Fuji instead of Sony?

Joe Tam · Oct 17, 2018

Hi,

I was very interested in switching to Sony but the XT-3 has me taking another look at Fuji.

I used to use Nikon for stills and Panasonic(for stills and video where size, discretion, and silent shutter is required).

Why I want Fuji over Sony:

The smaller lenses and cheaper prices across the board end up saving a lot of money when it comes to 2 bodies, 3-4 lenses and some accessories. i can get 2 xt-3 for $3k vs. $6k for a7riii or $8k for a9.

fuji 50-140/2.8 for $1400) is lighter (2.19 lb / 995 g) vs. Sony 70-200/2.8(ignoring equivalence) at 3.26 lb / 1480 g at $2600

very compact 24-80/2.8 equivalent that is $1000 vs. sony which is over $2000.

won't have to pay $4000 for distortion free electronic shutter. while there is 1.25x crop at 30fps at 16megapixel that is not an issue for me. also heard some lenses are not compatible with electronic shutter on a9. this is not an issue with fuji.

Why I want Sony over fuji:

higher sensitivity in extreme situations due to "full frame" sensor

ability to mount many third-party lenses with adapter.

higher megapixel full-frame bodies(a7riii)

eye-af

reportedly better tracking in low light

a9 is one sick puppy but very expensive.

IBIS!

For those who may have switched from Sony to Fuji: are there extreme situations where the fuji xt-3 fall apart and you wish you had sony. Heard low light tracking on Fuji xt-3 might be an issue.

Is Fuji good enough for most situations?

myfujilife · Oct 17, 2018

Joe Tam said:
Hi,

I was very interested in switching to Sony but the XT-3 has me taking another look at Fuji.

I used to use Nikon for stills and Panasonic(for stills and video where size, discretion, and silent shutter is required).

Why I want Fuji over Sony:

The smaller lenses and cheaper prices across the board end up saving a lot of money when it comes to 2 bodies, 3-4 lenses and some accessories. i can get 2 xt-3 for $3k vs. $6k for a7riii or $8k for a9.

fuji 50-140/2.8 for $1400) is lighter (2.19 lb / 995 g) vs. Sony 70-200/2.8(ignoring equivalence) at 3.26 lb / 1480 g at $2600

very compact 24-80/2.8 equivalent that is $1000 vs. sony which is over $2000.

won't have to pay $4000 for distortion free electronic shutter. while there is 1.25x crop at 30fps at 16megapixel that is not an issue for me. also heard some lenses are not compatible with electronic shutter on a9. this is not an issue with fuji.

Why I want Sony over fuji:

higher sensitivity in extreme situations due to "full frame" sensor

ability to mount many third-party lenses with adapter.

higher megapixel full-frame bodies(a7riii)

eye-af

reportedly better tracking in low light

a9 is one sick puppy but very expensive.

IBIS!

For those who may have switched from Sony to Fuji: are there extreme situations where the fuji xt-3 fall apart and you wish you had sony. Heard low light tracking on Fuji xt-3 might be an issue.

Is Fuji good enough for most situations?

I am confused as to how you can ignore equivalence because you're not comparing apples with apples. That's like comparing a 24-70 to a 70-200 and wanting to ignore the focal length

The 50-140 is the equivalent of the 70-200 f4

woodyggg · Oct 17, 2018

the search function is your friend...

zeroshiki · Oct 17, 2018

Joe Tam said:
Hi,

I was very interested in switching to Sony but the XT-3 has me taking another look at Fuji.

I used to use Nikon for stills and Panasonic(for stills and video where size, discretion, and silent shutter is required).

Why I want Fuji over Sony:

The smaller lenses and cheaper prices across the board end up saving a lot of money when it comes to 2 bodies, 3-4 lenses and some accessories. i can get 2 xt-3 for $3k vs. $6k for a7riii or $8k for a9.

fuji 50-140/2.8 for $1400) is lighter (2.19 lb / 995 g) vs. Sony 70-200/2.8(ignoring equivalence) at 3.26 lb / 1480 g at $2600

very compact 24-80/2.8 equivalent that is $1000 vs. sony which is over $2000.

won't have to pay $4000 for distortion free electronic shutter. while there is 1.25x crop at 30fps at 16megapixel that is not an issue for me. also heard some lenses are not compatible with electronic shutter on a9. this is not an issue with fuji.

Why I want Sony over fuji:

higher sensitivity in extreme situations due to "full frame" sensor

ability to mount many third-party lenses with adapter.

higher megapixel full-frame bodies(a7riii)

eye-af

reportedly better tracking in low light

a9 is one sick puppy but very expensive.

