I go back to the years of a single 50mm prime lens, rolls of b&w film stuffed in my pockets, and developing our own film back in the dark room at the newspaper. "Content" is what mattered. Period. Most of my published shots were slightly out of focus, a little grainy, and exposed close to correct using that little red meter in the viewfinder. But, I got a lot of pictures in the newspaper: quite a few on the front page. A number of those far from perfect pictures framed and hung on the walls of the newspaper office as chosen by the editors. I was fortunate to capture nice "Content". Lots of back stage images, locker room images, and dressing room images where access was denied to the public eye and therefore interest was high for these coveted looks behind the curtain and behind closed doors. And some street shots that covered important current events. I share all of this to make the point that the entire focus of photography has been hijacked by the manufacturers through massive marketing efforts. Everyone is focused on MB, pixels, lens distortion, AF, and a whole list of other over-the-top features that truly have nothing to do with "Content". The camera is not identifying interesting subjects to capture. Whether you own Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Leica, and so on is irrelevant. Look through books of the older masters and you quickly see that "Content" fills the pages of those books. In many cases, the image quality is adequate at best, yet you remain riveted to the page because of how they captured the image.
You absolutely nailed it. How were the "Old Masters" with their inferior analog cameras and lenses able to take such stunning and legendary pictures? "Gearheads", who are longing for the best possible equipment are not really into photography....they are into "gear fetish". I use my PENTAX Spotmatic on a daily basis, for studio work I use this insanely "old fashioned" Nikon D700. It still works very well!
You are spot on with your "gear fetish" attribute. That's a perfect analogy. The exact same scenario is and has been happening with stereo equipment for years. You have people spending in the $100's and some spending in the $1000's on speaker wire. You have people claiming to be able to hear differences in the output of DAC's, tonearms on turntables, different CD players, and the overall improvement of the sound of an amplifier or other component with the use of an amp stand, a suspension shelving system and/or a weight placed on the top of the unit to dampen vibration. People are spending $100's on miniature stands to elevate their speaker wire off the floor as the electrons travel to the speaker. Now I am seeing over-the-top discussions debating the sound of different versions of the same album. People are dissecting the difference in sound output of different tubes (with the same specs) placed in the same component. It's stunning just how successful marketing campaigns have become in both industries. My advice to anyone assembling a stereo is to spend 80% of your budget on the speakers. The sound produced by the drivers and the crossover inside the speaker is what your ears are ultimately hearing. If you are staying strictly digital with CD's and/or streaming as your source material, move the budget allocation to 90% for the speakers. From experience, I can say without hesitation that you can hear the difference between tube amplification and solid state amplification. The tube route is far more expensive to acquire a clean output. There's nearly an undetectable difference between a $150 CD player and a $5,000 CD player. There is nearly an undetectable difference between an integrated amplifier or separates (preamp + amp). Separates are quite a bit more expensive. There's nearly an undetectable difference between a $500 turntable and a $5,000 turntable. My wife and I have done all of these A/B comparisons, in depth, when we assembled a new stereo system not too many years ago. At any cost and using any system, the sound of an album will include some ticks, pops, crackles and hiss sooner than later, if not immediately, depending on the album itself. Albums do wear down, albeit slowly, if you have a very expensive cartridge. CD's offer a flawless sound unless the disc is physically damaged. I was born in 1960. I KNOW albums. I was there in the early 80's when CD's made their entrance. I KNOW CD's. In between, we listened to cassettes and 8-track tapes in our cars and our homes. Albums offer a wonderful tactile experience of holding the album, enjoying the artwork, enjoying the liner notes, placing the album on the turntable, manually cueing the songs with the tonearm, and displaying the albums on shelving if so desired. CD's offer crystal clear sound, the convenience of small storage requirements, and pennies on the dollar to build a collection online. The speakers produce the sound that you hear. The sound difference between the two sources is present (albums v. CD), but it has a lot more to do with the tactile difference between the two as described above. In fact, the more you spend on analog the more you reveal the flaws of the albums that you own. It's comparable to the elevated quality of a magnifying glass or a telescope except we're referring to sound not sight. Consider the sound you hear at a concert or a night club. It's not that good. The din is awful. The distractions are endless. However, you thoroughly enjoy it because of the overall listening experience: being there, seeing it played live, and just taking in the wonderful moment with other like minded fans of said performer(s). Ignore the marketing campaigns for both cameras and stereo equipment. Just pick out an album, a CD, or a streaming choice, press play and simply enjoy the music: spend your hard earned money elsewhere or save it and earn some interest. Study the old masters who shot all of their photographs with a simple 50mm lens, who used their legs to zoom in and out, and placed their entire decision process on Content.
