Sony vs Fuji

Messages
617
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
#1
I’ve been in the Sony camp since I started taking photos with an a5000. Since then I’ve got a a6000. I have no complaints with the image quality, focusing speed etc but I don’t like the external layout of the cameras all that much. Having seen the xt2 I like having iso and shutter speed dial on top. I think you can also get lenses with an aperture control ring.
What’s people’s thoughts on either system vs the other? I’ve read that the focusing is better on Sony. I don’t care about jpeg as I don’t use them
 
Messages
4,671
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#2
I've been following reports etc. for over 6 months now ahead of my impending switch to mirrorless, especially as 3 of my pals made the move to Sony A9s in the last 12 months, my conclusions so far are simple enough

Neither is perfect

The Sony is FAB at higher ISO and focus is faster & more accurate on eye detection than Fuji's XT-3

The Sony A9s seem to have some reliability issues around the 1-2 year mark, and clearly aren't as water-resistant as I'd expect, which is worrying; while some Fujis seem to have issues right away that need warranty calls to sort, worrying too

The Sony system is way more expensive and has no weight/space saving at all over my current DSLRs

The XT-3 once set-up is much better than my DSLRs and is good enough at higher ISO and is FAR better at focus than my DSLR; it also has a significant weight and size reduction benefit - AND - is a much cheaper system overall, by many thousands of £s compared to the Sony

Having used the XT-3 with almost every lens in the range for a day (organised by Fuji), I have no doubts that Fuji is where I'm heading, and even if the entire system I need was the same price of the A9 system I'd still prefer the Fuji

So for me for both Weddings and even Landscapes too, the Fuji wins

Dave
 
Messages
12,196
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#3
For APSC Fuji has the better system IMO. For FF, well, then you go Sony as Fuji don't have anything FF. What's your budget? I'm guessing limited as you mention the XT2 rather than 3?
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,198
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
As said above for APS-C only go with Fuji. Sony sucks somewhat tbh in APS-C area.
For FF mirrorless Sony is definitely a step ahead of others (thanks to their 5 years head start).
 
Messages
633
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
I'm a beginner, so I don't know enough to comment on the technical differences between the two brands.

I recently visited a friend who has the A6000 and I took along my Fuji XT2. I noticed that when he changed basic settings, he was looking at (sometimes squinting at in bright light) the rear screen and using cursor and or rotary buttons to access the setting he wanted and change them. To me, it seemed quite fiddly. Changing the basic settings by using mechanical dials on the top of my XT2, seems quicker, easier and more intuitive.

My friend still takes much better photos on his Sony than I take on my camera though!
 
Messages
2,474
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
Used both systems.

Fuji is nicer to use, smaller, lighter and feels great overall. Personally I couldn't get on with the x-trans sensor for landscapes. Photograph certain thinks with it and it just doesn't look good - but some see this and some don't. Some landscape photographers shoot very happily with Fuji.

Sony is FF so no matter what anyone says, there is an advantage. Sony is more expensive, but then is FF vs APS-C and FF is always going to be more expensive. Sony has a good selection of APS-C 3rd party prime lenses but zooms aren't a patch on Fuji.

Mostly depends whether you want FF or APS-C to be honest.

I currently shoot Sony, will probably try Fuji again at some point down the line.
 
OP
OP
Ben johns
Messages
617
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
#7
The full frame thing has been a bit of a sticking point really. I like to do landscapes and now and then family photos. I’m undecided if I would go full frame in the future, if I do I would have thought staying with Sony would be the better option. It shouldn’t be a factor but aside of how the Fuji appears to easier to use I think it looks a lot nicer!
Budget is a tough one. I’m not looking at buying at the moment but if I wanted to I could get a new Sony camera be it a apsc or full frame for between £500-£800 (I think). With the Fuji it would be a whole new system. I’d like a a zoom lens with decent wife to semi tele coverage for landscape and a prime. I like the 35mm 1.8 apsc lens so something along those lines
 
Messages
318
Name
Kyle
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
I bought a Fuji X-E3 to use as a lighter travel camera that I could take instead of my D810. Thus far, the results I've had from the little fuji are 95% as good as those from the D810. That is primarily down to the superior resolution as the noise performance and DR don't seem to be all that different. I can't comment on AF performance as I don't have any fuji lenses yet. The only little annoyance so far is that I've had to change my workflow for the raws as I'm still on CS6 which doesn't support the fuji and converted DNG's look dreadful through ACR as it doesn't demosaic xtrans nicely. I've got C1 express which seems to do a superb job.
 
