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.
and I’ll add that even though I recommended a sony camera, I’m generally a fuji shooter too.
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:
+most modern sensors (for a given generation)
+much better video quality (at similar price points)
-really bad on-screen UI
-less robust lens selection
+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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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!
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.
yeah i’m really eyeing the a7ii for a potential upgrade if/when my a6000 finally dies (gotta be well into six digits of exposures, the flash bulb is out, etc). but i have no money to spend right now so…
Hah, I have a Digilux 2 too. I bought it from a coworker years ago when I still had my Canon and never used it much, though. If you’re interested in getting an extra one, tell me
Also, I was thinking about fixed focal lengths on my way to work. I’ve been mostly using 50-55mm full-frame equivalent lenses for a long time now and I’m used to that focal length enough to know when I see something in the street where I should stand to frame what I want.
The X100 series with their fixed 35mm full frame equivalent lens (i.e. 23mm in Fuji systems which have sensors 2/3 the size of a full frame one) is probably better for people who are used to wider lenses (camera phones are typically 24mm-28mm or so I think for example) or who want to frame something closer to “all they see in front of them”. That’s probably a bad explanation but the main thing here is that if you try a camera with one focal length and think you’d be ok with that focal length in all/most situations then it’s probably a good fit. Changing lenses is not something I like doing and I’ve been fine with my Fuji 32/f2 as my only lens. I’ve considered getting a wider and/or longer lens for specific occasions but so far haven’t really needed it.
I think working with a single prime lens can be an extremely rewarding and instructive experience. my main camera these days is an old Hasselblad 500c and I only really ever use the 80mm on it. doing so can help you learn to compose before ever bringing the camera up to your eye.
that said, if you have a particular framing need or are shooting action, wildlife, macro, architecture, etc. specialized or more flexible lenses are good and necessary.
I love micro 4/3 merely for the existence of the Voigtländer Nokton lenses for that format.
Once you shoot f0.95, you just can’t go back.
I have the 25mm (50mm equivalent) which is quite versatile (it’s been my only lens for a while now, although I shoot much more film than digital these days); I’ve thought more than once about selling it and getting the 17.5 + 42.5 to have more range. I hear the 10.5 isn’t that great.