Sony vs. Fuji systems

<p>I have a Sony NEX 6 and I'm considering switching to the Fuji system because I get the impression from reading online that the image quality for Fuji might be a tad better than Sony and I've realized that Sony's comparable lenses aren't that much cheaper than Fuji. So in terms of image quality would either one of these systems be noticeably different? Or am I just dancing on the head of a pin at this point and should just pick my system based on other factors (size, weight, ease of use, etc.)</p>

<p>Sony: A6000 + Sony 10-18 + Sony Zeiss 16-70 + Sony 35 f/1.8<br>

Fuji: E-X2 + Fuji 10-24 + Fuji 18-55 + 35 f/1.4</p>

<p>Since the A6000 hasn't come out yet just assume it's the NEX 7.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I have neither systems but have thought about both of them a few times and had a good look online, comparing reviews. It seems to me this would be a sideways step, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be the wrong step. Getting just the right fit is important. It might be counterintuitive but an OMD EM10 plus some good lenses might be something else to consider. New system, great ergonomic layout, loads of great lenses; another challenge.</p>

<p>Fuji lens sale on now.</p>

<p>Thanks, I know a lot of people like the Olympus lenses, but I'm not really interested in the micro 4/3 format. </p>

<p>Where is the Fuji sale?</p>

<p>You should consider the XE-1 and 18-55 to see if Fuji is for you. Check lens prices at B&H.<br>

The 10-24 is going to be a large lens and not available yet. Read the other Fuji posts here too.</p>

<p>Recently, I was considering whether to replace my old Olympus E-P2 with a newer Olympus (or Panasonic), a Sony A7, or a Fuji X-E1 or X-E2. My father-in-law has a Sony NEX-6, so I have some familiarity with that system and I think it's pretty nice. The full-frame sensor in the A7 was also tempting since I like shooting with legacy lenses from the 35mm film era. But a couple of weeks ago, Adorama dropped the price of the X-E1 with the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 lens down to $799 and that was too good to resist. (I hear it's dropped even more since then.) I've had my X-E1 for about a week now and I really like it. The EVF is much better than my Olympus and probably at least as good as the NEX-6 (and the latest firmware upgrade provides focus peaking in manual focus mode). The control design is sensible and easy to get used to. Image quality is superb (I'm using Adobe Lightroom 5 to process the raw files). Noise isn't too bad even shooting outdoors at night at ISO 6400. So far I have no complaints at all and I'm glad I chose the X-E1.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

None of anyone's lenses are made by hand anymore; some old guy in a brown apron working away with a burnt-down candle and a sharp(ish) file at the back of the shed!<br>

I look at the pics here and, blown up, I'm blown away by the quality of all of them. I have a 3n as well as the 6 and it's little standard zoom as well as a Sigma 30mm lens bought second hand , oh and some old Nikkor glass. I can't take good pics, but the cameras and lenses could easily if they were given a chance.<br>

The Nex cameras are stunning IMHO, but if you can't settle with it, then you should try a few of the Fuji cameras out in the shop to see how they fit you.<br>

Let's face it, we all think things are more interesting over the fence and it can take a lot of looking, buying and selling (always at a loss) to get what we think might be the 'right stuff' .<br>

So, good luck with your searches!<br>

<br />Andy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the image quality for Fuji might be a tad better than Sony</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Might be the case, though the TAW converter does seem to play a more significant role with the Fuji X-Trans sensors than it might with Sony's traditional Bayer sensors. But.... my very first question, however, would be: is the image quality you get now from your Sony insufficient? Bad enough to switch systems and take a loss on selling the lenses you have? In fact, the NEX you have is a fairly recent model, why do you feel it's necessary to change, and would either A6000 or Fuji resolve that shortcoming?</p>

<p>The grass always seems greener behind the fence but rarely is.</p>

<p>System switching is almost always expensive so you'd better be pretty certain you really want to do it and have some solid reasons. It's always tempting to get on the newer faster train but ask yourself if you photography will really improve or if you just want a new toy. It's your money, of course, and I'll certainly not tell you how to spend it but think it through.<br>

The only real system switch I have done was from m4/3, the original Olympus OMD to the Fuji X E-1. With "large" cameras I started with Nikon in the mid 60's and have stuck with them ever since. While none of those original cameras remain, I still have and occasionally use my Micro-Nikkor 55 f/3.5 and my Nikon 85 f/2, both small sharp manual focus lenses. I am quite pleased with my Oly-Fuji switch for the type of work I do with it. With Fuji's constant improvements even for older cameras via firmware, I'm likely to remain a loyal customer. If and when formats switch, eg if they go full frame and "ruin" all my lenses, I'll be an unhappy camper, but for now, I'm pleased with the excellent lenses and super sharp sensor.</p>

<p>As for what I'm currently lacking now, it's mainly IQ. I have the 16-50 and it just doesn't cut it for me. The resolution is obviously lacking and the glare is the worst I've ever seen (I'm hoping it's just the lens and not the body).</p>

<p>So I have to upgrade and the only zoom option is the seemingly over-priced 16-70. So switching systems at point isn't going to cost anything vs. upgrading my Sony system, i.e I can get the X-E1 + 18-55 + 35 f/1.4 for maybe $100 more than the 16-70.</p>

<p>Right now, I'm leaning more toward sticking with Sony and upgrading to the A6000 + 16-70. At that price the thing darn well better have IQ exceeding the Fuji 18-55. Plus I really use the wider 16mm vs. 18mm.</p>

<p>However, the Fuji 10-24 is something I could see keeping on the camera a lot also. And it just seems Fuji has a more dedicated eye on image quality vs. Sony, making high quality lenses the default and adding consumer lenses as an afterthought whereas it's the exact opposite with Sony. And I see people commenting about a certain "pop" that the Fuji lenses have.</p>

<p>The main question would be if I take the same shot would an 8x12 look basically the same, a little different, signficantly different, night-and-day different. I know the last two categories probably won't apply here, but if the IQ is a little different and I can deal with all the other features why not get the one with better IQ? That way I can't blame my camera for my mistakes!</p>

<p>I'm as much of an image quality nut as the next person, but if you stop down just a bit, use a tripod, and the spirits are aligned, almost any of the current cameras will make a pretty impressive image. I've shown 13x20 prints from my Fuji next to 13x20 prints from my D800E and while you can tell the difference if you work at it, most people don't really work at it and just enjoy the images.</p>

There's not much difference in the quality of the sensors between the Fujis and the Sonys. Actually it's been said that the

Fuji sensor is the Sony sensor but with a different filter stack. The difference comes from Fuji's better JPEG conversion

and the lenses.

 

I've never used the Sony 16-70 but between the Sony 18-55 and the Fuji 18-55, and between the Sony 35mm 1.8 and the

Fuji 35mm 1.4, both used on a 16mp camera, the Fuji lenses are much better.

<p><em>As for what I'm currently lacking now, it's mainly IQ. I have the 16-50 and it just doesn't cut it for me.... [T]he only zoom option is the seemingly over-priced 16-70.</em></p>

<p>First off, although I don't doubt the Fuji 18-55 is better optically than the Sony E 16-50, you are comparing apples and oranges. The Sony E 16-50 is designed to be as compact a zoom lens as practicable, and inexpensive too. I would be pretty surprised if you find a substantial overall image quality disadvantage, in a carefully-conducted double-blind test, between the Sony / Zeiss E 16-70mm f/4 and the Fuji 18-55mm.</p>

<p>Second, you actually have <em>three</em> options other than the Sony E 16-50mm for standard zooms for the Sony:<br /> * the Sony / Zeiss E 16-70mm f/4 OSS ($998);<br /> * the Sony E 18-105mm f/4 G OSS ($598)--a G lens in Sony (and Minolta) terms is like a Canon L lens; and<br /> * the Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ($298), which by most accounts is somewhat better optically than the Sony E 16-50mm.</p>

<p>Just to point out, the Fuji 18-55mm is $695 by itself and 330 grams, so it is more expensive than three of the four Sony E-mount standard zooms and heavier than than three (a different three, the 18-105mm is heavier).</p>

<p>The Fuji offerings are very good. I know shooting InfraRed with the 14mm and the 35mm lenses with a Hoya R72 filter works well - with no hot spot to worry about.<br>

Both lenses are good. Also good is the 18-55 that I have. For some situations the versatility is very nice.<br>

Friends use and love the Sony offerings so it is more what you personally like than any major differences in what these cameras will do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>because I get the impression from reading online that the image quality for Fuji might be a tad better than Sony and I've realized that Sony's comparable lenses aren't that much cheaper than Fuji</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look at Flickr or 500px for photos taken by different cameras; I doubt you'll be able to tell which captured which. The difference between Sony / Fuji / good M43 is negligible. Where is your portfolio? A few of my <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/91262622@N02/">SFW shots are here</a>, and I'm skeptical that anyone would be able to tell which system I used without checking the metadata (except for the handful of cell phone shots sent by friends).</p>

<p>I am fortunate to have five Fuji X lenses and they appear to be as good as my Nikons, certainly the Fuji primes. Comparisons are hard between a 36mp and 16 mp camera. The zoom vs prime argument is as old as the hills and I have no illusions I'll settle it. When I pixel peep, the 18-55 is a bit short of the 35 (I don't yet own the 23), but in prints, it's pretty hard to tell the difference. The versatility of the zoom is what makes it so useful. Good luck, and have fun, whatever you do.</p>

<p>Hi Donald-I thought that you might be interested in seeing Popular Photography's review; interesting to note that you cannot shoot RAW at ISO 100, 12,800, or 25,600.<br>

regards, cb :-)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2014/02/camera-test-fujifilm-x-e2">http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2014/02/camera-test-fujifilm-x-e2</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually it's been said that the Fuji <a id="_GPLITA_3" title="Click to Continue > by CheapMe" href="/digital-camera-forum/00cO9N?start=10">sensor<img src="http://cdncache1-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png" alt="" /></a> is the Sony sensor but with a different filter stack.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i thought that too but apparently the Fuji uses a Toshiba 16mp sensor. in terms of IQ capabilities, i think they are fairly similar but the fuji has no optical low-pass filter and uses a different color array. so the fuji has a different 'look' but based on sensor alone i wouldnt necessarily say the IQ is better.</p>

<p>IMO where fuji really pulls away is in lenses. Sony simply doesnt have enough good ones, although if you stick to their best prime (55/1.8 OSS) and the Sigma 19 and 30, you can get pretty good results. the Fuji 18-55 kit lens is actually sharper than their 18mm prime. IMO fuji is a better investment as no one seems to know where Nex/Alpha is going and the lens lineup doesnt have a well-constructed roadmap like fuji does. Sony would be a better bet if you plan on mainly using legacy lenses since their implementation of focus peaking is better.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I can get the X-E1 + 18-55 + 35 f/1.4 for maybe $100 more than the 16-70.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>to me this would be a no-brainer. Sony simply doesnt have anything like the 35/1.4, to say nothing of the 14, 23, and 10-24. so unless things change, and sony starts putting out better lenses for its APS-C mirrorless bodies, in my view its more of a dead-end system that you can't get really deep into.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the Fuji 18-55mm is $695 by itself and 330 grams, so it is more expensive than three of the four Sony E-mount standard zooms and heavier than than three (a different three, the 18-105mm is heavier).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i'm seeing the 18-55 for about $600 USD online, but with the current XE1 kit sale for $719 and XE1 bodies going for $600, you're either getting the camera for $120 or the lens for $120. that's an excellent deal.</p>

>>> Or am I just dancing on the head of a pin at this point...

 

Could be...

 

 

>>> ...and should just pick my system based on other factors (size, weight, ease of use, etc.)

 

That's what I'd do. I suspect differences in image quality in the end are mice nuts. And what will really drive the creation of

compelling images will be your eye, imagination, and ability to translate what's in front of you into an image that

communicates.

 

One reason I recently moved to Fuji (their very inexpensive X-A1 and kit lens for $449 now) is their frequent firmware

upgrades that offer substantial improvements and features; even for cameras that are a generation behind.

<blockquote>

<p>>>> Or am I just dancing on the head of a <a id="FALINK_2_0_1" href="/digital-camera-forum/00cO9N?start=20">pin</a> at this point...<br>

Could be...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i don't think so. there are big differences in marketing approach between Sony and Fuji, not just in product line, that go beyond IQ and into customer support. firmware upgrades for older cameras being one of them. the other is that for the moment fuji is entirely committed to APS-C mirrorless and has a clear roadmap,in addition to already producing a set of really good lenses.</p>

<p>if you read thom hogan's latest <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/can-you-trust-the-camera.html">pontification</a>, he has some interesting observations about sony.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What Sony did in a decade is end up with five different "lens sets," none of which got particularly deeper (more apps), and some of which are incomplete. Those sets are crop <a id="_GPLITA_2" title="Click to Continue > by CheapMe" href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/can-you-trust-the-camera.html">sensor<img src="http://cdncache1-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png" alt="" /></a> Alpha (DT), full frame Alpha, crop sensor NEX (E), full frame "NEX" (FE), and the bolted to body things like the RX1 and RX10. So what prompted this article? A comment by a Sony executive <em>on the day they launched the A6000 (NEX E mount) that they were going to concentrate on FE! </em>Say what? <br>

True enough, Sony didn't announce a new lens Road <a id="FALINK_2_0_1" href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/can-you-trust-the-camera.html">Map</a> with the A6000, which is crop <a id="_GPLITA_3" title="Click to Continue > by CheapMe" href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/can-you-trust-the-camera.html">sensor<img src="http://cdncache1-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png" alt="" /></a> E-mount. Yet we're still missing some key lenses in that mount, and several of the lenses already extant really need to be redone, especially for the 24mp world we're now in (I'm looking at you, 16mm f/2.8). The comeback I got from Sony was this: you can always use FE mount lenses on E mount cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Thom Hogan's criticism of Sony's "lens sets" borders on idiotic, at least unless and until he applies it almost equally to Canon and Nikon. Canon has EF (full-frame SLR), EF-S (crop-frame SLR), and EF-M (cropped-frame mirrorless) lenses, and of course Canon (unlike Sony) does not offer a full-frame mirrorless. Similarly, Nikon has F / FX (full-frame SLR), DX (crop-frame SLR), and 1-system (smaller-sensor mirrorless) lenses, and Nikon (like Canon but unlike Sony) does not offer a full-frame mirrorless. All sell fixed-lens cameras with varrying lenses and sensor sizes. So its five versus four and four lens sets (I won't include Nikon large format lenses etc.).</p>

<p>So the only real distinction is that Sony sells two coverages of mirrorless lenses while Canon and Nikon only sell one each. And all of Sony's mirrorless lenses will work seamlessly on all of Sony's mirrorless cameras. Full-frame FE lenses will work fine on cropped-sensor E-mount cameras, just like full-frame SLR lenses work fine on cropped-sensor SLR's. Likewise, smaller-coverage Sony E lenses work fine on full-frame FE-mount cameras, with the cameras automatically cropping down for the reduced image circle <em>or not</em>--it is the user's option.</p>

<p>And while you might be a bit dismayed that Sony says it it concentrating on FE lenses at the moment, to the apparent neglect of cropped-sensor E lenses, Sony <em>already</em> makes cropped-sensor E lenses in 10-18mm, 16mm, 16-50mm, 16-70mm, 18-55mm, 18-105mm, 18-200mm (two different ones), 20mm, 24mm, 30mm (macro), 35mm, 50mm, and 55-210mm; plus you can use the several FE lenses; plus Sigma and Tamron and others make more; so the Sony E-mount lens lineup already has most or all of what makes much sense for a compact mirrorless camera--plus the ability to adapt Sony A-mount SLR lenses if you really want more reach.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>IMO where fuji really pulls away is in lenses. Sony simply doesnt have enough good ones, although if you stick to their best prime (55/1.8 OSS) and the Sigma 19 and 30, you can get pretty good results</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you seen the Zeiss Touits? They're obviously available on both and very expensive, but <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/05/finally-got-around-touit">they are great</a>. <br>

If the OP wants zooms, I don't see Sony or Fuji as the way to go right now. M43 has very good zooms from 14mm FFE to 200mm FFE. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And it just seems Fuji has a more dedicated eye on image quality vs. Sony, making high quality lenses the default and adding consumer lenses as an afterthought whereas it's the exact opposite with Sony.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As you noticed, Fuji makes higher end APS-C lenses than Sony - with Sony bringing up the A7 line, I expect they will have even less interest in improving their APS-C lens lineup. So on the lens end, if you want to stick to an APS-C sensor, Fuji promises better lens support.</p>

<p>Just make sure to also check the camera control layouts and see if you'd like to use a Fuji model. And I would look closer into RAW processing - I heard that the Fuji software is not that great and third party options were also not capable to replicate the in-camera processing - the problem is probably not as bad now as a few years ago, but I don't know if it was fully eliminated. Or, you could just consider buying a Fuji model without the X-Trans technology like the X-A1.</p>