sonny or tranny

op here, it's worth mentioning that my job is not related to photography, and i dont know anything about videos, but im willing to change this thing.

what focal do you find yourself using the most?

i use mostly the primes, but i'm afraid it's because of the fast aperture. Mostly i stay under the 100mm, and i want to try something wider ( like a 14-16mm equiv )

A7 mark 3 is on it way.
It's a new class of AF for mirrorless that beats the flagship DSLRs in many situations.
https://youtu.be/KX1sfy__7A4?t=1176

>>3137413
Sony all day
Better image quality
Better sharpness
Better lenses
MUCH larger lens selection
Full compatibility with canon lenses
Works with adobe/c1/dxo
Fully customisable ergo
3rd party support
Over a stop better low light performance
Much longer lifespan mount as it's been adopted by cine and is an open format

The fuji is for dadtographers and leica wannabes.

>>3137413
thought about keeping with Nikon and updating to a D500? Big step up from your D7000, and you have some primes for it already.

File: e1f795bfb40ff090c99733b83fea31.jpg (44KB, 800x575px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x575px

>>3137428
>and i want to try something wider ( like a 14-16mm equiv )
Laowa is releasing the 15mm F2. But that means going the Sony route.

If you go the D800 route there is a 14mm F1,8 from Sigma. But it's twice as big, over twice as heavy, and twice as expensive.

>>3137413
Do you want a great camera with a sensor (xt2) or a computer with a bunch of shit tier lenses (a7)?

>>3137459
>more baseless, subjective analogies from team fuji.

Let's break it down.

They both run on computers, Sony's is faster. Sony make theirs in house, fuji can't.

They both have sensors made by sony, the one in the sony camera is over twice as large and uses superior af technology.

Fuji is limited to only fuji and mf samyang lenses. Sony have native lenses made by sony, zeiss, samyang, tokina, voigtlander, sigma, fuji, angenieux, schneider, mitakon, tamron and more, and can use all canon glass with af speed and accuracy better than current gen canon bodies.

Sony also don't prevent companies like dxo from running objective based tests, why would you trust a company that threatens to sue anyone that wants to independently, objectively review their products.

File: Sony-FE-85mm-F1-8.jpg (61KB, 640x711px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x711px

>>3137459
>shit tier lenses
Here's a couple of facts about the 85mm FE 1,8.
It's 400 dollars cheaper than the fuji equivalent 56mm F1,2.
It's sharp from corner to corner at F1,8, unlike the fuji lens which needs to be stopped down by several stops to become sharp.
It covers full frame despite the above, unlike the fuji lens which is an overpriced APS-C lens.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017-02-07T16:32:48-08:00
Flash	No Flash
Image Width	640
Image Height	711

>>3137462
Nah m8, it's got chromabs up the wazoo, can't handle flare at all and massive af and qc issues, same as their top of the line lenses.

>>3137468
These are lies. The Batis 85 is the original lens formula, and has exceptional CA control compared to all its peers.
This lens isn't at that level, but it's still a step above the other older 85mm lenses.

>>3137460
Some disinformation here lad.

X trans is a closed design. Only Zeiss got the specs to build compatible AF lenses. They're called Touits and they've been out ages, but people generally prefer the Fuji versions as they're better and cheaper.

Dxo are paid by Sony to fluff their numbers, and are too useless to test Fuji - objectively true as the independent testers like Bill Claff have no trouble getting Dr numbers for xtrans.

>>3137470
Just bury your head in the sand son, it'll be OK.

>>3137428

There is a 10mm rectilinear Voigtlander for Sony fullframe.

Amazing lens, but limited to f/5.6.

>>3137471
>Dxo are paid by Sony
Is that why Nikon performs so well on DXO? Strange.

no matter what you buy, check out the grey market imports on ebay if you are from europe.
New A7II for 1000Euro, I just bought one.
They are usually around 30% cheaper then the next best online retailer.
I dont know how the chinks do it, but its legit, same goes for the popular lenses.
Had great experience with t-dimension10, but they have several accounts, all registered in China, but ship from UK or France.

hf anon

>>3137477
>t-dimension10
Is that an ebay shop?

Or does it have a real website?

>>3137477
got my a6500 for 1200€ when the market price was 1400-1500€, only 'drawback' is that the menu isnt available in my native language but in english (which i were to use anyway) and that the manual was in chinese so the seller included a self printed one in english. absolutely worth it, especially with the fantastic buyer protect laws in uk

>>3137485

If you install openmemories it will unlock the language menu.

But from what you are saying it sounds like your language is just obscure enough that it isn't there, not that the language is locked.

>Sony better than Fuji
4chan being contrarians as always. Go anywhere else on the internet and you'll basically hear the opposite of everything said here.

>>3137486
my native language would be german, the chinese version apparently provides english, french, spanish, portuguese, some middle eastern and asian options. guess german is not that popular in china.

>>3137503
honestly it would be very surprising for two things with so many quality parameters to be strictly comparable to each other. you need to work out the advantages and disadvantages and then decide based on your needs. the purpose of this thread is more or less to let anons post their opinions on pros and cons for op to evaluate them. stop shitposting.

>>3137503

Fuji is reddit's mirrorless of choice.

Rest of the web seems to agree Sony is better.

>all those shitposts about specifications
Photography is not all just about that. See how it feels to shoot with each one, find out what camera has the best UX for you.

Fuji is just fun to shoot with. Old-school dials are superior and its' film emulations are so comfy.

>>3137503
"Everywhere else" on the internet can't mean review sites because Sony generally have higher ratings for bodies and lenses. Can't mean typical electronic stores or photography stores either because they generally show Sony to be higher up in the bestsellers list. And it's not the place like flickr where photos get posted, because more people use Sonys there too.

I think you must mean your Reddit board?

That's not to say Fuji aren't usable cameras, but you're not going to win that "just look anywhere else on the Internet" thing.

>>3137506
For some, photography is about feeling like an artist, and the imagine artists to have a steampunk amount of wheels and levers. So it's THEM and not the machine somehow, even though that is a silly view.

Many others care about reliably getting good quality in the resulting photo that they keep or publish. And that just favours good gear, with lots of fancy automatics. The more the camera does perfectly, the better.

>>3137413
if poor a7i + adapted manual focus lens.
if not poor a7ii + native lens.
if 4K video xt20.

>>3137436
Aaaand you base your comment on absolutely nothing.

I'm in a similar situation as OP, can't decide between X-T20 and A6000 or A6300. What do?

>>3137513
If you're mainly constrained by money, probably get the A6000 and put the rest into lenses and a flash or such.

If that's not quite it, I'd tend to get the A6500 or A7 II or K-1 or EM1 II or such.

>>3137514
To be more precise, these are my pros for each one (personal preferences):

X-T20
>better looking JPEGs
>film emulations
>better looking body
>better UX with those dials
>4K video
>smartphone remote control (I'd really like to have this one)
>touchscreen for focusing which can also be useful

A series
>better grip and feels a bit better in hand
>probably wider variety of lenses which are not all really expensive

This would also be my first camera, so I'm not invested to either brand atm. I kinda really like the Fuji aesthetic, but I'm seeing that a lot of people meme it a lot and say Sony is better on paper. Now, would I even use all those features and even notice the differences? Probably not.

Can't go with A6500 and other you mentioned because they are almost triple the price of Fuji. A6300 is also pretty expensive, but A6000 is older and from what I've seen inferior to X-T20.

Decisions...

>>3137460
>Sony also don't prevent companies like dxo from running objective based tests, why would you trust a company that threatens to sue anyone that wants to independently, objectively review their products.

Fuji doesn't prevent anyone to review their products or threaten to sue. Plenty of reviews all around the web. If you're claiming otherwise, how about you provide actual evidence to back up your claim instead of pulling ridiculous shit out of your ass.

Underrated point for Sony is that you get free Capture One with Sony files (they have a deal)
Thats a 200$ advatange.

>better jpgs with fuji...

true but anyone with a little selfrespect will shoot in raw and use a proper raw converter like Capture One

Also the chinks with the grey market ebay stuff have an own shop http://www.t-dimension.com/
But you should compare the prices on their site with their ebay listings, sometimes its cheaper on ebay.

>>3137517
>>smartphone remote control (I'd really like to have this one)

a series has this.

Is actually much better than fujis.

>>3137525
Not the A6000 as far as I can see. Only 6300... And fucking hell, is that thing expensive here. It's probably different to compare them for you guys since I see the prices on Amazon are the same, but in my country A6300 costs like $200 more. And I'd rather go with X-T20 than A6000.

I'm really confused right now, I was pretty close to buying Fuji, but you're gonna meme me to another brand. Like, I've read tons of reviews and watched many video comparisons and I see they're pretty much the same, although people prefer Fuji more. I'd shoot more stills than video, but I also want a good video. The good thing about that on Sony though, is that the limit is 30 mins, instead of 10-15.

Now what do I choose, something which maybe has some more power in specs, or something which is comfier to use?

>>3137530
>The good thing about that on Sony though, is that the limit is 30 mins, instead of 10-15.

Video limit can be removed on the Sony too.

Honestly, is the a6300 is only $200 it is well worth it.

It has faster autofocus, a much improved sensor, and native speed autofocus support for adapted lenses.

>>3137535
>>3137530
>Honestly, is the a6300 is only $200 it is well worth it.

Fuck I went full retard with that sentence, it should be.

>Honestly, if the a6300 is only $200 more it is well worth it.

File: 3Nv2mFc_d.jpg (124KB, 640x477px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 640x477px

>X-trans color filter array
You want worms or sumthin?

Fuck both those companies. Just get a cheapo DSLR

>>3137535
>>3137537
I'm considering it... You know, the super shitty thing about buying things like these is that it is so easy to constantly increase the budget limit. There is always something which is "a bit better, and you really need it".

I started thinking about buying Canon 700D, but since my budget increased, I was planning to buy a 750D. Then I realized I actually really want a mirrorless camera, found out about Fuji (already heard of A6300 but ignored it due to a high price) and immediately fell in love with it. The price is higher, but I thought it was worth it. Now if I want to go with A6300 I'll have to increase my budget EVEN more, and I don't even know what I'll benefit from or not, since I never owned any camera like this, besides some shitty point and shoots. I'm just waiting for someone to come in and say that A6500 is 3.5 times better and that I'm retarded for not buying that instead.

Like, fuck, I don't know. I'll think about A6300 over the X-T20. Thinking about cameras over a double of price I originally intended to pay...

Btw, is cameradecision.com a reliable source? Since I use it a lot for comparisons.

>>3137475

Nikon uses Sony sensors.

>>3137506

pretty much this. I played with a lot of cams before I got my hands on the Df and the Df did it for me.

>native pre-AI lens compatibility dating back to 1959
>manual dials for ISO, exposure comp, shutter speed and PASM
>feels like my FE
>FF image quality and flagship D4 sensor
>god-tier low light performance

Now that may not appeal to you, but find out what does and get the camera that is closest to getting the job done for you. Maybe you'll like the Df, maybe you'll get your hands on the Sony and love it, my hands were too big for it. Maybe the compact Fuji will do the trick, you can argue specs and DxO scores all fucking day but if it doesn't feel right in your hands and doesn't do what you want it to do you'll regret buying it.

Prior to the Df I had a 5D Classic and I shilled the fuck out of it on here for the same reasons, felt great in the hands, big ass FF sensor, access to legendary Canon L glass and adaptable to many other lenses (including Nikon which is how I ended up with the Df) find what feels good in the hands and run with it.

Almost all cameras these days perform the same, at 100 ISO and dare I say it up to 1600 all modern FF sensors perform mostly the same with some being better than others.

If you shoot a lot of action, you'll want something with an optical finder and the Sony and Fuji lack those. The D800, I had one for a brief moment and I wasn't a fan of the 36mp file size, but otherwise liked it. If you do a lot of still life or walk around and hike to your shooting locations, the Sony will shine, it weighs nothing and even large format master Clyde Butcher shoots one in the Florida Everglades, just bring extra batteries. Want the retro look without the size of the Df? Get the Fuji.

>>3137545

a6300 stomps all over the XT-20.

X-T2 would be a proper comparison.

I personally got an a7ii because I had a bunch of Minolta AF lenses I wanted to adapt. Works like a dream. I have since moved on to adapting m-mount. Have a few native primes nd the Zeiss 24-70 zoom. All awesome lenses but pricey. It is a lovely camera.

>>3137530
That isn't right. Sony pretty much pioneered that damn thing.

The A7 from 2013 had smartphone tethering. And the A6000 definitely did not remove that feature.

>>3137559
>>3137530

a6000 has it.

https://youtu.be/BFmzoZbcrqM

The Sony tethering app is the best on the market surprisingly. It was trash when it launched but Sony has patched the fuck out of it.

File: Voigtlander_Apo_Macro_65mm_f2_infinity.jpg (435KB, 800x2212px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 800x2212px

>>3137459
Here is another god lens in the making.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/voigtlander-65-f2-apo-macro-review/

Razor sharp from corner to corner, at every aperture.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:08:20 10:21:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	2212

>>3137572
>Razor sharp from corner to corner, at every aperture
>posts picture to prove himself wrong
Get your eyes checked.

>>3137576
Bro that IS sharp. That's the extreme corner of the frame.

>>3137505
Why is Fuji "Reddit" camera and what does that even mean?

>>3137577
Yeah buddy, get your eyes checked.

>>3137587
Faggot, I'm going to summon moopco so he can show you want soft corners look like.

>>3137587
dude sharp doesnt mean that a 200x crop from the corner is also sharp, you check the zooms to see how soft it is, and the sample seems very sharp to me

>>3137437
I shoot both sony, and fuji

>Better image quality
This is subjective. Yes the FF will always out perform the crop sensor. but by how much is very subjective. Unless you are shooting wide open then the differences start to go out the window. Yes you have slightly more DR on the Sony. but honestly do you really need it?

>Better sharpness
No. not really. the X-trans sensor has no anti aliasing filter as opposed to the A7ii making the 24mp X-Trans sensor more equivalent in resolution to a 36 megapixel sensor. Honestly the sharpness is going to come down to what lens you put in front of the sensor. but hands down with good glass the Fuji’s blow away the sony’s in terms of sharpness.

>Better lenses
Sony hands down has better glass but at a ridiculous price point. The more "budget" oriented glass on the sony system is hit and miss. Pretty much on par with what Fuji offers. unless you are willing to sacrifice performance and use non native glass..

>MUCH larger lens selection
Again that come’s at a price sacrificing performance not using native glass or shelling out big bucks for ACTUAL decent sony glass

>Much longer lifespan mount as it's been adopted by cine and is an open format
You can’t assume either brand is going anywhere at least within the next 10-15 years. both sony and fuji have enough investment in other areas outside of cameras to keep them afloat for decades.

All of this being said I use and love both systems. The sony’s have some serious issues that are hard to over look and price is definitely a factor when thinking of jumping into the sony camp. The Fuji’s are quirky but overall more fun to shoot with and more affordable. I have had very minor issues with any of my fuji gear.

>>3137552
A6300 has issues. But If was going to compare the systems based on models it would be

A6300 vs XT-20
A7ii vs XT-2
A9 VS GFX

>>3137607
>A6300 vs XT-20
>A7ii vs XT-2
>A9 VS GFX
That should be
A6000 vs XT-20, same generation sensor
A6300/6500 vs XT-2, same generation sensor
A7Rii vs GFX, high resolution sensors

>>3137600
I'm going to add to this because I have experience with both systems, and use them both on a Day to Day basis.

One thing I absolutely hate about Sony and the reason I will never buy a Sony Body within the first year of it being releasied again, They always push out new cameras that feel incomplete then they neglect the previous model. what they really need to do is fix the problems with the cameras they have now and figure out how to make them work properly before pushing out something new that doesn't work as intended..

>A6300 overheats
>A7ii overheats, freezes, random error messages, poor AF with non native glass, shitty menu layout, among other things
>A7Rii overheats, has issues with the buffer and weird artifacts in the noise when you open the shadows
>A9 (never used one) Again issues with overheating and the buffer not working properly

there is always a excuse for the issues like they tried to blame Lexar SD cards for the overheating issues multiple times. Funny I have no issues using lear cards with any other camera system. it's always a excuse but they never actually fix the issues, They just keep pushing out more and more cameras

File: 85_corner_crops.jpg (1MB, 1603x2247px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1603x2247px

>>3137600
>but hands down with good glass the Fuji’s blow away the sony’s in terms of sharpness
This isn't right. Read this comparison:
http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-56mm-f1-2-vs-zeiss-batis-85mm-f1-8-vs-contax-g-90mm-f2-8/

The fuji lens needs to stop down to F4 to even get comparable results to The Full Frame Lenses wide open.
And there is a good reason for this, the pixel desity in the APS-C cameras DEMAND incredibly high precision lenses to stay sharp, and Fuji simply does no have such lenses. No camera company does.

Sharpness is a definitive advantage of Full Frame cameras.
Simply by virtue of being less demanding of the 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	2015-08-28T15:58:06-04:00
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1603
Image Height	2247

>>3137614
As I already said wide open is the advantage of FF over crop. unless you are shooting wide open the differences start to go out the window. That is the reason why I shoot with both systems. I much prefer the Fuji's over the Sony's but I can't give up on FF because of the DOF when shooting wide open.

File: 85_center_crops-731x1024.jpg (224KB, 731x1024px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 731x1024px

>>3137619
The part I quoted definitely sounded baity though. It simply wasn't correct.

But it shouldn't matter if it's wide open or stopped down. FF is always a couple of steps ahead.
Even at the center of the frame, there is a clear sharpness advantage to full frame.

>>3137612
>A7ii overheats, freezes, random error messages, poor AF
You must be using a different A7ii than me. It sounds like you are describing a completely different camera than the one I own.

>>3137620
I own the XF35F2 and the zeiss 55 1.8 this should be a good comparison both budget lenses for both systems. when shooting wide open obviously the zeiss wins. but around F4 - F11 they both go toe to toe. the corners of the zeiss are definitely softer and some vignette. but what you gotta remember is that Fuji corrects this in camera so how much better is the glass is debatable..

>>3137614
This is so bad it's probably a sample issue.

>>3137624
No lens is truly sharp at F1,2. And that was an extreme edge of frame.

It's more of a miracle the Batis is sharp at F1,8 than anything else. The Fuji lens just preforms like you would expect from a standard lens.

>>3137622
this is a known issues with the A7's I was a very early adopter of the A7ii I have a buddy that was ready to give up on Sony because of his A7ii he sen't it out to Sony 3 times for repair . All 3 times they had it for two weeks and sent it back. would work great for a few months then all of a sudden it would start freezing again and displaying a high temperature error message always when shooting bursts. He started thinking it had something to do with the battery's. He finally sent it back again this time they sent him out a refurb to replace it his new one works great.

>>3137614
It's kind of funny how every time your kind wants to talk about fuji glass being shit, you bring up the 56/1.2. If you're looking for maximum clinical sharpness, you're missing the whole point of that lens, which is to produce pleasing image with a character. There's much sharper lenses in fuji lineup. The 35/2, 50/2, 90/2 and 50-140 for example.

>>3137626
this

>>3137627
Sounds like fake news to me.

>>3137628
16 is probably there best

>>3137628
Problem is it looks neither sharp nor pleasing.

>>3137630
dude just google it. you will find hundreds of people with the same issues. (even on sony boards) I have no reason to make shit up I shoot with Sony's

>>3137633
If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. Plenty of others seem to like it very much tho.

>>3137634
Normally I shoot in colder climates around Scandinavia, but I have had the A7ii down to sweat hell in Spain over the summer, and even there it wasn't an issue.

File: Untitled.png (1MB, 1724x1643px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1724x1643px

>>3137623

>>3137635
In my opinion soft lenses should cost 400-500 bucks.
If you're going to charge 1000 dollars for a lens, it better be a sharp lens, which this one just isn't.

Plus, you need to keep in mind the context in which I replied to, and the wording I quoted.

>>3137636
I'm not saying the A7ii is a bad camera but there are definitely issues with it from model to model. I love my A7ii the only issue's i have encountered with my version are when recording video I plan on picking up the A7iii after it's been out for at least a year. But sony definitely has a problem with quality control. it's really apparent with some of there early glass.

>>3137626

I thought the Noct-Nikkor was the exception to this?

How much do Fuji users like those film emulations? I heard some people buy Fujis just because of them. I really enjoy that film look, and didn't even know that Fuji has those options until recently. Seems like a no-brainer now, everything about it looks extremely fun to shoot, and from the reviews, practically everyone says it feels like shooting on old SLR. Isn't that, like, more important than some small autistic specification differences?

>>3137652
fuji's are funner to shoot with, they have better colors straight out of the camera (film simulations only apply to JPEGS'S) you can shoot in RAW and then convert to JPEG and apply the film simulation in camera, or you can apply it in LR to the RAW file with the camera calibration option.

Sony has a FF sensor not necessarily better but definitely a huge advantage if you shoot wide open, better third party support, and better DR.

Sony feels more like a computer, Fuji feels more like a camera. I shoot with and love both systems for different reason's but honestly Fuji is a street camera, Sony is a landscape and studio camera. not that you can't get amazing results with Fuji in the studio or shooting landscapes. but it really comes down to what you are looking for

>>3137652
The Acros simulation was a major selling point for the x-pro2 in my case, especially with the other tunables for the in-camera JPEG processor -- which can be invoked from a menu, so no shooting and reshooting like usual. Another point were the double-A dials, though I do recognize it's a bit of a bear to turn all the way from 1/125s to A, or f/4 to A, just to do something that on a Nikon is a "hold release, turn dial" interaction. But mostly I like that there's just a lot of stuff to tweak in there, it's sort of the Japanese ultranerd's vision of the MILC, but at the same time I can just go OVF and let the camera mostly deal with all of that.

Wouldn't use it in a studio outside of a pinch, no. It's definitely far more a documentarist's camera than a fine artist's.

>>3137656
What is this film simulation even?

Is it like the Creative Style, where you select between Standard, Vivid, Clear, Deep, Light, Sunset, Night, Autumn, etc?
Or is it like Picture Effect?
Or is it like Picture Profile?

>>3137661
Yes like velvia for sunsets, classic chrome for street, provisions for portraits etc.

>>3137662
>provisions

Meant provia fucking auto correct

>>3137661
It basically applies a old film stock profile to you're picture. Don't think vsco like it's more subtle and very film like. It doesn't fade you're pictures or apply weird color casts. Another cool thing when you're shooting with Across as you turn up the ISO dial it responds the same way a classic film stick pushed does. This is something that Fuji has done very good. The noise in fuji files at higher ISO is actually very pleasing and looks like fine film grain

This seems like a pretty gigantic difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWgkxmeD3Tk

>>3137668
You don't need to use the profiles they are only there if you want them. And when shooting in RAW there are no profiles

>>3137668
>differently graded images look different
wow

>>3137676
Well, they were comparing similar filters with each other.

>>3137682
Fuji hands down beats Sony for colors. Learn to edit you can get you're Sony files about 85% there. But Fuji just has something magical about there colors

File: xtransarray.jpg (102KB, 1600x864px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1600x864px

>>3137687
It's just better greens at the expense of blues and reds.

The lunch doesn't come for free.

>>3137688
Xtrans has a more random pattern resulting in more pleasing colors. Not to mention no anti aliasing filter

>>3137690
There is nothing random about that pattern. Random is antithesis to pattern.

Are you getting paid by the hour for this bullshit?

>>3137693
Dude I shoot with Sony and many times I've considered selling my Fuji system because i have so much invested in zeiss glass. But every time I pick up that xpro 2 and see what it produces I imideatley get the idea out of my head

There are only 2 main things I worry about and because of them I'm afraid of getting Fuji. Those are
>weak grip
>video length limit
I could always buy some cheapo grip boost but, well, afaik I can't get rid of that stupid limit while Canon and Sony apparently can.

Seriously fuck those limits.

>>3137699
If you are video shooter, just go Panasonic. Unless you really need that larger sensor.

>>3137693
>thread is full of Sonyshills who probably really get paid some shekels for every meme they create about Fuji
>he accuses the only guy who says something positive about it for a shill

>>3137701
What use is this positive if it's false?

There is a clearly mathematical formula to the X-trans sensor. That shit isn't random.

>>3137688
Can somebody explain how is this gonna affect a normal camera user? Will it make your art objectively better or worse in some way or what?
Does it really matter that much?

>>3137704
Better greens is a strategic choice. Tree tops are green, grass is green, etc.
It's not necessarily a bad decision.

The problem as I see it is Fujifilm is a bit bipolar, and are moving away from that pattern with the MF cameras.

I don't understand. All those statistics used as a proof to show that one camera is slightly better than the other, and yet nobody still explained how any of those tiny differences will benefit the end user. Why?

I ask you to show me examples where that tiny bit of grain in the photo was the reason somebody didn't get a Pulitzer prize. Show me the example where slightly oversaturated and less sharp artwork lead a viewer to leave the art gallery before going through all the photos on a display.

I mean, are we talking about sensors in cars where super tiny variations can be the difference between the life and death, or are we talking about cameras used for producing art? I see people pulling all those graphs and mathematical formulas from left and right so I'm not even sure anymore.

>>3137721
Is this a copy pasta or something? If you don't care, then roll a dice and fuck off.

>>3137721
sony is FF fuji is crop that is a huge difference in sensors, if that thing matters to you then theres you're answer.

I own an original a7, and my gf just picked up an xt10. I prefer the a7, but i think that's because I'm more familiar with it. Having the FF sensor is also nice since we shoot alot of older lenses, But honestly I think I could be perfectly happy with either.

>>3137726
both systems are great but a more fair comparison would be a XT-2 to the A7

File: 200.gif (2MB, 356x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 356x200px

>>3137721

I'm planning to use my camera for photogrammetry. Does anyone know how does Fuji and Sony compare here?

>>3137742
do*

>>3137722
>>3137725
>>3137739
Still no explanations. Teach me and I'll shut up, I said I don't understand this. How can it be so big of a deal to an amateur photographer on /p/ that they should definitely choose one over the other. You somehow managed to make Fuji seem like a complete trash due to minor differences. Not talking about FF btw, that's big, but there were anons here asking for comparisons on Fujis vs A6000 as well.

>>3137745
>You somehow managed to make Fuji seem like a complete trash due to minor differences.
We did? Half the thread seems to be praising the system.

Maybe it's just you who react extra allergically to criticism.

>>3137727
except that the cheapest XT2 I can find on ebay is $1300 and I picked my a7 up for $750. I've seen XT1's going for $500 locally though.

OP here. As you all have stated in the end it's crop vs FF, Bayer vs xtrans . I do like the concept of the xtrans, and the feeling I got from the Fuji is fantastic. But man I want a FF. ( if I'm staying in Nikon there absolutely no question so no d500, sorry). I love the Dof and the DR, and I like the lens ecosystem of the Sony, even if being broke af I still have to understand in there are good cheap lenses. ( a point for Fuji here, maybe. There are few lenses, but for the price they should be quite good. )
If the A7RII was a bit cheaper it would have already been mine.
If the XT2 had a FF sensor, it would have been mine.
Fuck my indecision.

>>3137745
Fuji over A6000 all day there's just no comparison here if you are going crop fuji winds hands down. If you want FF then that's another story

>>3137747
I don't use neither of those two systems so I don't see why I would get triggered by any of the comments here. But yeah, most of the thread is shilling sony, I bet that's just one (two tops) guy who is using both systems, who said anything positive about Fuji.

File: 1413176991683.gif (2MB, 650x391px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 650x391px

>>3137754
Mainly my reply has has been against the poster who said E-mount lenses are shit tier>>3137462

I would delete the post to make you feel better, but 4chan won't let me.

>>3137742
Just bumping this because I want to mention that I'm worried about IQ of those 2 cameras since some of you said that Sony has sharper images and I think that can affect my texture in the end. I don't know if there is any difference in sharpness when shooting RAW and up close, though.

Also, I saw somebody mentioning that Fuji benefits from no antialiasing filter which means it could look like it has higher MP count than 24MP. I don't know how true is that and if there will be any benefit from it, but I know that the higher the MP count - the better. Bigger sensor would be even better, but I'm talking about crop sensors here.

>>3137791
That is correct with no anti aliasing filter it gives the 24mp sensor a perceived higher resolution. Most of this thread is full of sony shooters me being one of them. The x trans sensor is sharper then the Sony A7ii sensor but it's really going to come down to what glass you put in front of it. A lot of older fuji glass suffers from being very soft when shot below the F4 range usually they had a sweet spot between F8 and F11 but the newer stuff they are putting out designed for the Xpro 2 like the 35F2 really unlock the potential of that x trans sensor. The pictures are razor sharp. So in terms of sharpness it really will depend on the glass but hands down the X trans sensor holds its own against the FF A7ii when it comes to resolution. It's DOF that you are going to notice the main difference

>>3137791
Unless you're always looking at your pictures at 100% magnification you wont notice a difference in sharpness. Don't worry man, go try them out if you can and make a choice based on that.

One thing Fuji x-t1 and x-t2 has over sony a6k & a7 series is the electronic viewfinder, much better in every way. Also in my experience, there seems to be a tiny lag when you do anything with sony, and that gets on my nerves.

>>3137860
Yeah but the A7ii has a electronic viewfinder. Who buys a A7 anymore anyway? Seriously the A7ii is dropping in price by the day because the A7iii is due in November, But yes I do agree with the lag. Infuriating is a understatement

>>3137921
My a7ii only seems to lag in extreme low light. No issues in normal shooting conditions.

I hear the a7 had a terrible evf though.

>>3137921
Well obviously I meant the WHOLE a7 line, including a7, a7s, a7r, a7ii, a7sii and a7rii, since they all have pretty much the same evf tech. X-T2 has improved over the x-t1 with higher refresh rate with the battery grip, but otherwise they are almost the same. I'd like to see a higher resolution in the following model tho.

>>3137925
XT-2 with a FF xtrans sensor is my dream camera.. and it just makes perfect since till then I'll have to settle on shooting with both systems

>>3137930

You'd need all new lenses though. And the rate Fuji releases stuff it would take forever.

>>3137632
I shoot at this focal length 90% of the time so I'm considering switching to use this lens.

>>3137628

The few tests I saw showed the 56 as the sharpest.

>>3137945
14 bodies and 24 lenses in 5 years... I don't think that's really all that slow for such a small company.

>>3137960

Sony has released 24 lenses since 2015, and have 2 more in the pipeline for this year.

>>3137953
56 is soft wide open but literally any lens wide open is soft

>>3137966
Most are shit. Qualty over quantity

>>3137966
Most are shit, unless you want to shell out almost 2K.. Qualty over quantity

>>3137976
>>3137977

Only one lens since 2015 has been bad, the SEL50F18F. Everything else has been as good if not better than the best x-mount lens released to date.

Kinda hard to tell since Fuji wont let anyone serious like dp or lr test them.

>>3137966
And?

I'd say the sony has better ux, as absolutely every dial and button is customisable, you can assign 17 different functions and 3 different dials to every different PSAM mode including 2 further custom sets before you need to menu dive.

As for film emulations, on the fuji they are less emulations, more dodgy instagram filter, and they only work for sooc jpegs. Vsco are real film sims and they work MUCH better on sony as adobe doesn't support fuji files, they come out with weird wormy features and smeared color everywhere.

You also have a lot more room for upgrade on the sony, fujis mount is too small for full frame and they've already started winding down new x mount products, they have no x lenses on their current roadmap.

An xt20 and one fuji lens costs more than a very lightly used a7ii and some adapted old glass. This is an absolute no brainer if image quality, features and longevity are a concern.

>>3137519
As ridiculous as claiming sony pay to boost their products?
>>3137471
And did you ever wonder why there's no fuji stuff on dxo? Haters will say it's because dxo sw doesn't work with fuji files, that's bs, it works fine, you can test this for yourself.

>>3137471
>xtrans is a closed design, so no one else can make lenses
Oh petal, no, a cfa has zero effect on how a lens functions.
And zeiss stopped making lenses as fuji has no users or future.

Thanks for pointing out Bill claff though, his tests show fuji xt2 has a stop and a half less dynamic range than sony a7 and half a stop worse shadow recovery. Ouch.

>>3137600
I shoot both too

>iq
Stop and a half better dr is hardly slightly. And low light noise is over a stop better on the sony

>sharpness is all about the lens
Nope. No lens, not even the otus range, outresolve a modern sensor, yes the lens is the limiting factor, but there's a more important factor, image circle. As the crop sensor is less than half the size of ff, the lens needs to be able to render more than twice as much detail to be comparable when you view the images at normal size. Even at 100% crop fuji will look worse due to it's much smaller pixel pitch. You can't escape physics.

>sony lenses cost too much
Be less poor, they also represent better value for money, my 55mm sells for more 2nd hand than when I bought it at launch, as x mount is dying, so are your lens resale prices.

>you can't say x mount is dying
I'm pretty sure their roadmap agrees with me ;)

>>3137612
Lol, check out the bs.
A6300 no longer overheats, fixed within 3 months of launch.
A7ii has no issues with overheating, freezing, error messages and never has. It has the same af performance as the a6500 and a7rii with non native glass.
A9 fixed it's overheating issues within one week of launch, and what's not working about over 200 raw images cleared in 30 seconds?

>>3137619
>buying f1.4 fuji lenses to only be able to use them at f4 or slower.
This is why you're called cucks.

>>3137623
So on a stop worse sensor, with a stop slower lens, you need to stop down at least twice to start getting into the same ballpark as sony. That's a 4 stop difference, you ever compare iso 400 to iso 6400, hardly a fair comparison, but fuji do apply a SHITTON of nr to it's raws because they can't trust their users.

>>3137626
Every sony ff lens is pant shittingly sharp wide open, the 35 1.4 is insane.

>>3137627
So it was a one off isolated issue that Sony resolved, nice.

>>3137628
>>3137632
But every sony lens is spot on, we use the 56 as it's the most revered, the fuji 90 sucks next to sonys 90.

>>3137951

What? 24mm?

There is an absolutely fantastic FE lens at 24mm.

>>3137668
Wow, I knew that sony was better, but the fuji footage looks completely fucked for grading.

>>3137690
The pattern they use actually just leads to shitty smeared color, so many skin coloured teeth and sclera. And who needs an aa filter when you liberally brush heavy handed noise reduction over every raw ;)

>>3137704
It makes it so only silkypix and sooc jpegs have the correct demosaic algorithm, so if you want to use any serious editing program like adobe, c1 or dxo, you get a massive loss of detail, smeared colors and strange worm like artifacts.

>>3137721
If you were to color a picture with coloring pencils, would you rather have 5 different colors or 30 different colors? If you were rebuilding a car would you rather a pneumatic impact wrench or a spanner and length of scaffold. A camera is your toolbox, we just want you to have the best variety and quality of tools so you can approach any subject, if you shoot sony ff, you get around a 2 stop advantage, this may be the difference between iso 3200 and 12k, which does have a large effect on the end image.

>>3137791
Sony ff is sharper, larger sensor = less demand on lenses.

>>3137860
The evf in the sony is objectively better and has less lag.

>>3137977
Fuji isn't the company to run to if you're crying about being a poorfag, just get an old 5dii or d600.

>>3138004
I don't have Fuji, but afaik, you don't need to use those simulations. There are some sims which give you higher dynamic range, but you can always shoot without them or RAW. But they are there if you don't want to spend a lot of time in post, and people say the jpegs with them look so good right out from the camera that they don't even have the need to grade them in post.

>>3138007

It forces a simulation. There is not standard/neutral output.

Plus a slathers a nice load of vaseline all over the raw and calls it nr.

>>3138016
Pro neg std with highlights and shadows turned down a bit is just about a linear response.

>>3137975
>any lens wide open is soft
There are exceptions here and there.
See the Batis>>3137614
And the new Voigtlander>>3137572

>>3137988
>>3137991
>>3138004
Oh look who it is, our favourite butthurt sonyshill!

>As ridiculous as claiming sony pay to boost their products?
I have never claimed such. You however made a claim, once again, and never backed up on it. Untill you provide a credible source or two, that claim is 100% horse manure, just like the rest of your ramblings.

>The evf in the sony is objectively better and has less lag.
This is objectively false.

>Every sony ff lens is pant shittingly sharp wide open
You might have irritable bowel syndrome.
>But every sony lens is spot on
And delusions.
Refer to
>>3137637

>x mount is dying
Xe3 and xt2s(with ibis) on the works? And the lens catalog is pretty full already, a proper macro is in development. Gfx line is taking most of their resources at the moment. Unlike some other brands, fuji takes user input very seriously and steers their game accordingly. Case in point: xe3, 4k on xpro2 etc.

>blahblah i can't learn to pp fuji files blahblahblah
Why don't you take your head out of your ass, this shit has been explained to you many times already.

I'd like to read some sources where Sony beats Fuji this much. Not because I don't believe you, but because I'm planning to buy one of those brands and I didn't hear any of the things you guys mentioned anywhere else. After all, I don't even know if I can believe you since you may all be just some random 20-somethings who are doing this for a hobby.

I've been reading and watching reviews and opinions of many professionals and yet I never heard anybody mentioning anything you said in this thread. I also see Fuji's cameras on top lists of camera websites. And something I saw often in the comments is people selling everything and switching to Fuji, but never from other brands to Sony.

E.g. something I gathered from other internet sources is that Fuji's lenses are top quality, EVF is also great, everyone praises IQ and UX is its' biggest advantage. So pretty much the opposite of what has been mentioned ITT. Who do I believe now as the potential buyer? Should I go with Fuji or Sony for APS-C?

>>3138034
You claim you don't see people swapping to sony and you see it regularly for fuji.

However cipa reports disagree, fuji is STILL behind pentax and olympus in sales, whereas sony have recently overtaken nikon to be the 2nd most sold brand. Pretty impressive for a 5 year old mount.

If you're definitely going aps-c, that means you're on a budget, cheapest fuji lenses start at $300, you could get all 3 sigma dn lenses for $300, the $100 sigma lenses outresolve every similar fuji lens, even those that cost 10 times as much. If you want the best of the best image quality for a similar price, get a 2nd hand a7, there is no comparison between ff and apsc, it's all a matter of SNR and a sensor over twice as large as twice as much signal to work with. And have a look on google for fuji false colour, wormy details, adobe support and baked in noise reduction. Sonys list of downfalls end at it's battery only lasts 6 hours and people with fat hands can't hold it properly.

>>3138028
Yes, thanks for pointing out that you're blind and don't understand mtf graphs, have a cookie!

Protip, look at how soft the line drawing is on the fuji example.

File: display2.jpg (304KB, 1000x501px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1000x501px

>>3138034

The reason you haven't been seeing reviews saying "Sony is better!" or "Fuji is better!" is because reviews don't do that. Reviews just say if something is good or not, and honestly both Sony and Fuji make great cameras (though they both have their downsides).

>never from other brands to Sony

You haven't been looking very hard. Even on reddit, the Fuji stronghold, there are numerous threads about users switching to Sony. Usually from Canon (the AF adapters Sony has makes the transition a lot smoother. No need to start from scratch with lenses, you can use your old ones until you build up a collection of native e-mount lenses). Sony is outselling Fuji something like 3 to 1 even with the sensor shortage from the earthquake.

In my opinion, Sony makes a better camera. Fuji doesn't havr anything at all that comes close to competing with the a7rii.

On the other hand, I think Fuji makes a better APS-C camera. I don't see why you would want to buy APS-C in 2017, but if you want to, Fuji is the way to go.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Image Width	1000
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Pixel Composition	RGB
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Image Height	501
Image Created	2016:02:11 19:10:55
Image Width	1000
Image Height	501
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3138028
Look who it is, our resident sooc jpeg fuji evangelist.

I see you've offered no actual rebuttal to any points, as per usual. All you managed is a wee bit of ad hom in your rage.

You come across as bitter and jealous.

>>3138043
>>3138046
Yeah, I'm definitely on a budget, and even XT20 I was planning to buy is above my planned budget. But yeah, the cost of Fuji lenses bothers me a bit, even though I'm not sure if and how much of those I'll buy in the nearer future. I plan sticking to a kit lens for some time, which I heard is better than an average kit lense from other brands.

So pretty much my budget would limit me to A6000 or XT20. I'd sure appreciate the 4k video 6300 has, but it is really expensive where I live. XT20 seemed like the perfect middle in this case.

So, some of you are also saying Fuji is better than Sony for APS-C, so in that case, would it be better to buy A6000 (and deal with the lack of things Fuji has) or go with XT20? I just want a good all-rounder for my first camera, something which is primarily used for stills but is capable of shooting a good video.

>>3138052
I'd say the fuji is more a niche toy for old photographers, the sony is just focused on being an easy to use camera.

The kit lens for the fuji is still stupidly expensive. A 2nd hand a7 with it's kit lens goes for less than the xt20 and kit 2nd hand on ebay uk. This is an easy decision.

At the end of the day, fuji buy their sensors off sony, then put them in a pretty case with another 3rd party processor, sony make their own sensors and processors, hence why they can offer exponentially better value for money and bring out products much more frequently.

>>3138052

The thing about Fuji lenses is they cost as much as Sony FE lenses in most cases. They are quite ridiculous.

If you are trying to spend as little as possible, I'd say a6000. Kit lens isn't the greatest optically, but nothing else comes close to it's compact size. Throw in a standard prime like the 35mm or 50mm and you have a nice kit.

>and deal with the lack of things Fuji has

Not really lacking much at that level to be honest.

If you don't mind spending a little bit, but don't plan on getting any lenses, look at the X-T20 or a6300. I'd recommend the a6300 just because you can use autofocus adapters for Canon or Leica lenses, but it is up to you. X-T20 might be a little smoother to use if all you plan to do is sooc jpegs and full-auto mode.

If you have no budget limit, get the a7rii and a few primes along with the GM zooms. You will have more camera than you know what to do with.

>>3138058
>>3138057
T b h, things would probably be different if I were buying it from Amazon, but I don't do online shopping. There are no stores with used cameras here and I also don't like buying things this expensive from local random dudes, so I'd prefer a new camera from the store.

So in that case, FF is just too expensive and A6300 costs somewhat more than XT20 with XF18-55. XT20 with XC 16-50mm kit lens has a pretty decent price, and it's stupidly cheaper than buying body and a kit lens separately. A6000 would surely be more affordable, but since I'm not planning to buy the additional lens atm, I'd get kinda shitty kit lens with it, according to reviews.

The more I read about it, the less decisive I am.

>>3138070

The Sony kit isn't that bad.

Read this review and decide for yourself:
>http://kurtmunger.com/sony_nex_pz_16_50mmid344.html

Honestly no kit lens is good. You would be better off with just a 35mm prime.

You could also just pick up an old film camera and shoot a couple rolls to see how you would like it. 135 film when scanned properly is as high-res and sharp as a modern digital camera.

>>3138070
Buying new camera bodies is a mugs game, where do you live that's so detached that you have no postal service but also have a perfect grasp on english.

The sony kit is absolutely fine, some of the reviews are from when it first came out and didn't have the correct lens profiles to fix distortion and vignette. Any cheap zoom needs correction to look moderately ok.

Having said that, You will get far better images from an a7 and a $30 adapted old manual focus 50mm f1.8, crop is a false economy.

I've been reading through this thread and wanted to chime in. There is a lot of false information going around about both Sony, and Fuji. it's spread all over threads like this, Reddit, and youtube. I read this shit constantly.

I have extensive experience with both Sony, Fuji and some limited experience with olympus. I have owned all three "flag ship models" from each company but i'm going to keep this strictly about Sony and Fuji. I no longer shoot any of my important work with mirrorless body's in general I switched back to canon. That's not to say the mirrorless cameras and systems are bad. They are not.

First thing I keep noticing when it comes to the Sony camp is the down playing of the X trans sensor. The X trans sensor absolutely holds it's own against the A7ii you will notice differences in DOF, and DR but that is to be expected. It won't out resolve the A7Rii by a long shot. but against a 24MP FF sensor the differences are so minor it's almost not even worth arguing about.. Also The sony camp loves to say that the Anti aliasing filter has nothing to do with resolution, IF that was the case. Then why do you think they removed it on the A7Rii?

>>3138214
(continued)
Another thing I can’t stand about Sony is the customer support. It makes no since to Jump into the sony system without two body’s on hand. It’s not IF it is WHEN you will start to notice the issues that plague Sony body’s, and when it happens you will also experience the 2-3 week repair down time.

When it comes to Glass Sony wins. Fuji is catching up the new F2 line is amazing fuji offers. especially at the price point they are offereing. But still it can’t and won’t beat Zeiss glass. Something I haven’t seen mentioned here yet that I see argued about quite a bit id lens compression. This is ultimately what lead me back to canon. Stick a 35mm on a Sony (FF) and it will be a 35mm Stick it on a Fuji (crop) and it will be a 55. okay so what? Just buy a 23 if you want 35 on a Fuji right? You would think that but it’s not that simple. You see 23mm will always be 23mm It will compress and act like a 23mm with a 35mm field of view. it’s not truly a 35 and never will be. The focal length can’t physically change only the field of view. So that is a BIG thing to consider when trying to decide between the two.

If you want to get into a crop system Fuji undeniably is the way to go. They have perfected the Crop sensor and body’s they pretty much own the crop game there is no point at even looking into a Sony crop body unless you want to use it as a back up to a A7 at this point. If you wan’t FF it’s really hard to recommend Sony because Nikon, and Canon have already perfected that world years ago. Sony is catching up. but they are not quite there yet. The only thing I miss about the Sony over the Canon’s is the EVF.

Don’t get me wrong. The sony A7Rii is a absolute monster, with some amazing glass. But the glass isn’t cheap. And sony shit has virtually shit resale value. what hurts sony the most is the way they push out a new camera every other year.

>>3138214
>>3138215

My next point is the menu system. Fuji shooters like to say the menu system on Sony's makes no since. This is false Yes the menu layout is shit but you can very easily reprogram the dials to work similar to a Fuji. thats what the dials are there for. No they are not as fun to play with as Fuji's but never the less they get the Job done. Sony's are not very difficult to use like some lead you to beleive. Especially if you come from a nikon or a canon.

File: 1291497652498.jpg (91KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 554x439px

>>3138214
Well. Fujifilm is downplaying the X-Trans too, since they are moving away from it in MF.

>>3138222
MF doesn't need the X trans sensor. it already out resolves the Sony's by a mile. But honestly I would never buy into anything other then the X-pro or XT line when it comes to Fuji. For that price point I would definitely recommend the A7Rii over the GFX

>>3138225

>MF doesn't need the X trans sensor. it already out resolves the Sony's by a mile.

I wouldn't go that far, the a7rii sensor holds its own against the gfx.

>>3138227
I have no experience with the gfx. Like I said though. I would go with the A7Rii over the gfx. right now the GFX is limited, not enough glass or support

File: 1324838237159.jpg (25KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x400px

>>3137752
>If the A7RII was a bit cheaper it would have already been mine.
>If the XT2 had a FF sensor, it would have been mine.
This is actually a common dilemma, which I also went through.
I took the strategy of going the A6000 route. And slowly building my collection of poorfag FE lenses, currently have the
FE 28mm F2.0
Samyang 35mm F2,8 (I'm returning this one, I got a bad copy)
FE 50mm F2,8 Macro
FE 85mm F1.8
Once the A7Rii goes further down in price I will snatch it up and the lenses I have will hopefully still work okay by that time. But in the meantime the A6000 is pretty kick ass.

I like the low weight it has.
But the ergonomics is kinda bad, and it surprisingly lacks simple things like electronic spirit level.
But it's pretty okay so far.

>>3138231
you may be waiting awhile for the A7Rii to drop. I have a feeling the next equivalent of the A7R will be in the form of a A9. I mean the A7iii is right around the corner. so you might want to think about grabbing a A7ii when the price hits the 900$ range

>>3138261
A7Riii i meant

File: IMG_1356.png (3MB, 1885x834px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1885x834px

>>3138215
>cumpreshun iz difrent
I am equally as convinced that it is not.

>>3138289
then you are misinformed

>>3138289
he is correct
>>3138322
you are mistaken.

"Compression" is caused by perspective and perspective alone, not by some magical property of lenses.
Shit looks "compressed" when it's further away, no matter what angle you shoot it at or what the optical strength of the lens happens to be.

>>3138356
No, you are wrong.

>>3138289
>using his 18-55 kit lens to prove a point

>>3138231
op here, after seeing the specs of the d850 i'm more confused than ever. D810 bodies will be even cheaper, but, as you said, A7mk3 is behind the corner, and that will drive the prices of used a7rii lower ( if it will have decent specs). Oh, the dilemma.

I'm tempted to buy a fuji now, and sell everything in a couple months and jump to sony or back to nikon if I don't like the fuji system, but the fuji devaluation here is staggering, i'll be losing half of what i spent with an xt2 and a 35. The only solution would be buying a used xt10, xt1 or xe2 with a 35 prime, staying under 600€, and selling for under 500 in a couple months. idk

>>3138608
Buy sony or nikon and sell if you don't like them, they keep their resale value much better.

People say sony devalue too fast, but 2nd hand prices for the a7ii, a7rii, a7, a7s and a7sii haven't dropped in over a year. Whereas the previously $2400 xpro 1 can be had for $300, because crop is a false economy and fuji x-mount is dying out. If you think resale prices are bad now, just wait until they officially kill the mount next year.

>>3138608

Honestly, I don't think you should blow your money on something just to sell it a few months down the road.

I know you want a camera now, but it is best to wait.

In my opinion, what you should do is pick up an old manually focusing SLR. Something like an X-700, K1000, or AE-1. Get a few primes with it and shoot a couple of rolls of film. Can send your film to https://thedarkroom.com/ and get DSLR quality scans of your film back for pretty cheap. The neat thing is that all your SLR lenses will be usable on your mirrorless camera and will be a lot of fun.

This should hold you over until later in this year, while you get to save a bunch of money. So you can either get something dirt cheap on black friday, or get the new a7iii or whatever you want.

This way you spend the bare minimum on a camera now, get some experience shooting film while you get to see if you like photography at all, and you get to save up for something bigger and better that gets released later this year.

>>3138615
This is kind of funny. One sonyshill says that you can get a brand new a7ii for a grand and bitch about how expensive all fujis are, another says that fuji pices are tanking and how well sonys keep their value. So which is it?
>x mount is dying
You fagets keep saying that but never provide any actual evidence.

File: pic_02.jpg (198KB, 880x1050px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 880x1050px

>>3138623
>no evidence

How about their roadmap, this year they may release one 80mm lens, and 2 cine lenses they released for sony first.

Next year, we get vaporware, this roadmap is from February and they've not mentioned the 2 2018 lenses since.

Sony have already had over a dozen new lenses made for e mount this year.

>>3138662

Macro keeps getting pushed back too.

Is there a firm date yet?

>>3138662

Ok, fair enough.
I'm not going to be buying the xt20 any more!

>>3138662
>every lens you could possibly want except a fast long telephoto
>it's the most comprehensive set of native lenses for apsc of any manufacturer
>it's a closed design that was only ever shared with Zeiss
>smegma haven't released a single ff lens in emount

Yes, clearly dead.

Sony still playing catch up, still only 2 third parties making af lenses for emount, and one of them is samyang, whose lens isn't even out yet.

Emperor's new clothes anyone?

>>3138679
>>>3138662
>>every lens you could possibly want except a fast long telephoto

Still falls short of Sony's FE selection. Where is the macro btw? Still waiting....

>>it's the most comprehensive set of native lenses for apsc of any manufacturer

Cause every other manufacturer knows APS-C is a dead end.

>>it's a closed design that was only ever shared with Zeiss

That is a bad thing.

>>smegma haven't released a single ff lens in emount

Yet. A few are in the pipeline.

>Sony still playing catch up, still only 2 third parties making af lenses for emount, and one of them is samyang, whose lens isn't even out yet.

Playing catch up with what? Sony's FE line beats the hell out of Fuji's APS-C.

Samyang has three AF FE lenses already out.

>>3138662
So how excactly is that evidence of their intent of killing the entire system? Besides it's out of date. X-e3 prototypes are already out in the field testing, x-t2s with ibis is on rnd phase. Fujifilm camera department is a tiny tiny company. The x-a line is pushed to contract developer because they have run out of dev resources, as gfx is keeping their hands full at the moment. And they just came up with updates to their older cameras bringing completely new features to them, more is on the way. What lenses do you feel they are missing? Some rehashes of their older models would be nice. They just have different philosophy to business than someone like sony that pumps out anything and everything they come up with, like a mass consumer electronics brand they are. Fuji listens to their customers and produce niche things based on that.

>>3138679
Pentax had the most comprehensive selection of 110 lenses, it had 3, and no one else made any because it was a dead end with compromised image quality.

I can also use af nikon and canon lenses and use any manual focus lens ever with af with the techart adapter.

>>3138662
they're concentrating on medium format lenses

>>3138682

>x-t2s with ibis

Fuji has publicly stated ibis is impossible with x-mount because the flange distance is too short.

It is gonna be a half assed implimentation just so the can slap an ibis label on the box.

>>3138686

They still only have the three launch lenses though?

>>3138682
>what are they missing

pro lenses.

Weather sealed lenses that aren't a joke.

lenses that are fast and usable wide open.

full frame lenses.

a decent macro lens.

A decent normal zoom.

A decent UWA zoom.

I mean, I can go on, considering all they have is a fuck ton of consumer tier primes that need to be stopped down past f4 to get sharp.

>>3138721
But it's just a consumer system, same as everyone else except Canon and Nikon, and all these things are relative - you think people are happy with the massive CA from their 55. 1.8s or their zoom mounts shearing off for no reason, or the 50% chance that your Jizzmaster 1.4 is decentered or that the only standard zooms for the first two years were complete shit, and in the case of the Zeiss 24 70, complete overpriced shit. Then there's the budget line that can't focus with horrendous distortion and flare, and it's basically a complete clusterfuck.

FYL my man.

>>3138750
>sonyggers will defend this

>>3138662
Dead mount. Okay dumb ass. XT-2 S is coming early next year to directly compete with sony, Along with it cinelenses. Why do you think they released them for sony first? obvious answer is they didn't have the Body yet.

>>3138750
For anything decent with sony you need to shell out the cash. and even then If i'm dropping that kinda money just to turn around and adapt Canon mount shit to the body I mine as well just buy a fucking 6D.. The sony logic is absolutely retarded

I don't see Fuji going anywhere for attest the next 6 years but beyond that they really do need to come up with something other then MF to stay relevant. X-PRO 2 body or more then likely a XT-2 style body with a FF 24mp sensor (no anti aliasing filter) and the ability to adapt lenses with AF similar to a sony is exactly what they need to do going forward.

Video doesn't necessarily matter all that much with Fuji. But they do need something out there. My hope would be a new XPRO line with the FF sensor and a line of FF sumicron like glass

>>3138843
>My hope would be a new XPRO line with the FF sensor and a line of FF sumicron like glass

Same poster not same fagging. But that right there would serve the niche group that shoot wit Fuji's for the leica experience, not to mention bring the X system up to date and make it more relevant for Pro level guys that can't live without the FF sensor.

All they would really need to start out is a 35 and 50 that would keep most people happy to start out with especially if you could mount you're canon, and nikon shit to it and not lose AF.

Plus i could see third party's like Zeiss, and Sigma jumping on board

>>3138848
keep the crop line running beside it but maybe limit it to the XT-20 X100 line so there is a clear distinguishment between the pro line shit and the consumer level. So that way people didn't lose there investment in the fuji Glass they already have.

Sony guy's whats a good way to get into the FF sony line I'm currently thinking about grabbing a A7ii. I shoot with fuji's but I do want to run a FF system with it. Obviously I'll keep my fuji shit. but whats the best glass to start with? looking for a solid 35 and 50-55 and kinda want to stay native

>>3138721
I have better things to do, but what the hell.

>pro lenses.
There's a whole bunch.

>Weather sealed lenses that aren't a joke.
There's a whole bunch.
Not like sony has anything remotely weather resistant in the whole fe mount system...

>lenses that are fast and usable wide open.
There's a whole bunch.

>full frame lenses.
Hahaha wtf why?

>a decent macro lens.
Oh come on. If you care SO MUCH about macro, you can adapt pretty much any macro lens, bellows etc EVER MADE on any fuji.

>A decent normal zoom.
There's at least 3 of those.

>A decent UWA zoom.
There is one. How many do you need?

Let's just be honest here, you just like hating. And whatever anyone says, whatever fuji might come up with, you won't stop hating because that is who you are, a bitter little bitch, trying to make yourself feel a tiny bit better by venting out on same random forum.

>>3138750
>>3138848

>xpro with ff sensor

Would be neat, but I feel if Fuji was gonna go FF they would have done it by now

>All they would really need to start out is a 35 and 50 that would keep most people happy to start out with especially if you could mount you're canon, and nikon shit to it and not lose AF.

Fuji's mount is a closed system. Unless that changes we will never see AF adapters.

>>3138721
Oh dear, you have bought and thoroughly tested all of the lenses fuji has made, and not a single one of them has left you satisfied? And with all of the available fuji cameras? You poor man, spent all your hard earned cash on such horrible devices! No wonder you're so pissed off at fuji that you just have to scream at bystanders every chance you get!

ass

>>3138861
You never know. The market is obviously there for it, And Fuji tends to take there consumer market feedback into account when designing new stuff

>>3138854
Depends, 35 1.4 is amazing but $, sony 35 2.8 is a great performer if you don't need the speed, the samyang version is half the price and weight and 95% as good.

You have even more choice at 50mm, pay more, get more, the 50 1.8 is average, the others by sony/zeiss are all great but quite different.

>>3139050
what do you think about the sony/zeiss 55 1.8 ?

File: Z-a7s-beauty.jpg (181KB, 1024x908px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1024x908px

Is the a7s a good all-rounder or more of a specialty camera for low light?

>>3139140
It's more of a video camera, not very good for photos.

>>3139126
Beautiful sonnar oof rendering
Sharper than sharp
Perfect 1.8 transmission (some 50mm f1.4 are as slow as t 1.7)
Has a small amount of easily correctable chromabs
Very fast to focus

It's the most leica like lens you will find with af on any mount.

>>3139140
It's a video camera, also has worse low light performance than the a7 and a7r for stills.

>>3139201
Don't forget the massive amount of vignetting.
AND the disgusting amount of spherochromatism that is impossible to correct and makes photos look like ass in some situations.
Also way overpriced.

>>3139201
>a7s is worse than a7 for low light
This is an interesting assertion. Sauce?
I'd agree that a scaled down a7r file will show less visible noise, all other things etc.

>>3139218
>vignette
>oh no, a portrait lens has corners just over 1 stop darker when shot wide open on a sony sensor that can happily be pushed 4 stops before noise becomes remotely noticeable.

Lenses have compromises, choose 2, small, sharp corners, bright corners. The 50 1.4 from sony chooses to leave out small instead. No one wants soft corners out of those three choices (cough, fuji, cough).

>calling ca spherochromatism
>thinking ca is an issue on this lens

Sony 55mm - 9um
Zeiss planar ef mount - 17um
Zeiss otus - 6um
Sigma art - 9um
Zeiss milvus f1.4 - 8um
Nikon 1.4 - 7um
Canon 1.2 - 20um
Canon 1.4 - 10um

>way overpriced
Only cheaper lens in dxo's top 25 performing lenses is the sony 85mm 1.8
>being upset you can't afford good gear
Priceless

>>3139236
Owned one, even a4 prints showed up the slightest bit of noise because the pixels are too big. Smaller pixels may be less accurate individually, but once resampled it's no contest. Obviously the 100% crop will be cleaner, but it covers a much larger area.

>>3139144
>>3139201
It has other advantages like smaller files sizes and much faster processing.

Low light stills? I'd take the A7s over a high resolution file any day.

>>3139248
Cheers, but I'm disapoint about the a7s now.

In passing, soft corners are no worse than dark corners on a portrait lens. I know you despise the 56 1.2 but all that shit just gets lost in the environment.

>>3139261
Dark corners can be fixed without visible penalty, soft corners are always soft.

The vignette approach gives a much more versatile lens and is clearly the preferable choice. You're just lying to yourself if you say otherwise.

File: Capture.png (2MB, 2060x1160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2060x1160px

>>3139248
Wow man, how butthurt can you get :D
I call spherochromatism spherochromatism because that's what it is, spherochromatism.

You really should stop reading dxo like a fucking bible tho.

And bro, I have spent over 10k€ in the last 5 years on camera gear, and I'm just a hobbyist. But I don't buy shit that is priced above their value, that is just dumb.

>>3139265
>says the guy with pathological levels of self-delusion.

Fucking Kek.

File: 1388194725267.gif (186KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 500x375px

>>3139268
>281gram vs 970gram vs 815gram
Not bad I would sayt. They are quite different lenses too to be honest.

>>3139268
Let's just break this down

1. What do you think those 3d plots show?

2. Compare the bokeh, the sigma is far more distracting, especially in the foreground. The otus has a much shallower dof, even comparing f1.8 to f2.

3. The Sigma clearly performs worse here wrt ca based off visual inspection alone, you've offered no objective values, just going off the opinion of the reviewer on that particular day.

4. DXO isn't wrong, just because it says Sony have produced some of their best scoring lenses, which goes against your inner monologue. I'm happy to change my view here if you offer conclusive evidence that DXO are goofing their results in any way. They are currently the only people offering truly objective values, using consistent testing methods, over a vast array of products. That's the thing with objective testing, no-one needs a second source because the tests come back the same.

5. Supply and Demand, it's a simple concept, and one that all of our businesses rely on, the facts are the Sony 55mm is in far more demand than there is supply, it's launch price was 30% LESS than it is today and a second hand one fetches 80 - 90% of it's RRP. Very few other lenses hold their value this well and it's down to how many people think it is priced too little for what it performs, not by those who think it costs too much. TL;DR - stop being poor, lel.

>>3139270
rebuttals in here weak af bro.

>>3139280
lmao, rekt

>>3139289
>>3139280
week damage control lad

"visual inspection" hahahahaha

>>3139248
>noise because the pixels are too big
Are you sure noise is the right term here?

Anyway, has you tried to shoot night scenes in the moonlight?
Would you say the light sensitive pixels help the EVF giving you a good picture and good composition ability when it's dark?

I was interested in picking up an A7s sometime and use it for casual snapshots.
I came back from holiday a few months ago and the A6000 filled up 40 GB of images for sorting...

>>3139280
I happened to have this image on my computer so I posted it to show the disgusting lca (or bokeh fringing for morons) that the sony lens suffers from. And it's obviously much worse than the sigma.

Those three 3d maps are equalized resolution charts to indicate sharpness. Closer to zero (pink), less blur. Sony is nowhere near as sharp as the two others.

Dxo never publish anything other than their interpretation of the data they gather. No raw data, no test images etc. And when all other reviewers contradict their results... I tend to trust those who actually post some test images along with the test data.

Sonyshills always scream how this is an otus killer and sharp at all apertures from corner to corner, when in reality it's not even a match to a fucking sigma. Don't get me wrong, it is a great lens and produces the goods. It is sharp at center and pretty good all around stopped down, especially for the size. It is not however without faults and nowhere near perfect. You wouldn't be able to make anything more with the sony that you wouldn't be able to make with, say a nikon 50/1.8D that costs under 100 bucks. If you're willing to spend a grand on a slightly above average lens, good for... sony, I guess.

>>3139339
>Are you sure noise is the right term here?

Noise is a term used in all electronics, and just represents the variance between the input and the output. Read up about signal to noise ratio, it will give you a much better understanding of the various factors in play with regards to sensors and image quality.

It used to be the case that larger pixels had definite benefits as it meant there was less area wasted inbetween each photosite, the distance between photosites is now negligibly small so this benefit has all but disappeared on modern sensors. The Sony A7s has so much better low light video due to the fact it uses the whole frame with no line skipping or pixel binning, whereas other cameras may crop in the image slightly, or only use every other line, effectively halving the sensors usable area. The 12mp sensor allows it to do this as the camera doesn't have to process as much data as there's less pixels to start with.

>>3139201

>It's the most leica like lens you will find with af on any mount.

Does it have the classic zeiss rendering and pop ?
I have seen pictures shot with the 35 1.4 and that to me is the zeiss look tough decision though because the 35 is almost a grand more

I was the guy who asked if I should go with X-T20 or A6000/6300.

In the end got memed into buying the Sony.(But not in a bad way).

Got A6300 since I encountered a big unexpected discount. At least I'm sure it's a good overall camera because I'm hearing good things about it for months.

Yeah, it definitely does feel more like a computer than a classic camera, although I still really like its' design, it is even smaller than X-T20 and the grip fits a lot better in my hand. It's also less noticeable in public, which is good.

Controls would probably still be more enjoyable on Fuji, but I already programmed a lot of shortcuts to my preferences, so it's just a matter of getting used to it. Menu is funky, but not complicated at all like people say. From what I've seen Fuji's is just organized a bit differently.

A lot higher limit on video length was important to me, and now I can be in peace knowing that I won't have problems with that in the future.

JPEGs look like trash without any filters, but that actually doesn't matter since I shoot in RAW and edit everything in Lightroom, so it would be more or less pointless with Fuji.

All in all, seems like a safe choice and a good overall camera, X-T20 would still probably be a good choice, though. Adding pros and cons, Sony probably still wins for me.

Don't know why I'm writing a review because nobody probably cares, but whatever. Now I expect Fuji army to appear and start memeing me with explanations why I made the wrong choice lol.

>>3139842
Take pics and post them, we can meme those as well.
Seriously, enjoy it.

File: knowledge8_4_1.jpg (19KB, 445x251px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 445x251px

>>3139842
Jpegs are pretty bad, they sort of become okay when I set the "Dynamic Range Optimizer" to level 3.
And increase the reds to "A-B: A3" / "G-M: 0" in auto whitebalance. Everybody loves the reds.

The only thing I wish was better would be to program the focus ring on the lenses to adjust aperture instead.

>>3139842

Good to see you are happy.

>All in all, seems like a safe choice and a good overall camera, X-T20 would still probably be a good choice, though

This is the truth. They are both very good cameras.

Though for your use case, it seems the Sony is a better choice.

Oh and if you want to completely remove the video limit, you can install open memories.
>https://sony-pmca.appspot.com/

I personally never got the whole "a computer not a camera!" and "controls suck" complaint.

I mean sure, the controls were dildos on the old NEX cameras, but after set properly the modern ones have every setting you could want at most one button press away.

>>3139842
what lens did you pair with it? just the kit lens so far?