Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              8       9       end
  

Archive 2017 · Tempted by A7rIII ?

  
 
Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


gdanmitchell wrote:
... but the prospective changes and improvements to one's photography are virtually always over-stated and the potential downsides diminished.
Dan


Yup.



Oct 30, 2017 at 10:38 AM
arduluth
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


ediblestarfish wrote:
Eh, none of them are WS-ed, and none have the nice addition of the aperture ring. The 50mm is also slow and noisy focusing like the 35mm f1.4. There's the samyang 35mm f2.8 for a budget 35mm, but again, no WS and no aperture ring.


On Sony, you're only getting an aperture ring with a few lenses, and none of them are budget lenses. It's not their usual design. If budget lenses with aperture rings and weather resistance is your requirement, you're taking Sony out of the running by definition, which doesn't make a lot of sense when comparing systems, which have different sets of features and compromises.

Nothing wrong with those being important feature for you, but a Sony user could just as easily say that Fuji doesn't have a nice set of f/2 lenses because they're all crop lenses and only can be used on a crop body. No reason FF, WR, a real aperture ring, or the ability to be mounted on a body with a real shutter speed dial can't be features important to you, but if you're comparing systems it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily pick a few of these features to say a lens doesn't count.

ediblestarfish wrote:
I'm so used to using the dedicated aperture ring while the camera is off, it feels annoying to need to turn on the camera and look at a screen to check it otherwise. It's a control I use extremely frequently, so I am loath to give it up.


Same here, I love aperture rings. So yeah, if budget AF lenses with aperture rings are must-haves, then Sony doesn't make sense for you. If a FF sensor is a must-have, Fuji X doesn't make sense for you.




Oct 30, 2017 at 01:19 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


^^^

Good post. It is really more about the functional features and how they do or do not work with your expectations and approaches to photography.

Pluses and minuses. If the decision is difficult and the current gear works pretty well, it is almost never worthwhile to switch.



Oct 30, 2017 at 03:32 PM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


I love the aperture rings and traditional dials as well. Love that it's all in a small package and lighter on the wallet as well. Not tempted to switch at all. I may however add another system for certain subjects and types of photography. For that reason I keep up on the latest releases in the FF and miniMF market segments. If I were to add a FF system I would certainly consider all of the relevant current systems on the market before making the final decision to write a check because it's a lot of money for any camera system.


Oct 30, 2017 at 04:11 PM
dasrocket
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


Not for me.
I went to Sony from Fuji and back again. The interface is so sterile..YMMV.




Oct 30, 2017 at 06:17 PM
col4bin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


Any temptation quickly dissipates when I look at the size and price of the lenses.


Oct 30, 2017 at 06:39 PM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


I like the high quality of the glass available for e-mount but the size, price and choice of native lenses is a downside. I also like some of the innovative features like software apps. But when you're thinking of investing in a system camera I learned long ago you are really investing in a mount. I'm not sold on the flange distance of e-mount or Sony's commitment to customers. Nice innovative camera system and sensors but there are great features and innovation in all of these systems. I'm certain EF mount and F mount will be supported for the useful life of the lenses even after Canon & Nikon go mirrorless. I don't think there's a right or wrong choice here. Canon hasn't updated in a while so it would be between Nikon & Sony here and I think without committing the nod would likely be Nikon D850 for me personally.



Oct 30, 2017 at 07:17 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


col4bin wrote:
Any temptation quickly dissipates when I look at the size and price of the lenses.


Actually there are a number of Sony lenses that are good matches for Fuji lenses in size, performance, and price. In fact you can put together this nice Sony kit:

Zeiss Batis 25 f/2; weight 335g, typical used price $900
Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8; weight 120g, typical used price $425
Sony FE 50 f/1.8; weight 186g, typical used price $200
Sony FE 85 f/1.8; weight 371g, typical used price $550

total weight: 1,012g total price: $2,075

That kit is quite similar to this Fuji kit:

Fuji X 16 f/1.4; weight 375g, typical used price $850
Fuji X 23 f/2; weight 180g, typical used price $375
Fuji X 35 f/1.4; weight 187g, typical used price $400
Fuji X 56 f/1.2; weight 405g, typical used price $750

total weight: 1,174g total price: $2,375

Sure if you buy the f/1.4 FF 35mm lenses they are big and expensive, but Fuji doesn't have any lenses that are comparable in terms of depth of field of such lenses. If you look at lenses with similar capabilities, then you can see that the Sony lenses are bigger or more expensive. They are comparable not just in capabilities, but in size and price as well.



Oct 30, 2017 at 09:18 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


Steve, it is true that you can get down to a pretty small kit with primes and the Sony body. One photographer I shoot with from time to time uses a A7rII with a 35mm f/1.4 prime for a lot of her work, and she likes this setup a lot.

At least for folks who might be considering a move from Fujifilm to Sony, you would likely want to consider a kit that used a slightly different configuration of lenses than those you selected.

