Fuji X-T20 or Sony A7?

[Belgarchi]

Should I buy the Fuji X-T20 or the Sony A7?

It would be mostly to use a large collection of manual focus lenses - Nikon AIs, Pentax KA, Canon FDn, Nikon AIs, Minolta MD, and one native wide-angle to normal zoom.

Photos of landscapes, wildlife, cities, architecture.

 

[Becksvart]

Hi,

I own an A6k and an A7. For shallow dof shots, which seems to be around half the shots I take, I vastly prefer the A7. (Also have a couple of film cameras that use the same legacy lenses and it is nice to have the same fov regardless of camera)

For landscape and architecture I normally want as much as possible in focus, which makes the A6k more convenient if I don't want to fiddle with focus stacking, which I don't. The same goes for macro.

For the prices you can get an A7 now though..I used to say, or at least think "pish posh" when folks said ff does shallow dof more attractive and think to myself that I wanted the native fov for legacy lenses. Well, there is shallow dof magic with ff compared to aps-c and the fov thing is nice.

 

[Sjak]

I would also check the candidates at a store, to see how the grip&handling feels. This is important, especially with heavier lenses.

On the Fuji-side, the X-T1 or X-T2 may be more comfortable, as there is also a vertical grip available, which also adds a lot of stability when shooting a heavier lens horizontally The X-T20 is even smaller than the X-T1/2, so something to think about.

Both Fuji and Sony have their typical handling and ergonomics, which you may or may not like.

FOV/DOF on APSC could be compensated with a focal reducer, but this could get expensive if you want one for more than 1 or 2 lens families.

 

[biza43]

Sony A7, the foremost reason would be: you keep your focal lengths as they were intended.

 

[ProfHankD]

Should I buy the Fuji X-T20 or the Sony A7?

It would be mostly to use a large collection of manual focus lenses - Nikon AIs, Pentax KA, Canon FDn, Nikon AIs, Minolta MD, and one native wide-angle to normal zoom.

Photos of landscapes, wildlife, cities, architecture.

On an IQ basis, the only thing that doesn't obviously favor the A7 is video... which you don't mention as a priority... and the A7 is even cheaper. Much cheaper if you care about wide angles, because the Fuji will need a focal reducer for wide lenses to stay wide.

So, I'm assuming you are really asking how they "feel" in use. Sonys are good, Minolta-ish in overall feel; Fujis look and feel more retro -- like faux Leicas that have really accurate film-emulation modes (that unfortunately duplicate the weaknesses of the films they model, such as blocked-up shadows for Astia, etc.). I own only one Fuji (which I bought because it had IQ issues the computational repair of which was an interesting research topic), but I own and use a fleet of Sonys: NEX-5, NEX-7, A600, A6500, A7, A7II, and A7RII. BTW, ALL of those Sonys are still in regular use, although the NEX-7 and A7 get used a bit less than the others. YMMV. ;-)

 

[Belgarchi]

- Is the IQ of the Sony A7 better than the X-T20? They are both 24MP. Is the sensor size making a difference at usual ISO values, like say 400 ISO?

- How are the jpeg? Can they be tuned to give very similar results, or are the compression algorithms different? If yes, is it the Fuji or the Sony that 'wins'?

- Is the A7 giving good results in the corners with old lenses? I am using old lenses on M43. and better APS-C, and the results are often excellent, the cropped format removing the typically weak edges of the FF format. Are old lenses ok on a FF digital camera? Believe it or not, I never took a FF digital photo in my life, and it makes me nervous.

 

[Belgarchi]

But are the old MF lenses good enough near the edges with a FF 24MP camera?

 

[biza43]

It depends on the lenses. Some wide angles from M mount suffer in the corners (but you don't mention M mount). I have used a Nikkor 24 AIS f2.8 on the A7 with good results.

Some folks are happy, others are more demanding.

 

[Sjak]

- How are the jpeg? Can they be tuned to give very similar results, or are the compression algorithms different? If yes, is it the Fuji or the Sony that 'wins'?

JPG is a strength of Fuji, especially if you like their film simulations. This is personal though.

If you are going to edit your images anyway, then this is much less relevant.

Hank's comments on wide angle are correct often. Besides, choice in old glass in wider angles is not as good as in say 50mm-lenses. And 50mm is already mild tele on APSC. But then again, there's plenty of wide-angle choice in X-mount (also much cheaper than Fuji's own lenses)

To be honest, if you are going to use for manual focus only, the X-T20 seems a bit overkill in features, as most improvements over the previous gen Fuji's are in the AF-area (and a touchscreen, which may or may not be an advantage for you) Other differences with earlier generations is slightly more MP (relevant if you always view at 100% on a large display and/or print large), an extra (and to be honest really nice) B&W filmsim called Acros, and finally much better video mode.

A Fuji X-T1/X-T10/X-E2 works great with adapted lenses, with an edge for the X-T1 for the much larger viewfinder and better grip options (the EVF of the X-T1 is also larger than the one on the X-T20) (the video on these cams is basically useless btw)

 

[Sjak]

This guy uses both brands, and posts a lot of pics in his lens reviews:

jonasrask | photography

Official Fujifilm X Photographer. Photography, Reviews, Adapted lenses and much more.

jonasraskphotography.com

Ze Razor – A Leica Summicron-M 90mm f/2 review

Them Germans! They sure know how to craft some decent quality glass. And by decent I mean “holy sh** this glass is nice!” As I’m sure most of you know this german quality of craft…

jonasraskphotography.com

Rikenon 55mm f/1.2 review

Vintage lens review time! Some weeks ago I was browsing the classifieds as I regularly do, in search of good ol’ photography gold. My search never really broadens enough to include the word &…

jonasraskphotography.com

 

[ProfHankD]

- Is the IQ of the Sony A7 better than the X-T20? They are both 24MP. Is the sensor size making a difference at usual ISO values, like say 400 ISO?

Yes, it is -- and most of the difference is in how they use a lens designed for FF, although low light performance is probably a bit better too.

Here's the DPReview article I wrote on old lenses with APS-C vs. FF. The difference is small, and sometimes APS-C with a focal reducer wins, but not usually and pretty much never stopped down. The most common FF lens defect is vignetting causing dark corners -- not blurry corners -- but stopping down fixes that.

- How are the jpeg? Can they be tuned to give very similar results, or are the compression algorithms different? If yes, is it the Fuji or the Sony that 'wins'?

As I said, Fuji's film emulation modes are quite accurate -- which means they result in images with blocked-up shadows, etc. If you prefer the film look, get a Fuji. However, the JPEGs from the Fujis don't have the dynamic range that Sonys do, and Sony is very good at reducing noise without artifacting (better than simple raw postprocessing is).

- Is the A7 giving good results in the corners with old lenses? I am using old lenses on M43. and better APS-C, and the results are often excellent, the cropped format removing the typically weak edges of the FF format. Are old lenses ok on a FF digital camera? Believe it or not, I never took a FF digital photo in my life, and it makes me nervous.

As I said above, and in my article, vignetting is the primary defect on FF (and it's somewhat correctable, burning a little dynamic range). On APS-C, it's lack of resolution (which isn't correctable, but also isn't obvious in viewing scaled-down images). The slight crop from native FF when you use a focal reducer on APS-C, about 1.1X, usually is enough to remove any annoying vignetting, but then so is stopping down a little on FF. On MFT, the resolution is quite demanding (16MP is like 26MP APS-C or 61MP FF, 20MP is like 33MP APS-C or 76MP FF). Additionally, MFT specifies a very thick sensor stack that makes dust spots less obvious, but causes CA and off-axis issues (good thing it never gets too far off axis). In short, lenses really need to be designed differently for top performance on MFT, and no old lenses were designed that way.

All that said, you'll mostly notice the cropping. For example, a 35mm acts like a normal lens on APS-C and a portrait telephoto on MFT.

 

[Charles2]

A Fuji X-Pro 1 or 2 will give you the hybrid viewfinder, which enhances the experience of legacy lenses.

Both Fuji and Sony do excellent work from a technical point of view. I've worked on a few Sony raw files, looked at a fair number of Sony photos, and I have a Fuji X-Pro 2. My experience is that Fuji files become better photographs, but opinions will vary.

 

[kuuan]

- Is the A7 giving good results in the corners with old lenses? I am using old lenses on M43. and better APS-C, and the results are often excellent, the cropped format removing the typically weak edges of the FF format. Are old lenses ok on a FF digital camera?

the FF camera you can, anytime, choose to use in APS-C mode.

--
photos mostly taken with manual lenses on Sony A7, NEX5n, Ricoh GXR M, Pentax K-x and *istDs: http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/
lens tests: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuanslenstests/collections

 

[osv]

But are the old MF lenses good enough near the edges with a FF 24MP camera?

the wider the lens, the worse it is; 28mm is the break point for legacy glass on ff sensors, 24mm is quite different... if it's a good wide lens, you can get a clean picture out to the edges, but you'll probably have to stop down to do it.

longer lenses, like the tamron 90/2.5, and the minolta 200/4, are nearly as good wide open as they are stopped down... it's an entirely different story.

 

[bs1946]

Should I buy the Fuji X-T20 or the Sony A7?

It would be mostly to use a large collection of manual focus lenses - Nikon AIs, Pentax KA, Canon FDn, Nikon AIs, Minolta MD, and one native wide-angle to normal zoom.

Photos of landscapes, wildlife, cities, architecture.

With the exception of large zooms and super long telephotos, most adapted manual 35mm lenses are not that large. They didn't start growing to what you see today until autofocus came along.

I have three Minolta MD lenses; 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.7, and 135mm f3.5, that I use on my Fujifilm X-E2. Even with the adapter, the MD lenses are around the same size and even smaller than most of the native X-Mount lenses I have used. I also used them a few times on the Olympus E-M10 that I had before the X-E2. The E-M10 is virtually the same size as the X-T20 and strangely both are about the same size as my old Minolta X700 SLR that the lenses came with. So even with micro 4/3, most adapted manual lenses are no problem.

Beyond selecting the camera that best suits your current and future needs, an important consideration is the APS-C 1.5 crop factor. If I put my 50mm on an A7, it is still a 50mm lens but, when I put it on my X-E2, even though it still performs like a 50mm lens, except the FOV is now 75mm. Same with my 28mm, which is a wide-angle lens; it now has a 44mm FOV. Based on what you listed for what you shoot, the crop factor will affect the lenses you have and any future acquisitions.

 

[tonyreidsma]

The A7 has a plastic mount. If you're using legacy glass you will not like the plastic mount.

 

[Becksvart]

The A7 has a plastic mount. If you're using legacy glass you will not like the plastic mount.

Maybe some inner part is plastic..the outer, visible part, the ring, is metal. No, it isn't as durable as the mk2s and the A7s, Phillipreeve has pointed out how his started getting issues after a while. I've had mine for around a year and used nothing but legacy lenses, except sometimes the 28/2, and no issues with the mount yet.

You will probably receive issues if you continuously use relatively long and a bit heavy legacy lenses without any other support than the lens mount. I don't.

 

[osv]

The A7 has a plastic mount. If you're using legacy glass you will not like the plastic mount.

it's the same mount that was used on some of the nex cameras.

i've been using mine on the a7r since late 2013, and it still works fine.

it's more compatible with adapters than any of the metal mounts.