For the players, we can now open XH1 vs A7 III

[canonbcguy]

Oh nose. Now I have to switch to Sony.

Well, I mean, the Fuji is still one stop behind on noise. So there's nothing different between now and a year ago. Though I guess that's your point - If you were happy with Fuji last year, you'll be just as happy now!

My read on NaughtKen's post is that he's being sarcastic.

Unless he was serious, in which case I'll have to disagree.

Just to be clear: the shots at ISO 51200 are BOTH crap. The pics from BOTH cameras would be unusable unless it was for some special purpose like surveillance where you NEED the shot regardless of how bad it was.

 

[km25]

with a lot of data

 

[Brian P Smith]

I just left a comment about A7 III. The sensor is good, but the camera is dated. Yes AF is better and few other items, but it is the same camera as the first A7.

Time for Sony to make a whole new camera.

 

[Nirurin]

with a lot of data

 

[km25]

I just left a comment about A7 III. The sensor is good, but the camera is dated. Yes AF is better and few other items, but it is the same camera as the first A7.

Time for Sony to make a whole new camera.

 

[Pepyn]

* - Aperture. The kit lens is 3.5-5.6, so a stop or more slower than the Fuji kit. The primes are 1.8 at best, 2.8 at worst. If you go for the older Fuji primes, you get f1.4 on both the 35mm and 50mm equivs without breaking the bank. So you gain back half a stop, or even 2 stops, of the disadvantage of APSC. You can shoot at ISO 3200 while a budget-minded sony shooter will be on 6400 or 12800.

The Fuji 1.4 lenses being equivalent to 2.2 ish on FF, so still slower than the 1.8 primes on FF Sony. The sony primes at 1.8 ish are generally smaller than the 1.4 equivalents of Fuji as well, and some of them are extremely high quality lenses that I don't see the match of in Fuji land unfortunately - Loxia, Batis.

XH1 is bigger, heavier, more expensive, yet smaller sensor. This is what has me pondering. XT2 form factor and size with IBIS (surely this is possible) and I'd probably never leave Fuji.

 

[iRanN]

As a side note... I think if Fuji had FF camrea , Fuji might have already won my friend over.

I have both and I agree, if Fuji had a full frame camera I wouldn’t touch Sony with a 10’ pole, ok, maybe I’m exaggerating but the only reason I also own an A7iii is cause of the full frame “look”, no, not the image quality(they’re close in my opinion), the actual look, the way full frame renders, that can’t be compared and for the same reason son shoot medium format.

 

[iRanN]

Oh nose. Now I have to switch to Sony.

I am yet to shoot any paid work above ISO12800 but sure, the Sony can do it . My XH1 hasn’t gone above 6400, I doubt Anyone other that online reviewers shoot above 12800 in the real world

 

[sportyaccordy]

with a lot of data

 

[Brian P Smith]

Here we go, another 4+ pages about equivalence and whether it's just DOF and not light gathering or if it's both that get affected by the factor...

 

[Bobby V]

I've got the X-H1, and honesty the only thing I strongly envy about the Sony's is the Z battery. In use with the battery grip the X-H1 battery life is just good. The Sony knocks battery life out of the park.

I'll take everything else the Fuji has got. The shutter and improved AF make it beautifully smooth to use, and still has an appeal over Sony that just has to be experienced. The X-H1 viewfinder is also the best EVF I have ever used, and the A7 III uses the old A7II viewfinder which was undeniably good, but not amazing. I tried the Sony A7RIII and found the overall shooting and playback experience slower than the Fuji. The X-H1 and pro lenses seem built to take more abuse in harsh environments. If it's anything like the A7RIII the entire bottom of the camera has no seals and is susceptible to moisture damage.

This is not to say I don't think the A7III is an outstanding camera with advantages. It's an amazing camera that will suit some people better than the Fuji. But for some people it's not a clear winner.

--
Website Instagram

 

[Nirurin]

with a lot of data

--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

Good thing there is a lot of data. I took a cursory look.

Hearing all the hype I was expecting to be blown away. I was not.

Sure the Sony had slightly better noise and resolution than the X-H1 at ISO 12,800.

So does my 4-year old D750. Both are FF. So it's not exactly a fair comparison.

To my (admittedly untrained eye), the difference is less than a stop, at an ISO that I won't ever shoot at. At lower ISOs, the difference is much less dramatic.

So I'll not be switching systems.

I have recently been heavily considering the switch to the A7iii, because it's the first sony camera that actually seems to be really worth switching to sony for. And it would come with the bonus of having the (approximately) 1 stop better low light / ISO performance.

But then I looked at the LENSES in the sony lineup. I've spent days trying to find a set of lenses that will replace my Fuji setup, and still fit in my camera bag without taking up too much space and bankrupting me in the process.

For a start, there's nothing that can replace the Fuji 18-55 f2.8-4. Nothing. The default sony kit lens is bigger and heavier and *(come back to this later). The other zooms, which are very good, are also huge and expensive.

There's a 55mm 1.8, and a 35mm 2.8, that are smallish and not terribly priced. And a 28mm f2 which seems good too. But here is where we hit the * from before.

* - Aperture. The kit lens is 3.5-5.6, so a stop or more slower than the Fuji kit. The primes are 1.8 at best, 2.8 at worst. If you go for the older Fuji primes, you get f1.4 on both the 35mm and 50mm equivs without breaking the bank. So you gain back half a stop, or even 2 stops, of the disadvantage of APSC. You can shoot at ISO 3200 while a budget-minded sony shooter will be on 6400 or 12800.

This was my working. Only really works for me I'm sure. If you push the budget more, you can get 1.8 lenses for a lot of the primes, maybe even a couple 1.4s, and so will out-perform Fuji again. But from what I can find, it will cost a lot to get that.

So yeh, Fuji loses 1 stop (more or less) in ISO noise, but gains 0.5-1.5 stops from their 'budget' lens options.

Aside: Does Fuji have faster lenses for more money? I know Voigtlander does some 0.95's for M43, hadn't noticed anything for APSC though. f1.4 is fast enough for me I'm sure, I have the 35mm and I'm considering the 23mm too. Though the new weathersealed f2's are tempting too.

You're not factoring in equivalence. That 28-70 3.5-5.6 will look and gather light like a 19-46 2.3-3.7 in Fuji land. 1.8 primes on FE will look and gather light light 1.2 primes on X mount. Etc. From that POV it's much closer, and Sony lenses generally tend to be cheaper and sharper for the same light gathering/DoF capabilities.

Is that worth leaving Fuji for? Up to the user. I don't know that I would. When I got into Sony FE I was already shooting Sony E, and Fuji wasn't anywhere near as fleshed out as it is now. But on the flip side, again Sony lenses tend to be cheaper and sharper for the same light gathering ability, and Sony has better cross-mount lens compatibility. So if I were starting from scratch I'd probably go that route.

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

I'm not entirely sure that's true, though it's so hard to get the right information on lenses as there's so much disagreement.

For example, the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 is the rough equivalent to the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4. A little off, the fuji has a longer range but the apertures are pretty close to the same equivalents. The Fuji lens is regarded as being pretty amazing and a bargain, the Sony seems to be regarded as "worth upgrading to a better lens asap". But again, opinions vary.

Not sure about the sony lenses being cheaper for the same speed... It seems to be -said- a lot that sony lenses are always bigger/heavier/more expensive.
Fuji 35mm 1.4 can be picked up for £600, and the Sony 55m 1.8 is £700. It's a little faster, but both are meant to be very good, so it's pretty similar.
Fuji 23mm f2 is £400, Sony 35mm f2.8 is £650.
Fuji 56mm 1.2 is £850, Sony 85mm 1.8 is... hmm, £550. Not so bad on that one.

I think like a lot of camera systems, it's very dependent on which lenses you like. It does seem that Fuji is mostly a little cheaper, though I haven't looked at the super exotic high priced glass (my wallet would cry).

 

[Nirurin]

Here we go, another 4+ pages about equivalence and whether it's just DOF and not light gathering or if it's both that get affected by the factor...

Haha, yeh I purposely didn't respond to that part of the comment, not because I agree or disagree but because I know I'm not knowledgeable enough to discuss the science.

Which is weird in a way, as I have a degree in astrophysics and planetary science, and can tell you how a star is formed and how the light energy is produced. But as soon as you make it go through a lens... its magic and witchcraft to me.

 

[ekaton]

with a lot of data

--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

From the get go, the A7 series cameras are FF. The X-H1 is a APS-C. Comparing them for image quality is a bit unfair.

The X-H1 is a better over all camera then the A7 series. It handles better, it's controls are not hidden in some hard to use menu system. The A7 cameras work will with MF lens, do to size. If you use AF FF lens, you have a lens heavy outfit.

So for the price buy a Fuji GX 50, next year it will be the GX 100. I am sure it can do almost as good as the A7III, but we know no wear near the A7R3, even at 100MPs, because of .......

Well they'll think of something!

The APS-C cameras are the new Nikon F of the sixties. They produce at a very small size. Look at the Nikon D500 vs D5.

Compare apple to apples and oranges to oranges.

--
kam

Your reply is a bit disingenuous... The XH1 and the A7iii are the same price, and so are aimed at the same market of "Enthusiasts or Professionals". Saying that you can't compare them because they use different sensors isn't true at all.

They cost the same, so they should provide an equal amount to the person buying it. The sony, being full frame, will give better image quality and better low light performance. So the Fuji needs to bring something else the Sony doesn't, otherwise it's not worth the money.

So for the price buy a Fuji GX50...

The GX50 is over £6000. It's more than triple the cost of either camera. It's in a completely different price bracket, and marketed for a totally different customer base.

The XH1 and the A7iii are Apples and Apples. The GX50 is a bacon sandwich.

For some people, the Fuji is worth the money because of the Lenses you have access to. For others, it's worth the money because of the aesthetics of the retro-style dials and aperture controls (though the XH1 is a bit less retro and a bit more DSLR).

Personally I'd have preferred the XH1 to be a bit more retro styled, but that's just me. If I buy an XH1 it'll be because of the great Fuji lenses.

Your answere is the road I will not go. The GX 50 will blow away the A7 series .So all you want is dollar for MP value. But you trade easy and refinement of operation for a small level of IQ. The APS-C is better ration of camera size AND LENS size. A camera like the GX 50 is huge, no way!…From the begaining, the A7 biggest down fall has been Lens sine. Unless you use MF, as with the Leica M10, the AF lens are much larger then the APS lens. The A7 can give better noise and/or more MPs then the Fuji X series. The will deceived a better camera. Put in a few more bucks, get the GX 50/100,then you both. A better camera and sensor plantform.

--
kam

Your's is a typical Fuji Fan answer: Do you care where the GX50 sensor is coming from, yep, it's a Sony? Have you ever bothered comparing sensor sizes, i.e. surfaces, and realized that the size difference from mft to aps-c is much much smaller than from aps-c to FF? And that the relative size difference between FF sensors to the cropped MF ones as they are used in the GX50 and X1P is smaller than from aps-c to FF. So if logic applied, best mft is breathing down aps-c's necks. Aps-c can not challenge best in class FF and MF with the right glass produces noticeably better files than best in class FF. And for huge size and weight differences: Batis 25 versus Fuji 16, Sony ZE 35 2.8 versus Fuji 23 f2, ZE55mm versus Fuji 35 1.4, Batis 85 versus Fuji 56, Batis 135 versus Fuji 90mm. Size and weight difference with XH1 camera body vs A7(r)III? Not really. And not to forget the OIS of the Batis 85 and 135 (!), the weather sealing of all the E-mount lenses listed and the fact that the ZE 35 and ZE55 are better performers than their Fuji counterparts. And lastly there are considerably more lenses available for the Sony A7/9 than for Fuji's aps-c as "everybody" wants to produce e-mount lenses.

 

[drewrasmus]

I just returned my Sony a7iii today. After a short venture of test shots and the like..

The Sony blew me away with the eye autofocus, the dynamic range, and the battery. I really really tried to love it. There's one thing though....

The files look so overly digital and horrible to my eye. (Or in my wife's words she said they looked dull and lifeless) The colors are better as far as Sony goes. Still not up to fujis color. But the tonality was soooooo bad for portraits.

So yeah. The full frame gave you those better low light capablities and the shallower dof. But in the end. I couldn't stand the Sony raw files. Definitely not something I'd want to deliver to a client, even after post processing (don't get me started on how hard I tried to make those things look good)

I got fooled by all the hype. And the sonys spec sheet is top notch. But as I knew before the purchase and apparently forgot. It's not all about specs.

 

[Nirurin]

with a lot of data

 

[sportyaccordy]

I'm not entirely sure that's true, though it's so hard to get the right information on lenses as there's so much disagreement.

For example, the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 is the rough equivalent to the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4. A little off, the fuji has a longer range but the apertures are pretty close to the same equivalents. The Fuji lens is regarded as being pretty amazing and a bargain, the Sony seems to be regarded as "worth upgrading to a better lens asap". But again, opinions vary.

I want to say this is because expectations are higher in FE land for lenses.

Not sure about the sony lenses being cheaper for the same speed... It seems to be -said- a lot that sony lenses are always bigger/heavier/more expensive.
Fuji 35mm 1.4 can be picked up for £600, and the Sony 55m 1.8 is £700. It's a little faster, but both are meant to be very good, so it's pretty similar.

There is also the FE 50 1.8, which is only $250. Hard to compare directly, but on Lenstip they both have similar sharpness vs aperture profiles.

Fuji 23mm f2 is £400, Sony 35mm f2.8 is £650.

Fair point, 35mm is a weakness for Sony.

Fuji 56mm 1.2 is £850, Sony 85mm 1.8 is... hmm, £550. Not so bad on that one.

Exactly. It's a similar story for zooms.

I think like a lot of camera systems, it's very dependent on which lenses you like. It does seem that Fuji is mostly a little cheaper, though I haven't looked at the super exotic high priced glass (my wallet would cry).

Right. Everyone doesn't need the most expensive or fastest. And there's more to camera systems than thin DoF. But if that is a priority I think one should at least consider going FF. It's going to be much cheaper and easier overall, especially factoring in 3rd party options.

 

[Brian P Smith]

I'm not entirely sure that's true, though it's so hard to get the right information on lenses as there's so much disagreement.

For example, the 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 is the rough equivalent to the Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4. A little off, the fuji has a longer range but the apertures are pretty close to the same equivalents. The Fuji lens is regarded as being pretty amazing and a bargain, the Sony seems to be regarded as "worth upgrading to a better lens asap". But again, opinions vary.

I want to say this is because expectations are higher in FE land for lenses.

Not sure about the sony lenses being cheaper for the same speed... It seems to be -said- a lot that sony lenses are always bigger/heavier/more expensive.
Fuji 35mm 1.4 can be picked up for £600, and the Sony 55m 1.8 is £700. It's a little faster, but both are meant to be very good, so it's pretty similar.

There is also the FE 50 1.8, which is only $250. Hard to compare directly, but on Lenstip they both have similar sharpness vs aperture profiles.

Fuji 23mm f2 is £400, Sony 35mm f2.8 is £650.

Fair point, 35mm is a weakness for Sony.

Fuji 56mm 1.2 is £850, Sony 85mm 1.8 is... hmm, £550. Not so bad on that one.

Exactly. It's a similar story for zooms.

I think like a lot of camera systems, it's very dependent on which lenses you like. It does seem that Fuji is mostly a little cheaper, though I haven't looked at the super exotic high priced glass (my wallet would cry).not

Right. Everyone doesn't need the most expensive or fastest. And there's more to camera systems than thin DoF. But if that is a priority I think one should at least consider going FF. It's going to be much cheaper and easier overall, especially factoring in 3rd party options.

 

[shakenmartini]

Right. Everyone doesn't need the most expensive or fastest. And there's more to camera systems than thin DoF. But if that is a priority I think one should at least consider going FF. It's going to be much cheaper and easier overall, especially factoring in 3rd party options.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Your last point really needs to hit home for a lot more people than it currently does. I chased FF briefly from MFT for it’s shallow DoF, but then like a lot of others realized I don’t ever fully need it. FF f/1.8 was just too thin for me. For others, it’s not thin enough! Both on here and Fred Miranda I too often see members arguing about fast aperture, sharp corner lenses (this is sharp over 98% of the frame but that one is only 95%!!!) who then go on to put all these lenses on a tripod and shoot at f/8 - f/11 anyway...

I have been swapping out a lot of gear over the last few years, and one thing I've really learned the value of is how well a piece of equipment fits one's end uses. As someone early in my photography career I'm still learning what those are for me. And even once I think I know, they change. Corner sharpness is one aspect I've.... "softened" on. Most of the time I have the subject in the center or close to it wide open... extreme corner sharpness does not matter. However, some lenses are still softer in the center than others....