lélé777004
Leading Member
- Messages
- 608
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 357
Define 'equivalent settings'!
Reading mode:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sony α7 III first impression from a Fujifilm X-T2 owner
- Thread starter lélé777004
- Start date
Define 'equivalent settings'!none of that matters; if you are shooting at equivalent settings, with similar sensor tech, you will always have 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.
the problem with Fuji crop is that history of weak d.r. at base iso, it's just not comparable to ff.
Interesting to note that the apsc fuji tested on the link posted above is from xa series with bayer sensor, which is known uses the same iso standard with sony/canon/nikon iso measurement.
While xtrans sensors have that 2/3 stop under for their iso measurement standard as already discussed.
While xtrans sensors have that 2/3 stop under for their iso measurement standard as already discussed.
Last edited:
Rmcp20
Veteran Member
Comparing FF and APS-C sensor from same generation gives FF 1stop to 1.5 stops advantage.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.
Camera Model MaximumPDR Low LightISO Low LightEV
FujiFilm X-T2 10.00 3179 9.99
Sony ILCE-6500 10.31 2186 9.45
Sony ILCE-7M3 11.60 6420 11.00
Remember the A7III is not from the same generation as the APS-C ones, we will have to wait for the X-T3 and A7000 or whatever it will be called.
Not judging specs or lens selection, that is a different reason to change. But people with APS-C evaluating a change to FF, must be aware that to get better image DR and low light, lens will not weight the same nor cost the same, independent of the system/brand.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!
even my old a7r sensor, from 2013, still has that same nearly two-stop base iso p.d.r. advantage over the x-t2, that came out in 2016:Comparing FF and APS-C sensor from same generation gives FF 1stop to 1.5 stops advantage.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.
Camera Model MaximumPDR Low LightISO Low LightEV
FujiFilm X-T2 10.00 3179 9.99
Sony ILCE-6500 10.31 2186 9.45
Sony ILCE-7M3 11.60 6420 11.00
Remember the A7III is not from the same generation as the APS-C ones, we will have to wait for the X-T3 and A7000 or whatever it will be called.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm X-T2,Sony ILCE-7R
is there any x-mount lens that can match my $232 Samyang 35/2.8? weight, size, cost, performance.Not judging specs or lens selection, that is a different reason to change. But people with APS-C evaluating a change to FF, must be aware that to get better image DR and low light, lens will not weight the same nor cost the same, independent of the system/brand.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!
Last edited:
Rmcp20
Veteran Member
are you looking at ISO100? because Fuji's base ISO is 200. Anyway, compare it to the a6500 which has base ISO of 100, and what is the difference?even my old a7r sensor, from 2013, still has that same nearly two-stop base iso p.d.r. advantage over the x-t2, that came out in 2016:Comparing FF and APS-C sensor from same generation gives FF 1stop to 1.5 stops advantage.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.
Camera Model MaximumPDR Low LightISO Low LightEV
FujiFilm X-T2 10.00 3179 9.99
Sony ILCE-6500 10.31 2186 9.45
Sony ILCE-7M3 11.60 6420 11.00
Remember the A7III is not from the same generation as the APS-C ones, we will have to wait for the X-T3 and A7000 or whatever it will be called.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm X-T2,Sony ILCE-7R
Not sure why you keep refering to Fuji, i am discussing FF vs APS-C.
Again, not sure why you restrict your question to X-mount... but to answer it, Fuji doesn't have a 35mm equivalent with 2.8 (neither i see the 35mm 2.8 priced at $230, but instead at $280).is there any x-mount lens that can match my $232 Samyang 35/2.8? weight, size, cost, performance.
Maybe your better argument would be the Sony 50mm 1.8, but lets be honest, it doesn't have the same quality of Fuji XF35mm f2 which is weather resistant nor the OSS as the Sony APS-C one.
that's what a7r vs. x-t2 is, and Fuji/sony is what the thread is about.are you looking at ISO100? because Fuji's base ISO is 200. Anyway, compare it to the a6500 which has base ISO of 100, and what is the difference?even my old a7r sensor, from 2013, still has that same nearly two-stop base iso p.d.r. advantage over the x-t2, that came out in 2016:Comparing FF and APS-C sensor from same generation gives FF 1stop to 1.5 stops advantage.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.
Camera Model MaximumPDR Low LightISO Low LightEV
FujiFilm X-T2 10.00 3179 9.99
Sony ILCE-6500 10.31 2186 9.45
Sony ILCE-7M3 11.60 6420 11.00
Remember the A7III is not from the same generation as the APS-C ones, we will have to wait for the X-T3 and A7000 or whatever it will be called.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm X-T2,Sony ILCE-7R
Not sure why you keep refering to Fuji, i am discussing FF vs APS-C.
you seem to have lost track of what this thread is about; here, i'll re-post the thread title:Again, not sure why you restrict your question to X-mount...is there any x-mount lens that can match my $232 Samyang 35/2.8? weight, size, cost, performance.
"Sony α7 III first impression from a Fujifilm X-T2 owner"
you can get it for much less with the ebay discount coupon, that comes up regularly... here is a long thread about it, $225 shipped:but to answer it, Fuji doesn't have a 35mm equivalent with 2.8 (neither i see the 35mm 2.8 priced at $230, but instead at $280).
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1537382/
that's f/3.2 on ff, so it's much slower than the 50/1.8, and it weighs twice as much as the cheaper Samyang 35/2.8.Maybe your better argument would be the Sony 50mm 1.8, but lets be honest, it doesn't have the same quality of Fuji XF35mm f2
my point here is that: 1)ff lens selection is much better, 2)crop formats are not always smaller or lighter or cheaper.
Last edited:
Rmcp20
Veteran Member
Apologies but i am not going to continue trying to have a constructive and clarifying discussion with someone who makes the below statements:
"@howaboutraw - "the A7 and A7R have loud shutters"
wrong, they don't have "loud shutters""
-------------------------
"@howaboutraw - "I don't think Leica's SL is directed at the same market as the A7III and A9."
and yet you just claimed a few minutes ago that leica created the ff milc market.
newsflash: there is no "m market", because it has no market share, nobody wants it... "
--------------------
"for 15 years canon and nikon dslrs have forced people to drag heavy bricks around, that were never ergonomic in any sense of the word, and endure repetitive stress injuries caused by said poor camera designs.
End of quotation....
"@howaboutraw - "the A7 and A7R have loud shutters"
wrong, they don't have "loud shutters""
-------------------------
"@howaboutraw - "I don't think Leica's SL is directed at the same market as the A7III and A9."
and yet you just claimed a few minutes ago that leica created the ff milc market.
newsflash: there is no "m market", because it has no market share, nobody wants it... "
--------------------
"for 15 years canon and nikon dslrs have forced people to drag heavy bricks around, that were never ergonomic in any sense of the word, and endure repetitive stress injuries caused by said poor camera designs.
End of quotation....
I wondered who was behind the "howaboutraw" fake account.Apologies but i am not going to continue trying to have a constructive and clarifying discussion with someone who makes the below statements:
"@howaboutraw - "the A7 and A7R have loud shutters"
watching you defend his nonsense speaks volumes.
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification, now I understand. Then it's better to think about it as a video feed, I think. At 60fps it can't expose for longer than 1/60s. If there is not enough light for that, the framerate has to drop and the feed will not be smooth. I am pretty sure that's the reason for the jitter in A7 III's live view at high f-numbers in low light.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.
It should be smooth at 60fps or 100fps whatever the shutter speed. That's the point of the high framerate. 100fps might have a bit of an advantage, but it shouldn't be dramatic. You might have a point with motion for though.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.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
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.
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.