Sony and Fuji arguably lead the interchangeable lens "mirrorless" race - at least for the time being.
What do you see as the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system?
Where does each system need to improve?
What is your own favorite and why ?
Stephen
What do you see as the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system?
Where does each system need to improve?
What is your own favorite and why ?
Stephen
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Sony: Excellent sensors, good viewfinders, jumble of junk menus, clunky cameras, oddly-unbalanced lens portfolio, variable quality control.
Fuji: Weird and difficult to process sensor raw data, (X-Ti) good to excellent viewfinder, decent body, weird but mostly useable menus, excellent lenses, above average build consistency.
The 'clunky camera' part of the Sonys kills them for me. The weird Fuji sensor data kills them for me. I own neither at this time.
IMO, the Micro-FourThirds system (combination of Olympus and Panasonic bodies/lenses plus third party lenses) is the most consistent and most extensive in the "mirrorless race," such as it is, and, to me, it is the leader. They have their faults too, but none that get in my way as much as what I found with the Fuji and Sony gear. I continue to use my Olympus E-M1 nearly every day: it has not yet failed to produce the results I was after.
G
Fuji: Weird and difficult to process sensor raw data, (X-Ti) good to excellent viewfinder, decent body, weird but mostly useable menus, excellent lenses, above average build consistency.
The 'clunky camera' part of the Sonys kills them for me. The weird Fuji sensor data kills them for me. I own neither at this time.
IMO, the Micro-FourThirds system (combination of Olympus and Panasonic bodies/lenses plus third party lenses) is the most consistent and most extensive in the "mirrorless race," such as it is, and, to me, it is the leader. They have their faults too, but none that get in my way as much as what I found with the Fuji and Sony gear. I continue to use my Olympus E-M1 nearly every day: it has not yet failed to produce the results I was after.
G
YYV_146
Well-known
Image quality from the Fuji bodies are currently at least a generation behind Sony APS-C bodies, since they still use a base Sony design from 2011. Four years is a long time in the digital world. That to me alone is a deal-breaker. But Fuji seems to have cracked something about Jpegs that no other brand has. The Fuji in-camera profiles produce consistently good results. Sony's Jpegs have improved, but are still hit-and-miss.
The only two decent E-mount APS-C lenses are the 24mm F1.8 and 16-70mm F4. Fuji on the other hand has a full lineup of good to excellent optics. That said, I can mount many more lenses on a E-mount camera and use them to full potential. Fuji doesn't have an equivalent for either my 135mm STF or my 15mm ZM Distagon.
I think the centralized Sony philosophy is that it never hurts to provide more options. The controls are highly customizable and you can find niche functions for a wide range of user scenarios. People who like to be in control of technology and have the full range of options will prefer this option. Fuji focuses on core aspects of the photography experience. The downside is that the experience feels, at least to me, oddly limiting.
I may be a bit partial to Sony, but in the long run, my opinion is that the challenges Fuji needs to overcome are much greater than the ones for Sony. The X-mount not supporting full frame is one. How many people will be willing to invest in APS-C when FF prices drop to the $500 range? The other is that being the proverbial small fish in the pond, they won't have access to the latest OLED panels and sensors. That means sensor performance will remain a step or two behind the big players.
Sony needs to continue to improve its professional service solution. They also need more lenses. The A7S is close to perfection for a reportage camera - so where's the 24mm F1.4 and 5x zooms? Flash systems remain fairly pitiful for both brands, but Sony's is particularly jarring because of the hot shoe change. I also don't like the trend of heavier full frame cameras - why isn't Sony squeezing the A7 sensor into a NEX-7 design?
The only two decent E-mount APS-C lenses are the 24mm F1.8 and 16-70mm F4. Fuji on the other hand has a full lineup of good to excellent optics. That said, I can mount many more lenses on a E-mount camera and use them to full potential. Fuji doesn't have an equivalent for either my 135mm STF or my 15mm ZM Distagon.
I think the centralized Sony philosophy is that it never hurts to provide more options. The controls are highly customizable and you can find niche functions for a wide range of user scenarios. People who like to be in control of technology and have the full range of options will prefer this option. Fuji focuses on core aspects of the photography experience. The downside is that the experience feels, at least to me, oddly limiting.
I may be a bit partial to Sony, but in the long run, my opinion is that the challenges Fuji needs to overcome are much greater than the ones for Sony. The X-mount not supporting full frame is one. How many people will be willing to invest in APS-C when FF prices drop to the $500 range? The other is that being the proverbial small fish in the pond, they won't have access to the latest OLED panels and sensors. That means sensor performance will remain a step or two behind the big players.
Sony needs to continue to improve its professional service solution. They also need more lenses. The A7S is close to perfection for a reportage camera - so where's the 24mm F1.4 and 5x zooms? Flash systems remain fairly pitiful for both brands, but Sony's is particularly jarring because of the hot shoe change. I also don't like the trend of heavier full frame cameras - why isn't Sony squeezing the A7 sensor into a NEX-7 design?
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Sony has a huge strength in video. Quite a few of us, I'm sure, still have NEX-5s kicking around because they are such good video machines. I can't say the same for my various Fujis.
Dante
Dante
taemo
eat sleep shoot
Aesthetically, I prefer the RF body style unless the SLR body actually has an OVF, I cant stand shooting EVF.
The X-Pro1 is probably the nicest looking mirrorless camera for me and felt at home right away.
In terms of IQ and DR, Sony wins hands down with 24MP+ and Full Frame sensors.
X-Trans2 files are brutal and painfully slow to work on, original X-Trans was fine though and was really impressed from my X-Pro1 shots back in the day.
In terms of UI, both are not the greatest but will do, however I found the X-Pro1 more intuitive than the A7.
I agree with the clunky sound that the A7 makes, one more thing that I sure don't miss on the Sony cameras.
Tempted on getting another X-Pro1 as a side-kick of the M240 now though..hmm
The X-Pro1 is probably the nicest looking mirrorless camera for me and felt at home right away.
In terms of IQ and DR, Sony wins hands down with 24MP+ and Full Frame sensors.
X-Trans2 files are brutal and painfully slow to work on, original X-Trans was fine though and was really impressed from my X-Pro1 shots back in the day.
In terms of UI, both are not the greatest but will do, however I found the X-Pro1 more intuitive than the A7.
I agree with the clunky sound that the A7 makes, one more thing that I sure don't miss on the Sony cameras.
Tempted on getting another X-Pro1 as a side-kick of the M240 now though..hmm
burancap
Mentor
Put the A7S sensor in the XP1 body with the X100T finder and I won't bother anyone ever again.
Give me the A7RII sensor with the Leica Q's EVF / Fuji OVF inside a X-Pro1 body and I'd be very happy for a few years... or just give me a 50mm Leica Q.
I loved using Fuji for many years, but I find them dated compared to everything else right now when it comes to responsiveness. My favorite lens, the 35mm 1.4, was just too slow on every Fuji body I had tried. I switched to the Sony A7R and then A7II and find them to be a lot more responsive, but I miss the ergonomics and haptics of the Fuji X-Pro1. Fuji has a pretty nice lens line-up too. Sony is lacking in small AF primes.
MCTuomey
Mentor
I wanted AF, high iso performance, good range and quality in native mount lenses, and less weight/size than a dSLR. Got all four with Fuji XF.
Most pleasing system to shoot: Leica M
Most resolution and IQ in a system to shoot: Sony Alpha
Most compromises in a system to shoot: Fuji X
That's where I'm at. I can live and shoot well with Fuji.
Most pleasing system to shoot: Leica M
Most resolution and IQ in a system to shoot: Sony Alpha
Most compromises in a system to shoot: Fuji X
That's where I'm at. I can live and shoot well with Fuji.
Last edited:
jarski
Mentor
methinks Panasonic also makes great mirrorless cameras as well, though am not using one personally.
went recently Sony path, because they have full frame option, and great sensors. so Sony should handle my future needs as well. for now RX10 as general purpose, and a5100 with 1.8/35mm for people/street - cover my traveling photography. staying in one brand helps: same UI, batteries & charging, raw post processing, smartphone connection etc.
am not having anything against Fuji, but it was clearly pricier option that I could not justify from performance pov.
went recently Sony path, because they have full frame option, and great sensors. so Sony should handle my future needs as well. for now RX10 as general purpose, and a5100 with 1.8/35mm for people/street - cover my traveling photography. staying in one brand helps: same UI, batteries & charging, raw post processing, smartphone connection etc.
am not having anything against Fuji, but it was clearly pricier option that I could not justify from performance pov.
Addy101
Well-known
What do you mean by clunky cameras?
What about these: 10-18/4, 35/1.8, 50/1.8? I really like my copies of these. Fuji lenses may be slightly better, but these are nice to
Don't know much 'bout the Fuji's. I like my Sony Nex F3 and I have an A6000 on the way.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Sony left Fuj behind with FF.
But Sony will never made their cameras as sexy as hot Fuji bodies!
But Sony will never made their cameras as sexy as hot Fuji bodies!
Bille
Well-known
This one is easy: Full frame vs. ... well ... not full frame.
xyz3450
-
I agree with Godfrey and think the micro-four thirds system is a strong contender. The array of lenses availble from the various M43 manufacturers is impressive, and Olympus's IBIS implementation is very well regarded. -- martin
YYV_146
Well-known
What do you mean by clunky cameras?
What about these: 10-18/4, 35/1.8, 50/1.8? I really like my copies of these. Fuji lenses may be slightly better, but these are nice to
Don't know much 'bout the Fuji's. I like my Sony Nex F3 and I have an A6000 on the way.
In fairness, those are nice optics and give plenty of performance on the dollar. But they aren't perfect for critical work on 24mp APS-C sensors. The upgrade from the 50mm F1.8 to the 55mm Zeiss would be highly visible at F1.8-2.8, especially for printing.
danielsterno
making soup from mud
⇧. Perfectly said.
j.scooter
Well-known
I had an A7 and sold it for the XT1.
For me it was the Fujis native lens line up with more promised on the roadmap that won me over. Not to mention their practice of continually improving their products even after they have taken your money.
For me it was the Fujis native lens line up with more promised on the roadmap that won me over. Not to mention their practice of continually improving their products even after they have taken your money.
Spanik
Well-known
For me Sony it the company that chases whatver they think is hot right now. And drop it tomorrow for whatever reason that came up when they got out of bed. Plenty of brilliant ideas, lousy execution, abysmal client service. It's not their cameras but the company that I don't like.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Awkwardly placed controls that are sometimes re-assignable as to function, but other times not; noisy, annoying shutter; cheap feel and poor fit of components; lens mount too lightweight for intended use; overall decent viewfinder with insufficient adaptivity for bright conditions. Et cetera. Overall, a $2000 camera with the unsophisticated rough edges of an economy grade camera. Clunky.
G
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
When I gave up on film I was looking for bodies to put the M lenses on. I tried the NEX bodies. Great but I hated the out-of-camera jpeg. Yeah, yeah, shoot raw. I'd rather drink snot. Spending time dragging sliders around is my idea of hell. Dante has spoken correctly. Fuji hits it with their jpegs. Sony doesn't. It's too bad because it struck me as a camera, once set up, that simply got out of the way. The fact that the Fuji is outdated is meaningless to me. I don't try new cameras constantly. Or even more than rarely; usually it's when something needs replacing because it's broken. I still shoot D3 bodies with pretty vanilla Nikon glass. But most of the time I'm working with an X100 and an iPhone. When I need a long shot I have a little Panasonic GX1 with a 90-200 equivalent. I find the magenta cast out of the GX1 frustrating. But perhaps most here are shooting digital B&W. I don't know. Colour for me is paramount. Sony, when I was trying the NEX cameras, just seemed to make very blue jpegs, no matter what I did with WB.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Many here have touted Sony because they are full-frame. But the size of Sony full-frame lenses is a killer for me. Fuji body/lens size is better for me. And the m4/3 body/lens sizes are great. But this raises a question... why can't someone other than Leica make a full frame camera with lenses that are as small as Leica's? If its just all the auto-focus junk that adds size, give me manual focus lenses that're small!!