Switching from Sony full frame to Fuji Aps-c

[Joostven]

Is somebody having the experience in this field? Sony is launching a lot of new models but their menu's are horrible. My question is if the x trans sensor of Fuji can beat the full frame sharpness of Sony? Thanks for letting me know.

[gordonrussell76]

Hi there

 

So the Sony range of cameras have the following MP ratings. I am going to ignore the A7s mkI and II as they are aimed at lowlight and its unfair to make comparisons on resolution with them as that's not there bag.

 

A7 - 24 MP

A7R - 36Mp

A7ii - 24MP

A7Rii - 42MP

 

Fuji claim that thanks to no AA filter and the nature of the X-Trans sensor that there sensors resolve to a higher equivalent than the MP rating suggests, this figure is in brackets.

 

The Fuji X-Trans II sensor (X-T1/10/Pro1/ X-E2) = 16MP (24MP)

The Fuji X-Trans III sensor (Xpro2 and future X-T2 ) = 24MP (36MP)

 

So if you buy an X-Pro 2 even going by the lower rating it has an equivalent resolution to the A7I and II and can just about touch the A7R. All of this is not taking into account that these MP counts are spread over a much smaller surface so that does increase effective/percieved resolution (perhaps that is where Fuji are getting the figures in brackets.

 

Bottom line the Sony A7RII is going to resolve more detail than the X-Pro 2, the A7R will resolve more detail than the rest of the Fuji bodies and the A7 is probably a tie.

 

Another factor. Fuji lenses, Sony have some gems in their line up and some more coming, but as a balanced range of lens Fuji cannot be beaten, in every segment of the line up the lenses excel, there is not a bad lens in the bunch in terms of sharpenss. Some have slower than ideal AF with older bodies and that it in terms of criticism. Even the 'kit' lens is sharper than some primes I have used frmo other systems. the 18-135mm zoom normally a cheap throwaway affair in other lineups is still a very useable and sharp lens from Fuji.

 

This will have a huge impact on your sharpness.

 

A lot of the lens having Satbilization built in. No this is not IBIS, but IBIS is a one size fits all solutoin, the individual stabilization in the Fuji lens is designed specifically for that lens, the stabilization requirements of a 18-55mm are very different from a 100-400mm lens. I personally think this approach is superior, unless you are using legacy glass or primes.

 

So can Fuji resolve as sharp as Sony. most of the time in normal use cases I would say yes. If you are a landscaper where its everything then maybe the A7Rii is the one to go for. Sports, buy a Nikon/Canon everythign else you will be more than happy wtih Fuji.

 

OH and I forgot to mention colour, the colour and contrast and rendering from the Fuji has a look that is unique but present, and its very rare I get bum images. I get boring images becuase my composition is bad, but never because the camera has not rendered it well. IN fact this is why its such a great range for Street becuase it can turn the mundane into something beautiful. Its B&W rendering is pretty damn sweet as well.

 

The Sony will have slightly better background blur/DOF effects, but again with the Fuji if portraiture is your thing if you pair the X-T1 or X-Pro 2 with any of the 35mm/56mm/90mm or 50-140mm you will have no problem achieving 'that' look. 

 

Go look on Flickr/500px compare contrast. Or hire an X-T1/Pro2 and i guarantee within a day you will be hooked.

 

G

Edited March 15, 2016 by gordonrussell76

[Fredkelder]

Is somebody having the experience in this field? Sony is launching a lot of new models but their menu's are horrible. My question is if the x trans sensor of Fuji can beat the full frame sharpness of Sony? Thanks for letting me know.

Hello! My opinions:

-The question is "What differences can you see?" 99% of photographers won't see any difference in term of sharpness between APS-c and FF.

-Theorical differences are well known: a/ dof b/ low light situation. That's all.

-lens,PP and uses are as important as the camera itself.

-Don't worry about sharpness. Don't waste your time reading charts, graphics and so on. Learn how to shoot a great photo.

-99% photographies on the web are post-processed.

