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

Using Nikon`s current lenses will require an adapter which adds weight and size and might degrade AF performance (not to mention lens correction profiles). I think that is the dilemma of Nikon and Canon - they have so many good lenses now and with ML they have to start all over again.

DocetLector wrote:

Using Nikon`s current lenses will require an adapter which adds weight and size and might degrade AF performance (not to mention lens correction profiles). I think that is the dilemma of Nikon and Canon - they have so many good lenses now and with ML they have to start all over again.

For certain applications the adapter might have some limitations and a little bit more weight.   Some months ago I went to best buy and tried the AF with a Sony ML with a Canon lens with a sigma adapter and the AF was very snappy.  I was very surprised.

Me, I have no plans in getting rid of my Nikon FF lenses and Im almost sure I'm gonna buy their ML and use my stuff with the adapter and I have no beef with that.

That`s why I said it  might  have a degrade in AF speed. Until now we don`t know how well Z to F adapters are working. If you have some good F lenses - of course you are going to use them but I am shure that you have to deal with some compromises compared to the original Z lenses.

Clayton1985 wrote:

BarnET wrote:

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.

I'm sure the X-H1 AF is more than good enough for my needs but I was just curious if there is anything supporting the statement that the A7III AF is only slightly better. The reviews I've seen indicate the difference overall is pretty significant when you consider many aspects of the AF systems.

The only exhaustive side by side comparison I've seen is here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/sony-vs-fujifilm/a7iii-vs-fuji-xh1/3/

The try different scenarios, and only in the bif example/ in relation to face/eye detect could you say the a7iii was significantly better. So slightly better overall seems fair.

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 forum members have given great comments, but I can't resist offering my 2 cents (a sign of my own vanity).  I just went through a similar decision - for full disclosure, I used to shoot the Sony A99II (a-mount), but it became clear to me that the a-mount line was dying off slowly (no new lenses or camera updates) in favor of Sony's mirrorless/e-mount lineup, so I sold off my a-mount gear.  I really went back and forth and agonized over the Sony A7III vs the Fuji X-H1.  I ultimately went with Fuji.  
You will not go wrong with either the A7III or the X-H1.  They both can produce stunning images. For the A7III, you might also consider the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 lens).  Other posters have noted that Nikon is soon to announce a full-frame mirrorless camera (this week, I believe), and of course there are a range of other fine DSLR and mirrorless cameras.
Buying a camera is a personal and expensive decision, and what is right for your son is not the same as what is right for others.  Every photographer has their own preferences on what features are really important to them, and what kind of interface they enjoy using.  If possible (if this isn't a surprise birthday gift), you might want to involve your son in the decision, just to avoid future disappointments.
The other thing to consider is that you are not buying just 1 camera and 1 lens.  You are buying into a whole ecosystem,  of lenses, lighting and other accessories.  When I approached my decision, I added up the costs of different lenses I wanted in each platform.  I looked at both new and used (from a high quality retailer, like Adorama or B&H) lenses .  For me, I found that could get the combination of lenses I wanted in Fuji at a lower cost than with Sony.  But it is dependent upon what lenses you might want.  For me the system costs (as opposed to just the camera + standard zoom lens) were lower with Fuji.  That wasn't the only factor that swayed my decision, but it was a significant one.
As for the APS-C (Fuji) vs Full Frame (Sony) - that can become a very intense debate that is a bit indecisive and overwrought.  To compare focal lengths, you apply a crop factor - for APS-C cameras, it is around 1.5.  So a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera (like Fuji) has a field of view equal to around 75mm on a full frame camera, like Sony.  As a general rule, if you have an identical composition in your photos, and you compare an identical photo shot with a full-frame camera vs an APS-C camera - the image shot with the full frame camera will probably have less "noise" (grain in the photo - your son can show you), and you might find it easier to create a shallower depth-of-field (the crop factor applies to depth of field as well, though that is again a matter of dispute - Fstoppers has a great video on sensor size, crop factors and depth of field). 
Personally, I find the image noise  difference between APS-C and full-frame to be insignificant.  The shallower depth of field can, in some situations, be a hindrance, not a help -- particularly for group portraits.  Fuji and Sony have different color renditions which is driven by both the sensors and the lenses, and whichever one you find more pleasing is very much a matter of personal taste. As for the ergonomics of both cameras (and other cameras worth considering) - other forum comments cover that.  I personally like Fuji more in terms of its interface, but others prefer Sony.  I've used Sony in the past and found it perfectly serviceable.

Nice job on that long response.  Good post.  Thanks!

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

Thank you!! I appreciate your kind words.
I was just trying to offer useful advice based on my experience, acknowledging my limitations.  I would say I'm an advanced amateur, who is starting to do some jobs for friends (occasionally for payment, but usually for charity causes I support). I'm not making a living off of photography, but hopefully when I retire, it will be a 2nd career.  I wanted to avoid the debates over sensor size, because I have seen very well known professional photographers/educators have dramatically different views on that topic.  It's just not that important.  I also didn't want to sway you on your choice between the X-H1 and the A7III, based on my experience, because your son's interests are his - not mine.  They are both excellent cameras.  
Every camera has it's strengths and weaknesses but at this point, the technology is so advanced that you can do amazing things with very inexpensive cameras (there is no law that mandates you have the absolute latest model, it's a question what features you seek).  Anyways, years ago I learned photography basics on a Nikon film SLR.  As for digital, I have shot Micro Four Thirds (both Olympus and Panasonic), Sony E-Mount (the NEX-5R, an early APS-C model), Sony A-mount (A77II and A99II).  Now I am shooting Fuji, though I also have a Panasonic compact (LX100), which is primarily used on my dive trips (in a housing - long story, but it's a great camera).  My interests have varied over time, between video work, bird photography, and people portraits.  
So I did things the wrong way (I really want to emphasize that!) -- I bounced around between systems, and when you do that, there are significant costs.  You wind up selling equipment (unless you are super wealthy), and it's kind of a hassle.  Good lenses hold most of their value on resale, but camera bodies often depreciate quickly (though not always).  So really consider "ecosystems" because you want a system that will last over time, will accommodate changing interests.  If you have a bunch of nice [manufacturer name here] lenses, and that manufacturer has just released a new camera body with some cool new feature that you really could use -- then it's a simple thing to upgrade, but keep all your lenses and other accessories.
For me, as an example, I really like cameras which have a sensor that has 5-axis image stabilization. It is a feature pioneered by Olympus, but now Sony, Panasonic, and even Fuji, offer it, though mostly in last 1-2 generations of their cameras.  It is great for shooting in low light - you can use a much slower shutter speed, and it is really helpful in shooting smooth video clips.  I really like it!!  Generally speaking, smaller sensors are easier to stabilize (laws of physics), so the 5-axis stabilization on say an Olympus (Micro 4/3 sensor) E-M1 Mark II is more effective than the Sony A7II or A7III, but is helpful on all size sensors.  Wanting that feature meant that I ruled out Nikon and Canon as they don't offer it, and gravitated towards later generation Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony cameras.  The Fuji X-H1 camera is the first Fuji to offer that feature, otherwise I would not have considered it.  BUT, a lot of photographers don't care about that feature (though most videographers really want it).  If that feature is not a "must have" or even a "nice to have", then you might consider Canon, Nikon, or cameras that don't have that feature.  Similarly, maybe your son really wants to photograph wildlife in the Amazon -- well then weather sealing is probably is a critical feature, and that dictates your model selection.  But if he only wants to work in a studio, or shoot weddings in nice air-conditioned hotel ballrooms, well, then maybe weather sealing isn't as important. 
There may be one critical "make or break" feature, or maybe it's a set of capabilities.  It quickly becomes very subjective as you evaluate between bundles of features, and that is perfectly ok.  In the end, you want a camera for your son that just speaks to him, really motivates him to go out and use it and perfect his photography.

Crgln wrote:

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.

You say he is a photography student.  Where? College? How old is he?   I have a B.F.A. in commercial photography. When I was accepted at Art Center, I had to have three complete systems in large format, medium format and 35mm.  In the digital age you don't need different format systems, but you do need more than just one body and one lens. Even as a happy amateur, I've got 6 lenses for my FF DSLR and 4 for my Fuji (still building).

What is his aspirations? If it is to be a full time professional photographer, he'd be better off taking business and marketing classes.   If you've got skin in this game (talking about forking over $3K on a camera alone indicates it), you and your son need to sit down and do a business analysis to get a realistic idea of the potential of making professional photography a career.

SrMi wrote:

I would compare a7III + 24-105/f4 with X-H1 + 18-55/f2.8-4, at least until Fuji comes out with the 16-80/f4. You are also comparing two different formats (APS-C vs FF), each comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

I own A7rIII and 24-105 as well as X-H1, the following is my personal opinion.

X-H1 handles much better than Sony. Sony seems to have higher DR and better high ISO handling. Fuji has focus stacking (important for macro and landscape), Sony doesn't. I prefer the Fuji system unless I need >24mp resolution. Also if you want to dabble in street photography, you could add later an X-Pro2 to your setup.

You are probably fine choosing either system, but I know of many photographers who could not live with Sony ergonomics, though Sony cameras have improved considerably with the Mark III series.

You mean focus bracketing, not in camera focus stacking, correct?