NazgulKing
Established
Eh. This is unfortunately very typical Sony. They have a bloody minded habit of trying to be too clever but then make a mess of it most of the time. It's like one step forward but a stumble backwards.
Zeiss is the key anyway.
The Distagon 55 is the class of lens that belongs with a medium format sensor. The Fuji 35 is a toy in comparison.
gavinlg
Mentor
I'm sure the distagon is an excellent lens, but the fuji 35 is still one of the top 3 50mm lenses I have ever used, and I've used some nice ones. Even if the distagon is measurably better, you still have to twiddle those little dials on that crummy sony body to use it.
you should try the Zeiss 38 touit then. Zeiss threw a telecompressor on the back of the ZM50P and managed to make a better lens than Fuji's system specific 35.
the fantasy of Fuji users is reaching levels I thought only Leica fans existed on.
YYV_146
Well-known
Yes, but the sensor they are using is a old iteration of Sony's popular 16mp APS-C design. A new color array does not a better sensor make. I used to own both the X2, NEX-6 and X-E1. There is no fundamental difference between processing latitude and high iso performance between these bodies. The Fuji does not have any color noise, but also loses progressively more detail upwards of iso 800.
Really? Minolta's camera tradition is every bit as old as Fujifilm. Throw Konica into the mix and Sony's camera legacy is even older than Fujifilm.
There is ZERO compatibility between older Fuji equipment and the X cameras. Sony provides backwards compatibility that ensures the proper function of every Minolta lens on the A7r, via an adapter with motor-drive AF, dual-system focusing and in-body aperture control(for lenses that apply).
In this regard only Nikon can compete with Sony, and I'll give them a 95 instead of the 100 Sony deserves because they did drop certain vital function supports for some of their older glass(not many, admittedly). The DF is perfectly backwards compatible, but that's one body verses Sony's entire Alpha system.
The A-mount has some of the finest optics ever created. The 85mm f1.4 Zeiss can compete on equal grounds with any of Nikon, Canon or Pentax's similar offerings. Sony's 50mm planar is sharper than all three of Canon's EF 50mm primes, and IMO has better color rendition and comparable bokeh to the 50mm f1.2L. The 135mm STF delivers portraits that cannot be matched by any other lens, in fact it makes my 90mm APO-summicron look like a single-coated Jupiter with big flares and ugly OOF...
I will also point you to excellent Sony optics such as the 24mm f2 ZA and 135mm f1.8. Maybe Zeiss had a hand in building these lenses, maybe not. But they are Sony glass, and world-class without any doubt.
I sold my X-E1 because I couldn't get the files to look right (sharp). I've been using Photoshop since CS3, and tried pretty much everything on the Fuji files. I bought a copy of Capture One, updated to the latest ACR, nothing really worked, and I found myself with files that look beautiful on a screen but could not be printed as large as files from my Sony bodies.
I'm a Fuji user since the X100, and also briefly owned a X-E2 before I decided to get rid of the system for good, yet I still use the NEX-7 I bought in 2011 on a daily basis. I don't think the NEX-7 is necessarily a better camera, and I know plenty of people who will prefer Fuji bodies to it, but in no ways do the NEX-7 (or NEX-6) suck.
I wanted to love Fuji. The design looks nice with my M lenses. I prefer a thumbs up to Sony's rubberized grip. The Jpegs are more presentable with Fuji, and WB doesn't creep to the yellow side in low light. But at the end of the day, I found Sony's various fault manageable but not Fuji's. Other may of course feel differently, but neither brand is inherently better or worse.
aizan
Mentor
sonyfilm is the new canikon?
YYV_146
Well-known
How could you compare an APS-C lens to an FF lens?
The Fuji is slower than a 50mm f2 on FF, and cannot deliver the same corner performance as mounting a decent FF 35mm f1.4 on to an APS-C camera. While the XF 35mm f1.4 is a great lens and much better than Sony's APS-C 35mm f1.8, it is also heavier and more than twice as expensive.
edge100
-
This thread has taken the predictable route.
Sparrow
Mentor
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
A man walks into an office.
Man: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time on RFF.
Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
Man: Well, what would be the cost?
Receptionist: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
Man: Well, I think it's probably best if I start with the one and then see how it goes from there, okay?
Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time on RFF.
Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
Man: Well, what would be the cost?
Receptionist: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
Man: Well, I think it's probably best if I start with the one and then see how it goes from there, okay?
rbelyell
Well-known
arent these arguments tiring, and also frankly somewhat childish? my cameras better than yours? my companys smarter than yours? you guys have kids? cause it sounds like parent/child role reversal.
i particularly love comments like 'frankly that ---is apsc vs FF is a minor detail'--minor for you, not minor for everyone! similarly, those who deride 'user experience' erroneously believe their value system is inherently better than another.
the inability and/or the unwillingness to understand that there are no inherent answers to subjective questions is the hallmark of immaturity. its an intellectual dead end. now, 12 year olds have a hard time with this fairly basic concept, understood. how many 12 year olds we have here? maybe its time for folks to act their age and admit that these are not objective issues, and therefore others can properly come to different conclusions that deserve the same respect you desire for yours. remember kids, you are not your stuff; disengage your egos from your gear. and lets try to act like adults.
i particularly love comments like 'frankly that ---is apsc vs FF is a minor detail'--minor for you, not minor for everyone! similarly, those who deride 'user experience' erroneously believe their value system is inherently better than another.
the inability and/or the unwillingness to understand that there are no inherent answers to subjective questions is the hallmark of immaturity. its an intellectual dead end. now, 12 year olds have a hard time with this fairly basic concept, understood. how many 12 year olds we have here? maybe its time for folks to act their age and admit that these are not objective issues, and therefore others can properly come to different conclusions that deserve the same respect you desire for yours. remember kids, you are not your stuff; disengage your egos from your gear. and lets try to act like adults.
A toy? Come on man... that's a bit rough.
edge100
-
There's "heavier" and then there's "heavy".
My Canon 85 1.9 LTM is heavy.
My XF 35 f/1.4 is decidedly not heavy, irrespective of existence of other lenses of lower mass.
Michael Markey
Mentor
Very well put ... and its far from helpful for those who are looking for information .
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
What he said. .
Sparrow
Mentor
... well yes, but I am right about the m5
in comparison, it's accurate.
in a vacuum, it's not a toy. the Fuji 35 is an average fast 50 equivalent. just like all of the rest of Fuji's lenses. middle of pack. bettered by those doing more, better than those doing less. build quality is certainly several levels below a 4k prime built on a cinema lens platform.
the numbers say Fuji's lenses are capable. the numbers say Zeiss' lenses are great. which do you want for your 8 grand medium format camera?
the 55 distagon and the 35 in the RX-1 are legitimately multiple stops better than anything in Fuji's X lens lineup. as in, better at f2.8 than those lenses ever get.
even the 50MP, a much simpler lens, is a lot stronger than Fuji's 35 in equal print size. especially considering it can be shot on a 36 megapixel platform that has a not laughable pixel level sharpness.
I don't understand why the Fuji people can't keep their ridiculous hype machine to their corner of RFF. the Leica people manage it. the Sony people manage it. the Canon and Nikon people manage it. even the other small sensor people manage it. but the bleedover of the Fuji hype train is reaching ridiculous levels and it's intolerable that so many threads get **** in by them saying how great their little toy is.
guess what, Sony is making this camera, because Sony is making the sensor. if the Fuji folks want to have their little fantasy where Fuji makes it better despite completely lacking the technology to build the sensor itself or a lens capable of delivering the level of quality that people expect from a fixed lens camera of that price, they should do it in their forum. not the Sony forum.
it's not about my camera being better than theirs. it's about their decidedly average camera being in every single topic being heralded as the photographic equivalent of Christ.
gavinlg
Mentor
^ LOL. Someone is mad.
gavinlg
Mentor
Sorry man I just don't agree with you. I never liked Minoltas, I don't like the clumsy adapters to use the A mount lenses, and the difference in IQ between a full frame and aps-c xtrans sensor is not enough to lose the gift from god/perfection itself/holy divinity (redisburning are you listening) of the fujis manual controls and aperture rings, and optical shoot-through VF.
Samouraï
Well-known
Why is there any discourse concerning camera systems? Who cares. Sony is doing some funky stuff. Not perfectly, not the best, but they are at least shaking up the industry. It seems to me this tentative MF camera with a fixed lens will serve to test the waters much in the way that the RX1 did for the A7. Another exciting year, maybe.