Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
p.2 #1Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
leolab wrote:
My $0.02 having shot both systems...IF you want to get an APS-C system I would choose Fuji. There are more choices of body styles from small to Large-ish, and the the EVFs on the Fujis in my usage were better, so for me the overall shooting experience was better on the Fujis.
Fujis AF still lags behind Sony's unfortunately.
I don't personally like the ergonomics (or the looks) of a small camera with big heavy lenses, and my A7Cii can feel that way with most of the FF zooms of decent quality.
I have an XT5, XT50 and XPro2 and prefer the...Show more →
Thank you!!!
Aug 24, 2026 at 07:49 PM
p.2 #2Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
snegron7 wrote:
For those folks who use or have used both Fujifilm and Sony APS-C outfits, whst are your thoughts?
I've been a devoted Fuji shooter since 2018, and my motivation entering that system was similar to yours: I wanted something lighter than my full-sized DSLR kit at the time.
Initially I was very happy with the migration. I got myself the X100, X-T2, then X-T3 and X100 IV, and eventually the X100VI. After all these years, I no longer recommend the interchangeable lens APS-C cameras. Because Sony and Hasselblad have both demonstrated, repeatedly, that the sensor area has relatively little effect on the full system size+weight, lenses have to be accounted for too.
Take a Fuji X-T5 with a f/2 lens and compare it to a C-series Sony body with an equivalent f/2.8 lens. From the perspective of a traveller, they'll be equivalent, within 100g from each other. Their light-capturing capacity (IQ) will be equal. But the Sony will have vastly better autofocus and far better software, both in-camera and also on the desktop. I sold my last Fuji after I got into Sony's compact G-primes and Sigma's i-series lenses. They completely erased the size/weight advantage of a Fuji system.
The only Fuji camera I still have warm feelings towards is the X100 VI. In terms of compactness it is in a different league, but it achieves that by having a fixed close-to-the-sensor lens. And yet... I just couldn't deal with Fuji software anymore. Even deleting an image is implemented in the most idiotic way. AF-C sucked too, although I never found it to be a problem in practice because when traveling I rarely/never find myself shooting action.
These days I travel either with my A1 II paired to the 40mm G f/2.5, or my Nikon Zf paried to the 28mm f/2.8 pancake. From the practical/pragmatic perspective they're very comparable to the Fuji X-T5 with an f/2 "Fujicron". But they focus better and I don't have to deal with Fuji's firmware.
IMO you don't need APSC. You don't even need a new body. Just get yourserlf a slower/smaller lens for your A7C. It's not me saying this. It's just physics: any camera+lens system pays for its light-capturing capacity with weight. It's a trade-off between sensor area and lens speed. A smaller sensor only shifts some weight % from the body to the lens, but you'll end up with the same total system weight for the same number of captured photons. Since you already have a nice assortment of bodies, get a slower lens.
For those folks who use or have used both Fujifilm and Sony APS-C outfits, whst are your thoughts?
I've been a devoted Fuji shooter since 2018, and my motivation entering that system was similar to yours: I wanted something lighter than my full-sized DSLR kit at the time.
Initially I was very happy with the migration. I got myself the X100, X-T2, then X-T3 and X100 IV, and eventually the X100VI. After all these years, I no longer recommend the interchangeable lens APS-C cameras. Because Sony and Hasselblad have both demonstrated, repeatedly, that the sensor area has relatively little effect on the full system size+weight, lenses have to be accounted for too.
Take a Fuji X-T5 with a f/2 lens and compare it to a C-series Sony body with an equivalent f/2.8 lens. From the perspective of a traveller, they'll be equivalent, within 100g from each other. Their light-capturing capacity (IQ) will be equal. But the Sony will have vastly better autofocus and far better software, both in-camera and also on the desktop. I sold my last Fuji after I got into Sony's compact G-primes and Sigma's i-series lenses. They completely erased the size/weight advantage of a Fuji system.
The only Fuji camera I still have warm feelings towards is the X100 VI. In terms of compactness it is in a different league, but it achieves that by having a fixed close-to-the-sensor lens. And yet... I just couldn't deal with Fuji software anymore. Even deleting an image is implemented in the most idiotic way. AF-C sucked too, although I never found it to be a problem in practice because when traveling I rarely/never find myself shooting action.
These days I travel either with my A1 II paired to the 40mm G f/2.5, or my Nikon Zf paried to the 28mm f/2.8 pancake. From the practical/pragmatic perspective they're very comparable to the Fuji X-T5 with an f/2 "Fujicron". But they focus better and I don't have to deal with Fuji's firmware.
IMO you don't need APSC. You don't even need a new body. Just get yourserlf a slower/smaller lens for your A7C. It's not me saying this. It's just physics: any camera+lens system pays for its light-capturing capacity with weight. It's a trade-off between sensor area and lens speed. A smaller sensor only shifts some weight % from the body to the lens, but you'll end up with the same total system weight for the same number of captured photons. Since you already have a nice assortment of bodies, get a slower lens.
Aug 24, 2026 at 08:13 PM
p.2 #3Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
Good point -- Fuji AF is a couple 3 generations behind Sony...
Aug 24, 2026 at 08:42 PM
p.2 #4Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
snegron7 wrote:
Just got back from a trip to Japan where my primary outfit was a Canon R6II with an RF 24-105mm f4.0L and an RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM. My "backup camera" was an OM-5 with a Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 G2. While I'm happy with the images I got with my R6II, it was excruciatingly painful carrying the outfit around all day and night as I walked several miles throughout Tokyo.
I currently shoot with three different platforms (Sony A7c, A7iv, Canon R6II, and OM System OM-5). I have my reasons for shooting with three platforms, and I have no intention of...Show more →
Full frame isn't necessarily heavier than APS-C, A sensor does not weigh much, the weight is mostly in the glass.
If you compare equivalent lens setups (for example f/1.4 on apsc vs f/2 on ff) the weight is similar.
For example,
Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G: 488g, Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G: 494g. The FF lens is lighter.
Canon R7: 612 g, Sony A7C: 509g, Fuji X-T5: 557g
Sigma 23mm f/1.4 DC DN (APS-C): 340 g, Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (FF): 325 g
Just got back from a trip to Japan where my primary outfit was a Canon R6II with an RF 24-105mm f4.0L and an RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM. My "backup camera" was an OM-5 with a Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 G2. While I'm happy with the images I got with my R6II, it was excruciatingly painful carrying the outfit around all day and night as I walked several miles throughout Tokyo.
I currently shoot with three different platforms (Sony A7c, A7iv, Canon R6II, and OM System OM-5). I have my reasons for shooting with three platforms, and I have no intention of...Show more →
Full frame isn't necessarily heavier than APS-C, A sensor does not weigh much, the weight is mostly in the glass.
If you compare equivalent lens setups (for example f/1.4 on apsc vs f/2 on ff) the weight is similar.
For example,
Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G: 488g, Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G: 494g. The FF lens is lighter.
Canon R7: 612 g, Sony A7C: 509g, Fuji X-T5: 557g
Sigma 23mm f/1.4 DC DN (APS-C): 340 g, Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (FF): 325 g
Aug 24, 2026 at 09:08 PM
p.2 #5Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
aCuria wrote:
Full frame isn't necessarily heavier than APS-C, A sensor does not weigh much, the weight is mostly in the glass.
If you compare equivalent lens setups (for example f/1.4 on apsc vs f/2 on ff) the weight is similar.
For example,
Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G: 488g, Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G: 494g. The FF lens is lighter.
Canon R7: 612 g, Sony A7C: 509g, Fuji X-T5: 557g
Sigma 23mm f/1.4 DC DN (APS-C): 340 g, Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (FF): 325 g
Very true.
When travelling I carry either GFX100RF, A7rV + 40/2.5 G or 35GM, or X100V. All these cameras serve the same purpose - they take pictures. However, they are also different. X100V is way more casual than the other two. GFX100RF usually provides some surprisingly wonderful pictures. A7rV is reliable and good for everything, but being ILC there also the pressure of taking another lens with me
I sold my A7CII. It was a good camera, and perfect pair with 40G, but the user experience (especially screens) is so bad that I strongly favor the larger Sony bodies.
Fujis are somewhat strange. They combine a strange mixture of user friendliness and utterly awful design solution. However, colors are nice and pictures come out with special charm. This combination is not ideal for a working pro but it is fine when travelling and photographing for fun.
The most important lesson I have learned about travel photography is not to take too much gear with me. Usually X100 or Ricoh GR type camera covers 75% of my needs. That 25% is not so important in the context of enjoying the trip and trying to minimize equipment I carry. Small cameras also allow me taking pictures I could not take with a large camera.
Secondly I do not want to look like that "photo guy" carrying his ILC with 28-200mm zoom lens around.
Full frame isn't necessarily heavier than APS-C, A sensor does not weigh much, the weight is mostly in the glass.
If you compare equivalent lens setups (for example f/1.4 on apsc vs f/2 on ff) the weight is similar.
For example,
Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G: 488g, Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G: 494g. The FF lens is lighter.
Canon R7: 612 g, Sony A7C: 509g, Fuji X-T5: 557g
Sigma 23mm f/1.4 DC DN (APS-C): 340 g, Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (FF): 325 g
Very true.
When travelling I carry either GFX100RF, A7rV + 40/2.5 G or 35GM, or X100V. All these cameras serve the same purpose - they take pictures. However, they are also different. X100V is way more casual than the other two. GFX100RF usually provides some surprisingly wonderful pictures. A7rV is reliable and good for everything, but being ILC there also the pressure of taking another lens with me
I sold my A7CII. It was a good camera, and perfect pair with 40G, but the user experience (especially screens) is so bad that I strongly favor the larger Sony bodies.
Fujis are somewhat strange. They combine a strange mixture of user friendliness and utterly awful design solution. However, colors are nice and pictures come out with special charm. This combination is not ideal for a working pro but it is fine when travelling and photographing for fun.
The most important lesson I have learned about travel photography is not to take too much gear with me. Usually X100 or Ricoh GR type camera covers 75% of my needs. That 25% is not so important in the context of enjoying the trip and trying to minimize equipment I carry. Small cameras also allow me taking pictures I could not take with a large camera.
Secondly I do not want to look like that "photo guy" carrying his ILC with 28-200mm zoom lens around.
Aug 25, 2026 at 03:09 AM
p.2 #6Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
tuomkok wrote:
If you compare equivalent lens setups (for example f/1.4 on apsc vs f/2 on ff) the weight is similar.
For example,
Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G: 488g, Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G: 494g. The FF lens is lighter.
Canon R7: 612 g, Sony A7C: 509g, Fuji X-T5: 557g
Sigma 23mm f/1.4 DC DN (APS-C): 340 g, Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (FF): 325 gVery true.
When travelling I carry either GFX100RF, A7rV + 40/2.5 G or 35GM, or X100V. All these cameras serve the same purpose - they take pictures. However, they are also different. X100V is way more casual than the other two. GFX100RF usually provides some surprisingly wonderful pictures. A7rV is reliable and good for everything, but being ILC there also the pressure of taking another lens with me
I sold my A7CII. It was a good camera, and perfect pair with 40G, but the user experience (especially screens) is so bad that I strongly favor the larger Sony bodies.
Fujis are somewhat...Show more →
In my opinion, the X100VI is not a good travel camera
For travel photography,
1) In good light I shoot at base ISO and stop down. I generally want more depth of field, since showing the surrounding environment is an important part of capturing a sense of place. If I'm using the lens stopped down, a zoom makes more sense because it offers more focal lengths and greater flexibility.
2) In poor light, images from a FF f/2.8 zoom are often unusable. I shoot f/1.4 or brighter primes on FF to keep the noise down and dynamic range up.
The problem with the X100VI is that it handles both situations poorly. In good light, it lacks the flexibility of a zoom, and in poor light, its 35mm f/2.8 equivalent lens is simply too slow.
Where the X100VI does get interesting to me is for other types of photography. The leaf shutter, in particular, opens up some interesting possibilities when shooting with strobes.
aCuria wrote
Full frame isn't necessarily heavier than APS-C, A sensor does not weigh much, the weight is mostly in the glass.If you compare equivalent lens setups (for example f/1.4 on apsc vs f/2 on ff) the weight is similar.
For example,
Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G: 488g, Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G: 494g. The FF lens is lighter.
Canon R7: 612 g, Sony A7C: 509g, Fuji X-T5: 557g
Sigma 23mm f/1.4 DC DN (APS-C): 340 g, Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (FF): 325 g
When travelling I carry either GFX100RF, A7rV + 40/2.5 G or 35GM, or X100V. All these cameras serve the same purpose - they take pictures. However, they are also different. X100V is way more casual than the other two. GFX100RF usually provides some surprisingly wonderful pictures. A7rV is reliable and good for everything, but being ILC there also the pressure of taking another lens with me
I sold my A7CII. It was a good camera, and perfect pair with 40G, but the user experience (especially screens) is so bad that I strongly favor the larger Sony bodies.
Fujis are somewhat...Show more →
In my opinion, the X100VI is not a good travel camera
For travel photography,
1) In good light I shoot at base ISO and stop down. I generally want more depth of field, since showing the surrounding environment is an important part of capturing a sense of place. If I'm using the lens stopped down, a zoom makes more sense because it offers more focal lengths and greater flexibility.
2) In poor light, images from a FF f/2.8 zoom are often unusable. I shoot f/1.4 or brighter primes on FF to keep the noise down and dynamic range up.
The problem with the X100VI is that it handles both situations poorly. In good light, it lacks the flexibility of a zoom, and in poor light, its 35mm f/2.8 equivalent lens is simply too slow.
Where the X100VI does get interesting to me is for other types of photography. The leaf shutter, in particular, opens up some interesting possibilities when shooting with strobes.
Aug 25, 2026 at 04:04 AM
p.2 #7Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
OM-5 is 414g. A7C is 509g. XT-5 is 557g. XE-5 is 445g.
Body weight differences are insignificant compared to lenses.
The best option, IMHO, is A7CRII. 515g, (an extra 6g over the A7C) and a couple of light primes.
Use the BIG resolution to replace zoom function.
The couple of light zooms can be used on your A7IV too.
Let's be honest though, you want some Fuji, to hell with logic.
You'll then have 4 systems and none will provide what you want.
Body weight differences are insignificant compared to lenses.
The best option, IMHO, is A7CRII. 515g, (an extra 6g over the A7C) and a couple of light primes.
Use the BIG resolution to replace zoom function.
The couple of light zooms can be used on your A7IV too.
Let's be honest though, you want some Fuji, to hell with logic.
You'll then have 4 systems and none will provide what you want.
Aug 25, 2026 at 05:21 AM
p.2 #8Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
I shot Fuji for 10 years, now Sony FF and apsc. Not that I'd go with Sony, but compared to Fuji: AF is in a totally different reality. I have some 10+ year old Sonys that easily lock quicker and track more tenaciously than 1 generation removed Fuji's. Even for a methodical shooter like me, it's one less issue (looking for contrast, waiting for a lock) to think about. My Sonys stay in AFC, center point, tracking full time. My Fuji's never leave AFS. More rugged, better power management, smaller, better evf (eye point), better control set, better controls feel, better menus, easier to setup, more commonality between bodies, a Bayer sensor. In Fuji's favor: better lens line (quality, size, speed, WR), better IBIS, tilt LCD's (I've actually stopped buying Sony apsc as the flippy, video focused LCD, is a PIA for my stills oriented photography.
I also shot m43 for about 5 years, overlapping with Fuji. You have an OM5. You're going to be hard pressed to find a better travel kit. Small, excellent WR, IBIS and lens line. Unless you?re going after high resolution sensors, you give up less than a stop in performance. A loss that's insignificant compared to what you gain with the IBIS, lenses, NR software and, in the case of Fuji, doing post on XTrans raw (which, while better, is still different). If shooting jpegs, a superb image pipeline.
I also shot m43 for about 5 years, overlapping with Fuji. You have an OM5. You're going to be hard pressed to find a better travel kit. Small, excellent WR, IBIS and lens line. Unless you?re going after high resolution sensors, you give up less than a stop in performance. A loss that's insignificant compared to what you gain with the IBIS, lenses, NR software and, in the case of Fuji, doing post on XTrans raw (which, while better, is still different). If shooting jpegs, a superb image pipeline.
Aug 25, 2026 at 07:00 AM
p.2 #9Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
aCuria wrote:
I currently shoot with three different platforms (Sony A7c, A7iv, Canon R6II, and OM System OM-5). I have my reasons for shooting with three platforms, and I have no intention of selling any of them to go with X or Y brand. This post is not about replacing or consolidating what I currently have; it's about exploring a dedicated APS-C system that has not only several good APS-C cameras in their lineup but also a good variety of dedicated lenses for their cameras.
Also, quick side note, I had but sold the Canon R7 because the AF tracking was terrible and I was limited with the lens options available for it. So, adding an R7 is definitely not an option for me. The other APS-C offerings by Canon are not weather sealed, and finding decent lenses is a very limited option at this time (I had and loved the Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 RDX, but I sold it together with my R7).
So, I'm looking for an APS-C body that is weather sealed and performs well (good AF tracking, good IQ, at least somewhat decent low light performance, and at least a bit of usable dynamic range). My OM-5 is a great camera, but I would like a bigger sensor (like an APS-C).
My A7c is nice and compact, but it is heavy. Add any somewhat fast zoom on it, and it turns into yet another heavy option.
So, since I don't have any APS-C lenses for my Sony cameras, if I were to buy an APS-C Sony I would need to start fresh with new lenses. Therefore, it's like I'd be getting into a new system anyway. So I can go with Fujifilm or Sony APS-C at this time because I have no lenses for them anyway.
For those folks who use or have used both Fujifilm and Sony APS-C outfits, whst are your thoughts?
p.s. I'm posting this on both the Sony and Fujifilm forums to get opinions from both sides.Full frame isn't necessarily heavier than APS-C, A sensor does not weigh much, the weight is mostly in the glass.
If you compare equivalent lens setups (for example f/1.4 on apsc vs f/2 on ff) the weight is similar.
For example,
Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G: 488g, Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G: 494g. The FF lens is lighter.
Canon R7: 612 g, Sony A7C: 509g, Fuji X-T5: 557g
Sigma 23mm f/1.4 DC DN (APS-C): 340 g, Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (FF): 325 g
This ^^^. The only thing I would add for clarity in case not everyone knows, is relative DoF on APSC is a stop less for any given focal, meaning an APSC 33mm f1.4 renders the same as a full frame 50mm f2.
snegron7 wrote
Just got back from a trip to Japan where my primary outfit was a Canon R6II with an RF 24-105mm f4.0L and an RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM. My "backup camera" was an OM-5 with a Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 G2. While I'm happy with the images I got with my R6II, it was excruciatingly painful carrying the outfit around all day and night as I walked several miles throughout Tokyo.I currently shoot with three different platforms (Sony A7c, A7iv, Canon R6II, and OM System OM-5). I have my reasons for shooting with three platforms, and I have no intention of selling any of them to go with X or Y brand. This post is not about replacing or consolidating what I currently have; it's about exploring a dedicated APS-C system that has not only several good APS-C cameras in their lineup but also a good variety of dedicated lenses for their cameras.
Also, quick side note, I had but sold the Canon R7 because the AF tracking was terrible and I was limited with the lens options available for it. So, adding an R7 is definitely not an option for me. The other APS-C offerings by Canon are not weather sealed, and finding decent lenses is a very limited option at this time (I had and loved the Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 RDX, but I sold it together with my R7).
So, I'm looking for an APS-C body that is weather sealed and performs well (good AF tracking, good IQ, at least somewhat decent low light performance, and at least a bit of usable dynamic range). My OM-5 is a great camera, but I would like a bigger sensor (like an APS-C).
My A7c is nice and compact, but it is heavy. Add any somewhat fast zoom on it, and it turns into yet another heavy option.
So, since I don't have any APS-C lenses for my Sony cameras, if I were to buy an APS-C Sony I would need to start fresh with new lenses. Therefore, it's like I'd be getting into a new system anyway. So I can go with Fujifilm or Sony APS-C at this time because I have no lenses for them anyway.
For those folks who use or have used both Fujifilm and Sony APS-C outfits, whst are your thoughts?
p.s. I'm posting this on both the Sony and Fujifilm forums to get opinions from both sides.
If you compare equivalent lens setups (for example f/1.4 on apsc vs f/2 on ff) the weight is similar.
For example,
Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G: 488g, Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G: 494g. The FF lens is lighter.
Canon R7: 612 g, Sony A7C: 509g, Fuji X-T5: 557g
Sigma 23mm f/1.4 DC DN (APS-C): 340 g, Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (FF): 325 g
This ^^^. The only thing I would add for clarity in case not everyone knows, is relative DoF on APSC is a stop less for any given focal, meaning an APSC 33mm f1.4 renders the same as a full frame 50mm f2.
Aug 25, 2026 at 07:27 AM
p.2 #10Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
Since you are a system camera user I would suggest to compare systems with lenses an accessories and not camera bodies alone. Especially with Sony A6700, A7C II and A7CR this is important. With the A7C II you will most likely only use FF lenses, with the A7CR you could also use APSC-lenses at full resoultion of 26mp.
Possibly there are single lenses that attract your attention, maybe this will give a clue.
My first Sony was the original Sony NEX 5, tiny magnesium body, few controls, manual lenses, Canon FD 24, Minolta MD 50 and an 80mm enlarger lens on a helical extension. A very compact and powerful set, only a little cumbersome to use.
Today Sony APSC in very small could be a A5100 or a ZV E10.
Possibly there are single lenses that attract your attention, maybe this will give a clue.
My first Sony was the original Sony NEX 5, tiny magnesium body, few controls, manual lenses, Canon FD 24, Minolta MD 50 and an 80mm enlarger lens on a helical extension. A very compact and powerful set, only a little cumbersome to use.
Today Sony APSC in very small could be a A5100 or a ZV E10.
Aug 25, 2026 at 07:28 AM
|
p.2 #11Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
Jack Flesher wrote:
The only thing I would add for clarity in case not everyone knows, is relative DoF on APSC is a stop less for any given focal, meaning an APSC 33mm f1.4 renders the same as a full frame 50mm f2.
This is often stated as a bad thing, but as with all tradeoffs, it depends. Sometimes having more depth of field with the same FOV without having to stop down as much is a good thing if that's what you want.
The only thing I would add for clarity in case not everyone knows, is relative DoF on APSC is a stop less for any given focal, meaning an APSC 33mm f1.4 renders the same as a full frame 50mm f2.
This is often stated as a bad thing, but as with all tradeoffs, it depends. Sometimes having more depth of field with the same FOV without having to stop down as much is a good thing if that's what you want.
Aug 25, 2026 at 09:29 AM
p.2 #12Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
aCuria wrote:
If you compare equivalent lens setups (for example f/1.4 on apsc vs f/2 on ff) the weight is similar.
For example,
Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G: 488g, Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G: 494g. The FF lens is lighter.
Sigma 23mm f/1.4 DC DN (APS-C): 340 g, Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (FF): 325 g
Generally true. But the Sigma APS-C f/2.8 zooms are a game changer.
Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 equivalent to FF 15-27mm f/4 but weighs only 255g (6.4cm long).
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 equivalent to FF 27-75mm f/4 but weighs only 290g (7.7cm long).
Only the Sony PZ 16-35mm f/4 comes close with a weight of 353g although it is also longer (8.8cm).
If you compare equivalent lens setups (for example f/1.4 on apsc vs f/2 on ff) the weight is similar.
For example,
Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G: 488g, Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G: 494g. The FF lens is lighter.
Sigma 23mm f/1.4 DC DN (APS-C): 340 g, Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (FF): 325 g
Generally true. But the Sigma APS-C f/2.8 zooms are a game changer.
Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 equivalent to FF 15-27mm f/4 but weighs only 255g (6.4cm long).
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 equivalent to FF 27-75mm f/4 but weighs only 290g (7.7cm long).
Only the Sony PZ 16-35mm f/4 comes close with a weight of 353g although it is also longer (8.8cm).
Aug 25, 2026 at 09:34 AM
p.2 #13Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
mivadep wrote:
This is often stated as a bad thing, but as with all tradeoffs, it depends. Sometimes having more depth of field with the same FOV without having to stop down as much is a good thing if that's what you want.
I fully agree! My comment was more to the point of comparing weight and size equally.
OTOH, a counter advantage to full frame is it’s easier to get shallow DoF — which in fact was one thing I missed with APSC.
Jack Flesher wrote
The only thing I would add for clarity in case not everyone knows, is relative DoF on APSC is a stop less for any given focal, meaning an APSC 33mm f1.4 renders the same as a full frame 50mm f2.I fully agree! My comment was more to the point of comparing weight and size equally.
OTOH, a counter advantage to full frame is it’s easier to get shallow DoF — which in fact was one thing I missed with APSC.
Aug 25, 2026 at 09:34 AM
p.2 #14Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
Probably the more helpful discussion along this topic would be what folks see as “ideal” travel kits. In this we have size, weight, focal ranges and say DoF balanced against some minimum level of final image quality by however we measure that for our needs.
In this, a huge majority of “photographers” have abandoned all cameras in favor of their cell phones. So really now we’re talking about the smaller group that still wants to use a dedicated camera.
To my thinking there is no ideal. At one end of the spectrum, M43 is the perfect solution; yet at the other are folks that’d rather go minimalist with a smaller medium format kit. Neither is wrong.
For *me* at least at present, full-frame offers the best of both philosophies. though I have traveled with M43 and medium format and can appreciate the benefits and tradeoffs of both. In fact over the years I've traveled with that entire range including higher end mini P&S digicams. All offer something the others don't, so the trick is for each of us to determine what matters most to us. And then, when you own multiple systems, what you desire can change between trips --or more regularly cause indecision on what to take on that next trip-- which is why the OP is having a difficult time deciding!
Speaking for myself, I know my photographic life got a lot less complicated when I resigned myself to living with a single platform and not multiples, but again that's me and YMMV
In this, a huge majority of “photographers” have abandoned all cameras in favor of their cell phones. So really now we’re talking about the smaller group that still wants to use a dedicated camera.
To my thinking there is no ideal. At one end of the spectrum, M43 is the perfect solution; yet at the other are folks that’d rather go minimalist with a smaller medium format kit. Neither is wrong.
For *me* at least at present, full-frame offers the best of both philosophies. though I have traveled with M43 and medium format and can appreciate the benefits and tradeoffs of both. In fact over the years I've traveled with that entire range including higher end mini P&S digicams. All offer something the others don't, so the trick is for each of us to determine what matters most to us. And then, when you own multiple systems, what you desire can change between trips --or more regularly cause indecision on what to take on that next trip-- which is why the OP is having a difficult time deciding!
Speaking for myself, I know my photographic life got a lot less complicated when I resigned myself to living with a single platform and not multiples, but again that's me and YMMV
Aug 25, 2026 at 09:44 AM
p.2 #15Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
As a user of OM, Sony and now Fujifilm, what are my thoughts? Short Answer: Fujifilm is a more complete APSC system for Travel. I greatly prefer it over my OM and Sony systems.
Long Answer: Been using my OM M4/3 system for frequent trips to Thailand since 2012 (my wife of 23 years is Thai.) Have the OM-1, OM-3 and numerous primes and zooms. It is a very good system but is now stuck at 20MP. It still lacks a full range of smaller WR primes, only the 17 and 25mm f1.8 are WR.
Been using Sony since 2018 and have the A7RIV, A7CR and A6700, again with many primes and a few zooms. They have 3 smaller WR travel G series primes, but only at 50mm or below and the pricing of these is crazy, $700-800 each for f2.5 and 2.8 primes. I originally thought 2 years ago when I added the A7CR and A6700 that these would satisfy my need for a smaller lightweight system for Travel. But these bodies are crippled*, compared to the A7 or R series, and numerous things about them caused me to look at Fujifilm last year.
So last year I added a Fujifilm X-T5 and and am so pleased with the camera! 40MP is more than enough pixels for me, if needed the in-camera crop is 18MP. I just love the design of X-T5 with the locking control dials, AF joystick, dual card slots and it has a perfect (for me) 3 way screen when shooting for travel/street. It has a true 1/8000ss mechanic shutter, the ES goes up to 1/180,000ss! It’s EVF and LCD are a big step up from the Sony compacts, even though I got it new at 1/2 the price of the A7CR. I was initially worried about the Fuji AF from posts online, but like most things on the internet, it was WAY overblown. In my shooting of about 9,500 photos over 12 months the AF has performed great, a 96% hit ratio. OK, my Sonys would have been 98%, but I can live with that tiny difference given the other better features in the X-T5. Much more important to me than a few mis-focused shots.
Far as small, travel lenses Fujifilm has a set of small, WR metal built lenses nicknamed Fujicrons. The 23, 35 and 50 are f2, and and the 16mm is f2.8. (FF= 35, 53, 75 and 24mm). All last year were under $400 each
But my 2 favorite are the 2 C/V pancake lenses, the 18mm CS f2.8 and 27mm f2 Ultron (FF=28 & 40mm), which I used the most on our 10 week trip to Thailand this summer. I just added a 75mm Viltrox f1.8 for an upcoming trip where I will be taking a lot of outdoor portraits, it cost me less than $300 new.
*Sony compact bodies lack: 3 way tilting screens for street or travel use, AF joysticks, dual card slots, labeled & locking control dials, 1/8000ss mechanical shutters (why have fast primes if you have to add a ND filter to use them when sunny?), and competent EVF/LCD.
Edited on Aug 25, 2026 at 11:30 AM · View previous versions
Long Answer: Been using my OM M4/3 system for frequent trips to Thailand since 2012 (my wife of 23 years is Thai.) Have the OM-1, OM-3 and numerous primes and zooms. It is a very good system but is now stuck at 20MP. It still lacks a full range of smaller WR primes, only the 17 and 25mm f1.8 are WR.
Been using Sony since 2018 and have the A7RIV, A7CR and A6700, again with many primes and a few zooms. They have 3 smaller WR travel G series primes, but only at 50mm or below and the pricing of these is crazy, $700-800 each for f2.5 and 2.8 primes. I originally thought 2 years ago when I added the A7CR and A6700 that these would satisfy my need for a smaller lightweight system for Travel. But these bodies are crippled*, compared to the A7 or R series, and numerous things about them caused me to look at Fujifilm last year.
So last year I added a Fujifilm X-T5 and and am so pleased with the camera! 40MP is more than enough pixels for me, if needed the in-camera crop is 18MP. I just love the design of X-T5 with the locking control dials, AF joystick, dual card slots and it has a perfect (for me) 3 way screen when shooting for travel/street. It has a true 1/8000ss mechanic shutter, the ES goes up to 1/180,000ss! It’s EVF and LCD are a big step up from the Sony compacts, even though I got it new at 1/2 the price of the A7CR. I was initially worried about the Fuji AF from posts online, but like most things on the internet, it was WAY overblown. In my shooting of about 9,500 photos over 12 months the AF has performed great, a 96% hit ratio. OK, my Sonys would have been 98%, but I can live with that tiny difference given the other better features in the X-T5. Much more important to me than a few mis-focused shots.
Far as small, travel lenses Fujifilm has a set of small, WR metal built lenses nicknamed Fujicrons. The 23, 35 and 50 are f2, and and the 16mm is f2.8. (FF= 35, 53, 75 and 24mm). All last year were under $400 each
But my 2 favorite are the 2 C/V pancake lenses, the 18mm CS f2.8 and 27mm f2 Ultron (FF=28 & 40mm), which I used the most on our 10 week trip to Thailand this summer. I just added a 75mm Viltrox f1.8 for an upcoming trip where I will be taking a lot of outdoor portraits, it cost me less than $300 new. *Sony compact bodies lack: 3 way tilting screens for street or travel use, AF joysticks, dual card slots, labeled & locking control dials, 1/8000ss mechanical shutters (why have fast primes if you have to add a ND filter to use them when sunny?), and competent EVF/LCD.
Edited on Aug 25, 2026 at 11:30 AM · View previous versions
Aug 25, 2026 at 10:27 AM
p.2 #16Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
I still have a Fuji X-T2 and a few Fujinon XF lenses, but I rarely use them any more now that I have a Sony A7cR and some Sigma DG DN Contemporary primes.
The A7cR weighs a negligible 9 grams more than the X-T2, and delivers significantly better image quality, better colour accuracy, and much better battery life. The Sigma lenses are pretty close to the same size and weight as the Fuji counterparts, but with better build quality.
The A7cR weighs a negligible 9 grams more than the X-T2, and delivers significantly better image quality, better colour accuracy, and much better battery life. The Sigma lenses are pretty close to the same size and weight as the Fuji counterparts, but with better build quality.
Aug 25, 2026 at 11:28 AM
p.2 #17Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
Cliff L. wrote:
I still have a Fuji X-T2 and a few Fujinon XF lenses, but I rarely use them any more now that I have a Sony A7cR and some Sigma DG DN Contemporary primes.
The A7cR weighs a negligible 9 grams more than the X-T2, and delivers significantly better image quality, better colour accuracy, and much better battery life. The Sigma lenses are pretty close to the same size and weight as the Fuji counterparts, but with better build quality.
This ^^^ seems to be the consensus for those of us that have used both systems...
I still have a Fuji X-T2 and a few Fujinon XF lenses, but I rarely use them any more now that I have a Sony A7cR and some Sigma DG DN Contemporary primes.
The A7cR weighs a negligible 9 grams more than the X-T2, and delivers significantly better image quality, better colour accuracy, and much better battery life. The Sigma lenses are pretty close to the same size and weight as the Fuji counterparts, but with better build quality.
This ^^^ seems to be the consensus for those of us that have used both systems...
Aug 25, 2026 at 11:37 AM
p.2 #18Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
Some of the "arguments" seem rather interesting. I can't put many of the reasons some use to advocate against aps-c or even M43 together. "Travel" seems, to me, to mean a willingness to work down to some level of "less." One is probably accepting fewer and smaller bodies and lenses. And that can mean smaller sensors and "slower" lenses.
Several years ago when adding ff to my aps-c, I was comparing various options and opportunities. As I still had some Nikon aps-c dslr gear, albeit less and less used and Sony aps-c mirrorless, Sony ff was my first look with at least a glance towards Nikon. I had an A6400 with the 18-135. "New" pricing, the A7iii and A7C and 28-200 were pretty close in price. The Tamron isn't bundled but a new A7iii and 28-200 was $1200 more than the aps-c A6400 and 18-135 and weighed about a full pound more. And for many people that's very wallet significant and in hand handling and carrying, that's really noticeable, too. Incidentally, body wise, the A7Riv is a bit smaller than my D7200, too.
Some can probably put, for example, an A6700 and 18-135 in hand, and go, "Wow, I like this." (Even in a local store...maybe) I don't have Fuji, let alone Nikon or Canon aps-c, offerings to compare. There could be some. Incidentally, if grasping my A7Rvi and 28-200 and the A6700 and 18-135, it's still much like that years old subjective response to the A6400/18-135 and A7iii/28-200.
The objective numbers can be stacked to support or reject a range of options. It gets to what works for me, or the OP, or "you."
Several years ago when adding ff to my aps-c, I was comparing various options and opportunities. As I still had some Nikon aps-c dslr gear, albeit less and less used and Sony aps-c mirrorless, Sony ff was my first look with at least a glance towards Nikon. I had an A6400 with the 18-135. "New" pricing, the A7iii and A7C and 28-200 were pretty close in price. The Tamron isn't bundled but a new A7iii and 28-200 was $1200 more than the aps-c A6400 and 18-135 and weighed about a full pound more. And for many people that's very wallet significant and in hand handling and carrying, that's really noticeable, too. Incidentally, body wise, the A7Riv is a bit smaller than my D7200, too.
Some can probably put, for example, an A6700 and 18-135 in hand, and go, "Wow, I like this." (Even in a local store...maybe) I don't have Fuji, let alone Nikon or Canon aps-c, offerings to compare. There could be some. Incidentally, if grasping my A7Rvi and 28-200 and the A6700 and 18-135, it's still much like that years old subjective response to the A6400/18-135 and A7iii/28-200.
The objective numbers can be stacked to support or reject a range of options. It gets to what works for me, or the OP, or "you."
Aug 25, 2026 at 11:51 AM
p.2 #19Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
Cliff L. wrote:
I still have a Fuji X-T2 and a few Fujinon XF lenses, but I rarely use them any more now that I have a Sony A7cR and some Sigma DG DN Contemporary primes.
The A7cR weighs a negligible 9 grams more than the X-T2, and delivers significantly better image quality, better colour accuracy, and much better battery life. The Sigma lenses are pretty close to the same size and weight as the Fuji counterparts, but with better build quality.
You are comparing a camera that costs over twice as much with one 7 years older... geeez, what a skew of facts.... My 3 versions newer X-T5 has better color accuracy than my A7CR, is CIPA rated for 130 more shots than the Sony, can shoot at 15FPS vs 8FPS for Sony, My 4 WR Fujicrons are way smaller and lighter than my 5 Sigma I series DGDN, ( 35 XF is 170g and has better build quality as it is WR, the 35 DGDN is 325g and Not WR), and gives nothing up in IQ. The X-T5 has a 77 % and 56% higher resolution EVF/ LCD, twin card slots, AF joystick and a 1/8000ss mechanical shutter, and 1/180,000 ES, all which the A7CR lacks. Oh and I paid $1,599 new last year for it, about a $1,300 savings over the A7CR!
Edited on Aug 25, 2026 at 12:13 PM · View previous versions
I still have a Fuji X-T2 and a few Fujinon XF lenses, but I rarely use them any more now that I have a Sony A7cR and some Sigma DG DN Contemporary primes.
The A7cR weighs a negligible 9 grams more than the X-T2, and delivers significantly better image quality, better colour accuracy, and much better battery life. The Sigma lenses are pretty close to the same size and weight as the Fuji counterparts, but with better build quality.
You are comparing a camera that costs over twice as much with one 7 years older... geeez, what a skew of facts.... My 3 versions newer X-T5 has better color accuracy than my A7CR, is CIPA rated for 130 more shots than the Sony, can shoot at 15FPS vs 8FPS for Sony, My 4 WR Fujicrons are way smaller and lighter than my 5 Sigma I series DGDN, ( 35 XF is 170g and has better build quality as it is WR, the 35 DGDN is 325g and Not WR), and gives nothing up in IQ. The X-T5 has a 77 % and 56% higher resolution EVF/ LCD, twin card slots, AF joystick and a 1/8000ss mechanical shutter, and 1/180,000 ES, all which the A7CR lacks. Oh and I paid $1,599 new last year for it, about a $1,300 savings over the A7CR!
Edited on Aug 25, 2026 at 12:13 PM · View previous versions
Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57 AM
p.2 #20Fujifilm or Sony APS-C for Travel?
SpecFoto wrote:
The A7cR weighs a negligible 9 grams more than the X-T2, and delivers significantly better image quality, better colour accuracy, and much better battery life. The Sigma lenses are pretty close to the same size and weight as the Fuji counterparts, but with better build quality.You are comparing a camera that costs over twice as much with one 7 years older... geeez, what a skew of facts.... My X-T5 has better color accuracy than my A7CR, is CIPA rated for 130 more shots than the Sony, can shoot at 15FPS vs 8FPS for Sony, My 4 Fujicrons are way smaller and lighter than my 5 Sigma I series DGDN, ( 35 XF is 170g and WR, 35 DGDN is 325g and Not WR), and gives nothing up in IQ. Oh and the X-T5 has higher a resolution EVF/ LCD, twin card slots , AF joystick...Show more →
I was just relating personal preferences, based on my actual, real-world use of the two systems.
Virtually every camera looks good on paper - you have to actually take them out and use them for a while to see what works for you... for example, what good is 15 FPS when you don't have reliable AF tracking?
Cliff L. wrote
I still have a Fuji X-T2 and a few Fujinon XF lenses, but I rarely use them any more now that I have a Sony A7cR and some Sigma DG DN Contemporary primes.The A7cR weighs a negligible 9 grams more than the X-T2, and delivers significantly better image quality, better colour accuracy, and much better battery life. The Sigma lenses are pretty close to the same size and weight as the Fuji counterparts, but with better build quality.
I was just relating personal preferences, based on my actual, real-world use of the two systems.
Virtually every camera looks good on paper - you have to actually take them out and use them for a while to see what works for you... for example, what good is 15 FPS when you don't have reliable AF tracking?
Aug 25, 2026 at 12:11 PM