Switching from Sony full frame to Fuji Aps-c

[gordonrussell76]

Lulian, You kind of made his point for him, your arguments are based on specs not image quality, a myopic viewpoint

 

I see so many people these days focused on objective analysis of camera rather than Subjective. 

 

 

Objective analysis is best suited to technical and scientific pursuits.

 

Subjective is suited more to the Arts which as technical as photography can become it is still an art.

 

Put another way I never hear art historians saying that Van Gogh's work is better than Da Vincis because he used a higher quality of beeswax when he made his oil paints.

 

" Hmm Van Gogh is clearly better, his oil paints were 24ml beeswax not 16 ml beeswax".

 

How pathetic does that sound. Now replace ml with Mp and you realize how stupid all this is.

 

G 

[RightAngle]

The OP asked a simple question and look what he got - colors, RAW converters, menus, what to care about...

Short answer is no, Fuji cannot beat Sony. Longer answer is depends on the body and lens you choose. Simply put, with Sony, currently, you have the potential for much better results in terms of resolution and sharpness. For example, if you choose a Sony body with 24MP, 36MP or 42MP and one of the many excellent lenses for the system, you simply won't be able to achieve the same with Fuji.

[Fredkelder]

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.

Let's be accurate: Focus Numerique says "noise level are similar until ISO6400".

 That's all.

By the way, these technical discussions are always funny to read. Without any interest, but funny to read. Moreover, it often looks like a discussion between experts in economics, all convinced of their intellectual superiority, and all convinced that they are right and others are wrong.

Meanwhile, the world turns and thousands of fantastic photos were shared on the web without anyone knowing with what systems they were made.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Fredkelder

[immo_p]

I agree, StephaneB...and sometimes patterns are creating moirées in certain converters, too. I encountered it when taking pics of Hamburg's new music hall, made from many red bricks. In Lightroom I had a moiree that I could not get rid of, in Iridient it was perfectly fine (and sharper).

[Tom H.]

I'd love for some people to actually show images of what they were able to make with all those megapixels, that would have been impossible to achieve with a "lesser" camera, and that isn't down to technique, skill level, lighting, location, emotion, or any other factor apart from iso, sharpness and resolution for that matter... We all know Fuji isn't the best focussing camera out there, so I'll give you that one.

 

I like the "measurebating" expression I read in another topic. It mostly comes down to that. Like the cyclists bragging how their carbon bikes have a 20 gram weight loss thanks to some upgrade or another. Forgetting of course the fact that they're dragging their 25kg middle age beer gut around on that same bike...

Edited March 24, 2016 by Tom H.

[JohnDizzo15]

There is always one consistent aspect of these types of conversations, they're all train wrecks. They almost never lead to anyone being convinced of anything, people get insulted or feel insulted, the "experts" all come out, and mounds of people get sucked in with no real productivity achieved. I am now part of the mound. lol.

 

Having used numerous systems over the years, I have found that there is absolute truth to the sayings "horses for courses" or "different strokes for different folks." So long as you are honest and know what you're doing with all of your gear, you will usually find that there are things to love and not love about every system. It is how each of those systems works for you and what you need that really determines which one is best. But to argue over which one is better is almost always an exercise in futility since everyone has different needs and preferences. The only way to know for sure whether something works for you is to get it into your hands and find out for yourself.

 

As a user both systems (xpro2/xt1 and a7r2), I can honestly say that there are tangible benefits to both. For a long time, I simply loved the process of making images with my Fuji rig. But there were always a few things lacking which I compensated for with my Canon rig. Then came the Sony A7R2 which changed the game for me. It provided a tool that gave me the ability to do lots of things I was never able to do before. However, while it is a tolerable shooting experience, I cannot say that I enjoy the process of making images with it. Along came the xpro2 and now things are starting to get really interesting. IQ is now a toss-up with my preferences being different for differing shooting scenarios. AF is much better on the xpro2 than the xt1. But it is still not up to the level of consistency that I have been getting with the Sony. IBIS is also the real deal for those that like to believe that it isn't (I never thought much of it before using it either). Also, 42mp and all that flexibility in the files is great if you do a lot of post. When I will be in a shooting scenario where I am taking lots of shots, running and gunning, and needing things done on the fly, Fuji is king. When I am trying to get absolute flexibility and maximum data in the files, Sony is it. I could sit here and do this all day with pointing out a list of things that I love and hate about each. But the truth is, they are both tools that give me everything I need when used in conjunction with each other.

[addicted2light]

Sony does tend towards greenishness. Skin tones are particularly a bit green, but it is not warm (yellow-magenta), but rather slate grey-greenish. 

 

This is also lens-dependant (and btw, thanks, you just made another point against Sony lenses for me: a slate grey tone is not exactly something I aspire to get...).

 

Like I said I don't shoot with (vastly overpriced IMHO, with the partial exception of the 28 and the two 35) Sony glass, but with Contax, Leica/Minolta M-Rokkor and Minolta MD legacy lenses (horses for courses, because each line has a different color and contrast signature). Contax/Zeiss glass has on its own a pretty pronounced magenta / warm tint, and loads of contrast; that combined with the characteristic tonalities of the Sony sensor, gives me that kind of greenish-warm tone.

 

With some Leica R glass or Minolta M-Rokkor Leica M mount lenses the green is vastly reduced, while the warmth skyrockets. If you were to shoot side to side with Contax glass the same image, the Leica one will look yellow, like you set the wrong white balance. It's, as usual, a matter of knowing what kind of results you want to get, and to choose appropriately the right tool.

 

It's true that with digital we have a fair amount of slack, so we can change a lot, but starting closer to the desired final result it is not only easier and faster but it requires less post-processing "stress" on the files.

[gordonrussell76]

John Dizzo, you are spot on, these threads are always train wrecks because its a subjective topic, I really think we are at the point where there is no better, just different. Its like arguing who is a better guitarist Jimi Hendrix or BB King there is no correct answer, and personally I love them both.

 

Tom H I hear you about bikes. I still use my 25 year old Trek Antelope, welded steel bike for my daily commute. Its heavier than about 3 modern road bikes put together, but over the 16 miles I do a day I probably get a better workout than taking a modern roadbike out for a 50-60mile jaunt. Efficiency through inefficiency thats my motto

 

I give it about 5 minutes before someone compares my love of old bikes to my love of Fuji. I don't use a fuji to slow down, I find it plenty fast enough these days but the X-E1 was painful. Humans are complex organisms we can hold several contradictory opinions before breakfast.

 

G

[wojconner]

"Objective analysis is best suited to technical and scientific pursuits."

 

Not trying to get into a tussle, but this sounds like socialists discussing capitalism or artists discussing economics. I'm shooting Fuji, Sony and Nikon and I get the subjective analysis aspect but when you need specs then you need specs. If you need a vehicle to carry 7 people and it can't then it's pointless to discuss the quality of the drive. Just Saying...

[wojconner]

     double post

Edited May 11, 2016 by wojconner

[gordonrussell76]

But why do you need the specs. Just because a picture has more resolution does not mean its better. i don't think we are there yet, but there will come a time when the resolution will make things too clinical. Actually in some ways we are already seeing that a little bit with HDR. A lot of non-photgraphers I know instinctively don't like HDR, they look at it an go woah that's fake how much photoshop did that guy use. I want people to react to my pictures based on content, composition, the technicalities of the image are important but they should not be visible. Best advice I ever got on mixing was "add an effect till you can just about hear what its doing, then pull it back a few notches from that point, if you can hear it its too much" I think we are getting to the same place, if you can see how technically perfect a photo is, its too much.

Of course I realize this is a subjective opinion