Messages
2,474
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
The full frame thing has been a bit of a sticking point really. I like to do landscapes and now and then family photos. I’m undecided if I would go full frame in the future, if I do I would have thought staying with Sony would be the better option. It shouldn’t be a factor but aside of how the Fuji appears to easier to use I think it looks a lot nicer!
Budget is a tough one. I’m not looking at buying at the moment but if I wanted to I could get a new Sony camera be it a apsc or full frame for between £500-£800 (I think). With the Fuji it would be a whole new system. I’d like a a zoom lens with decent wife to semi tele coverage for landscape and a prime. I like the 35mm 1.8 apsc lens so something along those lines
What lenses do you currently have?
 
Messages
1,800
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
I used Fuji from 2011 through to the start of this year before moving to Sony.

The Fuji's are very good APSC cameras - they have excellent lenses available, and because of the APSC size, the lenses are significantly cheaper and smaller than the Sony. I used everything from the original X100 through to the XH-1 on Fuji. When I had the XT-2 I actually went in to look at part-exchanging for a Sony, but before I had the chance I held the XH-1 and bought that instead.

Ironically, it was the XH-1 that eventually pushed me to Sony - I had always discounted IBIS as a nice to have, until I had it on the XH-1, when I found it made a huge improvement to my keeper rate (I probably have poor technique!). While the XH-1 was better at AF than the XT-2, I was still hearing about Sony's AF so one day, and knowing the XT-3 would have better AF but would be unlikely to have IBIS, and no XH-2 on the horizon, I tried an A7III one day and was blown away by the AF difference between the XH-1 and the Sony.

The final nail was Sony announcing the very Fuji like firmware updates to the A7III / A9, where-as from Fuji, I was getting the feeling they'd given up on the XH line.

Having made the switch my key takeaways are...
  • IBIS and Superb AF have changed the way I shoot - I can shoot from different angles / positions and get keepers every time. For someone who's eyesight is on the way out, that's a plus!
  • Image wise, once you've pressed the shutter and got a sharp shot, there's not night and day between the two systems - some difference because of the FF / APSC difference, but the Fuji lenses have equivalent max apertures to match / get close (the 56 f1.2 versus the 85 f1.4 for example).
  • The Sony kit is bloody expensive and bloody heavy. I think after 8+ years with Fuji, I'd forgotten the impact of having heavy kit (I was previously with Canon). I've had to get fitter to get better, but that's no bad thing.
  • You *can* make the Sony kit smaller (mainly by lens choice), so you have options.
  • The Bayer layout of the Sony (for me at least) is preferable to the X-Trans of the Fuji - Processing is just easier.
All my Sony lenses have the aperture ring btw - so that, but not the shutter speed dial on the body like the Fujis - not an issue if you shoot AP mode, as it gives the same tactile way of working.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,722
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
#12
I've been following reports etc. for over 6 months now ahead of my impending switch to mirrorless, especially as 3 of my pals made the move to Sony A9s in the last 12 months, my conclusions so far are simple enough

Neither is perfect

The Sony is FAB at higher ISO and focus is faster & more accurate on eye detection than Fuji's XT-3

The Sony A9s seem to have some reliability issues around the 1-2 year mark, and clearly aren't as water-resistant as I'd expect, which is worrying; while some Fujis seem to have issues right away that need warranty calls to sort, worrying too

The Sony system is way more expensive and has no weight/space saving at all over my current DSLRs

The XT-3 once set-up is much better than my DSLRs and is good enough at higher ISO and is FAR better at focus than my DSLR; it also has a significant weight and size reduction benefit - AND - is a much cheaper system overall, by many thousands of £s compared to the Sony

Having used the XT-3 with almost every lens in the range for a day (organised by Fuji), I have no doubts that Fuji is where I'm heading, and even if the entire system I need was the same price of the A9 system I'd still prefer the Fuji

So for me for both Weddings and even Landscapes too, the Fuji wins

Dave
Not really true that so much now.

