Reading mode: Light Dark

Fuji XT-2 or Sony A7RIII?

Go to last post
For the price of the A7riii and 24-105 I would get the XT2 with 10-24 for architecture and Xpro2 with 23 f2 for street, add the 56 and you’re still within budget
 
I am a professional photographer that is using the Nikon system with 3 bodies and 11 lenses. I just recently purchased the X-T2, the battery grip, the 35mm f/1.4, 56 f/1.2 and the 90 f/2.0 and I am amazed by the output, focussing accuracy and focus point (325) of this camera. I would confidently use the Fujifilm system for a magazine shoot and know that it could easily fill a double page spread with room to go larger. So, the Sony does not apply to my situation. Are you going to print larger than A3+? If not the Fuji and the lens system shines!

PS: wide open all of the lenses I own are brutally sharp and outperform many of the Nikon fixed focal length lenses.

--
Web Site: http://www.benjaminkanarek.com
My Blog: http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com
InstaGram: https://www.instagram.com/benjaminkanarek/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/benjamin.kanarek.7
You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzYkqsIjhy28IxZ6DxaXAYg
Twitter: https://twitter.com/benjaminkanarek
 
Last edited:
I have both XT2 and A7r2 with a variety of lenses for both systems, just the zooms for the Fuji though but I have had several Fuji primes.

A7r3 is probably the most advanced camera on the market bar none. XT2 is a great camera but A7r3 is the Ferrari.

The Sony 24-105 is looking good but a bit early to say if its good enough. It probably is but I would wait for reviews.

But A7r3 will basically be superior to an XT2 in every regard except some very minor items. I like my XT2 but realise its no match for my A7r2 let alone an A7r3.

And so it should be given their relative prices.

Greg.
 
Yeah you can always rent for a day and check out the output before selling or giving up on any other gear. Seems the best way . I buy then sell always at a loss I wouldn't recommend that way ha ha
 
A7RIII and the GM lenses seems like too much camera for my level of talent and ability (not to mention my budget). Kind of like owning a Ferrari I suppose... of those who can afford one, how many actually have the skill to drive it the way it was intended to be driven?

Men can't resist comparing cars to cameras... =)
 
The A7R3 with 24-105mm F4 = 4300-4400 GBP

The T2 with 16mmF1.4 + 35mmF1.4 + 56mm F1.2 = 3000-3100 GBP (with cashback)

The T2 with 16-55mm F2.8 = 2000-2100 GBP (with cash back)

Considering the prices is much much better in the US, not fair to compare between them regardless of the output!
 
The problem with the car analogy is that a car is designed in one piece. An ILC, however good its sensor, is only a Ferrari with the Ferrari grade lenses (in this case the GM lenses, the better primes etc). It's not even using a Ferrari for the school run, as that implies the Ferrari performance is there when you want it.

Of course, I'm not saying the 24-105 is not Ferrari quality, but that does seem a little hopeful given the 'G' designation and price-tag.

I do think some of the advice to the OP on this thread is based more on the potential of the two bodies, not on the potential of the three kits that he outlined.
 
I've done a lot of that too. However, the loss from buying and reselling second hand is often equivalent to a reasonable hire period, so I hesitate to recommend hiring except for brand new kit.
 
The system is lighter only if you take telephoto lenses into account. With A7R + Sony-Zeiss 24-70 F4 you will get much lighter system than X-T2 and 16-55 F2.8 (same focal range and DoF), the A7R + Zeiss 35 F2.8 will be shorter than X-T2 + 35mmF2. Of course you always have the compact 18-55 option for Fuji (you also have 28-70 for Sony if you don't mind chromatic aberration ;)), plus 55-200 is much much smaller and lighter than Sony's 70-300. But the "lighter" part you only get if you're using X-T20 or X-E3 with 18-55 and long lenses.
 
You will actually get more 3D-ness, for lack of a better word with even the old A7II, there's no getting around it although Fuji comes close



2d3bd7d5c2084325acfd45ce84f43e24.jpg



f01a33be29574350ac2d524b1aa16eef.jpg

I don't know if you can see that on photos this size though....

--
lichotaphoto.com
seeinberlin.com
 
Dude, Sony has (claims) 15 stops dynamic range
 
dan aron said:
I will give a shot to A7r3. I'm looking for a IQ boost and ibis. Fuji has been just ok and fun to use, so if I don't see big difference with Sony I'll might stick with Fuji.
Click to expand...
The A7RIII will no doubt give you a huge boost in IQ, BUT, one thing people don't realize Is that you will start seeing soft/blurry images at full resolution. I'm going to assume that's one of the reasons you would spend all that money, to use it at full resolution, at least very often, otherwise what's the point?

If you think you will continue shooting the same way you have been shooting as with a 16/24MP camera think again. I'm already seeing soft images with my new 36MP camera and I can just imagine how it is at a bloody 42MP. That's a lot of MP bro. People's technique HAS to change and you can't put cheap glass on these bodies either.

Now for the OP, if you are not or don't have to shoot in poor low light conditions and you will not be blowing or printing images up, then the Fuji can handle more than enough, IMHO.

36MP and up cameras are not to be playing around just for fun. These are serious tools that are made for specific applications. The problem is that people buy these machines just for the heck of it and because they can afford them. If your way of shooting and technique doesn't change then you (might) start complaining that you are not getting tack sharp images then the benefit of using such beasts of cameras will be kind of pointless.

One thing that I have found so far is that I "thought" I had good technique but even when I'm doubling the shutter speed there is obvious motion blur when I'm seeing my images on the screen. What I have found in my personal case is that in-camera stabilization HAS to be turned on even at double the shutter speed. When I turn stabilization on in my K1 the images do come out a lot cleaner so from now on I'm leaving it on.