-Choosing a brand isn't a simple question of sharpness: menus (as you say),sustainability, roadmap, warranty, community, personal feeling...

Edited March 15, 2016 by Fredkelder

[kim]

Fuji can clam the X-Trans-II 16Mpx 'resolves' ~24Mpx  all they want, It's not as much detail as my 22Mpx 5D3. Still very sharp and great detail, more than enough really.

Attached image from a set up on a shoot showing just how much detail there is in the 5D3 with a good lens attached [50mm Art]. I won't attempt that on my X-T1

 

Click here to view the image It's a super close up of a small part of the shot, do check out the detail, we are so spoilt as photographers these days.

Edited March 15, 2016 by kim

[Tom H.]

Fuji can clam the X-Trans-II 16Mpx 'resolves' ~24Mpx  all they want, It's not as much detail as my 22Mpx 5D3. Still very sharp and great detail, more than enough really.

Attached image from a set up on a shoot showing just how much detail there is in the 5D3 with a good lens attached [50mm Art]. I won't attempt that on my X-T1

 

Click here to view the image It's a super close up of a small part of the shot, do check out the detail, we are so spoilt as photographers these days.

 

That's all fine and dandy, but at what point is enough just plain enough? If you need ultimate sharpness, you should be shooting strobe/flash anyway and those could make any lens/camera combination look good.

 

300% crop from a generic headshot, classic chrome, no added sharpening. X-T1, 56 1.2 APD. No processing, which I would normally do, just the RAW loaded into lightroom and resized for web at 1500px long edge.

 

Is being able to count individual nose hairs and pores not enough resolution? I agree, we are spoilt as photographers. Never forget that.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 17, 2016 by Tom H.

[Fredkelder]

 It's a super close up of a small part of the shot, do check out the detail, we are so spoilt as photographers these days.

This is a pixel-peeping. From my point of view, best photographers are not pixel-peepers but instinctive artists. They must be confident in their equipment, obviously, and one can prefer a 5DIII but they won't waste their time in vain comparisons.

[addicted2light]

I use both a Sony A7r and a Fuji X-T10. Just answered a similar question on another post:

 

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/2513-sony-power-vs-the-siren-song-of-kaizen/?do=findComment&comment=23293

 

so I'll just copy&paste here for your convenience. Hope this helps.

 

I'll just add though that in terms of "bang for the bucks" Fuji trashes Sony big time, especially with the crazy prices that the latter is asking for the latest models. And as for the lenses you can read what I think about below.

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

 

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 17, 2016 by addicted2light

[Patrick FR]

my two cents: http://www.fujirumors.com/fuji-fun-vs-sony-specs-a-story-about-my-3-days-flirt-with-the-sony-a7rii-and-why-i-now-love-fujifilm-even-more/

[kim]

PP at it's finest 

 

I think that Fuji's cameras can make the most of their really wonderful lenses, as can Sony's new cameras. With Sony you get 42Mpx with Fuji you get 24Mpx. Which do you think can produce a sharper image containing more detail? Neither the A7R-ii or the Fuji X-Trans cameras have AA filters so both can maximise the potential.

 

If you are looking for a camera that can produce the sharpest images you also need to look at the lenses. Given the same optical quality of the lenses the Sony will produce a finer detailed image, it has almost twice the resolution. Having said that and for a little perspective nice and sharp 4K video is only ~8Mpx so Fuji at 16 or 24 should be loads for you. 

[gordonrussell76]

addicted2light

 

Your quote below is bang on with the especially an Adobe rae converter. However in my experience with Capture 1 the demosaicing algo's do a much better job and I find that the default sharpening amount is usually enough with a well focused shot. I add more mainly for effect, although the clarity slider is usually best for this. I have no complaints about sharpness, in fact sometimes I am moving the slider the other way with the 56mm and 90mm becuase they are sometimes unflatteringly sharp.

 

"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   :)"

 

[addicted2light]

addicted2light

 

Your quote below is bang on with the especially an Adobe rae converter. However in my experience with Capture 1 the demosaicing algo's do a much better job and I find that the default sharpening amount is usually enough with a well focused shot. I add more mainly for effect, although the clarity slider is usually best for this. I have no complaints about sharpness, in fact sometimes I am moving the slider the other way with the 56mm and 90mm becuase they are sometimes unflatteringly sharp.

 

 

I've tried several times to warm up to Capture 1, especially given that they give you a slightly limited version for free if you shoot Sony. But I can't stand the fact that it litters the file system with its own files and other several small annoying quirks (well, annoying from the perspective of a LR and PS user). But thanks for the suggestion!

 

That said, and even if I'm a self-confessed sharpness nut (in terms of lens performance) I'm not too obsessed with the sharpest possible print. Quite the opposite actually, I think sometime a print too sharp might look unnatural or, even worse, take away the attention from your subject to the technical quality of the print itself. So I get what you say when you write that you have to move the sharpness slider the other way with some lenses, otherwise the results will look "unflatteringly sharp".

 

A proper print, IMO, (and based on what you say I guess you agree) should be transparent, for lack of a better term, and every enhancement (and I post process my files quite a bit) should be in function of the subject.

Edited March 18, 2016 by addicted2light

[Fredkelder]

PP at it's finest 

 

I think that Fuji's cameras can make the most of their really wonderful lenses, as can Sony's new cameras. With Sony you get 42Mpx with Fuji you get 24Mpx. Which do you think can produce a sharper image containing more detail?

It will not discuss a technical fact, many photographers have already demonstrated it on the web, so just as a reminder:

 

Higher number of pixels= better sharpness is a brand marketing argument. It has marginal impacts on the final sharpness.

 

 A photographer needs more Mpx for 2 reasons only:

-larger prints (and very larger)

-croppings.

 

All the rest is myth.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Fredkelder

[kim]

Your forgot bragging rights down the pub

[wojconner]

What he said below and ignore the other fanboys that say it just doesn't matter. With the right lenses Sony is sharper but much more expensive so it's not worth it unless Sony is already within budget. Medium format is better but not worth it unless you're paid and need it-MF lacks the lenses and is expensive for system redundancy.

I use both a Sony A7r and a Fuji X-T10. Just answered a similar question on another post:

 

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/2513-sony-power-vs-the-siren-song-of-kaizen/?do=findComment&comment=23293

 

so I'll just copy&paste here for your convenience. Hope this helps.

 

I'll just add though that in terms of "bang for the bucks" Fuji trashes Sony big time, especially with the crazy prices that the latter is asking for the latest models. And as for the lenses you can read what I think about below.

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

 

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).

[aMichelazzi]

Hey, I can spend my 2 cents since I've just got my new Xpro2 camera and my girlfriend has buy the new Sony a6300. 

 

My personal consideration between the two camera: 

 

Construction

- The Sony, compared to the Fuji looks like a complicated toy! Lot of plastic, small body, and lot of button. The Xpro2 feels lot more solid and clean in the layout of the buttons.

 

Autofocus

- Well, the Sony in my opinion has a slight slight advantage over the Xpro2 but I've to say that I've tested it quickly on a difficult light situation (home interior) so it was a fantastic performance for both the machines. I give the Sony a little advantage. 

 

I'm going to see a test to test about picture quality soon!

[Sator-Photography]

I own both the Sony a7II and the X-Pro2. I did a side by side comparison shooting with the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 on the Sony and with the XF 35mm f/1.4 on the Fuji. The difference between the two are actually negligible, although I suspect that the Zeiss lens has more contrast, as you might expect from a lens that costs twice as much. That means Fuji is getting full frame performance out of a cropped format. I think that is an accomplishment in itself. Focus Numerique came to similar conclusions in their comparison of the X-Pro2 with the a7II.

 

As for the claim that the X-trans configuration of the X-Pro2 sensor can make it match a D810, a 5Ds or an a7RII, that certainly is hype. I can tell you that because I also shoot with a 5DsR. I think the myth that the only reason to have a higher resolution sensor is for printing has been thoroughly debunked:

 

 

I agree with this view entirely. This confirms my own experience with the Canon 5DsR.

 

That said, I think that 24MP is still plenty of resolution. It also makes postproduction faster and image storage easier. There are fewer buffering issues in camera. Image review on the a7RII is notoriously slow, as the processor is clearly stretched to its limits. 

 

There are other reasons why I am particular inclined to recommend the Fuji over rival systems:

 

1. Colour 

This is seldom spoken about in camera reviews. The reality is that when the industry largely moved from CCD to Bayer configuration CMOS sensors, a lot of colour richness and depth was lost. If you go to the Pentax forum and look at images from the 645D (CCD) beside those from the 645Z (CMOS) it is striking just how grey the colour output from the Sony 44x33mm sensor is. The only system that gives you colour output from a CMOS sensor that compares well with CCD sensors is the Fuji X-trans RGB filter. I am sorry to say that we live in an age in which there are lots of grey, desaturated and colourless Sony Bayer sensor images. Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Sony cameras all have this problem, although if you like B&W or heavily desaturated images this may well suit your shooting style. Photographers who love Sony have portfolios full of B&W or desaturated images. Only Nikon manage to get more colour depth out of a Sony Bayer sensor, but even there, although I do like Nikon colours, I find that there is an inky-shadowy background on top of which float these slightly fluorescent bright colours. On a Fuji the darker colours blend seamlessly into the brighter tones. I also do like Canon colours, which are more subtly graduated than Nikon colours. Also Fuji is even better than Canon when it comes to rendering skin tones, and is probably the industry gold standard in this regard. When you push the colours from an X-trans sensor in post, you get these beautiful, subtle colours. On my Sony all I seem to get is plain red/green/blue plus black/white/grey. From my Fujis I get infinitely subtle shades of turquoise, jade green, burnt orange etc etc. It's so beautiful it makes your eyes water.

 

2. Film Simulation

This partly connects to point 1. The colours you can pull out using the simulations will make your jaw drop. It makes photography a joy. The Acros B&W simulation too is breathtaking. Sometimes I find that the Fuji in camera RAW converter plus the simulation is so good nothing you do with the RAW file ever seems to be able to match it. The joy this adds to your photography is simply incalculable. It can't be expressed in simplistic univariate parameters that gives you some stupid number representing resolution or stops of dynamic range, where fools think that the bigger that number the better a photographer it will make of them. 

 

3. Lenses

The most important thing you can learn about photography is to pick your lenses first and then pick the body to go with it. This review of the Fuji 90mm f/2.0 says it all:

 

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-90mm-f2-r-lm-wr/review/

 

It is sharper than an Otus, for a fraction of the price. OK...if I shoot with my Otus on my 5DsR the results may be a bit sharper, but there isn't much in it. In terms of cost effectiveness, the Fuji system wins by a mile, especially if you consider the greater compactness and the autofocus. In terms of colour depth, the Fuji beats the 5DsR-Otus combination easily. The Fuji 35mm f/1.4 is at least as good overall (if you consider the greater speed and the smoother bokeh) as the Sony 55mm f/1.8 despite being half the price. You choose a system for the lens habitat it gives you access to, and in this regard Fuji lenses reveals an embarrassment of richer far greater than we ever deserve at this price point. Forget the body and look at your lenses first and foremost. In any case, if you are patient enough Fuji will eventually release a body with a 36MP organic sensor. 

 

4. Ability to Shoot with Multiple Primes

The whole beauty of the X-system is that it encourages you to shoot with primes. For the price of an a7RII you could get a couple of X-Pro2s and shoot with two prime lenses. I appreciate that two X-Pro2s are more expensive than one a7RII, but once the lens price is factored in it works out in favour of the Fuji. The Sony encourages you to shoot with zooms because once the lens size is taken into account, it becomes too cumbersome and expensive to shoot with multiple bodies. If you have two bodies with two lenses, the one shoot turns into two shoots. It's like the two bodies/lenses see a totally different world. 

 

I do appreciate that Sony FF mirrorless is the talk of the town at the moment. But it is a pure fad. Don't get on that bandwagon. I speak from the perspective of someone who has seen the grass on the other side of the fence. As for the IBIS, that too is a problem. It doesn't stop action when the subject is moving. You are better off with the faster lenses from Fuji if speed is of concern. Sony now make faster E mount lenses but these are elephantine (totally negating any size advantage from a smaller body), expensive, and so far have been rather disappointing in their performance relative to cost. Also the E mount was originally an APS-C mount ("NEX mount"), and has too a narrow diameter to be able to incorporate IBIS in a FF system without causing degradation of corner IQ. This is particularly marked with shorter focal lengths when the light hits the corners at a steeper angle. I think Sony should toss their a7 series in the bin and concentrate on the A mount DSLT bodies (I do go into this on G+ for those interested). As for ergonomics, it is worthwhile paying vast sums of money not to have to suffer Sony ergonomics.

 

I always say this to people who ask me which system I favour most amongst those I use (Fuji, Sony or Canon): I like Fuji the most, very closely followed by Canon, with Sony in last place. Sony remind me of cooks who use the fanciest ingredients (the best truffles, the finest foie gras etc) and the results are good, but there is something missing. With a Fuji you may not think the individual ingredients are that remarkable, but you taste their dish and it is jaw dropping. The whole amounts to vastly more than the sum of the parts. 

 

Show me a Sony shooter and I will show you a myopic fool (I am allowed to say this because I am a Sony shooter) too obsessed with individual specs to be able to see the big picture. Show me a Fuji shooter and I will show you someone who loves photography as an art. Fuji people "get it". Try it, and you will see what I mean. 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Sator-Photography

[dreadedphoto]

I have experience with this, having switched from an a7R II to an X Pro 2. I bought them both at launch.

 

In short: I regret nothing.

 

Yes, the a7r II has almost twice the megapixels. Yes, it's got 4k and an articulating screen and apps and built in image stabilization and a laundry list of other features, but what it lacks is soul. To me, the pictures from Sony cameras are incredibly detailed and accurate, but they're also boring.

 

In the audio world, you've got high end headphones like this. You can point at charts and graphs to show people on paper how good they technically are, but that doesn't mean listening to them is an enjoyable experience. I did not find my experience using the a7r II to be enjoyable. The camera itself is technically excellent and the photos were great, but I never felt excitement. 

 

The moment I picked up the X Pro 2, I was excited. The body feels great in the hands. The viewfinder is excellent (both in optical and digital mode) The dials are a joy (except for the ISO integration. I think that could have been better, but it's fine.)

 

And it's FAST. The a7r II came close in terms of startup speed after the firmware update, but when it comes to single shot-to-shot quickness and menu navigation, it isn't even close. I also felt like there was this barely perceptible lag when it came to firing the shutter on the a7r II. It doesn't matter if you're shooting portraits or landscapes, but shooting concerts, I always felt like I was a split second off from where I wanted to be. 

 

Last, but not least, the image quality. Holy shit. The richness of the colors, the sharpness, the skintones, the film-like grain, fucking beautiful.  All the film simulations are great in their own rite, but ACROS... ACROS produces hands down the best black and white OoC images I've ever seen. 

 

A few other advantages: dual card slots, a much better smartphone app, instax printing support (doesn't work currently, but I assume it will be fixed with firmware), the incredible joystick on the back, better battery life (in the specs, they're similar, but in practice, fuji definitely wins)

[Sator-Photography]

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).

 

I shoot both Sony and Fuji so I can better comment on this. Sony does tend towards greenishness. Skin tones are particularly a bit green, but it is not warm (yellow-magenta), but rather slate grey-greenish. 

 

Fuji skin tones are much warmer, akin to Canon colours. Fuji colours overall are much richer, subtly graduated and nuanced.

[immo_p]

Between my X-T1 and my girlfriends A7, I always found the skin tones from Sony more warm, but the white balance also more on the "yellow" side. As for sharpness, I agree with addicted2light - Fuji RAW needs quite an mount of sharpening (JPG is very crisp), Sony is sharp already. 

[StephaneB]

Several people saying the Fuji RAW files need lots of sharpening.

 

I think it depends a lot on the converter.

 

Trying Rawtherapee is a revelation on the amount of sharp fine details Fuji lenses + X-Trans reveal.

 

Once you've tried that, you should be confident you can print pretty large and well. 

[alba63]

Is somebody having the experience in this field? Sony is launching a lot of new models but their menu's are horrible. My question is if the x trans sensor of Fuji can beat the full frame sharpness of Sony? Thanks for letting me know.

 

I have had Fuji X since 2012, for 2-3y it was my main system. End of 2015 I bought an additional A7r II. It is a much better camera. The sensor is just another league. No APS-c can beat a good FF sensor. The A7rII is not only good, but excellent.

 

I can use Sony A7rII with virtually all FF lenses ever built, EF Canon in AF mode included. I still use the Fuji X-T1 with lenses when I want to have a light kit and I get nice results. But if I want ultimate quality, I prefer FF.

 

Menus? Are you serious? Once I have set up my camera, I hardly need a menu at all, and I put all the important functions in the quick menu. Other than that, it is about the passion to shoot. Select the system you feel best with and make your images.

[Sator-Photography]

I own a Sony a7II. I have shot on it with a vast variety of lenses both native and adapted. I have had images from this camera published. There is not a single frame from this camera in my Lightroom library where it produced warm skin tones, and I have thousands of images from this camera. I have spent hours working editing zoom in on skin texture on countless frames taken with different models in different lighting conditions both in studio and on location. I am doing a shoot with a model today with it, and I can assure anyone that none of the shots will produce warm skin tone. 

 

Prior to the recent firmware upgrade (giving us uncompressed RAW for the a7II), skin tone used to come out with a green tint (tint slider about -4 towards the green), but this has gone away after the upgrade. I have also done some test shots with the a7RII, and it produces extremely similar skin tone to the a7II after the firmware upgrade. 

[i9zero]

It depends on what you are needs are.  I use both Fuji and Sony.  I tend to use A7R II more for fashion or high ISO.  See example of what I mean.  I am more precise with precise composition with the Fuji shooting for fashion.  Generally, I can reshoot or grab few other shots, but if one looks better than the other, I can just crop without reshooting or spending more time to get the right look.  Again, high ISO, it's not possible to compare against what Sony is able to get out of their full frame sensor with high ISO in mind. I can shoot ISO 10,000 comfortably knowing that it's clean without weird color or detail loss that I would experience with the Fuji.  I do love Fuji lenses over the Sony lenses.  With that said, it's not a night and day difference with quality when it comes to the higher end lenses by Sony or Zeiss.  Choice is definitely limited but it's still relatively new to the full frame mirrorless.  I say if you have the pocket, get both

 

A7R II - What I had intended was a full length but ended up with a crop that was more fitting for the need.

 

X-T1 - Still an amazing camera

_XT16043 by Mark Lee, on Flickr

 

X-Pro 1 - Even the X-Pro 1's first gen x-trans sensor is awesome.

Test 2 : X-Trans by Mark Lee, on Flickr

 

X100S - Can't go wrong with this beast.  I printed this long side 36in without any issues.

... by Mark Lee, on Flickr

[Iulian]

I own both the Sony a7II and the X-Pro2. I did a side by side comparison shooting with the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 on the Sony and with the XF 35mm f/1.4 on the Fuji. The difference between the two are actually negligible, although I suspect that the Zeiss lens has more contrast, as you might expect from a lens that costs twice as much. That means Fuji is getting full frame performance out of a cropped format. I think that is an accomplishment in itself. Focus Numerique came to similar conclusions in their comparison of the X-Pro2 with the a7II.

 

As for the claim that the X-trans configuration of the X-Pro2 sensor can make it match a D810, a 5Ds or an a7RII, that certainly is hype. I can tell you that because I also shoot with a 5DsR. I think the myth that the only reason to have a higher resolution sensor is for printing has been thoroughly debunked:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyOmgArU0MA&feature=youtu.be

 

I agree with this view entirely. This confirms my own experience with the Canon 5DsR.

 

That said, I think that 24MP is still plenty of resolution. It also makes postproduction faster and image storage easier. There are fewer buffering issues in camera. Image review on the a7RII is notoriously slow, as the processor is clearly stretched to its limits.

 

There are other reasons why I am particular inclined to recommend the Fuji over rival systems:

 

1. Colour

This is seldom spoken about in camera reviews. The reality is that when the industry largely moved from CCD to Bayer configuration CMOS sensors, a lot of colour richness and depth was lost. If you go to the Pentax forum and look at images from the 645D (CCD) beside those from the 645Z (CMOS) it is striking just how grey the colour output from the Sony 44x33mm sensor is. The only system that gives you colour output from a CMOS sensor that compares well with CCD sensors is the Fuji X-trans RGB filter. I am sorry to say that we live in an age in which there are lots of grey, desaturated and colourless Sony Bayer sensor images. Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Sony cameras all have this problem, although if you like B&W or heavily desaturated images this may well suit your shooting style. Photographers who love Sony have portfolios full of B&W or desaturated images. Only Nikon manage to get more colour depth out of a Sony Bayer sensor, but even there, although I do like Nikon colours, I find that there is an inky-shadowy background on top of which float these slightly fluorescent bright colours. On a Fuji the darker colours blend seamlessly into the brighter tones. I also do like Canon colours, which are more subtly graduated than Nikon colours. Also Fuji is even better than Canon when it comes to rendering skin tones, and is probably the industry gold standard in this regard. When you push the colours from an X-trans sensor in post, you get these beautiful, subtle colours. On my Sony all I seem to get is plain red/green/blue plus black/white/grey. From my Fujis I get infinitely subtle shades of turquoise, jade green, burnt orange etc etc. It's so beautiful it makes your eyes water.

 

2. Film Simulation

This partly connects to point 1. The colours you can pull out using the simulations will make your jaw drop. It makes photography a joy. The Acros B&W simulation too is breathtaking. Sometimes I find that the Fuji in camera RAW converter plus the simulation is so good nothing you do with the RAW file ever seems to be able to match it. The joy this adds to your photography is simply incalculable. It can't be expressed in simplistic univariate parameters that gives you some stupid number representing resolution or stops of dynamic range, where fools think that the bigger that number the better a photographer it will make of them.

 

3. Lenses

The most important thing you can learn about photography is to pick your lenses first and then pick the body to go with it. This review of the Fuji 90mm f/2.0 says it all:

 

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-90mm-f2-r-lm-wr/review/

 

It is sharper than an Otus, for a fraction of the price. OK...if I shoot with my Otus on my 5DsR the results may be a bit sharper, but there isn't much in it. In terms of cost effectiveness, the Fuji system wins by a mile, especially if you consider the greater compactness and the autofocus. In terms of colour depth, the Fuji beats the 5DsR-Otus combination easily. The Fuji 35mm f/1.4 is at least as good overall (if you consider the greater speed and the smoother bokeh) as the Sony 55mm f/1.8 despite being half the price. You choose a system for the lens habitat it gives you access to, and in this regard Fuji lenses reveals an embarrassment of richer far greater than we ever deserve at this price point. Forget the body and look at your lenses first and foremost. In any case, if you are patient enough Fuji will eventually release a body with a 36MP organic sensor.

 

4. Ability to Shoot with Multiple Primes

The whole beauty of the X-system is that it encourages you to shoot with primes. For the price of an a7RII you could get a couple of X-Pro2s and shoot with two prime lenses. I appreciate that two X-Pro2s are more expensive than one a7RII, but once the lens price is factored in it works out in favour of the Fuji. The Sony encourages you to shoot with zooms because once the lens size is taken into account, it becomes too cumbersome and expensive to shoot with multiple bodies. If you have two bodies with two lenses, the one shoot turns into two shoots. It's like the two bodies/lenses see a totally different world.

 

I do appreciate that Sony FF mirrorless is the talk of the town at the moment. But it is a pure fad. Don't get on that bandwagon. I speak from the perspective of someone who has seen the grass on the other side of the fence. As for the IBIS, that too is a problem. It doesn't stop action when the subject is moving. You are better off with the faster lenses from Fuji if speed is of concern. Sony now make faster E mount lenses but these are elephantine (totally negating any size advantage from a smaller body), expensive, and so far have been rather disappointing in their performance relative to cost. Also the E mount was originally an APS-C mount ("NEX mount"), and has too a narrow diameter to be able to incorporate IBIS in a FF system without causing degradation of corner IQ. This is particularly marked with shorter focal lengths when the light hits the corners at a steeper angle. I think Sony should toss their a7 series in the bin and concentrate on the A mount DSLT bodies (I do go into this on G+ for those interested). As for ergonomics, it is worthwhile paying vast sums of money not to have to suffer Sony ergonomics.

 

I always say this to people who ask me which system I favour most amongst those I use (Fuji, Sony or Canon): I like Fuji the most, very closely followed by Canon, with Sony in last place. Sony remind me of cooks who use the fanciest ingredients (the best truffles, the finest foie gras etc) and the results are good, but there is something missing. With a Fuji you may not think the individual ingredients are that remarkable, but you taste their dish and it is jaw dropping. The whole amounts to vastly more than the sum of the parts.

 

Show me a Sony shooter and I will show you a myopic fool (I am allowed to say this because I am a Sony shooter) too obsessed with individual specs to be able to see the big picture. Show me a Fuji shooter and I will show you someone who loves photography as an art. Fuji people "get it". Try it, and you will see what I mean.

 

Please point to me as a myopic fool, as you just generalized all Sony shooters. I am one Sony shooter.

I started with Sony A200 and Nex5N. Went through 2 years of Fuji XE1 and X100s, with good primes (14, 35, 56)

Sold them all after 1 week with Sony A7 and Planar ZM 50/2.

Now I have A7ii, 35/2.8, 55/1.8 and Batis 85/1.8, as native lenses.

 

I created a user account to this forum only to reply to your 2 stupid (yes, stupid) sentences:

- Sony encourages you to use zoom lenses - where the hell did this come from? If you would have used any of the primes, you would have shut up. You said about 55/1.8 but I cannot believe it - a clear lie. You have never used it. To compare the 55/1.8 and Fuji 35/1.4 and put them in the same class... Don't compare FF primes from Sony range to Fuji APCS primes. They are simply no match. Not better or worse, but for different scopes. To sustain that Fuji lenses are superior to Sony... based on what? I can clearly say that the Sony 55/1.8 has absolutely no equivalent in Fuji range, as well as Batis 85/1.8. We can debate, but reality is this. Sony FF primes are top lenses. Period. Expensive? For sure. But, if you cannot afford them, why bad words? Live with what you afford.

- Sony users are myopic fools. I felt offended enough just to reply to your post.

 

I had Fuji for 2 years and they are good looking cameras. But they are not better than Sony. Fuji has good lenses. But they are not better than Sony. Fuji has a better lens range. Really? Have you seen the available native lenses for Sony? Produced by Sony, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Samyang, so on. Are they big? Some of them, yes - and heavy too. But you envy them, don't you?...

Edited March 23, 2016 by Iulian

[cosinaphile]

as far as sensor based stabilization not being a one size fits all vs lens based   dedicated to a particular focal length of the lens in questoon .... although im mostly a fuji shooter now  , my experence with  olympus bodies is that  the stabilization in the bodies can be tuned to different focal lengths via menus   you can tell an oly body you want to stabilizre a 24mm legacy  nikkor of a 200 2.8 fd  the stabilization is quite different for both and truly effective for each focal length

 

i dont know if sonys body sensor stab is menu druiven this way ....but personally i see body sensor stabilization much more versitile and useful for someone like myself who uses legacy glass frequently