Sony α7 III first impression from a Fujifilm X-T2 owner

[lélé777004]

Hello!

FOREWORD:

I am a Fujifilm shooter. I own a Fujifilm X-T2, FUJINON XF 56mmF1.4 R, XF 56mmF1.2 R and XF 90mmF2 R LM WR. Occasionally, I also borrow the FUJINON XF 18-55mmF2.8-4 LM OIS of my girlfriend for landscapes and videos (because of OIS).

I recently bought a Sony α7 III, taking advantage of a good discount. Purpose is to:

• Complement the Fujifilm system for specific tasks: videos (waiting for an hypothetical Fujifilm X-H2 to be released, I think it is not the good moment to go for the X-H1...) and specific lenses (in particular adapted 'speciality' lenses for which the crop factor of the Fujifilm can be an issue, like a CANON TS-E 17mm f/4L).
• Give another try to the SONY system - I used to have a SONY α7 but I was not satisfied with the camera, nor with the system at the moment (2015-2016). Time has passed though, the system has evolved and my needs/wishes too. Eventually, it may - or not - replace my Fujifilm system.

DISCLAIMER:

Those are first impression only. Take them with a grain of salt!

FIRST IMPRESSIONS:

• Handling is much better than it was with the α7. Deeper grip and better positioned (and numerous) controls. It is somewhat 'intermediate' between a very compact and lightweight body like the X-T2 and a large DSLR. I would be curious to test Canon and Nikon mirrorless bodies though!
• Ergonomics have been drastically enhanced since the α7. Not very difficult though, α7 ergonomics were a disaster... That said, I still think the Fujifilm control system is a marvel. Maybe not the most efficient, but extremely pleasant to use IMO (even if there are a few quirk, like the speed dial with only full stop steps requiring to use another dial in addition/complement for finer adjustments).
• Menus are very complex, but coming from Fuji's menus I cannot tell which one is worse.
• It was expected, but the viewfinder is disappointing. Pixel count and magnification are similar to my X-T2, but for some reason it seems to show more aliasing. It also shows more latency and judder. (Note: my X-T2 is always in 'boost mode', with 100fps EVF refresh rate). It is also strange that the camera close the iris to the selected aperture (is there an option?); the X-T2 only does that when the shutter button is pressed halfway. That causes more grain/noise and latency in the EVF in low light scenarios… The difference with the Fuji' is obvious in such cases!
• IBIS is REALLY nice to have, especially for videos! Fuji', please release a X-H2 with IBIS!
• Eye AF (tested with Sony FE 85mm f/1.8) seems to do a better job than with the X-T2, but I shall test it with more lenses to give a more robust assessment.
• The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the α7 III seems to perform better than the FUJINON XF 56mmF1.2 R. Sharpness is clearly better both wide opened and AF smoother and quicker. Fuji, you need to update that lens! Low light performance with these lenses is quite similar by the way: I have to close by a stop more on the FF to get the same DoF which is basically killing the DR and noise advantage. Base ISO IQ is better on the α7 III (what was expected), but I not sure it will make a big difference in real life outside of pixel peeping scenarios or shots requiring to pull drastically the shadows.
• I really miss the aperture ring of the FUJINON lenses! Also the metal casing of the primes, which has a nicer feel.
• Fujifilm JPEG are unbeatable colorwise. I don't see myself sharing OOC JPEG like I do with the Fuji...

All in all, that's a mixed bag.

Some points are better on the green side, some are better on the orange side, some are just different.

Most of the differences were expected, except the EVF that I found really disappointing. Is there an option to prevent iris closing?

Regards,

Fred

 

[zeroshiki]

• The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the α7 III seems to perform better than the FUJINON XF 56mmF1.2 R. Sharpness is clearly better both wide opened and AF smoother and quicker. Fuji, you need to update that lens! Low light performance with these lenses is quite similar by the way: I have to close by a stop more on the FF to get the same DoF which is basically killing the DR and noise advantage. Base ISO IQ is better on the α7 III (what was expected), but I not sure it will make a big difference in real life outside of pixel peeping scenarios or shots requiring to pull drastically the shadows.

