fuji v sony

Are you a total faggot that likes it deep in the anus? If yes buy a sony.

Now fuck off

Oh boy, here we go again!
This crazy ride will never end!

Sony
It's got much larger & better lens selection
Better low light performance
Better ergonomics, more customization
Full frame, so full frame lenses look like they should
Better evf
Much better upgrade path
Lighter
Af is equally average, but much improved in later models from sony
Fuji has only one compatible flash gun and no hss
No third party companies make lenses for fuji apart from samyang, because fuji users are seen as a bit of a joke in the industry
The fuji only goes down to iso 200, the sony will do iso 50.

Fuck off

>>2953536
If you must have sissie mirrorless shit save for an XT2. I had a play with one this afternoon it's by far and away the best of the bunch, better even than the Xpro 2. With a battery grip on it's almost usable and you might actually get the batteries to last long enough to bother taking it out of the basement. Seriously, if you want to use it to take pictures it's the only worthwhile option.

>>2953604
£500 vs £1400
"the af is almost as good as sony under certain conditions" was as close as the xt2 got to being better than it's equivalent sony in any metric.

And at that price you're no longer against the a6300, it's the a7ii, with ibis, full frame sensor, working flash system and complete range of lenses, which obviously fuji doesn't have a chance at competing against.

Of course fuji has it's place, are you a soccer mom? Are you a new dad? Basically, do you just want a fancy point and shoot. Fujis raw files are miles behind any of the competition, but its jpeg engine slightly better, so it's awful for real photographers but great for facebook snapshits, or if you're overly intimidated by image editing software.

>>2953606
>the af is almost as good as sony under certain conditions
I can assure you the AF shits all over anything Sony in every condition. Focussing and battery life are the most important features in any digital camera. You can have all the fucking dynamic range and wanky stabilisation gimmicks in the world but if your pictures are fuzzy and your batteries fucked out after 30 minutes the camera is shit.

>>2953566
>>2953604
>>2953606
oh god stop I don't have enough keks for this

>>2953610
That quotes from a review, noob.

And the af doesn't beat the a6300 or a6500 by any stretch.

Battery in my a7ii lasted 730 shots on last use.

It's really easy to make you look dumb when you say dumb shit thats easily verifiably wrong

>>2953615
>Battery in my a7ii lasted 730 shots on last use.
hahahah oh my sides

>That quotes from a review, noob.
link?

I don't quote from reviews, I quote from hands on experience. The XT2 shits on Sony

>>2953633
>implying you own an xt2 and a6300

Lol. I bet you don't own either.

>>2953637
>Lol. I bet you don't own either.
Correct, but at least I've used both as well as the Xpro2 and most of the A7 menagerie. The XT2 is the only mirrorless shit that I would look twice at and even that probably doesn't have decent battery life without the grip.

A camera with a flat battery is worse than no camera at all. A camera that can't focus efficiently is almost as bad because you waste valuable battery power just getting and keeping the fucker in focus. And I don't give a shit what your fucking blog reviews say, the XT2 focusses more efficiently than anything I've used by Sony and anything else by Fuji for that matter.

>>2953653
> correct, but Ive used both

Stopped reading after that

Fuck off back to taking selfies you fucking soniji faggot cucks, thwbi bly professional brand you could ever possibly need is Canon

Literally ever other manufacturer is fucking shit trash and they need to fuck off with their shit sensors, stills, and horrivle video quality conpared to the superior canon camera

Buy canon younspineless cuck morons

>>2953707
That's water damage

>>2953688
>Stopped reading after that
Can't even copy and paste let alone read a wohle sentence

>>2953718
>wohle
whole

>>2953716
That's tear damage. From a Sony user.

>>2953606
>af

fwiw, the controls of the a7 are garbage while the fujis are actually good. they both have amazing sensors, but the a7 is better. lens selection on both are amazing if you use adapters and dont mind manual lens controls

>>2953653
>xt2 v a7
>comparing new 2016 camera to a three year old one without pdaf

Well no shit.

Try comparing it with an a6300 or a6500.

>>2954058
XT2 shits on everything Sony makes except perhaps their TV sets

>>2954058
Can I compare lenses too? Are you sufficiently triggered yet?

>>2954061
pretty sure A7S II is a better low light camera than X-T1 or X-T2.

Im an X-M1 user btw

>>2954061

>comparing cameras to tvs

wat

Now you just look stupid.

XT2 ties with a6300, and that is only with fastest of x-mount lenses. a6500 will most likely beat it.

>>2954065

Sure, if you would like to see Fuji get even more btfo.

>>2954095
Sure thing.

You got a 35mm equivalent that's f1.4 with autofocus smaller than the 35mm f1.4 L for me?

>>2954097
Fuji does

http://lenshero.com/comparison/Fujifilm-XF-23mm-f1.4-R-vs-Canon-EF-35mm-f1.4L-USM

>>2954095
>defending sony glass

the only usable e-mount lenses are one or two G series and they are usually larger than canikon equivalent.

if i wanted my system to be that big i wouldnt need mirrorless

>>2953612
>oh god stop I don't have enough keks for this

That's not a refutation.

>>2954111
xD

>>2954105

The only bad Sony lenses are the pancake kit and the 16mm.

Everything else is pretty damn good.

>>2954124
I'm waiting anon. Where's my f1.4 AF 35mm equivalent lens for APS-C?

File: rokinon_rk21m_e_sil_21mm_f_1_4_aps_c_w_a_1185686.jpg (635KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 2500x2500px

>>2954136

Closest would probably be the Samyang/Rokinon 21mm f1.4

>>2954097

>cherry picking lenses

We could do this all day for both sides.

Where is the x-mount 35mm f 1.8 w/ OSS?

inb4 the 35mm 1.4, the autofocus sucks and it has no OSS.

File: 1466842491545.jpg (7KB, 199x242px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 199x242px

>>2954148
>he thinks you need image stabilization on a lens under 60mm

>>2954148
but anon, I specifically want a lens to meet that specification on Sony's platform, are you telling me that I can't have it? Why not?

>>2954150
also >>2954174 here, The 35mm f2 IS USM lens is probably one of the best lenses in the world. Get a grip.

>>2954176

>one of the best lens in the world.

I doubt that, but even if it is true, it still isn't f 1.8.

File: sony.jpg (107KB, 1197x451px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1197x451px

>>2954176
But the EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM beats it out and that doesn't have stabilization

>>2954184
There is a sony lens that fits that description and apparently it comes out on top

>>2954190
The 35mm f1.4l II is a turd that's may as well be the black penis penetrating your mother nightly.

It's shit senpai. Don't be a gearfag and don't use DXOmark. Even worse. Don't try and waltz in here with a DXOchart when only one other lens has IS. Your argument has been deemed null and void by the Mooopco Sony defense force™

>>2954184
Is it a full frame lens with stabilisation that can be used on film bodies? pls respond

>>2954208

Some a-mount lenses with stabilization can be used on the last gen of Minolta film bodies.

I know for sure the autofocus works, no clue about the stabilization.

>>2954206
>Don't be a gearfag and don't use DXOmark

Well shit I should just compare the lenses with colorful metaphors about dicks and poop instead, great idea

>>2954206
>our argument has been deemed null and void by the Mooopco Sony defense force™
But the sony lens is on top and clearly better than the EF lens. I posted it because that dude was saying the stabilized one was one of the best lenses in the world. You realize I'm not shitting on sony, right?

>>2954111
What, you want me to do a point by point?

