A lot of people (as in photographers that I know) have been talking about replacing or augmenting their current DSLR systems with mirrorless systems. The benefits are hard to ignore (See: Comparing the Fuji X-E2 and the Canon 5D Mark III) as mirrorless systems are less expensive and lighter and smaller. There are always trade offs of course and the mirrorless systems are often more awkward to use quickly and difficult for those with larger hands. For me personally, the portability side of mirrorless systems more than makes up for the downsides. But what about lenses? How do focal lengths differ between the systems? This isn’t so much a mirrorless vs DSLR debate as much as a cropped vs full frame sensor. While there is one full frame mirrorless system (The Sony A7 and A7R), it currently lacks options for native lenses and costs more than double than the more popular cropped mirrorless models (Olympus OM-D E-M1, and Fuji X-E2 and just announced Fuji X-T1).
Follow the link to see my findings:
13 Responses
Why all the exif of the pictures on that website says: “camera: XE-2″….(Including the picture which are marked as 5D3.
I’ll double check that in a bit.
Figured it out. I was using layers in Photoshop to creat the images and get the lined up more closely. This resulted in the EXIF getting copied from the bottom (original) layer to the others. The images are accurately labelled bu tI’ll fix the EXIF by saving them again one at a time. Thaks for the catch.
Nice article, I enjoyed it very much. The ff has over a stop advantage for dof, and I think about the same for high iso performance. Anyway a good aps-c system can offer great performance in a small size, if you go mirrorless. And fuji’s lenses are gems.
I double checked the EXIF and I now have the correct data in there. Thanks again for catching that giliath
Horrible Fuji pinky skintones…
Smaller and lighter? Absolutely.
Cheaper than DSLR? On the contrary.
The “pink skin tones” may be more a factor of the lack of sun we Canadians have in the winter 🙂
I would love to see a side by side comparison of the differences in skin tones between camera systems.
No, they are typical for Fuji jpeg.
Ronin, one can find cheaper versions of anything including cheaper mirrorless systems. I have been comparing more high end gear.
Really interesting and useful comparison!
I found it funny how you let some typical Fuji fanboyism slip in for your argument against Sony. Native lens selection? You could use all your Canon glass. Price? Here are the prices I paid: A7 $1400, 35/2.8 $600, 55/1.8 $900.
And let me tell you that equivalences are only an indication and it shows in your comparison. The Canon f1.4 lenses beat the Fujis by more than what the equivalence would say…
You can also see this on Steve Huffs blog where the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 is able to match the background blur of the Fuji 23/1.4.
What I take away from your comparison is that Id take the Fuji over the Canon any day… But if I’d be fussy about compromising for the half frame sensor, I’d dump both and get the Sony with Zeiss glass…
Mike, me liking a different system than the one that you have is not an indication of fanboyism anymore than you liking Sony is. What is the point of using my big Canon lenses on a Fuji or a Sony when they work on my Canon cameras? I want a small SYSTEM, not a tiny camera with big lenses that need an adapter and have no or slow auto-focus. This will work great for some, but it’s not useful for what I shoot.
As for background blur, that’s great that the Sony Zeiss can match the Fuji. Too bad they couldn’t have taken it to at least F1.8. Hopefully they will round out their lens selection, they won’t be super expensive, and they won’t be the size of full sized DSLR lenses.
Can you tell me what you think of the AF? The two things I need for wedding shooting are AF (in low light conditions) and thin DOF. I can work around having a narrower DR if those two are good.