XT2 or A6300

F

freelander

Messages
250
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
I'm returning to photography after a 5 yr break previously a Nikon owner. Initially will be looking for a quality vacation combo and have decided to purchase either the Fuji XT2 & 18-135 or the Sony A6300 & 18-135.
Have been to a couple of shops and handled both but still undecided !
Most important features for me are:-

1. ergonomics The Fuji wins here
2. Build quality. Both seem very good
3. Image quality. In my opinion Sony is marginally better
4. Ease of use. Both will be a steep learning curve Fuji menu appears to be more user friendly from the reviews I’ve read.
5. Lens quality. The Fuji 18-135 gets very mixed reports the newer Sony 18-135 gets favourable reviews.

I like to shoot mainly land & seascapes have a 3 week trip to New England this October so need to get this sorted ASAP.

Would welcome comments from anyone who purchased either of these cameras.

Thanks in advance

Martin
 
theres a bigger variety of lenses for the Sony too, especially third party. Which may help your decision. It’s also smaller if that’s something to consider. Surely the a6500 is similar price wise to XT2? Especially as there's £300 cash back on Sony. Or if you go grey the a6500 & lens is £1100.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
For landscape and seascape I'd avoid xtrans which is most Fuji bodies.
Click to expand...

Oh dear yet again the anti X-Trans brigade is out!! Firstly X-Trans3 (as in X-T2) is very different to previous generations, secondly there are some superb landscape work with the X-T2 in the X-T2 thread, and thirdly there are quite a few professional landscape photographers (not Fuji Ambassadors) who are using the X-T2

The 18-135 though is not the sharpest lens in the Fuji arsenal, but it's OIS is very good. The 18-55 is noticeably sharper.

Both cameras are very capable and I'd suggest that the OP looks carefully at the handling and the lens availability and affordability for his now and future lens requirements. The Fuji lenses are very good but some of them are not cheap (though many are available at more reasonable prices secondhand).
 
As David has said above, the X-Trans 3 is very different to previous versions. I've recently changed from Fuji to Sony but only because I wanted to play with full frame again. If I was buying into a crop sensor system with the intention of staying with crop I'd be buying Fuji.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Oh dear yet again the anti X-Trans brigade is out!! Firstly X-Trans3 (as in X-T2) is very different to previous generations, secondly there are some superb landscape work with the X-T2 in the X-T2 thread, and thirdly there are quite a few professional landscape photographers (not Fuji Ambassadors) who are using the X-T2

The 18-135 though is not the sharpest lens in the Fuji arsenal, but it's OIS is very good. The 18-55 is noticeably sharper.

Both cameras are very capable and I'd suggest that the OP looks carefully at the handling and the lens availability and affordability for his now and future lens requirements. The Fuji lenses are very good but some of them are not cheap (though many are available at more reasonable prices secondhand).
Click to expand...
This. The avoid Fuji for landscapes argument has been tedious at best and to keep it up just shows bias to other systems and ignorance toward what is actually being produced by these cameras.

Sony and Fuji will work perfectly well, both have their relative positives and negatives. You pay a your money and takes your choice as to which works best (for you), but to discount a whole system on a years old argument is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear Fuji folks with "alternative facts" are out too.

Truth is always bitter ;)

p.s. I never suggest buying Sony APS-C either. I'd suggest avoiding that too lol. It has a bunch overpriced rubbish lenses.

Perhaps consider eos m5. It lacks lenses but the ones available are great and prices brilliantly. Also EF(-S) lenses adapt well.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Truth is always bitter ;)
Click to expand...

No bitterness here. I am surprised that Fuji sell so many cameras when they're apparently awful at such a popular genre of photography.

Perhaps all those good landscapes being produced are fakes [emoji55]

Anyhoo as I said, the Sony or Fuji would work just fine if you focus on your budget and what matters to you most. I don't know enough about the Canon to suggest otherwise either tbh so could be worth a look too.
 
Ian W said:
This. The avoid Fuji for landscapes argument has been tedious at best and to keep it up just shows bias to other systems and ignorance toward what is actually being produced by these cameras.

Sony and Fuji will work perfectly well, both have their relative positives and negatives. You pay a your money and takes your choice as to which works best (for you), but to discount a whole system on a years old argument is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Well these days it's relatively easy to avoid bias and ignorance and also the marketing BS too by searching on line and downloading raws to process on your own pc with your own software.
 
Ian W said:
No bitterness here. I am surprised that Fuji sell so many cameras when they're apparently awful at such a popular genre of photography.

Perhaps all those good landscapes being produced are fakes [emoji55]

Anyhoo as I said, the Sony or Fuji would work just fine if you focus on your budget and what matters to you most. I don't know enough about the Canon to suggest otherwise either tbh so could be worth a look too.
Click to expand...

I never said it can't take good landscapes. But if someone is buying newly from scratch why invest in a system known to have problems for your main genre when there are alternatives available. Doesn't make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind that this web site really needs to be renamed Talk Fuji Photography !
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I never said it can't take good landscapes. But if someone is buying newly from scratch why invest in a system known to have problems for your main genre. Doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
It requires a different approach to sharpening perhaps, but that doesn't amount to a "known problem" to me.

We could keep going but this has been discussed time and time again. It's an issue to a small minority, no real need to try and make other people see what so many don't.
 
justa1972 said:
Bear in mind that this web site really needs to be renamed Talk Fuji Photograpghy !
Click to expand...
Just not by you, then it might be spelled correctly ;)

Anyhoo, I'm out. Bored of this tbh.

OP, apologies. Look at your choices yourself, ignore everyone else and buy what will work for you [emoji1360]
 
Ian W said:
It requires a different approach to sharpening perhaps, but that doesn't amount to a "known problem" to me.

We could keep going but this has been discussed time and time again. It's an issue to a small minority, no real need to try and make other people see what so many don't.
Click to expand...

exactly why I tried to avoid going in detail because this a slippery slope, before you know it we'll have a 10 page argument which doesn't help OP.

So yeah lets just leave at this, I have said my opinion, you yours and others their's :D
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Oh dear yet again the anti X-Trans brigade is out!! Firstly X-Trans3 (as in X-T2) is very different to previous generations, secondly there are some superb landscape work with the X-T2 in the X-T2 thread, and thirdly there are quite a few professional landscape photographers (not Fuji Ambassadors) who are using the X-T2

The 18-135 though is not the sharpest lens in the Fuji arsenal, but it's OIS is very good. The 18-55 is noticeably sharper.

Both cameras are very capable and I'd suggest that the OP looks carefully at the handling and the lens availability and affordability for his now and future lens requirements. The Fuji lenses are very good but some of them are not cheap (though many are available at more reasonable prices secondhand).
Click to expand...


While the 18-135 is slightly less sharp than the 18-55, it's not really noticeable without pixel peeping (much like the "painterly" effect some people manage to get...). At "normal" print sizes (up to A3+ from the whole frame), you'll be hard pushed to see the difference. The 18-135 does show a little more distortion at its extremities than the 18-55 but again, it's not too noticeable unless you're looking for it. The extra reach of the 18-135 does make it a great walk around option on the X series bodies if you find the 18-55 a bit limiting.
 
As Mr P says there's some stunning landscape work been posted on here in the X thread. I also tend to trawl flickr and look at real world examples.

I had the 18-135 with an XT-1, great walk about lens and sharper than the 16-50 and 55-210 Sony's I had when I had an A6000 but not the sharpest I agree. The lower end Sony lenses leave a lot to be desired, find as many real world examples as you can, only way to satisfy yourself that you've made the right decision.
 
Ian W said:
Just not by you, then it might be spelled correctly ;)

Anyhoo, I'm out. Bored of this tbh.

OP, apologies. Look at your choices yourself, ignore everyone else and buy what will work for you [emoji1360]
Click to expand...

Thanks For your contribution Ian
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Don't underestimate this combo, the 12-40 pro Olympus lens is stunning, ultimately the sensor isn't as good in low light (laws of physics) but it's certainly a good shout
Click to expand...
Certainly Oly m4/3 is a good system with excellent lenses, both their own and Panasonic. I ran it for years, and only got out of it for ergonomical reasons.
 
I think with MFT it's worth looking at examples and processing files to see what's good enough. Coming from film I think that the latter MFT cameras employ Voodoo as the high ISO's are so good and ISO's like 5,000-10,000 which were science fiction back in the days of film or even in the days when I had a FF Canon 5D produce perfectly useable pictures that are better pictures in every respect than what I could get from film or the 5D at the highest ISO's those systems could go to. Even MFT ISO 20,000 to 25,600 are useable, IMO, especially if you can stop pixel peeping and instead look at the whole picture after resizing or printing for final viewing.

So I'd add MFT to the list of possibilities too :D
 
woof woof said:
I think with MFT it's worth looking at examples and processing files to see what's good enough. Coming from film I think that the latter MFT cameras employ Voodoo as the high ISO's are so good and ISO's like 5,000-10,000 which were science fiction back in the days of film or even in the days when I had a FF Canon 5D produce perfectly useable pictures that are better pictures in every respect than what I could get from film or the 5D at the highest ISO's those systems could go to. Even MFT ISO 20,000 to 25,600 are useable, IMO, especially if you can stop pixel peeping and instead look at the whole picture after resizing or printing for final viewing.

So I'd add MFT to the list of possibilities too :D
Click to expand...

Thanks will look into this my first ever serious camera was a Panasonic G1 and it was a joy to use.
 
freelander said:
Thanks will look into this my first ever serious camera was a Panasonic G1 and it was a joy to use.
Click to expand...

The 12-40 is excellent, especially with the Em5ii and EM1 or even EM10ii if you want to save a few pennies, for what you want to do Id say its a great option, the superb IBIS can really make the difference in your case so you dont need that slight advantage in APSC sensor performance.
 
I personally don't like the 4:3 format of mft.

Having said that I love the LX100 that I have
 
nandbytes said:
Oh dear Fuji folks with "alternative facts" are out too.

Truth is always bitter ;)

p.s. I never suggest buying Sony APS-C either. I'd suggest avoiding that too lol. It has a bunch overpriced rubbish lenses.

Perhaps consider eos m5. It lacks lenses but the ones available are great and prices brilliantly. Also EF(-S) lenses adapt well.
Click to expand...
What truth is that?
 
nandbytes said:
I never said it can't take good landscapes. But if someone is buying newly from scratch why invest in a system known to have problems for your main genre when there are alternatives available. Doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Well then would you care to elaborate your first comment in this thread?
 
All I will say is I use Fuji primes and have found them sharper than my Nikon 24-70 was on full frame. Never used Sony but I just feel the Fuji's and the images they produce have what I can only explain as a soul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top