skanter
Forum Pro
The one I have is a tiny rubber one, the size of a hotshoe protector, stays there all the time unless hotshoe is needed for flash. Looks cool - not really a doohickey.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Switching to Fuji... ?
- Thread starter Nerg
- Start date
BlueBomberTurbo
Senior Member
No reason to go to Fuji unless you need something the X-T3 provides, which will soon be eclipsed by the A6700/A7000 (just like the A6300 outpaced the X-T2)
A6300 and above have this.
A6300 and above have this.
App available for A6300.
+2 for Fuji.
Unless you shoot JPG, this is a non-issue. Plenty of style packs out there that emulate the same film Fuji is emulating.
A6500 should have this.
You'll feel right at home with an A6300 or A6500. Both also feature improved grips.
I have been thinking the same thing. I have the a6000 and I'd like to upgrade and I was thinking of the x-t20 so I'd love to know your thoughts on how they compare - particularly the af and general use.
The problem I have is not that the a6000 can't produce great images. It is a better camera than I am photographer but the lack of controls is holding my photography back. In aperture priority mode it tries to keep the shutter speed at 1/60 which is too slow for anything that isn't moving so I have to shoot in shutter priority (which I don't like much) or manual mode. The second control dial is the d pad on the back and is fiddly beyond belief and then changing iso or exposure compensation is a number of buttons and it is all just a pain and slows things down. The a6300 and a6500 does have a minimum shutter speed you can set but the controls are the same so I'm not interested in them. I would be interested in the new camera is it had more controls but it'll be beyond my ability to buy new.
But then it comes down to lenses. After trying so many I am still disappointed. I don't get Sony, or sigma's for that matter, strategy (well i guess they make sense from a business model perspective). There is limited choice and what choice you have can't produce the best possible images the camera could produce. The 24, 35 and 50 are decent but at f1.8 m, which is f2.1 ff eqv, they could offer something faster - but to do that you need to upgrade to ff. Or you could get the sigma's but photographers around the world have settled on 35mm and 50mm ff eqv as standard and important focal lengths but sigma seems to think if you shoot apsc that doesn't apply to you and make 2 versions of 45mm ff eqv. I'm not sure anyone makes such a lens in the ff world? So you can get faster lenses with worse af at focal lengths I'm not interested in and they are much larger to boot - the 56 looks a decent size and we will have to wait tonsee what it's like but reports I read from photokina were that the af was very slow.
So looking at fuji they offer cameras with more controls and lenses that are faster than the Sony's and smaller than the sigma's. I want to stay in Sony land as I am already there and been there for years and maybe I might want to move to ff but I wish they would improve the lens line up and stick another dial on their cameras!
So anyway, your thought on the x-t20 wpuld be very interesting
SpacemanUA
Senior Member
1. a6300 and a6500 have a bit different bodies and grip than a6000. That makes ergonomics better and while it still won't "add" additional wheel, things are pretty ok with them. No "let down" because of this for me at all. But it's all relative and if you don't like how a camera fits your hand, you might want to try another brand.
2. Unlike Fuji, Sony has some affordable lenses like 50/1.8OSS which can produce great images and has amazing sharpness even in corners at f/5.6-8. So, when you're saying you can't achieve best IQ possible, you're very wrong. Sure, you won't get it shooting wide open, but no lens in history is best at it's wides aperture.
3. f/1.8 is eq to f/2.8 in DoF on FF cameras.
4. You can buy FF Sony lenses and use them on APS-C cameras. Sure, they're expoensive, but if you need ultimate IQ, you'll have to spend some money.
5. Who cares on what "photographers around the world have settled on"? If those photographers will shoot on fisheye only tomorrow, will you copy them too? And FIY, all those "50 mm lenses" are not quite 50mm. Focal lenght may vary from 45 to 55 mm on those. And even if you have real 50mm, the difference between this and 45mm is almost negligible. Even Zeiss makes 32mm f/1.8 Touit lenses for APS-C, not 35mm. Why? Cause no one really cares about that few mm's. They have their optic schemes and decide which is economically and technically reasonable to produce.
6. Fuji doesn't have "more controls". It has different control wheels placement. As for all those aperture and shutter speed dials - I find those uncomfortable to use and it slowed my shooting process. YMMV.