Not sure what you mean you have to stop down by a stop or more for on the FF to get the same DOF because the 85 1.8 on FF wide open should have thinner dof than 56 @1.2 on the fuji [email protected] which equivalent to approx 1.8 on FF.

 

[lélé777004]

• The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the α7 III seems to perform better than the FUJINON XF 56mmF1.2 R. Sharpness is clearly better both wide opened and AF smoother and quicker. Fuji, you need to update that lens! Low light performance with these lenses is quite similar by the way: I have to close by a stop more on the FF to get the same DoF which is basically killing the DR and noise advantage. Base ISO IQ is better on the α7 III (what was expected), but I not sure it will make a big difference in real life outside of pixel peeping scenarios or shots requiring to pull drastically the shadows.

Not sure what you mean you have to stop down by a stop or more for on the FF to get the same DOF because the 85 1.8 on FF wide open should have thinner dof than 56 @1.2 on the fuji [email protected] which equivalent to approx 1.8 on FF.

56mm @f/1.2 on an APS-C camera vs. 85mm @f/1.8 on a FF camera, given same focusing distance, same output size and same output view distance, give you extremely similar DoF (and framing). They're virtually 'equivalent'.

More generally speaking, to get the same DoF with both cameras (i.e. compose my photo as I want), I have to reduce the relative aperture by about one stop on the FF Sony compared with the APS-C Fuji (e.g. shoot at f/4 while on the Fuji I would shoot at f/2.4 or f/2.8).

Downside of that is that in 'low light scenarios' I have to raise the ISO by about one stop on the FF. Resulting in a DR and noise level very similar to the APS-C Fuji. No gain. (That was something I was expecting, but may not be the common understanding. A lot of people saying that FF is better in low light. IMHO, it is not necessarily true, but bounded to certain conditions. That's why I wanted to point out that topic in my first impressions.)

FF has an edge in 'low light scenarios' only when you have access to lenses with no equivalent in the APS-C world (e.g. shooting with a 50mm f/1.4 ; Fujifilm has no equivalent for the moment (although a 33mm f/1.0 is coming)) and accept to deal with the shallower DoF associated. Outside of that, they perform similarly.

That said, the Sony may have an edge in low light scenarios due to IBIS. At the moment, I only shot my children, so minimum shutter speed was mostly limited by my two little 'demons', not by camera shake. That said, it might be different with longer focal lengths (I used 85mm) and/or more still subjects. It that case I may be able to increase the shutter time on the Sony, getting more light, getting more DR and less noise.

 

[Mike99999]

• The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the α7 III seems to perform better than the FUJINON XF 56mmF1.2 R. Sharpness is clearly better both wide opened and AF smoother and quicker.

This is the main take away for me.

Cheap & cheerful full frame lenses outperform expensive APS-C glass.

As soon as you are messing around with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses on a crop system, it is advantageous to switch to full frame.

 

[zeroshiki]

• The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the α7 III seems to perform better than the FUJINON XF 56mmF1.2 R. Sharpness is clearly better both wide opened and AF smoother and quicker. Fuji, you need to update that lens! Low light performance with these lenses is quite similar by the way: I have to close by a stop more on the FF to get the same DoF which is basically killing the DR and noise advantage. Base ISO IQ is better on the α7 III (what was expected), but I not sure it will make a big difference in real life outside of pixel peeping scenarios or shots requiring to pull drastically the shadows.

Not sure what you mean you have to stop down by a stop or more for on the FF to get the same DOF because the 85 1.8 on FF wide open should have thinner dof than 56 @1.2 on the fuji [email protected] which equivalent to approx 1.8 on FF.

56mm @f/1.2 on an APS-C camera vs. 85mm @f/1.8 on a FF camera, given same focusing distance, same output size and same output view distance, give you extremely similar DoF (and framing). They're virtually 'equivalent'.

More generally speaking, to get the same DoF with both cameras (i.e. compose my photo as I want), I have to reduce the relative aperture by about one stop on the FF Sony compared with the APS-C Fuji (e.g. shoot at f/4 while on the Fuji I would shoot at f/2.4 or f/2.8).

Downside of that is that in 'low light scenarios' I have to raise the ISO by about one stop on the FF. Resulting in a DR and noise level very similar to the APS-C Fuji. No gain. (That was something I was expecting, but may not be the common understanding. A lot of people saying that FF is better in low light. IMHO, it is not necessarily true, but bounded to certain conditions. That's why I wanted to point out that topic in my first impressions.)

FF has an edge in 'low light scenarios' only when you have access to lenses with no equivalent in the APS-C world (e.g. shooting with a 50mm f/1.4 ; Fujifilm has no equivalent for the moment (although a 33mm f/1.0 is coming)) and accept to deal with the shallower DoF associated. Outside of that, they perform similarly.

That said, the Sony may have an edge in low light scenarios due to IBIS. At the moment, I only shot my children, so minimum shutter speed was mostly limited by my two little 'demons', not by camera shake. That said, it might be different with longer focal lengths (I used 85mm) and/or more still subjects. It that case I may be able to increase the shutter time on the Sony, getting more light, getting more DR and less noise.

Ah yes, the apsc fuji do have 1 stop advantage of speed when speaking of equivalency of dof vs full frame, but that is to be expected from the smaller sensor. In comparison, the micro 4/3 would have the same 1 stop dof advantage from the fuji too.

But with fuji's ISO cheat, you would have to raise the iso or slow the shutter speed by 1/2 to 2/3 stop to make the image equivalent in brightness to full frame. Which again, diminished the DR / speed advantage of the faster f stop on the fuji.

Eg:

same distance, same light, same dof. theorerically it should meter like this for exposure

Fuji 56 @f4 1/100 iso 400

Sony 85 @5.6 1/100 iso 800

But because of fuji iso cheat, the fuji image exposed above will certainly be under exposed by 1/2 to 2/3 stop. Which then to produce the same brightness, the fuji will need something like:

Fuji 56@f4 1/100 iso 640/800

Or

Sony 85f5.6 1/100 iso 500

And on similar iso, the sony will have about 1.5 stop or better noise and DR performance. I had the xh1 and a7r3 at the same time a few months ago and this is my finding. Now the xh1 has been replaced by a7m3 and it is slightly even better in low light than the a7r3.

 

[Hans vdC]

Pretty close to my observations which I posted before too. I love the fast AF and eye AF on the Sony, high ISO is quite a bit better and the sharpness of the Sony is quite a lot better too (maybe xtrans vs bayer). Still don't love the Sony...like it yes, love it, no

That said, the 55/1.8 and Tamron 28-75 are fantastic lenses

 

[Hans vdC]

That is completely true, and one of the main reasons I sold my 56/1.2 for the 55/1.8 on the Sony. Mainly use my Fuji with the 35/2 and the 18-55 kitlens. Both very good and light lenses keeping the camera light/small. Even considering to sell my Fuji 23/1.4 for the same reason and getting the Sony 35mm instead.

 

[lélé777004]

• The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the α7 III seems to perform better than the FUJINON XF 56mmF1.2 R. Sharpness is clearly better both wide opened and AF smoother and quicker. Fuji, you need to update that lens! Low light performance with these lenses is quite similar by the way: I have to close by a stop more on the FF to get the same DoF which is basically killing the DR and noise advantage. Base ISO IQ is better on the α7 III (what was expected), but I not sure it will make a big difference in real life outside of pixel peeping scenarios or shots requiring to pull drastically the shadows.

Not sure what you mean you have to stop down by a stop or more for on the FF to get the same DOF because the 85 1.8 on FF wide open should have thinner dof than 56 @1.2 on the fuji [email protected] which equivalent to approx 1.8 on FF.

56mm @f/1.2 on an APS-C camera vs. 85mm @f/1.8 on a FF camera, given same focusing distance, same output size and same output view distance, give you extremely similar DoF (and framing). They're virtually 'equivalent'.

More generally speaking, to get the same DoF with both cameras (i.e. compose my photo as I want), I have to reduce the relative aperture by about one stop on the FF Sony compared with the APS-C Fuji (e.g. shoot at f/4 while on the Fuji I would shoot at f/2.4 or f/2.8).

Downside of that is that in 'low light scenarios' I have to raise the ISO by about one stop on the FF. Resulting in a DR and noise level very similar to the APS-C Fuji. No gain. (That was something I was expecting, but may not be the common understanding. A lot of people saying that FF is better in low light. IMHO, it is not necessarily true, but bounded to certain conditions. That's why I wanted to point out that topic in my first impressions.)

FF has an edge in 'low light scenarios' only when you have access to lenses with no equivalent in the APS-C world (e.g. shooting with a 50mm f/1.4 ; Fujifilm has no equivalent for the moment (although a 33mm f/1.0 is coming)) and accept to deal with the shallower DoF associated. Outside of that, they perform similarly.

That said, the Sony may have an edge in low light scenarios due to IBIS. At the moment, I only shot my children, so minimum shutter speed was mostly limited by my two little 'demons', not by camera shake. That said, it might be different with longer focal lengths (I used 85mm) and/or more still subjects. It that case I may be able to increase the shutter time on the Sony, getting more light, getting more DR and less noise.

Ah yes, the apsc fuji do have 1 stop advantage of speed when speaking of equivalency of dof vs full frame, but that is to be expected from the smaller sensor. In comparison, the micro 4/3 would have the same 1 stop dof advantage from the fuji too.

But with fuji's ISO cheat, you would have to raise the iso or slow the shutter speed by 1/2 to 2/3 stop to make the image equivalent in brightness to full frame. Which again, diminished the DR / speed advantage of the faster f stop on the fuji.

Eg:

same distance, same light, same dof. theorerically it should meter like this for exposure

Fuji 56 @f4 1/100 iso 400

Sony 85 @5.6 1/100 iso 800

But because of fuji iso cheat, the fuji image exposed above will certainly be under exposed by 1/2 to 2/3 stop. Which then to produce the same brightness, the fuji will need something like:

Fuji 56@f4 1/100 iso 640/800

Or

Sony 85f5.6 1/100 iso 500

And on similar iso, the sony will have about 1.5 stop or better noise and DR performance. I had the xh1 and a7r3 at the same time a few months ago and this is my finding. Now the xh1 has been replaced by a7m3 and it is slightly even better in low light than the a7r3.

Speaking of 'cheating' is where the non-sense brand war starts!

There is a standard (ISO 12232:2006) with five different rating techniques. The manufacturers are free to choose any of those. Period.

Is it important to know that different techniques exist? Yes, it might be if you want to compare cameras.

As for me, I chose a practical approach. Outside of specific and well identified scenarios (technical breakthrough, sensor with very fast readout time…) and for sensor of the same 'generation', DR and noise level are *almost* linearly linked to the sensor surface area. Which in practise means:

• When available light is not limiting, a FF sensor will provide me with about a stop (a bit more in fact) more DR than an APS-C sensor.
• When available light is limiting ('low light'), there are two possible scenario:
  • Equivalent lenses are available (e.g. 85mm f/1.8 on FF and 56mm f/1.2 on APS-C) and both FF and APS-C will perform similarly,
  • Equivalent lenses are not available (e.g. 85mm f/1.2 on FF) and FF will have an edge in terms of noise level, at the expense of DoF (of benefit if I want a shallower DoF).

There are finer differences, but IMHO if you go that far, you shall take into account a lot of other parameters (actual lens transmission, vignetting and its correction, sharpening required and its influence on the noise level, etc.).

 

[lélé777004]

• The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the α7 III seems to perform better than the FUJINON XF 56mmF1.2 R. Sharpness is clearly better both wide opened and AF smoother and quicker.

