Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Showing 1 of 46 conversations about:
xzez
30
Jul 22, 2015
bookmark_border
I've been using the fuji X system for a while now and it's been solid. The fujinon lenses are beautiful and fantastically built. BUT, if you can afford it, I'd recommend going with the Sony A7 system instead. It'll cost you more, but it's superior in just about every way.
Jul 22, 2015
TomJuk
0
Jul 22, 2015
bookmark_border
xzezThe Sony A series are great cameras but their range of lenses doesn't come close to Fuji. Of course you can always get the zeiss lenses but you'd need to spend a a lot of money in comparison. Also I don't think the Sony A is superior in every way as you put it. For one the Fuji is far superior with its ergonomics as you don't need to go through menus to switch settings as every dial you need is available at your thumbs. For me the Fuji is much better
Jul 22, 2015
lastzero
254
Jul 22, 2015
bookmark_border
TomJukI don't know if the A mount line will live but E mount is alive as well. I've heard lots of great things for Fuji but my main reason for Sony was the full frame line. Sure they might not have enough lens but if the adapter makes Canon lens work like native lens, I'll be set there. Size is a problem but if I wanted small I'd get https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2081787381/e1-camera-4k-uhd-interchangeable-lens-camera .
Jul 22, 2015
semka
248
Jul 22, 2015
bookmark_border
xzezGoing to Sony A7 would be a downgrade in picture quality, esp for portraits.
Jul 22, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 23, 2015
bookmark_border
semkaIn terms of image quality, Sony has nothing to loose unless you shoot JPEG alone.
Dont take me wrong, Fuji is not bad. But Fuji doesn't offer the best image quality for the asked price.
Jul 23, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 23, 2015
bookmark_border
xzezFuji's construction and optical quality is average level. Olympus and Sony has better construction on their weather seal bodies. Optical wise there are better choices. But Fuji's service is definitely top-tier. If you value customer service, Fuji won't let you down.
Jul 23, 2015
lastzero
254
Jul 23, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywI've had little issues with Sony a6000 and I've love the a7R. I don't disagree that Fuji has great lens and gear but I wanted to move on up to Full frame and I DO see a difference in night performances which is what I plan to use mine. From what I've seen Fuji has way better colors but I'd say that Sony ends up being the cheaper option. Assuming the a7rII Canon adapters work natively, we might be in business.
Jul 23, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 23, 2015
bookmark_border
lastzeroI am 100% sure you could tune the A7r to look like the XT1 (as I am successful to match my xt1 with D810). XT1 shows great disadvantage when you start to push up ISO and DR settings. ISO 800 (which is ISO 400 for all other cameras) and DR400 on XT1 starts to give you noticeably reduced dynamic range and color banding. But that somehow gives a film look.
Sony's problem is correctable if you tweak Sony's RAW file a bit then there is no disadvantage in front of XT1 at all. Fuji does not have a way better (if you like the way it is) color UNLESS you ONLY shoot JPEG. BTW, XT1's video function is basically useless since it perform terribly.
In terms of lens quality. I don't believe you would find any similarly priced FE lens disappointing on A7R or A7R2 compared with what Fuji can offer you now. I had and sold XF 23/35/56/1024/1655/55-200. Only 16-55 (equiv. 24-82.5/4) is something I'd call overall great. Others are good or great when stepped down and they're over-priced. Construction wise, I had 3 xf1655. The first one was an used with a fiber trapped behind rear element. The 2nd one was new and had sand getting in after 10 shots on the beach. So yes, failing weather seal (and I better get olympus or pentax for harsh environment). Other lens I had from Fuji all had tiny pieces of metal flakes inside when arrived.
So what I want to tell you is that, Fuji is good and great sometimes (3-4 pts in 5 pts scale). But d on't over-praise it. Words like "super beautiful" or "wonderful" is too much for that system. Fuji did put XT1 into be a great camera body, but the CMOS is just too old in today's standard. Also, for any APSC, great bokeh quality is not what you can have.
But why I love the XT1? Because it gives me an experience I couldn't find on other cameras. I love the handling of that camera and it lets me concentration on taking photos without being distracted by operating the electronic system. Also, their customer service in USA is really pleasing.
Jul 23, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 23, 2015
bookmark_border
lastzeroSo the question you really should ask yourself is that, are you task critical (results are the most important) or you just want to enjoy casual photography? If you are task critical, don't get Fuji but a reliable camera such as D750/D810 or A7r2. If you just want to enjoy photography, Fuji is something you really should try out.
Jul 23, 2015
SoundGuyAndy
1
Jul 24, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywI strongly disagree, and find Fuji's optics and sensors far beyond anything else out there. They've been making glass for other manufacturers for a long time, and it shows. Many pro shooters are switching from Canon and Nikon full-frame to Fuji X-series, for good reason.
Jul 24, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 24, 2015
bookmark_border
SoundGuyAndyThat's simply not true. But it takes good pictures under bright sunlight. If you don't go indoors or handheld night shooting, you are fine, provided you are not task critical.
I had a7, a57, a77, a6000, d7100, d810, xt1 and xe1. Basically you could tune d810 or a7 to look like xt1. And higher resolution simply gives you more details. Fuji is old and has poor dynamic range (8ev by default) and it drops very very quickly with increasing ISO. Newer cameras are much better. Canon is another story. Fuji uses a 5yr pld cmos and canon 10yr old. Both nikon and Sony are using latest CMOS.
Fuji removed low pass filter from cmos so it looks sharper than those 16mp sensor with low pass filter. But a 16mp sensor can't out resolve a 24mp sensor no matter what. Lens wise, fuji lens are no better than nikon's FF 1.8g lens but way more expensive. Sony's latest FE lens are more superior.
Those pros you mention still work with nikon mostly. Fuji is just a toy after work. Let me remind you that many pros are still using Canon in work. That doesn't make Canon a better camera than others. The whole Fuji is incredible thing is just a beautiful story from paid reviewers.
Jul 24, 2015
Thumper13
9
Jul 24, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywPlease, everyone, take everything chris.yw says as opinion. I'm not sure what the motivation for being here is, but it's all opinion he's trying to pass off as fact.
Jul 24, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 24, 2015
bookmark_border
Thumper13I think nobody should step into a system without a clear understanding of what they are doing.
If you think those people calling Fuji spectacular, wonderful, and gorgeous objective, I am certainly out of proper words to describe other systems. What you see in the picture below is A6000+FE55@5.6 and XT1+XF56@5.6. Both lens are similarly priced. 2nd picture shows difference in measure dynamic range of 4 selected cameras. Believe your own eyes.
I hope we can stay on measured specs rather than boasting experiences, skills, personal perception of beauty and such.
source:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-A6000/12
search

search
Jul 24, 2015
Thumper13
9
Jul 24, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywUsing your same pixel-peeping, the A6000 looks better than the D750. Are we going to argue it's a better camera? People should use a system that works best for them, not what tests say. All of these cameras are amazing. Pick the one that suits you best and make pictures.
Jul 24, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 24, 2015
bookmark_border
Thumper13Typical play out. When techs fails, it moves on to opinions. I am not interested in discussing opinions. Many reviewers in US really love to talk about experience and how they feel about a system, blablabla, especially when it's failing behind in the competition. They evade technological details and keep emphasizing specs are not important. Cameras are tools and tools are about specs. And YOU NEED TO KNOW YOUR CAMERA TO MAKE GOOD PICTURES.
A6000 is not better than D750 when comes to low light focusing (0ev and -3ev), color rendering, and noise level, etc. (But it still outperform XT1.) The only reason why you think A6k's better is because you don't know how to correctly use all these data to save yourself some money and hassle. And apparently you never realize there could be more to learn about a camera; in the meantime you just say "those are worthless opinions, go away".
Again, same lens and same aperture.
search
Different systems. Remind you again, on Nikon it is a sub $500 USD lens. On A6K it's $900+ USD lens.
search
Jul 24, 2015
semka
248
Jul 25, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywYou conveniently didn't mention that XT-1 allows adjustment of dynamic range in highlights way beyond anything A6000 can do (picture below) with DR Expansion modes that it has.
Now, let's take a look at low light noise level at ISO 6400. As you can see, in RAW XT-1 not only beats A6000, but most other cameras in its price range
search

search

. So, "Believe your own eyes. "
Source: DP review of XT-1: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Fujifilm-X-T1
Jul 25, 2015
mickeyjuice
12
Jul 25, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywYou're admirably persistent for someone who has so little idea about the Fuji system.
Jul 25, 2015
doubleG
0
Jul 25, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywFuji optical quality is average? Are you serious? Fuji makes very high end glass. 18-55mm is about as good as you'll get in a kit lens anywhere and their primes compare to Zeiss and Leica in quality.
Jul 25, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 25, 2015
bookmark_border
doubleGJump to the conclusion. http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=383.
Fuji removed low-pass filter from sensor so image would be sharper than the same sensor with low-pass filter. Below I posted 2 images. 50D has low pass filter and XT1 doesn't. The picture on the right is sigma 17-70/2.8-4 on 50D, which is a $400 usd lens.
Don't forget the XF1855 is a few times more expensive than other kit lens at $699 USD (or $300 bundled) retail. I am also tired to repeat don't forget those FE primes and Sigma art lens when you are about to spend $1000 USD. Basically any current Canikon lens can work on Sony cameras without losing AF soon.
search

search
Jul 25, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 25, 2015
bookmark_border
semkaYou can't completely turn off the in-body NR on X-T1 (you even wrongly placed the dash). It smears details
search

. If you set NR-2 you won't have a clean image. Color noise could be easily removed in post-processing but lost detail is lost forever. Sony was criticized for the same reason on their SLT cameras.
Fuji's expansion DR cause color banding. Refer to the following 2 examples. ISO 200 https://www.flickr.com/photos/129445597@N08/17260686430 ISO 800/DR 400 https://www.flickr.com/photos/129445597@N08/17260489498
The highlight details are lost as well if you push ISO/DR up. Additionally, If you paid attention to DPR's exposure settings, you would notice Fuji's ISO 800 is somewhere around ISO 600 for other cameras, which means Fuji's ISO is marked ~1/2 stop higher.
And, if you want best possible results for your Fuji, give up Adobe now and start learning Capture One.
Jul 25, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 25, 2015
bookmark_border
mickeyjuiceI still recall B&H put up a long video about how fabulous the 5DSR is, although Canon itself admitted DR is about the same with 7Dii. So the talk was basically about how wonderful the experience is shooting with 5DSR and how much useless specs is to average users. In fact many pros have a large collection of cameras so it probably doesn't matter to them either.
The idea in your statement, are you referring to those type of idea? However with any modern full-frame camera I can do whatever you can with X-T1 but you can't use X-T1 to achieve everything a full frame can do at the same price.
Jul 25, 2015
akmaer
5
Jul 26, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywoh my god, it's the ultimate gear silly person. All people like this guy do are run around photography forums circlejerking about photography gear. Having slightly less mtf, means it's a terrible camera according to chris.yw. Completely ignore the superior ergonomics or amazing viewfinder which are things that are far more important to any real photographer that one extra line per mm. Lol he's actually advocating dropping CC and using capture one raw as if that extra noise reduction is worth the hassle of shifting programs and learning a new workflow. It's especially humorous as in the next 12-36 months an update to creative cloud will come out surpassing capture one raw performance and chris.yw will tell you to switch back.
Chris.yw show me one photo you have taken personally with your own hands that uses all the dynamic range in whatever body you have.
Jul 26, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 26, 2015
bookmark_border
akmaerLOL. How much experience you have with C1? The TIFF on the left and DNG on the right are the same raw without touching. TIFF is from C1 and ACR.DNG from adobe camera raw. ACR is way better than directly opening the file in PS and LR.
At least I would use C1 to do the raw conversion for further work in PS.
Anyway, it looks like you enjoy the words of those who don't need to pay for their own gear.
search

search
Jul 26, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 26, 2015
bookmark_border
doubleGhttp://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiTECH2.HTM
see what you can get for the same price. In addition to image stabilization, pixel shift could reduce noise and allow full RGB output. Olym also has better weather sealing and a ton of cheap high quality lens. The lens below is $300 new.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/16314380717
Jul 26, 2015
lastzero
254
Jul 26, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywThanks for your feedback chris.yw. I rarely see long paragraphs but usually blocks of text are worth reading :). Most of what I've seen with Sony like 18-105 is correctable post or JPEG only in body. I haven't considered Fuji and thanks to this, seems like I should stick with Sony for what I've seen in price but also upgradability, to full frame.
I'm always glad to get good info like this. I just hope that we can get a good poll for Sony stuff. Considering how this, Nikon and Canon have made it, Sony shouldn't be too far off.
Jul 26, 2015
lastzero
254
Jul 26, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywI'm enjoying photography with A6000 but I also see that at night, rented A7r, that a larger sensor helps a lot with all shots in general. That's why this looks cool but as it stands I'd rather save up for full frame. I see the a6000 as casual with potential to grow into something more.
Jul 26, 2015
lastzero
254
Jul 26, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywYep saw stuff like that. I'd prefer to hear it from a photographer than just images but that's why I wasn't too impressed with Fuji. Good to know the A6000 was a better choice then for me and now.
What's your take on the Zeiss 16-80/4 and Sony G 18-105/4 aps-c lens for Sony?
Jul 26, 2015
akmaer
5
Jul 26, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywLol why are you so butthurt?
Jul 26, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 26, 2015
bookmark_border
lastzeroIf you have decided to go with FF in the future, I personally would recommend you to keep A6K a low-cost system by choosing 18-105. In the future when your full-frame system grow, you can share lens between bodies. There is no need to invest heavily on APSC lens now.
A few interesting lens for current apsc line are 10-18, 28/2.0, and 50/1.8. Sigma also proved 2 good lens. The 16-70 isn't a lot better than 18-105 in every aspect and the price is so high. I definitely would recommend you to try both lens prior to making decisions.
I hope you would find the gear that suits you most.
Jul 26, 2015
lastzero
254
Jul 27, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywI'm bidding on a 16-70. 18-105 I saw on bid for $450 and pass after $200 but yes I will. Thanks for your advice.
Jul 27, 2015
lastzero
254
Jul 27, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywWould you recommend capture one for Sony too?
Jul 27, 2015
chris.yw
87
Jul 27, 2015
bookmark_border
lastzeroYes. Sony provided a free version. You also can give the trial version a shot. It really saves the Sony color. There are many raw files you can download. Just put them into Adobe and C1 and you shall see the difference.
You are welcome.
Jul 27, 2015
lastzero
254
Jul 27, 2015
bookmark_border
chris.ywFor the curious here's a link for all cameras support for Capture One. https://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Software/Capture-One/Supported-cameras.aspx?
Jul 27, 2015
View Full Discussion