>It's got much larger & better lens selection
Arguable. Sony has more in total but Fuji covers more individual focal lengths. Fuji's lenses are pretty much all solid performers and some are excellent.
>Better low light performance
Hard to argue, FF will trump APS-C in most situations. However, sensors are so damn good now that APS-C is good at almost any realistic ISO.
>Better ergonomics, more customization
Totally debatable, matter of preference. I don't like Sony ergos at all, while I love Fuji.
>Full frame, so full frame lenses look like they should
Matters with adapted lenses, yes, but the Fuji system is designed around native lenses. I get that some people are into adapting stuff, but that's not the case for everybody. A major part of why I switched to Fuji (from FF Nikon) was that they had the only fleshed out system designed around APS-C.
>Better evf
The XT-2's is top tier, and the X-Pro2 isn't comparable to anything else in the industry.
>Much better upgrade path
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. You can use any Fuji lens natively with any Fuji camera, while appropriate lenses for an A6K won't work with an A7. Seems like Fuji's upgrade path is better in that regard.
>Lighter
Only without a lens.
>Af is equally average, but much improved in later models from sony
Improved with Fuji, too.
>Fuji has only one compatible flash gun and no hss
Not true, there are several Fuji flashes, including a currently available 3rd party flash with HSS and a 1st party one coming out soon.
>No third party companies make lenses for fuji apart from samyang, because fuji users are seen as a bit of a joke in the industry
Zeiss makes lenses for Fuji. Aside from that, Fuji has a good 1st party lens selection with reasonable pricing, so it's hard for 3rd party to compete.
>The fuji only goes down to iso 200, the sony will do iso 50.
True, though how much that means is arguable.

>>2954242
>a6k wont work on a7

Not true, crop lenses work fine on FF bodies. The camera automatically crops what comes from the sensor.

For most of the good APS-C lenses you can actually remove the rear baffle and it will cover most of the FF sensor.

File: dscf5188-copy~2.jpg (1MB, 4193x1562px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4193x1562px

>>2954136
Where's the 35mm 1.4 for fuji? You have to factor in the aperture too, so you've actually got a 35mm f2.

Then we've got the bigger issue of sensor and photosite size, if we take the 24mp xt2 and a7ii, the photosites on the sony are 134% larger, so for both images to have the same apparent sharpness, the fuji glass would need to be able to resolve 134% more detail.

Unfortunately for you the sony zeiss 35mm f1.4 is as good as 35mm lenses get.

And why would we need a crop lens? Crop is for when you need more zoom or want to take advantage of full frame lenses on tilt shift adapters.

>>2954150
Ibis would mean your previous 1/60th minimum shutter speed could be taken right down to 1/5th or 1/10th of a second.

>>2954242
fuji doesn't cover more individual focal lengths, you have nothing as wide as our 10mm and nothing as long as a mount pro sports lenses.

You only have 3 primes longer than 35mm, one's a 56 one's a 60...

Oh and let's remind ourselves how fucking awful your £400 fast normal holds up against canons £60 nifty fifty. Pic related.

You have no argument for crop sensors, giving inherently less sharp images until your lenses outresolve your sensors by a factor of 2 (to hit the nyquist limit).

>arguing low light between crop and ff
Here's a hint, how do 135 film shots look in comparison to medium format, gimped?

>lighter
Nope, with battery, card and slow 35mm (sony 35 2.8, fuji 23 f2) the fuji combo weighs 17g extra. These figures get worse for your 28mm and 50mm equivalents.

>"improved with fuji too"
I was talking about the xt2, you've got 3 years till your next upgrade, sony have the a9 coming next year.

>1st party flash coming soon
Gn50
£450
Lollllllllllllllll

>zeiss makes lenses for fuji
Correction, zeiss MADE lenses for fuji, they've since stopped and are selling old stock.

>how much does an extra 2 stops of flexibility mean
Arguably, quite a lot.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	X-T10
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:09:27 08:00:12
Image Width	4193
Image Height	1562
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/1.4
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Light Source	Unknown
Exposure Mode	Manual
Image Height	2399
Rendering	Normal
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Program	Manual
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	6441
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Brightness	4.0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec

>>2954206
the 35 ii is better than every Sony lens in the next decade

>>2954264
>Ibis would mean your previous 1/60th minimum shutter speed could be taken right down to 1/5th or 1/10th of a second.

Not on a lens that wide

>>2954245

> The camera automatically crops what comes from the sensor.

that seems like a terrible hack

>>2954345
What do you think crop sensors are?
Have you seen sensors being made?
and yes, you can turn off auto-crop, if you want that black vignette.

>>2954264
You know, I started trying to write up a whole reply to this, but in the process really became aware that the philosophies of Sony and Fuji owners are so different that nothing we say will ever convince one another.

If sharpness and resolution are your primary concerns, Sony is absolutely the way to go. Their lenses are tack sharp and their sensors are great. Getting those benefits, however, comes at the cost of a large and heavy system, lenses that are often obscenely expensive, and a convoluted ecosystem that often requires adapters and third party manual focus lenses. Sony's advantages largely apply only to landscape photographers who can shoot from a tripod and who intend to crop heavily or make extremely large prints.

Fuji's whole system is a compromise, and those of us who use it are well aware of that fact. If you can't accept compromises, it's a terrible system to own. Fuji uses APS-C because it allows them to make a whole lineup of small and light lenses that complement their camera bodies, and keep costs to a level that's attainable by normal people. It's a system for off the cuff, spur of the moment shooting - the kind of photography that an average Sony photographer would deride as "snapshots."

Put another way, the Sony is a miniature medium format system. The Fuji is a modernized Leica. The whole ethos is so different that nobody should really be cross-shopping them.

>>2954534
I want both a sony and a fuji

>sony

>>2954534
That would be fine and dandy, but the a7 is no larger or heavier than the xt2 or xpro2, and sonys 28, 35 and 55 are lighter than fujis equivalents and no more expensive, nor do they need fancy adapters.

>>2954660
>sonys 28, 35 and 55 are lighter than fujis equivalents and no more expensive

not all of them are

http://lenshero.com/comparison/Sony-Sonnar-T-FE-55mm-f1.8-ZA-vs-Fujifilm-35mm-f1.4-XF-R

Fuji is smaller and cheaper

http://lenshero.com/comparison/Sony-24mm-f1.8-E-Mount-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-vs-Fujifilm-XF-16mm-f1.4-R-WR

Fuji is a little cheaper, but heavier and weather sealed

http://lenshero.com/comparison/Sony-35mm-f1.8-OSS-vs-Fujifilm-XF-23mm-f1.4-R

This one you are correct. It is smaller, lighter, and cheaper

>>2954534
Does Sony have anti-aliasing filters on their image sensors? because if they do, Id say the Fujis are sharper, since they dont

>>2954665
Some do, some don't.
0.3 pixel blur vs photosites less than half the size... The sony is still much sharper.

>>2954805
Except you can't get the fuckers in focus before the battery runs out

>>2954805
is it easy to find out which do and dont?

>>2954660
Huh? The Fuji 18mm is smaller, lighter, and cheaper than its Sony 28mm equivalent.

Same story to even more of a degree if you compare the Fuji 23 1.4 to the Sony 35 1.4, or the 56 1.2 to Sony's 85 1.4.

I know the argument that "apertures aren't the same across formats" will come up, but that really only affects DoF, a 1.4 is still a 1.4 in terms of light gathering.

It's also worth pointing out that Fuji's 2.8 zooms are excellent and tiny compared to anything FF.

>>2954662
The Sony 24mm and 35mm you listed are crop lenses. Sony doesn't have a FF 24mm at all (there's an AF Zeiss 25mm though) and there's no ~f/2 35mm, just a 1.4 and a 2.8. (Again, there's a Zeiss, but this time it's MF.)

>>2954662
>http://lenshero.com/comparison/Sony-35mm-f1.8-OSS-vs-Fujifilm-XF-23mm-f1.4-R
>This one you are correct. It is smaller, lighter, and cheaper
#1 shitposter here.
Why are you comparing an APS-C 35mm to an APS-C 23mm?
Are you retarded? Just curious. It would appear that you are since you don't know the difference between E and FE, which is understandable considering that Sony just kinda made FE a thing because they could.

>>2955200
My bad I thought there was a 35mm 1.8 FE lens but its actually that zeiss 35 2.8 which isn't on this site for some reason

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (27KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1280x720px

>>2955205

The 35mm Zeiss is a pretty damn awesome lens.

It is compact too. I wish Sony made more like it.

>>2955208
I hear it's great but I just can't get over Sony charging $800 for an f/2.8 prime when Nikon's FF equivalent is over a stop faster and costs $275 less.

>>2955217

It sells for about $500 now.

Still pricey, but not as outrageous.

>>2955221
Used or what? I'm still seeing $800 at all of the big names.

>>2955238

Dunno where you live but....

For big names it is 62000円(〜$590) on amazon.

As low as 57800円(〜$550) on kakaku from smaller retailers..

>>2955243
I'm in the US. I'm surprised at how much cheaper they are in Japan, I thought the days of getting electronics deals there were long gone.

All of the reputable US dealers are charging at least $798, and foreign dealers aren't really an option because you have to ship the lens back overseas if you need any kind of warranty work done. (Plus you'd end up paying a lot in exchange fees, proxies, and shipping for a Japanese lens anyway.)

literally the only people having this debate are fucking gear f a g g o t s

all you simple minded fucking people that arent happy unless you have 24mp+ shots

these cameras are glorified point and shoots. you arent doing anything but framing the fucking image and changing the EV. fucking cucks. if any of you cared about sharpness vs money you'd be shooting film with nice scanners. you'd rather argue about who has the biggest plastic chinese shitstain alloy body than stop and think about youre actual needs.

>>2953606
>mentions AF
>swaggots say AF
>this post is lit AF

who the fuck even uses autofocus?

>>2955323
>you arent doing anything but framing the fucking image and changing the EV.

And what exactly, are you doing with your film camera? Putting a wound up spool of plastic in the camera and taking it back out every now and then hardly makes the film process any better. Oh, you also need to take a darkslide out? Guess that's the difference...

This is coming from a filmfriend btw.

>>2955332
Not to mention your stuck with the iso you've loaded, often forcing your hand on aperture and shutter speed.

Digital has the potential for much more creativity, not to mention the viability of experimenting with different flash modes etc and having a permanent record of what settings you use.

Sincerely, mf film user.

File: 5421770662_72ffb94fd5_b (1).jpg (199KB, 1024x765px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1024x765px

>>2955336
>permanent record of settings

Film does that too though.

Plus you can use modern lenses on film bodies too.

>>2955248

It has actually gone up since I last looked.

I heard earthquake hit lens production too, I wonder if thats one reason?

>>2955200
>APS-C 35mm

>>2955401
>>APS-C 35mm

>>2955323
gear fag here
dont care about mp
high iso low noise is what im after
also like plastic just fine

>>2955345
>image

That is black magic, for real.

>>2955563
sony a7s ii.
or wait for a7s iii for miracle 12megapickle bsi, lsi, stacked dram, global shutter, miracle sensor.

>>2955589
$500 budget
maybe ill get an a7s i when the price comes down a bit

>>2955591
Pentax K-50

>>2955565

It is neat as fuck.

Real tempting to pick one up.

>>2955345
>That image

what am I looking at?

>>2955700

It is a film camera.

It has an internal memory of that camera remembers the settings(shutter speed, aperture) you used when you took a picture.

When you put that adapter on and activate it, it copies those settings to a memory card, so you have a record of what was used.

>>2955703
that's pretty neat. i like living in the future.

>>2955705

Except that unit is like 16 or 17 years old.

hold both cameras?
which one feels better? pick that one

there's no point in specs if youre a prosumer thats only going to upload their pictures online - no one simply gives a fuck; so pick the camera that gives you an "ideal" shooting experience

although if youre equally doing video sony would be the way to go

>>2955709
>>2955705

Pretty much.

All you need to know about the DS-100:
>https://photodelusions.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/using-the-minolta-data-saver-ds-100-to-transfer-exif-data-from-the-minolta-dynaxmaxxumalpha-7-to-scanned-jpg-files-of-negatives/

>>2955629
>dslr
no

>>2954206
you've never even used the 35mm 1.4l ii. let me guess you rented one, your friend has one? bullshit. you have no opinion on it because you don't know what it is