This is the main take away for me.

Cheap & cheerful full frame lenses outperform expensive APS-C glass.

As soon as you are messing around with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses on a crop system, it is advantageous to switch to full frame.

Regarding lenses, that's really a case by case basis.

Fujifilm released lenses with very interesting specs' very early in the X system life. This was certainly a clever choice, but some of them now seem a bit 'outdated' compared to their newer releases.

On the other side, if you consider the FUJINON 90mm the only equivalent (to my knowledge) in the Sony FF world is the ZEISS Batis 2.8/135...which is twice the price. you have faster 135mm available, but with the exception of the excellent manual Samyang lens, they are more expensive and WAY bigger and heavier.

So, all in all that's not a simple equation. You really have to carefully check for your particular requirements.

 

[Mike Fouc]

A Sony 135/1.8 is being released shortly...

Loading…

www.sonyrumors.co

 

[lélé777004]

A Sony 135/1.8 is being released shortly...

https://www.sonyrumors.co/sony-fe-2...-8-gm-lenses-to-be-announced-on-september-20/

Yes, but it is very likely to be +2k€ and +1kg.

The FUJINON XF 90mmF2 R LM WR is 970€ (MSRP, street price is less) and 540gr. It is equivalent to a 137mm f/3.1 mounted on FF.

To my knowledge, the closest equivalent in SONY FE mount is the ZEISS Batis 2.8/135. It is just a tad heavier (612gr.) but has OIS in return. Both have extremely high optical quality. Both have a similar effective field of view. Both will offer similar compression and DoF (slightly shallower on the ZEISS wide opened). Only problem is the ZEISS being price 1700€ (MSRP), almost twice the price of the Fuji.

Sure they are alternatives, but with the notable exception of the Samyang (which is manual focus), they are all much bigger and heavier than the Fuji and the ZEISS.

 

[zeroshiki]

Speaking of 'cheating' is where the non-sense brand war starts!

There is a standard (ISO 12232:2006) with five different rating techniques. The manufacturers are free to choose any of those. Period.

Is it important to know that different techniques exist? Yes, it might be if you want to compare cameras.

As for me, I chose a practical approach. Outside of specific and well identified scenarios (technical breakthrough, sensor with very fast readout time…) and for sensor of the same 'generation', DR and noise level are *almost* linearly linked to the sensor surface area. Which in practise means:

• When available light is not limiting, a FF sensor will provide me with about a stop (a bit more in fact) more DR than an APS-C sensor.
• When available light is limiting ('low light'), there are two possible scenario:
  • Equivalent lenses are available (e.g. 85mm f/1.8 on FF and 56mm f/1.2 on APS-C) and both FF and APS-C will perform similarly,
  • Equivalent lenses are not available (e.g. 85mm f/1.2 on FF) and FF will have an edge in terms of noise level, at the expense of DoF (of benefit if I want a shallower DoF).

There are finer differences, but IMHO if you go that far, you shall take into account a lot of other parameters (actual lens transmission, vignetting and its correction, sharpening required and its influence on the noise level, etc.).

Please do let me rephrase that it's fuji's way of iso measuement standards differs from sony or nikon, and you are correct that it is not cheating.

The fuji standard conforms to one of the ISO standard where the measured iso from fuji will always expose 2/3rd stop darker image than other systems following other ISO measurement standard. Even sony and nikon differs in standard measurement but only by approx 1/3 stops.

and i did not mention it because of brand wars, it is just my own observation having owned the xt20, xh1, and then a7r3 and a7iii. I still have the xt20 and gave it to my girlfriend to use. I found that fuji needs 2/3 slower shutter speed, or higher iso to get the same level of exposure and this is reflected on the histogram on the live view even before the exposure.

On sensor surface difference between any aps-c and full frame, there certainly will be a stop difference of DR or more(depends on the accompanying tech on the sensor) and light gathering capabiity which correlates directly to DR, noise performance, details, etc. And this is assuming the compared apsc and full frame have the same iso measurement standards.

