Fujifilm X-H1 + XF 16-55mm f/2.8 advantages over A7iii + FE 24-105mm f 4

(I've posted a similar question on the Sony forum, but expecting it is more likely to get responses from Fujifilm owners here):

For what objective reasons (i.e. beyond personal preference or lack of experience with Sony) would you recommend a budding photographer to buy an X-H1 + XF 16-55mm f/2.8 camera+lens combo rather than a Sony A7iii + FE 24-105mm lens combo?

I'm looking in the $3k-ish range for me son, a photography student. He is most motivated by outdoor photography, creative studio sets, and finding unique shots. He's also looking at paying gigs of people shoots and weddings (1 wedding down). He edits currently with Lightroom.

Love to hear why you might recommend the Fuji combo over the Sony combo.

Also, if anyone can help me understand:

How does one compare the specs on a Full frame lens with an APC-S lens; specifically how these two line up (at similar price points) for actual zoom, depth of field, and low-light effectiveness?

Thanks so much!

The Sony will most likely have better AF and slightly better DR but unless something dramatically has changed Sony cameras colours and especially skin tones will be a pain in the neck. I have used a A7R. Brilliant resolution and DR but the colours and skin tones made me sell it after a very short time. I don't want to spend time to fix images in post.

Sony cameras are "data sheet heroes" in real life they are awkward to handle and create a lot of post processing work.

That comment might be harsh or even unfair but it's why I sold the Sony and kept Fuji.

Rand 47 wrote:

Unless your son finds the Fuji attractive for reasons of his own - buy the Sony. Sony’s are becoming the new ”main stream” camera system In the mirrorless segment. Specs-wise, the Sony is nominally numerically better, though in real world photography this is, for the most part, irrelevant.

Fuji, at the moment, remains more or less a niche camera for those who understand and appreciate the manual/external controls philosophy.

Have you talked to your son about what he wants? The “better camera” if it isn’t the one he would choose, is still the wrong camera. Very personal decisions.

Yeah don't buy stuff like this for someone else.  Let the user do the research and figure out what they need for today's use and for the near future.  Maybe your son doesn't even want neither of these two systems.

Best of luck,
Rand

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

The Sony will most likely have better AF and slightly better DR but unless something dramatically has changed Sony cameras colours and especially skin tones will be a pain in the neck. I have used a A7R. Brilliant resolution and DR but the colours and skin tones made me sell it after a very short time. I don't want to spend time to fix images in post.

I shot with a Sony APS-C for about 12 months a few years ago and I was actually impressed at how good and natural the skin tones looked, so I can't say anything bad about sony's skin tones.  I actually thought that theirs was better than Nikon's.  It is possible that you were shooting in a completely different environment than mine and had problems with the skin tones.  Maybe I missed that.

No offence but although Fuji's skin tones and over all color is still one of my favorites, I feel that something has changed with the latest sensors and Fuji's tones are NOT the same and as easy and fast to process as previous models.  That's just my personal humble opinion.

Sony cameras are "data sheet heroes" in real life they are awkward to handle and create a lot of post processing work.

That comment might be harsh or even unfair but it's why I sold the Sony and kept Fuji.

-- hide signature --

regards
Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

Batdude wrote:

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

The Sony will most likely have better AF and slightly better DR but unless something dramatically has changed Sony cameras colours and especially skin tones will be a pain in the neck. I have used a A7R. Brilliant resolution and DR but the colours and skin tones made me sell it after a very short time. I don't want to spend time to fix images in post.

I shot with a Sony APS-C for about 12 months a few years ago and I was actually impressed at how good and natural the skin tones looked, so I can't say anything bad about sony's skin tones. I actually thought that theirs was better than Nikon's. It is possible that you were shooting in a completely different environment than mine and had problems with the skin tones. Maybe I missed that.

No offence but although Fuji's skin tones and over all color is still one of my favorites, I feel that something has changed with the latest sensors and Fuji's tones are NOT the same and as easy and fast to process as previous models. That's just my personal humble opinion.

Sony cameras are "data sheet heroes" in real life they are awkward to handle and create a lot of post processing work.

That comment might be harsh or even unfair but it's why I sold the Sony and kept Fuji.

True. Older Fuji’s were tailor made for portraits with low contrast and somehow muted colors. The newer Fuji’s have stronger colors and look more contrasts for me. But since I’m always add color and contrast I have no problem with that. Less pp now.

Crgln wrote:

(I've posted a similar question on the Sony forum, but expecting it is more likely to get responses from Fujifilm owners here):

For what objective reasons (i.e. beyond personal preference or lack of experience with Sony) would you recommend a budding photographer to buy an X-H1 + XF 16-55mm f/2.8 camera+lens combo rather than a Sony A7iii + FE 24-105mm lens combo?

I'm looking in the $3k-ish range for me son, a photography student. He is most motivated by outdoor photography, creative studio sets, and finding unique shots. He's also looking at paying gigs of people shoots and weddings (1 wedding down). He edits currently with Lightroom.

Love to hear why you might recommend the Fuji combo over the Sony combo.

Also, if anyone can help me understand:

How does one compare the specs on a Full frame lens with an APC-S lens; specifically how these two line up (at similar price points) for actual zoom, depth of field, and low-light effectiveness?

Thanks so much!

The reason a lot of us like Fuji is because they offer small bodies with really small lenses.  We prefer Fuji`s philosophy when it comes to cameras... However, the X-H1 and 16-55mm do not offer this size advantage and are the closest thing to getting away from Fuji`s uniqueness.  We also like the typical dials, menus, and haptics of Fuji over Sony.  These are all personal choices made with the heart instead of practicality.   For some of us, Sony cameras feel more like TV remotes than cameras.  This will bother some and be a non issue for others.

The Sony is the better deal on paper for sure.  It is the current camera darling.  It has some of the best overall performance at a great price.

I`m sure whatever camera you choose of these two your son will be ecstatic.  However, if he really will have paying gigs often and he also is not familiar with Fuji at this time, I think the Sony is the safer choice.  Perhaps more future proof too.

Man that is a tough call.

I came very close to going with two systems three months ago, but I decided I like Fuji glass and ergo better.  But the Alphseventhree is a fabulous camera and their lenses are improving a lot.  It changed the playing field and Fuji is about to get way better because of this competition.

I have the XH-1 and 16-55, and the combination is incredible.  I greatly prefer Fuji ergo and build.  APSC vs FF?  Big discussion with us gearheads, but I believe Fuji has found the sweet spot with APSC, the way they implement it and build around that mount.

Fuji and Sony are superb.  Pick 'um....

No, listen to me and go with Fuji.

Check out some shots I just took in Mexico.  Well, some of them are from the X100F pocket camera that I made myself shoot with.  Like it too.

Fuji glass is the best in the world.  Fuji ergo is special and no one else comes close on that.  But Sony?  The a7III?  Great in so many ways.  Tough decision.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Crgln wrote:

(I've posted a similar question on the Sony forum, but expecting it is more likely to get responses from Fujifilm owners here):

fair point. Smart to get both sides of the debate too.

For what objective reasons (i.e. beyond personal preference or lack of experience with Sony) would you recommend a budding photographer to buy an X-H1 + XF 16-55mm f/2.8 camera+lens combo rather than a Sony A7iii + FE 24-105mm lens combo?

I'm looking in the $3k-ish range for me son, a photography student. He is most motivated by outdoor photography, creative studio sets, and finding unique shots. He's also looking at paying gigs of people shoots and weddings (1 wedding down). He edits currently with Lightroom.

For Outdoor i'd probably go with the Fuji. It seems Fuji sealed bodies tend to be more moisture resistant compared to the Sony A7 models. For weddings the Sony because it has better battery life and the fullframe sensor may help with the terrible lighting. Also i don't like the Fujifilms with lightroom. Capture One for me gives me much more control and better output. At the cost of longer development time. I don't know how Sony works with lightroom go to the Sony forums for that.

I love Fuji's direct control over shutterspeed and aperture on the lens in a studio setting. The Aperture gives me more flash while the shutterspeed allows me to control ambient light. It's just more natural to me then the regular PASM layout.

Love to hear why you might recommend the Fuji combo over the Sony combo.

Straight out of camera output for sure. The Built-in jpeg engine with the film simulations yield great results straight out of camera. The X-H1 seems to be the sturdier body out of the 2. The ability to get a cheaper back-up body getting the most out of the same lenses could be another reason. An seperate X-E3 or X-T20 will have similar capability in a cheap affordable package. Yes an A6300 would be similar but i'd rather use Fuji's APSC optimized lenses compared to fullframe lenses on a crop body.

Also, if anyone can help me understand:

How does one compare the specs on a Full frame lens with an APC-S lens; specifically how these two line up (at similar price points) for actual zoom, depth of field, and low-light effectiveness?

The fullframe sensor is 2.25x larger. So you'd need a lens roughly twice as bright to compensate and get more or less similar depth of field and low light effectiveness. Just use a faster aperture and lower ISO compared to the fullframe.

That would make the 16-55mm compareable to the Sony in terms of depth of field and light gathering. (probably slight edge Sony because that dual gain BSI sensor is just fantastic)

That being said the Sony lens has more range making it more flexible in regards to composition. Then the Sony can be upgraded with a 24-70mm F2.8 GM while the Fuji can't go beyond F2.8 zooms.

Thanks so much!

Your welcome.

Honestly as a Fuji user i'd pick the A7 III over the X-H1. That being said i'd pick any other Fujifilm over their Sony Alpha APSC counterpart.

Edit: like the guy above me said. 23 august Nikon will anounce their fullframe mirrorless plans. Which is a good reason to wait just a bit. Especially with an investment like this.

The best way to compare two cameras and lenses of different sensor size is to look at equivalence. Based on this, the two combinations are virtually the same. Wide open, the Sony will offer the same depth of field as the Fuji at f2.8, the Fuji at iso 200 will look like the Sony at iso 400 etc. It will also have similar DR once you equalise depth of field.

The Fuji will be cheaper and have better build and a much better evf, the Sony will offer more DR at iso 200 and 100, the Sony will offer slightly greater reach and AF.

On that basis, if he were to never to buy another camera or lens. It doesn’t really matter at all. That’s what equivalence is all about.

However, if he does want to expand his shooting, it alll depends on what direction he wants to take. The Sony has f1.4 primes that offer the ultimate in shallow depth of field. The Fuji has compact lenses like the 55-200 for which Sony has no equivalent, and (for now) goes longer with the 100-400.

in terms of other bodies, a Sony system will allow him to go with a high megapixel body like the a7r series later. However, with Fuji he could get the x-e3 to use when travelling light.

Greg7579 wrote:

Man that is a tough call.

I came very close to going with two systems three months ago, but I decided I like Fuji glass and ergo better. But the Alphseventhree is a fabulous camera and their lenses are improving a lot. It changed the playing field and Fuji is about to get way better because of this competition.

I have the XH-1 and 16-55, and the combination is incredible. I greatly prefer Fuji ergo and build. APSC vs FF? Big discussion with us gearheads, but I believe Fuji has found the sweet spot with APSC, the way they implement it and build around that mount.

Fuji and Sony are superb. Pick 'um....

No, listen to me and go with Fuji.

Check out some shots I just took in Mexico. Well, some of them are from the X100F pocket camera that I made myself shoot with. Like it too.

Fuji glass is the best in the world. Fuji ergo is special and no one else comes close on that. But Sony? The a7III? Great in so many ways. Tough decision.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Greg is right and this "tough decision" is BARELY starting.   Nikon's new FF ML will be announced at any moment, then Canon is next.  Get the picture?

Things are about to get really exciting and with this new kind of competition we will be seeing some really awesome products from most camera manufacturers.

One last thing, you might want to check out Nikon, why?  Because there are tons of excellent affordable new and used lenses at incredibly low prices, Nikon and third party.   It is rumored that the their 24MP will be $2500, but when you look at the cost of lenses and what you can get is actually not bad athing all.

Sony's lenses are very expensive.

DangerouslyCheesey wrote:

Would he be shooting more portraits than weddings? Neither of those combos is going to give great background blur/bokeh for portraits as they are too slow.

In both cases he would have to invest in a fast 85 mm equiv. prime or a 70-200mm equiv.

Sony 70-200mm F4 = $1400,-

http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/870-sony70200f4oss?start=1

Fujinon 50-140mm F2.8 = $1600,- (this is the better lens though)

http://www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/969-fuji50140f28ois?start=2

As for 85mm portrait lenses.

Fujifilm has just 1 the excellent 56mm F1.2 $ 999,-

Well they have the 50mm F2 and the 60mm F2.4 macro, But neither would be compareable to a fullframe set-up.

https://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-XF56MMF1-2-R-Fujinon-XF56mmF1-2/dp/B00HK8Z9AG/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1534701819&sr=1-1&keywords=56mm+F1.2

Sony has 3 the affordable yet good 85mm FE F1.8

http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1033-sony85f18?start=1

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL85F18-1-8-22-Medium-Telephoto-Camera/dp/B06WLGFWGX/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534701686&sr=8-1&keywords=Sony+85mm+F1.8

The 85mm F1.8 Zeiss Batis (stellar)

https://www.amazon.com/Zeiss-Batis-85mm-Lens-Mount/dp/B00WII52ZU/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1534701745&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Sony+85mm+F1.8+batis

http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1032-zeissbatis85f18?start=1

Or the 85mm F1.4 GM

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-FE-85mm-1-4-Lens/dp/B01BESR5KO/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1534701905&sr=1-2&keywords=85mm+1.4+gm

heavy beast but can't be matched by an Apsc system.

Fujifilm can outmatch Sony for studio work. With a fair margin too but that would be cheating using the medium format GFX.

Clayton1985 wrote:

Iuvenis wrote:
the Sony will offer slightly greater reach and AF.

Not disputing this because I honestly don't know but how did you determine that the AF is only slightly greater?

Current Fujifilm bodies offer a pretty darn excellent on sensor AF system. The X-H1 has the fastest processing out of their bodies with the latest algorythms.

Really there is no longer much to complain unless comparing it to the A9. Which can shoot electronic at 20 fps while still getting a full live-view feed.

Fujifilm got bad rep for good reason with their early models. The AF of the original X-Pro 1 was atrocious. The X-E1 no better.

Then things started to get better with the X-E2 especially with later firmware iterations.

Currently the X-Trans 3 models have little autofocus issues except when the PDAF stops working due to dark conditions.