I'm considering moving from Fujifilm to Sony and could use some advice from others that may have done the same.
I'm primarily a stills shooter, but am trying to photograph very active kiddos and am curious if the hype about Sony's autofocus is reality. Also like the idea of full frame.
If you've made the switch, what do you like? What do you miss? I've heard the SOOC jpegs in Sony just aren't the same as what Fuji delivers.
ksegedi wrote:
I'm considering moving from Fujifilm to Sony and could use some advice from others that may have done the same.
I'm primarily a stills shooter, but am trying to photograph very active kiddos and am curious if the hype about Sony's autofocus is reality. Also like the idea of full frame.
If you've made the switch, what do you like? What do you miss? I've heard the SOOC jpegs in Sony just aren't the same as what Fuji delivers.
Sony hasn't done much of anything to advance its jpegs into a variety of special looks. But its autofocus is indeed superb, signifiacntly better than Fuji's. At moderate (!!!) prices, the A7CII, the A7CR, the A7RV, or the new A7V will get you advanced autofocus with slow read-out sensors. At higher prices, the A1 or A1 II will get you advanced AF and very high frame rates with a stacked, fast read-out sensor.
There are many, many other features and differences to learn about.
chiron wrote:
...the A7CII... or the new A7V will get you advanced autofocus with slow read-out sensors...
Thanks for the info, @chiron
Those two are what interest me the most (though with unlimited budget, that A1 II sure looks nice!). I like the form factor and size of the A7Cs and lean towards the II since I'm not concerned about the resolution.
The inferior EVF though gives me pause, but I'm sure it's more than adequate.
The lens options seem unlimited, though I'd prefer smaller size at the sacrifice of image quality.
I had Sony A9 so when I was looking for lighter and cheaper gear for birding, bought a Fuji XH2S and 150-600mm
I was utterly disappointed : AFC and tracking is nowhere near Sony A9 ; APSC IQ is lacking in details vs FF
I do like the solid body and ergo and Fuji JPG rendition even though I shoot mainly RAW and process my own images
I eventually returned the Fuji gear and upgrade to Sony A1 and never looked back ; the A1 is miles beyond the XH2S but keep in mind I only shoot birds and won't comment on other genres
If you want ultimate IQ FF is the way to go and the more MP , the better details + cropping ability
Even the APSC mode of the A1 is better than the Fuji
In short, there's not much to miss from the Fuji arsenal unless you're a pure JPG shooter
I'd say go for Sony and regret nothing
ksegedi wrote:
Thanks for the info, @chiron@
Those two are what interest me the most (though with unlimited budget, that A1 II sure looks nice!). I like the form factor and size of the A7Cs and lean towards the II since I'm not concerned about the resolution.
The inferior EVF though gives me pause, but I'm sure it's more than adequate.
The lens options seem unlimited, though I'd prefer smaller size at the sacrifice of image quality.
There are some very good small lens choices: the Sony 24/2.8, 40/2.5, 50/2.5 series of small lenses; the Sony 28/2.0, 35/2.8, and 55/1.8 (the latter three are older lens); the many Sigma i Series lenses; many from the Samyang tiny series 18-24-35-75 (but make sure you buy with return privileges and that you get a centered copy); TTartisan, Viltrox, and others. Even the GM series is not overly large if you choose from among the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, and 50/1.4.
The EVF on the A7Cxx bodies is one of the compromises made to get compactness, but, as you suggest, it is quite useable and practical, improved from the earlier versions of the A7C cameras.
BTW, you can find very good used A1 bodies for very reasonable prices, close to what you would pay for new copies of the middle range of camera bodies. The A1 is undervalued because of the A1 II, but for most purposes it is almost indistinguishable.
ksegedi wrote:
I'm considering moving from Fujifilm to Sony and could use some advice from others that may have done the same.
I'm primarily a stills shooter, but am trying to photograph very active kiddos and am curious if the hype about Sony's autofocus is reality. Also like the idea of full frame.
If you've made the switch, what do you like? What do you miss? I've heard the SOOC jpegs in Sony just aren't the same as what Fuji delivers.
Coming from Fuji I’d miss the X-T controls. The X-H2 controls - not so much.
Now shooting an A1 II / A9 III and the hype is real. You won’t miss a shot.
As previously mentioned a used A1 right now IMO is the strongest value in the camera world. The AF, tracking, EVF, lens choices - all great. It’s roughly the same size as my previous X-H1.
The jpegs are malleable if you’re a jpeg only shooter but there’s a whole lot to the RAW files if you shoot RAW and the jpegs can be tailored a bit to your taste anyway.
First time responding to a post here eventhough I've been a long time lurker. Regarding Sony's SOOC jpeg, I'm aware that's a HUGE thing within Fuji communities, Sony bodies actually have pretty powerful (though not the same) jpeg color customization via Creative Look/Picture Profile menu, ESPECIALLY on newer bodies with Bionz XR processor that has new menu, AI af chip.
I'm more of a "shoot RAW and do completely different color grade edit manually every single time" guy to force myself to always try something new, but if you like Fuji colors and using a newer Sony body, enable Creative Looks and pick profile FL and do a few minor tweaks within it and you'll get 95% Fuji color jpegs SOOC with all the advantages of Sony bodies.
If you want deeper customization, look up "Sony film simulation recipes" on Google and YouTube, there are plenty of information on this over the years, but I'm willing to bet majority of shooters don't even realize it's there. Older bodies with old menu is possible too just more limiting, even my ZV-1 point n shoot.
The way I see it, photos taken can be edited and look infinitely number of ways in post, especially if you shoot RAW, but sometimes the camera hardware itself can be way more of a bottleneck especially when pushed in challenging situations.
Don’t discount Sony’s creative looks. You can do Fuji style jpeg recipes and some look really good. Each style is clearly modeled after modern fake film looks.
Here’s a few and if you search a bit you can find more. All of the cameras released in the last couple years have them.
Fuji's X-H2/S AF systems are the best they've offered. Human subject and eye detection is good. Results with Fuji are dependent on lens and camera settings. Native LM lenses work best. For fast actions sports, you really need to experiment with the various tracking sensitivity options. I found significant differences in hit rates depending on how the sensitivity was set up.
Fuji struggles with non-human subject detection. The X-H2 struggles to find and stay locked on birds and animals. Almost any obstruction or background pattern can disrupt the tracking. There's really nothing you can do to improve that other than by controlling your foreground and background.
Sony AF tracking and subject detection is more consistent and reliable, especially around background patterns and obstructions. Sony also works consistently with almost any lens including those from third parties.
There's nothing magical about Fuji color, jpegs or "recipes". Any of those things can be duplicated on other cameras using color profiles. Sony default settings tend to be quite neutral by design. You have to dig into the various in-camera and post-processing options if you want a different flavor.
ksegedi wrote:
I'm primarily a stills shooter, but am trying to photograph very active kiddos and am curious if the hype about Sony's autofocus is reality. Also like the idea of full frame.
I too transitioned from Fujifilm, and also just like in your case the trigger was "active kiddos" :-) Yes, Sony's autofocus is pure magic compared to the Fuji cameras. You will not be disappointed.
ksegedi wrote:
If you've made the switch, what do you like? What do you miss? I've heard the SOOC jpegs in Sony just aren't the same as what Fuji delivers.
The AF, as I said, is miles ahead. I also like that despite offering a larger sensor, a comparable Sony lens+camera combination is just a little larger and heavier than the Fuji's. In my case, the A7RV + 40mm f/2.5 G is almost as small as the X-T5 with 23mm f/2 "Fujicron".
Another welcome similarity is how both systems approach ergonomics. Instead of the 90s era press+hold+rotate-while-staring-at-screen approach used by other camera makers, Fuji X-T series and Sonys use dedicated buttons for everything, including proper aperture rings on their lenses.
Another big (for me) area where Fuji is hopelessly behind was software. They just can't do software, being the only camera manufacturer who couldn't make their own RAW converter. I shoot a lot tethered in a studio, and the Sony's own remote capture software is far better than any options available for Fuji. Their mobile app also is more reliable.
And finally, the selection of E-mount lenses is just absolutely incredible. The f/1.4 GM primes (all of them) are just insane, and I got all my favorite Voigtlander lenses in native E-mount. Even when I added the Nikon Z8, I couldn't deal with Z-glass and preferred adapting the Sony lenses to it.
The one area where I do miss Fuji sometimes is their SOOC JPEGs. Sony can't touch them but nobody can. My favorite way of using them was via the film simulation bracketing, where I'd get a RAW plus 3 JPEGs to choose from.