@@TnapvrvideoYou’re correct when it comes to audiophiles, most of them are daft as a brush. I do disagree slightly with your last sentence. A great photographer can see the most mundane thing and take a great photograph of it. A woman in a hijab in Afghanistan becomes a national geographic cover because the photographer knows lighting well and can pick out her eyes perfectly. A cliff face becomes the most photographed beauty spot in America because one photographer understood that it looks best on one particular day of the year at an exact time on that day and returned seven years in a row until he got that shot. These are, with all due respect to that lady, boring photos in every other photographers hands. Great photographers don’t need exciting subjects to make us all sit up and take notice. Why are you out looking for a shark when the most celebrated photo of a fish ever taken was in the photographers back garden of their goldfish?
Nicely stated. All very good points. We're thinking the same. Your beautifully detailed descriptions of the woman on the cover shot, the cliff face, and the goldfish pond. Those celebrated shots were masterfully taken. That said, I still think "Content" (and the unstated story behind the image) is the true capture. Our subjective views aside, these amazing images had nothing to do with the camera brand, etc. which was truly the point of my post. I believe I know the image you are referring to of the woman on the cover with the blue eyes, and I am guessing an El Capitan or Half Dome shot by Ansel Adams. I don't know the fish image off hand. In your cited examples, the image was superbly shot by a highly gifted photographer. Someone who has insight, intuition, and skills to support their exceptional, creative eye furthering the point that the equipment does not instill these inherent skills into the owner. There's a B&W image by Dorothea Lange of a migrant women shot during the depression: one of a larger series. An image that you, no doubt, are quite familiar with given the depth of your post. That photo is stunning. It's not perfect with regards to clarity and focus. It might very well have ended up on a magazine cover though its content may have prompted censorship at the time; I don't know. All that aside, it tells a story. It reveals a devastating truth and a sad reality. It's a stunning capture requiring the level of skill you described in your examples. Since that image, and most likely before that image, there have been seemingly countless images of woman in all types of scenes, conveying all types of emotional feedback and viewer response. Yet, we have in our two posts identified two of the better known to date though some would argue there's a Marilyn Monroe shot worthy of this discussion or an image of Julia Childe or Amelia Earhart. You would identify the mastery of the photographer who took the image to a higher realm, and I would agree 100%. We'd both admire their demonstrated ability. Never in our discussion would we bother to mention the camera or the equipment used. I am not sure I would agree entirely that the subject isn't critically important in the overall appeal of an image. I think the subject (aka Content or Story) are the magnet pulling the viewer deeper into the photograph. If I were viewing a gallery exhibition and I came across two beautifully executed photographs of a fishing pier that were hanging side by side on the wall, one was simply set in the foreground of an empty seascape while the other had a rather tired, but actively used fishing boat tied to the pilings, I see myself investing more time and emotion viewing the image with the boat. Having a significant background in boating and fishing, I can imagine myself seeing things within that boat's image, its deck content, its equipment that would jolt a distant memory or prompt a flashback from my earlier lifetime. Afghanistan where I have not been, Yosemite where I actually have been and did climb Half Dome, Julia Childe who amazingly I did meet in her home at a photo shoot of her birthday party (I was the lowly equipment carrier), and the Depression which was before my time as were Monroe and Earhart are references to iconic, emotionally charged subjects which I feel advance their potential for long-term success as images when photographed well. I do truly feel that subject is the lasting ingredient. We'll all stop and admire a superbly executed image where lighting and everything else was done to perfection. I don't think it's the photograph we'll remember the longest without invested emotion and memory to keep it alive in our mind.
Great Video. In many ways confirms my view that changing camera/systems does not necessarily improve the images or enjoyment in the photographic experience. At various times I've been a freelance photographer, but have always retained an interest in photography as a hobby. Now long retired I can recall the problems of obtaining sharp well exposed images and hours in the darkroom to achieve them! Many cameras now regarded as classics, such as the Leica screw cameras, the Mamiya twin lens reflexes, & the various Bronicas, and some early Nikon F's, were a pain to operate and results, better than those achievable using the more mundane/cheaper cameras of the day we're often hard to come by. However what often made it all worthwhile, was the user experience, and which camera made you want to go out and take the shot, where cameras like the Leica IIIf & Summitar lens, really excelled! Today's digital mirror less cameras are so good, and great images are so readily achievable. The law of diminishing returns still applies, and changing cameras/systems is so expensive that you really want to ensure that the "new" camera/lens not only performs significantly better than your existing item or gives you greater satisfaction in use. Recently I became dissatisfied with my Fujifilm X-H2 photographic experience and looked to change possibly to the Leica Q or SL system. I've been with Fuji "X" since 2014, and knew the "move" would be expensive. In the end I decided that the Leica experience would be different, but hardly better. I remembered how much I enjoyed the original form factor and relative lightness of the X-Pro1 encouraged me to go out and take photos. Somehow the X-H2, however good the results just didn't inspire me in the same way - being excellent was not good enough! It was only then I realised that my X-Pro2, although not nearly such a capable camera was the camera I needed - one that I could truly love...
Well said. Having joy using the camera is way under rated. That's what make you wanna take picture in the first place. I've been a long time fuji user for both professional and personal stuff, with the xt10 and xt2 + the usual prime lenses. But I've got a friend who works at Sony and had some internal sales going on with insane deals on Cameras... Basically 30% cheaper than used market. Too good to pass especially because video became big part of my paid gigs. Got the A7iii, the 24-70 2.8, 16-35 2.8, 70-200 f4, 35mm 1.8, 55mm 1.8, 85mm 1.4. Thing is I never enjoyed shooting them. It yielded nice results of course but I missed the fuji experience and lot. It became a tool. The EVF also sucked and colors weren't great in camera, making you feel like your were taking crappy pictures only to find out in post that the files were great... A rather stressful experience imo. I just decided to sell most of the gear for an xt4 that go for cheap and that covers my video needs. I'll keep a few Sony lenses around as my friend will most likely have some more deals in the future and I can test stuff out. As a sidenote, the only lens that really made me kind of enjoy picking up the sony was the lightweight Zeiss 35mm f2.8. Tiny, with a lot of character. Oh and the ricoh GR IIIX also rocks in its on way :) .
had been 2,5 years in fuji , i love the classic chrome for sure,, made my work easy, now with a74 + 50mm f1.2 mostly,. what can i say ,, mostly shoot in wedding project i must never miss focus in any moment and even in cramped and messy rooms I can still produce beautiful images because shallow depth of field, good bokeh and minimal noise are important ! :) ,, tobe honest ,, gear behind the man is telling the different🙏
I'm now a FF user with the Z5, BUT miss my Fuji kit, the likes of the XH1 and XT4, their shutters feel very special and feathery. And as you, the difference in IQ is very minimal. It is there but when you look at size, weight and cost....APSC is good enough for 90% of people including myself....I may well return to APSC one day soon.
I also went through several camera changes, from Canon to Nikon to Fuji to Sony and now I've bought the X-T5. Your video strongly resonates with me as the Fuji system is more fun to shoot with. The Sony is great for it's AF but doesn't make me want to go out and shoot. For now I have both systems but will be deciding whether I'll be keeping the Sony system going forward. My favourite lens on the Sony is the Sigma 85mm 1.4 that I own, curious to see how the newer Fuji lenses compare.
1 minute and 50 seconds in and I hear a lot of "if I only had this or that". Of course there nothing wrong with with liking gear but don't think you'll make better pictures because of it. Great photographers can make take great pictures with even a kids toy camera. Also, if FF is better than APSC then that means we all should aspire to get a medium format camera because that should own the heck out of a measly FF right? Or lets go for a technical camera! Try shooting with film and you'll soon find out what is important. It's not the hammer but the person wielding it.
@@cirrus1964In my experience, the photographers we all celebrate and agree are real photographers care deeply about what they used. They are the people who bumped up against a cameras limitations and demanded more, and as they had a voice, camera manufacturers listened and designed to their specifications. They are hugely demanding as to what their camera can do - and have the sponsorships to not have to pay for it themselves.
There's only one problem here - he has compared a sony camera that costs about 700$ more than the X-T4 and is 1 Gen above. If you want to compare between these 2 cameras that's cool, but if you want to compare the whole brand - you should go with the X-T5 (which is insanely better than the X-T4)
…the Sony is just a tool… that is the truth about most of the brands. Fuji (and Leica) simply engage you to take the Cam with you because of size, weight, usability, design and passion
I kind of agree but once you start going XT5 route with a very big, fast prime, it’s actually quite a similar setup to an A7IV. A7C is actually much smaller and lighter. It’s hard to believe but it really is. But, the colours on Fuji are simply untouchable. There’s no right and wrong really. I’m very torn between this setup. Ideally, money no option, I’d have the Sony for jobs, and an X100 series for family and EDC haha.
@@POVwithRC MGS ‼️ Busted!! Window shopping haha. That bloody X100 series and your XE4 started all of this. True though, for EDC, it’s just the perfect size. Replaces the phone and makes it an event. But not paying these ludicrous prices with the new one en route soon. But then I do like my different focal lengths and Sony autofocus. Anyway, truly not in any rush. Work waggon getting squared away next month.
The biggest reason after much research and shopping that I bought my barely used X-t3 kit three years ago was performance for the price. I looked at all of the FF choices. They all cost more for just the body that what I paid for the X-T3 with the 18-55, a grip and extra batteries. And, it was still in the original box all still wrapped up like new. In addition, I have been able to afford high quality lenses like the xf56 f1.2(V1.0) and the xf90mm f2 on the used market. I got each for under $500 US and both in like new condition with some patient shopping and a bit of luck! The FF lenses are just way too expensive for me. Finally, as an amateur/enthusiast photographer, the X-T3 is still more than capable enough for me. And, it's a beast of a camera. I take it out on trail hiking all the time. Not sure if I'll be shopping again any time soon, but for now I'm very happy with the X-T3. Thanks for the overview of your experience!! Have a great day.
I agree with you on the Xt3 being using mine now for nearly two years, love the Fuji colors, and I really love the way the camera looks. But the only downside is auto focus! I miss some really great shots and at the same time hit some great ones. But miss more than I would like to, the auto focus is not reliable! I wanted to upgrade to the Xt5 but no battery grip for that one, as I leave the battery grip on my XT 3 because with my big hands having the battery grip feels a lot better to me and I can hold on to the camera all day when using the grip. I look at the Xh2s and Xh2 but at those prices and the looks might as well go canon as I am really thinking about the R6mk 2 especially first for Af and second the second the color science, and third while not that important but welcome the bigger sensor. Next to Fuji colors i like the canon colors also. I really don’t want to make the jump, but for me the Af on my Xt3 is just to unreliable. The only way to make sure you hit shot is to manual focus and that is good in some cases! I would love to use my XT3 professionally but the AF is just to unreliable especially in lower light conditions! Beautiful camera to shoot with but it would even be more enjoyable if I didn’t miss those key shots sometimes it just takes away from the experience. FuJifilm looks like they improved the AF on the newer cameras, especially the XH2S. The XT5 I really wanted to give that one a go but no battery grip why Fuji? The XT line I just like the way they look and the user experience! But having more hit rate is more important to me especially if I am going to use the camera in a professional setting!! Thus Better Af is more important to me, come on Fuji I need a more reliable AF and bring back the battery grip for the XT6? Not every body has small hands.
@@mr02gixxer1000or try the screw-on grip from Smallrig. Really happy with it, also with bigger lenses (in my case adapted Sigma 18-35 with Fringer Pro adapter)
You nailed it. Most youtubers advertise a system switch like money grows on trees. For people like me, It's more of a hobby than a profession, and like you mentioned, I got a used xt3, an 18-55 and a viltrox 23mm, all for lesser than what a full frame body alone costs.
When you said "that the Difference in image quality and such will not make my photos any better or my video's any more interesting" you hit the nail on the head for most of us. There are pro's shooting with older gear getting really amazing photos and video. But here we all are, rationalize our new camera purchase. Let face the facts, the camera companies are in business to sell you a new camera ever couple of years. So if they can add newer features and options your 2 year old camera doesn't have to get you to jump, then they are successful at their job. Reason why so many RUclips Photography/Videographer influencers are packing around $20k worth of gear, because camera companies give them the "New stuff" so it builds hype and they want you to want that new camera or lens.
You literally don't know what the heck you are talking about. Just another person ranting to justified making himself feel better about keeping his old cameras. Sony revolutionized the mirrorless cameras, something that Canon and Nikon didn't even considered until Mirrorless became super popular. Camera tech has to move forward, not backward. Sony is moving it forward with Canon and Nikon following. But it seems like you're the type who thinks all new cameras are just niches and offers nothing new or revolutionary. I'm glad you're not working in the R&D department. Better yet, stop using your smartphone and go back to using an old flip-phone. These new cameras you're talking about were made by us, the users. We tell the companies what we want to see and how they can improve on it. They listened to us and implement the features in the next model thus giving us many reasons to upgrade. If we don't say anything or give any feedbacks, then I'm sure Canon, Nikon and Sony would be out of business by now. Camera companies gives them new stuff to try out, not to keep dude. Reason why they do so is because they want to prove to the world that their products are amazing and revolutionary. I don't see you going out there and reviewing the newest lenses or cameras. But its easier for you to talk bias since you're just a bias photographer yourself. The more the merrier and majority of these companies back up their claims too. Can you do the same? Otherwise, keep talking nonsense to justify keeping your old gears my friend.
@@harryvuemedia5106 Are you serious about it? We're talking about how camera gear upgrade translates into the perceivable improvement of your work while what you put down there was just a bootlick of tech company. I'm not saying all that is not worth it but it's still not the decisive factor at the end of day in your photography or videography skill. Image quality has reached a point of diminishing returns. The investment in switching from one camera to another can't usually justify the upgrade. I have been an event photographer for 4 years and I'm still happy with the photos from my XH1 and Nikon Z6. The essence of photography lays behind the brain behind the camera not the camera itself. Photography is a form of art not fully quantifiable by means of tech. It matters to a certain point then it doesn't any more.
@@harryvuemedia5106 Just keep consuming. Don't think, just keep buying new stuff. What's that? 2 year old model doesn't have the new hardware? You need to chuck that thing into the garbage and take out a loan to buy the newly released camera! The newer and better technology, the better your photography will be, no more worries of finding a good composition or timing, don't let old tech hold you back!
@@jac1207 it did improved it dude. a7iii to a7iv is a massive jump, not a small one. A9ii to a9iii is another massive leap in photography. There are cameras like the a7riii to a7riv that wasn't a huge leap. But yes, let's hear it from you who have no work to show us. Let's see your work and prove me wrong. Show me everything you have and prove me wrong. My work is available, go watch it and tell me how my work didn't improve again. Otherwise, keep your opinion to yourself.
@@jac1207 Someone deleted my comment again. I guess they are so insecure that they have to delete it because they don't want people hearing the facts. What 2 year old models that new models dont have? A lot of things dude. A7iii to a7iv was a huge leap. A7iii doesn't have 10-bit colors so a7iv filled in that hole. a9ii has a rolling shutter while a9iii revolutionized the camera world again with its global shutter. Same thing with a7sii to a7siii and a7Riv to a7Rv. Show me your fudging work and stop hiding behind a fake account because of your insecurities. Talk so much sh*t but can't back it up besides spitting out gibberish.
Great vlog subject. I understood your dilemma, however...I just sold off all of my Full Frame Nikon gear, that is 4 FF bodies and 10 lenses. I use all Fujifilm now, that is 3 x GFX Medium Format cameras and 7 Fujifilm XT series bodies, i.e. 2 x XT3's, 2 x XT4's, 2 X XH-2's and a cute XT20 for street stuff. I also own 25 Fuji lenses. I sold my Nikon gear as I hadn't touched them in over 2 years. All of my pro shoots have been shot with Fujifilm of which 60% have been with the XT's and 40% with the GFX's. I was published in VOGUE and ELLE with the XT series and VOGUE, ELLE, GRAZIA and major advertorial campaigns with the GFX and XT's. I think most cameras today can do a great job and most are overkill.
A year or so ago, I sold some Nikon things and start a conversation with the buyer, I commented about going mirrorless with Fuji, and the buyer told me that Fuji wasn't a good option for pro use, that Fuji is unreliable and nothing more than a toy.
Following your channel and IG. You've proven that it's the shooter and not the gear. There are those that pushed the ideology that you're only a professional if you use a full frame and up and look down at those that don't. Your work shows that on any modern camera, even APS-C, you can do pro work. Plus you've been published in major publications. I met a speaker at a ohotography event and he also showed his work for a major publocation and he use an old entry-level DSLR just to prove a point to the new ones that it isn't the gear first and foremost.
At least you were honest enough to admit you were caught by the marketing. I've been shooting for 15 years now and holy moly did social media created huge fomo and gear envy. Less gear, more art!
Did you ever consider the Nikon ZF? Seems to be the perfect blend between the retro feel of Fujifilm and the amazing capabilities of a modern full frame camera.. And the best thing is that you can easily adapt all your Sony lenses to Nikons Z mount 👍🏻
I know SONY is a better camera. It's just ugly for me and honestly, I want to enjoy the camera, touch and having it when walking and taking pictures. There is many good girls with good heart and good soul, but if the chemistry is not there, it's not there, they may be better and nicer, whatever, if I like this naughty, not excellent but good for me Fuji girl, what can i do?. Fujifilm is a nicest camera, I like using it and taking pictures with it ❤️❤️❤️. Just so simple.
I've been a photographer since the 1980's, I've had many full frame cameras, mainly canon. I picked up a Fuji X-E3 with some primes a few years ago. I wanted a light carry and the manual dial controls and aperture rings on the lenses appealed to me in a nostalgic way. My Canon R5 is relegated nowadays. The Fujifilm gear has rejuvenated my love for photography and reignited my passion in a way I've not felt since my film camera days. I love getting the image right in the camera with the film emulations and recipes. I spent hours in lightroom tweaking RAW images, but no more. I now have a Fuji X-Pro 3 and I love it. The Canon is clinically better but the Fuji has the soul and I love the tactile experience of the dials, the whole experience is superior and I am getting out with the camera much more often. The Canon Images are scientifically sharp and precise but my Fuji images are gloriously imperfect. I have recipes that match the look my old 35mm Film pictures, perfectly. I'd lose the canon before I'd give up my fuji gear.
Went from X-T1 to X-H1 and now to A7RV. Actually wanted to stay Fuji. Been with them for over a decade. However, was tired of the poor AF performance and got super excited when the X-H2 was announced. People were raving it as finally Sony/Canon level. Went out to give it a whirl but conflicted. Yea, AF was way better, only because it was so bad, but not fully satisfying. Didn't feel polished. Most notably the AF green box always lagged behind the subject. Not as sticky. While standing at the store bummed about my experience I gave a Sony a try. "whuut..." the AF was so good. What have I been missing out all these years. Yup, now I am an owner of an A7RV and sold all my dozen Fuji lenses for half it's cost. A7RV felt like an X-H3 of the future made available today for more money. Better in every way. More MP, nicer IBIS, tilt+flip lcd, and AI AF that works perfectly. All the things people praise Fuji for I didn't care much of. Color science, retro look, tactile button/knobs, jpeg recipes film simulation, the aesthetic or inspiration. I'm geeky & just use the tool to get the shot I want then fiddle with the image on my laptop. Suppose I never really fit the Fuji hipster profile and was at heart more a techy Sony. Totally fine with being what people call "soul-less"
Yeh I want it to work, not have a “soul” whatever that means, the Fuji dials are useless and slow, adjusting simple things requires too many steps, the AF still sucks even if better it falls apart if the subject is a bit further away or if light conditions aren’t perfect, horrible corner wobble with wider lenses and the sensor high ISO noise and low light performance lag about 10 years behind full frame. I went from an X-S20 to a ZV-E1 and the dials are more precise and feel higher quality, the grip has more clearance so your knuckles don’t rub against the lens, it’s a sexy camera that’s so tiny but has the AI processor of the A7R5, the legendary sensor of the A7S3 with the firmware of an FX3 with other AI functionality, it’s so inspiring to pick this incredible machine knowing it has all this power and it’s still much smaller than the subpar APS-C Fuji bodies…
"fuji hipsters" lmao pretty much sum it up whats going on the internet lately, i wanted to get into fuji after years of hiatus with an entry level canon dslr and wanted to get a cheap body in order to start collecting the lenses but the prices are just absurd, even for 10yrs old bodies at $600+, i gave up and went with sony
@@DigiDriftZone Depends what you are shooting...Wddings/Events yeah Sony FF does the trick much easier than Fujifilm crop.But for street photography fujifilm x-pro 3 is a better tool in my opinion than any Sony camera and lets be honest Sony has the best AF but is known to have the nastiest color.But for fashion or Boudoir a Fujifilm GFX will knock the sox off the Sony a7r5 so in my opinion it really gets down to what you are shooting.
The whole “Sony doesn’t have a soul” is tired and a personal thing. I buy cameras to take pictures, not to make me look cool or to inspire me. The places I go and the people I am with is what inspires me to shoot. I do get excited with new gear and new lenses but having a camera with me matters more than what it looks like. I own both Sony and Fujifilm cameras and really enjoy both. I have always had Sony and currently have an a7c and an a7iv and fujifilm x-e4 and x-pro3. I enjoy the shooting experience with Fujifilm but still prefer the results I get from Sony. I end up editing the film simulations anyway and eventually got tired of trying new recipes. The hunt for the best recipe became exhausting so I just edit instead. The x-pro3 is a beautiful camera but I care more about enjoying the process, being able to capture moments and be confident that the results will be sharp and in focus a majority of the time. You can say it is user error but there are somethings I can count on from Sony. It might not feel like a “soul” to some but it feels like a buddy I can always count on to me.
The whole video is basically saying his Sony camera is too good therefore it lacks soul and he misses the shutter sound of the Fuji. I take my Sony A7IV everywhere. I've gotten it wet, full of snow, dirt and sand. Right now it still has dirt from the last time I went to the mountains. It's a workhorse and I enjoy using it because I actually go out and take pictures of my adventures. I'm not worried about "soul" or if I look cool with it. It's not always about the process of taking the photo. Most of the time, it's me wanting to quickly capture a moment and go right back to living the moment before it ends instead of tinkering with non customizable dials and poor autofocus because I wanted a camera with soul.
@@fivefivesix-sevensixtwo4114 honestly this video is pretty grating to listen to even for a typical broke amateur who doesn't care too much about the results of shots (like me) as well. Man starts off the video rambling about his insecurity of not having muh _"full frame image quality"_ and proceed to give backhanded "praise" for the "inferior" camera in the latter half of the video. He didn't even mention value per cost, lighter weight and typically more compact size of smaller sensor cameras that makes them less of a hassle to carry around. Facts that might actually "inspire" someone to take more pictures just from the added convenience alone, and not vague "feeling" and "soul" that pretentious people often spout.
About 18 months ago I moved from an XT3 and traded in for a Original Sony A9 I had found i was struggling with action photography with Fuji and have been nothing but impressed with the AF of the A9 I missed the film simulations of the Fuji and the video functions aren’t the up the Xt3 but as a predominantly stills photographer couldn’t be happier!