Available light or limited available light(low light) does not affect the sensor physics in light gathering capabilites. Hence i agree with you, when available light is non limiting, with scenario 1, the full frame will have approx 1 stop advantage in noise and DR. This does apply too on limited light as you have stated in your example with equivalent lenses(56 1.2 apsc and 85 1.8 ff).

But that example is assuming both ff and apsc systems have the same iso standard measurements. And we both know fuji have different measurement here, ergo it is important for others to know that the practical approach of apsc vs FF DR comparison does not apply here for fuji. It may be applied for example between apsc and full frame of the same system(nikon, canon, sony).

This is exactly why i said on my earlier post, even with fuji advantage of 1.2 lens, when exposing for a certain same condition, it may seem that it has speed advantage. This is not the same with apsc and ff comparison between same system. Illustration for typical low light situation.

Fuji 56 @f1.2 1/80 iso 3200

FF [email protected] 1/80 iso 6400

But because of fuji's iso measurement standard, one will need to raise the iso or slow the shutter by 2/3 stop, which means it will result in iso 5000. So the 'little difference' people actually found on fuji is actually simulated rather than a real one. In case of preserving details, one need to limit the high iso value, so to keep the iso at 3200 or below, then the other choice would be slowing the shutter to approx 1/50, which is quite slow for sensor without ibis to prevent blur from shake.

This disadvantage does not apply between one system's own apsc and ff, they have the same iso measurement, and there wont be any exposure adjustment needed, and the image will result very similary(difference being from lens characteristics) Hence your statement of practical approach between apsc and ff comparison of the same generational sensors applies.

I dont have anything against fuji, its just that people need to know that their iso measurement makes the system looks as if they are performing within less than 1/2 stop from other full frame system, like its a magic. Whereas truth is, apsc is just an apsc and there's physics limitation in comparing sensor sizes. The exact same physics can can be applied to full frame vs medium format in comparing DR and noise. Assuming same generation sensors and techs.

 

[MILC man]

• The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the α7 III seems to perform better than the FUJINON XF 56mmF1.2 R. Sharpness is clearly better both wide opened and AF smoother and quicker.

This is the main take away for me.

Cheap & cheerful full frame lenses outperform expensive APS-C glass.

As soon as you are messing around with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses on a crop system, it is advantageous to switch to full frame.

Regarding lenses, that's really a case by case basis.

his point was that there are many overpriced Fuji lenses, which is what happens when you try to get serious with most any ilc crop format... for example:

FE 85mm f/1.8 $700

FUJI XF 56mmF1.2 $900 (currently on sale $100 off)

FE 12-24/4: $1700

FUJI 8-16/2.8: $2,000

if Fuji aps-c lens owners want to compete with ff lens performance, they typically have to pay more for faster glass.

On the other side, if you consider the FUJINON 90mm the only equivalent (to my knowledge) in the Sony FF world is the ZEISS Batis 2.8/135...which is twice the price.

the sigma art 135 isn't twice the price, and it's f/1.8, not f/2.8... Fuji can't compete with that, which is again what happens when you try to get serious with ilc crop formats; the lens selection simply isn't there.

for example, when Fuji released it's mk line of pro video lenses, they did in e-mount, not x-mount, because e-mount has huge market share:

"There are two main reasons why Fujinon decided to only make these lenses available in E-mount. The first is that Fujinon have been conducting research that indicated that quite a lot of all lenses sold in the emerging production market were E-mount, in fact, the amount was second only to Canon’s EF mount. However when they looked at the camera quantity share based on mounts, more than half of all the cameras being sold were using the Sony E-mount. This really is testament to just how popular the Sony FS7, FS5, and Alpha series of mirrorless cameras have become."

Loading…

www.newsshooter.com

 

[lélé777004]

• The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the α7 III seems to perform better than the FUJINON XF 56mmF1.2 R. Sharpness is clearly better both wide opened and AF smoother and quicker.

This is the main take away for me.

Cheap & cheerful full frame lenses outperform expensive APS-C glass.

