Sony power vs the siren-song of Kaizen

[moxford]

Originally attracted to Sony due to their newfound commitment to cameras and the e-mount, this has been further strengthened by their push into the "GM lenses" realm.

 

But a part of me wants to have fun again, and support a company who stands behind their cameras, their menus, their firmware updates and, ultimately, their users.

 

But I cannot let go of the "going back to APS-C" argument, not because I dislike APS-C "quality" per se, but I dislike the inherent 1.5x multiplier on effective focal length or the fewer photosites for lower-light photography.

 

Fuji reportedly has some good lenses.  So does Sony.  Sony will out-resolve the X-Trans, but the Fuji punches well above its weight and, well, it's Fuji.  Fuji is supposed to have better menus.

 

How many of you, if any, have really missed that wider-angle lens range of the larger sensors or missed the light-gathering abilities of FF (Sony or otherwise?)  I'm not affiliated with anything camera-related, just using this as a talking-point, but if Fuji (theoretically) released a FF variant, how many would "start over" with a Fuji FF, including purchasing new glass?  Would it be a huge draw, or something that, sure, given unlimited funds would be cool but doesn't really affect your normal day-to-day or workflow?

 

Thanks for perspective ...

 

 

[elmacus]

No Fluff-Fluff sensor from Fujifilm. MF sensor might come.

 

I changed to Fujifilm for the fun of manual aperture and shutter. Hate menys shooting from Canon.

 

Oh the look of my brothers face with his Sony A7rii when he saw the lowlight shoot from my X-Pro1 at iso 6400.

 

FF-equv? Couldnt care less, its just a number.

 

If you need the highest mumbojumbo techspec, buy a Sony. If you want to have fun, buy a Fujifilm.

 

I cant see any lack of wideangle.

 

Good luck.

You soon will get a toon of more input in this thread.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 mobile

[addicted2light]

I own both a Sony A7r and a Fuji X-T10, so maybe I can shed some light.

 

 

HIGH ISOs AND LONG EXPOSURES

In low light the Sony, once resized to 16Mp, it has a tad less noise, but Sony sensors (or at least every Sony camera I've ever had) put out A TON ( = hundreds) of hot pixels both at high iso and doing long exposures, even with the "long exposure noise reduction" engaged. So for anything over 800 iso and for long exposures Fuji it is.

 

HIGH CONTRAST BORDERS

The original A7 series (A7 and A7r) has compressed raw. This is not a major thing most of the time, EXCEPT when you have sharp transitions from dark to light. Think a window in near silhouette and an outside scene, or a tree trunk against a sunlit background. Then as soon as you start pushing the contrast (and you will have to, because the vast dynamic range of Sony sensors means that the images will be pretty flat straight out of camera) you're left with horrible halos like you normally get on over-sharpened images. You can cure this with careful brushing in Photoshop (or up to a certain point negative clarity in Lightroom), but it is a gigantic pain in the you-know-what. Fuji does not have this problem.

 

LENSES

I don't personally have any Sony lens, because most of them are simply too expensive for what they give you, even terrific piece of glass like the 55/1.8. Besides, from what I've read it looks like Sony has a bit of a problem with sample variation (again, no personal experience in this field). But I use Contax Zeiss and Minolta MD adapted lenses (Contax for general use, Minolta for pastel like colors and low contrast), and with the camera strapped to a stable tripod the results are terrific. That said, from 180mm and above, tripod or no tripod, you better use fast shutter speeds otherwise the horrific shutter shock of the A7r will blurry the image (should not be a problem with the A7 though).* Fuji has the advantage of having a way better lens line-up, IMO, both in terms of focal lengths covered and in terms of sheer quality. Even the cheap 16-50 that came with the X-T10 is a surprisingly good performer! And with the OIS I've been able to shoot up to 1s (yes, one full second!!!) @ 50mm with sharp results (keep in mind, I've been shooting since I was maybe 5 years old, YMMV).

 

*I use a pretty heavy tripod with an Arca Swiss B-1 ball that was more than strong enough to support my 5x7" large format camera, and I still get shutter shock, so yeah, it's a thing

 

FF Vs APS-C

My approach to this is pretty simple.

If you shoot portraits FF has the advantage of shallow depth of field (but you can get similar or better results with a faster lens on Fuji like the 55/1.2).

