Good luck!!!Not really, why would you say that! the interchangeability between the 2 systems is incredibly flexible, more so than aps-c and fuji gfx lets say!!
Look at the new 100-400 Sony, technically its far superior to Fuji, weighs the same, actaully a tiny bit smaller in actual dimensions and works on a6500 and a7 series. Similarly lots of the fe lens are light and fast and work for both systems, incl. the new fe 85 1.8 and 90 2.8 macro, still waiting for Fuji option
Add in an actual 70-300 lens and a new 70-200 2.8, ie 100-300 f4 equivalent which is even smaller than the Fuji and Sony 100-400 and both have 1.4x tc options too.
Just remind me what other systems shoot 11 fps mech shutter in the 100-300 2.8 (f4 equivalent) at <2kg all up? also, importantly the system can be a 150-450 f4 or ff f5.6 equivalent too shooting at 8-11 fps too.
I think Fuji could of done well to of at least added ois to the 16-55, I love it to bits but it is limiting and having to shoot high iso's to avoid motion blur. Similarly they have nothing in that mid-range tele of any merit above 300 f4
In the video Fuji aint even close, sorry, x-t2 isnt bad but no 1080 120fps and certainly no touch focus on the x-t2 either.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
100% decided to try a Sony a6500
- Thread starter Advent1sam
- Start date
K
KeepCalm
Guest
Plus the XT2 and XPro boxes. Sony have one without a viewfinder and one with in aps-c and no lens development.
The OP says he is 100% sure he is going to change so no opinions are really required so we have yet another promotion thread listing all the paper merits of Sony kit and anyone defending their own brand in their own forum or criticising Sony has their backs to the wall.
Do you really think Sony are investing in aps-c as a format?
because lenses are designed for one sensor size and that's where they perform the best. Reading your posts it seems, you are affected by severe GAS. You also seem to just compare some number and miss the big picture behind it.
is it? I mean it should, it costs a lot more than the Fuji, especially when you add the 1.4x teleconverter (but I don't see where there would be a technical superiority)
Yes. It's designed as a 100-400mm on full frame. It's not optimized for the APS-C and thus probably not better than the Fuji (I suspect it to be a bit worse on the APS-Cs)
And you want to use those lenses on an APS-C body? Oh boySimilarly lots of the fe lens are light and fast and work for both systems, incl. the new fe 85 1.8 and 90 2.8 macro, still waiting for Fuji option
I'd suggest a RX100 for that task, the 1080p 120fps of the A6500 isn't really good enough, if you want 1080p output of your project.
Or go straight to the GH5. A college of mine just did that (coming from Blackmagic). 4:2:2 10bit is nice for grading (while not up to the RAW of the BM, he only laughs about the 4:2:0 8bit you get from both Fuji and Sony
)All in all it seems you will never be happy with any system. But complaining about the Fuji lens lineup and aiming for Sony APS-C, which introduced it's last new lens in 2013, makes me laugh. A lot.
Anyway, good luck with whatever you will buy and enjoy it (at least at the beginning
)AndyMulhearn
Leading Member
- Messages
- 715
- Reaction score
- 406
Possibly a different subject but is that universally true? Canon make EF lenses that are compatible with both FF and APS-C and perform extremely well on both.
Advent1sam
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,089
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 4,212
They are the same as on Fuji, Sony fe 1.8 is smaller than Fuji 90 2, it is faster, has 5 axis ibis in-body too so hand-held will be much more comfortable. The 90 mm macro is larger than the 90 f2, but smaller than 50-140 2.8. I would expect the new 80mm macro to be similar to the 90mm sony 2.8 if it has OIS.because lenses are designed for one sensor size and that's where they perform the best. Reading your posts it seems, you are affected by severe GAS. You also seem to just compare some number and miss the big picture behind it.
is it? I mean it should, it costs a lot more than the Fuji, especially when you add the 1.4x teleconverter (but I don't see where there would be a technical superiority)
Yes. It's designed as a 100-400mm on full frame. It's not optimized for the APS-C and thus probably not better than the Fuji (I suspect it to be a bit worse on the APS-Cs)
And you want to use those lenses on an APS-C body? Oh boySimilarly lots of the fe lens are light and fast and work for both systems, incl. the new fe 85 1.8 and 90 2.8 macro, still waiting for Fuji option
Therefore, yes, on an aps-c, its the same as Fuji, despite for FF too. The new a6500 grip is deeper too than Fuji.
See above.I'd suggest a RX100 for that task, the 1080p 120fps of the A6500 isn't really good enough, if you want 1080p output of your project.
Or go straight to the GH5. A college of mine just did that (coming from Blackmagic). 4:2:2 10bit is nice for grading (while not up to the RAW of the BM, he only laughs about the 4:2:0 8bit you get from both Fuji and Sony
All in all it seems you will never be happy with any system. But complaining about the Fuji lens lineup and aiming for Sony APS-C, which introduced it's last new lens in 2013, makes me laugh. A lot.
OK, thanks.Anyway, good luck with whatever you will buy and enjoy it (at least at the beginning
Probably would be better in another topic (there probably are many about this).
The thing is: as you design for a smaller sensor, you need higher resolution lenses.
That's why Fuji (for example) is listing 15 and 45lp/mm in the MTF charts, because this way, it's comparable to full frame lenses (which normally are listed at 10 and 30lp/mm).
A lens needs to be extremely good, to also work great on a smaller sensor. That's what people noticed, when they bought the 36MP D800. (36MP on a full frame lens is comparable in pixel density to 16MP on APS-C). Some lenses just weren't good enough for that.
I don't know if they show all bodies, but you can probably go to dxo and look at their lens scores, with the same lens on APS-C and full frame. (I am not a huge fan of DXO, but that's one area where it's about the trend and not the actual numbers, so it should be fine).
I bet, that the same lens will resolve lower on the APS-C bodies.
DarnGoodPhotos
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,416
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,947
I used those as examples to counter the claim that Sony is inferior because they stick new internals in the same old boxes. Every manufacturer does; if people live a particular body they would be foolish not to update it.
Why does your back need to be against the wall? If he gets a Sony he gets a Sony;l so what.
I don't really care.
IMO everyone is way to invested in whether some guy buys a Sony camera.
--
www.darngoodphotos.com
Last edited:
Advent1sam
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,089
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 4,212
No, it most certainly is not true, acutance and micro contrast are perceived as better on larger sensors, but it is also very subjective too. Dxo use a weighted approach to this, see
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Loo...r-DxOMark-s-Perceptual-Megapixel-can-help-you
but in reality, just look at their global maps and you can see visually a bit like image resource too what the iq will be of the lens
There is nothing appreciably different except the pixels themselves and sensor size.I don't think you realize what different sensor sizes mean. The full frame lenses need to perform 1.5 times as good to work great on APS-C. You think they do that? While those new Sony lenses are good, I don't think they will stand their ground. (just looking at the mtfs of the 85mm would show that).They are the same as on Fuji, Sony fe 1.8 is smaller than Fuji 90 2, it is faster, has 5 axis ibis in-body too so hand-held will be much more comfortable. The 90 mm macro is larger than the 90 f2, but smaller than 50-140 2.8. I would expect the new 80mm macro to be similar to the 90mm sony 2.8 if it has OIS.because lenses are designed for one sensor size and that's where they perform the best. Reading your posts it seems, you are affected by severe GAS. You also seem to just compare some number and miss the big picture behind it.
is it? I mean it should, it costs a lot more than the Fuji, especially when you add the 1.4x teleconverter (but I don't see where there would be a technical superiority)
Yes. It's designed as a 100-400mm on full frame. It's not optimized for the APS-C and thus probably not better than the Fuji (I suspect it to be a bit worse on the APS-Cs)
And you want to use those lenses on an APS-C body? Oh boySimilarly lots of the fe lens are light and fast and work for both systems, incl. the new fe 85 1.8 and 90 2.8 macro, still waiting for Fuji option
Therefore, yes, on an aps-c, its the same as Fuji, despite for FF too. The new a6500 grip is deeper too than Fuji.
Anyway, it looks like you are just comparing the specs, without looking at what they represent. That's perfectly fine, but I doubt this will make you happy.See above.I'd suggest a RX100 for that task, the 1080p 120fps of the A6500 isn't really good enough, if you want 1080p output of your project.
Or go straight to the GH5. A college of mine just did that (coming from Blackmagic). 4:2:2 10bit is nice for grading (while not up to the RAW of the BM, he only laughs about the 4:2:0 8bit you get from both Fuji and Sony
All in all it seems you will never be happy with any system. But complaining about the Fuji lens lineup and aiming for Sony APS-C, which introduced it's last new lens in 2013, makes me laugh. A lot.
OK, thanks.Anyway, good luck with whatever you will buy and enjoy it (at least at the beginning
If I had to go Sony, I'd directly look at their full frame cameras, since they are producing lenses for that line. (But there is no camera that's an do it all like the X-T2, which does not cost 4000€ or more)
Advent1sam
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,089
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 4,212
Good job then sony are designing for 42mp +
It resolves less perceptual, very subjective!
DarnGoodPhotos
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,416
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,947
I would say the A72 is their do-it-all full frame camera and it is not too expensive.
yes. 42MP + on full frame. That compares to 18MP on APS-C.
I have heard to much marketing talk from Sony lately. G Master. Resolves over xx MP. Designed by 50lp/mm standard. blablabla (why are they only showing 10 and 30lp/mm then?)
All the bokeh talk resulted in a single lens with very nice bokeh. All in all they don't really deliver any better lenses than the others (and then, those full frame lenses can only get worse when it comes to resolution on the smaller sensor).
I don't really know what the lens is supposed to say. But since you are on DXOs site, take a look at how their lenses perform on APS-C compared to full frame
DarnGoodPhotos
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,416
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,947
Weather sealing does not dictate whether something is an all-rounder. The A7R is specialized to high res, the A7S is specialized to low light, and A9 is specialized to high speed sports shooting. The A7 is their do it all camera which does not have the penalty of very large files in the R, low res files in the S, and high cost in the A9.
The A73 will be an even better all-round Sony.
Advent1sam
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,089
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 4,212
I do, if we compare the Olympus absolute best lens from dxo the 75, we can see that even with dxo perceptual comparison the Sony is going to perform very well. After the 75 they have some very nice glass moving down but still it won't match Sony and this is with their original a6000 body, things have moved on quite a bit for the a6500 sensor since the original a6000 and nex7, so this could well be topping 20mp+ perceptual in realityI don't think you realize what different sensor sizes mean. The full frame lenses need to perform 1.5 times as good to work great on APS-C. You think they do that? While those new Sony lenses are good, I don't think they will stand their ground. (just looking at the mtfs of the 85mm would show that).They are the same as on Fuji, Sony fe 1.8 is smaller than Fuji 90 2, it is faster, has 5 axis ibis in-body too so hand-held will be much more comfortable. The 90 mm macro is larger than the 90 f2, but smaller than 50-140 2.8. I would expect the new 80mm macro to be similar to the 90mm sony 2.8 if it has OIS.because lenses are designed for one sensor size and that's where they perform the best. Reading your posts it seems, you are affected by severe GAS. You also seem to just compare some number and miss the big picture behind it.
is it? I mean it should, it costs a lot more than the Fuji, especially when you add the 1.4x teleconverter (but I don't see where there would be a technical superiority)
Yes. It's designed as a 100-400mm on full frame. It's not optimized for the APS-C and thus probably not better than the Fuji (I suspect it to be a bit worse on the APS-Cs)
And you want to use those lenses on an APS-C body? Oh boySimilarly lots of the fe lens are light and fast and work for both systems, incl. the new fe 85 1.8 and 90 2.8 macro, still waiting for Fuji option
Therefore, yes, on an aps-c, its the same as Fuji, despite for FF too. The new a6500 grip is deeper too than Fuji.
Anyway, it looks like you are just comparing the specs, without looking at what they represent. That's perfectly fine, but I doubt this will make you happy.See above.I'd suggest a RX100 for that task, the 1080p 120fps of the A6500 isn't really good enough, if you want 1080p output of your project.
Or go straight to the GH5. A college of mine just did that (coming from Blackmagic). 4:2:2 10bit is nice for grading (while not up to the RAW of the BM, he only laughs about the 4:2:0 8bit you get from both Fuji and Sony
All in all it seems you will never be happy with any system. But complaining about the Fuji lens lineup and aiming for Sony APS-C, which introduced it's last new lens in 2013, makes me laugh. A lot.
OK, thanks.Anyway, good luck with whatever you will buy and enjoy it (at least at the beginning
If I had to go Sony, I'd directly look at their full frame cameras, since they are producing lenses for that line. (But there is no camera that's an do it all like the X-T2, which does not cost 4000€ or more)
The A7II might be an allrounder but it's not an do it all camera (I am pretty sure I said to it all not allrounder). It doesn't allow you to shoot in the rain, it doesn't allow you to shoot very fast, it's not even close in terms of focus, it doesn't allow you to shoot silent. And it doesn't offer dual card slots (and a joystick), which many professionals want (and need).
So no, the A7II is absolutely no do it all camera. As as said, the A9 does it all (and better than the A7 II), but it's way too expansive. The A7 III will probably be a very good cameras and hopefully it will do most things of the A9, but that's yet to be seen.
Advent1sam
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 9,089
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 4,212
Well actually that might not be true, unless dxo got something wrong here, they never tested the 90 2.8 macro on the new a6500, only nex7 and older 20mp a5000. How would you explain then dxo, experts in all things sharpness, allegedly, can have a 20mp sensor out-resolve your perceptible limits? I think the Sony FE and e lens all do a great job and will be comparable to Fuji on xtrans in reality.
I have heard to much marketing talk from Sony lately. G Master. Resolves over xx MP. Designed by 50lp/mm standard. blablabla (why are they only showing 10 and 30lp/mm then?)
All the bokeh talk resulted in a single lens with very nice bokeh. All in all they don't really deliver any better lenses than the others (and then, those full frame lenses can only get worse when it comes to resolution on the smaller sensor).
I don't really know what the lens is supposed to say. But since you are on DXOs site, take a look at how their lenses perform on APS-C compared to full frame
DarnGoodPhotos
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,416
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,947
You are discussing professional and specialized needs, here are ac ouple of examples of the XT2 not being a do-it-all camera.
The XT2 does not fit in a jacket pocket like an XE2 does with the XF27, therefore it is an inferior do-it-all camera.
The XT2 has EVF blackout which means it is an inferior do-it-all camera as far as the needs of edge pro sports shooters.
The XT2 can't be used underwater means it is an inferior do-it-all camera for scuba shooters; the solution to this is to buy an underwater enclosure which is a lot more expensive than the umbrella needed to shoot the AR2 in rain.
The XT2 might have an electronic shutter, but it also has bad jello effect with subjects moving so I doubt subject distortion is something you want in a do-it-all camera.
Do it all status is not determined by a joystick.
If your qualification for do it all is being able to clear out a 50-shot burst quickly and dual sd slots then I agree that the A72 isn't one.
Don't understand your "unreliable" comment. I've owned an X-E1 since it was first introduced and two X100 series cameras and haven't had reliability problems with any of them.
I suppose everyone has a personal opinion when it comes to image quality but I've always felt that when it comes to raw images, most cameras with an APS size sensor have very similar quality, provided the lens used is of similar quality.
When it comes to JPEG images I prefer Fuji's processor over any other brand but will admit that's a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" type thing and everyone is different.
I've tried two different Sony cameras, over the last few years, and sold both of them within just a couple months of purchase. Lost money on both cameras and lenses and realized Sony cameras just aren't right for me. I won't make that mistake again. :-
I do own a Panasonic FZ1000 I use as a general purpose, fun type zoom camera and don't have any valid complaints about it but don't know anything about their interchangeable lens cameras. I do think the FZ1000 has an extremely fast autofocus system.
Canon??? Their M series cameras haven't been rated all that great but their newest model may be pretty good and if someone already owns a Canon DSLR/lenses that would seem like a reasonable choice.
Anyway, like I've already said, everyone is different and I hope you find what's best for you.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum