Anyone compared the X-T2 vs A7R2?

Raymond Lin

Raymond Lin

I am Groot
Messages
10,030
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
I know its a weird comparison, cost aside, let's say even ignore the lenses. Anyone have any first hand experiences of both cameras?
 
Is there something in specific your wanted to know?
I know there are fair amount of people who have swapped in both directions.
I too owned Fuji at one point but I never really got along with the system.
 
There is a nice blog on the sony here...https://www.35mmc.com/16/01/2017/sony-a7rii-review/

It strikes me the fuji has what is actually needed in a body that is intuitive and delivers the goods in a professional way to a quality clients will love.
The Sony is a bucket of state of the art goodies, that you may never need or get your mind around in a practical way.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The Sony is a bucket of state of the art goodies, that you may never need or get your mind around in a practical way.
Click to expand...

People seem to love the eye detect but the fanciest things I do with my lowly A7 are move the focus point and dial in exposure compensation. All in all though I think that the bells and whistles are worth having if you see them as being free goodies you get when you buy the camera.
 
nandbytes said:
Is there something in specific your wanted to know?
I know there are fair amount of people who have swapped in both directions.
I too owned Fuji at one point but I never really got along with the system.
Click to expand...

Going to Japan later in the year, I am being a pixel snob and want more MP for my photos. I contemplated taking the Canon but this trip I am moving about a lot and the X-T2 would be good for this and would be perfect if it has built in GPS as I like to geo tag all the photos as i go along across Japan.

Also, I want to shoot a bit of video too so the X-T2 and A7R2 would be better too. Because of the stabilisation the A7R2 wins in this and also means I may not need a tripod at all for the trip.

But then again, to shoot Time lapses, the Fuji is easier…...

mickledore said:
Thought you sold your Fuji kit as not doing what you wanted?
Click to expand...

Nope, I sold the F2 lenses but have all the fast primes and 2 bodies. The Fuji is basically my day to day camera.
 
James Pardon said:
View attachment 106518 What do you want to know?
Click to expand...

If you were to pick one for 2 weeks travel trip that invoices street, landscapes, night shots, time lapses and video. Which would you take?

Considering I have 23/35/56 for the Fuji, for the Sony I could choose from Canon fit primes from 20/24/35/50/85/100/135 (all Art or L, so quite large….and will probably take just the 35L)
 
100% fuji for travel. The weight saving and speed of use alone would make me pick it.
 
EVFs are comparable, I wouldn't put anyone better than the other, both very good.
The Fuji is faster in terms of use for things like street photography, the joystick is great for moving AF. Moving AF on the Sony is slow and often you can end up spinning the wheel slightly instead of clicking it to move around and you end up changing iso or shutter type, it's quite sensitive like that.
For portraits that doesn't matter as the Eye-AF is superb on the Sony.
Depending on how you shoot, if you were wandering around while travelling and wanted to quickly turn the camera on and take a shot the Fuji will let you , the Sony you'll have to wait a few seconds before you can take a shot.
 
I got Sony for travel (its one of my main use cases). Personally like the AF better, adaptability and able to AF canon lenses, faster AF (sometimes because fuji lens is slow rather than XT2) and I find processing RAW files easier with Sony. Not to be mention better high ISO, which is further helped with IBIS (I can't carry a tripod on travel everywhere).
i also found for landscapes and cityscapes when processing RAW other non-fuji brands saved more detail.

Anyway with whatever you choose enjoy your trip. Japan is truly awesome place and a lot to take in. I was there 4 years ago for 3 weeks, its the country that made me want to take better pictures and get better at photography. So there is a special place in my heart for Japan :)

p.s. I am also a pixel snob and also a dynamic range snob along with it. This kinda means A7RII is the only option :D
 
Last edited:
AF with adapters is hit and miss with metabones, not bad but no where like native lenses. Agree with the raw processing though, Fuji files seem to take twice as long as A7rii files. Fuji jpegs are nice though if you don't plan on shooting raw
 
James Pardon said:
AF with adapters is hit and miss with metabones, not bad but no where like native lenses. Agree with the raw processing though, Fuji files seem to take twice as long as A7rii files. Fuji jpegs are nice though if you don't plan on shooting raw
Click to expand...

With MC-11 and my main canon lenses (40/2.8, 50/1.4 and 100/2) its pretty snappy and as reliable as native bodies for centre point focus. But tracking is definitely better on native bodies (no comparison here). Also not to mention I don't need worry about micro-focus adjustment either, so focus is spot on most of the time even with my focus and recompose.
Looking to replace it most of these with native glass (there weren't any at the time).
 
I've found it depends on the lens. Sigma 35 1.4 works great, as does 24-70 2.8 and 70-200, 24-105 f4 no point using it. Expensive glass works well :)
Still for travel I'd prefer the much smaller fuji and lens combo
 
James Pardon said:
AF with adapters is hit and miss with metabones, not bad but no where like native lenses. Agree with the raw processing though, Fuji files seem to take twice as long as A7rii files. Fuji jpegs are nice though if you don't plan on shooting raw
Click to expand...

Well, I've not shot Jpeg since 2003 so……food for thought.
 
I've had both, XT2 for most of last year and an A7rii this year, and if its image quality and detail your after there's no contest, the A7rii delivers some of the sharpest, most detailed images of anything I've used (and I include the Medium Format GFX in that) also I see you mentioned GPS, neither camera has that built in sadly.

AF wise the XT2 is better but it depends what your shooting, for travel I don't think you would find the A7rii to be a bother for travel photography.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Going to Japan later in the year, I am being a pixel snob and want more MP for my photos. I contemplated taking the Canon but this trip I am moving about a lot and the X-T2 would be good for this and would be perfect if it has built in GPS as I like to geo tag all the photos as i go along across Japan.

Also, I want to shoot a bit of video too so the X-T2 and A7R2 would be better too. Because of the stabilisation the A7R2 wins in this and also means I may not need a tripod at all for the trip.

But then again, to shoot Time lapses, the Fuji is easier…...



Nope, I sold the F2 lenses but have all the fast primes and 2 bodies. The Fuji is basically my day to day camera.
Click to expand...

Marvellous place, although it will have changed beyond all recognition since I was last there. Japan was the place that launched my career - back in 1976 there weren't many Europeans travelling to Japan other than high flying execs. My photographs on Kodachrome 64 sold all over the world and continued to do so until royalty free started to come on the scene. The contrasts are incredible. Kyoto is a must, as are the highlands. In the intervening years they have had a catastrophic earthquake that flattened Kobe, a nuclear reactor disaster and tidal wave........the economic climate will have changed and so too has the dress code. Americans are quite prevalent now, more so than they were.

You will love it.
 
I've owned both, both have strengths and weaknesses.

The Fuji XT-2 is a cheaper and smaller setup overall when paired with the Fujinon lenses.
The AF and general body responsiveness is better than the Sony A7RII but that doesn't make the Sony less accurate, its AF acquisition is quick.

If you the best possible IQ then the A7RII easily outperforms the XT-2 with its massive 42.2mp RAW files and too end glass.

Both could easily be used for travelling, guess it depends if you need the highest IQ possible with putting up with the more weighty package.
 
Riz_Guru said:
I've owned both, both have strengths and weaknesses.

The Fuji XT-2 is a cheaper and smaller setup overall when paired with the Fujinon lenses.
The AF and general body responsiveness is better than the Sony A7RII but that doesn't make the Sony less accurate, its AF acquisition is quick.

If you the best possible IQ then the A7RII easily outperforms the XT-2 with its massive 42.2mp RAW files and too end glass.

Both could easily be used for travelling, guess it depends if you need the highest IQ possible with putting up with the more weighty package.
Click to expand...

If Sony or Zeiss makes a 35mm the size of the Canon 35/2.0 this decision would be a no brainer….

If I take the Sony and put on a metabone adaptor with a Canon 35Lmk2. I might as well just take my 5D4 which has the mega pixels, the AF, the GPS, the time lapse feature and even adequate video (1080p)…..

The last thing I want is come home with regret, either regret taking too much gear or regret not taking the best gear for best IQ. The attraction of the Fuji is that I can take a couple of more lenses and I won't notice it at all and can just put it in my coat pocket. If I take a few Canon Primes, I would need a proper padded bag.
 
The Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 is tiny, the 55mm f1.8 is also a nice sized lens, add these to the amazing cropping potential of the A7RII and I think you'd be ok.
However I agree, adapted lends via the metabones / sigma adaptors add additional bulk.

The Fuji XT-2's saving advantages are in the lenses as the XT-2 body is almost the same size as the Sony.
APS-C lenses are in most cases going to always be smaller than FF versions.
 
Lensflare said:
Marvellous place, although it will have changed beyond all recognition since I was last there. Japan was the place that launched my career - back in 1976 there weren't many Europeans travelling to Japan other than high flying execs. My photographs on Kodachrome 64 sold all over the world and continued to do so until royalty free started to come on the scene. The contrasts are incredible. Kyoto is a must, as are the highlands. In the intervening years they have had a catastrophic earthquake that flattened Kobe, a nuclear reactor disaster and tidal wave........the economic climate will have changed and so too has the dress code. Americans are quite prevalent now, more so than they were.

You will love it.
Click to expand...

My rough aim would be

Land Sunday morning at 10:30am at Narata.

Head straight to Hakone/Mt Fuji for 1 night, catch sunset/sunrise.
Monday to Thursday - Kyoto
Thursday morning - head to Osaka for 1 day/night
Friday - head to Hiroshima
Saturday - Fukuoka
Sunday - Flight to Tokyo until Saturday.

I might sacrifice 1 day in Tokyo for more time in say Osaka or Hiroshima but that is the rough plan at the moment.
 
Don't miss the bullet rain - utterly amazing experience to travel on.
 
I don't think there is a bad camera out of any of them….just what compromises I am willing to sacralise.

Ultimate IQ or joy of traveling light.

Saying that, if I take the Fuji, I am potentially will come away with more varied photos having more lenses will me. I know i won't be hogging multiple FF lenses in my bag.
 
From what I have seen, the Fuji gives nothing away in the finished picture stakes - detail is amazing. What are you going to do with the pictures afterwards? Print them to 6 foot across? or A3 max?
 
Lensflare said:
From what I have seen, the Fuji gives nothing away in the finished picture stakes - detail is amazing. What are you going to do with the pictures afterwards? Print them to 6 foot across? or A3 max?
Click to expand...

I might make a couple of prints, A2 max.
 
Getting the JR pass before you go?, your itinerary is nearly the same as my son who went earlier this year- 2nd time he has been. He skipped Mt Fuji this time, think he said you need a full day for it,IIRC
 
nog said:
Getting the JR pass before you go?, your itinerary is nearly the same as my son who went earlier this year- 2nd time he has been. He skipped Mt Fuji this time, think he said you need a full day for it,IIRC
Click to expand...

I only want to see Mt Fuji, not climb it. The point is just walk around Hakone, stay in a tradition Japanese Ryokan, and perhaps an onsen in a local natural hot springs water.

I will be getting the JR Pass in about September time as you can only buy it within 2 months of the trip.
 
What lenses do you plan on using on Fuji? Because unless you shoot really slow pancake kit zoom and couple others I don't think you'll really save much on weight.
If you want small APS-C mirrorless set up, I suggest Sony APS-C or even canon eos-m. And if you are interested in video A6500 has the nicest video quality.
 
nandbytes said:
What lenses do you plan on using on Fuji? Because unless you shoot really slow pancake kit zoom and couple others I don't think you'll really save much on weight.
If you want small APS-C mirrorless set up, I suggest Sony APS-C or even canon eos-m. And if you are interested in video A6500 has the nicest video quality.
Click to expand...

The Fuji primes practically weigh next to nothing.

Fuji 35mm 1.4 187g.
Canon 35mm 1.4 760g
Sigma 35mm 1.4 665g
 
James Pardon said:
The Fuji primes practically weigh next to nothing.

Fuji 35mm 1.4 187g.
Canon 35mm 1.4 760g
Sigma 35mm 1.4 665g
Click to expand...

On a FF that's equivalent to 52.5mm f/2. How much does the canon 50mm f/1.8 STM weigh? :p
Also Sony 50mm f/1.8 is barely heavier (10-20g more?)
 
Last edited:
In fact since we are doing a XT2 vs. A7RII lets compare a few...
- Body: 507g vs. 600g
- 18-55mm vs. 28-70mm kit lenses: 300g vs. 295g
- 16-55mm/2.8 vs. 24-70mm/4: 655g vs. 426g (no stabilization on fuji)
- 10-24mm vs 16-35mm: 410g vs. 518g
- 23mm/2 vs. 35mm/2.8: 180g vs. 120g/80g (depending on which make you buy, no stabilization on fuji)
- Sony doesn't have a 35mm f/2 AF equivalent as Raymond pointed out (very annoying!!)
- You already compared the 50mm equivalents
- Fuji 56mm/1.2 vs 85mm/1.8: 405g vs. 370g/475g (depending on make, no stabilization on fuji)

These came to mind... not much of weight saving on Fuji. They have fast lenses but that also makes them heavier.
But there are of course some slower lighter lenses on fuji. That's why I asked OP which lenses they wanted to buy/carry/use.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
In fact since we are doing a XT2 vs. A7RII lets compare a few...
- Body: 507g vs. 600g
- 18-55mm vs. 28-70mm kit lenses: 300g vs. 295g
- 16-55mm/2.8 vs. 24-70mm/4: 655g vs. 426g (no stabilization on fuji)
- 10-24mm vs 16-35mm: 410g vs. 518g
- 23mm/2 vs. 35mm/2.8: 180g vs. 120g/80g (depending on which make you buy, no stabilization on fuji)
- Sony doesn't have a 35mm f/2 AF equivalent as Raymond pointed out (very annoying!!)
- You already compared the 50mm equivalents
- Fuji 56mm/1.2 vs 85mm/1.8: 405g vs. 370g/475g (depending on make, no stabilization on fuji)

These came to mind... not much of weight saving on Fuji. They have fast lenses but that also makes them heavier.
But there are of course some slower lighter lenses on fuji. That's why I asked OP which lenses they wanted to buy/carry/use.
Click to expand...

Let me explain my thought process ….I don’t really do entry level lenses. And more specifically, I detest variable aperture zooms with a passion and would not even consider them. Similarly, I don’t even look at lenses with a F/4 aperture because I am used to 1.2 and 1.4, so shooting at F4 I am losing a lot of light.


3rd, I am a prime shooter, I think this is counter intuitive, I would rather take 3 lenses at 1.4 than a zoom at 2.8.


So…also consider this. I have 3 lenses for Fuji, 23/1.4, 35/1.4 and 56/1.2.


If I am getting the X-T2, I will just take them. Job done.


If I am getting a Sony A7R2, I will not be buying any of the zooms you suggested because


1 – I have the same focal length in Canon. There is no point getting 2 lenses for the same mount.

2 – I already have the Canon L zooms for 16-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8. So there is no point getting one for the Sony.

3 – Again, it is very unlikely I will get any primes for the Sony too, unless there is a superb one natively that is significantly smaller than what I have for the Canon, otherwise what would be the point?


What I am comparing is

Fuji 23/1.4 vs the Canon 35L mk2 + Metabone

Fuji 35/1.4 vs Sigma 50/1.4 Art + Metabone

Fuji 56/1.2 vs Canon 85/1.2 + Metabone


Those are the lenses comparison and this is what I would be taking in either system. , I suspect all 3 Fuji primes will be a similar weight to a single Canon 85/1.2 + Metabone. Then there is the size. I can also fit all the various Fuji lenses in my jacket pockets but there would be no pockets big enough to fit a 35L.


Fuji clearly just wins in the size and weight aspect, I don’t think this is even up for debate. Of course, the IBIS of the Sony is a big plus that is a tick box for Sony. Although the biggest draw for me for the Sony is the IQ, the DR and its files really, not the IBIS.
 
I was making a general comparison. I didn't know your exact situation.

But a fuji 56/1.2 on APS-C is equivalent to canon 85/1.8 or sony 85/1.8 on FF and not 85/1.2. You will never get f/1.2 equivalent DoF with fuji.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I was making a general comparison. I didn't know your exact situation.

But a fuji 56/1.2 on APS-C is equivalent to canon 85/1.8 or sony 85/1.8 on FF and not 85/1.2. You will never get f/1.2 equivalent DoF with fuji.
Click to expand...

I am fully aware of the aperture drawbacks, but it at 1.4 on APSC is still better than 2.8 zooms on the Sony.
 
Sure got ya, you like your primes :D

I once considered just taking a eos-m5 or A6500 (because it has IBIS) with sigma 18-35mm/1.8 and 50-100mm/1.8. Not small lenses but I'd need to carry only one other lens in the bag :D
Just thinking slightly outside the box... might not be your cup of tea.

But after taking A6000 to Italy, I missed FF. So I came back to shooting FF even on travels.
 
Last edited:
Raymond, you seem very exacting (and that's not a criticism) so I wonder if you'll be happy with the APS-C Fuji? Maybe you'll regret not having FF? But going for an A7 with adapted Canon lenses means additional bulk and I assume slightly less focus speed.

Personally I'd bite the bullet, spend the money and go for the A7x and choose from the 28mm f2, 35mm f2.8, 55mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8. You seem to want a 35mm f2 but is f2.8 really that bad?

I'm fine abroad with my lowly A7 and 35mm f2.8 :D Yes it would be nice if the f2.8 was f1.4 but it is what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top