Reading mode: Light Dark

Do I abandon A6000 for Fujifilm X-T10?

Go to last post
DustyBin

DustyBin

Leading Member
Messages
822
Solutions
1
Reaction score
618
Location
UK
There's a question to raise some ire...

I currently have an A6000 paired with an 18-105PZ and Sony 35 F1.8. I also have a NEX-5T with 20mm and 16-50PZ. My primary use for the A6000 is people and travel photography. I don't shoot landscapes. I do shoot a lot of social events in low light. I bought a Nissin i40 to help with this, but then discovered that the focus assist on the flash is not supported by the camera, rendering it largely pointless for times when I need to focus and shoot quickly to catch the moment. Thus, I tend to use a Canon 70D with 17-55 IS and Nissin flash if I have a lot of shots to take. I also use the A6000 with 35mm for manually focused low light shots at high ISO.

I don't shoot sports with either of the Sonys... I shoot the 70D for sports & wildlife with Canon 70-200 IS F4 and Sigma 150-600 C. The A6000 may have fast focusing, but it couldn't match the Canon set up when I tried the Sony 55-210 zoom and I wasn't prepared to shell out for the 70-200 G just to see if it made a difference. All reviews I've seen suggested that it wouldn't.

For travel, the 18-105PZ shoots fairly well, but just defeats the object of a small camera. I'm not prepared to pay the ridiculous money needed for the 16-70 (around £450 in the UK), when there is no guarantee of significant improvements in IQ. I love primes, but for speed and versatility a zoom is, for me, essential. Having tried both 16-50 and 18-55, I'm not impressed with the kit zooms.

I hope I'm making sense... I've become intrigued by the X-T10 because of what I've read about its low light performance and range of affordable, arguably higher quality lenses. I know I'd be giving up pixels, but that's not such a big deal as my shots are largely viewed on computer screens. And, high ISO noise performance appears to favour the X Trans sensor.

One last, very important, point. I don't have time to shoot RAW and PP. I'm not looking for one killer shot that I can lavish PP time on, but 50-100 shots out of 300-400 that I can sort through and share fairly quickly. Apologies in advance to all RAW evangelists who might tell me to give up on JPEG shooting...

So, back to my question... I'm particularly interested in advice from anyone who has experience of both systems.
 
If you shoot a lot of social occasions in low light, are you not concerned about the complete absence of image stabilization on Fuji? I would think your stabilized 35mm would offer tremendous advantages relative to anything available for Fuji in such settings.
 
I thought about fuji but their travel zoom is really too heavy and bulky and image quality in the studio comparison is not comparable with sony sensors. Fuji pictures are always soft I was really surprised.
 
susan2012 said:
If you shoot a lot of social occasions in low light, are you not concerned about the complete absence of image stabilization on Fuji? I would think your stabilized 35mm would offer tremendous advantages relative to anything available for Fuji in such settings.
Click to expand...
Fair point on the Fuji primes, but the zooms have IS.

You're right in that the 35 is great, although once you hit 1/30 or slower, subject motion blur becomes an issue. If only the Nissin focus assist worked!!
 
susan2012 said:
If you shoot a lot of social occasions in low light, are you not concerned about the complete absence of image stabilization on Fuji? I would think your stabilized 35mm would offer tremendous advantages relative to anything available for Fuji in such settings.
Click to expand...
I'd add that from what I've read fuji af is not great.
 
j0sh said:
I thought about fuji but their travel zoom is really too heavy and bulky and image quality in the studio comparison is not comparable with sony sensors. Fuji pictures are always soft I was really surprised.
Click to expand...
 
I had fuji Xt1 for a few days before I returned it for a few reasons.

Firstly its ISO performance isn't anything special. It's base ISO is 200 and its ISO values are inflated (base ISO on sony cameras is 100). So for example ISO3200 on XT1 is equivalent to about ISO1600 of A6000 (or other sony, nikon, canon cameras).

At ISO6400 and above XT1 (equivalent to ISO3200 on Sony) doesn't have RAW support which I guess isn't important to you. But the jpgs you get at high ISO look smudged and "toy" like feel. The jpgs in Sony aren't great, fuji is perhaps little better in contrast and colours but it comes at cost of details.

As for lenses the ones fuji has are generally amazing. But for me there is nothing out there that can replace sony 16-70mm. But if you find a lens you like on fuji (some of them are big too btw) then go for it.

Lastly the AF on A6000 was better than on XT1. Plus looking forward (thinking of future upgrades etc), Sony has made leaps and bounds in this area. Their PDAF now works with DSLR lenses (at least canon and sony a-mount for now). I am really looking forward to using lenses like sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, canon 24mm/40mm, etc etc on e-mount bodies.

Just my experience and 0.02p...

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I had fuji Xt1 for a few days before I returned it for a few reasons.

Firstly its ISO performance isn't anything special. It's base ISO is 200 and its ISO values are inflated (base ISO on sony cameras is 100). So for example ISO3200 on XT1 is equivalent to about ISO1600 of A6000 (or other sony, nikon, canon cameras).

At ISO6400 and above XT1 (equivalent to ISO3200 on Sony) doesn't have RAW support which I guess isn't important to you. But the jpgs you get at high ISO look smudged and "toy" like feel. The jpgs in Sony aren't great, fuji is perhaps little better in contrast and colours but it comes at cost of details.

As for lenses the ones fuji has are generally amazing. But for me there is nothing out there that can replace sony 16-70mm. But if you find a lens you like on fuji (some of them are big too btw) then go for it.

Lastly the AF on A6000 was better than on XT1. Plus looking forward (thinking of future upgrades etc), Sony has made leaps and bounds in this area. Their PDAF now works with DSLR lenses (at least canon and sony a-mount for now). I am really looking forward to using lenses like sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, canon 24mm/40mm etc on e-mount bodies.

Just my experience and 0.02p...
Click to expand...
 
mcslsk said:
What answer do you expect on a Sony Forum?
Click to expand...
At least I'm getting responses!! Nothing yet on the Fuji forum where I've also posted the question... :p
 
If you're only shooting people and travel photography, i would go for the x100t

but yeah, definitely ditch the Sony :)
 
DustyBin said:
There's a question to raise some ire...

I currently have an A6000 paired with an 18-105PZ and Sony 35 F1.8. I also have a NEX-5T with 20mm and 16-50PZ. My primary use for the A6000 is people and travel photography. I don't shoot landscapes. I do shoot a lot of social events in low light. I bought a Nissin i40 to help with this, but then discovered that the focus assist on the flash is not supported by the camera, rendering it largely pointless for times when I need to focus and shoot quickly to catch the moment. Thus, I tend to use a Canon 70D with 17-55 IS and Nissin flash if I have a lot of shots to take. I also use the A6000 with 35mm for manually focused low light shots at high ISO.
Click to expand...
1) all of the sony E mount bodies do not use the AF assist lamp on a secondary flash. I have no idea what the hell sony was thinking on this.. Some claim this is due to the AF but it should not be the case.

2) Fuji ISO is inflated. There is no performance gain in low light going with fuji. Fuji AF in low light is not any better than the sony. The 6300 will probably be the best AF in low light in mirrorless. (The better the sensor the better low light AF in mirrorless.) Keep in mind, in low light you can disable the live preview and if you shoot with a fast lens the camera will open the aperture to focus then stop it down to the set size for the shot. This can have a massive improvement in AF performance. This works especially well with lenses like the 18-105g which is parfocal. The canon with the 17-55 is a nice set up :)
DustyBin said:
I don't shoot sports with either of the Sonys... I shoot the 70D for sports & wildlife with Canon 70-200 IS F4 and Sigma 150-600 C. The A6000 may have fast focusing, but it couldn't match the Canon set up when I tried the Sony 55-210 zoom and I wasn't prepared to shell out for the 70-200 G just to see if it made a difference. All reviews I've seen suggested that it wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Canon for wildlife and sports makes more sense BUT... comparing those to a 150$ kit zoom is just silly.
DustyBin said:
For travel, the 18-105PZ shoots fairly well, but just defeats the object of a small camera. I'm not prepared to pay the ridiculous money needed for the 16-70 (around £450 in the UK), when there is no guarantee of significant improvements in IQ. I love primes, but for speed and versatility a zoom is, for me, essential. Having tried both 16-50 and 18-55, I'm not impressed with the kit zooms.
Click to expand...
I actually think the 18-105g with the a6000 is small and light. I guess it depends on your frame of reference. I tried the 16-70 and was not impressed. I am a cheap value buyer. I don't mind dropping 1k on a good walk around lens but it better be good. I felt like the 16-70 was a sold 500$ walk around lens. It is smaller and lighter but with crappier IQ than the 17-55 your shooting on your canon. I wish sony would make a better walk around apsc lens.
DustyBin said:
I hope I'm making sense... I've become intrigued by the X-T10 because of what I've read about its low light performance and range of affordable, arguably higher quality lenses. I know I'd be giving up pixels, but that's not such a big deal as my shots are largely viewed on computer screens. And, high ISO noise performance appears to favour the X Trans sensor.
Click to expand...
no actual improvement. I would imagine the A6300 will be more of what your looking for when it arrives.
DustyBin said:
One last, very important, point. I don't have time to shoot RAW and PP. I'm not looking for one killer shot that I can lavish PP time on, but 50-100 shots out of 300-400 that I can sort through and share fairly quickly. Apologies in advance to all RAW evangelists who might tell me to give up on JPEG shooting...
Click to expand...
Fuji jpeg is hands down better.
DustyBin said:
So, back to my question... I'm particularly interested in advice from anyone who has experience of both systems.
Click to expand...
Fuji is not better in AF. Fuji is not better in size/weight. Fuji is not better in low light. Fuji IS better in jpeg output. (Most raw converters foul up fuji raw conversion.) Fuji has a much better set of lens options although their price is not really any better but their performance is much better. IE: the fuji kit lens is better than the 16-70 zeiss. Fuji has much better zoom lenses but the sony prime lens options are actually very good. If you are mostly a zoom shooter then the fuji and do not shoot raw the fuji might be a good choice. Fuji bodies are well built and solid with great ergonomics.
 
DustyBin said:
nandbytes said:
I had fuji Xt1 for a few days before I returned it for a few reasons.

Firstly its ISO performance isn't anything special. It's base ISO is 200 and its ISO values are inflated (base ISO on sony cameras is 100). So for example ISO3200 on XT1 is equivalent to about ISO1600 of A6000 (or other sony, nikon, canon cameras).

At ISO6400 and above XT1 (equivalent to ISO3200 on Sony) doesn't have RAW support which I guess isn't important to you. But the jpgs you get at high ISO look smudged and "toy" like feel. The jpgs in Sony aren't great, fuji is perhaps little better in contrast and colours but it comes at cost of details.

As for lenses the ones fuji has are generally amazing. But for me there is nothing out there that can replace sony 16-70mm. But if you find a lens you like on fuji (some of them are big too btw) then go for it.

Lastly the AF on A6000 was better than on XT1. Plus looking forward (thinking of future upgrades etc), Sony has made leaps and bounds in this area. Their PDAF now works with DSLR lenses (at least canon and sony a-mount for now). I am really looking forward to using lenses like sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, canon 24mm/40mm etc on e-mount bodies.

Just my experience and 0.02p...

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/
Click to expand...
Great feedback... Thanks!

Perhaps I should just bite the bullet and fork out for a 16-70 to try it out. Worst case I resell for a small loss.

I should have mentioned I have tried a canon 10-18 STM with adapter on the A6000 and it does a good job.

I have also toyed with getting an A7 and 28-70... Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
I used to own A7 before I moved to APS-C solely with A6000. I didn't like where Sony was heading with their FF (fatty) cameras with fat f/1.4 & f/2.8 lenses. I was hoping for more small primes, some telephotos etc.

The 28-70mm is a very nice kit lens which IMO performs over its price point when bought as part of a kit. But I really like my 24mm end (or 16mm on APS-C) and I find 70mm on FF too short. I like having a constant aperture but its no big deal for me. I don't know how you feel about that. So on A7 I used the minolta 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (with LA-EA4) as my walkaround lens before I moved to A6000+16-70mm.

I like 16-70mm because it gives me a 24-105mm range in a really compact package. The 16-70 is by no means the greatest zoom (it has good bokeh, contrast and colours) and it has its limitations. But there is no other lens that out there that provides the same range at constant f/4 that is as small and provides the same IQ. I personally bought it used to make it more affordable. Buy it from a place where you are able to return in if it turns out bad for you.

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/
 
Last edited:
val1 said:
DustyBin said:
There's a question to raise some ire...

I currently have an A6000 paired with an 18-105PZ and Sony 35 F1.8. I also have a NEX-5T with 20mm and 16-50PZ. My primary use for the A6000 is people and travel photography. I don't shoot landscapes. I do shoot a lot of social events in low light. I bought a Nissin i40 to help with this, but then discovered that the focus assist on the flash is not supported by the camera, rendering it largely pointless for times when I need to focus and shoot quickly to catch the moment. Thus, I tend to use a Canon 70D with 17-55 IS and Nissin flash if I have a lot of shots to take. I also use the A6000 with 35mm for manually focused low light shots at high ISO.
Click to expand...
1) all of the sony E mount bodies do not use the AF assist lamp on a secondary flash. I have no idea what the hell sony was thinking on this.. Some claim this is due to the AF but it should not be the case.
Click to expand...
Indeed!
val1 said:
2) Fuji ISO is inflated. There is no performance gain in low light going with fuji. Fuji AF in low light is not any better than the sony. The 6300 will probably be the best AF in low light in mirrorless. (The better the sensor the better low light AF in mirrorless.) Keep in mind, in low light you can disable the live preview and if you shoot with a fast lens the camera will open the aperture to focus then stop it down to the set size for the shot. This can have a massive improvement in AF performance. This works especially well with lenses like the 18-105g which is parfocal. The canon with the 17-55 is a nice set up :)
Click to expand...
I wondered about this ISO issue as I'd read it elsewhere. Thanks for tip about disabling live preview...,will check that out.

yes... I got the 17-55 a couple of months ago and it has spoiled me...
val1 said:
val1 said:
I don't shoot sports with either of the Sonys... I shoot the 70D for sports & wildlife with Canon 70-200 IS F4 and Sigma 150-600 C. The A6000 may have fast focusing, but it couldn't match the Canon set up when I tried the Sony 55-210 zoom and I wasn't prepared to shell out for the 70-200 G just to see if it made a difference. All reviews I've seen suggested that it wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Canon for wildlife and sports makes more sense BUT... comparing those to a 150$ kit zoom is just silly.
Click to expand...
yup... I didn't really try any serious kind of comparison. For sports the ergonomics and performance of the DSLR set up doesn't even encourage me to try. Hence, I sold the 55-210.
val1 said:
val1 said:
For travel, the 18-105PZ shoots fairly well, but just defeats the object of a small camera. I'm not prepared to pay the ridiculous money needed for the 16-70 (around £450 in the UK), when there is no guarantee of significant improvements in IQ. I love primes, but for speed and versatility a zoom is, for me, essential. Having tried both 16-50 and 18-55, I'm not impressed with the kit zooms.
Click to expand...
I actually think the 18-105g with the a6000 is small and light. I guess it depends on your frame of reference. I tried the 16-70 and was not impressed. I am a cheap value buyer. I don't mind dropping 1k on a good walk around lens but it better be good. I felt like the 16-70 was a sold 500$ walk around lens. It is smaller and lighter but with crappier IQ than the 17-55 your shooting on your canon. I wish sony would make a better walk around apsc lens.
Click to expand...
While some love their 16-70s, so many are less than impressed, particularly given the price.
val1 said:
val1 said:
I hope I'm making sense... I've become intrigued by the X-T10 because of what I've read about its low light performance and range of affordable, arguably higher quality lenses. I know I'd be giving up pixels, but that's not such a big deal as my shots are largely viewed on computer screens. And, high ISO noise performance appears to favour the X Trans sensor.
Click to expand...
no actual improvement. I would imagine the A6300 will be more of what your looking for when it arrives.
Click to expand...
£1000 in the UK.... Won't be jumping to buy it on release, but will read reviews with interest.
val1 said:
val1 said:
One last, very important, point. I don't have time to shoot RAW and PP. I'm not looking for one killer shot that I can lavish PP time on, but 50-100 shots out of 300-400 that I can sort through and share fairly quickly. Apologies in advance to all RAW evangelists who might tell me to give up on JPEG shooting...
Click to expand...
Fuji jpeg is hands down better.
Click to expand...
But, perhaps not that much better?
val1 said:
val1 said:
So, back to my question... I'm particularly interested in advice from anyone who has experience of both systems.
Click to expand...
Fuji is not better in AF. Fuji is not better in size/weight. Fuji is not better in low light. Fuji IS better in jpeg output. (Most raw converters foul up fuji raw conversion.) Fuji has a much better set of lens options although their price is not really any better but their performance is much better. IE: the fuji kit lens is better than the 16-70 zeiss. Fuji has much better zoom lenses but the sony prime lens options are actually very good. If you are mostly a zoom shooter then the fuji and do not shoot raw the fuji might be a good choice. Fuji bodies are well built and solid with great ergonomics.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all,the feedback.... Much to ponder on!
 
nandbytes said:
DustyBin said:
nandbytes said:
I had fuji Xt1 for a few days before I returned it for a few reasons.

Firstly its ISO performance isn't anything special. It's base ISO is 200 and its ISO values are inflated (base ISO on sony cameras is 100). So for example ISO3200 on XT1 is equivalent to about ISO1600 of A6000 (or other sony, nikon, canon cameras).

At ISO6400 and above XT1 (equivalent to ISO3200 on Sony) doesn't have RAW support which I guess isn't important to you. But the jpgs you get at high ISO look smudged and "toy" like feel. The jpgs in Sony aren't great, fuji is perhaps little better in contrast and colours but it comes at cost of details.

As for lenses the ones fuji has are generally amazing. But for me there is nothing out there that can replace sony 16-70mm. But if you find a lens you like on fuji (some of them are big too btw) then go for it.

Lastly the AF on A6000 was better than on XT1. Plus looking forward (thinking of future upgrades etc), Sony has made leaps and bounds in this area. Their PDAF now works with DSLR lenses (at least canon and sony a-mount for now). I am really looking forward to using lenses like sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, canon 24mm/40mm etc on e-mount bodies.

Just my experience and 0.02p...

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/
Click to expand...
Great feedback... Thanks!

Perhaps I should just bite the bullet and fork out for a 16-70 to try it out. Worst case I resell for a small loss.

I should have mentioned I have tried a canon 10-18 STM with adapter on the A6000 and it does a good job.

I have also toyed with getting an A7 and 28-70... Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
I used to own A7 before I moved to APS-C solely with A6000. I didn't like where Sony was heading with their FF (fatty) cameras with fat f/1.4 & f/2.8 lenses. I was hoping for more small primes, some telephotos etc.

The 28-70mm is a very nice kit lens which IMO performs over its price point when bought as part of a kit. But I really like my 24mm end (or 16mm on APS-C) and I find 70mm on FF too short. I like having a constant aperture but its no big deal for me. I don't know how you feel about that. So on A7 I used the minolta 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (with LA-EA4) as my walkaround lens before I moved to A6000+16-70mm.

I like 16-70mm because it gives me a 24-105mm range in a really compact package. The 16-70 is by no means the greatest zoom (it has good bokeh, contrast and colours) and it has its limitations. But there is no other lens that out there that provides the same range at constant f/4 that is as small and provides the same IQ. I personally bought it used to make it more affordable. Buy it from a place where you are able to return in if it turns out bad for you.
Click to expand...
thanks for this advice. I guess I'll keep my eyes on eBay... Secondhand from a dealer is still £500+

I know someone with the A7... I'll see if I can borrow it for a day or two.
nandbytes said:
--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/
Click to expand...
 
DustyBin said:
DustyBin said:
....Great feedback... Thanks!
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should just bite the bullet and fork out for a 16-70 to try it out. Worst case I resell for a small loss.

I should have mentioned I have tried a canon 10-18 STM with adapter on the A6000 and it does a good job.

I have also toyed with getting an A7 and 28-70... Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
Like you I had greater hopes for the a6000 and had to abandon it's use for lower light, indoor conditions, due to autofocus problems. I did find that the autofocus is better with fast f/1.8 lenses so the 16-70mm f/4 zoom won't help in that regard.

I think you have to go with DSLR for reliable low light autofocus. I ended up with Nikon.

Yet I continued to build out my Sony a6000 kit and I love the 16-70mm f/4 lens for daytime. I think it has the Zeiss look - very engaging - and sufficient detail for me. I find it is lightweight and small relative to its capability as long as you use original lenses built for this design.

The lenses I use the most are 24mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8, and Zeiss Batis 85mm f/1.8 (like a 130mm portrait lens - amazing), as well as the 16-70mm f/4.
 
40e13180fd8146a9a749f6d85dfbdad8.jpg



3219773f0e8c49daaca9e18191168c49.jpg

Of course, low light with A6000 does encourage moody mono!!
 
c36f544364e448148b38e2644460093d.jpg

And, moody colour!
 
...and do not abandon.

Drop off your unwanted equipment at a local shelter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top