I get a new camera and here how it compared to X-T3

After considering for a long time, especially between Nikon Z6 and Sony A7M3, finally I get a new camera, and it's Sony, which will be my second (looks-pro) camera.





Sony looks a little higher because there's still a Manfrotto plate under it.

I'm a little disappointed with Sony, in fact, regret, with my first-day experience, here is why.

1. It looks very dull. The touch is not high grade as X-T3 which has a leather surface, too.

2. Cannot tell the difference between shutter's half-press and full-press.

3. Buttons feel soft and empty, and not decisive. Feedback is insufficient.

4. Lenses are big, heavy but not solid, looks a little ugly.

5. ISO adjustment is easy, but shutter speed's and aperture's are tricky.

6. Tons of menus and settings.

7. Post-productions become essential to portrait photos.

8. No click-click sound on lens' rings.

Of course, there are also three good things:

1. Full frame.

2. IBIS.

3. Two custom gears.

According to my first-day experince, if the upgrade to full-frame A7M3 is not necessary, stay with X-T3 is a good choice.

--
Cui Junwei, from Guangdong, China

kennedy32 said:

After considering for a long time, especially between Nikon Z6 and Sony A7M3, finally I get a new camera, and it's Sony, which will be my second (looks-pro) camera.



Sony looks a little higher because there's still a Manfrotto plate under it.

I'm a little disappointed with Sony, in fact, regret, with my first-day experience, here is why.

1. It looks very dull. The touch is not high grade as X-T3 which has a leather surface, too.

2. Cannot tell the difference between shutter's half-press and full-press.

3. Buttons feel soft and empty, and not decisive. Feedback is insufficient.

4. Lenses are big, heavy but not solid, looks a little ugly.

5. ISO adjustment is easy, but shutter speed's and aperture's are tricky.

6. Tons of menus and settings.

7. Post-productions become essential to portrait photos.

8. No click-click sound on lens' rings.

Of course, there are also three good things:

1. Full frame.

2. IBIS.

3. Two custom gears.

According to my first-day experince, if the upgrade to full-frame A7M3 is not necessary, stay with X-T3 is a good choice.

Click to expand...

Perhaps a textbook example of why I would always recommend renting a kit (assuming you have that option) before changing brands. You need a few days to a week to get used to the new handling and interface to properly assess whether it will work for you. However, no way would I make a move and commit to a different brand without a thorough shakeout first. It’s exactly what I did years ago (and worked hand in hand comparing notes with another DPR, and fellow Canon forum member, RWBaron) before committing to the move.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

Since I'm into birding, the only camera I can consider if upgrading the XT3 is the A9, nothing less

Saying so, Sony lenses are quite large and heavy and ultra expensive (try the 400mm f2.8!)

I'll patiently wait for Fuji tele primes and that rumored sports body

Will be content with XT3 + 100-400 combo for a while till the next big thing

Cheers,

Thanks for your opinion. A lot of it is similar to what I thought of playing with the camera.

One thing that I actually liked by comparison with Fuji, that you list as a “con”, are the buttons. I always found Fuji shutter release button too stiff, and prefer the sony’s, which are even softer than canon’s. IMHO the buttons on the camera are meant to introduce as little shake as possible, and having to slam that shutter button to make it react does not help. It’s not a typewriter after all. In the end I believe it is just something to get used to and when you start to feel the shutter, the camera just melts away.

kennedy32 said:

After considering for a long time, especially between Nikon Z6 and Sony A7M3, finally I get a new camera, and it's Sony, which will be my second (looks-pro) camera.



Sony looks a little higher because there's still a Manfrotto plate under it.

I'm a little disappointed with Sony, in fact, regret, with my first-day experience, here is why.

Click to expand...

I went from A7III to X-H1, mostly to reduce costs of the system.

kennedy32 said:

1. It looks very dull. The touch is not high grade as X-T3 which has a leather surface, too.

Click to expand...

A7III is not the best looking camera.

kennedy32 said:

2. Cannot tell the difference between shutter's half-press and full-press.

Click to expand...

