millsart Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Its really interesting how subjective peoples opinions can be on what aspects are "better" on a given camera, which really reflects how differently we all shoot and use them.
For example, the Eye Detect AF on Sony's I agree is pretty awesome, especially in AF-C mode, when it works. Now for me, shooting people who wear glasses, its rather unreliable. Likewise, with wider focal lengths they subject just doesn't seem to fill enough of the frame to get it to activate. Someone else who's maybe shooting models with a 70-200 probably has near flawless success with it. Its a great feature, but if your primary subjects have glasses, it might not seem so useful. Again the A9 seems to work better, and there is certainly a trend of "get the A9 and resolve all your issues lol".
Likewise for things like video AF. I find the XT2 hands down better than the A7rII with regards to focusing. Sony gives you lots of profiles and adjustments, but they give no real control over video AF. Focus tracking with lock-on is in my opinion useless, because I have less than a 50% success rate with it, and so many times the AF-C just fails to select the right subject, or takes forever to refocus etc. The XT2 on the other hand seems to do a very good job of selecting the focus, changing focus when required, and with no stuttering etc. So for someone who maybe shoots manual video and does grading etc, the Sony can offer more profiles etc. I think the XT2 can do a log mode but with an external recorder. Maybe a big deal breaker for some, but for someone like me who wants to shoot AF video and who doesn't grade footage, the XT2 gives better, or at least easier to use results. I certainly don't mind changing the mode to video either as I'm very, very unlikely to record a spontaneous clip. I was honestly fine with my Xpro2 and didn't miss video at all, to each his or her own though
Sometimes I don't even know if the detail is better with the Sony. It has more resolution for sure, but, that also just shows how decentered your lens can be In all seriousness, I found that with a lens like the Sony 16-35/4, I'd often have pretty soft corners or a soft left side in at least 2 of the copies I owned. The Fuji 10-24, which can be had for a fair amount less, has been sharp across the frame in the 2 copies I owned. I think sometimes that A7rII resolution is a double edged sword as it can be great to pixel peep, but it can also make any flaws in the IQ very apparent, and maybe those flaws are just in your technique and not the fault of the gear, but you just don't notice them on lower resolution sensors.
I think Sony's next camera is going to really get it all right, speed, easy of use, resolution and overall IQ all in one package. I think its probably going to be a fairly expensive body though, so it maybe check off a lot of boxes, but when combined with the lens prices, its a fairly pricey system to shoot, at least as far as mainstream offerings go. I think I for one actually may end up sitting it out, sticking with something like Fuji, because when I take a good hard look at my actual needs, the fact my output is nothing more than web images to share on this forum, how much time I actually have for shooting et al., I just can't really see good reason to have like $10,000 sunk into a high end Sony body and GM lenses.
For some people it makes good sense, but, a camera like the XT2 is very capable, and I bought essentially an entire system with some excellent glass all for less money than just an A9 body alone would of cost me.
|