Sony bodies are lighter than dslr equivalents and they have some of the lightest available lenses for full frame mirrorless:

24mm f/1.4
35mm f/1.8
50mm ish with the 55mm f/1.8

Tarmon 17-28mm f/2.8 is very light weight compared to dslr equivalents.
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is very light compared to dslr equivalents.

Samyang 24mm f/2.8 weighs nearly nothing.
Samyang 35mm f/2.8 weighs nearly nothing.

Sigma 45mm f/2.8 is also very light weight.

In terms of cost there is a premium to be paid for all full frame mirrorless lenses, Sony is generally cheaper than both Canon and Nikon's equivalent mirrorless options.

Can't really compare to Fuji with it only being an APSC system.

In terms of comparing Fuji too Sony it really does depend on if you want/need the advantages of full frame or not.

Comparing the APSC options I really like the Sony A6400, which is an excellent APSC camera.

The autofocus system is light years ahead of anything else available from any of the other APSC manufacturers. The downside is that the lens options aren't as good as the options Fuji have. It just depends on if you can live with that or not. There are some excellent lenses available for Sony APSC from Sigma like the 30mmm f/1.4 and the 16mm f/1.4.

If you include the full frame options Fuji isn't really comparable due to the sensor differences added to the a.f differences and it's a no brainer than Sony is a fair bit better in terms of I.Q and a.f accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,338
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
I'm a beginner, so I don't know enough to comment on the technical differences between the two brands.

I recently visited a friend who has the A6000 and I took along my Fuji XT2. I noticed that when he changed basic settings, he was looking at (sometimes squinting at in bright light) the rear screen and using cursor and or rotary buttons to access the setting he wanted and change them. To me, it seemed quite fiddly. Changing the basic settings by using mechanical dials on the top of my XT2, seems quicker, easier and more intuitive.

My friend still takes much better photos on his Sony than I take on my camera though!
I have an A6000 as my 'travel' camera - and if your friend was having to squint at the rear screen to change settings then he has failed to appreciate that it's far quicker and easier to do so via the user Function settings which can be accessed and changed with everything displayed in the viewfinder.
Single button press to bring up the grid in the EVF, select the setting, then set the required value. Only 'downside' is that as this is a user definable thing, you have to sit and have a think about what you want in it, then configure it how you want - but that's a job for a quiet evening when it's too cold and wet outside to go and take pictures - fortunately we get plenty of those in the UK, so finding the time to do it is easy :)
 
Messages
7,076
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#14
As a system, I would pick Sony.

Sony A73 with 35/1.8, 85/1.8 as opposed to
Fuji. X-T1 XH-1 (so we are now both with IS), with 23/1.4 and 56/1.2.

The size and weight difference is marginal, cost is marginal as well.

For the sake of completeness, and fairness, let's price them with the same supplier (also i am lazy and cba to search grey or used)

A73 £1763
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-a7-iii-digital-camera-body-1655930/

35/1.8 £629
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-...DoICbHKabg0-IKjIckQEQnk-KLZ5Sa7oaArWBEALw_wcB

85mm F/1.8 £599
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/search/?q=Sony+FE+85mm+f1.8+Prime+Lens&search_type=All

Total £2991

Fuji XH-1 £1045
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/fujifilm-x-h1-digital-camera-body-1653586/

23/1.4 £799
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/fuji-23mm-f14-xf-r-fujinon-lens-1542862/

56/1.2 £849
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/fuji-56mm-f12-r-xf-fujinon-lens-1547145/

Total £2693

10% difference.

But you have the option to go 35/1.2 Sigma if that tickles your fancy, you can go A7R4 with 61mp if that tickles your fancy, the battery last longer, the IQ is higher (yes, objectively they are, even if marginal). Now I know people is going to say you can get cheaper Fuji lenses, the F/2.0 lenses to bring the cost down. This is just an exercise what I would get myself for a small mirrorless set up as I think the Fuji 1.4 lenses are small anyway, and also it brings the DoF debate much closer too.

Both are great, both will do a fantastic job, but the choice with the Sony system you can really open up, should you choose to.
 
Last edited:
Messages
633
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
I have an A6000 as my 'travel' camera - and if your friend was having to squint at the rear screen to change settings then he has failed to appreciate that it's far quicker and easier to do so via the user Function settings which can be accessed and changed with everything displayed in the viewfinder.
Single button press to bring up the grid in the EVF, select the setting, then set the required value. Only 'downside' is that as this is a user definable thing, you have to sit and have a think about what you want in it, then configure it how you want - but that's a job for a quiet evening when it's too cold and wet outside to go and take pictures - fortunately we get plenty of those in the UK, so finding the time to do it is easy :)
Thanks.

When I noticed my friend squinting I did ask him about using the EVF, but for some reason he didn't enjoy using it to change settings. I didn't ask him why.

My friend, like me, isn't really a 'gadget' person. I think if he was told about 'setting values' and 'configuring' things, he probably wouldn't have bought the camera! Obviously he's become fluent in the cameras operation despite that. It just appeared easier to me, to turn a dial instead of having to use a screen to change basic settings.
 
Messages
12,196
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#16
As a system, I would pick Sony.

Sony A73 with 35/1.8, 85/1.8 as opposed to
Fuji. X-T1 XH-1 (so we are now both with IS), with 23/1.4 and 56/1.2.

The size and weight difference is marginal, cost is marginal as well.

For the sake of completeness, and fairness, let's price them with the same supplier (also i am lazy and cba to search grey or used)

A73 £1763
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-a7-iii-digital-camera-body-1655930/

35/1.8 £629
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sony-...DoICbHKabg0-IKjIckQEQnk-KLZ5Sa7oaArWBEALw_wcB

85mm F/1.8 £599
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/search/?q=Sony+FE+85mm+f1.8+Prime+Lens&search_type=All

Total £2991

Fuji XH-1 £1045
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/fujifilm-x-h1-digital-camera-body-1653586/

23/1.4 £799
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/fuji-23mm-f14-xf-r-fujinon-lens-1542862/

56/1.2 £849
https://www.wexphotovideo.com/fuji-56mm-f12-r-xf-fujinon-lens-1547145/

Total £2693

10% difference.

But you have the option to go 35/1.2 Sigma if that tickles your fancy, you can go A7R4 with 61mp if that tickles your fancy, the battery last longer, the IQ is higher (yes, objectively they are, even if marginal). Now I know people is going to say you can get cheaper Fuji lenses, the F/2.0 lenses to bring the cost down. This is just an exercise what I would get myself for a small mirrorless set up as I think the Fuji 1.4 lenses are small anyway, and also it brings the DoF debate much closer too.

Both are great, both will do a fantastic job, but the choice with the Sony system you can really open up, should you choose to.
There's much cheaper alternatives for Fuji if you're not concerned with matching DOF with FF, just going on light gathering capabilities at similar apertures. You can get the 23mm F2 for about half the price of the 1.4, and the 50mm F2 for less than half of the 56 1.2

Either way, I think we're overlooking OP's budget here

The full frame thing has been a bit of a sticking point really. I like to do landscapes and now and then family photos. I’m undecided if I would go full frame in the future, if I do I would have thought staying with Sony would be the better option. It shouldn’t be a factor but aside of how the Fuji appears to easier to use I think it looks a lot nicer!
Budget is a tough one. I’m not looking at buying at the moment but if I wanted to I could get a new Sony camera be it a apsc or full frame for between £500-£800 (I think). With the Fuji it would be a whole new system. I’d like a a zoom lens with decent wife to semi tele coverage for landscape and a prime. I like the 35mm 1.8 apsc lens so something along those lines
 