While I understand that some hold that smaller maximum aperture lenses on FF are equivalent to larger aperture lenses on 1.5x crop, most (though admittedly not all) photographers who like those f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses on Fujifilm are probably not going to want to end up with Sony system lenses with smaller maximum apertures. Or if they are happy with smaller maximum apertures on either system, you might lighten up the comparison Fujifilm system a bit by moving away from at least some of the rather large and heavy Fujifilm f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses, perhaps as follows:

XPro2 (495g) or XT2 (507g) or possibly XE3(337g)
14mm f/2.8 — 235g
23mm f/2 - 170g
35mm f/2 - 170g
50mm f/2 - 200g

Full system weight ranges from 1112g to 1282g

With the Sony A7rII at 625g, the total for your suggested system is 1637g

Of course, if you move away from that f/2.8 35mm lens, and shift your f/1.8 lenses toward the aperture ranges you used for Fujifilm in your original comparison, that will change things as well.

Using your system and this lighter Fujifilm alternative that I described, pluses and minuses might play out like this...

Sony pluses:
- larger FF sensor area
- higher sensor resolution
- perhaps a stop greater sensitivity in low light?

Fujifilm pluses
- dedicated knobs for controlling things like aperture, shutter speed, EC, and more
- (OVF option on the XPro2)
- lighter system weight and smaller size

(For folks who may know less about this than Steve, both the Sony and Fujifilm cameras use Sony sensors.)

For certain things, such as tripod-based work, the potential image quality advantages of the 42MP full frame system will be a plus for folks making very large prints. For folks working fast and light and doing things like street photography, that advantage diminishes and the greater direct manual control along with smaller/size weight may be more attractive.

In any case, we have a couple of excellent options here, either of which might be preferred by various photographers. As I wrote earlier, I do night street photography side-by-side with one respected colleague who uses Sony as I use Fujifilm. We even exhibit work side-by-side, and we love one another's photography.

My personal Fujifilm setup for street, travel, and night street photography uses:

XPro2
14mm f/2.8
23mm f/1.4 (big!)
35mm f/2
(sometimes I toss my 60mm f/2.4 macro in the bag.)

Dan


Steve Spencer wrote:
Actually there are a number of Sony lenses that are good matches for Fuji lenses in size, performance, and price. In fact you can put together this nice Sony kit:

Zeiss Batis 25 f/2; weight 335g, typical used price $900
Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8; weight 120g, typical used price $425
Sony FE 50 f/1.8; weight 186g, typical used price $200
Sony FE 85 f/1.8; weight 371g, typical used price $550

total weight: 1,012g total price: $2,075

That kit is quite similar to this Fuji kit:

Fuji X 16 f/1.4; weight 375g, typical used price $850
Fuji X 23 f/2; weight 180g, typical used price $375
Fuji X 35 f/1.4;
...Show more



Oct 30, 2017 at 11:10 PM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


The f stop terminology was invented for consistent exposure calculation across formats and as someone who grew up working in a photography studio that did weddings and portraiture that's the only way I think of it. Depth of field at different f stops is a format influenced result not represented by the *speed* of the lens. It was not meant to represent depth of field across formats, it was meant to help calculate the shutter speed across formats. I would never consider depth of field on a different format when considering speed of a lens. I also *prefer* the thicker depth of field of aps-c in the majority of the photographs that I take. Of course there are some where I would prefer the thinner depth of field of a larger format.


Oct 31, 2017 at 05:55 AM
lexvo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


I switched from FF to Fuji to have a lighter and smaller setup. Switching to Sony (or another FF setup) would nullify that goal (I might as well have kept my original FF setup). So no, I am not tempted

For the same reason, I don’t buy lenses like the 50-140/2.8 or 16-55/2.8. As good as they are, my setup would become heavier and larger.

I also don’t mind that for example my 23/1.4 has an f/2 FF equivalent aperture. For one the DOF is small enough for me and secondly this lens gives my very usable sharpness wide open (which was not the case with some fast FF lenses I had).



Oct 31, 2017 at 06:44 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


rbf_ wrote:
The f stop terminology was invented for consistent exposure calculation across formats and as someone who grew up working in a photography studio that did weddings and portraiture that's the only way I think of it. Depth of field at different f stops is a format influenced result not represented by the *speed* of the lens. It was not meant to represent depth of field across formats, it was meant to help calculate the shutter speed across formats. I would never consider depth of field on a different format when considering speed of a lens. I also *prefer* the thicker
...Show more

And if you prefer the thicker depth of field with a lens capable of a thinner depth of field you can get that easily just by stopping down, but when you prefer a thinner depth of field if a lens isn't capable of that of course you can't get it. And if you want maximum depth of field that is typically limited by diffraction and that sets in at much the same depth of field across formats. The bottom line is that a lens that is capable of thinner depth of field has a capability that a lens without this shallow depth of field does not, but a lens with less shallow depth of field has no capability that a lens with shallow depth of field does not. The tradeoff is that a lens with shallow depth of field capabilities is going to tend to be a lot bigger. So, it is a capabilities vs. size tradeoff and the tradeoff is very much the same as between a faster and a slower lens using the same format.

With regard to f stop and exposure, of course it is not f stop that determines exposure it is actually T stop, but they are of course closely related. In my view, f stop was and is a physical measurement that is useful in determining shutter speed of the lens but T stop is what determines the proper shutter speed across formats, and you are right that f stop does historically was not used to talk about a similar look across different film formats, but that does not mean it wasn't discussed. Equivalence in looks of photos has always been discussed across formats and the physical feature that it corresponds to is entrance pupil. So if we want to be precise we can say that a 16mm f/1.4 lens on APS-C has the same entrance pupil of a 25mm f/2.2 Ff 35mm lens, and with the same entrance pupil they produce images that photographically look quite similar and have the same depth of field capabilities.



Oct 31, 2017 at 06:47 AM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Tempted by A7rIII ?



The t stop is just a later and more precise measurement evolution of the f stop. The f stop nomenclature was invented to help with exposure calculation and the t stop to make it more accurate.



Oct 31, 2017 at 06:50 AM
MedicineMan404
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


To answer the OP's query about temptation and the a7riii. Not this time.
Having a7rii and a9 this time is for consolidating/improving my lens lineup.
a7rii for landscaping
a9 for things that move
RX10iv for anything else (aaarrrrrggg except for timelapse via app intervalometer-what was Sony thinking
If I could only have one cam the a7riii would be killer, a do-it-all, but jacks of all never did much for me even with the 5Diii years ago, me happier with a 7Dii and a 5Dsr.
But I've aged a bit, maybe wiser with the grey hair. The Riii would do one thing I'd appreciate=minimize my battery charging footprint
I think in the future I might carry an R3 and the better-half will get the hand-me-down Rii; for now I'll keep enjoying Smooth Reflections.



Oct 31, 2017 at 06:54 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Steve, it is true that you can get down to a pretty small kit with primes and the Sony body. One photographer I shoot with from time to time uses a A7rII with a 35mm f/1.4 prime for a lot of her work, and she likes this setup a lot.

At least for folks who might be considering a move from Fujifilm to Sony, you would likely want to consider a kit that used a slightly different configuration of lenses than those you selected.

While I understand that some hold that smaller maximum aperture lenses on FF are equivalent to larger
...Show more

Dan I agree with everything you said here, but I would add in the comparison that you are making that another plus of the Sony system is that you would have greater shallow depth of field capabilities and I would remove the question mark for greater sensitivity in low light. For these sensors both made by Sony there is no question that the FF sensor will have greater sensitivity in low light at least if you are comparing output at the same size/magnification.



Oct 31, 2017 at 06:59 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


rbf_ wrote:
The t stop is just a later and more precise measurement evolution of the f stop. The f stop nomenclature was invented to help with exposure calculation and the t stop to make it more accurate.


No they measure different things. The f stop is a physical measurement of size, whereas the t stop is a measure of actual light transmission and it is of course actual light transmission that is crucial for exposure.



Oct 31, 2017 at 07:01 AM
arduluth
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


Wow - I've never done that direct comparison, I don't realize that the Sony FE solution was so competitive in cost and weight vs something like a Fuji setup.


Oct 31, 2017 at 07:09 AM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Tempted by A7rIII ?



The purpose of the measurement and nomenclature is the same however. The purpose is to calculate consistent exposure as the inventors claimed it was. Videographers found the f stop too rough an approximation and invented the new nomenclature and measurement of t stop to be more accurate and suite their purposes. The f stop level of precision was always good enough for photographers to not go away from it.



Oct 31, 2017 at 07:09 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


rbf_ wrote:
The purpose of the measurement and nomenclature is the same however. The purpose is to calculate consistent exposure as the inventors claimed it was. Videographers found the f stop too rough an approximation and invented the new nomenclature and measurement of t stop to be more accurate and suite their purposes. The f stop level of precision was always good enough for photographers to not go away from it.


Well, I don't think it is quite that simple. The f stop is a lot easier to measure, so I would say for photographers it wasn't worth going to the extra work to measure t stop. I guess that is one way to say good enough, but that it wasn't cost effective I think is probably a better way to say it.



Oct 31, 2017 at 07:18 AM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Tempted by A7rIII ?


Steve Spencer wrote:
Well, I don't think it is quite that simple. The f stop is a lot easier to measure, so I would say for photographers it wasn't worth going to the extra work to measure t stop. I guess that is one way to say good enough, but that it wasn't cost effective I think is probably a better way to say it.


Probably true, gear accurate to t stops is a heck of a lot more expensive the gear accurate to f stops. The big Hollywood studios also make a heck of a lot more money than your average joe photographer so I guess it all makes sense.



Oct 31, 2017 at 07:37 AM
1      
2
       3              8       9       end




FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              8       9       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.