Some Fujinews lads: >New X100F >24mp, joystick, x-pro

Nothing new, still no ibis, still no adobe support, still no flash.

Feels bad man.

>>3005437
GFX is Bayer, but yeah...

Still, X-T20 with a couple of the f2 lenses is tempting me - first time I've felt they've produced a worthy rep for my x100 (just for me, I doubt anyone else would consider that a particularly rational position).

>>3005433

We have a gear thread.

>>3005445

I think they are way overpriced, but if you have the money to waste I doubt you'd be disappointed.

>>3005437
ibis is fucking overrated but yes the other two are very valid.

The XPro 2 is better than the GFX in every way.

File: screen-shot-2017-01-18-at-07-37-35.png (2MB, 1322x984px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1322x984px

https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/01/19/the-fujifilm-gfx-50s-review-portable-beast/

>>3005437
>>3005878
GFX is Bayer so Adobe shouldn't be an issue. Original X100 files were great in Lightroom and that was also a Bayer Fuji.

Flash kinda sucks but what other MF system has viable TTL wireless flash? This camera is almost certainly going to get used with manual studio flashes and a pocket wizard. Pentax and Hasselblad don't have much in the way of flash either, and Phase One has built in Profoto Air but it's just a dumb trigger, no TTL.

A bigger issue IMO is that it's FP shutter and not leaf.

fucking pumped about the new x100f. i was holding off on the 100t because i didn't feel like it was enough of an upgrade over my 100s to be worth the cost.

Curious how good the autofocus is.

>>3005882
You're really letting that comment eat you up inside, huh? Poor Leica user.

>>3005903
I knew you'd follow me - heading to take a shit now. Need me to save you a seat?

full frame when

>>3005960
Probably in 2027

>>3005954
Whoa I'm not even him you just keep referencing that post in other threads

>>3005960
They're doing the Pentax dude
It will literally be a decade before they consider it.

>>3005896
well its only contrast so it probably still sucks. i really dont get it

whats this meme about Fuji and no flash? You can use roobshoot triggers with nikon flash and get full TTL with em.

Dat hump on the GFX 50s' back though.

its cool seeing Fuji trying to break out of the entheusiast/prosumer market and into the pro market, they're really transitioning well but I've used a few of their products and they're pretty awesome for enthusiast use I don't think they can compete with canon or Nikon just yet

I think if they released a full frame camera similar to the xt2 that didn't have the silly retro look and made it weather sealed they could really compete with Sony

To;dr if Fuji took themselves more seriously they could enter the pro market

>>3006148

You're silly, friend.

They literally just released a camera more "professional" than anything from Sony, Nikon OR Canon.

>>3005883
Not really news for Pentax users. And the 645z has a leaf shutter lens plus the ones adapted from the 67 mount.

>>3006148
>compete with sony
"hi sony, can we have your ff sensor, we want to make a camera that directly competes with yours"

Also how is it going to compete, it can't compete on cost considering they have to pay sony for parts.

It can't compete on lenses, no fuji lens resolves as much as the bargain bin sigma dn lenses, and look at sony/zeiss on dxo right now.

It can't compete on size, considering they can't make a non ibis crop camera as small as an a7ij.

It can't compete on lens selection, they've fallen behind too far.

It can't compete on flash, fuji has no flash.

It can't compete on iq, they use the same parts as everyone else.

>>3006272
lol moopco you dont even take photos, you shitpost about color charts and sony and sleep in while stoning yourself to death with drugs
just kill yourself already

Xt20 looks ace, really does, but I might skip it as it doesn't have any quantum leap features. There is a new 50mm f2 lens, but I have no idea what use it would be...

Overall Fuji are doing amazing shit, x100f looks like an absolute killer and I can see fly off the shelves.

>>3006272
Oh fuck off moron, your fanboi is showing. Of course they can't compete 1:1 with a giant like Sony, but most most of your statements are ridiculous. Fuji has all the lenses you'd ever need and more are released in a steady pace, at much more reasonable prices and most of them are optically excellent. Also, use a manual flash like a big boy.

>>3006272

They would do the same as they do with crop.

Make a drastically overpriced body with classic styling. Add some even more ridiculously priced number games lenses (f 1.4!....but softer than a toy lens and a literal fish eye without corrections), then add some instagram style filters for the sooc jpegs an call it a day.

>>3005893
why would you need ttl flash in a studio setting?

>>3006338
>fuji lenses are competitive
>looks at photozone testing vs sigma dn range
>no fuji lens resolves as much detail

The cost of fuji 18mm, 35mm and 56mm (non apd) - £1747
Cost of sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm - £343
CHEAPEST fuji prime with af - £329

Just consider that for a moment no fuji lens resolves as much as the trio of sigmas, you can get 3 lenses that are better than anything available for x-mount for the cost of fujis cheapo lens.

Fuji want 5 times as much for their trio of shitty lenses (any lens that can't out resolve a £100 lens is shithouse bruh). The only people that could be considered fanboi'ing are those that continue to blindly imply fuji have anything to offer.

>defending fujis lack of flash by telling me to not use technology that became standard in the 80's. Holy kekkerino fren.

>>3006363

Wow, thanks for pointing that out, answers my question of what camera to get next!

Why do people here pretend fuji are a good choice?

>>3006385
just ignore these idiots and their bait replies. Maybe someday they will grow out of their insecurities.

>>3006385
It's hard to explain. You really need to hold and use, then you get just get it.

The really weird thing is no amount of measurebaiting and testing v Sony has made me change my mind. I just seem to be allergic to them, and between the controls and little touches like the viewfinder DoF scale and petty weirdnesses like Sony only showing the histogram in isolation from all the other evf data I just can't be arsed to consider anything else. Not as much DR, processing that requires you to dump Adobe, the flash system, bit overpriced...doesn't seem to matter.

There's an aesthetic difference to the files as well bit that really is a personal preference. If you like a clinical, sharp look and know how to tame the colours then definitely Sony, though I'd wait for gen 3 now.

>>3006390
Didn't answer my question though?
How can a company survive pumping out inferior products at 5 times the price of its rival?
Is this why x mount is failing so badly?

You would have at least thought they would slip adobe a bit of dosh so at least popular software works with their product?

>>3006392
>5x the price
mmmhhhmmm

3-4 month waiting list for XT2 since release, so someone's buying them.

>>3006402
The fuck are you talking about loser?
The xt2 is in stock in many shops in UK, america and aus. And the stock limitations for any non canon body since 2016 are down to the kumamoto earthquake affecting sonys production of sensors, not fuji being unable to physically make them fast enough.

the sony 70-200 GM on the other hand... Or even any of the Sony GM lenses, or the batis range, good luck getting one!

And yes, 5 times the price for lenses
>>3006363

nearly 3 times the price for body
A6000 - £500, xt2 - £1400

3 times the price for hss ttl flash
godox v860ii hss gn60 li-ion radio trigger - £150
Fuji GN 50 hss ttl flash - £450

>>3006410
All 3rd party cherry picks and a comparison between a 3 year old body and a brand new one. Desperate m8.

>>3006427
I went for the A6000 as it's the closest spec wise.

And you seemed to miss the point where NO Fuji lens outresolved the sigma trio

>>3006410
You are an idiot. You've literally scrapped the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality and compared it against Fuji accessories, where with all due respect, no one actually buys.

Fuji Cameras and lenses are superb, but the accessories are over priced as fuck.

No one actually buys the official stuff, and always opts for 3rd party alternatives.

>>3006438
>opts for 3rd party alternatives
There are no 3rd party lenses being made for fuji, unless you want to go fully manual in current year

>scrapped(sic) the bottom of the barrel
The equivalent sony flash is only 250 quid

Please, if you can turn the tables and show that economically fuji can compete with Sony, then do so.

>>3006458
Bought a XT10 brand new for £450 and the 23mm f1.4, brand new on Ebay for £380

Total, of 830 for a killer system that takes incredible pictures.

>>3006429
Charts?

>>3006429
Based on what? One amateur source? On different systems that are not directly comparable? Fuck off

>>3006429
Xt2 beats the shit out of a6000 you insufferable fag. Also, learn the fucking difference between a fast and slow prime and their advantages. Jesus fuck what an annoying kid.

God fucking damnit Fuji.
You're going to give me an aneurysm if you put the SAME shitty, blurry lens one ONE MORE x100 camera. When are we going to get a new lens that doesn't look like a 1960's leica glow advertisement when focused less than a meter away? What the fuck is this shit and why do you think it's okay to ask these insanely ludicrous prices for such an old, medicore lens and modified version of a totally average and not spectacular sensor?

You must be spending some $500 on the OVF system alone even to ballpark a realistic price for these components. And most people don't even prefer it!

>>3006506
>xt2 beats the shit out of a6000
>same sensor
A6500 has ibis, so that's clearly unfair

>learn2lens
Why does the sigma outresolve the fuji 60mm macro then? Lol, rekt, noob XD

>>3006513
I've never used one but I heard the lens was quite good. Is it actually shit?

File: desperate2.jpg (440KB, 1700x811px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1700x811px

>>3006514
Wow great argument fagtron you sure convinced me with those hot opinions. Here you go some charts so you can sleep at ease tonight.

>>3006518
GJ. For a second there I thought you were actually going to make a relevant point.

>>3006517
It's nice at a distance, but the resolution drops very rapidly as it focuses away from infinity.

>>3006520
You dont see a point i was making?

>>3006524
No Fuji, no point.

File: IMG_0849.jpg (4MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 6000x4000px

Does seem like a nice lens though

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:24 17:47:58
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	2.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

Actually, check out the whole Flickr group, really puts things in perspective in terms of what the rest of the world thinks photography is about.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma60f28dn/pool/

File: C05F5BBA-E6A3-411F-A05D-E9F1C3A4A5A7-1156-0000019E43A9C517_tmp.png (16KB, 745x371px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 745x371px

My god I'm bored. The Sigma inches it, but I'm still not getting one.

>>3006536
what the fuck is this stupid pictures

more CHARTS
MORE GEARTALK
NO PICTURES

>>3006540
Thanks mang, wtf was I thinking!

>>3005990
No the X100F has like 400 phase detects retard

>>3006351
You wouldn't, but that's (presumably) what the guy I replied to was referring to when he said "no flash," since there's no difference between Fuji and any other system when using manual flash.

>>3006517
I had the OG X100 for a while and loved the lens. I didn't shoot below 1m very often, though, and the original 12MP sensor wouldn't show issues as easily as the newer ones.

>>3006518
>comparing lens image resolution on differently sized and pixel pitched sensors

give me one good reason to not buy the xt20 on release day

how much does the sony lad get paid to shit talk fuji?

>>3006785
Must be a lot. Everytime theres a fuji thead he shits it up with 1/3rd of posts about sony.

>>3006782
>>3006785
>>3006791
I'll stop when fuji users agree that x mount products are objectively inferior to e mount products.

>>3006792
you either have severe autism or are paid to do this.

you should be fired tho your ramblings turned me off sony.

>>3006791
I thought I was going crazy, but it's the same guy. There doesn't even have to be a Fuji thread, any mention of the brand and he goes into a mouth foaming frenzy. What a fucking sad autist.

That being said, after this thread dies, I'll start Fuji threads just like the gear ones.

Serious though, is there any reason to not get the xt20 on release? Sonyboy if you can provide evidenced arguments then I will consider it. With links not just lol fuji has no lenses lol adobe lol because that stuff is a blatant lie

>>3006806
Serious reply:
I'd not consider it if I already have a predecessor, otherwise I would in a hearbeat.

Also muh EVF, it's not as big as the XT-2.

File: usoCuVl.jpg (905KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 2048x1152px

>>3006795
Yeah, we had a few good Fuji threads over last spring/summer. They also had significantly less sony shitposting too.

>>3006870
Such a pity, I've had nothing but joy from my XT-10.

What's up, fags--

How come I can't do anywhere near as good in Darktable as the x-pro2 internal processing software? I mean, I'd like to crop and rotate and apply some curves (and like, fuck them pleb-tier SOOC JPEGs, right), but apparently Fuji's software has some special sauce that Darktable doesn't.

That, and the lens correction bullshit that the camera does and Darktable doesn't.

WHY haven't they announced an X-E3 yet? I've had an xpro, xe1, and xt1 and out of all three I liked the XE best (though the back screen was rather bad). The XE is the best compromise of size, form, and aesthetics for me. Xt1 was great but desu I just don't like SLR style cameras. Also it's a great intro body, better than an XT-10/20 imo

>>3006919
darktable is shit. photoshop is the best in terms of noise control, etc. even better than LR

>>3006806
Some people might want that weather sealing.
Perhaps for some it'd be a downgrade in viewfinder magnification.
I know for me the XT20 is attractive, but the lack of weather sealing kills that option.

>>3006945
X-E1 announced SEPT 2012
X-E2 announced OCT 2013
X-E2s announced JAN 2016

I think, from quick Googling.
If we do not take the X-E2s as a major increment, then the X-E3 is indeed long overdue.
Interesting that the release process is X-Pro 2 > XT-2 > X-T20 > X-E3

>>3006958
What is the definition of weather sealing? Like torrential rain, or just misty rain ?

I took my XT10 to iceland and it was this shitty drizzle rain on some days, camera was fine.

>>3006991
A well weather sealed camera can be submerged to it's own depth in water or dust and be used in that condition. I.e., em1 with pro line lens.
Not that you should use your camera underwater, but it means that your multi-thiusand dollar camera will perform in all circumstances without falter, which (even though you deserve this as standard at this price) is extremely useful to anyone who wants to photograph in conditions that would cause wear or risk damage to a camera like an xt10.

Just don't be fooled by cheap weather sealed cameras that feature "simplified" designs. These are hardly better than standard non wr designs.

>>3006991
Now that I recall, the V-22 Osprey dude had a X-T10 that could take some hot shit and was mostly fine
I suppose the marketing speak is getting to me too much
But yeah, in monsoon season here it can torrent pretty hard, and I'd like to be in that sometimes.
But maybe a bag will suffice.

>>3006994
>>3007000

Well I can tell you straight away I'm a bit of a pussy and I baby my camera since it's my money on the line.

>>3006267
GFX will be able to take the same 67 lenses with an adapter. Not including a leaf shutter in their lenses makes them cheaper and still allows for leaf shutter lenses to be used

>>3007000
He had an xt1 unless we're thinking of different people.
>>3007012
I take care of my camera too. It's just too expensive and fragile to throw around. How stupid would it be if I had to buy a new body because I was using it outside of it's rated capabilities? If it were a Pentax DSLR, or even a Canikon DSLR, it would ve a different story.

On bad days, I just use one of those cheap, indestructable water/shock/freeze/dust proof point and shoots.

File: Sony-Fuji.jpg (128KB, 700x390px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 700x390px

>>3007111

>GFX

It is massive though.

I'd rather spend a little more and get the Hasselbad that is smaller than the a7.

>>3007124
>It is massive though.
What's it look like against a gripped DSLR, no point in comparing it to toy cameras

>>3007124
Videos showing people holding it makes it seem it's no bigger than a DSLR. Plus it's a mirrorless MF, can't blame them really.

>>3007113
I doubt I will ever be in the mud or torrential rain taking pictures with the XT10.

It's literally the perfect travel camera though, especially in cities and the sort. I have the 23mm f1.4 and that combo is fantastic.

>>3006008
a-at least it won't overheat like a sony r-right?

>>3006272
it can compete with hipster tax though.

>>3006530
sharpest lens that is not $1000 but the sony 50 1.8 is preferable for the OSS and full pdaf support.

Since this seems to be the current Fuji thread, gonna ask here.

About to upgrade my X-T10 to an X-Pro 2 in the near future. For lenses I only have the XF27mm f2.8 that I've liked a lot, but wondering if I should sell that and get the XF23mm f2 as well. Having two lenses with such a similar focal length doesn't really make sense to me.

Usage would be street photography snapshits.

>>3007364
I like 18 for street, and pretty much everything else (except portraits). The extra DoF at a given aperture is really handy for prefocussing. That said 23 is probably your best bet as a single lens compromise FL.

>>3007384
>18

How do you like it?

I hear nothing but bad things about that lens. Suppose to be soft as fuck and slow as hell to autofocus.

>>3007364
I love my XT10, I have the 23mm f1,4, and it's sicc. But yeah, it might be a big difference to go to a range-finder style camera, the 23mm f2 might be a good choice but if thats going to be your only lens, how about the X100F ?

>>3007390
>>3007384

Not that dude, but the 18 is kind of junk sad to say. The 28 is also not great, I'd say they are the two weakest lenses.

>>3007394

I hear the earlier 35 (1.4?) was also pretty tertible.

>>3007395
Apparently it's ok, but irrelevant next to the 35 f2, speaking of which, prices have gone up on that lens by £30 on Amazon...

>>3007384
I like 28mm equivalent too, but got that covered already with a GR. So 35mm equivalent would be the main lens and later on I'll add either the 14mm or the 16mm.

>>3007392
I still want to be able to switch lenses, I use some adapted stuff from time to time. RF is actually more my thing than the SLR look of the X-T's.

Still haven't really found any good comparisons between the 27mm and 23mm f2, but AF seems to be a LOT faster on the 23mm which is already something I would want. The 27mm is kind of slow and noisy.

>>3007395
It's actually really, really good IQ wise. At least I liked it. But the AF is really not great and it was too tele for me, so I switched to the 27mm f2.8 and have had an absolute blast with it. That's why I'm a bit torn on upgrading to the 23mm f2, because I've liked the 27 so much.

>>3007394
If by 28 you mean the 27, I really can't say anything bad about the image quality. I'm pretty sure it was tested as Fuji's sharpest lens at some point actually.

>>3007394
I'd say they're both somewhat underrated, and I haven't used the 18 on anything but an xpro1, so not sure about af on a new body (100% back button/ manual for me), but the rendering seems great, quite warm, good colours.

I believe most of the concerns online are about corner sharpness (mine seems fine but ymmv).

>>3007390
See
>>3007410

Should I get a used X-T1 or the new X-T20?

The new X-T20 looks tempting

>>3005990
contrast isn't always bad, panasonic's DFD system is pretty decent

>>3007395
The 35mm F1.4 has better detail and doesn't suffer from the softness at close focus that the new 35mm F2 does.

>>3007861
Do you want weathersealing and huge viewfinder vs new sensor/processor and performance

File: dscf5188-copy~2-2400x894.jpg (509KB, 2400x894px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 2400x894px

>>3007395
>>3007397
>>3007399
>>3007904

It's trash even next to canons nifty fifty, a lens famous for being crap. Check the gross oof areas and ca.

>>3008036
I knew this thread was missing something. Welcome back mang!

File: Bildschirmfoto-2017-01-21-um-08.48.11.png (147KB, 700x247px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 700x247px

>>3007233

>FF, a toy

Top Kek.

Anyway, I will do you one better.

>GFX compared to another medium format camera

Thing is fucking massive.

>>3008449
The Holga is a medium format toy. What's your point?

>>3008453

>Holga

wut

>>3008551
He's calling the hassleblad a holga as many tend not to consider it a serious, working professional's medium format body. More of an "a7 step up" than a tool designed for daily professional/business use.

It's a great camera don't get me wrong, I would shoot with a free habblesad any day.

>>3008449
>Thing is fucking massive.

It is not that much bigger than A7

aaaand

it is very well balanced because of weight being shifted backwards.

File: Bildschirmfoto-2017-01-21-um-08.45.08.jpg (173KB, 700x554px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 700x554px

>>3008562

It is too deep.

But even so it is an interesring camera. I wonder how good the Fuji MF glass is. Their x-mount is quite pitiful, especially when you take their price into consideration. So hopefully these will be good.

>>3008566
Here you go again, comparing toys to tools. You'll never buy a gfx, why the fuck are you so butthurt. Also anyone actually working with fuji stuff knows most of their glass is awesome, you come across a fucking imbecile claiming otherwise.

>>3008568

>most of their glass is awesome

If you like soft lenses that are slow to autofocus, they absolutely are.

>>3008036
are you gunna provide any sources or anything why an xt2 and xt20 are a waste of money but an a7 isnt?

>>3006806>>3006806>>3006806>>3006806
cmon bro. btw looks like the settings are different between those photos.

>>3008572
>prove your claims

either you should be fired from sony or your therapist fired for leaving you this brokebrained dude.

>>3008578

Check out:
>>3008036

And
>>3008079
>>3008080
>>3008082
>>3008083

>inb4 goalposts start moving

>>3008580
your claim is that it is inferior in every single way. screenshots do not do a test justice. your first image has no source and who knows what you did with it. just looking at it, the settings appear different. the goalposts dont need to shift if you cant kick the ball.

here is your chance to actually convince me to buy a sony. so far you are doing a horrid job, you are being a sarcastic shit, making wild claims, and not actually doing much

>>3008587
Its really fucking sad that the bin shot isn't even his, and like every other so-called "comparison shot" ever created, it has literally no redeeming aesthetic qualities (and it's technically incompetent).

Like you say, who the fuck knows what was or wasn't done to it.

>>3008577
You on crack mateo? Your words don't match the links.

>>3008578
I have proved that claim, every review site that's done fuji and sony, sony have come out miles on top, imaging resource, photozone, dxo.

>>3008587
>who knows what you did to it
Do a reverse image search on it you clam handed simpleton.

And no, the goalposts weren't moved.

>doing a horrible job

If that's what you call being presented proof that sony has objectively better results.

But you're being a dumbass, do you think ANY 135 film camera and lens combination gives better image quality than any professional medium format setup? That's what it's like listening to people defend crop sensors. Yeah they have their uses in sports, wildlife and soccermomming, but that's it. And that's before you get into fujis no lenses, flash, ibis, ergonomics, lifespan, resale value, etc. Xpro 1's now go for well under £200, while a nex 7 will still cost nearly double that, because it doesn't have a dead mount.

>>3008587
That's a Sonygger for you.

>>3008594
It's a lens test, why does it need aesthetics?
It shows;
Foreground bokeh
Background bokeh
Ca
Sharpness

If you read the article you would know they're untouched from their raws.

And please, please, do tell how they're technically incompetent, it's like the fifth time I've asked and every time you go and hide and don't say anything.

>>3008595
Why is every one of your posts like nails scraping down a blackboard?

In months of shitposting you've persuaded absolutely no one that you're anything other than a fucking demented shrew.

You are not a photographer. We just don't care what you think.

>>3008599
They are blown the fuck out, and only the truly mediocre would post something like this and then have it picked up by an idiot like you and touted as definitive proof of his fucking agenda.

>>3008595
its not my responsibility to get the links here

So far you still havent given me anything. My own research on the matter told me fuji has all the lenses I may need. Show me where the lenses are lacking. Address the fact you can't actually link to anything
>begs the question, is there any actual proo

>>3008599
accusing others of hiding is cute. what fucking article bro.

File: Untitled.png (144KB, 1075x546px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1075x546px

If you read the article you would know they're untouched from their raws.

Do a reverse image search on it you clam handed simpleton.

>>3008600
Lol, nice rebuttal, it's hard not to feel like you've won an argument when your opposition ends up going full ad hominem and ignoring the content of the conversation all together. Why don't you go have a sit down and a nice cup of tea.

>>3008601
It's not blown, even if the sky was blown it would still be correctly exposed because the bin is the subject, not the sky, a good tip for working out what the subject is, is to look for what's in focus.

It's a decent post directly comparing fujis "normal" lens with the competition in all it's forms, the VERY cheap shit performance canon, the cheaper than the fuji sony and the benchmark. It's clear to see that fuji lose quite drastically thanks to its loca and nervous bokeh, it's kinda to be expected, image quality looks better on longer lenses, you get longer lenses on bigger sensors.

>>3008606
>>3008607
Open wide so daddy can spoonfeed you
https://photosbyjohnathan.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/sony-50mm-f1-8-fe-vs-zeiss-55mm-f1-8-za/

>>3008609
>https://photosbyjohnathan.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/sony-50mm-f1-8-fe-vs-zeiss-55mm-f1-8-za/

yeah so confirmed that the source has a darker image for the fuji than the sony. its not a review of the fuji,honestly looks like you had to handpick something where the dude didnt take much care as to what he was doing with the fuji because it wasn't the core of the review.

The insults are just pushing me further and furhter away from buying a sony. Insulting me just makes you look flustered, like you are scrambling for anything, something, to chuck out that just might maybe stick. No beuno.

File: aligned.jpg (63KB, 700x229px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 700x229px

>>3008613

>pushing me away from buying a fuji

kek

Stop trying to false flag, we already know you are a fujicuck. No other reason for ignoring evidence and defending Fuji so blindly.

>>3008609
i should add your link ends up saying the lenses are overpriced compared to canikon, which is pretty lol when you are shilling for sony.

Howd you pass the job interview bro?

>>3008609
You're a fey, chinless, banal, underachieving,parasitic faggot. I have no interest in rebutting anything your fetid little mind can come up with, I just enjoy coming up with creative ways of telling you to fuck off.

Fuck off, fuck off, fuck off.

>>3008616
My gear amounts to a 600d, with a 24mm, a 55-250, and the kit lens. I have no allegiance to fuji.

You havent given any evidence whatsoever. Really doubling down on the scrambling to find something that sticks aren't you bud. Take a few minutes, collect yourself, come back with a serious argument as to why you should buy a sony.

>>3008618

>being so salty about your brand sucking you resort to rather unimaginative name calling

>>3008620
That's it? Jesus wept man, show some fucking spirit.

>>3008613
>implying his level of care or a half stop difference in exposure will drastically change the lens' characteristics.

Grasp onto those straws matey.

>insulting me makes you look flustered

Nah, being wrong and having nothing to back up your argument makes you look flustered. "quick, imply their emotional state as opposed to addressing the item of conversation", kek, you mad son.

>>3008616
>dat photo
>hey sony, we can make a camera and lens as small as you, no, we don't care it's objectively inferior in every other way

I'm ded.

>>3008617
But canikon have no equivalent of the 55 1.8 and 28 2, which were massive draws for me.

>>3008618
>fey
We're all destined to die, or are you saying I'm a fairy?
>chinless
Then what holds up my beard?
>banal
Then why are you so riveted to my conversation
>underachieving
I have everything i want, a cosy home, a loving partner, a steady income. I've achieved all i want. Sorry you're not happy in your life.
>parasitic
The definition of parasitic is offering nothing back to the host, but i offer you my wisdom, so it's more symbiotic
>faggot
Only when fucking my gf in the ass

>fetid little mind
1. How can you smell my brain?
2. I need the furthest 2 connectors on baseball caps, it's actually exceptionally large, not that it necessarily has a direct effect on intelligence.

So, that was the creative way to tell me to fuck off eh? Seemed more an exercise in your limited vocabulary and christmas thesaurus.

>>3008626
That was another anon calling you out, noob.

>>3006159
>"pro" camera with that autofocus and basically zero lens ecosystem

all my keks @ fuji fanbois

>>3008630
And no flash

>>3008629
It was fun while it lasted, nice breakdown.

>>3008630
Maybe we don't CARE about having every feature, they're still better cameras than sony shit.

>>3008632
>nice breakdown
Nice? He obliterated that dumb betch.

>>3008634
Lol that was me. Clearly neither of gives a fuck so it's all good.

>>3008629
you've failed to post any evidence
>hence flustered

Wow you're all fucking retarded.

>>3008640
It's the only sane choice in an insane world.

>>3008637
>>3008580
Noob

So in this thread we have:
>sonyggers posting two sources saying fuji lenses are bad
>fujicucks calling them liars but not posting any sources to the contrary

Leads me to believe there isn'tany sources comparing fuji and sony image quality where fuji comes out ahead..

im not a fuji cuck. Im asking this dude for a solid reason to not by fuji next week and he cant do it

We're just a bunch of fanatics who, to quote Winnie, can't change our minds and won't change the subject.

It's the zero sum game writ large, unless you use both systems.

>>3008649
Photozone, imaging resource, dxo all imply that sony are pretty unbeatable.

Fuji users keep ignoring this post.

>>3008650
They're objectively better in every way, as I've said and explained 100 times over

Sensor
Lenses
Flash
Ibis
3rd party support
Ergonomics
Lifespan
Resale value
Choice
Budget options
Professional options
Tethering
Complete compatibility with all software


You can turn a blind eye again, if you want.

Or try to list all the things fuji is objectively better at... I'll be waiting.

>>3008653
you havent though. you keep saying you have but you've posted 1 link that said sony was overpriced compared to canikon

>>3008653
>list of things fuji are objectively better at

Jpegs sooc that don't need editing
Image quality
Low light performance
Aesthetics
Usability
Fine detail
Brand heritage

>>3008653
>list of things fuji are objectively better at

Jpegs sooc that don't need editing
Image quality
Low light performance
Aesthetics
Usability
Fine detail
Brand heritage

They're ahead on AF as of now, but gen3 Sony will probably change that.

Sony overall is more expensive, and you have to like the way they render, though that's not an objective measure.

Lots of the features like ibis and a stop more dr are great IF you're shooting in particular situations, but in good light, or light you control I really doubt it matters.

On the software front you need to use photoninja to get max detail from the sensor, but that's just workflow and a marginal cost increase.

On the other hand they feel way more responsive than Sonys, don't have weird lag, don't overheat, don't eat stars in Astro exposures over 30 seconds, have controls that you can adjust without looking at a screen, and look awesome.

Just lists, and both cams have been used to take awesome pictures, not that you'd know that from reading this thread :)

>>3008657
>>>3008653
>>list of things fuji are objectively better at
>Jpegs sooc that don't need editing

True.

But RAW is do much more flexible it doesn't make any sense to shoot .jpeg.

>Image quality

False, just go to dpreview and compare. The only moderatly sharp lens is the 56mm.

>Low light performance

False.

>Aesthetics

True. But a camera is a tool, not an art peice. This is irrelevant. In fact, the a7 series looking more like a professional camera is an advantage for anyone shooting professionaly.

>Usability

Debatable. Somewhat true for earlier models.

>Fine detail

Flat out wrong. So much is lost due to the soft lenses and non$optional noise reduction.

>Brand heritage

For film, not so much digital.

>>3008660
>On the software front you need to use photoninja
they released iridient x-transformer like two weeks ago, so all your raf files are converted to dng's on transfer and you have the best possible details on Adobes package.

>>3008660
Also apart from the Sony 35 1.4, which is ridonculously huge, Fuji lenses tend to be a stop faster, so it's a wash on narrow DoF and ff ISO advantage (assuming you ignore the dpr test scene results, which show the a7ii (I'm discounting the rii & sii cos of price) having some pretty fugly noise above ISO 3200 (or from, depending on your tolerance). "Fuji cheats at ISO" is a moot point because all the scenes have their brightness equalised, and if you go really deep into the discussion on that subject you find out that it's got more to do with how they set the grey point to preserve highlights than anything else. Sadly we never get beyond the kindergarten analysis in these threads.

>>3008661
>dpreview
problem with Fuji reviews is that all of the review sites, they all use either ACR or sooc to justify the mtf resolution, which obviously gives worse results than lets say if they used Iridient. Lets say the Fujis 90mm lens. Some sony shitposters say oh they advertise it as the sharpest fuji lens but its still softer than this or that. But I am 100% confident, that, if I tweaked the raws from that lens myself and posted online and compared to other 90mm lenses, i could literally btfo all of them.

>>3008663
Good point, so scratch another pro Sony argument. Not to mention you need to be just as careful with Sony files in adobe to avoid the urine tint effect (not a big thing, and you only need to set up a profile once to avoid it, or use C1).

>>3008656
>ignores imaging resource screenshots comparing lenses
>ignores sony being at the top of dxo lenses and bodies
>ignores bin photo showing fuji can't make a normal lens with good rendering
>ignores photozone tests showing no fuji lens outresolves the £100 sigma dn range
>ignores physical features like sensor size and ibis

>but you have no proofs sonymang

>>3008657
Objectively wrong about;
Image quality
Low light performance
Fine detail

Subjective matters, so wrong again on
Aesthetics
Usability
Brand heritage

It's almost like fuji users are intrinsically dumb.

>>3008660
>more responsive
Sony evf lag is 23ms, good human reactions are 230ms, i can only find a measurement from the first series of fuji and that's about 0.3 seconds, or about 13 times longer than sony.
>don't overheat
Has anyone ever used a fuji for video?
>don't eat stars
Sonys don't anymore
>have controls you can adjust without looking at a screen
Because i want to look at the top of my camera when taking photos...

>just workflow
Because I'm sure every pro wants to have to run all their shots through a crumbly pos software first just to get acceptable sharpness? Lol

>ibis isn't necessary in good light
Nor is a tripod you mongoloid.

>sony is overall more expensive
A7ii cheaper than xpro2 or xt2
Fuji cheapest af lens - £300
Sony cheapest af lens - £100, which also outresolves every fuji lens ever. Also can use every canon lens in full auto
Fuji flash - £450
Sony flash - £70 to £300
Fuji resale value - fuckall
Sony resale value - average

CAN you spend more on sony, sure, they have proper professional equipment. That's like arguing ikea is more expensive than habitat because they sell 5k solar panels.

>>3008663
>my overpriced camera relies on honky software made by one dude in his shed
What are you doing with your life

>>3008669
>fuji iso lies
It's an arbitrary value, theres only one reason to set it differently to every other mfg, and that's to deceive people.

>>3008671
Exactly.

>>3008687
But fuji are known for their sooc jpegs, sony are known for how bad theirs are, surely fuji should pull ahead here. But they don't.

you literally have sent 1 link

everything else is air

>>3008685
Reductionist / cherry picked arguments and a few ad homs (which I thought you were above).

Still not sold, and not understanding why setting up the cam without bringing it to your eye is a feature tells me everything I need to know about you as a photographer.

Enjoy your armchair.

>>3008679
>having to run your files through another piece of software first is as good as them working out of the box.

And if you glue a vibrator to the lens you get image stabilisation right?

>>3008696
>>3008580
There's more links for you, so that's photozone and imaging resource, I'm pretty sure i dont need to give you a link to dxos lens tests listed by score or sharpness, you can find that on your own.

>>3008698
Ive asked plenty of times for fuji users to give reasons as to why their not inferior, but so far the closest you've got is "it's got good jpegs" which we quickly discovered no one cared about.

>>3008704
Your vibrator joke doesn't work.

>>3008689
they are known to be good in colors, contrast, etc. All sooc jpeg from all manufacturers are always softer in detail than their raw counterparts. Come on man.

>>3008704
DXO hate Fuji, so god knows what's up there.

>>3008685
jesus christ this comment. Sony is proud of you goyim.

Also >>3008664 says it all. If these are the kind of results you're after then have at it, but there's no way in hell I'd pay for this ultra digital, weirdly toned look.

>>3008707

>DXO hate Fuji

Actually they hate shit lenses.

But I guess that is the same thing.

>>3008713
they cant or wont work with xtrans, so what are they even testing them with?

>>3008716

Not every Fuji body is x-trans. The lenses still suck on their bayer bodies.

>>3008718
so you claim, but as their lens database gives a nil return for fuji you'll have to provide a link, and if it's to a test on a 16mp cam then it's objectively flawed given all the sony's are tested on 42mp - also please tell me you're aware of all the counter arguments re. DXO methodology.

>>3008704
screenshots dont count i literally already said this.

you are just a shill. still just throwing shit at the wall till it sticks. or the wall crumbles under the weight. seriously dude drop the snark, provide objective evidence the sony is better, ill tripfag and buy one.

>>3008719
>Fuji whines that it's not fair
STILL DOESN'T PROVIDE A LINK TO COUNTER THE POINT MADE.

>>3008721
why don't screenshots count?
They're at 100%, if you're that adamant that it makes a difference, go find the images on IR, save them and present them however you like.

The fuji results will always suck ass next to the sony ones, because they're worse.

>>3008723
you're the shill not me. how hard is it to understand. stop being a cunt, stop being a bitch, prove the shit you saying, dont say "oh but you go get the links". prove sonys better objectively

>>protip: if you havent by now it implies you can not.

>>3008722
so to summarise, there are in fact no DXo tests for Fuji lenses?

>>3008726
Dude, he's posted the links plenty of times, you're making us look a little dumb now.

>>3008728
Huh, I wonder why that is?

>>3008736
Hi poopchute

File: Untitled-1.jpg (199KB, 1219x1275px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1219x1275px

>>3008726
DXO, IR and photozone are the only sites I know that do objective based testing. All 3 favour the Sony, you don't need to be spoonfed links to get this information.

But if you want a laugh at fujis expense on ANOTHER website, check out how the 35mm edges don't get sharp until f8. And how the equivalent Sony lens is sharp at the edges by f2. Is this those famously "overspec" lenses at work again, kek.

[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	2017:01:24 12:29:20
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1219
Image Height	1275

>>3008738
if true, looks like he finally choked out on his own fantasy.

>>3008741
m8, wtf is this???

if you seriously think this is a comparison then fine, enjoy life with the awesomest camera in the world, keep repeating it in this thread and every other one you can find that triggers you, and just generally feel great about yourself.

Peace man, may the muses always stand at your shoulder.

File: Untitled-2.jpg (497KB, 2560x1410px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 2560x1410px

>>3008741
And if that's not enough, from that ssame site I took the samples from Sony's 2 cheapest lenses and Fuji's 2 most expensive. As you can see the Fuji's need to be stopped down to f5.6 to get sharp at the edges, whereas the Sony's manage effortlessly by f4.

Why the fuck do fuji have a $2000 f1.2 that doesn't get sharp until f5.6?

>inb4 "no that's not valid testing either because x reason"

[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	2017:01:24 12:38:38
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1410

>>3008745
>wtf is this
photographyblog.com comparing the centre and edge performance of lenses at different apertures.

What did you think it was?

>>3008741
>>3008746
Lol, get rekt Fuji, how are you going to words out of this one?

>>3008705
This
>>3008706
Level
>>3008707
Of
>>3008708
Saltiness
>>3008709
Makes
>>3008719
You
>>3008721
Look
>>3008726
Really
>>3008745
Jealous

>>3008747
Don't you think they should at least compare the same part of the image, or be scaled properly?

if I had to guess they look about the same from 2.8, but I can't really tell from this example, and I'd rather you just felt you we're right...we've been at this for hours!

>>3008754
>Shouldn't the tests be 100% equal
in an ideal world, yes, but this is the best the internet has to offer.

>we've been at this for hours
and every test has shown Sony to come out on top.

All I'm asking is for an example where Fuji unquestionably do better.

>>3008755
So what if fuji don't outperform sony in laboratory tests, it has zero relevance in the real world. Take photos, not test charts.

Anyone else buying this one when it comes out on the 16th of February ?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01NCVN74T?ie=UTF8&tag=marketorder-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=B01NCVN74T

>>3008772
Oh yes. But body only.

>>3008772
>2 year old sensor
>ridiculous price
>no lenses
>no ibis
>fucking terrible af compared to a6500

Lol, no.

>>3008786
>sony
>still can't record continuous 4k
>trashed by MFT in 2017
Kek

File: DSC00199.jpg (361KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1000x1500px

this thread aaaAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Capture One 9 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:23 11:42:49
Image Created	2016:07:23 11:42:49
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	3.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Image Width	4000
Image Height	6000
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

Let's say I want to dick around with the Fuji ILC system for fun while keeping costs low.
In terms of used bodies, which ILC is the one to get?
X-Pro1? X-E2/S?
??? other

>>3008933
>dat extreme haloing
Straight to the trash. Learn to expose properly, lad

>>3008741
is this a comparison between a $1500 & a $500 lens?

>>3008943
I guess so, quality doesn't scale with price at all, no matter how many bins you take pictures of.

Sony status: Cucky McCuckerson III

All I've learned on this thread is that sonyboys are really annoying injecting their faggotry in every fucking thread and none of them seem to take any photos except of some charts. There's more to lens performance than just absolute sharpness. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the images.
That one guy seems to claim that there's no flashes on Fuji? Like the nissin i40 for some 150€? wtf. And those hot garbage sigma lenses that are only sharp in the middle are somehow magically sharper than anything Fuji has made? Puh-lease. Also, they don't cover full frame, morons, it's pointless to bring them up when talking about FE mount system. And what good is a compact body when most of the FE lenses are gigantic in size?

Look up lenstip.com if you want comprehensive analysis of lenses (there's not much about Sony lenses tho).

Jesus Christ, people, none of this even matters at all. All of the new gear is incredibly good and none of you (us) take full advantage from them anyway.

>>3008959
But you can't get this through a sonyggers thick skull, most people with a fuji could give less of a fuck if a bin looks marginally better on a $1,500 lens. It's just one faggot that keeps infecting every fuji thread with his salty faggotry.

Fuji threads will continue after this one, I'll make sure of it.

>>3008746
>Why the fuck do fuji have a $2000 f1.2 that doesn't get sharp until f5.6?

It's a portrait lens, moron. But you wouldn't know what that means 'cause you only fap to mtf charts. It's around $1000 btw. Similar Sony Gaymaster 85 isn't much better optically, yet that shit costs $1800.

Jesus christ if I ever for some reason decide to buy a Sony, I'm not telling anyone. I'd feel too ashamed.

>>3008971
Honestly, this.

File: sonyposters.png (58KB, 688x798px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 688x798px

fresh oc

>>3008971
This desu, except I have a Sony now and still feel
well, not necessarily shame, but just disgust for what the brand can fester

Sonyboy you actually had a chance to convince someone to buy a sony camera, kinda sad this is the best you can do.

>>3008968
That pic is from the apd version, $1500 on bh right now. And that same website has the sony 85mm gm, it gets sharp corners by f2. It will also happily outresolve the 42mp ff sensor, no fuji lens out resolves their new sensor.

If fuji built there lenses to a decent spec they wouldn't have these issues.

>>3009361
Duuuude. Please don't waste another day trolling this thread. Life's too short. U kno dis.

>>3009362
The kiddies need to know the truth, they're old enough now.

>>3009399

You are pissing into the wind, broski.

You are talking to brainwashed fujikucks and paid shills. No matter how much evidence you post, they wont be swayed.

Might as well save you breath and let them have this echo chamber thread.

>>3009406
It is fun watching the fujicucks all stumble over each other trying to find fault with the methodology as opposed to finding results that don't show sony ruin them in every metric though.

>>3009408

Kind of amazing how they always find a way to invalidate the results, no matter how small or insignificant.

I wonder if they act like this on the real world? I'd hate to work with someone so close minded and delusional.

>>3009411
yeah, but usain bolt isn't the fastest runner in the world because mo farah can run a mile faster.

Tesla's actually use fossil fuels because some powerstations use fossilfuels

Sony don't produce the best lenses because every testing site is testing them incorrectly.

The mental gymnastics is outstanding.

>>3009399
>>3009406
>>3009408
>>3009411
>>3009413
You're missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter if some lens is marginally sharper at the corner at 100% magnification. No one's ever going to look your shitty pictures of trashcans in 100% and none of the subject is in focus in the corner at 1.2 anyway, or you're doing something very wrong. Let people spend their money on what they want. Why the fuck do you care so much to waste your time on this shit?

>>3006272
>It can't compete on size, considering they can't make a non ibis crop camera as small as an a7ij.

This is low quality bait

Fuji lenses are actually small and compact. Sony E-mount lenses are just A mount lenses with extension tubes, they're huge, negating the small body.

A fuji system is tiny.

>>3009543
>are just A mount lenses with extension tubes

Spot the guy that's never used sony mirrorless with native lenses.

File: sony-a7-v-fujifilm-x-e2-size-comparison.jpg (228KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1500x1125px

>>3009543

>fuji system is tiny

top kek

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	XQ1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:01:10 18:59:35
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.1
Brightness	0.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1125
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3009806
Show the actual height you double nigger

File: Sony-Alpha-7-II-vs-Fujifilm-X-T2-size-comparison.jpg (53KB, 720x366px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 720x366px

>>3009811

4mm higher, but 6mm less wide.

What is your end goal Sonyguy?

File: cPxPA.jpg (86KB, 592x591px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 592x591px

>>3009820

>>3009806
The Sony lens is also 2 stops slower, costs more, and isn't an equivalent field of view.

>>3009839

The equivalent fov is also larger, costs just as much as the Sony, and has inferior IQ. It is f2, though that is arguably negated by the ff sensor and ibis.

You could also get the 23mm f 1.4 fuji, but that is double the cost od the Sony.

>>3009855
What in the hell are you talking about?

The Fuji 23/2 is $450. The Sony is $700.

The 23/1.4 is $900 at full price. In no way is that "double the cost of the Sony." It's also $650 when Fuji is doing rebates and they have those every 2-3 months on average. (And for that matter, the 23/2 will probably have a $100 discount like the 35/2 got last month, so it'll be $350, exactly half the cost of the Sony)

>>3009860

Whoa that is U.S. pricing? Way better than here.

Sony is roughly $650 (it was down to 500 a few months ago), and the fuji's are $600 and $1200 respectively.

>>3009861
Oh shit that's insane. Yeah, those are US prices, and they're pretty much exactly the same at all the major US dealers. (B&H, Adorama, Amazon, Best Buy, etc.)

I paid $599 for my 23/1.4 and $699 for my 56/1.2 when I switched to Fuji last year, and they also included a 50-230 for free. From what I've seen the same stuff is actually cheaper in Japan or HK as well.

Those prices sound ridiculous. A big part of WHY I went with Fuji is because they were so much cheaper than an equivalent Sony system, even if I'd gone with Sigma lenses or similar. I actually traded a used Nikon system for a brand new Fuji setup. I suddenly understand why people complain about Fuji being overpriced if they live somewhere like that.

Where do you live? I'm amazed that Fuji is double the US price but Sony is actually cheaper there. Sony must have some kind of crazy import tax deal or something.

>>3009862

Japan actually, I was looking at a local shop. Seems I can find both Sony and Fuji cheaper through kakaku and the like. The Fuji's are on sale for $530 and $1040 at the japanese best buy equivalent. But the Sony is a ridiculous $740 there.

I am shocked at the Sony price in the states. It sorta seems Sony stopped caring about America. They don't even sell their cellphones their.

>>3009864
Oh wow that's nuts. I just checked Yodobashi's site and no kidding, 104k for the 23/1.4. The X-Pro2 is 215k as well, which is equally fucked up.

It's doubly weird because I've seen anons mentioning really amazing Fuji prices in Japan, one guy said he bought a brand new X-Pro2 for like 120k at one of the famous small Shinjuku or Nakano shops. Maybe the big camera dealers just have a horrible deal with Fuji and a really good one with Sony?

I also noticed that I could get the 1.4 right now from DigitalRev in HK for $769, so it's not just the US that has better pricing. That situation in Japan is seriously bizarre.

>>3009868

The prices are better on Kakaku but still not as good as the states.

Fuji just had a MAJOR sale during the holidays, major discounts and free lenses and stuff. Probably just going back to normal.

Yodobashi doesn't tend to do many discounts too, but you get 10% store credit on every purchase if you make a point card so for most things it evens out (though not in this case).

>>3009869
Actually I'm looking at Kakaku and the prices look pretty good, the lowest price on the 23 1.4 is 85,800 if I'm reading things right, which converts to quite a bit cheaper than US standard price and only a bit more than sale price. The Sony still wins there at 62k though.

That said my Japanese sucks and I don't know if those cheap retailers are legit or whatever, the only Japanese stores I know are the big ones in Akiba.

>>3009871

Yea, getting paid in yen, so converting to dollars just makes the price hurt even more for me.

Most of the Kakaku sites are fine, and Kakaku even has reviews for them. Still more likely to get free, and faster shipping (though slow shipping in Japan is like two day shipping) alongside better support from a big name shop (not to mention points! like once a year i accumulate enough to get a new lens or something).

Still, for a couple hundred dollar difference I'd give it a shot.

>>3009862
>went with fuji cos cheaper
Could have got sony 55mm and 28mm for the same price you paid

>>3009862

>A big part of WHY I went with Fuji is because they were so much cheaper than an equivalent Sony system

Yes, here in Japan they aren't cheaper.

It makes no sense to not go with Sony which has better lenses, better pricing, and better low-light performance (the big thing for me).

>>3009997
It would've had to be a 35 and an 85 for me, and those are much more expensive on Sony.

I already had an FF Nikon system with all the lenses I needed, so there would've been no point switching to Sony, all I would've gotten was a slightly smaller body. I switched for the small fast lenses, ergonomics, and x-trans meme magic.

>>3010023
> I switched for the small fast lenses, ergonomics, and x-trans meme magic.

>fast lenses
That don't get sharp until f5,6

>ergonomics
Even snapsort puts the Sony range of cameras a category higher than the fuji range for ergo. Thanks to having a grip, 3 custom dials and 9 custom buttons.

>xtrans meme magic
You mean you switched for jpegs? Because no software works well with the fuji raws.

If you did switch for the jpegs, then yeh, it makes sense for you, you're clearly looking for a fancy version of a point and shoot holiday camera, and that's fine :)

>>3010034

Not him, but if I was looking for a holiday jpeg snapshitter, I woulda gone for a6000 w/kit.

Dirt cheap, and good enough for snapshits.

File: canon85.jpg (48KB, 431x378px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 431x378px

>>3010034
and here we go again from the start
>fast lenses
yet theyre still fast. You cant expect a 1.2 fast lens to be dead sharp on the edges wide open you know. see example of one of the most loved lenses out there.
>ergonomics
x-t fujis have every single mechanical dial for your controls + 2 customizable dials front and back if you dont want to use top ones + 9 customizable buttons (2 were added in updates) + q quick menu + optional hand grips to suit your manhands
so yeah. it leaves your sony """"ergonomics""""" in a trashbin
>xtrans meme magic
again. I thought we were over this. use lightroom + x-transformer. Best detail resolve with your favourite editor. Also, enjoy your moire.

File: more_of_moire.jpg (80KB, 577x604px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 577x604px

>>3010046
heres moire comparison

File: Untitled-1.jpg (394KB, 2560x1410px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 2560x1410px

>>3010044
>You cant expect a 1.2 fast lens to be dead sharp on the edges wide open

You're correct, I'd expect them to be sharp within 2 stops of closing down though.

Why does the fuji need f4 to be as sharp at the edges, as Sony can manage by f2. AND it has to have an image circle that covers over double the surface area. If you could mount the Sony f1.4 lenses on xmount, they'd be sharp at the edges from wide open. Is this a famous example of Fuji's "overspec" lenses ;)

[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	2017:01:26 10:53:18
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1410

>>3010044
Oh, and the canon 1.2's gen i are trash on digital

>>3010046
Yo, why did you delete your last post Adomas Mockus?

>>3010049
yeah but, you know for a fact that you are comparing here a 1.2 to 1.8 lens? right?

>>3010050
so why are you not making comparisons of sony vs canon and make fun of them that they cant get their corners sharp with their overpriced $2000 lens???

>>3010050
also, how many 1.2 lenses in the world can you point to that have sharp corners?

>>3006521
isn't that true for any lens? rays even diverge once the object is within the focal length. so you're just saying the min. focal length is not suited to your purposes - doesn't mean it's a shitty lens.

>>3010034
I'm the guy you replied to. Just to clarify, >>3010046 isn't me.

I'm a working documentary photographer with a sideline in portraits. I have a substantial body of published work and for the last year I've shot it on Fuji.

Fuji's lenses are sharper than halftone magazine printing or web-sized photos can resolve. That's all that matters for me. They're also amply sharp for those purposes when shot in RAW and processed in LR, as long as you use appropriate settings. Much of my work these days is - and I know you'll sneer at this - published on corporate or media outlet Instagram accounts, and sharpness is irrelevant there, but color and the general "feel" of the image are very important, and Fuji provides that in spades.

The ergonomic issue is a prime example of why stat-based sites are worthless in many areas. Fuji's controls are fast, positive, and intuitively placed. Buttons, dials, and switches have clearly defined functions. The cameras feel good in the hands and held to the eye. They're easy to shoot one-handed. They carry easily and discreetly on a shoulder strap, even when equipped with an f/1.2 lens.

>>3010049
What the hell are you even going to shoot at f/1.2 or even f/2 where edge sharpness matters? I can't even find a photo in my library where the edges are in focus at an aperture larger than f/4. This is why this bickering is ridiculous, you're arguing over performance in situations that don't exist outside of test charts.

>>3010054
The Fuji 56mm f1.2 APD has a t value of 1.7
The Sony 85mm f1.4 has a t value of 1.5

The Sony is faster.

>>3010055
Canon are DSLR's this is about mirrorless :)

>>3010057
considering there is very limited f1.2 lenses to start with, it's a moot point. Sony's f1.4's not only let in more light than fujis 1.2, but they would also be sharp in the corners wide open on crop.

>>3010061
>The Sony is faster.
in terms of bokeh, yes. In terms of how much light travels through lens, nope.

>>3010063
that's not how transmission works noob.
transmission is a measure of how much light travels through, aperture is just a mathematical equation.

>>3010061
Where are you even getting these numbers? I can't find t-stop values anywhere.

>>3010064
What? Thats what im saying. 1.2 is still 1.2 and theres more light going through it than 1.4 DESPITE what the sensor size is

>>3010067

Why not use F0.95 M43 objectives then lol? You are arguing that spacial intensity is quantity.

>>3010120
because they dont cover the image of aps-c?

>>3010067
I think you may be misunderstanding T-stops. F-stops are a simple mathematical equation of focal length / diameter, while T-stops are an actual measurement of the light passing through the lens. This can be affected by coatings, types of glass used, and the optical layout, and two lenses of the same F-stop can have different T-stop values.

However, >>3010061 is referring to the 56 APD, not the normal 56 1.2. The APD is slower because it has an extra filter inside, which is designed to smooth bokeh but loses light in the process. The normal 56 1.2 does not have this filter, and while I can't find T-stop test values, it's essentially guaranteed to be at least as fast as the Sony. (I found one guy who said a Fuji rep told him it was 1.5, but that's not exactly reliable.)

It's also worth noting that the Sony is almost twice the size of the Fuji, over twice the weight, and nearly twice the price. (At least in the US, and the Fuji is actually less than half the Sony's price when rebates are going on.)

>>3010067
>lol, he still doesn't understand t values even after it's been spelt out for them.

>>3010131
>>3010061
Are you serious? Youre comparing a t value of APD lens versus a non APD lens? What if I put the fucking APD coat on your sony???? what then? Why not fucking put a triple ND filter on Fuji lens and then say "lol his fuji t value is of f/16"

i cant take your fucking autism anymore....

>>3010142
But, f1.2, as slow as sonys f1.8 because the bokeh was fugg ugly without apd
Sony's 1.8 would have sharp corners on crop from wide open and has much nicer bokeh throughout the range.

Like, lol, what are fuji even doing.

>>3009817
Do you realise the top picture and one you posted feature two different cameras you stupid fucking cunt?

>>3010171
You;re right bruh, the first picture is a slightly smaller Sony.

Oh well, i'll let you keep this one for team fuji, wooooo 4mm shorter! That's great!

>>3010121

Again, could you name any practical significance of higher speed alone? Except that sensors are not particularily favouring it: https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/F-stop-blues

>>3010180
So i can get good amounts bokeh on my crop camera.

File: ptsd.jpg (287KB, 1432x641px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1432x641px

>>3010164
>much nicer bokeh
you just dont give up do you....
just look at your ugly CA's of your superior sony 50 1.8
just look at your ugly bokeh on your superior zeiss 55 1.8

File: ptsd2.jpg (56KB, 926x200px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 926x200px

>>3010164
>sony literally btfo by fuji on a site that usually shits on fuji
wew lad

>>3010177
The first picture is an XE-2, which is over 2cm smaller, you really are a dense cretin. Can't expect anything less though.

>>3010171

Getting pretty defensive with all that name calling. Sound kinda like a 12 year old on x-box live. What? gonna talk about how you used your fuji to take pics while banging my mom next?

And yea, I knew that. I decided to switch to the X-T2 since it is similarly priced compared to the a7ii. Makes more sense.

Besides, most of the height difference is due to the evf bump on both bodies. While that is something to take into account, the height difference of the main body itself is also worth looking at. These cameras are not perfectly flat shapes. Trying to claim that one is 'tiny' because it is a whole 2% smaller in one dimension is a ridiculous exageration. The size difference is minor at most.

>>3010049
Why would it need to be sharp in the edges? What is there in the razor thin part that is even in focus that needs to be sharp? This shit just proves that you sonyfags do not use your gear to anything other than gearfagging and crying about your small penis.

>>3010198
>hh-eh-he-he...
>I-I w-was only p-pretending to be r-retarded.

>>3010058
No, the x100 lens is particularly bad. Normal modern lenses resolution drop is too small to notice. The Fuji lens is so visible that you can immediately see glow and haze even on the back LCD.

>>3010182

Oh wait I am following now.

>>3006870
wow someone saved that lol

>>3010198

Thinking on that, what would be a better way?

Voljme? A pain to calculate with weird shapes. Maybe just do displacement?