OP
OP
Ben johns
Messages
617
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
#17
Hmmm...it seems like the only advantages are based more on taste and preferences mainly. Might not be worth investing in a new system mainly for some dials.
I have struggled a bit to find a good zoom lens for the Sony apsc Camera’s. I like the range of the kit lens ,16-50 , but the image quality isn’t amazing, my 35mm is far better. The zooms I’ve seen are either for full frame so you don’t get much on the wider end and/or really expensive. Maximum aperture doesn’t matter as i only use zooms for landscape
 
Messages
281
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
#19
I don't think your comparison is entirely fair in terms of the systems.

For those looking at going FF then Fuji isn't a contender. However looking at price/size/features then the X-E/X-T/X-H/X-Pro offer a range of body styles and features. You can start with the reasonable F2 primes in the knowledge that the likes of the F1.2/F1.4 primes are available as an option.

I looked long and hard at Sony and Fuji before going the Fuji route. There were a number of reasons - and it was hard because the companies make such nice stuff - while people focus on the A7iii as an entry the A7ii sits there as an older body that would get you into the system with older AF performance but a nice chunk of budget to put towards lenses. But my feeling was in terms of size/compactness and cost that the Fuji system would suit me better over the coming years. I preferred the Fuji gear 'in hand'. My feeling was that if I went Sony that the compactness of the bodies would be undermined by the size of the lenses that I would be inevitably drawn to and that I'd spend way more but not really get a huge tangible benefit.

This sort of decision process is good and bad for Fuji. If enough buyers think this way it gives them sector below FF but also caps out how much they can sell their kit for. I think MFT has had the same issue - with Olympus and Panasonic struggling to justify the higher end MFT bodies and expensive F1.2 lenses against the FF systems from Sony/Nikon/Canon and also being squeezed a bit by Fuji too.
 
OP
OP
Ben johns
Messages
617
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
#20
Those dials always struck me as 'for show' or niche use more than anything else. As long as you've got a good auto iso set up where you can spec min. shutter speed then for most use cases you shouldn't need to touch those dials
I’ve always used full manual. Not sure why but I’ve never been too taken with automatic modes
 
Messages
1,365
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#22
Those dials always struck me as 'for show' or niche use more than anything else. As long as you've got a good auto iso set up where you can spec min. shutter speed then for most use cases you shouldn't need to touch those dials
I use the dials a lot and like them even more. It's just so easy.
 
Messages
7,076
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#23
I don't think your comparison is entirely fair in terms of the systems.

For those looking at going FF then Fuji isn't a contender. However looking at price/size/features then the X-E/X-T/X-H/X-Pro offer a range of body styles and features. You can start with the reasonable F2 primes in the knowledge that the likes of the F1.2/F1.4 primes are available as an option.

I looked long and hard at Sony and Fuji before going the Fuji route. There were a number of reasons - and it was hard because the companies make such nice stuff - while people focus on the A7iii as an entry the A7ii sits there as an older body that would get you into the system with older AF performance but a nice chunk of budget to put towards lenses. But my feeling was in terms of size/compactness and cost that the Fuji system would suit me better over the coming years. I preferred the Fuji gear 'in hand'. My feeling was that if I went Sony that the compactness of the bodies would be undermined by the size of the lenses that I would be inevitably drawn to and that I'd spend way more but not really get a huge tangible benefit.

This sort of decision process is good and bad for Fuji. If enough buyers think this way it gives them sector below FF but also caps out how much they can sell their kit for. I think MFT has had the same issue - with Olympus and Panasonic struggling to justify the higher end MFT bodies and expensive F1.2 lenses against the FF systems from Sony/Nikon/Canon and also being squeezed a bit by Fuji too.
It's not about fair, it's about preference.

