Looking for a more versatile kit - Fuji x Switch to Sony

Hi everyone.

I've used Fujifilm as my main system ever since the X-T3 was launched. I owned a Fuji ever since the X-E2, as a secondary camera to my other kits.

My main usage is for taking photos and videos of my life, trips and occasional personal projects.

My current kit is:

• Fujifilm X-T4
• Fuji 16-55 2.8
• Fuji 35 1.4
• Fuji 50-230
• Viltrox 13 1.4

I've noticed that, as time passes, I need a very versatile kit to be inspire me to actually go out and take pictures. That's why I sold many primes, including the 16 1.4 and 56 1.2. To me, a versatile kit means a good versatile zoom.

In Fujiland, I've found the 16-55 to be the most versatile: it has decent range and is still reasonably fast, being good for low light shooting and portraits. An f4 or slower zoom on APS-C just wouldn't cut it for my general usage.

However, there is a lens that has sparked my interested since launch:

The Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6.

This lens is making me want to switch to an A7IV to see if it could be my ultimate versatile kit.

I've been wanting a camera with a more modern AF system than the X-T4, and the ease of processing non-xtrans files is honestly something I miss. Also, being a tech fan, I just kind of miss testing something new.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this possible switch, if anyone tried the Sony + 28-200 combo, etc.

Not intending to start any fights here. Just talking about cameras, like we all love :).

Cheers.

That's pretty much my plan right now.

If you want fast versatile (super) zooms then Sony (with their third party lenses) is your answer. I have been tempted many times myself but I don't wanna lose all the good things about Fuji. I love the Fuji primes, Fuji colors, size, ergonomics and the XT4's retro dials. It looks like Fuji's catching up with the AF too.

So yeah the choice is yours. Fuji will never be able to compete with fast full frame zoom lenses...the 16-55 is the best we have...and the new Tamron 17-70 with OIS is another option. That 28-200 seems like a decent superzoom but does not have OIS.

You'll really have to weigh the pros & cons to see if Sony is right for you...best to try it out and see if you like it. Otherwise wait for the XT5 and try the 17-70.

Good luck!

GabrielFFontes wrote:

Hi everyone.

I've used Fujifilm as my main system ever since the X-T3 was launched. I owned a Fuji ever since the X-E2, as a secondary camera to my other kits.

My main usage is for taking photos and videos of my life, trips and occasional personal projects.

My current kit is:

• Fujifilm X-T4
• Fuji 16-55 2.8
• Fuji 35 1.4
• Fuji 50-230
• Viltrox 13 1.4

I've noticed that, as time passes, I need a very versatile kit to be inspire me to actually go out and take pictures. That's why I sold many primes, including the 16 1.4 and 56 1.2. To me, a versatile kit means a good versatile zoom.

In Fujiland, I've found the 16-55 to be the most versatile: it has decent range and is still reasonably fast, being good for low light shooting and portraits. An f4 or slower zoom on APS-C just wouldn't cut it for my general usage.

However, there is a lens that has sparked my interested since launch:

The Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6.

This lens is making me want to switch to an A7IV to see if it could be my ultimate versatile kit.

I've been wanting a camera with a more modern AF system than the X-T4, and the ease of processing non-xtrans files is honestly something I miss. Also, being a tech fan, I just kind of miss testing something new.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this possible switch, if anyone tried the Sony + 28-200 combo, etc.

Not intending to start any fights here. Just talking about cameras, like we all love :).

Cheers.

I love zooms too and Fuji has also disappointed me here a bit, but I think the king of really good, versatile zooms is the m43 format. Smaller sensor, less resolution and DR, more noise, I know, but after a while you get used to those and can still produce beautiful photos. Right now what I miss from Fuji when using my Olympus, is indeed the Fuji interface and experience and occasionally the DOF control.