I did not experience this issue.

kennedy32 said:

3. Buttons feel soft and empty, and not decisive. Feedback is insufficient.

Click to expand...

Agree, haptics isn't great, but it is all right.

kennedy32 said:

4. Lenses are big, heavy but not solid, looks a little ugly.

Click to expand...

Try G Master. Standard lenses have mostly plastic shells to keep the weight down. FF lenses will always be bigger than APS-C.

kennedy32 said:

5. ISO adjustment is easy, but shutter speed's and aperture's are tricky.

Click to expand...

Front gear aperture, rear gear shutter speed. I believe you can customise it.

kennedy32 said:

6. Tons of menus and settings.

Click to expand...

Coming from RX100 Mk1 with significantly fewer options I didn't find the menu confusing, just some acronyms you cannot make out without the manual. I don't think it is much worse than my X-H1.

kennedy32 said:

7. Post-productions become essential to portrait photos.

Click to expand...

I did more in post with Sony raw files than I do with xtrans iii to achieve same result.

kennedy32 said:

8. No click-click sound on lens' rings.

Of course, there are also three good things:

1. Full frame.

Click to expand...

You can push shadows like crazy!

kennedy32 said:

2. IBIS.

Click to expand...

X-H1 is as good if not better, but coming from X-T3 it is a real bonus.

kennedy32 said:

3. Two custom gears.

According to my first-day experince, if the upgrade to full-frame A7M3 is not necessary, stay with X-T3 is a good choice.

Click to expand...

It depends on what you shoot. A7III has incredible dynamic range, protects highlights very well and you don't have to worry to push shadows really hard. That's what I miss in street and landscape photo. X-H1 is good in this aspect too, but not as forgiving. X-T3 is slightly better with the shadows, slightly worse with highlights (than X-H1).

APS-C crops better due to tighter pixel pitch and with both cameras @24MP you can see the advantage of smaller sensor.

I cannot comment much on AF as I don't use AF features too much and X-T3 should be better than X-H1, but A7III sits easily two levels above X-H1.

Sony's biggest negative is price of the system - good glass comes at premium. For me as a hobbyist it didn't make much sense to invest into Sony system.

Ultimately, it is about what you need and what costs you can justify. When I upgrade in the future, it will be high MP FF... but with what I am getting out of X-H1 and Fuji lenses, that time is a few years away.

kennedy32 said:

--
Cui Junwei, from Guangdong, China

Click to expand...

I also had an RX100 a few years ago, back then I even don't know what aperture/ISO/shutter speed is, their menus are similar indeed.

There are clear click sound and response on X-T3's shutter but not on Sony A73's.

I would try to take advantage of both systems as much as possible, at least I'm happier with Fuji's portrait shooting.

One of the biggest turn-offs for me on the Sony bodies is the short grip--my pinky finger hangs off the end and usually finds itself supporting too much weight, even though I have small hands. I have mild arthritis and this is more pain than I want or need to deal with.

Funny enough with the X-T3, it has no substantial grip, yet still feels much more comfortable in use as I can fit my full hand on it just fine.

That the Sony regularly needs to fit larger and heavier lenses makes the problem even worse, whereas there's a sufficient selection of nice, small, and light lenses for Fuji X.

Also there's no native 35mm prime between the small but compromised (yet still expensive?) 35mm f2.8, and gigantic 35mm f1.4, so I'm out of luck for my favorite focal length. Nikon Z caught my interest there, but the 35mm f1.8 S hardly has smooth bokeh--a real letdown for a fast lens. The Z bodies are also noticeably less responsive than the X-T3, and feel very... first generation, with some rough edges.

I think I'll take another look at FF again when the X-H2 or whatever the next Fuji IBIS body comes around and things have matured some more.

I just hope my X-T3 shutter lasts--been blazing away at the thing since burst is so easy to use with continuous AF.

Thanks for sharing! Well, the lenses... you may go with the Zeiss lenses. Especially the 35mm f2.8 and the 55 f1.8 are great, BUT - there is no whole line-up of primes with Sony. There are some Loxias, there are some Sony (but not as good as the Zeiss), and a small couple of Sony/Zeiss lenses. But since the Zeiss have a different color rendition (colors become somehow bold compared to others), you can‘t get a consistent visual signature with Sony. That‘s why I returned to Fuji...

ediblestarfish said:

Also there's no native 35mm prime between the small but compromised (yet still expensive?) 35mm f2.8, and gigantic 35mm f1.4, so I'm out of luck for my favorite focal length.

Click to expand...

That 2.8 is not compromised... it`s great.

John Gellings said:

ediblestarfish said:

Also there's no native 35mm prime between the small but compromised (yet still expensive?) 35mm f2.8, and gigantic 35mm f1.4, so I'm out of luck for my favorite focal length.

Click to expand...

That 2.8 is not compromised... it`s great.

Click to expand...

The Samyang AF 35/2.8 is great too. I liked it that much I got the Samyang AF 24/2.8 but unfortunately it's good rather than great.

The Sony FE 35mm f2.8 has never gotten stellar center sharpness for me, even at its best. The corners are the biggest flaw, since they are noticeably soft and they don’t really improve upon stopping down, unlike just about every other lens I’ve used; which seems unusual, but I have checked repeatedly with several copies. Vignetting is high.

The Fuji 23mm f2 feels remarkably similar to me, except that it does perform noticeably better on stopping down, especially in the center. It’s also about half the price. Also has some other little niceties like WR, aperture ring, nicer build.

The Sony feels lacking, especially looking at value for dollar, even on the used market. The results I got from it really did not feel like any significant advantage was gained over APS-C by the FF bodies I used it on. This lens among others is what made me feel Fuji X was a more reasonable system to settle on for my kind of shooting.

The real kicker for me is that on Fuji X, the 23mm f1.4 feels like a decent step up that is manageable. The Sony 35mm f1.4 on the other hand feels unreasonably large and weighty, in addition to its high price.

ediblestarfish said:

The Sony FE 35mm f2.8 has never gotten stellar center sharpness for me, even at its best. The corners are the biggest flaw, since they are noticeably soft and they don’t really improve upon stopping down, unlike just about every other lens I’ve used; which seems unusual, but I have checked repeatedly with several copies. Vignetting is high.

The Fuji 23mm f2 feels remarkably similar to me, except that it does perform noticeably better on stopping down, especially in the center. It’s also about half the price. Also has some other little niceties like WR, aperture ring, nicer build.

The Sony feels lacking, especially looking at value for dollar, even on the used market. The results I got from it really did not feel like any significant advantage was gained over APS-C by the FF bodies I used it on. This lens among others is what made me feel Fuji X was a more reasonable system to settle on for my kind of shooting.

The real kicker for me is that on Fuji X, the 23mm f1.4 feels like a decent step up that is manageable. The Sony 35mm f1.4 on the other hand feels unreasonably large and weighty, in addition to its high price.

Click to expand...

I guess we expect different things from equipment, but none of these lenses will make a great photo bad and I can`t complain about any of the lenses you are mentioning (except the Sony 1.4 which I haven`t used). I do agree that I prefer Fuji to Sony as well though.

you disappointed in the Sony and like the Fuji

this seems to be a common theme

I think more than a few people including myself have been sold on the FF hype, especially on the FE system. Enough that we bought into it without fully understanding what trade offs we were making to fully realize the oft touted IQ superiority with meaningful jumps.

Consequently some here have reflected on that experience with a clearer view, and decided that in some ways, the trade offs may not be worth it. For others perhaps the opposite.

Personally I spent roughly 8k US in FE gear to only find an inconsistent benefit to image making. A cost I found extremely foolish in hindsight; but I suppose it was a learning experience I won’t quickly forget.

John Gellings said:

ediblestarfish said:

Also there's no native 35mm prime between the small but compromised (yet still expensive?) 35mm f2.8, and gigantic 35mm f1.4, so I'm out of luck for my favorite focal length.

Click to expand...

That 2.8 is not compromised... it`s great.

Click to expand...

I used that lens for a week - hated it

expensive and not that great - in fact the cheap Canon pancakes which are around $150 are better

it was one of the things that really turned me off to the Sony system at the time

TRIODEROB said:

I used that lens for a week - hated it

Click to expand...

same here , DSLR 35s are cheaper and perform better .. even tatty old AF canon and nikon ones from the 80s picked up for under £100 secondhand are no worse at F2.8 and at F5.6 probably better

TRIODEROB said:

expensive and not that great - in fact the cheap Canon pancakes which are around $150 are better

it was one of the things that really turned me off to the Sony system at the time

Click to expand...

The biggest for me were the standard zooms, the 24-70 "Zeiss" was junk, poor edges even stopped down, it was one of the rare non decentered ones too ! and suffered focus shift at the long end .. I found the 28-70 kit lens to actually be a better performer overall when the weak OIS system wasn`t causing a blurred edge (the optics are too small for an OIS system to work well)

the only lenses which I found were up to much were either the better primes or if they were zooms, they cost the earth and were way too big for the cameras ..

Full frame - get a D850 IMO (or the cash conscious get a 750) , no mucking about . it`s got glass to match the quality in affordable and high end, primes or zooms.. I thought the A7R - ( MK1 at that time) would be a great compact alternative to a D810 for a work camera - Sold it and stuck with the Nikons , Sony are still weak in APS-C zooms too as it happens .

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

TRIODEROB said:

John Gellings said:

ediblestarfish said:

Also there's no native 35mm prime between the small but compromised (yet still expensive?) 35mm f2.8, and gigantic 35mm f1.4, so I'm out of luck for my favorite focal length.

Click to expand...

That 2.8 is not compromised... it`s great.

Click to expand...

I used that lens for a week - hated it

expensive and not that great - in fact the cheap Canon pancakes which are around $150 are better

it was one of the things that really turned me off to the Sony system at the time

Click to expand...

Well, I guess you proved me wrong. I mean, one week.

Jerry-astro said:

kennedy32 said:

According to my first-day experince, if the upgrade to full-frame A7M3 is not necessary, stay with X-T3 is a good choice.

Click to expand...

Perhaps a textbook example of why I would always recommend renting a kit (assuming you have that option) before changing brands. You need a few days to a week to get used to the new handling and interface to properly assess whether it will work for you. However, no way would I make a move and commit to a different brand without a thorough shakeout first. It’s exactly what I did years ago (and worked hand in hand comparing notes with another DPR, and fellow Canon forum member, RWBaron) before committing to the move.

Click to expand...

Yup, I also highly recommend investing in camera rental before pulling the trigger on a significant commitment into a new system.

I would go a little further: before renting, do your homework. Read over the manual and buy/read the best tip books for that system before your rental starts. Even if you are investing in a second system and not looking to change systems right away, it can sure cost a lot of money; especially when you factor in lens prices.

So your comments can be attributed to:

1. Cosmetics.

2. Unfamiliarity with a new camera and menus.

3. Unfamiliarity with the lenses (there are many small lenses for Sony).

4. Unfamiliarity with ergonomics.

5. Lack of use - 1 day only?

You also forgot to mention the reason to buying the camera.

John Gellings said:

TRIODEROB said:

John Gellings said:

ediblestarfish said:

Also there's no native 35mm prime between the small but compromised (yet still expensive?) 35mm f2.8, and gigantic 35mm f1.4, so I'm out of luck for my favorite focal length.

Click to expand...

That 2.8 is not compromised... it`s great.

Click to expand...

I used that lens for a week - hated it

expensive and not that great - in fact the cheap Canon pancakes which are around $150 are better

it was one of the things that really turned me off to the Sony system at the time

Click to expand...

Well, I guess you proved me wrong. I mean, one week.

Click to expand...

if you want a 35 that really is great I A/B that lens to the :

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens.

now THAT lens really is worth the money - its amazing

and by the way I only had the Zeiss for a week but I did some pretty serous testing mounting it on tripod and shooting test targets at different distances and f stops as well as in the field shots before coming to my conclusion - i was never happier to return a lens - I sure dont feel like that about my Fuji 35 f 1.4 magic lens !