SONYFUJI

IGNORE THIS THREAD

IGNORE SONY/FUJI THREADS

THIS IS BAIT

>>2981088
this is a serious question m8.

>>2981085
> Image quality seems to be superior in Fuji from what I can tell.
Not even vs. this camera and they certainly don't beat FF Sony.

Regardless, use a better lens?

>switching from modern APS-C to APS-C
>possibly switching from 24 megapickel to 16 megapickel
I wouldn't say that IQ is necessarily superior, lenses are good though.
Chances are that you're just not good at taking photos. Buying a Fuji won't help you to git gud.

>>2981085
The a6500 is a much better body, the a7ii range better still.

Now you may be thinking "muh price range", first take a look at the cost of fuji lenses, on a mount that's sales are falling downward and they're only crop. Give it 5 years and the whole system will be dead and your investment will crumble into worthless junk.

Sony are the fastest growing mount ever, with a far longer expected lifespan and products designed to work well into the future, nearly all their new lenses are class leading, full frame products.

To get good iq out of a fuji you will also have to forego any editing software and rely on the built in jpeg engine.

>>2981153

What should be considered when buying a lense for aps-c?

Right now I'm using a vintage Nikkor 35mm f/2 which is pretty sharp,

but I'm aware that due to the crop factor lense artifacts are more prominent and sharpness is reduced.

How can I tell if a lense has the appropriate amount of detail for my sensor size to pixel ratio?

File: 1460908714672.jpg (185KB, 538x670px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 538x670px

This is the b8 equivalent of Samuel L. Jackson yelling in your face from 2 feet away

Sage in all fields

Also check em

>>2981085
yes. sell it.
i'll buy your sony for $200

File: Untitled-1.jpg (54KB, 527x481px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 527x481px

>>2981342
That lens barely resolved enough detail on film, on aps-c it's gonna be super soft.

focus to infinity, shoot some power wires, zoom into 300% and look out for how crisp the definition is from the wire, ideally you should see aliasing

pic related, a lens that resolves as well as the aa filtered sensor, aliasing is still apparent, there is no lost detail.

This was with the sony 28 f2, at f7.1 at base iso on an a7ii, it is one of the highest resolving lenses available on a camera with just about the largest pixel pitch, if you have a crop 24mp body, you would need a lens that resolves over twice as much detail to get a similar level of performance.

Basically, crops a joke.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:11 13:05:07
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	527
Image Height	481

>>2981342
> but I'm aware that due to the crop factor lense artifacts are more prominent and sharpness is reduced.
Maybe in terms of printing to a not so huge format.

But they're almost the same as though you had used the A7R II (~twice the resolution) and someone had just looked at the image on a device with sufficient zoom or print with enough resolution.

Yea, it's just a crop... but even if you have another high-resolution camera that now is FF you still have the same problem, assuming you *DO* want to use that camera's resolution in one way or another.
> How can I tell if a lense has the appropriate amount of detail for my sensor size to pixel ratio?
"Appropriate" is a bit a matter of choice. I personally don't see why I should want poorly resolved images, makes my life harder both with various digital editing and cropping.

You can look up the sharpness behavior of various lenses in the "detailed measurements" on DXO. I especially like their field map that shows graphically how it is at various apertures.

>>2981345
>analog based anti aliasing
why is this a thing?
just do it in software.

>>2981350
Prevents moire, which software can't do

>>2981346
And 135 and mf portra have the same pixel pitch, which one looks miles better?

>>2981358
> And 135 and mf portra have the same pixel pitch, which one looks miles better?
At 1:1 magnification or near it, you can't tell the difference.

It depends on how much you need to enlarge them, I guess?

>>2981365
Presuming you've framed 2 photos the same, one on 135 and one on 645, then viewed them both at the same size, which one looks better?

It's not a cass of cropping/enlarging when 135 grain is clearly visible on 6" x 4" prints from a full frame. You're never going to want to view a photo smaller than that.

>>2981341
>investment

worst reason ever to chose any camera gear or electronics hijink

>>2981368
Depends on the size that they're at. Typical 135 usually starts to be shit already at fairly common photo sizes. [Higher resolution 135mm film can of course be enlarged quite a bit more...]


Arguably 24MP APS-C with an actually good prime will be more than *any* display you or anyone else is at all likely to use will display.
Even when you crop it to half the resolution (~16->8MP effective).

>>2981372
What would be a good prime?

>>2981398
The 60mm Sigma Art f/2.8 if you just want one example.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma60f28dn/

That said, even generally every FF lens that is sharp on the 40-50MP FF cameras should be sharp on the 20-24 MP APS-C cameras, because virtually none isn't sharpest in the center of the lens.

I did just that, switched from an A6000 to a X-T10 back in April. I'm having way more fun shooting with the Fuji, it's like day and night. But that's just me, I hated the ergonomics of the Sony.

Image quality is similar, but jpegs are miles ahead on the Fuji if you use those.

Lightroom is slower with Fuji, although the files are smaller.

Fuji has less lenses but they're all excellent. Sony has more cheap lenses, so that can be a plus if you're broke.

I'm not baiting but I went from 800 followers on 500px to 100k+ after switching to Fuji. I don't think the difference in image quality had anything to do with it, but I just had so much fun shooting with the Fuji that my creativity really went up.

>>2981426
Mind posting a link to your page pls?

I'm an XT-10 user, but I haven't really used any other decent cameras so it's hard for me to gauge.

My XT-10 has a 23mm f1.4 glued to it, considering the 35 f2.

>>2981496
>considering the 35 f2.
This is my next (first) lens buy for my X-T10. Just waiting for a sale or cashback.

I'm also thinking about getting a Fuji X-T10. Upgrading from a Canon T2i.

Should I get the 18-55 f2.8 or the 16-50 f3.5

>>2981514
I just got the body. But everyone raves about the 18-55.

>>2981514
>18-55 f2.8-4

>>2981369
You're confusing the term as one for monetary gain as opposed to wanting to have a mount that will still be supported 10 years from now.

>>2981372
100 iso fine grain 135 still has visible noise on 4 x 6 prints. And there's apparent softness on crop with pretty much any lens less than $800, even web resizes at 1000px look sharper from ff.

>>2981398
You'll spend the same on a prime that performs well on crop as you would a ff body.

>>2981496
They're lying, they have fuck all followers and never owned the sony.

>>2981726
>t. buttmad sonyfag once again

>>2981730
Rebuttals are back in full force

File: 500pxstats.png (39KB, 1187x817px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1187x817px

>>2981726

> They're lying, they have fuck all followers and never owned the sony.

Meh, I said I was not baiting.

>>2981726

R u ok?

Did a fujibro steal your gf ?

>>2981085
Depends on what you´re aiming at exactly. If you want a light and more compact travel camera, you have plenty of options in the X Series.

Generally speaking i find the fuji lenses to be nothing but superb, compared to the standard series of sony lenses. On the newer models and in combination with a newer body the autofocus is on par or even better, than on the sony aps-c cameras. Also a great plus for fuji is its sensor architecture and its internal jpeg converter. On the newest models, the Xpro2 and the XT2 one has the advantage of a dual card slot, which is quite rare on an aps-c body.