Another option seems to be the Nikon z format. For the the 28-200 with no OIS is not a solution…

consider new Olympus and 12-100 instead

Olympus build quality is fantastic, it has fuji's "mojo" or spirit of old cameras, as you are a tech guy (as I am) it has a lot to offer in computational photography, and most important - it's 12-100 lens is just AMAZING. It gives you with right body also dual-IS possibility, where I am able to hand-hold 2-3 seconds anytime with sharp results - this opens new horizons

m43 format has no issues with noise even at ISO 1600 ... and if you experience not correctly exposed image, check DXO PureRaw ...

Another +1 for M43

GabrielFFontes wrote:

Hi everyone.

I've used Fujifilm as my main system ever since the X-T3 was launched. I owned a Fuji ever since the X-E2, as a secondary camera to my other kits.

My main usage is for taking photos and videos of my life, trips and occasional personal projects.

My current kit is:

• Fujifilm X-T4
• Fuji 16-55 2.8
• Fuji 35 1.4
• Fuji 50-230
• Viltrox 13 1.4

I've noticed that, as time passes, I need a very versatile kit to be inspire me to actually go out and take pictures. That's why I sold many primes, including the 16 1.4 and 56 1.2. To me, a versatile kit means a good versatile zoom.

In Fujiland, I've found the 16-55 to be the most versatile: it has decent range and is still reasonably fast, being good for low light shooting and portraits. An f4 or slower zoom on APS-C just wouldn't cut it for my general usage.

However, there is a lens that has sparked my interested since launch:

The Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6.

This lens is making me want to switch to an A7IV to see if it could be my ultimate versatile kit.

I've been wanting a camera with a more modern AF system than the X-T4, and the ease of processing non-xtrans files is honestly something I miss. Also, being a tech fan, I just kind of miss testing something new.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this possible switch, if anyone tried the Sony + 28-200 combo, etc.

Not intending to start any fights here. Just talking about cameras, like we all love :).

Cheers.

Don't have the 28-200 but have been using since NEX-5R and more recently purchased a A7iii.

IMHO Tamron have done wonders with zoom lenses lately, from a size/weigh/price/performance perspective. I've had great experience with the 28-75 2.8 G1 big fan on how small they got that lens. Happy with the overall feel of the build and materials used.

Back to your point - everyone is different, suggest you rent/get hands on with SD card in hand and do a side by side personal evaluation to see if it's aligned what you were after.

I love my Sony, it's image quality, overall performance. They have come along way ! But I still have a strong bias for my Fuji cameras (those dials) and the physical look, that makes me want to grab the fuji for those "snapshot" moments.

I would also recommend to reflect further on what the problem you are trying to solve ... Is it the lack of zoom lenses? Or the fact you shooting preferences of using primes vs zooms has changed ?

The grass is always greener on the other side.

IMO, if you want a huge zoom range, just get a point and shoot. It's easier to carry, less obnoxious for walk around shooting, cheaper, cheaper batteries, less to lose if it gets stolen or broken - it's just all around a win. You get the wide range of focal lengths and the image rendering will be as good or better than the A7 handicapped by that piece of garbage from Tamron. The first two (maybe three?) gens of RX100 came with a 28-200mm equivalent and can be had for $500 or less these days. If you're fine with the lame rendering of those super zooms, there's simply nothing to lose by just going with a 1" sensor point and shoot. Dynamic range lacking? Just bracket. In the three years I had my LX10 I never once said "crap, can't get this shot because I don't have the Sony".

It does not make sense to me to not consider a f/4 zoom and then consider a superzoom that is f/4 to f/5.6 for most of its length.

Hi,

You're actually talking about TWO changes.  One  is camera choice from a middle resolution Fuji camera to a very high resolution Sony model.  The other is lens choice.  I think you need to establish why you are considering both elements.

My XT4 meets most of my needs.  However, I have looked at the Sony A7R4A for some time.  It has the same sensor pixel pitch as the XT4, but over twice the area.  It appeals to me for detailed landscapes specifically when I want to print large. Thus far, I have resisted the temptation.  I may hire one to try it out.

Think carefully.  There are some downsides....  The A7R4 is heavier than the XT4, same weight as the XH2 - if that matters to you..  And do you need that much resolution?  Every uncompressed raw shot at full res is about 120mb.  That's 8 images per gigb of storage.  To me that makes it a highly specialized camera - not one for general  duties or family travel.  I think I'd actually need to own two systems if I had an A7R4 (or a Fuji GFX, for exactly the same reasons).

On lenses, It's personal.  I can't comment on the Tamron 28-200 - I've never used it.  If you're happy with that style of lens, you might enjoy it.  I have learned that I dislike big zooms.  It's just about preference - I just don't want a camera with a fairly substantial lens attached all the time.  The Tamron is about the same weight as the Fuji 70-300.  (I'd personally rather have a handful of very small, light, sharp primes, but that's me.  These days they're available in Sony - it's  no longer true that all FF lenses are big and heavy.)

Don't know if any of that helps.

Regards, Rod

My opinion is that they all suck equally. You need to decide which sucks less and how much suck you can tolerate.  For me when I switched from the A6000 and 18-135 to Xt2 and 35mmF2, I gave up state of the art autofocus and lens versatility for amazing picture quality and beautiful jpegs. A few Fuji lens and a camera later and I do miss the focus relatability and accuracy of Sony. I find myself wondering if the Sony grass is as green as the velvia fuji grass. I wish autofocus accuracy was as reliable on the Fuji as it is on the Sonys.  In the end i still do really really really like my Fuji as much as i really really really liked my Sony.

I use both for mainly landscape. I don't like to change lenses much  in the field. Now my main kit is usually:

Sony a7iii with FE 24-105/4 ...incredibly versatile as I've been able to shoot night concerts with amazing AF ( my main problem with Fuji though I work around it)

Fuji X-T3 with XF 70-300

Wide angle I used to use 10-24/4 on X-T20 but I just got an a7c and the FE PZ 16-35/4 for that.

I also bring Nikon P900 for bird and super telephoto shots, such as this:

Rod McD wrote:

Hi,

You're actually talking about TWO changes. One is camera choice from a middle resolution Fuji camera to a very high resolution Sony model. The other is lens choice. I think you need to establish why you are considering both elements.

My XT4 meets most of my needs. However, I have looked at the Sony A7R4A for some time. It has the same sensor pixel pitch as the XT4, but over twice the area. It appeals to me for detailed landscapes specifically when I want to print large. Thus far, I have resisted the temptation. I may hire one to try it out.

Think carefully. There are some downsides.... The A7R4 is heavier than the XT4, same weight as the XH2 - if that matters to you.. And do you need that much resolution? Every uncompressed raw shot at full res is about 120mb. That's 8 images per gigb of storage. To me that makes it a highly specialized camera - not one for general duties or family travel. I think I'd actually need to own two systems if I had an A7R4 (or a Fuji GFX, for exactly the same reasons).

On lenses, It's personal. I can't comment on the Tamron 28-200 - I've never used it. If you're happy with that style of lens, you might enjoy it. I have learned that I dislike big zooms. It's just about preference - I just don't want a camera with a fairly substantial lens attached all the time.

I'm completely with you here. The Fuji 16-80 is the biggest I can accept (or the 10-24 for that matter, they are virtualy of the same size). But I prefer using 2/3 primes a lot more.

When people talk about "versatility" they only think in the versatility of focal length range, but I apreciate more the aperture versatility of the primes. I also end with better pictures when I'm forced to find the right position to take a picture with a prime.

The Tamron is about the same weight as the Fuji 70-300. (I'd personally rather have a handful of very small, light, sharp primes, but that's me. These days they're available in Sony - it's no longer true that all FF lenses are big and heavy.)

Don't know if any of that helps.

Regards, Rod