Fuji XT-2 or Sony A7II

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,891
Re: What’s “low-light” anyway

Eugleo wrote:

golfhov wrote:

Eugleo wrote:

golfhov wrote:

Eugleo wrote:

That’s another very nice and detailed answer, thanks!

Cato is a heck of a contributor. Fully agree with what he has said

From what you said, I prefer the Fuji; I don’t mind an extra step when editing the raw files

You can actually pull files from both cameras off the studio scene page here. Those files are shot static of a tripod with a high quality prime. They are meant more to be an estimate on ISO and less on resolution BUT it does show

Will do. I’m actually not sure whether the low-light benefit of FF will be of much use to me (I don’t really know what constitutes “low-light”).

Ahhhh........this is an intangible. In photo speak you often hear the term "stop" . A stop is a multiplier of 2. So one stop is twice as much. Two is 4x . Three is 8x etc.

Some people consider cloudy "low light" and some are trying to shoot in starlight.......

Yeah, it’s hard to quantify this one. And here also the IQ/noise come into play — I don’t plan to shoot some super low-light photos, not very ofter, at least. However, I heard that FF usually buys you around a stop of light, the lens spec being the same,

Correct. "Equivelant" lens anyway. Using a faster lens on a smaller sensor can actually move the needle in the favor of the SMaLLER sensor. But you will see that this often breaks the "less expensive and smaller sterotypes".

and IBIS might buy you some more, if you are shooting stills.

Correct. "Depends" . It is "up to" five stops but it will vary. For fun just say two stops. Of course if you are shooting fast moving objects your subject may end up blurred if you try to drop your shutter speed too low

That might mean that given there is only X of light or less, ISO 100 for Sony should really be compared with ISO 800 on Fuji — and now there they might be some IQ differences,

That theoritcal would be a LARGE difference. At the same settings the a7ii is already a little better. Three stops better is pretty significant

although in good light both sensors perform the same.

Enough. BIT this is kind of the truth about everything. At base ISO they are all pretty decent

The question is, how big is this X? When does the IBIS and FF start to noticeably matter? Cloudy day?

This is something you are just going to have to find for yourself. You will find thousands of discussions on here and there is no consensus. "Good enough" and "priorities" vary wildly

Then it’s significant. Night-sky photography?

You will see the impact WAYYY before that.

Then I don’t care. Where do you think the borderline is?

I don't know how to really state this in a way that would give you perspective without sounding L me I am trying to bash ApsC. .......


and if IBIS isn’t useful 95% of the time, I might as well just skip it.

I don't know that I would say it is only useful 5% of the time. I use it regularly and not only can it extend my normal abilities it is helpful at what should be "normal" speeds if I am holding the camera at an awkward angle.

Guessing on what you have said it is a mixed bag. I wouldn't say it is 95% important but I wouldnt say it is 95% unimportant

Yeah, it’s hard to decide on this one. I guess some of the newer lenses have their own OIS,

With Fuji MOST of the zooms have OSS. So if you are largely going to be using only the zooms you won't get any benefit of IBIS. If you use primes there are almost no stabilized primes . So if your subject can tolerate it you MAY be able to get lower shutter speeds without a tripod. Also your own skill will play a factor. Some of us have better technique than others

but on the other hand, the old legacy ones don’t... I think the darkest place I’ll regularly shoot in is a forest (the European kind, see the enclosed photo).

Just on a technical level the problem with that scene is the sunlight coming through is usually MUCH brighter than your shadows. If you are trying to get a little bit of everything it is an advantage of the bigger sensor. Although the a7ii is an older design so the gap isn't as large as it could be

Will the lack of IBIS (and FF, for that matter) hurt me there (considering I don’t want to shoot handheld photos)?

I don't follow the "don't want to shoot handheld". If you are on a tripod all stabilization is almost moot

My bad, I actually wanted to say “don’t want to shoot with tripod” and “want to shoot handheld” at the same time

Well a scene like that will almost definitely benefit from some sort of stabilization. Whether OSS or IBIS.

And after all, if I come to prefer the Sony one day (i.e. the A7III once the price drops significantly), I can just sell my old gear and switch systems.

This is just a real possibility no matter what you choose. You don't have the experience to know all your priorities now and even if you did sometimes priorities change with time

If I understood it correctly, lenses don’t lose much on value anyway

It all depends. It depends on the way you purchase them, the way you care for them, and how you resell them.

and I can get over the loss of 750$ for the body if need be.

I doubt it would be a TOTAL loss. Bodies still retain some value if cared for. They do tend to depreciate faster.

My last two questions are have you handled both cameras?

Not yet, only the Sony. I have an appointment tomorrow, and I’ll try out the Fuji then. I have actually been using the Sony for three days already, but I’m still in the return window.

Well some of your comments about handling you need to see for yourself. It's a personal thing.

And have you evaluated the lenses you may want to seek out?

Partially; I want to start with cheap and/or legacy lenses, to find out what suits me best.

Mounting old mf film lenses can be done with either BUT if you are into wider angles than the Fuji will be a bit limited due to the "magnified" view. You are also going to get what you pay for. You can pick up everything from UWA zooms to telephotos for the $100 to a few hundred range that are fun to play with BUT the quality is going to be a bit underwhelming.......

Bonus for Sony is all those legacy lenses can be stabilized

That means the 35mm 2.8 prime for Sony and the kit zoom lens for Fuji, and some older lenses after that. I checked and many of the recommended and nicely reviewed fast (f2) lenses are sub 500$ for Fuji, and even less when bought from second-hand. And for Sony, there are a lot of great and relatively cheap lenses from third-party suppliers.

Here in the USA there are a good bit more inexpensive lens options now that third party manufacturers have jumped in.

So, all in all, for me Sony and Fuji is pretty similar in this regard.

I don't know your market. I will leave the pricing to you.

I also don't think you can go wrong with either. They are both much better cameras to start out with than a lot of us did. Good luck

Thanks, your comments have been indeed very helpful.

Trying. You are welcome.

You can’t decide for me, after all.

Correct. Good luck

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow