X-T2-X-PRO2 VS SONY ALPHA'S

[lpc]

I have to ask all members who own X-T2-X-PRO2 vs a sony alpha a7 OR A7II price wise fuji costs $1800 to $1900-sony $1500 to $1800 and you get full frame plus. please explain why I shouldn't buy sony!

 

[kimcarsons]

If you've ever owned anything made by Sony, then you have your answer. If you don't mind doing things The Sony Way, their equipment is technologically the best--and the lenses are coming along.

 

Personally, I've hated every Sony product I've ever owned---too proprietary, too quirky.

[Aswald]

Do you like big, bulky lenses? If you do, then Sony is the way to go. Otherwise, resolution aside, both system are equally competent.

[lpc]

Thx .

[Adamcain112]

I sold my Sony A7ii a month ago to buy the XT2. I am very happy the A7ii AF system was horrible unless it was bright outside. I did love the camera but for that reason and how much Sony glass cost I sold it and couldn't be happier. The xt2 jpegs are as good as everyone says. I do miss adapting my Canon L glass and having AF for stills.

[Adamcain112]

Another reason I left Sony is there lack of firmware updates. And when they release the a7iii you can forget about any updates. For example they haven't had any updates for the a7 but only for the a7ii. Fuji is well known for there great support and firmware updates

[Aswald]

I sold my Sony A7ii a month ago to buy the XT2. I am very happy the A7ii AF system was horrible unless it was bright outside. I did love the camera but for that reason and how much Sony glass cost I sold it and couldn't be happier. The xt2 jpegs are as good as everyone says. I do miss adapting my Canon L glass and having AF for stills.

 

Sony a7 series has AF?  

[lleo]

Before to get my XE-2 I was thinking abour the II series of the Alpha. Then I saw several test and I went for Fuji. Though I had a RX100 and it was a great compact.

[JRphoto]

Another reason I left Sony is there lack of firmware updates. And when they release the a7iii you can forget about any updates. For example they haven't had any updates for the a7 but only for the a7ii. Fuji is well known for there great support and firmware updates

 

In general I love the fuji firmware policy. But some Fuji cameras receive more firmware love than other Fuji cameras...

So, a bit of chance may involve this firmware issue.

[Puma Cat]

Do you like big, bulky lenses? If you do, then Sony is the way to go. Otherwise, resolution aside, both system are equally competent.

 

The X-T2 has resolution that is fully comparable or equivalent to the Sony A7RII. The difference in detail that a digital camera can resolve is a factor of pixel pitch (pixels per unit area), not the total number of megapixels on the sensor. If the X-T2 had a full-frame sensor, it would be an ~ 50 megapixel sensor. There are other aspects to what we perceive as sharpness, and a key factor is acutance. This is the ability for the eye to discern small differences in micro-contrast. This is more largely determined by the lenses than the sensor, and the image processor of the camera, as well, rather than the raw number of megapixels of the sensor. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Puma Cat

[kimcarsons]

The X-T2 has resolution that is fully comparable or equivalent to the Sony A7RII. The difference in detail that a digital camera can resolve is a factor of pixel pitch (pixels per unit area), not the total number of megapixels on the sensor. If the X-T2 had a full-frame sensor, it would be an ~ 50 megapixel sensor. There are other aspects to what we perceive as sharpness, and a key factor is acutance. This is the ability for the eye to discern small differences in micro-contrast. This is more largely determined by the lenses than the sensor, and the image processor of the camera, as well, rather than the raw number of megapixels of the sensor. 

 

This sounds suspiciously like the ramblings of the Angry Photographer...

[Aswald]

The X-T2 has resolution that is fully comparable or equivalent to the Sony A7RII. The difference in detail that a digital camera can resolve is a factor of pixel pitch (pixels per unit area), not the total number of megapixels on the sensor. If the X-T2 had a full-frame sensor, it would be an ~ 50 megapixel sensor. There are other aspects to what we perceive as sharpness, and a key factor is acutance. This is the ability for the eye to discern small differences in micro-contrast. This is more largely determined by the lenses than the sensor, and the image processor of the camera, as well, rather than the raw number of megapixels of the sensor. 

 

You've got a valid point.

 

I guess it makes a difference for photog who wants higher resolution for the exact same picture (i.e. without cropping) to fill up say a small billboard. The Sony would be the way to go.

[Adamcain112]

Lleo Sonys compacts are very good. The a7 line up for lenses prices are skyrocketing.

[Aswald]

Picture IQ wise, Sony's new lenses are fantastic.

[mjcmt]

Another reason I left Sony is there lack of firmware updates. And when they release the a7iii you can forget about any updates. For example they haven't had any updates for the a7 but only for the a7ii. Fuji is well known for there great support and firmware updates

 

Except on the 3 year old X-100T. No updates, but they have offered updates on newer cameras.

Edited January 15, 2017 by mjcmt

[addicted2light]

I shoot with both (X-T10 and A7r first gen).

 

I toyed with the idea of switching completely to Fuji for quite a bit (you can read about it on my blog, where I published as well a shootout between the 16Mp X-T10 and the 36Mp A7r using the same, adapted, lenses).

 

http://www.addicted2light.com/2016/07/29/giving-the-boot-to-sony-a7r-vs-fuji-x-t10/

 

But in the end, at least for now, I kept using both.

 

The real advantage of the Sony sensor is not necessarily its size, unless of course you want the shallowest possible depth of field. What keeps the Sony in my bag, its several annoying quirks notwithstanding, is the fantastic ability to push the shadows with (@ 50 Iso) essentially no noise at all.

 

This alone opens your shooting envelope quite a bit. That said, in many circumstances you could do the same with the Fuji just using HDR.

 

And while it's true that taking multiple shots is not always feasible, the same goes for the Sony (or other full frame bodies) when you start taking into account that in order to have extended depth of field quite often just stopping down it isn't gonna cut it, and you will have to resort to focus staking.

 

For comparison, the only three really annoying "features" I've found with Fuji are: the sensor reflections when shooting with the sun in the pictures (not always, but frequent enough to be annoying); the lack of an extended eyepiece for the X-T10; and the HDR bracketing limited to a measly +1 -1 stops.

 

If I were to start from scratch, though, I'd definitely go the Fuji route.

Edited January 15, 2017 by addicted2light

[Ben Bishop]

I just went through the process of choosing between the two (goodbye Canon). The scale tipped on control issues - Sony menus versus Fuji knobs. I made this decision after months of frustration with, for example, my new car's information centre; navigation and operation decisions and entertainment in a single box that encourage me to take my eyes off the road. My old radio was much better. I resent the idea that I should be trained to use their computer; they are too stupid to design a flexible system that mimics what we had (hello Mazda - only once). If the interface is non-intuitive then it was designed by someone ignorant of history and with more arrogance than common sense. I'm not giving my money to anyone who doesn't respect where I come from. Take your tattoos and social media and ignore someone else. And take your menu trees with you.

[Phil]

I had access to an A7 at an old job. I had issues with my Canon 70D and was looking at upgrading to a 6D; since I would have to sell my APS-C lenses anyway, I figured if I was going to switch to mirrorless, that was the best time.

 

I didn't like the A7. The handling didn't feel as fluid as the X-T1, I personally didn't really like the menus or button layout, and the lens selection wasn't nearly as fleshed out at the time.

 

Now I feel pretty much the same. Fuji's lenses aren't cheap, but I think they're good value for money; a lot of Sony lenses seem to be either a cheaper lens that are just decent, or very good lenses that are big and expensive. 

 

I don't think the full frame argument holds that much weight these days (resolution is another matter, however). Shooting the Fuji 56mm at f/1.2 vs the Batis 85mm at f/1.8 will yield similar results, and the extra stop of light from the 56mm helps negate the Sony's better low light performance. The GM 85 1.4 will trump the 56mm, but you're looking at double the price, double the size, and double the weight.

 

If your goal is purely the best image quality possible, an A7Rii with G Master lenses will beat Fuji. When you factor in the entire experience (performance, size/weight, and cost) I think they're pretty evenly matched, and you should use each and figure out which system you enjoy more.

[jlmphotos]

As a corporate IT Manager I've dealt with Sony, in addition to many other vendors.  Next to Nikon, I consider their service to be one of the worst. ever.  

 

With regards to cameras, I would read up on reviews;  I have no personal experience with Sony cameras but I understand their cameras are slow, clunky, menu-driven and the image quality, though FF, is not up to par.

 

So, place your bets...  

 

And, as an FYI I went from Nikon D800 and D800e "down"to Fuji X-T2 an X-T1 and honestly, unless I am printing larger than 24 x 20 or so, I really couldn't tell the difference.  So it was a no brainer to dump the extra weight.

[jkspepper]

The X-T2 has resolution that is fully comparable or equivalent to the Sony A7RII. The difference in detail that a digital camera can resolve is a factor of pixel pitch (pixels per unit area), not the total number of megapixels on the sensor. If the X-T2 had a full-frame sensor, it would be an ~ 50 megapixel sensor. There are other aspects to what we perceive as sharpness, and a key factor is acutance. This is the ability for the eye to discern small differences in micro-contrast. This is more largely determined by the lenses than the sensor, and the image processor of the camera, as well, rather than the raw number of megapixels of the sensor. 

 

I'm not sure I agree.  Although you may be technically correct, in a real world usage situation and then reviewing the outputs, you will always get sharper images from the Sony.  How do I know?  I have been running a Sony A7R for close to 3 years and also a X-Pro2 for almost 1 (before that, I also ran the X-E1 and X-T1) and contemplating getting the X-T2 as my second Fuji body.

 

I had contemplated getting rid of the Sony altogether when I got the X-Pro 2 to finance the X-T2, I always run two bodies when I shoot and when I got rid of the X-T1 I wanted as replacement but I just couldn't.  The Sony sucks balls to use, the Sony also takes more work in post but when you get it right, the files can sing.  Now I'm just contemplating just spending the extra $$$ to buy the X-T2 anyway.  Both cameras are good but for different reasons.

 

I have an X-Pro2 with the XF10-24mm.  I have the A7R with the FE16-35mm.  Which would I choose when I go out shooting landscapes, the Sony pretty much all the time.  The only time where the difference is minimal and not enough to care is when the XF14mm is mounted to the X-Pro2, so if I don't need anything wider than 21mm, I sometimes pick the X-Pro2 and XF14mm but generally the X-Pro2 and XF10-24 can not beat the A7R and FE16-35mm.

 

I shoot with both (X-T10 and A7r first gen).

 

I toyed with the idea of switching completely to Fuji for quite a bit (you can read about it on my blog, where I published as well a shootout between the 16Mp X-T10 and the 36Mp A7r using the same, adapted, lenses).

 

http://www.addicted2light.com/2016/07/29/giving-the-boot-to-sony-a7r-vs-fuji-x-t10/

 

But in the end, at least for now, I kept using both.

 

The real advantage of the Sony sensor is not necessarily its size, unless of course you want the shallowest possible depth of field. What keeps the Sony in my bag, its several annoying quirks notwithstanding, is the fantastic ability to push the shadows with (@ 50 Iso) essentially no noise at all.

 

This alone opens your shooting envelope quite a bit. That said, in many circumstances you could do the same with the Fuji just using HDR.

 

And while it's true that taking multiple shots is not always feasible, the same goes for the Sony (or other full frame bodies) when you start taking into account that in order to have extended depth of field quite often just stopping down it isn't gonna cut it, and you will have to resort to focus staking.

 

For comparison, the only three really annoying "features" I've found with Fuji are: the sensor reflections when shooting with the sun in the pictures (not always, but frequent enough to be annoying); the lack of an extended eyepiece for the X-T10; and the HDR bracketing limited to a measly +1 -1 stops.

 

If I were to start from scratch, though, I'd definitely go the Fuji route.

 

 

I am with you on this one which is why I just could not let go.  The Sony only comes out on a special purpose use.  I have sold almost all my Sony lenses except for 2, the FE16-35mm wide angle zoom and the Zeiss 50mm f1.5 m-mount lens.  The files are great and the tonal graduations in good light really do sing.

[bhamx2]

Something to be aware of if you push your raw files to any great degree in post.  

 

A7 camera's originally employed a god awful lossy compression algorithm which took the 14 bit raw capture and discarded information to result in what is effectively an 11 bit file. Less bits = less tonal values. You won't notice the loss in tonal values in whatever output medium your using (most readily available output mediums are only going to display 8 bits of tonal information anyway and 10 bits at most for the foreseeable future) it's in the processing latitude of the raw file that you will see the difference. The 11 bit raw file will fall apart a lot sooner vs a 14 bit raw file the same way as a 14 bit raw file will fall apart a lot sooner than the 16 bit raw files being captured by high end medium format cameras in recent years. 

 

Sony has tried to address the problems with compression by offering uncompressed 14 bit raw files via firmware. This is great from a pure image quality point of view, however, there is a big but. Because the raw files are now uncompressed they are huge files which effectively cripples the A7 cameras' buffer making it slow for any sort of quick successions shooting (forget about continuous shooting unless you want to take 6 images and wait 10 minutes for the buffer to clear). In addition these huge files are going to take up a lot more space and put your computer under significantly more load and ultimately slow your processing workflow.  

 

Fuji had a similar problem with their RAF files. They employed very little compression which Lightroom found difficult to deal with quickly. This has since been addressed in recent Lightroom updates however. 

 

Top and bottom of it is that the Sony A7 series is a young product line with bugs and teething problems (much like Fuji's launch of the x series) which is to be expected. Question is, can you wait and will Sony address these issues, quickly. 

 

Fuji invested in customer feedback to improve the x series (quickly) through firmware initially and then through successive models of each camera. In addition they invested heavily in a strong and diverse lens lineup from the get go to achieve a well rounded system in a short period of time. 

 

Sony firmware updates are few and far between, whilst any updates that do come along are half baked (uncompressed raw crippling the camera for example). Also, good Sony glass is significantly more expensive (it seems) than comparable Fuji glass (which is to be expected with APS-C vs 35mm development costs) and not as diverse.

 

See how the Sony A7 iii's turn out sometime this year / next and also see whether the lens lineup has matured by that time. It could then be worth a look but at present I would stay clear. 

 

XT2 looks like a great performer and it's got the lens lineup to boot. Image quality wise it's on par with the D500 with regards DR and noise whilst it is on par with the 5D MK4 with regards general detail rendering (the lack of aa filter effectively brings the 24 megapixel XT2 up to the 30 megapixel 5D MK4 with it's aa filter induced blur. If it's anything like my XT1 the user experience will be top notch (and even better). However, the XT2 is not without it's own flaws of course ((X-trans struggles with fine colour detail rendering - it's a fact people!)) but then every camera will have one flaw or another.