 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Ben johns
Messages
617
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
#24
Personally in your position I’d get the a6500 or a6400 and probably upgrade the 16-50 lens.
I was thinking that. It’s just the lens upgrade that I’ve been scratching my head about. If money wasn’t a problem sony make a 12-35mm ff lens so be 18-50 on apsc, be perfect for landscapes but it’s £1500...
As far the camera goes is there any difference in the sensor between the a6300 and the 6500? I thought it was the same sensor but I could be wrong.
 
Messages
2,722
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
#25
I was thinking that. It’s just the lens upgrade that I’ve been scratching my head about. If money wasn’t a problem sony make a 12-35mm ff lens so be 18-50 on apsc, be perfect for landscapes but it’s £1500...
As far the camera goes is there any difference in the sensor between the a6300 and the 6500? I thought it was the same sensor but I could be wrong.
They don't, they do have a 16-35 f/4 and f/2.8 and a 12-24mm f/4 though but they would be a bit cumbersome on an APSC body and not that wide due to the crop factor.

There is also the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 which I am very pleased with which would also work well and have decent ergonomics on an APSC body but wouldn'ty be very wide on APSC.

The 10-18mm f/4 is the wide angle Sony option for APSC.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Ben johns
Messages
617
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
#26
They don't, they do have a 16-35 f/4 and f/2.8 and a 12-24mm f/4 though but they would be a bit cumbersome on an APSC body.

There is also the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 which I am very pleased with which would also work well and have decent ergonomics on an APSC body but wouldn'ty be very wide on APSC.

The 10-18mm f/4 is the wide angle Sony option for APSC.
Yep your right I meant the 12-24! But yes it would be a bit weird.
Yes I’ve looked at the 10-18 before. I was put off because for the price the range is that big and 10mm seems very wide to me. I don’t really use my 12mm that much anymore.
The tamron probably wouldn’t be too bad, I don’t feel like I need to go wider than 16mm. I need to go back over my photos and see what lengths I use the most. I’m usually happy to leave the 35mm lens on for mostly everything including landscapes but recently I’ve found the zoom lens really handy in some spots
 
Messages
2,722
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
#27
Yep your right I meant the 12-24! But yes it would be a bit weird.
Yes I’ve looked at the 10-18 before. I was put off because for the price the range is that big and 10mm seems very wide to me. I don’t really use my 12mm that much anymore.
The tamron probably wouldn’t be too bad, I don’t feel like I need to go wider than 16mm. I need to go back over my photos and see what lengths I use the most. I’m usually happy to leave the 35mm lens on for mostly everything including landscapes but recently I’ve found the zoom lens really handy in some spots

Just bear in mind the crop factor the 10-18 will be the equivalent of 15-27mm and the Tamron 17-28 will be the equivalent of 25-42mm on a full frame camera.
 
Messages
3,648
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
#28
With it being such a marginal difference, if I were you, I'd rent the body and (best) lens (for you) combination for a weekend each and take them out. It's a big step - changing system - and relying on the advice of a bunch of crazy forumites alone might be a mistake.

I hated the Sony menu, and I barely ever use a menu on my X-T2 apart from to format the card. For me, operating the camera is something I want to be intuitive. And if the tool inspires me to use it because I like using it, then I'll use it more. What's my aperture & shutter? A glance at the camera while it's in my hand will tell me. But I'm sure some people find the Sony menus & ergonomics easier because they're... different... And some suffer them because they prefer the camera for some other reason. Some people might shoot photography in unchanging light and thus set it once and done. Some people have big hands... The list goes on.

I find the Sony fugly and unintuitive. I rarely print over A2 and have never shot in light low enough that the X-T2, and 56 1.2 or 35 1.4 can't cope with. Your mileage may very well vary though.
 
OP
OP
Ben johns
Messages
617
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
#29
With it being such a marginal difference, if I were you, I'd rent the body and (best) lens (for you) combination for a weekend each and take them out. It's a big step - changing system - and relying on the advice of a bunch of crazy forumites alone might be a mistake.

I hated the Sony menu, and I barely ever use a menu on my X-T2 apart from to format the card. For me, operating the camera is something I want to be intuitive. And if the tool inspires me to use it because I like using it, then I'll use it more. What's my aperture & shutter? A glance at the camera while it's in my hand will tell me. But I'm sure some people find the Sony menus & ergonomics easier because they're... different... And some suffer them because they prefer the camera for some other reason. Some people might shoot photography in unchanging light and thus set it once and done. Some people have big hands... The list goes on.

I find the Sony fugly and unintuitive. I rarely print over A2 and have never shot in light low enough that the X-T2, and 56 1.2 or 35 1.4 can't cope with. Your mileage may very well vary though.
Yea I was thinking about renting at some point. I’d never given Fuji a second thought until I started using old film cameras and really liked having the controls on the camera.
I don’t have a huge problem with Sony’s menu. It takes a bit of time the first time you use it to set it up but once that’s done you can change the focus area, shutter mode, focus type and so on from a sub menu you can access with one button from the back.
 
OP
OP
Ben johns
Messages
617
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
#30
Just bear in mind the crop factor the 10-18 will be the equivalent of 15-27mm and the Tamron 17-28 will be the equivalent of 25-42mm on a full frame camera.
Yea, it just always seemed like a strange focal length range to me. I’m surprised that many people use something as wide as 10mm. If I were them I’d have made a more general one. But I suppose that’s what the kit lens is
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,198
Edit My Images
Yes
#31
Yea, it just always seemed like a strange focal length range to me. I’m surprised that many people use something as wide as 10mm. If I were them I’d have made a more general one. But I suppose that’s what the kit lens is
There are more general ones (just aren't very good :p ) - 16-70mm f/4, 18-105mm f4, 18-135mm.

Having said that I did really enjoy using my 16-70mm f4
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,198
Edit My Images
Yes
#33
I had the 18-105mm F4 and there was nothing wrong with it, decent lens.
I thought you always shot on FF with Sony.
I suppose it's alright but it's not sharp across the frame at 18mm or 105mm. Tbh most zooms of this style weren't.
But the latest crop of 24-105mm lenses from canon/Panasonic/Sony do rather well across the zoom range. I am hoping the latest Fuji 16-80mm is good too.

Sony really need to update their aps-c lineup to be taken seriously in this area.
 
Messages
4,671
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#34
On my Fuji day I mostly used the 16mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4 35mm f1.4 and 56mm f1.2 and I'd be happy to shoot each of them wide open all day long

My usual Nikon import applies sharpening that was clearly not needed on the Fuji files, and I'd not choose to shoot any of my Nikon lenses wide open as they are all better by f2.2/f2.5, meaning I'd get the same look or wider with the Fuji even allowing for the apparent DoF changes

I also shot the Fuji at up to 4000 ISO, my usual max for my Nikons as none of my venues really needs me to go higher, and the noise was fine; but normally of course where I'd shoot 4000 ISO on my Nikons I'd be at a lower ISO anyway on the Fuji so the noise factor just doesn't matter

So for me (and I accept not everyone is me!) the mirrorless option is simple, Fuji for everything that matters to me is the better option :)

And, as it happens, I think the Sony is ugly both to look at and in the hand - minor bonus there but a bonus nonetheless

Dave
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,198
Edit My Images
Yes
#35
On my Fuji day I mostly used the 16mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4 35mm f1.4 and 56mm f1.2 and I'd be happy to shoot each of them wide open all day long

My usual Nikon import applies sharpening that was clearly not needed on the Fuji files, and I'd not choose to shoot any of my Nikon lenses wide open as they are all better by f2.2/f2.5, meaning I'd get the same look or wider with the Fuji even allowing for the apparent DoF changes

I also shot the Fuji at up to 4000 ISO, my usual max for my Nikons as none of my venues really needs me to go higher, and the noise was fine; but normally of course where I'd shoot 4000 ISO on my Nikons I'd be at a lower ISO anyway on the Fuji so the noise factor just doesn't matter

So for me (and I accept not everyone is me!) the mirrorless option is simple, Fuji for everything that matters to me is the better option :)

And, as it happens, I think the Sony is ugly both to look at and in the hand - minor bonus there but a bonus nonetheless

Dave
Not sure I'd be comfortable shooting weddings with the likes of 56mm f1.2 or even 23mm F1.4.
Not sure what Nikon you use but something like 35mm/1.8 or 85mm/1.8 (on D750) are incredibly dependable in terms of nailing AF. Couldn't say the same for the Fuji lenses despite X-T3 being a rather good body.

Very few cameras win a beauty contest but Fujis certainly do.
 
Messages
2,722
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
#36
Not sure I'd be comfortable shooting weddings with the likes of 56mm f1.2 or even 23mm F1.4.
Not sure what Nikon you use but something like 35mm/1.8 or 85mm/1.8 (on D750) are incredibly dependable in terms of nailing AF. Couldn't say the same for the Fuji lenses despite X-T3 being a rather good body.

Very few cameras win a beauty contest but Fujis certainly do.
He will do what most wedding photographers seem to do when they buy into Fuji.

For months he will rave about how great it is and how awesome the cameras look.

Within 6 months it will be all up for sale as it just simply isn't as good for the job as a full frame system. :D
 
Messages
2,474
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#37
On my Fuji day I mostly used the 16mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4 35mm f1.4 and 56mm f1.2 and I'd be happy to shoot each of them wide open all day long

My usual Nikon import applies sharpening that was clearly not needed on the Fuji files, and I'd not choose to shoot any of my Nikon lenses wide open as they are all better by f2.2/f2.5, meaning I'd get the same look or wider with the Fuji even allowing for the apparent DoF changes

I also shot the Fuji at up to 4000 ISO, my usual max for my Nikons as none of my venues really needs me to go higher, and the noise was fine; but normally of course where I'd shoot 4000 ISO on my Nikons I'd be at a lower ISO anyway on the Fuji so the noise factor just doesn't matter

So for me (and I accept not everyone is me!) the mirrorless option is simple, Fuji for everything that matters to me is the better option :)

And, as it happens, I think the Sony is ugly both to look at and in the hand - minor bonus there but a bonus nonetheless

Dave
Can't argue with that. Thought you were keeping the d750's until they died?
 
Messages
2,474
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#38
I thought you always shot on FF with Sony.
I suppose it's alright but it's not sharp across the frame at 18mm or 105mm. Tbh most zooms of this style weren't.
But the latest crop of 24-105mm lenses from canon/Panasonic/Sony do rather well across the zoom range. I am hoping the latest Fuji 16-80mm is good too.

Sony really need to update their aps-c lineup to be taken seriously in this area.
Had an a6300, currently have an a6500.

They ideal need a constant set of 2.8 zooms.
 
Messages
12,196
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#39
Hmmm...it seems like the only advantages are based more on taste and preferences mainly. Might not be worth investing in a new system mainly for some dials.
I have struggled a bit to find a good zoom lens for the Sony apsc Camera’s. I like the range of the kit lens ,16-50 , but the image quality isn’t amazing, my 35mm is far better. The zooms I’ve seen are either for full frame so you don’t get much on the wider end and/or really expensive. Maximum aperture doesn’t matter as i only use zooms for landscape
If you stick with Sony APSC for now, then look at the Sigma 1.4 DC series, there's a 16, 35 and 56mm all 1.4, all pretty well priced and all very good by all accounts. That's the set of primes I'd buy if I was shooting an A6**** series
 
Messages
1,365
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#40
Not sure I'd be comfortable shooting weddings with the likes of 56mm f1.2 or even 23mm F1.4.
Not sure what Nikon you use but something like 35mm/1.8 or 85mm/1.8 (on D750) are incredibly dependable in terms of nailing AF. Couldn't say the same for the Fuji lenses despite X-T3 being a rather good body.

Very few cameras win a beauty contest but Fujis certainly do.
I must be extremely lucky then. Off to buy a lottery ticket :LOL:
 
Top