#22

I had (well, technically still have) a Sony RX100 between my Canon DSLR and my Fuji and while the 1 inch sensors in these things are great (especially for small and very portable cameras), you won’t get the same results in terms of depth of field/bokeh as with a bigger sensor, if that’s important to you. Beyond that, these sensors and the processors that go with it now deal really well with high ISO and they can be enough to get very usable results in most situations.

And as mentioned previously the interface is super important (just like for a musical instrument) so finding a camera that has all you need exposed directly and that feel good in your hands/in front of your face is one of the most important things.

#23

Follow up questions:

Not a lot of Sony love here. Any reasons why you all seem to prefer the Fujis beyond the increased control with the manual knobs? That does seem handy and nice to go back to the more traditional feel. I used to use my dad’s old analog cam in the 90s when I was more into photography and had access to a dark room in high school and college.

Watching reviews on Youtube make it seem like Sony is a bit more multi-functional (video, interfacing with mics) and maybe Fuji is better for pure photography. Is that something you all agree with?

If I bump up to the next price tier, it comes down to the Sony A6300 or the Fuji XT20. Any thoughts on notable differences? I’m watching videos, but again, so many of you are so talented with things that are outside of music (photography, in this case) that I’d love the personal wisdom from the community here :slight_smile:

Thanks!

#24

The manual knobs are the biggest factor for me. I’ve never shot video on my Fuji, and don’t plan to, but I’ve heard video is one of their biggest weaknesses (at least on the earlier models, I believe they’ve made progress with newer models). I’ve heard great things about the Sony mirorrless cameras, as far as features and image quality I don’t think you’ll go wrong either way, it’s more about the form factor and lens system you want to buy into.

#25

Canon plans to announce a new full frame mirrorless camera in September. Given my investment in Canon lenses, I’m a bit excited about this, although, the mirror is nowhere near the bulkiest/heaviest thing in my camera bag.

#26

Yeah, the manual tweaking does appeal. If I buy the Fuji, the lens will have to be a 16-50 at first rather than the more expensive 18-55 lens, but I have a feeling I won’t detect a huge difference in lenses initially anyway.

#27

i don’t think it is worth paying up for the a6300 or a6500. if you want to spend more on a sony body get an a7 series.

i strongly suggest going to a shop and seeing as much of these cameras and lenses as you can bc that was a major factor for me with the a6000 (“i know i’ll carry this everywhere”). i do not miss any knobs that other bodies have.

the native lens selections for both Oly and Fuji are broader and priced more digestibly.

also please factor in your budget an additional 2 batteries, charger, 32gb card.

1 Like
#28

also i think the camera that is better at “pure photography” is the camera that works for you

1 Like
#29

Yeah, I may go this afternoon to a shop and take a look. Thanks Billy :slight_smile:

#30

I fought this with buying cheap vintage lenses on ebay until a touit 32/1.8 showed up on KEH and it worked out for me.

#31

You really don’t need to spend excessive amounts of money, whether new or vintage w/ adapter. Yongnuo make some really affordable prime lenses. The ones I saw were $50 for a 50mm/1.8

1 Like
#32

i got a pentax-a smc 28/2.8 (so like 42mm equiv) for $30 plus $10 for the adapter and it’s a brilliant lens. the minolta rokkor-x 45/2 is not as tight but has rendered beautiful images and was $15.

the autofocus on the a6000 is fantastic but i’ve also rec’d the sony’s as hosts for vintage/manual lenses.

1 Like
#33

and I’ll add that even though I recommended a sony camera, I’m generally a fuji shooter too. :stuck_out_tongue:

it’s not quite right to say that fuji offers more manual control than sony. it’s more that fuji physical controls are permanently assigned to a single control type and have absolute position values (mimicking the mechanically linked controls of older cameras). this primarily allows them to (a) operate in a mode-less fashion and (b) allow you to know exactly how the camera is set even when it’s turned off. also, aperture rings are kinda nice most of the time.

sony, on the other hand, simply works the way most modern camera do. there’s a mode (p,a,s,m + other ones) and those modes assign which physical control does what. cheaper cameras might have one dedicated control knob, mid-tier will have at least two, and a high end might have three. the advantage to this is that it maximizes relevant physical controls and allows you to customize to your taste.

higher-end fuji cameras kind of do both of these at the same time (“hard” labelled knobs and “soft” re-assignable rings), but I think doing both can get a little confusing, to be honest. edit- also lower-end fuji cameras can sometimes abandon this approach to get more out of less knobs.

other differences, beside control scheme:

sony
+most modern sensors (for a given generation)
+much better video quality (at similar price points)
-really bad on-screen UI
-less robust lens selection

fuji
+best & most flexible in-camera jpeg processing (including best color repro and white balance)
+fantastic (but expensive) lenses
-video quality (save for high-end bodies xt-2 and xh-1)
-ergonomics aren’t always great (cribbing old school camera bodies doesn’t allow for a lot places to improve)

up until a year ago, I think sony was also more affordable on average, but fuji has been absolutely flooding the market with more affordable xt models recently, so that’s probably no longer really true.

1 Like
#34

This is huge. It has streamlined my workflow so much, and I use the pictures that I take a lot more than I used to… The Fuji jpgs are so so good… and really tweakable in camera to “process” the images to your taste. It also lets you store a number of preset jpg/camera settings in a quick menu so you can really quickly swap between “films”…

I have my favourite colour and b&w settings in my quick menu, which sort of simulates how I used to use different film stocks and development for different things.

1 Like
#35

I have a Fuji X100S. Casual snaps for the intertubes benefit from in-camera RAW processing and Wi-Fi transfer (via SD card on this old model). Superb lens. The output from the jpeg engine is gorgeous. RAW post works really well too. The camera is light, looks lovely, and is a joy to use, despite being a bit old now and rather slow focus.

Indeed the only alternative is Sony, especially if you plan on shooting video. But for photos only, If I was buying again, I’d struggle to pick, and against an APS-C Sony, I’d probably still go with a Fuji.

#36

For me the real advantage of the interchangeable lens Fujis are their compatibility with vintage lenses, a lot of what people think of as ‘film look’ actually comes from the lenses, but that is pretty niche. My Fuji is not great for video, no manual control of exposure and limited sound options. If I wanted video beyond filming the odd thing (which it works fine for) I would get a dedicated camera designed for the purpose though. I worked in an independent camera shop for two years and the Fuji xe2 was the one I bought just before I left, after trying out and demoing pretty much every camera in the shop!
Edit: just thought as well, (thinking back to my camera shop days) user interface and having a camera you actually enjoy using is much, much more important than image sensor or any tech specs! If you can’t try them in a shop to get a feel. Besides, your camera specs will almost always out-compete your lens unless youre spending $$$$ on lenses.

#37

no doubt some very old lens designs have a specific look, but I think people tend to trigger far more off the treatment of color (for negative and positive film) and highlights (for negative film) when they refer to the “look” of film, except in the case of medium and larger formats, where the whole thing is very hard to compare.

#38

True, but the softness does add to it, and old lenses having much less glass treatments does affect the way they handle light and therefore colour. Really it all adds up, but lens stuff is harder to recreate in post. I’ve used stuff from 35mm to 4x5 and haven’t felt the need to go back since getting my Fuji (which also has fujifilm colour profile settings too)

1 Like
#39

Hesitant to chime in with this recommendation, but my favorite camera ever (film or digital) is still the Leica Digilux 2. Old. Out of production. Small sensor. Only 5 megapixels. Terrible low-light performance. Crappy, low-resolution lcd and evf. Only available on the used market. But pure magic! Mirrorless but with a fixed manual zoom lens. That lens! 28-90mm (equivalent) 2.0 - 2.4 Summicron. Think how big a lens of that speed would be on an aps-c or full frame sensor!

Thorsten Overgaard has several pages of his website dedicated to it, with an update just this past March: http://www.overgaard.dk/leica_digilux2.html

I’ve owned several, all of which I have sold to buy the next newest thing. I’ve had my current one for a few years, and it’s still my first choice, even compared to my “newer” and “better” cameras…

Edit: Best ooc jpegs I’ve ever gotten (color and b&w) from any camera, including Fujis…

3 Likes
#40

when i got the a6000 i was like “uh yeah this wifi thing is neat but i’m never gonna use”

it’s super handy.

#41

I got a used Sony a7II for around 1200 last year from B&H. It has probably come down by now. Its small and light and takes amazing pics and video. I love it Sony is making some amazing cameras right now.