As soon as you are messing around with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses on a crop system, it is advantageous to switch to full frame.

Regarding lenses, that's really a case by case basis.

his point was that there are many overpriced Fuji lenses, which is what happens when you try to get serious with most any ilc crop format... for example:

FE 85mm f/1.8 $700

FUJI XF 56mmF1.2 $900 (currently on sale $100 off)

FE 12-24/4: $1700

FUJI 8-16/2.8: $2,000

if Fuji aps-c lens owners want to compete with ff lens performance, they typically have to pay more for faster glass.

On the other side, if you consider the FUJINON 90mm the only equivalent (to my knowledge) in the Sony FF world is the ZEISS Batis 2.8/135...which is twice the price.

the sigma art 135 isn't twice the price, and it's f/1.8, not f/2.8... Fuji can't compete with that, which is again what happens when you try to get serious with ilc crop formats; the lens selection simply isn't there.

for example, when Fuji released it's mk line of pro video lenses, they did in e-mount, not x-mount, because e-mount has huge market share: https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/73...s-suddenly-become-a-credible-option-for-video

I agree regarding the high price of Fujifilm lenses. Although I think it is also due to Fujifilm marketing positioning.

The Sigma Art 135mm f/1.8 is a superb lens. Indeed, it allows for more subject separation than the FUJINON XF 90mmF2 R LM WR. And its optical quality may be even better (the FUJINON is already VERY sharp wide open and virtually free of LoCA, which is already impressive).That said, the Sigma is not an equivalent in the sense it is WAY bigger and heavier.

As for me, it is too big and too heavy (but that's a personal consideration). For a similar price, I just bought a second hand ZEISS Batis. It is better fitting *my* requirements, even if I would not have say 'no' to a larger aperture if it wasn't that big and heavy (physics…).

 

[kolyy]

Hello!

Hi!

It was expected, but the viewfinder is disappointing. Pixel count and magnification are similar to my X-T2, but for some reason it seems to show more aliasing. It also shows more latency and judder.

Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)

 

[lélé777004]

Hello!

Hi!

It was expected, but the viewfinder is disappointing. Pixel count and magnification are similar to my X-T2, but for some reason it seems to show more aliasing. It also shows more latency and judder.

Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)

yes

 

[Pennyfan]

• The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the α7 III seems to perform better than the FUJINON XF 56mmF1.2 R. Sharpness is clearly better both wide opened and AF smoother and quicker.

This is the main take away for me.

Cheap & cheerful full frame lenses outperform expensive APS-C glass.

As soon as you are messing around with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses on a crop system, it is advantageous to switch to full frame.

Regarding lenses, that's really a case by case basis.

his point was that there are many overpriced Fuji lenses, which is what happens when you try to get serious with most any ilc crop format... for example:

FE 85mm f/1.8 $700

FUJI XF 56mmF1.2 $900 (currently on sale $100 off)

FE 12-24/4: $1700

FUJI 8-16/2.8: $2,000

if Fuji aps-c lens owners want to compete with ff lens performance, they typically have to pay more for faster glass.

On the other side, if you consider the FUJINON 90mm the only equivalent (to my knowledge) in the Sony FF world is the ZEISS Batis 2.8/135...which is twice the price.

the sigma art 135 isn't twice the price, and it's f/1.8, not f/2.8... Fuji can't compete with that, which is again what happens when you try to get serious with ilc crop formats; the lens selection simply isn't there.

for example, when Fuji released it's mk line of pro video lenses, they did in e-mount, not x-mount, because e-mount has huge market share:

"There are two main reasons why Fujinon decided to only make these lenses available in E-mount. The first is that Fujinon have been conducting research that indicated that quite a lot of all lenses sold in the emerging production market were E-mount, in fact, the amount was second only to Canon’s EF mount. However when they looked at the camera quantity share based on mounts, more than half of all the cameras being sold were using the Sony E-mount. This really is testament to just how popular the Sony FS7, FS5, and Alpha series of mirrorless cameras have become."

https://www.newsshooter.com/2017/02...for-e-mount-mk-18-55-t2-9-and-mk-50-135-t2-9/

Sony FE 35mm f2.8 Zeiss - $798

Fuji XF 23mm f2 - $399

Sony FE 24-70 f4 Zeiss - $898

Fuji XF 18-55 f2.8~4 - $599

Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS - $1198

Fuji XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS - $599

You can always find cheaper lenses from one brand compares to another and vice versa.

 

[lélé777004]

• The Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 mounted on the α7 III seems to perform better than the FUJINON XF 56mmF1.2 R. Sharpness is clearly better both wide opened and AF smoother and quicker.

This is the main take away for me.

Cheap & cheerful full frame lenses outperform expensive APS-C glass.

As soon as you are messing around with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses on a crop system, it is advantageous to switch to full frame.

Regarding lenses, that's really a case by case basis.

his point was that there are many overpriced Fuji lenses, which is what happens when you try to get serious with most any ilc crop format... for example:

FE 85mm f/1.8 $700

FUJI XF 56mmF1.2 $900 (currently on sale $100 off)

FE 12-24/4: $1700

FUJI 8-16/2.8: $2,000

if Fuji aps-c lens owners want to compete with ff lens performance, they typically have to pay more for faster glass.

On the other side, if you consider the FUJINON 90mm the only equivalent (to my knowledge) in the Sony FF world is the ZEISS Batis 2.8/135...which is twice the price.

the sigma art 135 isn't twice the price, and it's f/1.8, not f/2.8... Fuji can't compete with that, which is again what happens when you try to get serious with ilc crop formats; the lens selection simply isn't there.

for example, when Fuji released it's mk line of pro video lenses, they did in e-mount, not x-mount, because e-mount has huge market share:

"There are two main reasons why Fujinon decided to only make these lenses available in E-mount. The first is that Fujinon have been conducting research that indicated that quite a lot of all lenses sold in the emerging production market were E-mount, in fact, the amount was second only to Canon’s EF mount. However when they looked at the camera quantity share based on mounts, more than half of all the cameras being sold were using the Sony E-mount. This really is testament to just how popular the Sony FS7, FS5, and Alpha series of mirrorless cameras have become."

https://www.newsshooter.com/2017/02...for-e-mount-mk-18-55-t2-9-and-mk-50-135-t2-9/

Sony FE 35mm f2.8 Zeiss - $798

Fuji XF 23mm f2 - $399

Sony FE 24-70 f4 Zeiss - $898

Fuji XF 18-55 f2.8~4 - $599

Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS - $1198

Fuji XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS - $599

You can always find cheaper lenses from one brand compares to another and vice versa.

Especially if you deliberately choose lenses which are not equivalent...

 

[lélé777004]

Hello!

Hi!

It was expected, but the viewfinder is disappointing. Pixel count and magnification are similar to my X-T2, but for some reason it seems to show more aliasing. It also shows more latency and judder.

Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)

The difference is really important.

I already experienced that when I had the first a7, but i was expecting the a7 III viewfinder to be much better.

I noticed that the camera was always closing the lens iris to set aperture (no option to prevent that?), while on the Fuji it only does when the shutter button is pressed halfway. That said, even with the lens set to max. aperture, in interior the difference in EVF smoothness and latency is HUGE. I was really surprised...

 

[MILC man]

Hello!

Hi!

It was expected, but the viewfinder is disappointing. Pixel count and magnification are similar to my X-T2, but for some reason it seems to show more aliasing. It also shows more latency and judder.

Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)

The difference is really important.

I already experienced that when I had the first a7, but i was expecting the a7 III viewfinder to be much better.

I noticed that the camera was always closing the lens iris to set aperture

which is the only way to have wysiwyg in the evf.

while on the Fuji it only does when the shutter button is pressed halfway. That said, even with the lens set to max. aperture, in interior the difference in EVF smoothness and latency is HUGE.

given that practically no one else has made such a biased claim, I think not.