Fuji instead of Sony?

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
lélé Regular Member • Posts: 378
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?
2

Joe Tam wrote:

Hi,

I was very interested in switching to Sony but the XT-3 has me taking another look at Fuji.

I used to use Nikon for stills and Panasonic(for stills and video where size, discretion, and silent shutter is required).

Why I want Fuji over Sony:

The smaller lenses and cheaper prices across the board end up saving a lot of money when it comes to 2 bodies, 3-4 lenses and some accessories. i can get 2 xt-3 for $3k vs. $6k for a7riii or $8k for a9.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

fuji 50-140/2.8 for $1400) is lighter (2.19 lb / 995 g) vs. Sony 70-200/2.8(ignoring equivalence) at 3.26 lb / 1480 g at $2600

Same thing, you're comparing apples and oranges. I think it's an error to ignore equivalence.

A Sony FE 70-200 mm F4 G mounted on a Sony a7 III would offer:

  • Same effective field of view,
  • Same subject separation ability,
  • Very similar low light performance,

As a Fujinon XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR mounted on a Fujifilm X-T3.

Ignoring that completely bias the comparison!

A Sony FE 70-200 mm F2.8 GM OSS is an option that - at least for the moment - has no equivalent in the Fujifilm system. You can get better low light performance (with shorter DoF) and more subject separation ability, with the trade off of a bigger, heavier and more expansive lens.

very compact 24-80/2.8 equivalent that is $1000 vs. sony which is over $2000.

Same thing...

won't have to pay $4000 for distortion free electronic shutter.

Fujifilm X-T3 readout time much shorter than the one of Sony a7 III or the Fujifilm X-T2 (which are completely unusable with moving subject or under flickering light sources).

That said, it's 1/57s for the X-T3 vs. 1/160s for the a9. The a9 still struggle with some particular subject and under some artificial light sources, even if it ES is very usable. it will be worse with the X-T3.

(I personally have an X-T3 and distorsion is okay for what I shoot, but I would avoid the ES under some artificial light sources).

while there is 1.25x crop at 30fps at 16megapixel that is not an issue for me. also heard some lenses are not compatible with electronic shutter on a9. this is not an issue with fuji.

No, that's not that simple, in both cases!

You can use any lens with ES with both.

The problem is that some lenses cannot keep up with the burst rate.

I don't have a a9 and a bunch of Sony lenses at my disposal to say with which it's okay or not (Sony has a list I think), but with the Fuji' I only get the 30 fps under very particular conditions. The lenses are the problem. You have to carrefully check which lens can keep up and do not expect to have 30 shots per second with AF-C!

Plus the X-T3 buffer is extremely shallow!

In return, the buffer clean up is less limiting than on the Sony (less thing you cannot access during clean up).

Why I want Sony over fuji:

higher sensitivity in extreme situations due to "full frame" sensor

You shall take the lens into account. You cannot dissociate low light performance from assembly.camera + lens

ability to mount many third-party lenses with adapter.

You also can on the Fuji (fringer brings some interesting adapters), but it's more limited and you have to take the crop factor into account.

higher megapixel full-frame bodies(a7riii)

Yes

eye-af

No, X-T3 has a fully working eye AF.

reportedly better tracking in low light

Depends a lot on the lens.

a9 is one sick puppy but very expensive.

Look at the second hand market.

I also think the price will fall down when the a7S III will be announced...but when?!

IBIS!

Yes.

For those who may have switched from Sony to Fuji: are there extreme situations where the fuji xt-3 fall apart and you wish you had sony. Heard low light tracking on Fuji xt-3 might be an issue.

Search for my impressions on both the a7 III and X-T3 (I have both).

Is Fuji good enough for most situations?

 lélé's gear list:lélé's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3
bob13bob Contributing Member • Posts: 637
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?
1

Fuji vs sony lenses

The biggest factor often missed is how much better and cheaper FF glass is. FF glass at the same nominal aperture gets to use about twice as much glass (eg 2 vs f2) as apsc, and 4x as much as mft to produce an image. Imperfections are magnified. some of that theorized FF glass will be about twice as sharp as their aps-c, and the data has generally supported that across lens lineups.

Remember, a f2 apsc is equivalent to a f3 FF as same angle of of view aka equi focal length.

the most loved $300 fuji 35 2 lense gets (center/border/ extreme) objective data:

http://www.opticallimits.com/fuji_x/985-fuji35f2?start=1

fuji 35 2 vs $250 sony FE 1.8

f2: 2700/2189/1976, vs f2.8: 4511/3652/2256

f4: 3078/2654/2345. vs f5.6: 4579 / 4199 / 4253

F1.2 fuji can’t do it vs f1.8: 4181/2489/1804

Sony, sony version can get 1 stop quicker than fuji, and it cost loess.

That’s a huge performance gain. Some caveats, on a7iii at 24mp, the performance gains for sharpness would be a lot more equivalent since you’r bottlenecked at the sensor.

OP Joe Tam Senior Member • Posts: 1,067
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?
1

I don't like the viewfinder resolution on the a7iii.

xchric wrote:

Why A7iii is not on the list? I have both Sony and Fuji, A7iii and X-T20. Love the portability of Fuji and the size of lens, Fuji color is unique. However, Fuji can’t keep up with my 4 year old so I am still keeping both.

 Joe Tam's gear list:Joe Tam's gear list
Nikon D5 Nikon D850 Sony a9 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +9 more
PWPhotography Senior Member • Posts: 7,384
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?
9

Joe Tam wrote:

I don't like the viewfinder resolution on the a7iii.

xchric wrote:

Why A7iii is not on the list? I have both Sony and Fuji, A7iii and X-T20. Love the portability of Fuji and the size of lens, Fuji color is unique. However, Fuji can’t keep up with my 4 year old so I am still keeping both.

EVF is just a tool. I used to own A7 II that has the same EVF as in A7 III. Honestly it didn't affect me in taking photos and I have used to A7r III and A9's EVF. Unlike OVF you actually don't have to see everything so clearly in EVF as it still displays all info you needed and as long as you can see the AF point targeting at the subject, and we know A7 III AF is very accurate and reliable. Sure you feel more enjoyable in higher resolution EVF but really no much difference in taking photos and the quality of end results.

The bottom line is that you can pickup X-T3 on your feeling of ergonomic and EVF etc. But A7 III absolutely will help you to get better end results that matter of sensor size (DR, sharpness, shadow noise), AF-C tracking, IBIS and high ISO. Your priority is based on which is more important - feeling (that could change later) vs IQ (never change).

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 +17 more
ajendus
ajendus Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?
1

Cinematographer here... the cinematic look? What is that exactly? I’ve shot with $1000 cameras all the way to $250k cameras. Cinematic looks is by skill of the cinematographer not something that can be produced in post. But if you’re referring to color grading, Fuji RAW files does just as well as anything else I’ve encountered and generally far more accurate color science than Sony.

-A

 ajendus's gear list:ajendus's gear list
Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon D500 Fujifilm X-T20 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +15 more
SafariBob
SafariBob Contributing Member • Posts: 632
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?
3

ajendus wrote:

Cinematographer here... the cinematic look? What is that exactly? I’ve shot with $1000 cameras all the way to $250k cameras. Cinematic looks is by skill of the cinematographer not something that can be produced in post. But if you’re referring to color grading, Fuji RAW files does just as well as anything else I’ve encountered and generally far more accurate color science than Sony.

-A

I am gonna call bs on this one.

Sure fuji has better color science (according to some or most, who knows), however for moving pictures they do not have any cinema cameras, no Sony cinealta or similar. I have not heard anyone preferring f log to s log, although they might exist too. There is no Fuji camera that can output 24fps raw that I know of, at least not in super35 or larger image processors.

obviously cinematic look means different things to different people, although typically cinema is shot to look good in a dark room (cinema) while photos may be shot for a variety of ambiances. Part of it is art, or “by the skill of the cinematographer, as you say. But presumably the overall look is a collaboration of the director, the make up artists, that color graders etc etc. Nevertheless there are elements which are considered “cinematic” in the photography world, might I suggest for example large out of focus specular highlights, interaction between in focus and out of focus elements, low key, motion streaking as is generated by 1/50s shutter speed etc.

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM
ajendus
ajendus Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?
1

SafariBob wrote:

ajendus wrote:

Cinematographer here... the cinematic look? What is that exactly? I’ve shot with $1000 cameras all the way to $250k cameras. Cinematic looks is by skill of the cinematographer not something that can be produced in post. But if you’re referring to color grading, Fuji RAW files does just as well as anything else I’ve encountered and generally far more accurate color science than Sony.

-A

I am gonna call bs on this one.

Sure fuji has better color science (according to some or most, who knows), however for moving pictures they do not have any cinema cameras, no Sony cinealta or similar. I have not heard anyone preferring f log to s log, although they might exist too. There is no Fuji camera that can output 24fps raw that I know of, at least not in super35 or larger image processors.

obviously cinematic look means different things to different people, although typically cinema is shot to look good in a dark room (cinema) while photos may be shot for a variety of ambiances. Part of it is art, or “by the skill of the cinematographer, as you say. But presumably the overall look is a collaboration of the director, the make up artists, that color graders etc etc. Nevertheless there are elements which are considered “cinematic” in the photography world, might I suggest for example large out of focus specular highlights, interaction between in focus and out of focus elements, low key, motion streaking as is generated by 1/50s shutter speed etc.

You can call BS if you want but Fuji is no stranger in the cinema world. Fujinon lenses are widely used in cinematography. But this isn’t about cinematography this is about the comment made that a Sony camera can produce cinematic images while a Fuji camera can’t.

Also note I never mentioned anything about f-log or s-log, filming frame rates, motion blur, shutter speed or angle, or how a film set works. None of that isn’t relevant to photography. Well... shutter speed/motion blur is.

I have a whole series called Cinematic (photos) and it looks just like my cinematography but in still form. All taken with different cameras, sensors, manufacturers, etc.

-A

 ajendus's gear list:ajendus's gear list
Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon D500 Fujifilm X-T20 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +15 more
ajendus
ajendus Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?
1

SafariBob wrote:

ajendus wrote:

Cinematographer here... the cinematic look? What is that exactly? I’ve shot with $1000 cameras all the way to $250k cameras. Cinematic looks is by skill of the cinematographer not something that can be produced in post. But if you’re referring to color grading, Fuji RAW files does just as well as anything else I’ve encountered and generally far more accurate color science than Sony.

-A

I am gonna call bs on this one.

Sure fuji has better color science (according to some or most, who knows), however for moving pictures they do not have any cinema cameras, no Sony cinealta or similar. I have not heard anyone preferring f log to s log, although they might exist too. There is no Fuji camera that can output 24fps raw that I know of, at least not in super35 or larger image processors.

obviously cinematic look means different things to different people, although typically cinema is shot to look good in a dark room (cinema) while photos may be shot for a variety of ambiances. Part of it is art, or “by the skill of the cinematographer, as you say. But presumably the overall look is a collaboration of the director, the make up artists, that color graders etc etc. Nevertheless there are elements which are considered “cinematic” in the photography world, might I suggest for example large out of focus specular highlights, interaction between in focus and out of focus elements, low key, motion streaking as is generated by 1/50s shutter speed etc.

Actually, I need to reevaluate my response. I entirely agree with you in your definition of cinematic look. Only addendum is that the camera itself plays a very small role in that particular endeavor and a skilled cinematographer (and film crew) really make the camera do what they want.

-- hide signature --

-A

 ajendus's gear list:ajendus's gear list
Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon D500 Fujifilm X-T20 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +15 more
golfhov Veteran Member • Posts: 9,588
This^
3

You cannot "ignore equivelance" otherwise the focal lengths don't make sense for starters. All of the sudden the lenses are all wide and ultra wide angles......oh wait you will use equivelance on angle of view. ........

If you think equivelance is fake then grab a 1" camera. Depending on model you get wide angle to the edge of telephoto or a telephoto with apertures between 1.8 and 2.8 all in a "compact" body

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 28mm F2 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
TRIODEROB Veteran Member • Posts: 3,024
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?
1

Hans vdC wrote:

I use and have both (A7III + XT2) and the difference, from my own experience and not reviews or forums, is simple: the Fuji is more 'photographer' like and just is more fun and intuitive to use for me, the Sony is better in high ISO, AF and face/eye detection but often really feels like a small computer instead of a camera. Both can produce stunning images, I just "love" the Fuji, I "like" the Sony

plus the EVF on the Sony A7III  is horrid vs the Fuji

Sony is a good camera -no doubt - but is does not beat the Fuji in all areas

if you have only tried the X2 and not the X3 you would be surprised at how good it is

in fact DP forum themselves just called it "the best all around camera"

OP Joe Tam Senior Member • Posts: 1,067
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?

This is my current dilemma and I wonder if it is too late to switch to Sony.

After examining XT-3 as well as Canon's limited lineup of lenses and new camera I wonder if I will regret the switching to Sony.  Canon's new lens mount and their unique lenses have the potential to really kick a## when a pro body comes out.

And XT-3 viewfinder, responsiveness, and price are incredible.

At least there is now a little competition.

TRIODEROB wrote:

Hans vdC wrote:

I use and have both (A7III + XT2) and the difference, from my own experience and not reviews or forums, is simple: the Fuji is more 'photographer' like and just is more fun and intuitive to use for me, the Sony is better in high ISO, AF and face/eye detection but often really feels like a small computer instead of a camera. Both can produce stunning images, I just "love" the Fuji, I "like" the Sony

plus the EVF on the Sony A7III is horrid vs the Fuji

Sony is a good camera -no doubt - but is does not beat the Fuji in all areas

if you have only tried the X2 and not the X3 you would be surprised at how good it is

in fact DP forum themselves just called it "the best all around camera"

 Joe Tam's gear list:Joe Tam's gear list
Nikon D5 Nikon D850 Sony a9 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +9 more
Legosaurus Regular Member • Posts: 242
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?

Zefah wrote:

You can get an A9 for under $4,000 if you look and are willing to buy used (you should be).

I got mine recently at AUD $4500 new from Sony Australia kiosk store including tax. That's about USD $3240. Cheaper than I could get it second-hand.

 Legosaurus's gear list:Legosaurus's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 600D Sony a9 Sony a6000 Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II +12 more
Legosaurus Regular Member • Posts: 242
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?

Joe Tam wrote:

After examining XT-3 as well as Canon's limited lineup of lenses and new camera I wonder if I will regret the switching to Sony. Canon's new lens mount and their unique lenses have the potential to really kick a## when a pro body comes out.

Do you want to shoot today, or tomorrow?

You can always sell gear (well, some of us can't)

 Legosaurus's gear list:Legosaurus's gear list
Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 600D Sony a9 Sony a6000 Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II +12 more
golfhov Veteran Member • Posts: 9,588
They are gonna knock it out of the park

Joe Tam wrote:

This is my current dilemma and I wonder if it is too late to switch to Sony.

After examining XT-3 as well as Canon's limited lineup of lenses and new camera I wonder if I will regret the switching to Sony.

There may always be something better in the future

Canon's new lens mount and their unique lenses have the potential to really kick a## when a pro body comes out.

Hahaha.........sure. Canon's latest track record of late is to completely underwhelm with bodies . I also will believe the hype on how advantageous the new mount is in when lenses come along that show the superiority of the wider mount. That isn't sarcastic. I will actually consider switching if and when that comes true

And XT-3 viewfinder, responsiveness, and price are incredible.

No doubt. If somebody wants one of the best apsc cameras out there then it is worth a good look. If you want better IQ, more lens selection, IBIS, and cheaper equivelant lenses then Sony still has the advantage there

At least there is now a little competition.

Which is awesome. I don't think Sony is perfect and I would love to see them clean up small issues that shouldn't even exist.

TRIODEROB wrote:

Hans vdC wrote:

I use and have both (A7III + XT2) and the difference, from my own experience and not reviews or forums, is simple: the Fuji is more 'photographer' like and just is more fun and intuitive to use for me, the Sony is better in high ISO, AF and face/eye detection but often really feels like a small computer instead of a camera. Both can produce stunning images, I just "love" the Fuji, I "like" the Sony

plus the EVF on the Sony A7III is horrid vs the Fuji

Sony is a good camera -no doubt - but is does not beat the Fuji in all areas

if you have only tried the X2 and not the X3 you would be surprised at how good it is

in fact DP forum themselves just called it "the best all around camera"

Not in all areas. Even Sony doesn't best the Z or R cameras in all categories.

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 28mm F2 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
GrapeJam
GrapeJam Senior Member • Posts: 2,475
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?

Joe Tam wrote:

Canon's new lens mount and their unique lenses have the potential to really kick a## when a pro body comes out.

If the 50mm f1.2 R and the 28 - 70mm f2.0 are any indication, the R mount's lenses are gonna be stupidly huge and expensive they will only be afforded by an extreme minority.

Good w*nking material for Canon fanboys thought, even thought the extreme vast majority of them will never be able to afford them

And you're seriously underestimating the E mount here, Sony has a patent for a 28 70 f2.0 and the (now defunct) Meyer optik and Zhongyi have demonstrated that the E Mount are also capable of exotic ultra wide aperture lenses too.

And as much as Canon fanboys want you to believe, the average people (including professional photographers) do not buy into a system because of lenses, they buy into the system usually because they look at the body specs first and then affordability.

 GrapeJam's gear list:GrapeJam's gear list
Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 85mm F1.8 Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art
golfhov Veteran Member • Posts: 9,588
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?
1

GrapeJam wrote:

Joe Tam wrote:

Canon's new lens mount and their unique lenses have the potential to really kick a## when a pro body comes out.

If the 50mm f1.2 R and the 28 - 70mm f2.0 are any indication, the R mount's lenses are gonna be stupidly huge and expensive they will only be afforded by an extreme minority.

Good w*nking material for Canon fanboys thought, even thought the extreme vast majority of them will never be able to afford them

I kind of agree with you BUT I don't know what this means for the future.

And you're seriously underestimating the E mount here, Sony has a patent for a 28 70 f2.0 and the (now defunct) Meyer optik and Zhongyi have demonstrated that the E Mount are also capable of exotic ultra wide aperture lenses too.

And looking at the size and pricing of some of the new mounts lenses I don't see the "advantage" of the larger mount. Except maybe the extreme corners are going to be a little sharper on some lenses

And as much as Canon fanboys want you to believe, the average people (including professional photographers) do not buy into a system because of lenses, they buy into the system usually because they look at the body specs first and then affordability.

I disagree. I think most people spending the money these systems cost are considering many factors. Lenses are one of them.in the case of the 28-70 2.0 that lens could be a game changer for event photographers.......if they have an unlimited budget and the R wasn't.....well.......so Canon as of late. Speaking of that. It really seems to me that Canon just rushed a prototype out because they are worried about the competition.

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 28mm F2 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
GrapeJam
GrapeJam Senior Member • Posts: 2,475
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?

golfhov wrote:

And looking at the size and pricing of some of the new mounts lenses I don't see the "advantage" of the larger mount. Except maybe the extreme corners are going to be a little sharper on some lenses

Not to mention that the new RF lenses all have insane vignetting which is funny because theoretically wider mount should have less vignetting.

And as much as Canon fanboys want you to believe, the average people (including professional photographers) do not buy into a system because of lenses, they buy into the system usually because they look at the body specs first and then affordability.

I disagree. I think most people spending the money these systems cost are considering many factors. Lenses are one of them.in the case of the 28-70 2.0 that lens could be a game changer for event photographers.......if they have an unlimited budget and the R wasn't.....well.......so Canon as of late. Speaking of that. It really seems to me that Canon just rushed a prototype out because they are worried about the competition.

One of the main things that I shoot for a living is weddings and events and I've freelanced for many studios and people, having your lens go to at least 24mm is the bare minimum, and alot of times 24mm is not even wide enough especially in tight spaces.

 GrapeJam's gear list:GrapeJam's gear list
Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 85mm F1.8 Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art
golfhov Veteran Member • Posts: 9,588
Two helens

GrapeJam wrote:

golfhov wrote:

And looking at the size and pricing of some of the new mounts lenses I don't see the "advantage" of the larger mount. Except maybe the extreme corners are going to be a little sharper on some lenses

Not to mention that the new RF lenses all have insane vignetting which is funny because theoretically wider mount should have less vignetting.

Strange. The only one of the new lens that I have seen a good write-up on yet was the Nikon 35 2. It too had some vignetting. "Some" doesn't surprise me at all. Now "insane"...... I will keep an eye on that. If true it just speaks more to my "rushed" theory

And as much as Canon fanboys want you to believe, the average people (including professional photographers) do not buy into a system because of lenses, they buy into the system usually because they look at the body specs first and then affordability.

I disagree. I think most people spending the money these systems cost are considering many factors. Lenses are one of them.in the case of the 28-70 2.0 that lens could be a game changer for event photographers.......if they have an unlimited budget and the R wasn't.....well.......so Canon as of late. Speaking of that. It really seems to me that Canon just rushed a prototype out because they are worried about the competition.

One of the main things that I shoot for a living is weddings and events and I've freelanced for many studios and people, having your lens go to at least 24mm is the bare minimum, and alot of times 24mm is not even wide enough especially in tight spaces.

Again I am gonna disagree. There is a reason they make UWA lenses. I get that 24 has become the defacto "standard" but it just opens a new route. In a world where the bodies are capable and the lens isn't astronomically expensive I would probably be willing to trade 4mm for an extra stop. Of course we all have our own styles and I think consumer choice is a great thing. I am not going to disparage the creation of unique lenses. Although if that f2.0 was a Sony product I am sure you know what the Canikonites comments would be. "Sony overcharges" "look at the size" "it's gonna be terrible. All Sony lenses are terrible" and yadayada

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 28mm F2 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
PWPhotography Senior Member • Posts: 7,384
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?

GrapeJam wrote:

Joe Tam wrote:

Canon's new lens mount and their unique lenses have the potential to really kick a## when a pro body comes out.

If the 50mm f1.2 R and the 28 - 70mm f2.0 are any indication, the R mount's lenses are gonna be stupidly huge and expensive they will only be afforded by an extreme minority.

Good w*nking material for Canon fanboys thought, even thought the extreme vast majority of them will never be able to afford them

And you're seriously underestimating the E mount here, Sony has a patent for a 28 70 f2.0 and the (now defunct) Meyer optik and Zhongyi have demonstrated that the E Mount are also capable of exotic ultra wide aperture lenses too.

And as much as Canon fanboys want you to believe, the average people (including professional photographers) do not buy into a system because of lenses, they buy into the system usually because they look at the body specs first and then affordability.

Canon RF 28-70 f2.0 weighted 1,430 g (3.15 lb) and costs $3000, no 'IS' on no-IBIS EOS R body? I see more gimmick than actual usability. A 24-70/2.8 zoom on IBIS body easily can compensate one-stop aperture in low light hand-held scenario, and 24mm is much wider than 28mm. Or for the same 28-70/75mm FL, Tamron FE 28-75/2.8 weighted 550 g (1.21 lb) that is 38% of RF 28-70 weight very significantly, is much easier to carry with and still gains 'IS' on IBIS bodies.  Sure f2.0 will have an advantage in low light sport but EOS-R body is not even close to a sport camera.  Don't understand what thinking in Canon's mind?

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 +17 more
TQGroup
TQGroup Senior Member • Posts: 2,035
Re: Fuji instead of Sony?
1

GrapeJam wrote:

Joe Tam wrote:

Canon's new lens mount and their unique lenses have the potential to really kick a## when a pro body comes out.

If the 50mm f1.2 R and the 28 - 70mm f2.0 are any indication, the R mount's lenses are gonna be stupidly huge and expensive they will only be afforded by an extreme minority.

Good w*nking material for Canon fanboys thought, even thought the extreme vast majority of them will never be able to afford them

And you're seriously underestimating the E mount here, Sony has a patent for a 28 70 f2.0 and the (now defunct) Meyer optik and Zhongyi have demonstrated that the E Mount are also capable of exotic ultra wide aperture lenses too.

And as much as Canon fanboys want you to believe, the average people (including professional photographers) do not buy into a system because of lenses, they buy into the system usually because they look at the body specs first and then affordability.

Some buy in because of support and the overall business case.

That may explain why Canon has half the total market and more than half of the professional market without the benefit of the best performing bodies.

Serious pros buy the best glass and that lasts a long time. Bodies are changed regularly, even annually, like we change our smartphones...

 TQGroup's gear list:TQGroup's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G +26 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads