Choosing a Lens Ecosystem: Sony or Fuji

Hey everyone,

I have reached an important crossroads in my photography development. I have been shooting with an a6000 with the Zeiss Touit 32mm, Sony 50mm 1.8, and the Sigma 19mm 2.8 for a couple of years now and thoroughly enjoyed my experience. Before I had the original NEX 3 which was my first "real" camera. Most of my work is for me, I do mostly street and travel photography.

I have shot a few small events and on a few occasions, my clients blew up my pictures for mounted portraits and used them on website gallery images. I wasn't prepared for any of this, but it got me thinking, if people want to use my work maybe I should think about an upgrade. I have all the lenses I want for the emount apc and I don't want to make a marginal upgrade.

I've recently been hired to do a few more events. I could keep using my a6000 and probably have no issues with my low profile gigs, but if I want to start trying out for "higher profile" jobs, now seems like a good time to make a change.

So to keep it simple: I am considering whether to move FF with the A7 or jump now at a good point to start investing in the Fuji system.

Here are the variables I've been considering at great length:

(a) Fuji isn't a FF system, but from what I have read and experienced, the system more than satisfies my needs in terms of IQ. I have been reading tons of articles and side by sides on this. Since size and cost are an issue (I like keeping my kit small, this is why I bought into mirrorless in the first place) and the a7 and Zeiss lenses keep getting bigger, the arguably marginal loss in IQ from a non-FF is a fair trade-off. An a7rII with a Batis is big. I don't plan on changing out of street and travel photography and won't pursue work that demands a whole studio setup.

(b) On the other hand, I am already in the Sony family. Going FF means an entirely new set of lenses, so no real advantage there. Granted I am have APC lenses, in a pinch I could use the Zeiss Touit on an a7 because the mounts are the same. The a6000 could be a nice backup (loss of IQ with FF lens on the apc arguments is not for this thread) and a walk-around with FF attached.

(c) Alright another huge factor: I am colorblind! Subtle differences in shade gradients can be difficult for me which is why I rely heavily on my histogram. From what I have read, Fuji color rendering requires less post processing and is generally "more natural" than Sony. I like the colors from my a6000, but I don't love them. Post processing from RAW again can be difficult for me. Going Fuji might make this easier and ultimately save me time/frustration? (I am no authority on this).

(d) Cost: I am not a money tree and for someone who does photography primarily as a hobby, justifying the cost for each system (and thinking about this long term) is important. Here are my ideal lens kits/personal roadmap for the next several years:

Fuji 16mm 1.4 at $800

Fuji 18-55 kit (with body) at $300

Fuji 35mm f2 at $400

Fuji 90mm F2 at $750

Total cost: $2250, no body (all native lenses!)

Zeiss Sonnar FE 55mm 1.8 at $800

Vario Tessar 16-35 mm F4 at $1400

Batis 85mm F1.8 at $1200

Vario Tessar 24-70mm F4 at $1200

Total cost: $4600, no body.

I could literally get all the Fuji gear plus a body plus probably another lens or backup body for the price of JUST the lenses for a Sony a7 system. I'm sure we could debate away on which system actually produces superior quality images, but for my cost/size needs its really hard to justify.

Another point that is both exciting and slightly irritating is how often Sony iterates on its bodies. When I bought my a6000 the sales guy was trying to upsell me to an A7. Now two years later we have 6 variants. Kind of glad I didn't buy it then. Sony doesn't look like its going to stop. I don't want to get a body that will be "obsolete" in 6 months.

(e) Ideally I don't want to have two separate kits. If I go Fuji, I don't want to carry my a6000 and glass as a backup, so buying another body down the road is something to keep in mind. The a6000 won't keep getting upgrades either so it wouldn't be an ideal backup... would it even be a backup?

Thoughts, opinion, advice?

This is such a tough choice and one I definitely can't make for you. Personally, I think your setup is good enough, but if you are wanting more quality, I'm not sure Fuji is the way to go. Besides getting the 16mm f/1.4, of the lenses you'd want, I doubt you would see much of an advantage over your current A6000 setup. The bodies might be nicer ergonomically, and that may be reason enough to switch, but based on your desire to upgrade and be prepared for higher profile jobs, I'm not sure if a switch to Fuji would make that much of a difference, especially since you already have pretty good lenses. Their system really isn't that much smaller than Sony's FF system. If you want a size advantage, micro 4/3 would be the way to go, though you'd lose out on a bit of image quality.

I am also partly colourbling, so I do understand the advantages of going Fuji for that. However, this main advantage only applies if you shoot in JPG. I just wanted to make sure you knew that in case you shot RAW.

Also, just because there is an upgrade, that doesn't mean your body becomes obsolete. The Canon t2i is from early 2010, but I still think that's a fantastic camera despite the fact that it's 4 (camera) generations old now.

jmong1853 said:

Hey everyone,

I have reached an important crossroads in my photography development. I have been shooting with an a6000 with the Zeiss Touit 32mm, Sony 50mm 1.8, and the Sigma 19mm 2.8 for a couple of years now and thoroughly enjoyed my experience. Before I had the original NEX 3 which was my first "real" camera. Most of my work is for me, I do mostly street and travel photography.

I have shot a few small events and on a few occasions, my clients blew up my pictures for mounted portraits and used them on website gallery images. I wasn't prepared for any of this, but it got me thinking, if people want to use my work maybe I should think about an upgrade. I have all the lenses I want for the emount apc and I don't want to make a marginal upgrade.

I've recently been hired to do a few more events. I could keep using my a6000 and probably have no issues with my low profile gigs, but if I want to start trying out for "higher profile" jobs, now seems like a good time to make a change.

So to keep it simple: I am considering whether to move FF with the A7 or jump now at a good point to start investing in the Fuji system.

Here are the variables I've been considering at great length:

(a) Fuji isn't a FF system, but from what I have read and experienced, the system more than satisfies my needs in terms of IQ. I have been reading tons of articles and side by sides on this. Since size and cost are an issue (I like keeping my kit small, this is why I bought into mirrorless in the first place) and the a7 and Zeiss lenses keep getting bigger, the arguably marginal loss in IQ from a non-FF is a fair trade-off. An a7rII with a Batis is big. I don't plan on changing out of street and travel photography and won't pursue work that demands a whole studio setup.

(b) On the other hand, I am already in the Sony family. Going FF means an entirely new set of lenses, so no real advantage there. Granted I am have APC lenses, in a pinch I could use the Zeiss Touit on an a7 because the mounts are the same. The a6000 could be a nice backup (loss of IQ with FF lens on the apc arguments is not for this thread) and a walk-around with FF attached.

(c) Alright another huge factor: I am colorblind! Subtle differences in shade gradients can be difficult for me which is why I rely heavily on my histogram. From what I have read, Fuji color rendering requires less post processing and is generally "more natural" than Sony. I like the colors from my a6000, but I don't love them. Post processing from RAW again can be difficult for me. Going Fuji might make this easier and ultimately save me time/frustration? (I am no authority on this).

(d) Cost: I am not a money tree and for someone who does photography primarily as a hobby, justifying the cost for each system (and thinking about this long term) is important. Here are my ideal lens kits/personal roadmap for the next several years:

Fuji 16mm 1.4 at $800

Fuji 18-55 kit (with body) at $300

Fuji 35mm f2 at $400

Fuji 90mm F2 at $750

Total cost: $2250, no body (all native lenses!)

Zeiss Sonnar FE 55mm 1.8 at $800

Vario Tessar 16-35 mm F4 at $1400

Batis 85mm F1.8 at $1200

Vario Tessar 24-70mm F4 at $1200

Total cost: $4600, no body.

I could literally get all the Fuji gear plus a body plus probably another lens or backup body for the price of JUST the lenses for a Sony a7 system. I'm sure we could debate away on which system actually produces superior quality images, but for my cost/size needs its really hard to justify.

Another point that is both exciting and slightly irritating is how often Sony iterates on its bodies. When I bought my a6000 the sales guy was trying to upsell me to an A7. Now two years later we have 6 variants. Kind of glad I didn't buy it then. Sony doesn't look like its going to stop. I don't want to get a body that will be "obsolete" in 6 months.

(e) Ideally I don't want to have two separate kits. If I go Fuji, I don't want to carry my a6000 and glass as a backup, so buying another body down the road is something to keep in mind. The a6000 won't keep getting upgrades either so it wouldn't be an ideal backup... would it even be a backup?

Thoughts, opinion, advice?

Click to expand...

I don't really see how Fuji is an upgrade in this situations. For event photography, there are definitely situations in which full frame has a huge advantage, especially in low light. Fuji doesn't do better than the a6000 in those situations.

As far as being colorblind, are you sure you should be charging if you can't process raw files? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm genuinely asking. Processing rich, beautiful colors is a major aspect of professional photography. If you're not able to provide this, is it really the right profession for you? Maybe you could get a partner to do the editing for you. It just really seems difficult to build a photography business only on jpegs. White balance and mixed lighting can be serious issues in event photography, and shooting in raw is the best way to combat those problems.

Yes, full frame cameras and full frame lenses are more expensive than APS-C. That is true of any brand. Full frame costs more to produce because it provides better image quality.