7. In the end, it comes to lenses prices. Here are some as for today from B&H:
Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN - $449
FUJIFILM XF 16mm f/1.4 R WR - $999
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN - $339
FUJIFILM XF 35mm f/1.4 R - $599
Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN - $479
FUJIFILM XF 56mm f/1.2 R - $999
Sony E 50mm f/1.8 OSS - $298
FUJIFILM XF 50mm f/2 R WR - $450
Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 - $598
FUJIFILM XF 90mm f/2 R LM WR - $949
Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS - $448
FUJIFILM XF 35mm f/2 R WR - $399
Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN - $169
FUJIFILM XF 27mm f/2.8 - $450
Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS - $348
FUJIFILM XC 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7 OIS II - $399
It's easy to see how expensive Fuji lenses are. And even if you need 35 mm eq, you can get new amazing Sony FE 24mm f/1.4 GM for $1,398 (no discoints yet cause it's a new lens, but it will change obviously), which is great wide open unlike mediocre FUJIFILM XF 23mm f/1.4 R for $899. And you will be use Sony's one if you'll jump on FF some day.
As for IQ, I owned Fuji's 35, 16-50, 55-210, rented 35/2 and 56/1.2 and read a lot of reviews on the rest of all. All I can say is that Sigmas are better for much lower prices. And dont forget that f/1.4 and f/1.2 Fuji lenses have old and loud AF which makes them unusable in video.
2. Unlike Fuji, Sony has some affordable lenses like 50/1.8OSS which can produce great images and has amazing sharpness even in corners at f/5.6-8. So, when you're saying you can't achieve best IQ possible, you're very wrong. Sure, you won't get it shooting wide open, but no lens in history is best at it's wides aperture.
3. f/1.8 is eq to f/2.8 in DoF on FF cameras.
4. You can buy FF Sony lenses and use them on APS-C cameras. Sure, they're expoensive, but if you need ultimate IQ, you'll have to spend some money.
5. Who cares on what "photographers around the world have settled on"? If those photographers will shoot on fisheye only tomorrow, will you copy them too? And FIY, all those "50 mm lenses" are not quite 50mm. Focal lenght may vary from 45 to 55 mm on those. And even if you have real 50mm, the difference between this and 45mm is almost negligible. Even Zeiss makes 32mm f/1.8 Touit lenses for APS-C, not 35mm. Why? Cause no one really cares about that few mm's. They have their optic schemes and decide which is economically and technically reasonable to produce.
6. Fuji doesn't have "more controls". It has different control wheels placement. As for all those aperture and shutter speed dials - I find those uncomfortable to use and it slowed my shooting process. YMMV.
7. In the end, it comes to lenses prices. Here are some as for today from B&H:
Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN - $449
FUJIFILM XF 16mm f/1.4 R WR - $999
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN - $339
FUJIFILM XF 35mm f/1.4 R - $599
Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN - $479
FUJIFILM XF 56mm f/1.2 R - $999
Sony E 50mm f/1.8 OSS - $298
FUJIFILM XF 50mm f/2 R WR - $450
Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 - $598
FUJIFILM XF 90mm f/2 R LM WR - $949
Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS - $448
FUJIFILM XF 35mm f/2 R WR - $399
Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN - $169
FUJIFILM XF 27mm f/2.8 - $450
Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS - $348
FUJIFILM XC 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7 OIS II - $399
It's easy to see how expensive Fuji lenses are. And even if you need 35 mm eq, you can get new amazing Sony FE 24mm f/1.4 GM for $1,398 (no discoints yet cause it's a new lens, but it will change obviously), which is great wide open unlike mediocre FUJIFILM XF 23mm f/1.4 R for $899. And you will be use Sony's one if you'll jump on FF some day.
As for IQ, I owned Fuji's 35, 16-50, 55-210, rented 35/2 and 56/1.2 and read a lot of reviews on the rest of all. All I can say is that Sigmas are better for much lower prices. And dont forget that f/1.4 and f/1.2 Fuji lenses have old and loud AF which makes them unusable in video.
Last edited:
snapa
Veteran Member
What would be interesting is to know what the OP is planning to buy and use on his new Fuji X-T20. If he is a prime lens user, he will be a looser once buying a few prime lenses. He will also not have IBIS when using the Fuji 27, 35 or 56mm lenses with his new Fuji X-T20 vs upgrading to an a6500.
To the OP, which Prime lenses do you have, or planning to have with your Fuji X-T20?
BTW, do you have any nice pictures to post with your new Fuji X-T20? It would be interesting to see a few that put your a6000 to shame. Have you taken any side-by-side comparision shots yet to compare the two? If yes, it would be really nice to check them out. Thanks in advance if you do.
jimhughes
Senior Member
The image quality of the a6300/a6500 is the same as the a6000 - just a bit less shadow noise. So it's been 5 years for this line.
Here we are wrapping up another year of APS-C rumors, and patronizing weasel-words from Sony execs about how they 'like APS-C'. The icing on the cake was that rumor over at SAR about a new high-end APS-C body - 90% confident, trusted source has used the camera, etc. Pretty clear now that Sony decided not to release it against the XT-3 and went back to the drawing board.
I've bought a number of APS-C lenses over the years, and eventually, if there's no upgrade to the Sony bodies, that investement is lost. I'm sure not buying any more at this point.
I'm now reading about the Fuji XT-3 and trying to decide if it's really a step up in IQ from the a6300. If it is - why wait?
Sure, Sony could announce a new APS-C camera the day after I buy the XT-3 . But it seems more likely they'll just keep stringing us along forever.
--
www.jimhphoto.com
Last edited:
snapa
Veteran Member
Moral to that story is, stop reading rumors and enjoy the camera/lenses you have.
Your investment is only lost if you can't take good pictures with them. If that is the case, look in the mirror and not at your gear. Get a gear list and gallery :/
Go for it! It seems like you are not happy with the a6300/lenses you have, or the pictures you are taking, is that correct? Please answer that question, thanks!
Some people are very happy with their a6x00 cameras and lenses, so they don't really care how long it takes for Sony to announce their next camera, me included. Also, having the latest and greatest cameras/lenses does not mean your pictures will look any better, so don't blame Sony or Sigma.
--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/
Last edited:
BlueBomberTurbo
Senior Member
Nope. The A6300/A6500 has about 1 stop of extra DR at low ISO (if you count the removal of the green cast, then 2 stops), and ramps up to 1 stop better high ISO noise by ISO 6400. I have no problem setting ISO 3200 max for wedding shooting on my A6300s, where the A6000 would struggle sometimes even at ISO 1600. DR is also amazing, allowing you to lift 4-5 stops of shadows and still be usable with proper NR (Adobe's is excellent).
Guess who designed the X-T3 sensor? Guess who knows its capabilities? Guess who's not surprised by the X-T3?
Sony stated they will definitely continue APS-C development now that FF is well fleshed out, and that a pro APS-C body is a necessity. APS-C bodies are certainly coming, now that the current FF generation is nearly complete.
Because it's very buggy and crash prone, like Fuji tends to be.
Meanwhile, everyone was complaining about the quick release dates of the A6300 and A6500. We're still within the 2 year launch window of the A6500, so nothing's off track.
I want a good small system easy to take everywere but with the best possible quality. Ideally one zoom and one prime for low light. Now I have the Sony Zeiss 24mm 1.8 which is very nice and the 16-70mm Zeiss zoom which is not so good. I had the 18-105g but didn’t like the power zoom (to slow to start).
I also have the sel20f28. The size is great but IQ not great. Wonder if the Fuji XF 27mm is better (it seems so).
With the Fuji, I have a good zoom for now. The 18-55 has a nice aperture of 2.8 at 18mm and IQ seems good. But for the prime, I don’t know already which one I should get. The 23mm f2 is a little bit slow and not good wide open at close distance. The 1.4 is good wide open but has an old focusing system, is not wr and cost more.
Anyway, I didn’t make comparison pictures yet between both cameras but here are some quick tests shots :
The rest of the shots:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/CCuEoCFvg1iG1stc8
If I have the time this week, I'll add some pictures shot with my A6000 to compare colors and sharpness with the 16-70.
Last edited:
1. I like how the a6000 fits in my hand. I don't like the lack of controls.
2. I have the 50 so I know its strengths and weaknesses. I didn't mention IQ. I meant the lenses available from Sony do not allow for some better quality images in certain situations because they have not released faster lenses such as f1.4 or faster. I know the IQ on most lenses can excellent when you hit the sweet spot. I want lenses that allow me to take better photos in low light. f1.8 doesn't cut it for a lot of what I shoot. For the better lighting situations I am perfectly happy with the lenses Sony offers.
3. Clearly!
4. You can and I have. My issue with this is that the lens is then overdesigned for the system you are using it for. So I use the FE28 a lot but if you were to design a 28mm lens at f2 for APSC it would most likely be smaller than a 28mm f2 designed for a full frame system. So you give up one of the main selling points of the APSC system
5. Learning from the field is an important part of mastering any practice. To not pay too much attention to the 35mm and 50mm ff eqv focal lengths seems a very odd strategy to me. Fuji don't! Zeiss make a 32mm lens because that makes a 50mm ff eqv focal length! Which is the point I am making. Manufacturers make 50mm ish ff eqv focal length lenses but that is usually 50-55! I don't recall seeing a 45mm lens in the FE lineup.
6. Fuji cameras have more controls on the bodies. Sony buries them in the menu systems.
7. I don't believe that in the end it comes down to price at all! People don't all buy the cheapest camera or lens! They buy the camera and lens that they think is right for them. Price is a factor but for some it isn't.
8. I don't do video so that doesn't matter to me. There are many pro photographers using Fuji lenses and while there is some debate about how fast the af can be on the old lenses they clearly work very well. Sigma's on the other hand do not all work very well if you end up with a lens with the f2 issue.
To me it is about philosophy for APSC in the business plan. Fuji consider APSC to be as good as full frame while Sony has - up until now - not considered it as good. So Fuji produce lenses that pros might be more attracted to - as demonstrated by the 33mm f1.0 coming out (I know it is massive!) - while Sony has produced some good lenses but aimed at enthusiasts rather than pros with the philosophy that pros will go to their ff cameras and lenses.
SpacemanUA
Senior Member
1. So, which controls are you missing? There are 2 control wheels, just like on Fuji.
2. Sony made FF their priority for some time which is quite reasonable from their point of view. They have demand for FF cameras and lenses. Anyway, there are a lot of options now with Sigma lenses and adapted lenses via LA-EA3 and MC-11. As for Fuji - they're trying to be "premium" and dont have affordable lenses. I prefer Sony's current situation when you have both affordable and premium lenses.
4. Sigma.
5. What would change if Sigma 30mm was 35mm? Nothing at all. Why would one desperately need 50mm eq and not being ok with 45mm eq?
6. Yes, which are ergonomic nightmare. But yeah, all those wheels look cool. Who cares if it's pretty much unusable in real world.
7. Why don't everyone shoot with Leica then? Price always matters for everyone. Well, except Fuji fans.
8. It workds well in AF-C mode. And old Fuji's lenses were painfully slow on X-T1/X-T10 generation. They are ok on modern cameras, but just ok.
33/1 is a joke for its price and with its size. Any pro will choose any of modern 50/1.4 lens on any FF system over it. And what will be Fuji's answer to Canon's 50/1.2? And while Fuji tries to convince all that "pros are switching to Fuji", I see that much more pros switching from DSLRs to Sony FF cameras for obvious reasons. Pro gear will always be big and heavy, and why would you chose a smaller sensor if you're forced to carry a lot of gear with you anyway?
2. Sony made FF their priority for some time which is quite reasonable from their point of view. They have demand for FF cameras and lenses. Anyway, there are a lot of options now with Sigma lenses and adapted lenses via LA-EA3 and MC-11. As for Fuji - they're trying to be "premium" and dont have affordable lenses. I prefer Sony's current situation when you have both affordable and premium lenses.
4. Sigma.
5. What would change if Sigma 30mm was 35mm? Nothing at all. Why would one desperately need 50mm eq and not being ok with 45mm eq?
6. Yes, which are ergonomic nightmare. But yeah, all those wheels look cool. Who cares if it's pretty much unusable in real world.
7. Why don't everyone shoot with Leica then? Price always matters for everyone. Well, except Fuji fans.
8. It workds well in AF-C mode. And old Fuji's lenses were painfully slow on X-T1/X-T10 generation. They are ok on modern cameras, but just ok.
33/1 is a joke for its price and with its size. Any pro will choose any of modern 50/1.4 lens on any FF system over it. And what will be Fuji's answer to Canon's 50/1.2? And while Fuji tries to convince all that "pros are switching to Fuji", I see that much more pros switching from DSLRs to Sony FF cameras for obvious reasons. Pro gear will always be big and heavy, and why would you chose a smaller sensor if you're forced to carry a lot of gear with you anyway?
Robobonobo
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 388
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 300
I'd imagine Sigma was thinking of offering a lens for both m43 and Sony aps-c, and also, Sony already offered a good 35mm.
Robobonobo
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 388
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 300
I remember all the criticism Sony received for releasing the 6500 so soon after the 6300. These guys just can't win with some people!
hungrylau
Senior Member
A few positives that I could see from my brother's xpro-1 and xpro 2 over and above the a6000 and likely, the a6500:
- better SOOC jpgs
- better whitebalance and in particular, better performance under artificial light to determine the correct wb
- jpg simulation bracketing
- better sooc skin tones
- better auto-iso modes
- more readily acceptable look to other people watching you taking photos
In relation to the better buttons/dials that people talk about, it seems the front dial has to be used to find the gap in shutter speeds noted in the physical top dial and the rear dial might be usable for iso. This assumes you're not using the xc1650 and that you have aperture available to you on the lens barrel.
I can see how someone shooting A or S or full-auto may find comfort with the retro styling. But I found the viewfinder of the xt10 and xpro1/2 to be fairly average. Not that much better than the a6000 that I have.
So if I were to upgrade to fuji, I would only be keen on an xt2 or xt3 as a result of the better dedicated ISO dial and shot-mode selections that sit under the dedicated iso dial.
Having said that, after 1 year with the a6000, I have attended to properly configuring the quick menu under the FN key and also know how to use the rear scroll wheel, the bottom, left and right button. As a result of this familiarity, I am sure that I am just as fast if not faster than any fuji user with on an xt-10, xt-20, xpro1, xpro2. But perhaps not as fast at changing settings compared to an xt-1-3 user.
So my assumption is that those who don't adapt to the a6x00 bodies are people who aren't open to it in the first place, or they have too many years muscle memory to overcome. The usability factor is
In relation to discussions about lenses, what's really missing?? I have had a look at the discussions and I don't think much is missing at all, apart from an affordable 23mm f/2 and a 1650 f/2.8 enthusiast zoom in sony land.
But in the future, with continuing updates the mc-11 adapter should offer greater connectivity for AF with the sigma 18-35 and 50-150 f/1.8 pro zooms?! That's a possibility at least.
I tried the sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS. I didn't like it. I saw the fuji 35mm f/2.0, it wasn't that great and I don't know what the big deal is. The nikkor 35mm f/1.8G is still my pick for APSC 35mm lenses and notwithstanding the purple fringing, it seemed sharper than either of the sony and fuji options (at least in the centre).
SpacemanUA
Senior Member
That "better jpeg" talk is just a marketing legend. Most users will get weird colors with Fuji if they'll use film sims with adjustments, just like some samples above. Exactly "fuji-like" and not pleasing at all. And there's not much of adjustments: saturation, S&H and sharpness. With Sony you have almost unlimited possibilities of JPEG color tuning. But you need to get into color science a bit or search for ready recipes like EOSHD Pro Color.
BlueBomberTurbo
Senior Member
The A6500 definitely has better WB than the A6000, especially under artificial light. My A6300 was way better than my previous A6000 in that respect, and the A6500 has that plus 3 different AWB modes.
A6500 has a boatload more in-camera profiles to choose from than the A6000. Some are incredibly flexible, as well.
Yup, you're a Fuji fanboy in training. ◔_◔
Sony started the free C1 thing. Not a fan of C1 at all, though. Have to use it for work, and it's pretty buggy and can't handle artificial lighting that well. ACR is what I use for my personal work.
That's pretty much it. Many people just don't want to learn something new.
Guessing you may have gotten a bad copy of the Sony. I had the 35/1.8 DX, and it was just soft on my D7100 wide open, acceptable on my D7000, and fine on my D90. The Sony isn't crazy sharp or anything, but it's very usable wide open, and the AF is waaay faster than the Nikon.
hungrylau
Senior Member
Good to hear.. I am looking at upgrading to one of the following:
- a7rii - for the price and ability to use my current apsc lens set at 18MP
- a7iii - but I would need to sell everything but the 50mm loxia which I love and start again with an UWA and a portrait length prime
- a6500 - dirt cheap now with all the rebates
- a7000 - my most likely purchase for hopefully a better EVF and extra front dial
Again, since I'm only on the a6000 I only have that to compare. I do like the a6500 colours more than the a6000 colours, but it's hard to judge since I am only looking at images that people post up on Flickr.
What I've discovered after spending a fair amount of time playing with the a6000 profiles:
- Autumn leaves look - strangely decent for people portraiture
- Deep - with some adjustments, looks quite similar to my perception of colour IRL
- Portrait - with some adjustments, looks softer and allows for slightly uplifted shadows in a scene
- B&W - with some adjustments - good enough
- Vivid - no thanks
- Standard - no thanks
I've shot with:
- xpro 2 - two sessions outdoors in the gold coast, AU.
- omd em 10 - multiple sessions outdoors all over brisbane
- sony a6000 - multiple over 3yrs all over brisbane
- nikon d3100 - multiple over 4yrs all over brisbane and the gold coast, AU
Yet the xpro 2 and the omd em10 - people think it's a film camera and I get fewer 'awkward stares' when shooting street. My observations are from my own experience.
If I were a fuji fanboy, I doubt I would have spent so much on sony/zeiss lenses. The fuji xt-2 and xt-3 as well as their xpro 2 bodies are what interest me. But they stay just at 'interest' level because I already have the lenses, capture one pro, Alex Svet's capture one styles, the piraccinni LR presets as well as the LR presets from the sony alpha FF forum to play with.
I prefer having the sony raw file malleability, which was already awesome since the a6000. I can always improve on PP and I think over the past 3yrs, I've made some fairly slow, but steady progress in that regard.
As an amateur, it's all i need and I'll never go pro, I'm also very miffed at Adobe going full subscription based. Call me old fashioned, but I hate cloud software services for photoediting.
Yes, which is what really irks me in relation to camera reviews from blogs, websites and youtubers. They have a camera for what, less than 2-3 months and there's never any 1 year plus long-term reviews to account for deep familiarity with novel control approaches. All it says to me, after my own experience with the a6000 is that older camera reviewers have too much ergonomics baggage and they can't properly adjust.
BlueBomberTurbo
Senior Member
Yup, many say Autumn Leaves is closest to Canon color. Deep is what I use in the EVF when shooting, for the same reason. Looks very much like real life. Those are definitely the best two profiles, and yes, Standard is very meh, and what everyone thinks all Sonys are only capable of shooting.
When you get to the A6300/A6500, you also gain Picture Profiles, which are technically meant for video use, but are 100% usable for JPGs. A vast amount of settings are available for these, and you can mix and match colors and tone to get the look you want. As mentioned above, EOSHD Pro Color is a bunch of settings for these Picture Profiles that was originally intended to add Canon color to Sony. They have more presets bundled in now, and some look very good.
Dunno, the A6000 is the smallest of the bunch, to the point that when you're shooting, the only thing people will see is the lens. The X-Pro2 is actually rather large, considering it's got the same sensor as the A6300. With that said, I've only been approached for my cameras by other people interested in photography. Well, unless I'm using my Sigma 150-600! XD
Just saying, because they seem to think the camera's outward appearance somehow adds to the final image. When you're shooting, all you see is the viewfinder or LCD.
That's one of my biggest complaints about Fuji. Their 16MP sensors are from Sony NEX series, and their 24s are from the A6300. Yet somehow, they've managed to get less DR out of them, AND add more high ISO noise. Then they threw on the X-Trans CFA that throws a monkey wrench into rendering in general, and smears detail. Probably the biggest reason I could never switch to Fuji.
I guess it depends on how often you like to update your software. Full Photoshop used to cost $1K per full version. Just Photoshop. Now you get Photoshop, LR CC and Classic, Bridge, Spark, Portfolio, and 20GB of cloud storage in the basic plan. For around $120 a year. Back in the day, that would be thousands every year or two. I have no problem paying for this plan, as I get a crazy discount AND instant updates. Remember that other brands also charge for updates, and some have recently raised prices.
Pretty much. I started with the NEX-6 as a secondary/daily camera, worked my way into knowning it, then by the time the A6000 came out, it got put into heavy use, and my D7100 sat on the shelf. With the A6300, I dumped Nikon completely, mainly due to the performance. If the A6000 was as good as the A6300, I would have dumped Nikon 2 years earlier.
Rmcp20
Senior Member
Both systems have advantages in bodys and lenses available.
Bodywise, i either use the X-T20 with a thumb grip or an additional L plate grip. In the Sony bodies i didn't need it, just like in the X-T2/3.
If you want IBIS, a6500 all the way, if not you have more choices.
A big plus for Sony are the Sigma primes. The 19mm 2.8 is a no brainner at €120 used, just like the 16mm 1.4 for anyone doing landscapes or the upcoming 56mm 1.4 for portraits if the eye Af works well.
Now, Sony loses on two lenses on my system checklist:
-35 mm FF equivalent, with f1.8 or f2 ( the Zeiss APS-C is very expensive, while the Fuji 23mm f2 sells for less than €400 with promotions)
- Good quality affordable telezoom (Fuji has the 55-200, Sony's 2nd cheapest is the 70-200 f4 at over €1000)
So lenses wise it all depends on what you want, and while you can have a several lens system cheaper at Sony, those two are personal must haves. Also, the Sigmas 1.4 are cheaper and on par in regards to image quality with the Fujis, but bigger.
Now as many have mentioned, those MR modes are very usefull. Don't understand why on earth Fuji doesn't already have this, even if SS, Aperture, Exp Comp and Shutter mode (Single, burst , etc... ) cannot be saved due to the dials. I could very well change those in 2 secs, but it takes much more to check AF selection/mode, Auto ISO min shutter speed, color profile, video setting etc...
In the A6000 i had one B&W for street, one for action/sports and another for generic use. I could pick up the camera and in 2 sec have all settings ready (even if not the optimal settings, they would cover whatever i was shooting).
Eye-AF in AF-C on a6300 / a6500 is also very good, now matched by the X-T3, but the a6300 is half the price so....
Now, the Fuji X-T20 has more than just 2 dials. While Exp Comp, aperture and shutter speed already have dials, both the front and rear dials are clickable so you can set 4 different functions if im not mistaken... that makes it 7, without the need to press other buttons. Although here i recognise that personally i shoot either Shutter or Aperture priority, so 3 would be enough (SS or Aperture, ISO and Exp Comp). Personal again...
For anyone not needing those two lenses (23mm and 55-200), i would sugest Sony a6300 or a6500 if IBIS is required). If i had the money, A7III or A7RIII all the way probably...but i dont...
Bodywise, i either use the X-T20 with a thumb grip or an additional L plate grip. In the Sony bodies i didn't need it, just like in the X-T2/3.
If you want IBIS, a6500 all the way, if not you have more choices.
A big plus for Sony are the Sigma primes. The 19mm 2.8 is a no brainner at €120 used, just like the 16mm 1.4 for anyone doing landscapes or the upcoming 56mm 1.4 for portraits if the eye Af works well.
Now, Sony loses on two lenses on my system checklist:
-35 mm FF equivalent, with f1.8 or f2 ( the Zeiss APS-C is very expensive, while the Fuji 23mm f2 sells for less than €400 with promotions)
- Good quality affordable telezoom (Fuji has the 55-200, Sony's 2nd cheapest is the 70-200 f4 at over €1000)
So lenses wise it all depends on what you want, and while you can have a several lens system cheaper at Sony, those two are personal must haves. Also, the Sigmas 1.4 are cheaper and on par in regards to image quality with the Fujis, but bigger.
Now as many have mentioned, those MR modes are very usefull. Don't understand why on earth Fuji doesn't already have this, even if SS, Aperture, Exp Comp and Shutter mode (Single, burst , etc... ) cannot be saved due to the dials. I could very well change those in 2 secs, but it takes much more to check AF selection/mode, Auto ISO min shutter speed, color profile, video setting etc...
In the A6000 i had one B&W for street, one for action/sports and another for generic use. I could pick up the camera and in 2 sec have all settings ready (even if not the optimal settings, they would cover whatever i was shooting).
Eye-AF in AF-C on a6300 / a6500 is also very good, now matched by the X-T3, but the a6300 is half the price so....
Now, the Fuji X-T20 has more than just 2 dials. While Exp Comp, aperture and shutter speed already have dials, both the front and rear dials are clickable so you can set 4 different functions if im not mistaken... that makes it 7, without the need to press other buttons. Although here i recognise that personally i shoot either Shutter or Aperture priority, so 3 would be enough (SS or Aperture, ISO and Exp Comp). Personal again...
For anyone not needing those two lenses (23mm and 55-200), i would sugest Sony a6300 or a6500 if IBIS is required). If i had the money, A7III or A7RIII all the way probably...but i dont...
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum