When it comes to switching from a DSLR to a mirrorless system, there is one decision that often causes photographers quite a headache: should I get the Fujifilm X-T1 or the Sony A7rII?
Last summer I’ve played for three days with the Sony A7rII, and wrote my impressions here. Well, I’m happy to see that I’m not the only one, who would go for the X-T1 because of the better colors, the wider selection of lenses, the painfully slow RAW editing of the A7rII files and more.
Guam Photography decided to get rid of his Nikon D4. So he borrowed the X-T1 & the A7rII and tested them.
Speaking of lenses, he compares the XF56mmF1.2 with the Zeiss 85mmF1.4 (with LA-EA4 adapter because, so says the reviewer, “right now Sony doesn’t have really any great portrait lens“) and the XF16-55mm with the Sony 24-70mm.
He tested it in his typical shooting situation (portrait), and saw, for example, that the images coming from the 16MP APS-C X-T1 + XF16-55mm are actually sharper than the one of the 42MP A7rII with Sony 24-70mm.
At the end he goes for the Fujifilm X-T1 because:
- RAW file sizes is smaller – editing worflow is quicker [look at the video at minute 9:45 and see how long the the A7rII needs to load]
- the max. shutter speed of the A7rII is only 1/8000. X-T1 has an electronic shutter of 1/32000. No ND-filter needed to shoot wide-open in daylight.
- Fuji has better colors
- Fuji has better white balance
- Fui has great selection of high quality lenses
- best value for Image Quality [for the price of the A7rII body only, he can get an X-T1 and a couple of primes]
Of course this is just his personal opinion. The X-T1 is the better choice for his needs and for his bank account. There is no “right” or “wrong” answer. But at least he motivates his choice after testing both cameras in his typical shooting environment (portraits), and decided that, despite the on paper superior specs of the A7rII, the results he gets from the Fuji X-T1 are better (for his needs/personal taste etc.)
Full video here on youtube
via FR-facebook photostream
Highlight: X-T1 using the 50-140mm, cracking lens, soo sharp !!!!!!!!
95 Responses
The Sony/Zeiss 55mm1.8 or Batis 85mm is a great portrait lens. Not necessarily better than the 56mm 1.2 / 90mm f2 from Fuji but it those are great lenses nonetheless.
– RAW file sizes is smaller – editing worflow is quicker
=> I don’t care.
– the max. shutter speed of the A7rII is only 1/8000. X-T1 has an electronic shutter of 1/32000.
=> Nice to have, but never used because the slow sensor speed.
– Fuji has better colors
=> I shoot RAW !
– Fuji has better white balance
=> I shoot RAW !
– best value for Image Quality [for the price of the A7rII body only, he can get an
X-T1 and a couple of primes]
=> True, but there are other sony cameras for same price!
– Fui has great selection of high quality lenses
=> Yes, yes, yes! High quality, wide-aperture lenes (!!!) and fair price! My personal reason for buying Fuji…
-RAW sizes are smaller
+Buy A7ii in that case
-1/8000 vs 1/32.000
+1/8000 is good enough for plenty of cases but yeah, 1/32.000 is nice to have
-Fuji has better colors
+Yeah but you can buy the Capture One Pro for Sony versions for peanuts which will give you MUCH better colors than Fuji + LR combo
-Fuji has better white balance
+I always found Sony A7 WB to be quite excellent and Sony has MUCH better metering than Fuji
-The price issue
+I agree completely. However, he could’ve bought an A7ii instead of considering the A7rii, then the price gap would be much smaller. However, where I live Fuji lenses and bodies are much cheaper than Sony.
-Fuji lenses
+Sony has some good lenses but most are duds. Fuji’s native lens selection is years ahead of Sony. However, you can adapt almost any legacy lens to Sony which’ll work almost perfectly with no crop factor which is a plus if you’re working with adapter lenses. If you have the money to go native, Fujifilm lenses are almost unbeatable.
Depending on needs, smaller raw files are beneficial. For me, as an amateur, 32 megs a piece is usually sufficient.
For the price, I think the Fuji gives a better deal and gives a broader choice of excellent lenses. And adapting legacy lenses to Sony, I can tell you that the difference is small, in favour of Fuji: 17.7mm (X-mount) vs. 18mm (E-mount). I have some nice adapters lying around for my M42, Leica R and Contax lenses. The funny thing is though, that since switching to Fuji, I hardly use them anymore. And that is not because I dislike manual focusing…
Most of us A7 users have to rely on third party lenses because there are simply no native alternatives for them, even if you include the kludgy LA-EA adapters and Minolta/Sony A mount lenses. However, once you mount a FF lens on the A7, you can use it with almost no issues.
Of course you can adapt them to Fuji too and I prefer Fuji’s split focus aid by far to peaking (wildly inaccurate and distracting) or magnification (two button presses and you lose the big picture and you get no update on the exposure as you’re zoomed in).
However, once you crop the FF lenses to the APS-C area most of them lose their whole meaning. An excellent 50/1.4 compact prime becomes an awkwardly short tele or awkwardly long normal at 75mm and they simply won’t hold themselves up to Fuji’s excellent 56/1.2. All wide angle legacy lenses simply give up when x1.5 crop is applied to them. Because of this, it’s mostly pointless to adapt an old legacy lens to Fuji but it’s still ok to use on A7.
Who changes from a D4 to X-T1 or an A7rII? Three competely different cameras.
Yeah, pretty strange bedfellows them.
Exactly. I am not sure who this guy is.
Precisely what I thought.
I changed from a 1DX (very similar to a D4) to an a7R2 (and I have an X-T1 as a travel camera).
I think it really depends on what kinds of photography you are doing and what your needs are. For me, I was transitioning away from sports, and the size of the a7R2 (with the vertical grip) has just been perfect. There’s very little that the a7R2 hasn’t been able to do for me. And my arms and back are much, much happier.
Now, with the X-T1, I ran that along side the 1DX since it came out and, while I *love* that camera, I’d never consider it able to fit any of the rules I’ve used the 1DX for. It’s built for taking amazingly beautiful, thoughtful pictures, but it’s just not a workhorse.
Here we go again!!! why can´t we just shoot with the camera we have and enjoy it. If someone moves from Nikon to fuji they might have good reasons for it. But that doesn´t necessarily mean fuji is better.
Or that we have to broadcast every conversion story. It’s beginning to sound like a televangelist crusade around here.
I’ve checked it, and in 2015, out of almost 600 total blog posts, I’ve shared 3 blog posts dedicated to the Sony A7xxx Vs. Fuji X-T1 comparison. That’s 0.5% of everything I’ve written in 2015.
Fujifilm must be highly disappointed by the efforts I put into this crusade 😉
Ummm…
https://goo.gl/rO9Ra5
Or that we have to complain about a conversion story. Don’t like it, don’t read it.
How one can compare D4 and XT1 is beyond me. Also if one shoots RAW, what colours is he talking about?
You’ve never noticed different cameras producing different colours in RAW, and across RAW developers? Yes there are ways to colour match but Fuji colours are nicer out of the box in RAW than Sony — and I’m not talking about presets et al.
N.B, I shoot Sigma Quattro, another camera that has a different colour palette. At the end of the day, RAW is not 100% untouched data!
Exactly this. When colours are better out-of-the box, it saves a lot of post editing time.
But you don’t have to process if you use the preset while importing!
The same preset doesn’t work for every type of camera. X-T1’s RAWs are significantly easier to edit than my old 5DMIII. Even after applying custom presets to both of them, the 5DMIII files took a lot more work to get the colors looking right.
If you are not using something this special, most of the time Lightroom has camera profiles that brings things to a similar ground.
Nicer for you. To each his own though and for me it depends a lot on the situation.
“right now Sony doesn’t have really any great portrait lens“
Silly me, i thought the Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8 ( for E-Mount ) is a great portrait lens.
anyway….
Ok, here we go.
So, -1/8000 vs 1/32.000
ISO 100 vs ISO200 on Fuji – there is 1/8000 vs 1/16000 already
1.2 on crop sensor, is 1.8 (Batis 85), for example, on FF Sony. So, 1/32000 gives almost the same result, like 1/8000 on Sony
I love my XT-1. Absolutely love it. Favorite digital camera I ever owned but I’d love to have a Nikon D4s, D3 etc. Holding my f3, f4 or f5 makes me wish I had 6k to old a pro level dslr
The build of those cameras are great. However i doubt you will love the weight.
Yeah I never held one. I mean I can’t see them being that far off from the f4 or f5.
That’s true. Those bodies works very well with heavy lens. I current have a Df. The color rendering is really pleasing and easy to work with. I think D4/D4s would just be better.
Very nice. Df gets a bad rap. I would like to try one out one day.
Thanks. My solution is a gariz half-case. Now the camera is much comfortable to hold. I actually was doing the samething when i still have xt1.
It gets a bad rap from people like me. I simply think it could’ve been so much more. Otherwise, nice camera.
IMO that’s the thing missing from the Fuji line, refinement and build quality. I enjoy my XT-1 as well but it doesn’t even come close to a flagship Nikon or Leica, or even old film bodies really.
If Fuji took the Bessa and made it digital I would be really happy, I think that is a nice compromise between build quality and “cheap” manufacturing. All the Fuji’s feel like toys 🙁
My XT-1 took a surprise fall twice and luckily one small nick. It took a bounce and was good to go which made me happy but yes I get what you mean. When I got my XT-1 I was expecting it to feel like my Nikon fm3a for some reason especially the metal dials.
Yeah, although I love the look of my X-T1, the manufacturer Fuji should be learning from build quality/feel wise right now is Olympus. My E-M1 is the nicest feeling, most solid impression of a camera I’ve ever owned (and I say that as someone who owned Leica film bodies and pro level FF DSLRs). Genuinely, it feels solid and sculpted and huge quality but is not much heavier or bigger than the Fuji, which feels kinda ‘tinny and hollow’ by comparison? Even the shutter button is much nicer than that rattly thing on the X-T1. Add to that the iris chattering of the XF35 1.4 lens and it really diminishes the quality feel. Just sayin’.
My Minolta SRT-101 is build like a tank. My X-E1 feels cheap and I guess it wouldn’t survive a fall whereas the floor wouldn’t survive the fall of the Minolta.
check this rumor, if its true than x-pro2 will have 28mp , 399 af points, 4d autofocus
[http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-looks-like-the-sony-a6100-is-coming-for-real/
edited by admin: please quote the original source of rumors. We should respect to the work of the SAR admin]
ok, i will from now on
Well, I’ve read enough already. I’m selling some olympus gear and buying the XPRO1. Looking at pictures online- I’m impressed especially thusfar with the JPEGS. I hope I don’t regret this. If anyone has any suggested first lens please let me know:) I was thinking about that Zeiss 32 but the Fuji’s seem to get great reviews.
One lens solution would be xf 1655. Otherwise I personally think 23/1.4 or XF16 is a good start. Lens with new coating is really good.
Think long and hard before you sell off your Olympus to buy an X-Pro1. I bought one when it first came out and I love it but it is slow, and seriously dated. You would be better off to keep your current camera and but one of the many cheap, used Fujis you can buy on Craigslist.
I do like Fuji RAW and JPEG processing, but with that said it isn’t miles apart from Fuji to Sony to Canikon.
From owning and using X100S, X-T1 and A7R II. I like all of it. I prefer the A7R II for landscapes. If I want minimal equipment than I use X100S with WCL & TCL.
Sharpness of files from all brands are sharp enough that clients probably won’t be able to distinguish it on prints and social media sites.
Low light shooting with high ISO A7R II beats the Fuji and it is a big enough difference. I would never shoot ISO 10,000 shooting for stars on a Fuji.
As far as portraits go, I could go either way. 56mm on a Fuji is great. However if I were to choose between XF 56mm and a Batis 85, I would choose the Batis, it also goes for the XF 16mm vs Batis 25, I still prefer the Batis. I guess FE 55 and XF 35 can be a draw for me when it comes to rendering.
XF 90mm from Fuji is great and there really isn’t a native 135mm for FE mount yet, so I am getting by with the SAL 135/1.8 ZA. I still prefer it over the XF 90mm with an adaptor.
With that said, there still isn’t something that I will get over the X100S. RX1R II is an amazing camera, but for me it still can’t beat the shooting experience of the X100S with conversion lenses with hybrid viewfinder.
As far as size, body size isn’t that big of a difference for me to notice. XF 16 and FE 25 isn’t too big of a difference either. However, I do prefer the push/pull manual mode as well as appreciate the aperture ring far more than OLED distance indicator.
Lenses will be generally bigger with full frame in mind but it isn’t a deal breaker for me. I see more benefits as far say style of shooting to own just the X100S and A7R II. That doesn’t mean that I won’t purchase the X-PRO 2 and have a dedicated XF 14mm permanently attached unless the next X100 series or X200 is a medium format with some 21mm conversion option…. But that’s just me.
Anyway the the whole processing slowness is blown out of proportion and that’s even with 80mb files of uncompressed A7R II files vs Fuji RAF files. I jump less hoops using Sony since it is the traditional Bayer sensor vs Fuji that I used RAWTherapee/DCRAW than adobe for maximum quality
Completely agree with this. For me Fuji excels with urban/street and portraits, possibly seascapes. For me it has never been a great landscape camera due to slightly low resolution and poor handling of fine detail in e.g., green grasses, etc.
A7rii is better for pure landscape work, IMO and with the smaller primes like the Batis 25 and 85, and Sony 55 has world class lenses too. Add to it features which the Fuji doesn’t have, or doesn’t do well, like IBIS and video and it’s a tough fight.
Then again, the Fuji has much better MF aids, and much better firmware upgrades and better/faster zoom lenses right now, and is usually smaller/lighter with given equivalent lens attached. I’d call it about even, but for slightly different uses.
For me it is pretty simple.
With Fuji, I like the lenses, size and weight, X-T1 controls, aperture ring on the lens, and especially skin tones.
Nobody does skin tones as well as Fuji in my opinion. My family shots look amazing straight out of the camera using Provia.
Frankly, comparing it to an A7RII is absurd, they are in totally different price classes.
LOL, he used the worst sony lens against fuji’s really good lens. Do that again with more primes and since he’s shooting raw he can slide the white balance slider to adjust color, so simple.
In fact converting to Fuji from Nikon/Sony… Why not look at Canon. Canon’s lens are even better than Nikon’s brand name products, i.e, 16-35/2.8, 35L II, 24-70L II, , 85L, 105/2.8L Macro, 135L, 70-200/2.8L II etc. These are all lens one could possibly want. Some are much cheaper than Nikon/Sony variants and are still made in Japan. Those lens are so good that Sony users keep trying to adapt them.
He apparently turned away from high specs cameras. Then I don’t see the reason why Canon is left out.
If you think Canon’s lenses are better than Nikon’s, you’re sorely mistaken.
Canon 1124 worse than 1424, 1635/4 worse than 1635/2.8L, 2470L worse than 2470E, and 720L worse than 720G? I forget 35L II, 50/1.2L, and 135L has no rival yet.
In fact I am a Nikon user at the moment. I won’t even try to bash Canon for lens image quality. Let alone Canon L’s are made in japan and cheaper than Nikon lens made in Thailand and China.
Even Nikon employees acknowledge that Canon beats them senseless when it comes to lenses. The Nikon 70-200 has severe focus breathing; the Canon 70-200 does not. Canon has many professional-quality telephoto primes for sports/wildlife/action photographers; Nikon has only a small handful of this type of lens. Photographers of architecture and certain types of product photography use Canon or adapt Canon’s TS-E lenses to other systems because the Canon tilt-shifts are so many leagues ahead of the tilt-shifts from anybody else. Even Canon’s standard 50mm range covers a broader market and is more widely-used in the professional sector than Nikon’s.
Sony smokes everyone if you and your work need the best sensors, Canon smokes everyone if you and your work need the best lenses, and Nikon and Fuji sit in a happy middle ground for everyone who needs a bit of both worlds.
… Unless you go for medium format, of course, in which case none of the above four companies win, or if you need video, in which case you get a Sony FS7, adapt Canon lenses to it and you’re sorted.
Clearly the person who carried out this decision hasn’t even done basic research before he carried out this ‘test’.
No offence to Fuji at all, as I own an X-T1 and think it’s great in the right usage scenarios, but he thinks Sony don’t have a great portrait lens right now? The Batis 85 1.8 is a world class portrait lens, so why not test that against the 56 1.2?
Also, it’s pretty much common knowledge that the Sony FE 24-70 f/4 is a poor lens in Sony’s lineup, whereas the Fuji XF 16-55 f/2.8 is considered pretty stellar within the Fuji range.
Come on, let’s at least not have clear flaws in the comparisons if we are to draw any meaningful conclusions.
Should have tried adapting Canon lenses to the Sony, or looked into a medium format rig. Or hell, just shove some more RAM and a hybrid or SSD harddrive in your computer if you’re struggling with raw files of that size.
I love my Fuji cameras ‘n’ all, but it seems like for this person, Fuji actually isn’t the best thing for their use and there are a bunch of other options which would work out better for them. Put the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II or 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS on that Sony and they wouldn’t give Fuji a second look. For that kind of work, that kind of workflow, the Sony sensor with the Canon glass and proper tethered support would be a much better way of working with sharper results than Fuji. Fuji’s good for a whole lot of stuff, but it doesn’t beat the Sony + Canon combo in this area.
I just moved from Nikon to Fuji and I LOVE the Fuji as much or more then my DX Nikons, BUT it’s not “better” it’s just more my style. There’s a lot of misinformation and bad numbers here.
I’m a Fuji fan but come on, you cannot even begin to compare an XT1 to an A7R2…what a joke. The only thing the Fuji has going for it is price. Arguments like ‘smaller file size’ are laughable, you can always shoot in lower resolution if you’re really concerned with that, but you can’t create pixels that aren’t there to begin with. Fuji has great lenses, but Sony/Zeiss is coming out with new lenses all the time that are world class, not to mention all of the Canon EF lenses that work almost flawlessly on the Sony.
Seriously…ask yourself this question, if someone was offering to give you an XT1 or and A7R2 and it was free, what would you choose?? The Sony is by far a better camera, the Fuji, at least on the used market is half decent bang for the buck.
Which Fuji and what lenses do you own?
X-Pro1 with 23mm, 50mm, 18-55mm lenses. I like the handling of the X-Pro and I also love the primes…the 18-55 f2.8-4 is overrated IMO.
You must have a bad copy of the 18-55 than.
Maybe…but I doubt it. I’m just spoiled having used a lot of prime lenses. The 18-55 is good for sure but after the way it was hyped so much I expected more from it.
Seriously I would chose Fuji again. I am not denying the Sony might be (is ?) a technically better tool, but there is IMHO much more to choosing a bode/lens lineup than simple figures on a marketing sheet.
Ditto. And that’s not me being a fanboy, or claiming that Fuji is the “better camera” (what does that mean anyway?). It just fits my style.
For all intents and purposes, the Canon DSLR I sold after going mirrorless was a “better camera”, but it got sold nonetheless and I never looked back.
I find it remarkable that as soon as one makes a choice for a series of reason, and stand by that choice remembering the reasons that lead to that choice one is immediately labelled “Fanboy” for not running to the next best thing, and has to defend him/herself
(and before this starts a war, I am not saying that CHD is labelling anyone fanboy, it is just a general remark)
I guess that choosing the best that money can buy vs choosing what suits your needs is one of the defining hallmarks of consumerism. I have fallen victim to this urge many times, but it never improved my photography or provided more than short term enjoyment. After all, the next best thing is always just around the corner and incessantly chasing it yields little more than perpetual discontent.
Absolutely!
If someone want to trade my trusty X-E1 vs a shiny A7RII, I’m okay.
Otherwise, I’m perfectly fine with Fuji.
Did he mention anything about selecting the correct camera profile?
Electronic shutter has downfalls, so it can be used with static subjects in daylight, but with any movements you’ll be suddenly taking jelly like movements within the photo. Until global shutter is introduced, they are still a one trick pony.
Generally speaking for portraits, you’ll still use a ND filter or rely on HSS to work with strobes and shoot wide open during daylight. Fuji finally has one trigger that supports HSS, but it needs to be better since no parties have global shutter, so electronic shutter means nothing when you are trying to use strobes during daylight shooting wide open. Therefore, as much as people can try to argue and boast about 1/32,000, for me it wasn’t really useful but something cool to have for a minute. I literally used it for three photos to see if it worked… amazeballs..it did as it was written, but never needed to use it again….
135 f/1.8 on a crop sensor mode for equivalency is about 198mm f/2.2 I think, so you could think of it as shooting the A7R II at APS-C mode at 16MP, a 200mm f/2.2 depth of field. There isn’t an AF equivalent lens that you can adapt or use for Fuji.
I was secretly hoping that Fuji was going to have a 90mm f/1.4 lens. Yes.. .a giant lens but something that is a 135mm f/2 like depth of field would’ve been awesome instead of a 90mm f/2.8.
As much as people argue against the difference of FF vs APS-C is minimal to none, you can still shoot the A7 series in APS-C mode, giving you almost a two for one for all lenses in aspect of field of view. As an example with my lenses… 12mm f/2.8 (18mm f/4), 25mm f/2 ( 38mm f/2.8), 55mm f/1.8 (85mm f/2.2), 135mm f/1.8 (198mm f/2.2). With Fuji, what you buy is what you get, it’s not that this is bad, but I see it as an additional pro for owning a full frame with APS-C mode. I do use it often for family photos using the Batis 25 and sometimes with the 12mm f/2.8. Otherwise, I just shoot and crop later because I can.
One weird gripe.. battery grip for Fuji. I wish it was designed to hold two batteries for the external grip. Why just one? It can easily be fitted with two instead of one, than you would have three batteries. I didn’t get that since it wasn’t like the traditional battery grip that you have to take off the camera’s battery door.
Are the ppl you take photos of so ugly you need such thin DOF?
Why restrict yourself with not shooting with thin depth of field? Nothing wrong with isolating the subject by shooting wide open with thin depth of field. There is a reason why people buy 85/1.2, 200/2, 50/0.95
Yea I know, I also have some high speed lenses. But DOF is so overrated on the internet. Shooting open all the time makes a boring collection methinks
Yes, but same argument can be made if we are talking what is considered thin dof being overdone than why not buy the Olympus OM? I am not disagreeing with in regard to being overdone, but lot of the times it is done without creative thought behind it to just have one eyelash in focus. Anything should be done with creative in mind, but if I am able to achieve the certain surreal look that a 200my f/2 can get me the edge to get the image that I am after, it isn’t as easily done without the benzier method with the APS-C or M43. That’s time consuming when you are dealing with clients.
X-T1 advantages for me :
– compatibility with my X-lenses
– price
– good enough IQ
A7RII is a better camera overall but I don’t need it and the switch’d cost me too much money for the delta between Fuji system and Sony system.
..every second post at Fuji Rumors is a Fanboy “Rumor”..
It is after all a fuji centrique site so we should expect this. Please consider how hard it is to come up with interesting and reliable rumor 365 days a year- it’s just not possible. So cut Patrick some slack.
I could post 365 rumors a year, if I’d post also all the fakes I get 😉
You know it’s called FujiRumors.com, not OfficialFujifilmEndorsedRealNews.com right?
Yes, “Fujirumors.com” and not “HappyFujiFanboyPage.com”
Do you own a Fuji camera?
XE-1.. but is that important to have an opinion?
Absolutely not, everyone’s opinion counts.
It’s just a bit surprising to see someone rage against a rumors site dedicated to a system that one owns.
You could ask Patrick to stop being enthusiastic about what he writes? Or better yet, suggest him content YOU would like him to write on HIS website?
and between a fanboy rumor and another, you could also find this: http://www.fujirumors.com/my-main-2-complaints-about-the-fuji-x-t1/
Many comments here are so misinformed. Yes, I wouldn’t really compare the two cameras either and don’t see much point in this blog post but what some of you are writing is ridiculous.
The 24-70 zoom is THE workhorse lens for lots of professionals out there. I’m a prime guy too but suggesting he should just compare primes is stupid because that’s not what he needs.
Concerning the Batis 85 you are right though, he should have compared that.
You think he doesn’t shoot RAW? Think again. You think RAWs don’t have color differences? Think again very hard. You think processing speed can be resolved by using an SSD or some RAM? He’s a professional shooting and culling/editing hundreds of images per shoot, even small differences add up in that case. Same thing applies to WB adjustments! And maybe he sometimes needs to work using a notebook on the road that has limits in processing speed. I don’t know that, do you?
Seriously, get on with your life. He made his choice, you can make yours. Stop judging his decision and pretending he’s stupid.
At least now I know where Guam is!
Can I ask everyone using the XT-1 or other Fujis are you still using a Canon or Nikon etc as full frame? What do you use Fuji for? Currently I only have the 35 1.4 and have gotten some good portraits, group pics, flowers, nature shots as well. I love the colors. I’m only shooting jpegs as I don’t have time currently for all the post work (just a hobbyist) but was looking at the 90 f2 for portraits
nope. ditched the whole Nikon thingy exactly a year ago to fund the X-T1 and several good glass (10-24, 56) previously had the 35 and 18-55. Added recently the 18-135 for convenience and the 27 for use on my X-E1. Not lusting for anything else atm nor regretting the Nikon gear. Enjoying what I have and spending the little time I have taking pictures instead as before pondering what gear could help me. The results I got from Fuji have cured my gas 🙂
And were you shooting Nikon full frame? No regrets huh.
D2hs and D3. Originally I had to let go these because of a severe tendinitis. Very glad I chose Fuji at the time I get all I want from my gear and then some (read pleasure is back) So absolutely no regrets. Note that I am an amateur.
The pull on the A7RII is the resolution. What many fail to realize is that you need to times by four to double the resolution of your sensor. 42MP isn’t as much as you are led to believe. When we hit 96MP we will have only doubled the resolution of our standard 24MP sensors.
With that said, other components in your work flow are just as important. Quality of monitor, printer, etc. It’s funny in that when I shoot film I never look at my slides and wish I had more resolution. The colors are what first grab my attention. With the A7RII at 2800-3200 dollars it doesn’t make a lot of sense for many folks. I also think computational photography will eat away at part of the high rez market in the next few years. Examples would be the L16 in addition to lower end cameras using advanced forms of multi-shot (stitching).
You can always grab more resolution using various methods. In addition, you’d be surprised how often- with a little technique- you can stitch while avoiding artifacts.What you can never quite fix is garbage colors in your RAW files.
I am not seeing garbage colors in my raw. Unless you are referring to people pushing the raw 5+ stops?
I’m not referring to Fuji. Despite it being RAW though- it’s still cooked. I swear Olympus is famous for this. The over punchy greens with a slight blue tint. I can spot it every time and it’s annoying. You can fix it but that’s just my point. Not all RAW files are the same.
People spouted that same crap when cameras moved from 8mp to 12…and then to 16…and then to 24…and so it goes. For me the sweet spot is 24MP. I have 24×36″ prints from my 5D2 and M240 that look superb. That said…I would happily take the resolution of the A7RII. It all depends on how large you want to print…(queue comment from Joe Smoe who has a billboard enlargement from his 12 yr old 6MP DSLR…)
Totally agree. I’m certainly not against it- just think the issue needs to be put into perspective.
Ouch. I sold my XT1 and bought the A7R2.
Did I have any negs or problems with Fuji? No. I still prefer the colors of the Fuji jpgs and the standard raw options from Fuji. I prefer the EVF of Fuji, the handling, the menue system, the shutter sound and generally speaking the company philosophy with regular updates….
But the raw files of the A7R2 after calibrating the camera! are awesome. If you print large you will definitely love the A7R2. You can produce great results with both cams. If I had seen a chance that Fuji would go full format I definitely had waited but I think this won´t happen anytime soon.
Finally if money grew on the street I probably would still have the Fuji and shoot both systems. If anybody is interested if I indeed make photos 🙂 look for arcaswissi or my name in flickr.
Comparing XT1 and A7rii is like comparing Honda Accord to BMW M3.
Fuji or Sony are much better than Nicon (typo intentionally included). Nevertheless, extra MP could be useful for some guys.
It’s quite obvious that the Sony 24 – 70 F/4 is much worse than the Fuji 18-55
I’m sold most of my Fujifilm gear to switch to the Sony a7r II and in real life à good switch more dynamic range. Do not shoot jpeg so do not need the Colors. Main Reason of the switch: the lack off service from Fujifilm. 56mm 16-55 10-24 50-140 27mm 18mm problems with dust and AF problems. Only keep the xt1 18-55 35mm and sold/selling all other lenses and cameras from Fujifilm. U was à Fujifilm fanboy but they way they help there custumers is for me à deal breaker!
The xt1 is à good camera but the 7rII is great
Excellent review! Both the Sony and Fuji are great cameras and both have pros and cons as your video showed. I believe that the Fuji lenses are superb and are a better value than the Sony lenses. The high end Sony lenses are much more expensive than Fuji’s. For landscapes the much higher res and full frame Sony is the way to go, but for general photography I think that the Fuji is more versatile. The future Fuji Xt-2 should have much better low light and continuous AF and a better low light sensor which would be great for sports photographers like me. Both Sony and Fuji don’t mess around with innovation and that is a good thing for photographers.