller but I think I'd wait for them to catch up with Sony in other areas...

Most of the lenses are huge?

That’s not really true though is it?

24mm G.M is the lightest 24mm f/1.4 available from any of the manufacturers.

The 85mm f/1.8 and 55mm are relatively tiny as well.

As are plenty of other lenses, the only lenses that are overly big are the the Sigma Art lenses because of the built in adaptor and the pro G.M lenses.

For example though you could have the very light weight and small Tamron 28-76 f/2.8 instead of the bigger heavier Sony 24-70 G.M.

At the wide end the 16-35 f/4 is also tiny for this type of lens.

The Samyang 24mm & 35mm are mft small.
 
Last edited:
Most of the lenses are huge?

That’s not really true though is it?

24mm G.M is the lightest 24mm f/1.4 available from any of the manufacturers.

The 85mm f/1.8 and 55mm are relatively tiny as well.

As are plenty of other lenses, the only lenses that are overly big are the the Sigma Art lenses because of the built in adaptor and the pro G.M lenses.

For example though you could have the very light weight and small Tamron 28-76 f/2.8 instead of the bigger heavier Sony 24-70 G.M.

At the wide end the 16-35 f/4 is also tiny for this type of lens.

The Samyang 24mm & 35mm are mft small.

just to add (more small-ish lenses) - FE50, 50mm macro, 24-70 f4, laowa 15mm f2, all the voigtlander primes.

yet to come - tamron 17-28mm f2.8, samyang 45mm f1.8

there are plenty of small lenses available. FF doesn't have to be big and huge until you get into telephoto range (even then if you are willing to adapt you can get small lenses)
 
Last edited:
I've jumped between Sony and Fuji (a7RII and a7III, and X-T2) and for all but fairly extreme circumstances there really isn't that much in it.

The major concession with Fuji if you like the 35mm focal length is that the Sigma 35 Art is kinda dreamy on the Sony, you get the wide-ish look but still with pretty good separation wide open. The Fuji 23mm 1.4 is a nice lens but it doesn't come close in terms of 'look' in my opinion.

I find it far less of an issue with the Fuji 56mm 1.2 and 90mm f2, but I definitely miss the look of a 35mm 1.4 on full-frame.
 
I've jumped between Sony and Fuji (a7RII and a7III, and X-T2) and for all but fairly extreme circumstances there really isn't that much in it.

The major concession with Fuji if you like the 35mm focal length is that the Sigma 35 Art is kinda dreamy on the Sony, you get the wide-ish look but still with pretty good separation wide open. The Fuji 23mm 1.4 is a nice lens but it doesn't come close in terms of 'look' in my opinion.

I find it far less of an issue with the Fuji 56mm 1.2 and 90mm f2, but I definitely miss the look of a 35mm 1.4 on full-frame.

See this is the thing, when I shot FF before the 35 1.4 was one of my absolute favourite lenses, and as nice as the 23 1.4 is, as you've rightfully stated, it's simply not the same.

I've also noticed that there's a fairly affordable Samyang 85 1.4 in the Sony mount which is something that would also tempt me.
 
See this is the thing, when I shot FF before the 35 1.4 was one of my absolute favourite lenses, and as nice as the 23 1.4 is, as you've rightfully stated, it's simply not the same.

I've also noticed that there's a fairly affordable Samyang 85 1.4 in the Sony mount which is something that would also tempt me.

the samyang is new and initial reviews seem positive. AF on Samyang lenses so far have not been on par with Sony's lenses. So that is something to watch out for.
Samyang 35mm f1.4 is also rather good in terms of IQ. Sigma ART is great too (I had one on DSLRs, not on e-mount).
 
Last edited:
Hmmm about those lens sizes.

23 f2 / 35 f2.8, 35 f2 / 50 f1.8.

56 f1.2 / 85 f1.8, 90 f2 / 135 f1.8.

16-55 2.8 / 24-70 f4, 50 - 150 2.8, 70-200 f4.

Screen Shot 2019-04-21 at 14.20.06.pngScreen Shot 2019-04-21 at 14.21.24.pngScreen Shot 2019-04-21 at 14.22.41.png
 
I was a long time Canon digi user up to 5D mk iii but had always loved my Nikon FE2/F3/FM3a for film work.

So when XT1 came out it was a fulfillment of my dream to have a digi version of an FE2 and I loved it. IQ not a patch on the 5Diii but so much nicer to use, IMO. I never got rid of the 5Diii or glass but used it less and less as first the T2 then the T3 appeared. The XT3 is a superb camera and this and my GR are my go to cameras these days.

And yet, and yet...When I pick up the 5Diii and take pictures with it, I think I can still take a 'better' picture with FF.

At the photography show, I picked up a full frame Canon digi for the first time and wasn't convinced with what I thought was the 'R', it didn't just feel right in the hand. Tried the one next to it and that felt really nice. Turned out this was the R and the first one I'd picked up was the RP! Took some pics with the R and I was really impressed with the VF and the IQ of the shots.

Seems like Canon could do with some more firmware updates to catch up with some of the usability of the competition but I suspect the 2nd gen models may be calling me, if not an R for the time being if I just can't wait...
 
I've been looking into Sony for a while, as there is definitely some nice lenses in their range that I'd love to try like the 85 1.8. It seems Sony is only really expensive if you're lusting after their pro G master series, the 1.4 primes and 2.8 zooms - but there's plenty of budget options, you really don't need the higher end gear unless you are a working pro. Samyang primes look decent from the reviews I've seen, they're not amazing and probably not a patch on the pricier Sony versions but they're not bad either. Tiny, light, cheap and very usable, all you need from budget lenses really
 
I've been looking into Sony for a while, as there is definitely some nice lenses in their range that I'd love to try like the 85 1.8. It seems Sony is only really expensive if you're lusting after their pro G master series, the 1.4 primes and 2.8 zooms - but there's plenty of budget options, you really don't need the higher end gear unless you are a working pro. Samyang primes look decent from the reviews I've seen, they're not amazing and probably not a patch on the pricier Sony versions but they're not bad either. Tiny, light, cheap and very usable, all you need from budget lenses really

Well the Samyang 35 1.4 performs better than the Zeiss 35 1.4 if you're after sharpness across the frame wide open and CA performance.
 
If I were still working There is no doubt that I would move to FF. Most likely Sony. But also keep Fuji for Hobby work.
Thankfully I am retired, and the small lighter Fuji cameras suit me just fine.
I will probably add the X-T30 to the collection at some point. (probably when they find their way into the Refurbished store.)
 
If I were still working There is no doubt that I would move to FF. Most likely Sony. But also keep Fuji for Hobby work.
Thankfully I am retired, and the small lighter Fuji cameras suit me just fine.
I will probably add the X-T30 to the collection at some point. (probably when they find their way into the Refurbished store.)

Cracking deals on the XT30 atm on Adorama US, doesn't seem to be anything similar here. They have various packages but what looks to be the best is the XT30 + 35mm F2 with a bunch of extras [SD card, cleaning kit etc] for $998 - you pretty much get the lens free! I'd be very tempted if a deal like that was happening over this side
 
Cracking deals on the XT30 atm on Adorama US, doesn't seem to be anything similar here. They have various packages but what looks to be the best is the XT30 + 35mm F2 with a bunch of extras [SD card, cleaning kit etc] for $998 - you pretty much get the lens free! I'd be very tempted if a deal like that was happening over this side
When I get one it will be body only>>>>:)
 
Well. For better or worse I’ve decided that I’m gonna have to scratch the itch.

Whether or not it’s the right decision only time time will tell, but I know myself and it’ll only bug me unless I do it.

So the Fuji gear is in the classifieds (subtle plug), and once the switch is done I’ll report back with my findings!
 
Well. For better or worse I’ve decided that I’m gonna have to scratch the itch.

Whether or not it’s the right decision only time time will tell, but I know myself and it’ll only bug me unless I do it.

So the Fuji gear is in the classifieds (subtle plug), and once the switch is done I’ll report back with my findings!

Good choice and good luck. I've been really impressed, I switched a lot in the past but haven't felt the urge at all to leave Sony's latest offerings.
 
Well. For better or worse I’ve decided that I’m gonna have to scratch the itch.

Whether or not it’s the right decision only time time will tell, but I know myself and it’ll only bug me unless I do it.

So the Fuji gear is in the classifieds (subtle plug), and once the switch is done I’ll report back with my findings!

The only option you had imo - you can ask the question but you will only answer it by trying it yourself !

Hopefully, you will love it and won't look back - otherwise like me you will feel that you got just a bit taken in by the hype !
 
Hmmm about those lens sizes.

23 f2 / 35 f2.8, 35 f2 / 50 f1.8.

56 f1.2 / 85 f1.8, 90 f2 / 135 f1.8.

16-55 2.8 / 24-70 f4, 50 - 150 2.8, 70-200 f4.

View attachment 242945View attachment 242946View attachment 242947

I can see your point but you can present evidence that works in your favour - and thats what you've done !

Off the top of my head and without looking try comparing a Fuji 16mm f2.8 v Sony equivilant or an 18-55 f2.8 v Sony or even better a 55-200 or 55-230 to a Sony equivalent ?
 
I can see your point but you can present evidence that works in your favour - and thats what you've done !

Off the top of my head and without looking try comparing a Fuji 16mm f2.8 v Sony equivilant or an 18-55 f2.8 v Sony or even better a 55-200 or 55-230 to a Sony equivalent ?

Fuji 16mm f2.8 v samyang 24mm f2,8 AF
Do you mean 18-55 f2.8-4? which is roughly equivalent to sony 28-70mm.

But in telephoto you do make a fair amount of weight savings.
 
I can see your point but you can present evidence that works in your favour - and thats what you've done !

Off the top of my head and without looking try comparing a Fuji 16mm f2.8 v Sony equivilant or an 18-55 f2.8 v Sony or even better a 55-200 or 55-230 to a Sony equivalent ?

:LOL: Thats funny, I chose a lot of popular focal lengths. 24/35/50/85/135/ 28-70 / 24-70 and 70-200.

Heres another couple for you then, seeing as you cant be bothered to back up your comments with any facts.

Screen Shot 2019-04-22 at 11.17.01.png

Screen Shot 2019-04-22 at 11.19.47.png
 
Last edited:
I can see your point but you can present evidence that works in your favour - and thats what you've done !

Off the top of my head and without looking try comparing a Fuji 16mm f2.8 v Sony equivilant or an 18-55 f2.8 v Sony or even better a 55-200 or 55-230 to a Sony equivalent ?

Maybe we should use the evidence that's most applicable to us?

For me even between RF style MFT and the Sony A7 there's honestly not a lot of difference in bulk and weight until I get to the Sony A7 + 85mm f1.8 v RF style MFT with 45mm f1.8 but at my most used focal lengths of 35 and 50mm there's honestly not enough in it to matter. YMMV but generally when going up in format size image quality goes up and this needs to be balanced against any increase in size, weight and cost.

You don't seem to see enough increase in IQ from APS-C to FF but the fact that you're on a forum like this means that you care about the gear and results more than the average non forum posting population so I do hope you can see how someone else may come to the conclusion that moving from APS-C to FF is worthwhile, even if it's only to scratch an itch.

I'll probably always have MFT but I'd hate to not have a compact FF kit to get the best IQ I can get at the price I'm willing to pay and I'd not be happy to go back to APS-C (which I had for something like 10 years) now.
 
The kit lens does seem to get a slating. Would you say it’s acceptable on the A7iii? It’s really my least shot length but I would have to have it as my ‘zoom’ for a good while before I could afford to upgrade it if I did switch.

I know it’s not going to stand up to the 16-55 but given that it’s only about £80 when purchased with the A7iii I’d not expect it too.

I do forget sometimes that 3.5 -5.6 on FF is totally different than on APSC.

I know that (as I said) technically staying with Fuji makes sense but the itch is still there!

Sorry I missed this.

I have the kit lens and use it only very occasionally on my original A7 as I'm mostly a prime guy but I have no complaints. I think it's a good variable aperture standard range zoom and perhaps even a very good one all things considered. At the price I think it'd almost be rude not to buy it :D which is how I came to get one in the first place as I just though "Why not?" I thought I'd use it occasionally which is what I do but being honest that kit lens and a fast prime would be enough for me.

If you Google some reviews you'll probably read that it's sharp or even very sharp in the central area from wide open. Stopped down a bit I have no complaints about its throughout the frame performance.
 
Last edited:
:LOL: Thats funny, I chose a lot of popular focal lengths. 24/35/50/85/135/ 28-70 / 24-70 and 70-200.

Heres another couple for you then, seeing as you cant be bothered to back up your comments with any facts.

View attachment 243034

View attachment 243035

I really don't want to take this too seriously - its a nice day and the weather is lovely !!

I wouldnt argue with anyone that ones to shoot Sony or Nikon or anything really - I was just offering an alternative view to yours - thats all - just different to you, you can accept that or you can get ever so slightly narked !!!

And with regards to your 2 examples I'm not sure they are particularly good ones. The Fuji 16mm is far superior to the Samyang and with regards to the kit zooms - the Fuji is f2.8 and has a slightly longer reach.

But again this is only my opinion.
 
Maybe we should use the evidence that's most applicable to us?

For me even between RF style MFT and the Sony A7 there's honestly not a lot of difference in bulk and weight until I get to the Sony A7 + 85mm f1.8 v RF style MFT with 45mm f1.8 but at my most used focal lengths of 35 and 50mm there's honestly not enough in it to matter. YMMV but generally when going up in format size image quality goes up and this needs to be balanced against any increase in size, weight and cost.

You don't seem to see enough increase in IQ from APS-C to FF but the fact that you're on a forum like this means that you care about the gear and results more than the average non forum posting population so I do hope you can see how someone else may come to the conclusion that moving from APS-C to FF is worthwhile, even if it's only to scratch an itch.

I'll probably always have MFT but I'd hate to not have a compact FF kit to get the best IQ I can get at the price I'm willing to pay and I'd not be happy to go back to APS-C (which I had for something like 10 years) now.

Yes I agree but it wasn't me who has an issue with someone elses opinion !

I did state - 'In saying that I wouldn't argue with anyone who said they needed FF - its horses for courses...'
 
Last edited:
I really don't want to take this too seriously - its a nice day and the weather is lovely !!

I wouldnt argue with anyone that ones to shoot Sony or Nikon or anything really - I was just offering an alternative view to yours - thats all - just different to you, you can accept that or you can get ever so slightly narked !!!

And with regards to your 2 examples I'm not sure they are particularly good ones. The Fuji 16mm is far superior to the Samyang and with regards to the kit zooms - the Fuji is f2.8 and has a slightly longer reach.

But again this is only my opinion.

horses for courses really. There is definitely weight saving to be had with certain combinations like XF16-80mm vs. my sony 24-105mm. Sure sony provides shallower DoF but I am not really shooting an f4 zoom for much of that!

I am a bit tempted to go down the route of fuji x-t30+16-80 as my walkaround combo and keep primes on my sony for everything else. But that involves keeping two systems :(
 
Yes I agree but it wasn't me who has an issue with someone elses opinion !

I did state - 'In saying that I wouldn't argue with anyone who said they needed FF - its horses for courses...'

You said the downside of the Sony system was the size of lenses. I just posted up some examples to show thats not the case (mainly for people who don't know the options), in some cases Sony had the aperture advantage or the same aperture and in some cases Fuji had an advantage BUT the apertures were equivalent in those cases. Sure, in your example an F2.8 lens lets in more light, but the Sony has more than a stop advantage in low light sensor performance and in terms of DOF its the same as an F4 lens on the Sony.

Im not annoyed, just showing available options which is useful when considering different systems.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top