IBIS!

For those who may have switched from Sony to Fuji: are there extreme situations where the fuji xt-3 fall apart and you wish you had sony. Heard low light tracking on Fuji xt-3 might be an issue.

Is Fuji good enough for most situations?

Sounds like the fuji suits your needs better from everything you said on your post. so why post this in sony section and not at the fuji forum? Enjoy your fuji.

woodyggg · Oct 17, 2018

"are there extreme situations where the fuji xt-3 fall apart "

I haven't used Fuji... just that I've read numerous threads on this topic from those who have used both. their comments did include 'falling apart' numerous times - but it wasn't under 'extreme situations' - your comment shows your bias. of course - go with what make you happy, that's all that matters.

you seem to stress small - want a smaller system? Fuji.

want better pictures? sony.

Zefah · Oct 17, 2018

Joe Tam said:
Hi,

I was very interested in switching to Sony but the XT-3 has me taking another look at Fuji.

I used to use Nikon for stills and Panasonic(for stills and video where size, discretion, and silent shutter is required).

Why I want Fuji over Sony:

The smaller lenses and cheaper prices across the board end up saving a lot of money when it comes to 2 bodies, 3-4 lenses and some accessories. i can get 2 xt-3 for $3k vs. $6k for a7riii or $8k for a9.

fuji 50-140/2.8 for $1400) is lighter (2.19 lb / 995 g) vs. Sony 70-200/2.8(ignoring equivalence) at 3.26 lb / 1480 g at $2600

very compact 24-80/2.8 equivalent that is $1000 vs. sony which is over $2000.

won't have to pay $4000 for distortion free electronic shutter. while there is 1.25x crop at 30fps at 16megapixel that is not an issue for me. also heard some lenses are not compatible with electronic shutter on a9. this is not an issue with fuji.

Why I want Sony over fuji:

higher sensitivity in extreme situations due to "full frame" sensor

ability to mount many third-party lenses with adapter.

higher megapixel full-frame bodies(a7riii)

eye-af

reportedly better tracking in low light

a9 is one sick puppy but very expensive.

IBIS!

For those who may have switched from Sony to Fuji: are there extreme situations where the fuji xt-3 fall apart and you wish you had sony. Heard low light tracking on Fuji xt-3 might be an issue.

Is Fuji good enough for most situations?

You can get an A9 for under $4,000 if you look and are willing to buy used (you should be). It's the only camera on the market that offers a distortion free shutter. I think its readout speed is pegged around 1/160. It looks like the X-T3's electronic shutter is closer to 1/60. It's still prone to distortion and banding, although it's improved over the X-T2. It does not have the stacked sensor tech that allows for the fast readout speeds that eliminate distortion and banding.

The Fujifilm XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR Lens is not a 24-80/2.8 equivalent. It's a 24-82.5/4.2 equivalent. You need to apply crop factor to aperture, too, to get an equivalency. The 24-105mm f/4 G Sony lens is in a comparable price bracket and it also has stabilization which the Fuji lens lacks. The Fuji body also lacks stabilization.

Now, I don't say any of this to push you away from Fuji, but you should have the facts straight. I think Fuji cameras are pretty great and would totally recommend them to anyone looking to invest in an APS-C system. They make great cameras and great lenses and it's all very reasonably priced. With that said, you should really know what you're getting into and how it compares to full frame alternatives.

Hans vdC · Oct 17, 2018

I use and have both (A7III + XT2) and the difference, from my own experience and not reviews or forums, is simple: the Fuji is more 'photographer' like and just is more fun and intuitive to use for me, the Sony is better in high ISO, AF and face/eye detection but often really feels like a small computer instead of a camera. Both can produce stunning images, I just "love" the Fuji, I "like" the Sony

No account anymore · Oct 18, 2018

Hans vdC said:
I use and have both (A7III + XT2) and the difference, from my own experience and not reviews or forums, is simple: the Fuji is more 'photographer' like and just is more fun and intuitive to use for me, the Sony is better in high ISO, AF and face/eye detection but often really feels like a small computer instead of a camera. Both can produce stunning images, I just "love" the Fuji, I "like" the Sony

So Fuji is fine if you like to handle old school knobs, and Sony is better for those who care about their images? Sounds reasonable. :-D :-D

Bob Janes · Oct 18, 2018

Joe Tam said:
Is Fuji good enough for most situations?

Of course it is - if it does what you need, feels good in your hand and if the price is right then go for it.

The extras you get with the a9 can easily have a value placed upon them - if this does not justify the extra cost for your purposes, the Fuji would seem a valid choice.

TQGroup · Oct 18, 2018

Joe Tam said:
Hi,

I was very interested in switching to Sony but the XT-3 has me taking another look at Fuji.

I used to use Nikon for stills and Panasonic(for stills and video where size, discretion, and silent shutter is required).

Why I want Fuji over Sony:

The smaller lenses and cheaper prices across the board end up saving a lot of money when it comes to 2 bodies, 3-4 lenses and some accessories. i can get 2 xt-3 for $3k vs. $6k for a7riii or $8k for a9.

fuji 50-140/2.8 for $1400) is lighter (2.19 lb / 995 g) vs. Sony 70-200/2.8(ignoring equivalence) at 3.26 lb / 1480 g at $2600

very compact 24-80/2.8 equivalent that is $1000 vs. sony which is over $2000.

won't have to pay $4000 for distortion free electronic shutter. while there is 1.25x crop at 30fps at 16megapixel that is not an issue for me. also heard some lenses are not compatible with electronic shutter on a9. this is not an issue with fuji.

Why I want Sony over fuji:

higher sensitivity in extreme situations due to "full frame" sensor

ability to mount many third-party lenses with adapter.

higher megapixel full-frame bodies(a7riii)

eye-af:-D

reportedly better tracking in low light

a9 is one sick puppy but very expensive.

IBIS!

For those who may have switched from Sony to Fuji: are there extreme situations where the fuji xt-3 fall apart and you wish you had sony. Heard low light tracking on Fuji xt-3 might be an issue.

Is Fuji good enough for most situations?

A camera is a tool to do a job.

Wouldn't it make sense to figure out exactly what the job/jobs will be and then fit the tool to the task?

IMHO, too many make decisions based on specs alone. Canon has about half the market and it rarely wins any specs contests ;-)

Why is this so?

Well, each Canon does the job for which it is designed. Then there are the other important components, like ergonomics, ruggedness, support, accessories, service, lenses, user groups etc. etc.

For most, including most pros, the total of the tape adds up in Canon's favour

But don't ask me, I mainly shoot Nikon and Sony (for video) :-D

Tristimulus · Oct 18, 2018

Depends upon your needs - what do you really need?

Fuji offer APS-C cameras, Sony equivalents are the a6300 or a6500.

If you really want a Sony asking in this forum is a smart move - we love Sony cameras here!

If you really want a Fuji camera better ask in the Fuji forum, they love Fuji cameras.

From here the answer is loud and clear: get a Sony! ;-)

spytromics · Oct 18, 2018

Exactly! While all cameras have limitations, today's cameras are so advanced and so sharp that the limitations are minor. Most of these postings are picayune.

If the OP likes Fuji, then get a Fuji. His (and our) photos are limited by photographic skills, not the camera.

Adams, Brady, and others had junk compared to our cameras. Yet have any of us taken photos any better?

knoxphoto · Oct 18, 2018

Joe Tam said:
Hi,

I was very interested in switching to Sony but the XT-3 has me taking another look at Fuji.

I used to use Nikon for stills and Panasonic(for stills and video where size, discretion, and silent shutter is required).

Why I want Fuji over Sony:

The smaller lenses and cheaper prices across the board end up saving a lot of money when it comes to 2 bodies, 3-4 lenses and some accessories. i can get 2 xt-3 for $3k vs. $6k for a7riii or $8k for a9.

fuji 50-140/2.8 for $1400) is lighter (2.19 lb / 995 g) vs. Sony 70-200/2.8(ignoring equivalence) at 3.26 lb / 1480 g at $2600

very compact 24-80/2.8 equivalent that is $1000 vs. sony which is over $2000.

won't have to pay $4000 for distortion free electronic shutter. while there is 1.25x crop at 30fps at 16megapixel that is not an issue for me. also heard some lenses are not compatible with electronic shutter on a9. this is not an issue with fuji.

Why I want Sony over fuji:

higher sensitivity in extreme situations due to "full frame" sensor

ability to mount many third-party lenses with adapter.

higher megapixel full-frame bodies(a7riii)

eye-af

reportedly better tracking in low light

a9 is one sick puppy but very expensive.

IBIS!

For those who may have switched from Sony to Fuji: are there extreme situations where the fuji xt-3 fall apart and you wish you had sony. Heard low light tracking on Fuji xt-3 might be an issue.

Is Fuji good enough for most situations?

I've owned and used both extensively, here's what I can tell you.

If you need battery life, advanced color grading options (cine-profiles), and the FF DOF then you want the Sony. Those are the "real life" advantages of the system.

If you want lightweight bodies and lenses, excellent color without grading, and easy to use controls and menus, you want the Fuji system.

Both systems have excellent autofocus, are easy to adapt almost any lens to and offer output that is exceptional, especially when using an external recorder/monitor like an Atomos.

The Sony is a little bit better with AF, but honestly, with both cameras, I prefer to MF in low-light situations for accuracy. IBIS benefits are minimal unless you are using the native lenses for both systems.

I would say the Fuji can do 94% of what the Sony can do IRL situations. If you need that extra 6%, go with the Sony.

SQLGuy · Oct 18, 2018

knoxphoto said:
Joe Tam said:

Hi,

I was very interested in switching to Sony but the XT-3 has me taking another look at Fuji.

I used to use Nikon for stills and Panasonic(for stills and video where size, discretion, and silent shutter is required).

Why I want Fuji over Sony:

The smaller lenses and cheaper prices across the board end up saving a lot of money when it comes to 2 bodies, 3-4 lenses and some accessories. i can get 2 xt-3 for $3k vs. $6k for a7riii or $8k for a9.

fuji 50-140/2.8 for $1400) is lighter (2.19 lb / 995 g) vs. Sony 70-200/2.8(ignoring equivalence) at 3.26 lb / 1480 g at $2600

very compact 24-80/2.8 equivalent that is $1000 vs. sony which is over $2000.

won't have to pay $4000 for distortion free electronic shutter. while there is 1.25x crop at 30fps at 16megapixel that is not an issue for me. also heard some lenses are not compatible with electronic shutter on a9. this is not an issue with fuji.

Why I want Sony over fuji:

higher sensitivity in extreme situations due to "full frame" sensor

ability to mount many third-party lenses with adapter.

higher megapixel full-frame bodies(a7riii)

eye-af

reportedly better tracking in low light

a9 is one sick puppy but very expensive.

IBIS!

For those who may have switched from Sony to Fuji: are there extreme situations where the fuji xt-3 fall apart and you wish you had sony. Heard low light tracking on Fuji xt-3 might be an issue.

Is Fuji good enough for most situations?

Click to expand...

I've owned and used both extensively, here's what I can tell you.

If you need battery life, advanced color grading options (cine-profiles), and the FF DOF then you want the Sony. Those are the "real life" advantages of the system.

If you want lightweight bodies and lenses, excellent color without grading, and easy to use controls and menus, you want the Fuji system.

Both systems have excellent autofocus, are easy to adapt almost any lens to and offer output that is exceptional, especially when using an external recorder/monitor like an Atomos.

The Sony is a little bit better with AF, but honestly, with both cameras, I prefer to MF in low-light situations for accuracy. IBIS benefits are minimal unless you are using the native lenses for both systems.

I would say the Fuji can do 94% of what the Sony can do IRL situations. If you need that extra 6%, go with the Sony.

It sounded like low distortion fully electronic shutter was a must have for the OP. Does that change your recommendation at all, or did you already include that in your comparison?

biza43 · Oct 18, 2018

knoxphoto said:
If you want lightweight bodies and lenses, excellent color without grading, and easy to use controls and menus, you want the Fuji system.

As with all generalizations, this is not correct. In terms of weight, say a Fuji XT or XPro camera is on par with Sony A7III, for example. There are both heavy and light lenses on both sides as well. As for easy or not easy menus, it's simply a matter of familiarity. After 3 years of using Sony A7 cameras, I have no problems with the menus.

Returning to an XPro after 4 years has been a steep learning curve for me.

Colour grading? Again, subjective, and depends on the entire workflow being used.

knoxphoto said:
IBIS benefits are minimal unless you are using the native lenses for both systems.

Again, not in my experience. I am used to shoot with IBIS on my Sony A7II at 1/10 sec and 50mm lens and get sharp results. With the Xpro2 and 23 f2 lens, not quite the same results...

knoxphoto · Oct 18, 2018

ES is always going to have distortion with moving objects, on the other hand, 1/8,000th can freeze a lot of motion correctly.

knoxphoto · Oct 18, 2018

biza43 said:
knoxphoto said:

If you want lightweight bodies and lenses, excellent color without grading, and easy to use controls and menus, you want the Fuji system.

Click to expand...

As with all generalizations, this is not correct. In terms of weight, say a Fuji XT or XPro camera is on par with Sony A7III, for example. There are both heavy and light lenses on both sides as well. As for easy or not easy menus, it's simply a matter of familiarity. After 3 years of using Sony A7 cameras, I have no problems with the menus.

Returning to an XPro after 4 years has been a steep learning curve for me.

Colour grading? Again, subjective, and depends on the entire workflow being used.

biza43 said:

IBIS benefits are minimal unless you are using the native lenses for both systems.

Click to expand...

Again, not in my experience. I am used to shoot with IBIS on my Sony A7II at 1/10 sec and 50mm lens and get sharp results. With the Xpro2 and 23 f2 lens, not quite the same results...

No, Fuji does not (yet) have the color fidelity built into their color profiles for professional level grading. The Fuji "F" log is good when graded, but not yet on par with the color profile Log customization and cine-profiles of the current Sony line up. IMO Fuji does have the best OOC colors. Color grading is not subjective, it's color science. I've shot extensively with both systems, over 2,000 hours of editing, let me know when you get there.

On Par? Have you carried around a bag full of Sony glass? The Fuji lenses (with the exception of the pro zooms) are lighter in weight than the Sony counterparts. Source? I have 6 G-master lenses sitting on my desk in front of me and I've owned 9 Fuji X lenses.

Sony menus suck, they always have. Only engineers and nihilists enjoy them.

IBIS is great for non-moving subjects.

Zefah · Oct 18, 2018

knoxphoto said:
ES is always going to have distortion with moving objects,

Not with the A9.

Andrew Mac · Oct 18, 2018

Zefah said:
knoxphoto said:

ES is always going to have distortion with moving objects,

Click to expand...

Not with the A9.

Of course it does. As above its something equivalent to 1/160 in scanning, not instantaneous.

That means that the distortion that is there is less likely to be noticeable / problematic than when using an A7III scanning at more like 1/30 or the XT-3 scanning at 1/60.

Someone more willing to apply their brain could presumably work out precisely what speed would mean that there was less than a pixel of movement from top to bottom - but I expect that is a pretty slow speed.

The A9 is still (AFAIAA in this kind of class of camera) the camera least likely to have distortion that you can notice / be bothered by - but physics says it isn't distortion free.

biza43 · Oct 18, 2018

knoxphoto said:
biza43 said:

knoxphoto said:

If you want lightweight bodies and lenses, excellent color without grading, and easy to use controls and menus, you want the Fuji system.

Click to expand...

As with all generalizations, this is not correct. In terms of weight, say a Fuji XT or XPro camera is on par with Sony A7III, for example. There are both heavy and light lenses on both sides as well. As for easy or not easy menus, it's simply a matter of familiarity. After 3 years of using Sony A7 cameras, I have no problems with the menus.

Returning to an XPro after 4 years has been a steep learning curve for me.

Colour grading? Again, subjective, and depends on the entire workflow being used.

knoxphoto said:

IBIS benefits are minimal unless you are using the native lenses for both systems.

Click to expand...

Again, not in my experience. I am used to shoot with IBIS on my Sony A7II at 1/10 sec and 50mm lens and get sharp results. With the Xpro2 and 23 f2 lens, not quite the same results...

Click to expand...

No, Fuji does not (yet) have the color fidelity built into their color profiles for professional level grading. The Fuji "F" log is good when graded, but not yet on par with the color profile Log customization and cine-profiles of the current Sony line up. IMO Fuji does have the best OOC colors. Color grading is not subjective, it's color science. I've shot extensively with both systems, over 2,000 hours of editing, let me know when you get there.

As I said, it depends on the whole workflow. No need for a pi**ing contest.

knoxphoto said:
On Par? Have you carried around a bag full of Sony glass?

Yes.

knoxphoto said:
The Fuji lenses (with the exception of the pro zooms) are lighter in weight than the Sony counterparts. Source? I have 6 G-master lenses sitting on my desk in front of me and I've owned 9 Fuji X lenses.

The G master Sony lenses have no Fuji counterpart, except for the Fuji pro zooms. If you consider the more mainstream lenses, the Sony's are not heavier.

knoxphoto said:
Sony menus suck, they always have. Only engineers and nihilists enjoy them.

Ok, I am neither, and I have no problems with Sony menus. Actually, Menus are not something I enjoy, they are something I need to live with when I need to use them.

knoxphoto said:
IBIS is great for non-moving subjects.

You know that there are several IBIS modes and OIS modes, to use for static or moving subjects say when panning?

Fuji instead of Sony?

Senior Member

myfujilife

Guest

Leading Member

Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

No account anymore

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts