The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

to me the size weight makes no difference I always judge by image quality and how easy it is to get that image that your craving.... just my 2 cents
 
owenb said:
to me the size weight makes no difference I always judge by image quality and how easy it is to get that image that your craving.... just my 2 cents
Click to expand...

Of course that is the case but the size thing between systems was brought up so were just discussing it further.
 
twist said:
Why are you comparing a 23 1.4 lens to a 35 2.8, if that was the case and you are effectively ignoring apertures perhaps you should post a picture of the FE35 1.4 vs the 23 1.4 ;)

Yes, as I can see the XT1 and A7 are the same size, but that was Fujis design by choice with all the manual controls, they can go smaller, e.g. see the XT10. Then add the clear to see equiv lens size savings and its a fair amount smaller. Just like M43 is vs the A7. Bigger sensor bigger lenses, you cant argue that fact.

I see you choose your models for sizing very carefully but not realistically.

Colour is subjective so thats a moot point, but Fuji RAW colour for skin tones is way more accurate than Sony. Not one companies RAW file is the same as anothers. Some take more work to get right or you need to shoot custom WB all the time. You need to use a Fuji before comparing to the GX7 though.
Click to expand...

I knew you'd say this. All of it :D

I chose that lens because I thought it was the closest match to the Sony 35mm f2.8 that I'd be interested in. I could have chosen the Sony 35mm f1.4 but I'm not interested in that lens as it's too big and bulky whereas the Fuji I chose is just within the bounds of what I think would be acceptable. I didn't choose the Fuji f2.8 because although that lens is small 40mm equiv f2.8 doesn't grab me all that much and it's not on my list of possible buys.

The additional bulk of the Fuji bodies also has to be considered.

You can't just carry a lens... you need a camera to put it on... so you need to consider the whole package. Actually these days that's not entirely true as you can get those lens thingies that send the picture to your phone :D

I chose the cameras carefully not to show the Fuji in the worst light but because those are the cameras I have or in the case of Fuji would consider buying. I have an A7 and I have a GX7 and make no excuses when comparing them to the Fuji's I've considered buying.

If I wanted to show Fuji in the worst possible light I'd have included a Panny G5 and 14mm f2.5 but I didn't because I don't own or want the camera, I do have that lens though :D

You say that colour is subjecting and moot and then say that Fuji skin tones are more accurate? Nice one :D

I've been through the size issue what seems like 100 times with you and we seem to be coming at this completely differently.

For me the Fuji's don't offer enough if any real bulk saving over my A7 and they can't match the IQ so the Fuji's are out as far as I'm concerned as a replacement for my A7.

Compared to my MFT I think that I could possibly convince myself that the Fuji's just cross the line ahead of MFT for IQ but that slight advantage has to be balanced against the greater bulk and the sums again just don't add up for me.

I've looked at enough raws to convince myself of the two IQ comparisons I've made. Fuji can't IMO match the A7 for IQ and Fuji don't IMO pull clear enough if at all from MFT IQ. Just my opinions but as it's my money they're the only opinions that counts.

If I could convince myself that I could sell both A7 and MFT then maybe the Fuji could be a one system solution for me but I know that the drop in IQ from my A7 would eat away at me and I'd miss the extra compactness of the GX7.

For me the big Fuji draw is the manual dials and to be honest I think that's it. But at the moment I like having an A7 for ultimate quality and the GX7 for an even smaller package when even the A7 is too much. Actually I also have a Panny LF1 when even MFT is too much and a Panny G1 when I'm going to places where I don't want to take any possessions that cost more than 2p :D
 
JYC said:
You've chosen the bloody biggest Fuji and the smallest Sony! And the 23mm is f1.4, so faster than the 35mm. Try that again with the X-T10 and the 35mm f2 and see what it looks like!

edit: GX7 wasn't great btw, the problem with m43 is that you have noise even at base ISO which is pretty irritating
Click to expand...

MFT noise at base ISO? You doing it right?

Even my G1 can with care and fingers crossed and a bit of ETTR give good results at ISO 3200.

As for the lens choices, see my reply to Twist but I will repeat that I'm no fan boy for any system and I haven't set out to show any in a particularly good or bad light. I've just chosen the camera and lenses I'd go for and in the case of Sony and MFT the lenses I paid my money for :D
 
owenb said:
to me the size weight makes no difference I always judge by image quality and how easy it is to get that image that your craving.... just my 2 cents
Click to expand...
To me size and weight was the initial driving factor.

I was happy enough with the IQ of my Canon DSLR's especially the 5D but the bulk and weight started to annoy me and to be honest I don't think I was ever that happy with this aspect as modern DSLR's are IMO much bigger and heavier than the 35mm cameras I used to use. CSC's do a lot to redress this.

Bulk and weight was therefore why I jumped on MFT. I was a very early adopter just as I was with the A7 system but with the A7 extra draws were the increase in IQ over MFT and being able to use old manual lenses at their original FoV.

Looking at the whole CSC v DSLR thing now it's not just the bulk and weight for me as I now see advantages in the EVF, WYSIWYG and in view exposure and focus aids. I didn't fully appreciate these things when I first bought into MFT but now I'd hate to lose them.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I knew you'd say this. All of it :D

I chose that lens because I thought it was the closest match to the Sony 35mm f2.8 that I'd be interested in. I could have chosen the Sony 35mm f1.4 but I'm not interested in that lens as it's too big and bulky whereas the Fuji I chose is just within the bounds of what I think would be acceptable. I didn't choose the Fuji f2.8 because although that lens is small 40mm equiv f2.8 doesn't grab me all that much and it's not on my list of possible buys.

The additional bulk of the Fuji bodies also has to be considered.

You can't just carry a lens... you need a camera to put it on... so you need to consider the whole package. Actually these days that's not entirely true as you can get those lens thingies that send the picture to your phone :D

I chose the cameras carefully not to show the Fuji in the worst light but because those are the cameras I have or in the case of Fuji would consider buying. I have an A7 and I have a GX7 and make no excuses when comparing them to the Fuji's I've considered buying.

If I wanted to show Fuji in the worst possible light I'd have included a Panny G5 and 14mm f2.5 but I didn't because I don't own or want the camera, I do have that lens though :D

You say that colour is subjecting and moot and then say that Fuji skin tones are more accurate? Nice one :D

I've been through the size issue what seems like 100 times with you and we seem to be coming at this completely differently.

For me the Fuji's don't offer enough if any real bulk saving over my A7 and they can't match the IQ so the Fuji's are out as far as I'm concerned as a replacement for my A7.

Compared to my MFT I think that I could possibly convince myself that the Fuji's just cross the line ahead of MFT for IQ but that slight advantage has to be balanced against the greater bulk and the sums again just don't add up for me.

I've looked at enough raws to convince myself of the two IQ comparisons I've made. Fuji can't IMO match the A7 for IQ and Fuji don't IMO pull clear enough if at all from MFT IQ. Just my opinions but as it's my money they're the only opinions that counts.

If I could convince myself that I could sell both A7 and MFT then maybe the Fuji could be a one system solution for me but I know that the drop in IQ from my A7 would eat away at me and I'd miss the extra compactness of the GX7.

For me the big Fuji draw is the manual dials and to be honest I think that's it. But at the moment I like having an A7 for ultimate quality and the GX7 for an even smaller package when even the A7 is too much. Actually I also have a Panny LF1 when even MFT is too much and a Panny G1 when I'm going to places where I don't want to take any possessions that cost more than 2p :D
Click to expand...

There comes a point where a system camera that is to small doesnt make sense to a lot of people when they want to buy fast lenses or long zooms, case... GM1. Fair enough, nice and small with no physical controls BUT its going to handle poorly with 'bigger' lenses because its so small. Same with the Fuji XA1.

The cameras I chose are all very comparable in terms of handling and EVF spec. otherwise I couldve chosen the smallest models from each and really made the A7 look bad. But theres no point as I compare like for like.

Yes, I said that but went on to to explain you can still struggle with RAW colour, yes you can correct but it takes more time, so moot because you can fix but it takes time. You seem to think all RAW files are equal when it comes to colour.

But your computer cant even process Fuji files correctly afaik, so how did you do that?
 
Last edited:
I think I must try to stop looking at the Fuji's as the manual dials seem to be the only big draw and I'm pretty sure that will remain the case when the 2 comes out.

No, maybe I don't have a lot of gas. I do like gear but having a very technical background I do try to leave gas behind and focus on what's really important to me which on the gear side is probably more specification than finite ability, for example I don't care if my Olympus 17mm f1.8 isn't the best lens in history as it handles well and the pictures are good enough. In fact the pictures I get from my GX7 + any of my primes are possibly a match for those I got from my 5D. Certainly the GX7 allows me to get shots that would probably have been impossible with the 5D. Having said all that the technical image quality and more than that the look of the A7 files is compelling IMO, even with a legacy prime.

I shot Nikon for 15 or 20 years, then Canon for 10 or twelve years and now MFT and Sony. I seem to be able to resist flitting :D and TBH what some people on the net and indeed on this forum go through just amazes me. Maybe they fancy the assistant in the camera shop :D
 
woof woof said:
For me the Fuji's don't offer enough if any real bulk saving over my A7 and they can't match the IQ so the Fuji's are out as far as I'm concerned as a replacement for my A7.

Compared to my MFT I think that I could possibly convince myself that the Fuji's just cross the line ahead of MFT for IQ but that slight advantage has to be balanced against the greater bulk and the sums again just don't add up for me.

I've looked at enough raws to convince myself of the two IQ comparisons I've made. Fuji can't IMO match the A7 for IQ and Fuji don't IMO pull clear enough if at all from MFT IQ. Just my opinions but as it's my money they're the only opinions that counts.

If I could convince myself that I could sell both A7 and MFT then maybe the Fuji could be a one system solution for me but I know that the drop in IQ from my A7 would eat away at me and I'd miss the extra compactness of the GX7.

For me the big Fuji draw is the manual dials and to be honest I think that's it. But at the moment I like having an A7 for ultimate quality and the GX7 for an even smaller package when even the A7 is too much. Actually I also have a Panny LF1 when even MFT is too much and a Panny G1 when I'm going to places where I don't want to take any possessions that cost more than 2p :D
Click to expand...

Have you actually used a new model Fuji camera Alan? genuine question, as when I was selling up my XT1 to change to FF I compared the A7 to the XT1 side by side in real life use, using both with their kit lenses and when I compared the RAWS on my monitor at home I struggled to see any difference.

For your use as you don't pixel peep, the Fuji system with say a XP2 and XT10 could be a very nice set-up rather than running two different systems. And If you want to use your old FF legacy lenses, from my experience, I think they are better on APSC cameras as they use the center of the lens and you don't suffer edge softness like you do using FF.
 
I pixel peep when comparing gear. Probably shouldn't but I'm only human. No, haven't shot with a Fuji, only fondled them in shops and my pixel peeping comparisons have been done with downloaded files. Yes all these cameras make nice pictures these days but if I thought like that and stopped there I wouldn't need anything but my MFT. For me the Sony files just look better if looking for more than just a nice whole image viewed normally.

I do see the appeal of the Fuji's but I think that if anything typing my thoughts here has just reinforced the feeling that for me the appeal stops at the manual dials and after that either the A7 or MFT suits me better. As I said, going for just one camera maybe the Fuji could be a Goldilocks but I'd miss the A7 quality and the good enough compactness of the RF styled MFT and for me the Fuji gets lost in the middle.

Don't sgree about the legacy lenses. I've used them extensively on MFT and I think they give their best results on FF where they are made to work less hard. Yes only the best central portion is used with smaller systems but that central portion has to work harder and nice though a legacy lens can look on a smaller system I think they'll always look better on a larger one with less magnigication required, that's been my experience anyway and remembering that although an old lens can look nice for whole images and even quite heavy crops these old things probably wont match the technical aspects of good modern lenses across the frame or for things like vignetting and fringing and the like.
 
PS.
Just had a nice compliment from one of gf's friends back home... one of my shots is beautiful and looks like a picture from a magazine. Awwww. How nice :D I used my A7 and Minolta 50mm f1.4 :D
 
woof woof said:
PS.
Just had a nice compliment from one of gf's friends back home... one of my shots is beautiful and looks like a picture from a magazine. Awwww. How nice :D I used my A7 and Minolta 50mm f1.4 :D
Click to expand...

Show us then.;)

I have probably owned north of sixty old lenses to be used on modern cameras and preferred them on apsc, opinions hey. I can't be bothered these days with mf even for land/seascapes.
 
woof woof said:
PS.
Just had a nice compliment from one of gf's friends back home... one of my shots is beautiful and looks like a picture from a magazine. Awwww. How nice :D I used my A7 and Minolta 50mm f1.4 :D
Click to expand...

That's crying out for a photo added under the comment.
 
Anyway- while testing the d810 with the 50mm 1.8d last night I compared it to a similar shot with same settings with the 55mm 1.8 on a7 then a7rii.

The only light in the room was tv and a wall lamp. I shot wide open. The Nikon focused instantly and took a nice shot. The a7 hunted and eventually got there. The a7rii wasn't far behind the Nikon and much faster than the a7.

This image on the camera seemed far nicer to me than the two sonys. I'm not Sony bashing here at all but I guess it made me feeling slightly more comfortable about the fact I'm going to be selling the 55 1.8 and system.
 
addicknchips said:
Anyway- while testing the d810 with the 50mm 1.8d last night I compared it to a similar shot with same settings with the 55mm 1.8 on a7 then a7rii.

The only light in the room was tv and a wall lamp. I shot wide open. The Nikon focused instantly and took a nice shot. The a7 hunted and eventually got there. The a7rii wasn't far behind the Nikon and much faster than the a7.

This image on the camera seemed far nicer to me than the two sonys. I'm not Sony bashing here at all but I guess it made me feeling slightly more comfortable about the fact I'm going to be selling the 55 1.8 and system.
Click to expand...

:muted: :muted:
 
addicknchips said:
Anyway- while testing the d810 with the 50mm 1.8d last night I compared it to a similar shot with same settings with the 55mm 1.8 on a7 then a7rii.

The only light in the room was tv and a wall lamp. I shot wide open. The Nikon focused instantly and took a nice shot. The a7 hunted and eventually got there. The a7rii wasn't far behind the Nikon and much faster than the a7.

This image on the camera seemed far nicer to me than the two sonys. I'm not Sony bashing here at all but I guess it made me feeling slightly more comfortable about the fact I'm going to be selling the 55 1.8 and system.
Click to expand...

And using the D lens, would have been nicer to compare if using the more modern G lens. A little surprised, like you, by the result.
 
Swanseajack said:
And using the D lens, would have been nicer to compare if using the more modern G lens. A little surprised, like you, by the result.
Click to expand...

I'd say it has more to do with nikons colour and noise processing than the lens on that occasion. No doubt in my mind the 55 is better than the D. It's a excellent lens. This is why Ive said in the past not all RAWS and awb are the same sooc, nikons colour science is seriously good.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I'd say it has more to do with nikons colour and noise processing than the lens on that occasion. No doubt in my mind the 55 is better than the D. It's a excellent lens. This is why Ive said in the past not all RAWS and awb are the same sooc, nikons colour science is seriously good.
Click to expand...

I love the way the 55 renders generally. Just in this particular comparison the Sony seemed a little under exposed compared to the d810. This could just be down to personal taste though. At some point I may be able to post images up and you might all tell me I'm talking rubbish.
 
A few comments from a previous GAS addict:

* My Sony a7 was not as good as my Canon 6D at high ISO, and RAWs not as nice at base ISO - but the a7 had better DR. The a7r was incredible IQ wise, but I couldn't tame the shutter shock or controls.
* The a7 was better at high ISO than the Fuji X cameras, but when it got noisy it had a horrible noise pattern (not so the a7r)
* The Fuji X cameras have obviously better high ISO performance than MFT (E-PL5 v X-E1), better low ISO performance (less noise when pushed a bit) and better dynamic range
* Really enjoyed using the MFT cameras (I had three), but ultimately the Fujis were even more enjoyable to use and gave better IQ

Nothing new within the above - in any generation, the largest sensor will perform the best. I've found that the Fuji cameras are the most enjoyable for me to use though, and coupled with the fantastic Fujinon lenses give me results I'm happy with. Plus, my graphite X-T1 is hot. And has a brown strap lol
 
manualfocus-g said:
* Really enjoyed using the MFT cameras (I had three), but ultimately the Fujis were even more enjoyable to use and gave better IQ
Click to expand...
But as I own FF and MFT there's just no room for the Fuji as it just falls in the middle lacking the quality of the A7 and the compact form of MFT RF form. Fuji might be Goldilocks for some but I'm sticking with what I have.

BTW just checked some high ISO images with minimal NR in CS5 and I don't see the pattern noise. Can you post some examples and say how you processed them? BIG boosting maybe?

100% crop of Buddha to shadow area of an ISO 20,000 shot taken in a dark corner of a basement in a Thai temple. There's minimal NR and although there's noise I don't see any objectionable pattern noise. I'd associate that more with boosted Canon files.



Even when boosted two stops with no additional NR I don't see any pattern noise...



Whole image...


And back to the subject of manual lenses, conventional wisdom says that you usually get less good results when you use lenses made for a larger format on a smaller format as they need to work harder due to the higher magnification applied to the image.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
And back to the subject of manual lenses, conventional wisdom says that you usually get less good results when you use lenses made for a larger format on a smaller format as they need to work harder due to the higher magnification applied to the image.
Click to expand...

Shooting a FF lens on a crop sensor means only the centre of the lens is used to cover the crop sensor. Generally, the centre of any lens is the sharpest part so you should get better results because you're cropping the potentially softer edges.
 
woof woof said:
But as I own FF and MFT there's just no room for the Fuji as it just falls in the middle lacking the quality of the A7 and the compact form of MFT RF form. Fuji might be Goldilocks for some but I'm sticking with what I have.

BTW just checked some high ISO images with minimal NR in CS5 and I don't see the pattern noise. Can you post some examples and say how you processed them? BIG boosting maybe?

100% crop of Buddha to shadow area of an ISO 20,000 shot taken in a dark corner of a basement in a Thai temple. There's minimal NR and although there's noise I don't see any objectionable pattern noise. I'd associate that more with boosted Canon files.

And back to the subject of manual lenses, conventional wisdom says that you usually get less good results when you use lenses made for a larger format on a smaller format as they need to work harder due to the higher magnification applied to the image.
Click to expand...

With the greatest of respect, I couldn't give a monkeys with what you're sticking with, I'm just documenting my experience which demonstrated to me that the Fuji system gave clearly better results than micro four thirds. If you are comfortable with the results from your G1 then good for you, but I had one and the sensor was pretty naff.

Going back to high ISO on the a7, when used in low light it has significant chroma noise which results in lots of ugly black dots when NR is applied. I demonstrated this two years ago (v the 6D) and you were on the defensive back then as well. The reality is that for a modern full frame camera, the a7 is not great at high ISO. The a7r was significantly better (I've owned both). Your image looks soft BTW.
 
manualfocus-g said:
With the greatest of respect, I couldn't give a monkeys with what you're sticking with, I'm just documenting my experience which demonstrated to me that the Fuji system gave clearly better results than micro four thirds. If you are comfortable with the results from your G1 then good for you, but I had one and the sensor was pretty naff.

Going back to high ISO on the a7, when used in low light it has significant chroma noise which results in lots of ugly black dots when NR is applied. I demonstrated this two years ago (v the 6D) and you were on the defensive back then as well. The reality is that for a modern full frame camera, the a7 is not great at high ISO. The a7r was significantly better (I've owned both). Your image looks soft BTW.
Click to expand...
do you own a sony a7?
 
For a first gen body the Sony A7 series was a game changer, yes it's not perfect but was and still is ahead of the Fuji XT-1 for IQ vs size. I was also considering the XT-1 but with only a £200 difference at the time between the A7 and XT-1, it was a no brainer for me.
Anybody who says that the Fuji is better for IQ vs Sony needs to apply the simple physics, FF sensors are better than crop for IQ for various reasons, the downside for some is larger lenses.
The Fuji lenses aren't that much smaller when you apply 35mm eqiv factoring.
If you want to go to a Fuji system fine, just be prepared to have to deal with mushy detail which can sometimes occur with the Fuji X-Trans sensor array configuration.
Best of luck. :)
 
Last edited:
I never had the first gen a7 but if high iso is a serious consideration for someone get the a7sii like I did surely that's what it is designed for? ( I have all the 3 a72 bodies and they are all unique to be honest if they had all 3 aspects of the a72 series in one body would be a killer camera but never going to happen)
 
Rizvan said:
For a first gen body the Sony A7 series was a game changer, yes it's not perfect but was and still is ahead of the Fuji XT-1 for IQ vs size. I was also considering the XT-1 but with only a£200 difference between the A7 and XT-1, it was a no brainer for me.
Anybody who says that the Fuji is better for IQ vs Sony needs to apply the simple physics, FF sensors are better than crop for IQ for various reasons, the downside for some is larger lenses.
The Fuji lenses aren't that much smaller when you apply 35mm eqiv factoring.
If you want to go to a Fuji system fine, just be prepared to have to deal with mushy detail which can sometimes occur with the Fuji X-Trans sensor array configuration.
Best of luck. :)
Click to expand...

Gotta admit though, Fuji have got their lenses sorted in less time than Sony. Make a big difference, sensor isn't everything - I don't think people deny that Sony is better on paper.
 
but and it is a big but the sony adapted lenses are in a different stratosphere to the fuji
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top