Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, the way the Fuji works you get WYSIWYG when you press the shutter halfway.which is the only way to have wysiwyg in the evf.The difference is really important.Hi!Hello!
Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)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.
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
I would be curious to know how many people got their hands simultaneously on an X-T2 and an A7 III and kept them in parallel enough time to compare them correctly...given that practically no one else has made such a biased claim, I think not.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.
Does not setting Display Quality to High get rid of the aliasing you were complaining about? I see a lot of aliasing at Standard, but that is cured by using the High setting.The difference is really important.Hi!Hello!
Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)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.
I already experienced that when I had the first a7, but i was expecting the a7 III viewfinder to be much better.
Yes, that is how it is in the Sony world. You can set Live View Display to Setting Effect OFF, which then opens the iris, but you loose exposure preview. In other words, exposure preview and depth of field preview are connected together in Sony cameras.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.
I don't see anything like that. My EVF is perfectly smooth up to F8 in my room right now (under artificial lights). At F11 it gets jittery.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...
that's not usable wysiwyg, it's crippled dslr functionality.No, the way the Fuji works you get WYSIWYG when you press the shutter halfway.which is the only way to have wysiwyg in the evf.The difference is really important.Hi!Hello!
Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)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.
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
there have been many Fuji vs. sony threads on this forum, so it's already been done, and I don't recall seeing honest testers claiming "HUGE" differences.I would be curious to know how many people got their hands simultaneously on an X-T2 and an A7 III and kept them in parallel enough time to compare them correctly...given that practically no one else has made such a biased claim, I think not.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.
there isn't a problem, so there isn't any need for solutions.I would also be curious to know what allows you to say that my claim is biased. I would be glad you proposed solutions instead of condescending comments...
The 'high' setting' does reduce very significantly aliasing.Does not setting Display Quality to High get rid of the aliasing you were complaining about? I see a lot of aliasing at Standard, but that is cured by using the High setting.The difference is really important.Hi!Hello!
Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)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.
I already experienced that when I had the first a7, but i was expecting the a7 III viewfinder to be much better.
Noted, thanks.Yes, that is how it is in the Sony world. You can set Live View Display to Setting Effect OFF, which then opens the iris, but you loose exposure preview. In other words, exposure preview and depth of field preview are connected together in Sony cameras.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.
This might be due to several things:I don't see anything like that. My EVF is perfectly smooth up to F8 in my room right now (under artificial lights). At F11 it gets jittery.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...
From what I have seen, shutter speed has no effect on the preview. What is crucial is aperture. As you correctly noted, live view is done stopped down by Sony and thus at some threashold it gets jittery (I'd guess that it switches from 60fps to 30fps or lower, because of lack of light). Fuji will definitely have an advantage here. The question is where is that threshold - it seemed to me that it is at pretty extreme settings (~F11 in low light). Also, very importantly, the stopped down preview cannot account for differences in smoothness when viewing wide open. To me, the A7 III seems smooth at 60fps without any observable lag, but I have no X-T2 to compare with.The 'high' setting' does reduce very significantly aliasing.Does not setting Display Quality to High get rid of the aliasing you were complaining about? I see a lot of aliasing at Standard, but that is cured by using the High setting.The difference is really important.Hi!Hello!
Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)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.
I already experienced that when I had the first a7, but i was expecting the a7 III viewfinder to be much better.
Noted, thanks.Yes, that is how it is in the Sony world. You can set Live View Display to Setting Effect OFF, which then opens the iris, but you loose exposure preview. In other words, exposure preview and depth of field preview are connected together in Sony cameras.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.
This might be due to several things:I don't see anything like that. My EVF is perfectly smooth up to F8 in my room right now (under artificial lights). At F11 it gets jittery.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...
- I use the X-T2 in 'boost mode'. EVF is claimed to be 100fps in this mode (et the expense of an horrible battery life). I'll try in 'normal mode' to see if there is still a gap.
- Sony and Fuji may have different strategy when the light is low. Maybe the Sony is switching to a lower refresh rate sooner?
- This may also be due to the 'shutter speed'. The shorter it is, the shorter latency is, the crispier image is, but in return movement appears less smooth.
Thanks for your feedback.From what I have seen, shutter speed has no effect on the preview. What is crucial is aperture. As you correctly noted, live view is done stopped down by Sony and thus at some threashold it gets jittery (I'd guess that it switches from 60fps to 30fps or lower, because of lack of light). Fuji will definitely have an advantage here. The question is where is that threshold - it seemed to me that it is at pretty extreme settings (~F11 in low light). Also, very importantly, the stopped down preview cannot account for differences in smoothness when viewing wide open. To me, the A7 III seems smooth at 60fps without any observable lag, but I have no X-T2 to compare with.The 'high' setting' does reduce very significantly aliasing.Does not setting Display Quality to High get rid of the aliasing you were complaining about? I see a lot of aliasing at Standard, but that is cured by using the High setting.The difference is really important.Hi!Hello!
Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)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.
I already experienced that when I had the first a7, but i was expecting the a7 III viewfinder to be much better.
Noted, thanks.Yes, that is how it is in the Sony world. You can set Live View Display to Setting Effect OFF, which then opens the iris, but you loose exposure preview. In other words, exposure preview and depth of field preview are connected together in Sony cameras.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.
This might be due to several things:I don't see anything like that. My EVF is perfectly smooth up to F8 in my room right now (under artificial lights). At F11 it gets jittery.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...
- I use the X-T2 in 'boost mode'. EVF is claimed to be 100fps in this mode (et the expense of an horrible battery life). I'll try in 'normal mode' to see if there is still a gap.
- Sony and Fuji may have different strategy when the light is low. Maybe the Sony is switching to a lower refresh rate sooner?
- This may also be due to the 'shutter speed'. The shorter it is, the shorter latency is, the crispier image is, but in return movement appears less smooth.
You can say what you will but there is no doubt the Fuji (I have used several) requires a much higher ISO than what they state on the dial to match the same ISO on the full frame. As the other poster mentioned its a significant amount.Speaking of 'cheating' is where the non-sense brand war starts!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.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'.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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.).
- 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).
You are really stating one of the big advantages of APSc. Everything is smaller and lighter and cheaper.Yes, but it is very likely to be +2k€ and +1kg.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/
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.
I agree about the low light advantage with full frame. Another point often not stated as an advantage.Well as you said lele, this is a first impression of you shooting with the a7iii from using the fuji before.
Keep shooting the a7iii and maybe you will find enjoyment out of it. Or not. Then you can go back to using fuji. Because it seems that you are set for, to keep shooting with fuji from what you said about waiting for xh2 or updated lenses etc.
I for one also feel that your review was biased. Your comparison of low light advantage from full frame gone from using equivalent lenses and equiv settings is the one that prompted me to reply, because i feel that was a misinformation and people who read your statement might get the wrong idea. Your approach is correct for systems compared with same iso measurement standards, it does not apply between fuji and any other systems.
With xt3 generation soon to be released? who knows it may be different, because there are improvement in dr and noise but we dont know yet how much of improvement that is.
I've been in your position too, having both system at the same time for a quite a few months, and thought exactly the way you did especially about the low light of apsc and ff(that sony and fuji peforms very close on equivalent settings of aperture, shutter, and iso).
And then one day i realized this: An iso 400 on fuji is really iso 800 on other systems. All that faster cheaper lenses on fuji then have no advantage anymore, not even against other apsc systems dlsr/mirrorless(nikon, sony, canon, which are within spec of each other in iso measurements).
Then i decided i dont need to keep two expensive systems and i chose to keep sony, because i clearly felt the sony is better for me, with its advantages and disadvantages.
Your experience may differ along the road, all i can say is try to keep shooting with the sony and maybe you will find it more enjoyable than the fuji. If not then you can always go back to fuji and try the gfx medium format, for sure it will blow away any FF system in IQ department, low light high iso DR is also astounding having tested the gfx50s. No full frame is ever going to compete with that.
Sony advantages against fuji as i experienced it:
PROPER iso measurement(same as or close with other systems),
better DR+ noise, low light and low light focusung(can focus up to -3ev on f2 lenses),
much better battery life,
faster wifi transfer to smartphone(like way faster than fuji),
better af system(shooting kids and babies is such a breeze with eye-af),
ergonimics take some time getting used to but now i found myself enjoying shooting the a7iii more than i remember enjoying shooting with xt20/xh1, not having to fiddle with dials and knobs all the time if going manual.
Con sony:
heavier, bigger lenses; non issue after a while, and depends, one can still keep it compact with a7iii depending on the lens selection.
Lenses more expensive, relative, there are cheaper ones too on sony and it still performs superbly. with 3rd parties now releasing nice lenses, there are even more choices now.
Evf not as nice as xh1, not a huge difference and i know this because i still have the a7r3 which have the same dots as xh1 and there's not so much difference between the a7iii and the a7r3. Yes when i shoot them side by side i can notice it, but when not, the a7iii evf is fine and functional enough for me to use when i need it. And then again i dont use evf all the time even back then with fuji.
Questionable weather sealing based on reviews and tests, but then again i dont use my camera in rains, etc.
Jpeg output colors, needs time to get used to.
Fuji's excellent zooms are a lot cheaper than Sony FE equivalents, that is very true and a main reason I got an XT2 and several Fuji zoom lenses. Sadly I sold them to fund an A7r3 because at the end of the day I was using the Sony over the Fuji and I decided to concentrate on one system. Sony was simply better for my use. Sometimes Fuji colours are better, not every time though. I found the XT2 a bit confusing to operate at times and slow to setup whereas sometimes I simply wanted a quick snap and Sony's excellent auto selection works really well 99% of the time. I use it quite a bit.. It takes all the guesswork out of the scene and gets a great image almost every. It sounds corny to say auto is great but with Sony it is. It was poor on my Nikon D800e in comparison.Sony FE 35mm f2.8 Zeiss - $798his 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:Regarding lenses, that's really a case by case basis.This is the main take away for me.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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/
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.
XT2 EVF is quite good, no doubt. I have not used A7iii but I think Sony made an error in cheaping out with that. I don't think they will do that again as both Nikon and Canon have gone with 3.6million dot EVFs and the reviewers all state how wonderful their EVF's are.No, the way the Fuji works you get WYSIWYG when you press the shutter halfway.which is the only way to have wysiwyg in the evf.The difference is really important.Hi!Hello!
Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)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.
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
I would be curious to know how many people got their hands simultaneously on an X-T2 and an A7 III and kept them in parallel enough time to compare them correctly...given that practically no one else has made such a biased claim, I think not.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 would also be curious to know what allows you to say that my claim is biased. I would be glad you proposed solutions instead of condescending comments...
Turn the live view setting display to off and I think you will see a difference.Thanks for your feedback.From what I have seen, shutter speed has no effect on the preview. What is crucial is aperture. As you correctly noted, live view is done stopped down by Sony and thus at some threashold it gets jittery (I'd guess that it switches from 60fps to 30fps or lower, because of lack of light). Fuji will definitely have an advantage here. The question is where is that threshold - it seemed to me that it is at pretty extreme settings (~F11 in low light). Also, very importantly, the stopped down preview cannot account for differences in smoothness when viewing wide open. To me, the A7 III seems smooth at 60fps without any observable lag, but I have no X-T2 to compare with.The 'high' setting' does reduce very significantly aliasing.Does not setting Display Quality to High get rid of the aliasing you were complaining about? I see a lot of aliasing at Standard, but that is cured by using the High setting.The difference is really important.Hi!Hello!
Have you set the EVF quality to High? (Menu->Setup2->Display Quality)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.
I already experienced that when I had the first a7, but i was expecting the a7 III viewfinder to be much better.
Noted, thanks.Yes, that is how it is in the Sony world. You can set Live View Display to Setting Effect OFF, which then opens the iris, but you loose exposure preview. In other words, exposure preview and depth of field preview are connected together in Sony cameras.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.
This might be due to several things:I don't see anything like that. My EVF is perfectly smooth up to F8 in my room right now (under artificial lights). At F11 it gets jittery.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...
- I use the X-T2 in 'boost mode'. EVF is claimed to be 100fps in this mode (et the expense of an horrible battery life). I'll try in 'normal mode' to see if there is still a gap.
- Sony and Fuji may have different strategy when the light is low. Maybe the Sony is switching to a lower refresh rate sooner?
- This may also be due to the 'shutter speed'. The shorter it is, the shorter latency is, the crispier image is, but in return movement appears less smooth.
My comment was unclear, sorry for that. Independantly of the shutter speed set by the user, the camera does necessarily expose the sensor for a certain amount of time so we get the preview in the viewfinder. That's what I was referring to.
If it is longer, you get more motion blur in the viewfinder but less noise
If it is shorter, you get less motion blur, probably slightly less latency (not sure...), but more noise and less smooth movement presentation.
Sony and Fuji may have different strategies in this regard.
Well, depends a lot on the user. There are at least two groups: Those expecting the A7 to be like their previous camera, and those who just accepted a fresh start with the A7.
- Ergonomics have been drastically enhanced since the α7. Not very difficult though, α7 ergonomics were a disaster...
I think people have to stop saying FF has around 1 stop advantage in low light, which is true, and then sugesting f4 lens to compare to f2.8 APS-C when someone says FF lens are heavier and more expensive. It's nonsense!Sony FE 35mm f2.8 Zeiss - $798
Fuji's excellent zooms are a lot cheaper than Sony FE equivalents, that is very true and a main reason I got an XT2 and several Fuji zoom lenses.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.
You're mixing the goal (getting shallower DoF and less noise in low light in your example) and the mean (how you can achieve that). There are often several ways to reach the same goal.I think people have to stop saying FF has around 1 stop advantage in low light, which is true, and then sugesting f4 lens to compare to f2.8 APS-C when someone says FF lens are heavier and more expensive. It's nonsense!Sony FE 35mm f2.8 Zeiss - $798
Fuji's excellent zooms are a lot cheaper than Sony FE equivalents, that is very true and a main reason I got an XT2 and several Fuji zoom lenses.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.
When people move to FF, its because they want the ability to have better low light or more control over DOF, and for that you need the same aperture!
People use the "same weight and cost" argument only when Fuji is involved. Lets compare things within Sony systems
a6500 (€1280) + Sony 16-70 f4 (€860) +Sony 50mm f1.8 (€280) = TOTAL of €2420
Total weight = 963 gr
A7III (€2250) + Sony 24-105 f4 (€1300) + Sony 85mm 1.8 (€580) = TOTAL of €4080
Total weight = 1638 gr
To resume, almost double the price and double the weight if we want to go to FF for better images (ie. 1 stop better low light and thinner DOF).
no, it's not, the a7iii has nearly a two-stop p.d.r. advantage over the x-t2 at base iso… it doesn't matter where Fuji sets the iso, relative to the real world, because it can't change that fact:I think people have to stop saying FF has around 1 stop advantage in low light, which is true, and then sugesting f4 lens to compare to f2.8 APS-C when someone says FF lens are heavier and more expensive. It's nonsense!Sony FE 35mm f2.8 Zeiss - $798
Fuji's excellent zooms are a lot cheaper than Sony FE equivalents, that is very true and a main reason I got an XT2 and several Fuji zoom lenses.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.
people also move to ff because the lens selection is far better, usually at lower cost, with higher resolution sensors, better p.d.r., etc.When people move to FF, its because they want the ability to have better low light or more control over DOF, and for that you need the same aperture!
Bodies are smaller and lighter, but when it comes to the lenses, that's another story!You are really stating one of the big advantages of APSc. Everything is smaller and lighter and cheaper.Yes, but it is very likely to be +2k€ and +1kg.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/
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.
You want full frame advantages - it comes at a cost.
Greg.
Oversimplification. IMHO, at least three cases should be distinguishedno, it's not, the a7iii has nearly a two-stop p.d.r. advantage over the x-t2 at base iso… it doesn't matter where Fuji sets the iso, relative to the real world, because it can't change that fact:I think people have to stop saying FF has around 1 stop advantage in low light, which is true, and then sugesting f4 lens to compare to f2.8 APS-C when someone says FF lens are heavier and more expensive. It's nonsense!Sony FE 35mm f2.8 Zeiss - $798
Fuji's excellent zooms are a lot cheaper than Sony FE equivalents, that is very true and a main reason I got an XT2 and several Fuji zoom lenses.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.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm X-T2,Sony ILCE-7M3
that's what astrophotographer is talking about.
people also move to ff because the lens selection is far better, usually at lower cost, with higher resolution sensors, better p.d.r., etc.When people move to FF, its because they want the ability to have better low light or more control over DOF, and for that you need the same aperture!
none of that matters; if you are shooting at equivalent settings, with similar sensor tech, you will always have the opportunity for better p.d.r. with ff... that's how ff works, and that's why it's better than crop.Oversimplification. IMHO, at least three cases should be distinguishedno, it's not, the a7iii has nearly a two-stop p.d.r. advantage over the x-t2 at base iso… it doesn't matter where Fuji sets the iso, relative to the real world, because it can't change that fact:I think people have to stop saying FF has around 1 stop advantage in low light, which is true, and then sugesting f4 lens to compare to f2.8 APS-C when someone says FF lens are heavier and more expensive. It's nonsense!Sony FE 35mm f2.8 Zeiss - $798
Fuji's excellent zooms are a lot cheaper than Sony FE equivalents, that is very true and a main reason I got an XT2 and several Fuji zoom lenses.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.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm X-T2,Sony ILCE-7M3
that's what astrophotographer is talking about.
