I'm traveling to Moab, Utah this weekend by Motorcycle. I can't decide which camera system to take with me: My Sony A7R II or my new Fujifilm X-T2.
I'll be shooting landscape and astro/night photography, so I'll take about 3-4 lenses either way. (e.g. 16-35mm for landscape, a 20mm or 24mm fast prime for astro photography, and a mid-range zoom).
I've had the Sony for over a year and am very familiar with it, and the Fujifilm is very new to me. However, I'm excited to try out the Fujifilm and it's much lighter than the Sony... I expect to be doing some hiking so the Fujifilm has some benefits... I guess I'm not sure what kinds of images I'll get out of the Fujifilm and perhaps that's what gives me some pause...
Can anyone offer a suggestion?
Wow. That's a nice dilemma to have. Haha. You have two very capable camera systems that will yield amazing results either way. I personally am a Fuji user and have never been a big fan of Sony cameras, but can't argue with the amazing image quality they produce. Between the two systems, I would go with Fujifilm. The image quality from that X-Trans III sensor is incredible and Fuji's lenses are excellent. I'm surprised to hear that your Fuji gear would be that much lighter than your Sony stuff though. Either way, you'll get great results with both systems.
>> I'm surprised to hear that your Fuji gear would be that much lighter than your Sony stuff though.
Lens size. Bigger sensor = bigger lens needed. Generally lens weight should be proportional to the cube of the sensor diagonal.
>> The image quality from that X-Trans III sensor is incredible and Fuji's lenses are excellent.
It's good. But "incredible" compared to an A7rii sensor??? Hardly.
I did not say the X-Trans sensor was incredible compared to the A7rII sensor. I simply said the X-Trans III sensor was incredible. The A7rII is arguably the best sensor in terms of image quality and dynamic range that isn't medium format. However, I think the X-Trans III can hold it's own with the Sony in ISO performance and dynamic range. Paired with Fuji's excellent lenses, image quality is arguably the best among APS-C cameras out there. Obviously he is willing to trade the full frame Sony for lighter weight and the opportunity to use the Fuji gear. If that's the case, my point would be that he doesn't have to worry about sacrificing too much image quality in doing so.
>> I did not say the X-Trans sensor was incredible compared to the A7rII sensor. I simply said the X-Trans III sensor was incredible.
When you say that should take camera A instead of B because A has an incredible sensor - then yes, that is what you are saying. You might not have meant to, but people can only read what you have written.
Even compared to other DX sensors, no, the Fuji isn't "incredible" - it has perhaps a slight edge in some circumstances. In reality it is impossible to tell a XT2 image from one from an A6000 or D500. The Fuji is just average at a time when DX sensors have become thoroughly competent:
https://www.facebook.com/hmeyephotography/photos/a.1118780968184034.1073...
I think you're missing my point. You're arguing over semantics. I think it's safe to say that the image quality from an A6000, D500 or X-T2 is excellent, yeah? You stated that DX sensors now-a-days "have become thoroughly competent." I would say "excellent" or "incredible" even (especially when you compare these newer DX sensors to full frame). I'm not saying they are on the same level, but the DX sensors have closed the gap considerably within the last 5 years or so. With that being said, it's not ridiculous for me to say the X-Trans has incredible image quality. It can be subjective of course, but he's asking a somewhat subjective question. The link you provided kind of proves my point. You'd be hard pressed to distinguish which camera took which photograph. All three of those cameras have "incredible image quality." In his original statement, Colin said he wasn't sure what kind of images he'd get from the X-T2 and my original statement to him was to assure him that the X-Trans has great image quality. So good, in fact, that it's hard to tell a difference between that and the A7rII in certain situations (as indicated by your link). There was a logical and relevant reason to say what I said.
>>You're arguing over semantics.<<
Yes. "Semantics" = "The meaning of words". So if I'm not arguing about your grammar or writing style, that is what I am doing. Arguing about whether what you actually said was true.
(It really helps to understand what words like that mean before using them.)
>> it's hard to tell a difference between that and the A7rII in certain situations (as indicated by your link).<<
Yes. What you could reasonably say is "If you don't want to make big prints then the XT2, with its slightly above average modern DX sensor, will keep up quite well with the A7rii"
I think it's important to remember that you indulge fanboyism and call a C+ sensor "incredible" online that you might help hype someone into buying a more expensive camera instead of a cheaper one. And the brutal truth is that, looking at actual images, an XT2 doesn't have a significantly better sensor than an A6000 costing a fraction of the price. It's a nice camera and does have some advantages over the much cheaper Sony, but an significantly better sensor isn't one of them.
The fact you think you can't make "big prints" with the X-T2 is laughable and is a totally ignorant statement. Everything I said in my original statement was completely valid especially since most of it is subjective. Nothing I said would influence his decision in purchasing gear because that's not the issue at hand here. Am I a Fuji fanboy? Sure. I have no problem admitting that. I also have shot with Canon and Nikon and love those systems as well. Sony makes the best sensors on the market and I totally acknowledge that. I'm a fanboy, yes, but that doesn't mean I'm not objective about other gear. I simply gave my opinion in a specific situation between two camera systems. The fact you feel the need to spend your time quibbling with me and Chris instead of just posting your own opinion to Colin makes me question your motives. Guess what? I think the X-Trans sensor has incredible image quality based on other APS-C and full frame cameras I've used in the past and current competition. Do you disagree? Well, I disagree with your disagreement. I ended my original comment by saying that he would achieve great results with either system. That is the main take away. But please, continue to pick apart mine and others' comments. I reckon you get great enjoyment over dissecting every opinion of others and spending time arguing. It's evident on this post.
reading comprehension lession continued below becauseof lack of space...
Hey Colin, congrats on the trip to Moab! I agree with Korey that you're absolutely in a win-win situation and probably wouldn't be disappointed either way. I can't help but recommend the Sony a7r II enough though, because of the huge image resolution, low-light performance, and stabilization (if you can't always shoot with a tripod). You'll simply see more stars, and capture better dynamic range in those gorgeous landscapes with it--over the Fujifilm. They each have their pros and cons but the Sony is much better suited for the types of photos you're going to shoot there.
>> You'll simply see more stars, and capture better dynamic range in those gorgeous landscapes with it--over the Fujifilm.
The DR difference is, what, 13 stops compared to 14 at base ISO??? I really wouldn't worry about it...
I'd be surprised in differences in astro are significant - do you have any actual evidence to suggest a significant difference? Pixel pitch is very similar, and the trans-x pattern have advantages at high iso with a good raw processor.
Nope, just answering Colin's questions based on my experience with both cameras, systems, and the industry as a whole.
I don't see what good supposed "experience" is if it leads you to claim that there is a significant relevant DR gap when there isn't one.
Again, too many people seem obsessed with justifying their consumer goods to themselves rather than sticking to relevant facts.
At 200 iso, where landscape and awill probably be done, the AR7rii will be a 12.5 stop DR camera and so will the XT2.
..Why not just stick to the facts rather than bloviating about vague "experience"?
Do you have any data on the X-T2's dynamic range? Because I usually use DxO Mark and they haven't even tested it. Would be good to know what that actually is.
The OP has both cameras, so I'm not telling them to buy one over the other. And the Sony camera sensor is superior--that's what I said, and whether we use your numbers or my experience we agree.
I would use the data if I had it. I wasn't able to find numbers on how superior, so I didn't claim to know how much more it actually was. If you'd like to nit pick be my guest. I was providing the advice asked for and it was still just as correct as when I wrote it.
You really enjoy arguing with everyone you encounter around here, don't you?
^ Please answer all my other questions before that one, despite the urge. ^
>>The fact you think you can't make "big prints" with the X-T2 is laughable
I said that the A7Rii is ***better*** at big making big prints than the XT2 and that otherwise the XT2 keeps up well. (The seem is true of an A6000 costing a fraction of the Xt2's price.) This is a very different statement...
It's odd that you're so determined to show yourself an expert on photographic hardware given you proclaimed that you can't understand why a full frame system is heavier than a DX one.
...And even odder that you insist on in engaging in a pointless debate given that you have show that you don't know the word semantics means.
Anyway, the bottom line, AGAIN, is -
- The XT2 comes quite close to the A7r's sensor performance
- That doesn't make the sensor "incredible" - just average for a modern DX sensor - the A6000 will perform very, VERY nearly as well for 1/3 the price
- Camera brand fanboyism is always contemptible. When posting your job is to leave accurate information for anyone who might read a thread, not to make yourself feel glowly about spending $2000...
(Btw: I don't own a Sony and my back-up camera is a Fuji...)
I'm gonna leave this with one last comment. First of all, you completely missed my point in my original comment to Colin. Keep in mind the context of his specific situation before reading my comment. He's not looking for advice on which to purchase. He has both systems. He was wondering which system to take. After being objective by saying that both systems would yield amazing results, I proceeded to tell him MY OPINION on which system "I" would take. I then said that the X-Trans sensor had incredible image quality. I said this because he admitted he didn't know what type of results he would be getting from the Fuji.
The whole point of my comment was: "Both are great systems and you will get great results with either. I would personally go with the Fuji because I like Fuji. Both systems will yield great results"
That was the point of my comment. You missed my point and instead chose to debate whether or not the X-Trans produced "incredible" image quality. That, David, is arguing over semantics.
As for the weight, both are mirrorless cameras that weigh less than their DSLR counterparts. Depending on what lenses you pair with the Fuji, you could very well have a kit that weighs less than the Sony. I grant you that. You could also take certain Fuji lenses that that would weigh as much if not more than the Sony gear. So, maybe I shouldn't be surprised he said that. Fair enough.
As for your acquisition of fanboyism, a Fuji "fanboy" would have said something like "Sony's SUCK!!! Go with Fuji!!" not "Both will give you great results" and "Both are very capable camera systems" as I did. Because I personally shoot with Fuji doesn't make me completely blind and nonobjective. You seriously think my comment was to self validate my personal gear choice? The wedding I did several weeks ago validated my gear choice. The three houses I've shot for real estate agents this week validates my gear choice. The 20x30 print I received in the mail recently validates my gear choice. My gear is proven to me and has paid for itself over and over since purchasing.
>>> MY OPINION
Sometimes people will disagree with your opinion. Deal with it.
Sometimes they will do this on objective grounds and your opinion will be revealed to be ludicrous. This is the case when you call the XT2 sensor "incredible". No, it really isn't - it's a little above average for a modern DX sensor thanks to slightly reduced colour noise at high ISO. You can get a sensor 90% as good in a camera costing a quarter of the bod price. This is a very UN-incredible level of sensor performance.
>> The 20x30 print I received in the mail recently validates my gear choice.
You can get a good 20x30 print from a compact. And expecting anyone to be be impressed by the size of a print they haven't seen, taken at unknown ISO, is idiotic.
>> The three houses I've shot for real estate agents this week validates my gear choice.
You could do that work with an A6000 costing a fraction of the XT2. That an XT2 is adequate for a job that almost any modern camera can do does not "validate" your awful logic.
..The XT2 is a nice camera. I may well buy one. But, no, a modern DX sensor is not "incredible" because it can let you take pictures of a house or make 20x30 prints..