If you shoot landscapes or street FF has the disadvantage of the shallow depth of field. Especially with the high resolution sensor of the A7r I have quite often to focus stack images even with short lenses, because there is no way that I can get all in focus even stopping down the aperture (and besides, very few lenses will let you stop down to f/16 without robbing you of the sharpness you're searching because of diffraction; there is not a fast rule, it will depend by the optical scheme).

 

MENUS

I don't see where the big deal is anymore. The original X100 menu was horrible, as have been the menus of a couple of Nikon's cameras, but nowadays I find that whatever you're shooting you will get the hang of it pretty quickly, assuming you're actually using the camera instead of letting it sit on a shelf.

 

X-TRANS vs SONY: SHARPNESS

Fuji files will take A TON more sharpening to realize their potential, especially if you're using an Adobe raw converter. Not a problem, but it is something you should be aware of. And IMO at 100% Fuji files, for this reason, might look often a tad "unnatural". It is a moot point, though, because once printed they look fantastic, as the Sony's. The only real difference here is the one in megapixels, and with the new 24Mp sensor coming even that is becoming academic at best. Besides, even 16Mp files print beautifully, as long as you know how to properly sharpen in multiple passes (import, creative, printing), up to 1m generally, and up to 1.5 meters with some subjects, even on glossy paper (the most demanding one). And on matte or canvas probably the sky is the limit

 

X-TRANS vs SONY: DYNAMIC RANGE

Sony dynamic range, from my own test (shooting a grey step card and measuring the white point 0-255 value within Photoshop), it is around 11 2/3 stops.

Fuji X-T10 dynamic range is, again from my own test, around 7 1/3 stops.

This might look huge, and it is, but in real use unless you like the HDR look with no shadows you will have to compress the dynamic range quite a bit. Besides, a print on paper can withstand generally 5 1/2 stops of dynamic range anyway. And should you want to extend it anyway, I find way easier to shoot multiple images with the Fuji and combine them as an HDR 32 bit file to work on in Lightroom than to having to do the same to extend sharpness with the A7r (focus stacking is way more prone to errors that will not let you combine the images properly).

 

X-TRANS vs SONY: COLORS

This might be the last point, but in reality is where the real difference boils down. Please, keep in mind that some of the difference will be due to the characteristic of the lens used (for example Contax glass has a particularly contrasty and saturated signature), but most of it will depend by the sensor itself.

This is a matter of taste. They are both capable of delivering great colors.

But Sony colors are IMO more on the warm-greenish side of the spectrum (think like the 17th century Flemish school of painters, or Turner), while Fuji in my admittedly for now limited experience (compared to Sony) tends to favor cooler blues and redder, bolder reds (think Giotto) (obviously using the same white balance).

Edited March 16, 2016 by addicted2light

[Jackalized]

There is no penalitly regarding the focal length, as the whole lineup of lenses is focused on the aps-c crop factor. Fuji put up a prime lens lineup equivalent to 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm (propably soon x2), 40mm, 50mm (x2), 85mm, 90mm and 135mm.

 

No need to think in ways of "oh, my 50mm is now equivalent to a 85mm".

 

Also the x-trans sensors put out a hell lot less chroma noise then every bayer sensor I've ever seen (FF or not), regardless of raw converter. Normally a small amount of chroma noise reduction (around 1 to 15 in LR or CaptureOne) gets rid of it completly. I don't care much for the luminance noise as the noise pattern looks pleasant to me (before Fuji I've shot only film, I absolutly detest chroma noise and I like grain). High isos are still very detailed and sharp, there's no banding at all.

[Nick05]

I was shooting a 5D MKII and a 5D classic with a fairly large collection of L glass when I bought my first Fuji camera, the X-E1. The AF was horrible, the EVF had lag, and Lightroom couldn't even read the RAW files for quite some time so I had to shoot mostly jpeg. Needless to say, at that time the Fuji was more of a toy to me and I used the camera once in a while for fun. When the X-T1 was announced, I preordered it. Before I received it, I sold the 5D classic and ordered a 6D to replace it as a backup to my 5D MKII. Once the X-T1 arrived, I started using it a lot. It didn't feel quite ready to replace a DSLR, but it was so much closer than the X-E1. The firmware updates made the X-T1 into an entirely different camera. The way they transformed the camera is difficult to explain. Think of it like having a 5D MKII downloading the firmware (for free) and having a 5D MKIII. The AF performance difference was an incredible step up. 

 

From my Canon setup, I was sold on FF sensors. I had a Rebel and a 50D and the sensors in them were fairly bad, and the focal lengths of the lenses just seemed off. Everything was better when I stepped up to the 5D. I was hoping Fuji would release their FF model too. The X-T1 began to change my thinking on this. I bought some of the Fuji prime lenses and was blown away by the quality. The images looked better than what my Canon L lenses produced. Last July I took the X-T1 and 56mm F/1.2 along with my 6D and 50mm F/1.2L on a portrait session and shot them side by side (shortly after firmware V4). This was the first time I ever used the Fuji to shoot any sort of portraits and I don't remember why I didn't at least test this before on a friend. I shot the Canon at F/2 and the Fuji at F/1.4 for many of the shots. I think the Fuji photos looked better overall. 

 

Needless to say, I had sold the 5D MKII and some L lenses. I also have a 6D with less than 2000 shutter actuations on it. I was holding onto the 50mm F/1.2, the 135mm F/2, and and the 70-200mm F/2.8 because those were may favorite lenses. My X-Pro2 arrived late last week and I started to photograph the rest of the Canon gear for Craigslist. I do not see any loss of image quality or usability at this point with the Fuji; at least for me. I don't shoot with flashes often so the lack of a flash system hasn't bothered me. As Jackalized said above, the lens selection from Fuji helps with the equivalent factor. They created lenses with the APS-C sensor in mind for all the popular focal lengths. I never thought I'd say this, but FF no longer matters to me. If Fuji were to release one, I'd at least evaluate it. I'd probably be more interested in the MF camera that is rumored though. Overall, the Fuji cameras make shooting fun. You want to use the camera. This has been my experience over the last few years. 

[Fredkelder]

Only one question: "What do you need?"

-I've used many systems and I enjoyed them all: they all have pros and cons, none of them are perfect.

-Between Sony FF and Fuji APS-c systems, FF is better for lowlight or shortest dof, that's all. If no mistake, the largest angle of view is the same (21mm eq 24x36).

-I like Fuji for compactness and hybrid viewfinders. That's all.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Fredkelder

[Nero]

The shooting experience is the most important part for me, with image quality of Fuji's sensors and the glass coming in very close behind. A positive and fun shooting experience translates into better images for me. My reaction time is faster and my thoughts are more completely focused on composition with the technical aspects of making a good shot falling into place almost automatically. But that's a very personal preference, it may not work out that way for others who try Fuji equipment.

 

If Fuji entered the full frame market, I would give some thought buying it to complement my current gear, not necessarily replace it, although if there is a medium format option also on the table I would strongly consider that instead of full frame. If I were going to invest heavily in another sensor format and lenses to go with it, medium format would be more differentiation between the systems. It would cost more than full frame and be physically larger, but I would rather spend a little more and have a much clearer difference in capability.

[ajurjans]

I've dealt with a number of Sony and Fuji cameras.
Sony are great gadgets! If specs "on paper" make you feel good, buy it and go shooting! It is completely normal to want to own the best out there. And there is no reason why you could not get great images with Sony.

 

However.
Here are my biggest issues with Sony:
Movie mode. I love it, but why, if there is a separate movie mode on the PSAM dial, the shutter button just becomes an error button? It does not start video, it does not take a still, it throws an error which I have to dismiss as well. And the "true" movie button is in a place you have zero chances pressing without shaking the camera.
Jpegs. Just useless. Quality is great, bot in jpeg it is not even good. The difference is visible even without zooming in.
Menus. And other error buttons/modes.

(images taken by me, sorry about the watermark)

 

The video settings.

I don't care that much about video (there is even no way I can shoot movies with my x-e2, as the buttons have been reassigned), and therefore, at the times I do, the settings of sizes, formats and resolutions make me raise my eyebrows.

 

File structure on memory card. I honestly can't remember ALL the locations where a Sony camera could store your videos. Hugely inconvenient if you are using a card reader and want to minimize the number of useless folders in your pc. Also, very easy to delete some videos that were in the folder, where other formats are kept.

 

in-camera apps. While the idea sounds good, let me rephrase - Sony expects you to buy a, honestly, not-that-cheap camera (up to several thousands for A7s ii) and then they want to charge you €10 more for a timelapse app!

 

They make the best low-light camera there is... And make it with an AF system, that is useless in the dark. Not in the night. Even in slightly dark premises.

Ah, and while we are on the topic of Autofocus, well, I honestly can't explain how the AF would work in majority of the possible lock-zone-track setting combinations. I've tried a lot of those.

 

If you are into gadgets - Sony is possibly the choice for you.

If you like photography and the control, literally, at your fingertips, you have to try Fuji.

 

I was once obsessed with FF and I still admire how the pics I made with my 6x6 camera look. And Fuji, honestly, from all the systems, have managed to get the closest to that "film-look" in terms of image rendition. Not resolution, not microcontrast - but the overall structure of the image. Perhaps it is because after 6x6, I view both APS-C and FF as cropped sensors And then there is not really THAT much of a difference.

And they've got great lenses, too. Sony-Zeiss cost a lot, are not bad, but at the price, I'd expect more.

 

What I love - the NFC and WiFi operation is class-leading. Fuji has a lot to learn from that.

Edited March 16, 2016 by ajurjans

[Cedric]

This is a funny topic;  I am no photographer by any standard, but I love to shoot pictures as a hobby. 

 

I used to be a leica user with an M9, purchased the A7 to use my Leica lens because of the low light capability completely blow Leica M9 away, love it so much that I moved to the A7R and bought a bunch of the best E Mount lens, the 55, the 35, you name it, I had good lens.  I was loving it.

 

Then I go back to look at my shots for the year, especially since I have switched to A7R, I have much less 'keeper' pictures than with M9, yes even the high iso ones.  The A7R is very difficult to get sharp image, probably because of high MP or whatever shutter slam issue, not sure but not really care, at the end, less 'keeper'

 

So I started looking and landed on the Fuji XT1, traded all the sony gear and a 10-24, 35, 50.  

 

I have at least 'doubled' my keeper pictures, I have more choices on what I want to keep from my keepers, it widened my selections and options.

 

FF vs APS-C, for my application is irrelevant, I can go as wide as 15mm (equivalent), my widest lens on FF was the voigtlander 15mm.  If I want to get really close, I can adapt my 90mm Leica to get 135mm.  If I need low light fast lens, I have the 50/1.2 or 35/1.4

 

I never missed a thing;

 

Then it came to Fuji firmware upgrades, it turns my camera into a new camera, for free.  Sony firmware? sure, they send one out when they need to provide support for their new lens, rarely they try to improve the camera they sold to you.  Sony's approach is to sell you a new camera next year, A7II, A7RII, etc.

 

I tried to convince myself to get the A7RII, which is a great camera, but I can't convince myself to pay that price for the sony when I am not sure my wallet will like this upgrade approach, and the price tag for the A7RII is also quite high.

 

At the end I get myself more Fuji lens instead, for the price of A7RII I can get a few lens and they were all comparable to the Leica lens I had.

 

I will get the X-Pro2.  I love the support they provide to the camera and make it last, they even tell folks not to upgrade the X-E2 and give you an updated firmware instead, who does that?  

Edited March 16, 2016 by Cedric

[Tom H.]

Originally attracted to Sony due to their newfound commitment to cameras and the e-mount, this has been further strengthened by their push into the "GM lenses" realm.

 

But a part of me wants to have fun again, and support a company who stands behind their cameras, their menus, their firmware updates and, ultimately, their users.

 

But I cannot let go of the "going back to APS-C" argument, not because I dislike APS-C "quality" per se, but I dislike the inherent 1.5x multiplier on effective focal length or the fewer photosites for lower-light photography.

 

Fuji reportedly has some good lenses.  So does Sony.  Sony will out-resolve the X-Trans, but the Fuji punches well above its weight and, well, it's Fuji.  Fuji is supposed to have better menus.

 

How many of you, if any, have really missed that wider-angle lens range of the larger sensors or missed the light-gathering abilities of FF (Sony or otherwise?)  I'm not affiliated with anything camera-related, just using this as a talking-point, but if Fuji (theoretically) released a FF variant, how many would "start over" with a Fuji FF, including purchasing new glass?  Would it be a huge draw, or something that, sure, given unlimited funds would be cool but doesn't really affect your normal day-to-day or workflow?

 

Thanks for perspective ...

 

"But I dislike the inherent 1.5x multiplier on effective focal length or the fewer photosites for lower-light photography."

 

Apart from bragging rights, this has no impact whatsoever on the ability to create a stunning image. In the old days of medium format, 80mm was normal, 50mm was wide. So what? It's just a number. The math really is not that hard if you want to know equivalents. Canon and Nikon have had flagship APS-C cameras for years, and still refuse to make proper APS-C lenses just so they can tell people that they "need" to upgrade to FF just to make proper use of those lenses. Had Canon made a proper APS-C lens, I might have never switched.

 

"Fuji reportedly has some good lenses. So does Sony."

 

Fuji has hardly any lenses that are not at least "moderately good", most of them are class leading in rendering and sharpness. With Sony, everything except the high end is moderate to poor at best, for usually similar prices as the equivalent and much better Fujinon.

 

Fuji kicks Sony out of the park when it comes to having a proper lens catalogue. Sony is working on it, yes, but have you seen the size and cost of those new lenses?

 

"Sony will out-resolve the X-Trans, but the Fuji punches well above its weight"

 

Resolving power is all well and nice, but what size prints are you making anyway? Let's be honest, most people talking about all those 42 shiny megapixels will probably never make a print larger than A4 anyway. Is your job making billboards? Sure, then get the Sony. It's a no brainer. Or do you have pixelpeep-itis?

 

"How many of you, if any, have really missed that wider-angle lens range"

 

I don't get it, Fuji has a 15mm to 35mm equivalent lens. How much wider do you need? Yes, Canon and Nikon have 14mm lenses. And 1mm difference is a lot in wide angle terms. But seriously, less wide angle options? How about 10-24, 14, 16 and 18 all covered, and all of those apart from the 18 are brilliant optics. And the 18 is still good too. And then there's the Rokinon 8mm if needed.

 

 

People should really go out more and take actual pictures, instead of staring at camera figures and charts. My favourite camera is still my old Nikon FM2. Why? Because it doesn't get in the way of taking a nice picture. Fuji's have that same effect on me. If and when Canon, Nikon and Sony stop this arms race to beat each other in terms of charts and actually make a camera that prosumers can enjoy using as much as a Fuji, I'll consider them again.

[Tkdornellas]

Fujifilm is the only company commited to producing high quality lenses for APS-C. Canon and Nikon do have great APS-C bodies, but they don't have a strong line-up of APS-C lenses. They market FF as an evolution of APS-C, and force anybody shooting APS-C and looking for good image quality to buy unnecessarily(for a compact system) heavy and expensive glass. Sony wants a piece of that market and is emulating that behavior, although they have the whole mirrorless thing going.    

I guess it's better for Fujifilm to remain "king of APS-C" than to become an also ran 4th place in the FF market. For those of us who like to shoot with lighter, more compact gear, the Fujifilm X system is a no-brainer. I dropped Canon because I reached a point where I was forced to buy FF equipment, either body or lenses, and I did not want the added weight and bulk. 

With Fujifilm I get a great user experience and image quality and for a lot less money. 

[Antoine B]

Yes, Sony has an attractive offer these days, and they are working hard, which is good for the users at the end.

 

What keeps me looking toward Fuji are: 

- The aperture ring and shutter speed nob: this is what all cameras should use, in my opinion

- The film simulations: so fun!

- The slightly more compact package of APS-C 

 

But hey, that's personal...

[Tom H.]

Current day APS-C blows previous generation full frame out of the water. A few years ago the 5D MK2 was still the must have camera, but I'll take my Fuji any day over those files. The whole argument that APS-C captures less light is mostly a silly point. Yes, a same generation full frame sensor will have a stop or so benefit in low light performance. The one stop less dof may not always be a benefit and the size, weight and cost difference is very significant.

 

The old Nikon/Canon argument is that serious users "need to upgrade" to full frame somewhere down the line. That also implies that APS-C would be a downgrade, and that simply is not true. It's a choice. Just like back in the film days, medium format or 35mm was a choice. Small format back then was favoured for the size, weight and cost benefits while still supporting a high enough resolution for most print purposes.

 

The part where "full frame" lost my interest is when I tried the 5D MK2 and I noticed that a current full frame system has grown to the size that medium format used to have back in the film days. That's the day I said goodbye to Canon, since they offered no serious alternative and neither did Nikon.

[i9zero]

Camera is camera.  One does have more features and you can do more things with it.  High ISO and ability to crop.  "Why crop?  Get it right?"  sure, that works for majority of situations, but working with a team, sometimes after the shoot the decision is made to use a cropped image.  You don't have room for crop using Fuji, I would have to reshoot.  With a 42MP, I can do so without an issue.  It was never my intention to print a billboard, nor lot of pros shooting MF with 50+ to 100MP digital backs.  

 

Fuji still isn't able to compete with high ISO against Sony.  I shoot A7R II at ISO 10,000 comfortably without the fear of skin texture/color  or detail loss issues compared to Fuji.  Granted, I may not shoot that high of an iso often, but when you need it, it's there and it works.  

 

With that said, If your end game is traditional portraits or landscapes that end up as 8X10,20X30 or social media, you just have to keep it in perspective that you may see all the pixels on your wonderful computer screen, but it'll only end up as 2048px on facebook and majoirity of clients are NOT going to view it in 4K or 6K like images.  Not to mention your wonderful printed photo being viewed at a good distance rather than with a nose touching the print viewing every dot.

 

In conclusion, go out and shoot? who cares?  buy both or buy all the new cameras out there?

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by i9zero

[Tom H.]

A Ferrari also looks like a better car than my humble Ford Mondeo, on paper at least. Faster, bigger engine, prettier, ... Yes, pricier too, but hey, the specs look nicer!

 

Does that mean I actually 'need' one for my daily commute? Nope, not really. Would it get me there faster? Nope, not really. I still have to follow traffic rules and congestion anyway...

 

Perhaps a day or two a year I get to take it to a track, where it would humiliate cheaper cars. But for day to day use, I'll take the Ford. Fraction of the cost, if it breaks, it breaks, no big loss. And most of all, just as good for my daily use and probably even more practical to use.

 

Go out, take pictures. Almost every serious camera these days will do that for you, Fuji or otherwise. If you're into specs and bragging rights, all fine and dandy. Just don't call it photography.

[Fredkelder]

A Ferrari also looks like a better car than my humble Ford Mondeo, on paper at least. Faster, bigger engine, prettier, ... Yes, pricier too, but hey, the specs look nicer!

 

Does that mean I actually 'need' one for my daily commute? Nope, not really. Would it get me there faster? Nope, not really. I still have to follow traffic rules and congestion anyway...

 

J'ai bien cherché un bouchon d'essence sur mon X100T, je n'ai rien trouvé.

Ceci pour dire que je suis totalement de votre avis.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Fredkelder

[Tom H.]

J'ai bien cherché un bouchon d'essence sur mon X100T, je n'ai rien trouvé.

Ceci pour dire que je suis totalement de votre avis.

 

N'oubliez pas, diesel pour les Fuji's, Euro 95 pour les Sony's. ;-)

[addicted2light]

N'oubliez pas, diesel pour les Fuji's, Euro 95 pour les Sony's. ;-)

Lol

[Guest thiswayup]

Originally attracted to Sony due to their newfound commitment to cameras and the e-mount, this has been further strengthened by their push into the "GM lenses" realm.

 

But a part of me wants to have fun again, and support a company who stands behind their cameras, their menus, their firmware updates and, ultimately, their users.

 

But I cannot let go of the "going back to APS-C" argument, not because I dislike APS-C "quality" per se, but I dislike the inherent 1.5x multiplier on effective focal length or the fewer photosites for lower-light photography.

 

 

1. The idea that 35mm fl's are especially valid is a delusion

 

2. You don't understand the basics of how digital cameras work. "Fewer photosites for lower-light photography" is nonsense - it' sensor PITCH that matters, which means REDUCING the number of photosites for a lower light sensor with a given technology. Which is why the lowlight version of the A7 has fewer pixels not more.

[i9zero]

1. The idea that 35mm fl's are especially valid is a delusion

 

2. You don't understand the basics of how digital cameras work. "Fewer photosites for lower-light photography" is nonsense - it' sensor PITCH that matters, which means REDUCING the number of photosites for a lower light sensor with a given technology. Which is why the lowlight version of the A7 has fewer pixels not more.

Very true, but even with the A7R II, X-Pro 2 cannot match it's ISO capability.  It's still one gen tech behind of the A7R II.  

[Mikhail Sidorchev]

I went to Fuj- X from selling Canon 5D mark2 . Thought also about sony A7, but fuji costed less, and i was attracted by fujifilm camera jpegs. I don't regret of ending with FF sensors, as Fuji opened my mind in another way: the more you want to shoot pictures, the better and more experienced you will be. and for sure, fuji has much more increased my intention to take camera with me and make pictures. And from my personal point of view, the quality of my pictures (technical and artistic) has alot grown since i shoot with Fuji, though, i am not a commercial photograph at all.

any scene is possible with Fuji photography. night pictures, portraits, landcapes. whatever you want.

about wide-angle lens, there are 10-24 mms and 14 mm lenses, which can replace FF wide angle lense as they have same angle of view. and the quality from both of them are very good

 

Edited June 8, 2016 by Mikhail Sidorchev