Give me a reason not to defect to Fuji?

[holin]

For me the main reasons would be FF and Sigma MC-11 and Sigma's reasonably priced good quality lenses.

Fuji's 14 mm f/2.8 almost looks like a reason enough to convert, though.

Upgrade path in Fuji system: $6500 GFX 50S and all new lenses.

Upgrade path in Sony system: a used $650 A7, compatible with the same lenses.

Except the A7 isn't an upgrade, it's more of a downgrade. the only real upgrades to the a6500 would be the a7r2/3, a9 and a7s2

Compared to the OP's a6000, it is an upgrade for landscape. 1 stop better sensor and that's about it. In many ways I was (a NEX-6 owner) rather disappointed in the A7mk1 when I got one, so you're also right.

Also who said you have to upgrade to FF?

Nobody says so, but if you haven't used one, curiosity might get you at some point.

 

[blue_skies]

Do you shoot in JPG only mode?

 

[Dirk W]

The grass is always greener on the other side. I have done repeated and extensive comparisons of my A6300 system with my friend's Fuji x-pro2 x-t2 system and the differences are marginal, it comes down to a matter of taste. I stick with the Sony because it is smaller, especially with the 16-50, and because I use all kinds of electronic adapters. Especially the tech art pro that gives me auto focus on my superb old Canon fd lenses.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Your case to defect is pretty solid, though honestly you could have just used panorama mode, or you can get some other primes. Samyang 12/2 is a good landscape lens, as is the Samyang 10/2.8.

Ultimately though, photography as a hobby is supposed to be fun, and if you don't feel that the A6000 is fun anymore you should move on. Fuji has a pretty solid system. That said, if landscapes are a priority, I would look for an old 16-50 kit lens, or pony up for the 16-55 2.8

 

[Midwest]

Well -- Sigma is starting to fill the void with some big aperture primes.

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/137773398@N07/07L61t

I don't like plastic lenses.

Possibly for the ultimate in image quality, a prime would do that... but for 99% of other uses, primes are straight out of the 1950's.

And those 'plastic' lenses work surprisingly well. Sometimes I wonder why people want smaller along with heavy heavy lenses. (Generally speaking.)

 

[Clayton1985]

Just a quick thought. The Fuji system is great, Sony aps-c system beats it in (only?) three points. Better video, slightly better AF, and affordable prime options (Sigma lines). Otherwise for someone who wants to invest a substantial sum of money to an APS-C system, the fuji system looks way sexier (better controls, great kit lens options, complete lens lineup..)

I think you have to be careful with sweeping generalizations like sexier, better controls, complete lens lineup... two of these are personal preference and the third is almost 100% irrelevant until you define the lenses you need. I say almost irrelevant because I do think it's fair to consider the overall lens lineup beyond what you need in case your needs change but that should be secondary to your actual needs. Once you define your actual needs then you can confirm whether the "complete lens lineup" actually benefits you or not. Until then it is just internet chatter and not all that useful.

I also don't understand the comment about wanting to invest a substantial sum of money to an aps-c system. If you have a substantial sum of money to invest you'd be crazy not to consider full frame. As you get into the higher cost lenses with Fuji you are dollar by dollar and ounce by ounce losing most of the advantages the Fuji system has and getting closer and closer to limitations of aps-c. By the time you own the Fuji XT2 with lenses like the 10-24, 16 f1.4, 23 f1.4, 56 f1.2, 16-55 f2.8, 50-140 f2.8, 100-400, etc you've opened the door to Sony full frame both in terms of price and size/weight so there is really little reason to confine your choices to aps-c at that point.

Having said that, once you define your specific needs Fuji might still be the best choice because it is as you've said a great system.

 

[BBQue]

For one, the 19mm was just not wide enough to encompass the subjects out there. I had the enviable decisions of trading the distant mountains to cram all or most of Colorado River at Horseshoe Bend. Or I could only cram 2 of the 3 Patriachs at Zion.

Take multiple images and stitch them together. For landscapes that is ideal! Unbeatable resolution.

Following this trip, I am ever more interested in the new Sigma 16 and will wait for reviews on it.

See here for image samples: https://www.sigmaartisans.com/first-photos-with-the-sigma-16mm-f1-4-dc-dn-contemporary/

To my eyes, looks very sharp, but with questionable bokeh quality (as is typical for some of the higher end Sigmas).

However, for a while now, I have really taken an interest in the practicality of a zoom. The Sony/Zeiss 16-70 really covers an extremely useful range but it is a pricey lens and many here and elsewhere knock it. Nonetheless, should I ever save the money, I am willing to give it an audition.

Agree - I prefer the Sony 18-105. More flexible, much better reach.

Then it dawned on me, for only $100 more, I could get the Fujifilm X-T20 and 18-55 f/2.8-4 kit -- a more well-regarded zoom than the 16-70. A far newer camera than the a6000. Once I sold all my Sony gear, I would come out ahead.

You could, and nothing wrong with that.

When I had the A6000, I started to buy FF lenses with an eye to FF upgrade path. Once you try that (even the low budget A7) you will never look back.

Thanks for the link. The IQ looks promising.

"The Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN | Contemporary is expected to begin shipping in December with a suggested retail price of $599.95." Thankfully they were off on both fronts.

Funny how everyone has begun to mention the a7. I had an appointment in the mall today and, to kill time beforehand, I popped into Best Buy and fiddled around with the X-T20. It's impossible to get a feel for the camera with the security contraption and void of an SD card.

I then sauntered over to the Sony section and I was taken aback with how small the a7 was. Negligibly bigger than APS-C line, in fact it is lighter than the 6500. With the 28-70 kit it was around the same price as the Fuji kit. The Fuji system has a lot going for it but I can't justify choosing it over a compact FF system. Of course, the drawback of FF is the big honking glass. Particularly the zooms, but unlike APS-C you actually have the option to get some serious zoom glass if you don't mind the heft. It would also be nice to be on Sony's varsity team.

At this point -- I will do one of four things:

-Get the Sigma 16

-Get a used Sony/Zeiss 16-70

-Get the a7 kit

-Get nothing and use what I have

I am going home for Thanksgiving and I plan on paying a visit to the photographer's mecca: B&H in Manhattan. It just so happens it will be the day the Sigma 16 is released -- hopefully they have it in stock so I can feel it in hand.

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/137773398@N07/07L61t

If it helps - the Sony Thanksgiving Sale has begun with steep discounts on cameras and lenses at B&H, Adorama, Amazon etc.

Also think about future. A7 give you an entry into FF and and upgrade path to their top models (which trickle down in price faster than we can learn to use the features )

Ans using cheap manual focus lenses is an eye-opener. With focus magnifier and focus peaking has never been so easy and such a pleasure!

 

[Off The Mark]

I still wish Sony had an ultra wide that was priced right for the A6XX series shooter (like Canon 10-18) for $280 (USD). Even if it was variable aperture, with this wide focal length most are shooting at f8 area anyway.

Well... it kind of does... and by that I mean one could buy the Canon 10-18 and the Sigma MC-11

But I think I understand your point that Sony lenses tend to be a bit limited and a bit pricey.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Just a quick thought. The Fuji system is great, Sony aps-c system beats it in (only?) three points. Better video, slightly better AF, and affordable prime options (Sigma lines). Otherwise for someone who wants to invest a substantial sum of money to an APS-C system, the fuji system looks way sexier (better controls, great kit lens options, complete lens lineup..)

I think you have to be careful with sweeping generalizations like sexier, better controls, complete lens lineup... two of these are personal preference and the third is almost 100% irrelevant until you define the lenses you need. I say almost irrelevant because I do think it's fair to consider the overall lens lineup beyond what you need in case your needs change but that should be secondary to your actual needs. Once you define your actual needs then you can confirm whether the "complete lens lineup" actually benefits you or not. Until then it is just internet chatter and not all that useful.

I also don't understand the comment about wanting to invest a substantial sum of money to an aps-c system. If you have a substantial sum of money to invest you'd be crazy not to consider full frame. As you get into the higher cost lenses with Fuji you are dollar by dollar and ounce by ounce losing most of the advantages the Fuji system has and getting closer and closer to limitations of aps-c. By the time you own the Fuji XT2 with lenses like the 10-24, 16 f1.4, 23 f1.4, 56 f1.2, 16-55 f2.8, 50-140 f2.8, 100-400, etc you've opened the door to Sony full frame both in terms of price and size/weight so there is really little reason to confine your choices to aps-c at that point.

Having said that, once you define your specific needs Fuji might still be the best choice because it is as you've said a great system.

Great post; I agree 100%.

Something else that confuses me a bit about the OP is the logical path from needing wider lenses to going to a kit that only goes 1mm wider. We need to be a little more objective and rational in how we choose gear to shoot. As I think I said before OP would probably be better served by one of Samyang's UWA primes than moving over to Fuji. For the OP's specific needs I don't think FF is quite the way though. An A7 + 28/2 with the 21mm adapter would work well but would cost a good bit more than the Fuji setup.

 

[Lens_Goat]

Just a quick thought. The Fuji system is great, Sony aps-c system beats it in (only?) three points. Better video, slightly better AF, and affordable prime options (Sigma lines). Otherwise for someone who wants to invest a substantial sum of money to an APS-C system, the fuji system looks way sexier (better controls, great kit lens options, complete lens lineup..)

I think you have to be careful with sweeping generalizations like sexier, better controls, complete lens lineup... two of these are personal preference and the third is almost 100% irrelevant until you define the lenses you need. I say almost irrelevant because I do think it's fair to consider the overall lens lineup beyond what you need in case your needs change but that should be secondary to your actual needs. Once you define your actual needs then you can confirm whether the "complete lens lineup" actually benefits you or not. Until then it is just internet chatter and not all that useful.

I also don't understand the comment about wanting to invest a substantial sum of money to an aps-c system. If you have a substantial sum of money to invest you'd be crazy not to consider full frame. As you get into the higher cost lenses with Fuji you are dollar by dollar and ounce by ounce losing most of the advantages the Fuji system has and getting closer and closer to limitations of aps-c. By the time you own the Fuji XT2 with lenses like the 10-24, 16 f1.4, 23 f1.4, 56 f1.2, 16-55 f2.8, 50-140 f2.8, 100-400, etc you've opened the door to Sony full frame both in terms of price and size/weight so there is really little reason to confine your choices to aps-c at that point.

Having said that, once you define your specific needs Fuji might still be the best choice because it is as you've said a great system.

Great post; I agree 100%.

Something else that confuses me a bit about the OP is the logical path from needing wider lenses to going to a kit that only goes 1mm wider. We need to be a little more objective and rational in how we choose gear to shoot. As I think I said before OP would probably be better served by one of Samyang's UWA primes than moving over to Fuji. For the OP's specific needs I don't think FF is quite the way though. An A7 + 28/2 with the 21mm adapter would work well but would cost a good bit more than the Fuji setup.

 

[sportyaccordy]

With the current pricing:

a7 + FE 28 f/2 = $1,221

X-T20 + 18-55 f/2.8-4 = $1,099

a7 + FE 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 = $998

Based on the above, it makes a lot less sense to go to Fuji. At this point, if I were to defect, it would be to Sony FF.

The FE 28 f/2 is virtually the same FL as my Sigma 19 on APS-C. I saw on DXOmark that the 28 f/2 when paired with an A7R (denser sensor than the A7 I know) got a much better score than the a6000 + Sigma 19.

 

[holin]

Just a quick thought. The Fuji system is great, Sony aps-c system beats it in (only?) three points. Better video, slightly better AF, and affordable prime options (Sigma lines). Otherwise for someone who wants to invest a substantial sum of money to an APS-C system, the fuji system looks way sexier (better controls, great kit lens options, complete lens lineup..)

I think you have to be careful with sweeping generalizations like sexier, better controls, complete lens lineup... two of these are personal preference and the third is almost 100% irrelevant until you define the lenses you need. I say almost irrelevant because I do think it's fair to consider the overall lens lineup beyond what you need in case your needs change but that should be secondary to your actual needs. Once you define your actual needs then you can confirm whether the "complete lens lineup" actually benefits you or not. Until then it is just internet chatter and not all that useful.

I also don't understand the comment about wanting to invest a substantial sum of money to an aps-c system. If you have a substantial sum of money to invest you'd be crazy not to consider full frame. As you get into the higher cost lenses with Fuji you are dollar by dollar and ounce by ounce losing most of the advantages the Fuji system has and getting closer and closer to limitations of aps-c. By the time you own the Fuji XT2 with lenses like the 10-24, 16 f1.4, 23 f1.4, 56 f1.2, 16-55 f2.8, 50-140 f2.8, 100-400, etc you've opened the door to Sony full frame both in terms of price and size/weight so there is really little reason to confine your choices to aps-c at that point.

Having said that, once you define your specific needs Fuji might still be the best choice because it is as you've said a great system.

Great post; I agree 100%.

Something else that confuses me a bit about the OP is the logical path from needing wider lenses to going to a kit that only goes 1mm wider. We need to be a little more objective and rational in how we choose gear to shoot. As I think I said before OP would probably be better served by one of Samyang's UWA primes than moving over to Fuji. For the OP's specific needs I don't think FF is quite the way though. An A7 + 28/2 with the 21mm adapter would work well but would cost a good bit more than the Fuji setup.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

With the current pricing:

a7 + FE 28 f/2 = $1,221

X-T20 + 18-55 f/2.8-4 = $1,099

a7 + FE 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 = $998

Based on the above, it makes a lot less sense to go to Fuji. At this point, if I were to defect, it would be to Sony FF.

I would try to get some hands-on time with the A7 before jumping. I got it after a NEX-6 and was annoyed by the much bigger size, loud shutter, creaky build, much less firm tripod connection and loose lens mount (might not apply to brand new) among others, the NEX being better in all those areas. After a couple of years of ownership I'm also finding myself rather take the NEX-6 with me because it's smaller and with a Sigma 30 Art produces very good IQ and pocketable package. I like the rangefinder format more.

May not be a concern to you, but the A7 video IQ is simply bad (Fuji would be better).

With the A7 and kit zoom, stopped down, you will likely get better results than any Sony APS-C zoom, though.

The lenses you have right now (Sig 19, 55-210) aren't really exceptionally good so there is room for improvement in that direction, too.

 

[Lens_Goat]

Just a quick thought. The Fuji system is great, Sony aps-c system beats it in (only?) three points. Better video, slightly better AF, and affordable prime options (Sigma lines). Otherwise for someone who wants to invest a substantial sum of money to an APS-C system, the fuji system looks way sexier (better controls, great kit lens options, complete lens lineup..)

I think you have to be careful with sweeping generalizations like sexier, better controls, complete lens lineup... two of these are personal preference and the third is almost 100% irrelevant until you define the lenses you need. I say almost irrelevant because I do think it's fair to consider the overall lens lineup beyond what you need in case your needs change but that should be secondary to your actual needs. Once you define your actual needs then you can confirm whether the "complete lens lineup" actually benefits you or not. Until then it is just internet chatter and not all that useful.

I also don't understand the comment about wanting to invest a substantial sum of money to an aps-c system. If you have a substantial sum of money to invest you'd be crazy not to consider full frame. As you get into the higher cost lenses with Fuji you are dollar by dollar and ounce by ounce losing most of the advantages the Fuji system has and getting closer and closer to limitations of aps-c. By the time you own the Fuji XT2 with lenses like the 10-24, 16 f1.4, 23 f1.4, 56 f1.2, 16-55 f2.8, 50-140 f2.8, 100-400, etc you've opened the door to Sony full frame both in terms of price and size/weight so there is really little reason to confine your choices to aps-c at that point.

Having said that, once you define your specific needs Fuji might still be the best choice because it is as you've said a great system.

Great post; I agree 100%.

Something else that confuses me a bit about the OP is the logical path from needing wider lenses to going to a kit that only goes 1mm wider. We need to be a little more objective and rational in how we choose gear to shoot. As I think I said before OP would probably be better served by one of Samyang's UWA primes than moving over to Fuji. For the OP's specific needs I don't think FF is quite the way though. An A7 + 28/2 with the 21mm adapter would work well but would cost a good bit more than the Fuji setup.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

Two good posts.

I need to clear one thing up -- I have been happy with my a6000 and I have taken great pleasure in shooting with it. I don't wish to give the impression I am unhappy with my camera.

Let me clue you in on the genesis of my notion to defect.

As I said, I've begun to take an interest in the versatility and convenience of a zoom. The 16-70 covers a very useful range. Unfortunately it is expensive and carries a dubious reputation. A whole host of sources, as well as some outspoken contributors here, tend to put it down. That said, were it the only option, I would, with no reservations, pick it up and put it through the paces.

But, given the expenditure, it seems to make more sense to move to another system than get the 16-70. This is why I got the idea to go with the X-T20 kit. Yes, you're right, the 18mm is scarcely wider my 19mm prime but I would have the versatility of the zoom up to 55mm and a newer camera with a better ecosystem.

Right now, the a7 kit (28-70) is only $100 more than the 16-70. Moreover, why would I take the 16-70 over that? Plus I could sell off all my APS-C gear to more than cover the $100 difference.

The a7 is lighter and cheaper than the 6500 and Sony is actually invested in the FF line. For my application (no interest in video) I can't see a reason to choose the 6500 over the a7.

There's a good chance I will just stick to being a prime shooter -- pick up the Sigma 16mm for my a6000. The one drawback of the Sigma 16 is that it is rather heavy. The a7 + 28/f2 is both lighter and smaller, ditto the a7 + Zeiss Batis 25mm.

I always thought the major reason to stick with APS-C is size and portability but that is not always the case. The way I see it, if you are a dyed in the wool landscape, prime shooter and have the money, there is no reason not to go with something like the a7.

As much as I love shooting with my a6000, I wish the EVF were better. I'm pretty much always in manual focus mode and sometimes it's hard to find absolute optimal focus. Focus peaking can be wonky. I don't know if a higher resolution EVF would make this easier. I'm inclined to believe it would.

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/137773398@N07/07L61t

 

[sportyaccordy]

Ah- in that case the move is easy. Only solid FE zooms are the $2000 GM and the $1400 24-105. Either move up to the A6300 so you can have usable AF with adapted EF zooms, or move to Fuji and get a 16-xx zoom.

Agreed on the A6000 EVF; the A7xx's is much much better. But the A7 is pretty flawed, as is the 28-70. I would not move to FE for that lens.

 

[Lens_Goat]

Just a quick thought. The Fuji system is great, Sony aps-c system beats it in (only?) three points. Better video, slightly better AF, and affordable prime options (Sigma lines). Otherwise for someone who wants to invest a substantial sum of money to an APS-C system, the fuji system looks way sexier (better controls, great kit lens options, complete lens lineup..)

I think you have to be careful with sweeping generalizations like sexier, better controls, complete lens lineup... two of these are personal preference and the third is almost 100% irrelevant until you define the lenses you need. I say almost irrelevant because I do think it's fair to consider the overall lens lineup beyond what you need in case your needs change but that should be secondary to your actual needs. Once you define your actual needs then you can confirm whether the "complete lens lineup" actually benefits you or not. Until then it is just internet chatter and not all that useful.

I also don't understand the comment about wanting to invest a substantial sum of money to an aps-c system. If you have a substantial sum of money to invest you'd be crazy not to consider full frame. As you get into the higher cost lenses with Fuji you are dollar by dollar and ounce by ounce losing most of the advantages the Fuji system has and getting closer and closer to limitations of aps-c. By the time you own the Fuji XT2 with lenses like the 10-24, 16 f1.4, 23 f1.4, 56 f1.2, 16-55 f2.8, 50-140 f2.8, 100-400, etc you've opened the door to Sony full frame both in terms of price and size/weight so there is really little reason to confine your choices to aps-c at that point.

Having said that, once you define your specific needs Fuji might still be the best choice because it is as you've said a great system.

Great post; I agree 100%.

Something else that confuses me a bit about the OP is the logical path from needing wider lenses to going to a kit that only goes 1mm wider. We need to be a little more objective and rational in how we choose gear to shoot. As I think I said before OP would probably be better served by one of Samyang's UWA primes than moving over to Fuji. For the OP's specific needs I don't think FF is quite the way though. An A7 + 28/2 with the 21mm adapter would work well but would cost a good bit more than the Fuji setup.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Neither the A7 nor the 28/2 are stabilized. And the 28 will not be wide enough for you; it's the same as the Sigma 19 in terms of FOV.

 

[geopapa]

Just a quick thought. The Fuji system is great, Sony aps-c system beats it in (only?) three points. Better video, slightly better AF, and affordable prime options (Sigma lines). Otherwise for someone who wants to invest a substantial sum of money to an APS-C system, the fuji system looks way sexier (better controls, great kit lens options, complete lens lineup..)

I think you have to be careful with sweeping generalizations like sexier, better controls, complete lens lineup... two of these are personal preference and the third is almost 100% irrelevant until you define the lenses you need. I say almost irrelevant because I do think it's fair to consider the overall lens lineup beyond what you need in case your needs change but that should be secondary to your actual needs. Once you define your actual needs then you can confirm whether the "complete lens lineup" actually benefits you or not. Until then it is just internet chatter and not all that useful.

I also don't understand the comment about wanting to invest a substantial sum of money to an aps-c system. If you have a substantial sum of money to invest you'd be crazy not to consider full frame. As you get into the higher cost lenses with Fuji you are dollar by dollar and ounce by ounce losing most of the advantages the Fuji system has and getting closer and closer to limitations of aps-c. By the time you own the Fuji XT2 with lenses like the 10-24, 16 f1.4, 23 f1.4, 56 f1.2, 16-55 f2.8, 50-140 f2.8, 100-400, etc you've opened the door to Sony full frame both in terms of price and size/weight so there is really little reason to confine your choices to aps-c at that point.

Having said that, once you define your specific needs Fuji might still be the best choice because it is as you've said a great system.

You definitely have a point here, but my thought was based on the assumption that the OP wants to stay in an APS-C format (at the time he made the original post). By the word "sexier", I meant "more tempting" APS-C system. Sorry if my english is bad, but I think most members understood what my point is and its not a generalization.

Of course it depends on everybody's needs (for example I'm perfectly fine with my rangefinder-styled a6000 and lenses with the possibility of adding the sigma 19 or Sigma 16mm or rokinon 12 later). So reading the OP, I understand that there is a requirement for a good kit zoom lens, so my mind went straight to the Fuji system and the 18-55 f2.8-4 which can cover pretty much anything except the ultra wide angle. Truth to be told, all sony users would like a similar kit lens and nobody likes to carry a bunch of lenses and change them.

Anyway, I believe the many opinions expressed, will help the OP make his decisions and that's the purpose of a forum anyway.

 

[BBQue]

I just got back from an amazing adventure in the Southwest. Over the course of a mere 3 days, my brother and I visited as many National Parks: Death Valley, Grand Canyon, and Zion. The sights were breathtaking and spoiling.

I had my usual combination, the a6000 and Sigma 19. I've taken many nice pictures with this combo but on this trip I felt I would have walked away with a lot more keepers had I come with a different lens.

For one, the 19mm was just not wide enough to encompass the subjects out there. I had the enviable decisions of trading the distant mountains to cram all or most of Colorado River at Horseshoe Bend. Or I could only cram 2 of the 3 Patriachs at Zion.

Following this trip, I am ever more interested in the new Sigma 16 and will wait for reviews on it.

However, for a while now, I have really taken an interest in the practicality of a zoom. The Sony/Zeiss 16-70 really covers an extremely useful range but it is a pricey lens and many here and elsewhere knock it. Nonetheless, should I ever save the money, I am willing to give it an audition.

Then it dawned on me, for only $100 more, I could get the Fujifilm X-T20 and 18-55 f/2.8-4 kit -- a more well-regarded zoom than the 16-70. A far newer camera than the a6000. Once I sold all my Sony gear, I would come out ahead.

Now I'm asking you, what are some good reasons to stick with Sony? The ergonomics, the more pliant RAW files? I hope you guys can convince me to forget Fuji.

I am not on the verge of switching, as I said, I am more than interested in hearing initial impressions of the Sigma 16. But this is something I have pondered.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Clayton1985]

As I said, I've begun to take an interest in the versatility and convenience of a zoom. The 16-70 covers a very useful range. Unfortunately it is expensive and carries a dubious reputation. A whole host of sources, as well as some outspoken contributors here, tend to put it down. That said, were it the only option, I would, with no reservations, pick it up and put it through the paces.

But, given the expenditure, it seems to make more sense to move to another system than get the 16-70. This is why I got the idea to go with the X-T20 kit. Yes, you're right, the 18mm is scarcely wider my 19mm prime but I would have the versatility of the zoom up to 55mm and a newer camera with a better ecosystem.

This is where you really have to take those sources and contributors with a grain of salt. The Fuji 18-55 is a good lens, it is not a great lens. What makes it great is the price to performance. The Sony lens is a good lens, it is not a great lens. What makes it not so great is the price to performance. If you read too much here you'll be convinced that your images will suffer greatly with the 16-70 vs the 18-55 and I believe that is not the case at all. The 18-55 will be better in some ways and the 16-70 will be better in others. I prefer the contrast, build and range of the 16-70 while I like the price and the corner performance of the 18-55. Overall IQ is a wash to me and if I had to choose I'd probably take the Sony lens.

At the end of the day I would really focus on which lens better serves your needs. If the 16-70 better meets those needs then find a way to buy one at the best price you can find and ignore the internet drama over the 16-70 and don't "settle" for the 18-55 if it doesn't really work better for you. If you read the reviews from those that actually own and use the 16-70 lens you'll see that a very high percentage give the lens very high marks. If you read the forums where those that don't own the lens and either never owned it or tried it in a store or tried it for a week you'll think the lens is terrible.

The A6xx and 16-70 make up one of the best combinations of IQ in a small package covering a 24-105ish range that you can find. The only other combination that is similar enough might be the m4/3s cameras with the latest Panasonic 12-60 lens. That doesn't mean the criticisms of the lens performance to price aren't valid, just that it doesn't matter as much in the real world to people that are happily using the lens the way it was intended and getting great results and they are happy.

 

[Lens_Goat]

As I said, I've begun to take an interest in the versatility and convenience of a zoom. The 16-70 covers a very useful range. Unfortunately it is expensive and carries a dubious reputation. A whole host of sources, as well as some outspoken contributors here, tend to put it down. That said, were it the only option, I would, with no reservations, pick it up and put it through the paces.

But, given the expenditure, it seems to make more sense to move to another system than get the 16-70. This is why I got the idea to go with the X-T20 kit. Yes, you're right, the 18mm is scarcely wider my 19mm prime but I would have the versatility of the zoom up to 55mm and a newer camera with a better ecosystem.

This is where you really have to take those sources and contributors with a grain of salt. The Fuji 18-55 is a good lens, it is not a great lens. What makes it great is the price to performance. The Sony lens is a good lens, it is not a great lens. What makes it not so great is the price to performance. If you read too much here you'll be convinced that your images will suffer greatly with the 16-70 vs the 18-55 and I believe that is not the case at all. The 18-55 will be better in some ways and the 16-70 will be better in others. I prefer the contrast, build and range of the 16-70 while I like the price and the corner performance of the 18-55. Overall IQ is a wash to me and if I had to choose I'd probably take the Sony lens.

At the end of the day I would really focus on which lens better serves your needs. If the 16-70 better meets those needs then find a way to buy one at the best price you can find and ignore the internet drama over the 16-70 and don't "settle" for the 18-55 if it doesn't really work better for you. If you read the reviews from those that actually own and use the 16-70 lens you'll see that a very high percentage give the lens very high marks. If you read the forums where those that don't own the lens and either never owned it or tried it in a store or tried it for a week you'll think the lens is terrible.

The A6xx and 16-70 make up one of the best combinations of IQ in a small package covering a 24-105ish range that you can find. The only other combination that is similar enough might be the m4/3s cameras with the latest Panasonic 12-60 lens. That doesn't mean the criticisms of the lens performance to price aren't valid, just that it doesn't matter as much in the real world to people that are happily using the lens the way it was intended and getting great results and they are happy.

Thanks for the very cogent response!

After playing around with the a7 yesterday and its current pricing, I doubt, at this point, I defect to Fuji. The a7 kit is cheaper than the X-T20 kit. I'm sure I'd get marginally better IQ from the a7, as it is FF, and with the right lens it seems to be a portable system.

It's either I get the 16-70 ($900 new or $700 used). Or I get the a7 kit (28-70mm) which is $1000 new atm. Once I sold my a6000 (I have no need for two cameras), I would come out ahead if I went the latter route.

But, I'm more inclined to stick with the a6000 and get the 16-70 or if the Sigma 16 is lauded as super sharp find that the prime sharpeness is worth the trade-off of zoom flexibility.

It sounds like I am all over the place but I'd be fine with a prime over a zoom if the IQ is just out of this world. I could always crop. The Sigma 19 (which I currently have) is not considered to have out-of-this-world prime performance which has led me to ponder why I haven't sought out the convenience of a zoom.

--
https://www.flickr.com/gp/137773398@N07/07L61t