I'm telling you, 36MP and above is a MASSIVE amount MP. I really feel sorry for the Nikon D850 shooters that are not using stabilized lenses.
 
Thanks for posting that. I am considering X-T20 with 35mm F1.4 VS A7I or II with 50mm F1.8. Not the S or R just the A7 I or II (same sensor.)

I can see a noticeable difference in tonal depth, colour depth and yes that 3d feel of space in the thumbnails even and especially in the full size file (though full size the Fuji is much smaller than the Sony shot.)

I'm still going to go to the store and shoot files with each set up to test myself (Local store lets me take cameras and lenses outside if I leave my passport) so will see then but yeah the difference is noticeable in your file. Though to match F4 on the Sony you should have shot the Fuji at F2.8 instead of F5 no...?

Anyway, useful post. Thanks
 
I can indeed see the difference, but in this case I think it is clearly due to the difference in depth of field (the Fuji image also looks overexposed, but I'm on an uncalibrated monitor at the moment so take that with a pinch of salt).

I have mixed feelings on the '3d' effect of larger formats. I'm not a complete sceptic, but I do not think it is based on sensor size as such. I believe it is based on the use of high quality wide angle lenses with limited depth of field.

Long lenses almost always have limited depth of field, regardless of sensor size, but the angle of view stops there being a 3d effect.

Wide angle lenses can show more foreground and background, and by using wide apertures you can create a 3d effect by increasing the perceived separation between the main subject and the background. However, as wide angle lenses have more depth of field, you need faster and faster apertures to create that separation the smaller the sensor size.

Just my thoughts - it's a contentious subject (particularly in m43 land!)
 
Easy Rider said:
Thanks for posting that. I am considering X-T20 with 35mm F1.4 VS A7I or II with 50mm F1.8. Not the S or R just the A7 I or II (same sensor.)

I can see a noticeable difference in tonal depth, colour depth and yes that 3d feel of space in the thumbnails even and especially in the full size file (though full size the Fuji is much smaller than the Sony shot.)

I'm still going to go to the store and shoot files with each set up to test myself (Local store lets me take cameras and lenses outside if I leave my passport) so will see then but yeah the difference is noticeable in your file. Though to match F4 on the Sony you should have shot the Fuji at F2.8 instead of F5 no...?

Anyway, useful post. Thanks
Click to expand...
The Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4 is a gorgeous lens. You'll love it!
 
Benjamin Kanarek said:
PS: wide open all of the lenses I own are brutally sharp and outperform many of the Nikon fixed focal length lenses.
Click to expand...
Really? I'm kinda wishing I hadn't seen this (since it may end up costing me a lot of $$!).
 
Batdude said:
dan aron said:
I will give a shot to A7r3. I'm looking for a IQ boost and ibis. Fuji has been just ok and fun to use, so if I don't see big difference with Sony I'll might stick with Fuji.
Click to expand...
The A7RIII will no doubt give you a huge boost in IQ, BUT, one thing people don't realize Is that you will start seeing soft/blurry images at full resolution. I'm going to assume that's one of the reasons you would spend all that money, to use it at full resolution, at least very often, otherwise what's the point?

If you think you will continue shooting the same way you have been shooting as with a 16/24MP camera think again. I'm already seeing soft images with my new 36MP camera and I can just imagine how it is at a bloody 42MP. That's a lot of MP bro. People's technique HAS to change and you can't put cheap glass on these bodies either.

Now for the OP, if you are not or don't have to shoot in poor low light conditions and you will not be blowing or printing images up, then the Fuji can handle more than enough, IMHO.

36MP and up cameras are not to be playing around just for fun. These are serious tools that are made for specific applications. The problem is that people buy these machines just for the heck of it and because they can afford them. If your way of shooting and technique doesn't change then you (might) start complaining that you are not getting tack sharp images then the benefit of using such beasts of cameras will be kind of pointless.

One thing that I have found so far is that I "thought" I had good technique but even when I'm doubling the shutter speed there is obvious motion blur when I'm seeing my images on the screen. What I have found in my personal case is that in-camera stabilization HAS to be turned on even at double the shutter speed. When I turn stabilization on in my K1 the images do come out a lot cleaner so from now on I'm leaving it on.

I'm telling you, 36MP and above is a MASSIVE amount MP. I really feel sorry for the Nikon D850 shooters that are not using stabilized lenses.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by soft images at 36mp. I have A7r2 and the most obvious thing about it is the images are super sharp. But if you are using D800 then that would explain it. I had a D800e and I got sharp images but you have to be a bit more careful about your exposure strategy and lens choice. 36mp will show up lens defects that lower mp cameras let the lens get away with. Also D800 has no EFCS which is really needed for high MP as is a dampened shutter and fast shutter speed and IBIS. All these add to sharp images at high MP which is what A7r2 and now even more so A7r3 offer.

XT2s if it has IBIS will be very popular as the increase in sharpness will be noticeable in many shots. If they also make the shutter more dampened and offer EFCS (perhaps XT2 already has that I forget) then the formula will be complete.

Also the 16-55 F2.8 lens will be more popular as it will now be able to be used staibilised. Its my favourite Fuji lens and a beautiful lens it is.

Greg.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's probably hard to replicate the 12-16mm full frame look on crop sensors, other than that I am pretty happy with what Fuji produces, I will shoot it for a while, at least until the A7III comes out. That will however be X-e3, X-T20 just sits in my big hands funny.

As for overexposure on Fuji I do have much less experience with it than with Sony, but weaker dynamic range contributes as well....

lichotaphoto.com
seeinberlin.com
 
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