For me personally, I'm glad Sony is innovating as quickly as they do. I'd be miserable if I had bought into one of the other companies that only puts out a new camera every six years or so. Just because they produce a new camera doesn't make mine stop working. It just means that I have another option now. Sony is pushing all other companies to push harder and develop faster. I think that's a great thing. I bought the NEX-6 a few months before the a6000 was announced. I happily used it for two years until the price of the a6000 dropped this past December to $398 because I started taking photos that required better autofocus. Now, of course, the a6300 has been announced. I have no regrets. I'm not upset. I'm glad I got such a great deal on an amazing camera, and I see no need to immediately upgrade. Maybe I'll upgrade when the a6300 drops in price, or maybe I'll use the a6000 until it dies. There's nothing that I want it to do that it doesn't do, and a new camera doesn't change that.

From your tone, it sounds like you want to switch to Fuji because you just like them better. That's fine, honestly. You don't have to justify it. People use cameras because they just "like" them better. If that's the case, do it. Photography is unique because it's a combination of art and technology, which means that a great deal of emotion is often invested in machines. If Fuji feels better to you, then all the specs in the world won't change that. You'll create your best images with the camera you love the most. There's no doubt that Sony's full frame cameras, especially the a7rii, will blow the image quality of any APS-C camera out of the water. But your images aren't going to be in a controlled environment, so the best images will be from the camera you like best and feels best to you.

Thanks Cato, you bring up some valid points. I've been thinking the Fuji is more of a lateral movement than upward, but there is just something I really love about the Fuji lenses that is drawing me.

And thank you for the JPEG tip. I shoot both generally and sometimes I just want ready to go Jpegs to share with people. Raw in either case will be work but the JPEGs I have seen with Fuji are so nice they might not need as much processing (or that could be my mistake).

Cherlynne,

Thank you for your comment and genuine question about being colorblind. Not rude, its a good point. To be fair, I am not colorblind in the sense that I can't tell what color lights are in traffic or unable to tell contrasting shades. There are some colors that can be confusing and I need do have to take some time to get a good handle over the scene, but it's not impairing (guess I shouldn't have made it sound that way). But truth be told I fail colorblind tests. As far as for clients concerns with colors none have shared concerns so far and most are surprised when I tell them. When I run into a big issue (i.e. a lot of greens and browns in a forest), I ask for feedback from my partner or my brother who has done work for mags. Then again, he likes to tease me about it!

I am not doing this as a job-job but as a way to continue growing and work with people who like my work. I am not really planning to sell myself as a business, just taking work when it is offered. I shoot Raw when I do work for others so I can have flexibility over post.

The discussion of FF vs crop is one I hear a lot and I've been meeting more and more people who have dumped their FF set ups for Fuji (I have met multiple which is really what made me first turn my head towards the Fuji system). Simple answer, yes the FF will produce the best images. The a7rii is a beast of a camera, but I don't have that kind of money nor do I plan to be at "that level" (there is a certain expectation for those who wield the highlander!). FF is more expensive there is now getting around that, but justifying cost vs the quality images I see others getting out of the XT1 is something to consider. I have seen incredible stuff come out of Fuji cameras, and the a6000 for that matter. Weight and cost and efficiency are important to me as a photographer.

You are totally right about innovation. When I bought my first NEX 3 back in 2011 people were poo-pooing it for any number of reasons saying 4/3rd would do better, that mirrorless would never be "good enough." Kai from digital rev and others were totally not down. Then they put out new iterations of the NEX, then the NEX 7 came out and game changed, then the a7 came out, the rest is history. They are pushing limits and in the end it helps consumers.

Well I wouldn't say I am sold just yet because I have always loved the a7. The Fuji does seem to be winning on my list of pros and cons. But I have a sort of "treat yo self" mentality to this purchase as well. Maybe I should just go all in and get an a7 because I do love those Zeiss lenses .

Thanks for your input!

To add to that, I am colourblind in a similar way, though I do struggle with telling the difference between red and yellow lights (thankfully, they're always in the same order ).

It does make it harder for me to edit, and though I doubt I'll ever go pro, I don't think someone with my 'disability' should be unable to charge for their photos. First of all, people can sell black & white. Secondly, photography can be done without any editing. Thirdly, people can also ask for help when editing (I ask my wife sometimes when it comes to colour.)

I do understand the draw of Fujifilm. Their lens lineup is nice, I would especially want their 10-24mm f/4. I would also think their jpg processing may help to minimize processing.

I currently have two full frame nikons and recently got the Fuji xpro2. I have used many small cameras and must say I enjoy using this camera. But it does not replace a Nikon for fast moving targets and does not have the same DOF or DR. But I love the Fuji and use it much more than my larger nikons. The Fuji does have pleasant jpegs that can be modified decently in camera even before the photo is taken. The controls on the xp2 are very user friendly and I personally love the 16 f1.4, 35 f2 and 56 f1.2. I have the 90 f2 but don't use it often and same with the oversized 16-50 f2.8, both good lenses just don't use much. The 90 takes great photos but requires your subject to be a bit too far away for my shooting style and the zoom is a bit heavy and is not stabilized which is needed based on its weight mounted to a smaller body. Just to throw it out there I'd check out the a6300 also it looks like a nice offering from Sony if the jpegs are really improved might be an easy transition for you. I'd opt for a dslr before the a7 series might as well have better tracking and faster autofocus if your going larger. Good luck.

If you are in the USA, no need to guess, we can rent these things. So rent an A7??? with the Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35 mm F4 along with the corresponding Fuji setup (maybe even Nikon FF) and see how you get along with these lenses.

Kelly Cook

I am a Fuji man, and if you'd no kit I'd say very clearly "fuji". If you are mainly working for pleasure and the few photos you pass on or sell pass muster then I'd ask why you are keen to spend money?

Sony is still upgrading its APS sensor mirrorless cameras and you've got some nice lenses. Personally I'd stick as you are, it looks like a product line with legs.

Were you to need to buy another lens, esp. a costly one, then it would need more thought, but as you are I'd stick as you are. Sony's full frame offering is often said to have rather curious menus and it is still likely to evolve rapidly. Their high quality lens offering is costly, mind you Fuji isn't bargain basement either, so I think this is a good time to wait and see.

Man, I wish someone had answered your question back in 2016... Im having a very similar debate!

Which system did you end up going with? And why?
Do you have any regrets about your choice?

2 1/2 years ago I said "Sony is still upgrading its APS sensor mirrorless cameras ". This is much less obvious now, the choice is easier, Sony means the cost and weight of full frame. From scratch I'd still go for Fuji, more so now.

Geoffrey_eg said:

Man, I wish someone had answered your question back in 2016...

Click to expand...

Looks like several people did

Geoffrey_eg said:

Im having a very similar debate!

Click to expand...

Really?

Geoffrey_eg said:

Which system did you end up going with? And why?
Do you have any regrets about your choice?

Click to expand...

Not questions for me.

I do want to point out when the OP made his list they picked some really odd lenses to compare. Which bodies and lenses are you considering? They are both good systems with a few distinct advantages in each.

I think now by systems have a good ecosystem available, it’s just a matter of which size sensor/camera you prefer. Or if you shoot jpegs mostly which jpeg is more pleasing to you. Which camera feels better in your hands, which has controls you like better? They are both great camera brands with strong cameras in their segments. I will say I’ve had issues in the past with poor servicing or no proper servicing on Sony and no issues with Fuji camera that I even required servicing. So for myself build quality on the Fuji was better, but I’ve heard the newest Sony’s are much better than version 1 or 2. Sony apparently listen to customers by version 3. And Sony jpegs have gotten much better less green skin tones than they used to but still not as pleasing as canon, Nikon or Fuji. But if you’re shopping now you may want to wait for the new Nikon/canon stuff even if it just causes Sony to drop their prices to make themselves more appealing. Good luck.

jmong1853 said:

Thanks Cato, you bring up some valid points. I've been thinking the Fuji is more of a lateral movement than upward, but there is just something I really love about the Fuji lenses that is drawing me.

Click to expand...

This is a lateral move that I’ve already completed.

The Fuji’s are fun to shoot, but after the honeymoon phase it’s still a camera. I do enjoy the X-Pro2 more than the older Sony’s but not the newer ones. Also, my hit rate is way down, maybe down 50% for kids and family, 33% for landscape. Less dependable AF, less details.

My Fuji kit is not smaller or cheaper than my A7 III kit, by the way, It can be smaller with weaker lenses of course, but not equal and smaller both.

jmong1853 said:

And thank you for the JPEG tip. I shoot both generally and sometimes I just want ready to go Jpegs to share with people. Raw in either case will be work but the JPEGs I have seen with Fuji are so nice they might not need as much processing (or that could be my mistake).

Click to expand...

You could use your present lenses on a Sony FF and not be in a hurry to get a complete set of FF lenses but then you'd be better off with the R line. Should give at least 18MP. Using APS lenses on FF should give you some interesting advantages. You would get more out of your image circles and shoot squarer formats than 3:2 without penalty. And can forget about turning the camera for portrait mode. Which is nice as Sony has only tilt screens AFAIK. The actual MP/AoVs would vary with different lenses, how much corner softness and vignetting you'd be willing to put up with. Personally I would be very interested in such an experiment but might not be your cup of tea in which case you could just go with crop mode.