Full frame just makes it easier to get a shot most the time and gives you the extra flexibility of an extra stop of light. The difference I found was that I could finally get good results out of a zoom lens. What I will say though is that sometimes restrictions help inspire creativity… the struggle helps us enjoy taking the photo more. I started on full frame with the original Sony A7 in 2014 (which definitely was a struggle) and I have had the same feeling as I have upgraded through the years. I am really thinking that all this technology is separating us from the process, and that’s why we are seeing people gravitate to systems like Fuji with all the manual dials, the Leicas, and why there has been such a surge back into film photography. Hope this makes sense…
@@ashtonal.2634 There's a few reasons. Larger sensors (often) deliver more dynamic range for editing. Another significant advantage is depth of field. For example, an f2.8 lens on an aps-c body is equivalent to an f4 lens on a full-frame body. The same thing is true 'upgrading' from a full-frame camera to a medium format camera. Except medium format cameras are typically slower, bulkier and more expensive. Many photographers find full-frame to be the perfect balance. It's also the digital equivalent of 35mm film. Hope this helps.
There are tradeoffs and accommodations regardless of format size. Also, as the technology advances, i.e., greater dynamic range, better low light capability, higher resolution, etc,. we are presented with choices as to whether at some point we are willing to go with gear that is more manageable in size and handling or rather choose larger gear that gives optimal IQ. As so many photographers rarely print their work but mostly share it online, there is a certain absurdity to working with 50 and 60 MP cameras that are twice the size of 35mm counterparts that we used in the film days. I realize that ultimately this argument may result on most of us photographing just with our phones, which may be a day coming rather soon. In any case, my bet is that we will see a trending towards the former as a matter of sheer practicality.@@nicholassmith7723
In which way does fullframe have an extra stop of light? F1.8 is f1.8 on all formats. F1.8 on your phone is just as bright as f1.8 on fullframe. That's why when you set up your camera with the exact same settings as on your phone, you get an image of the exact same brightness.
Full frame does NOT give an extra stop of light. F 1.8 provides the same amount of light no matter the size of the sensor. With two sensors of exactly identical sensor technology, a larger sensor will have better noise levels at equivalent exposures, but not brighter. But as seen with things like the XH2s, not all sensors are created equal, and that camera competes with most FF for noise as well. Full frame being brighter is a misunderstanding of the physics.
I love my A7 IV. I've never shot jpeg or wanted to, so I just don't get it, when it comes to that. When you said that with the Sony you lose the 'fashion aspect' of having a camera, I felt like you gave away the hidden hipster chalice for a second. I've always felt the photographer puts the soul into the camera, and not the other way around. Before I got the A7 IV, I had a Nikon D80, which I bought in 2008 or so. It had a lot of limitations (no video, relatively low megapixel, all the hangups of a CCD sensor) and many people would think of it as ugly. While I have nostalgia attached to it and would never sell it, I also always just saw it as a tool, a means to an end. I only upgraded last year to the A7 IV because I actually needed more sensor resolution and video capability. I still use the Nikon as a second camera for BTS stuff for my projects because it's still a perfectly capable camera even after all these years. That's it, though: They're just cameras, and they're nothing without the person. My only criticism of the Sony A7 IV would the menus. I get around some of that with the desktop app when I shoot tethered and a bit with the mobile app. But the menus are a bit of a drag.
@@cristibaluta I wonder if you were a painter, if you would settle for nothing less than the most beautiful palette knife. Or the most beautiful brush. I'm happy with having versatile tools that work. The art comes from the artist.
I don't feel like my a7iv is just a tool, I find it inspiring and I love the design. It's interesting to me how often people will say Sony bodies are 'boring' or even 'soulless' 💀. While I agree x100v or the xpro for example have a different kind of charm and I appreciate those a lot, I think the design of the xt5/xt4 is no more beautiful or charming than the modern Sony bodies. Fujis colour recipes in camera are super cool and I wish sony would have the same. I like to play with the creative looks in my a7iv and those are cool but the fuji ones are better.
I just went through the same switch for very similar reasons. I sold all my fuji gear including the x-t5 to pick up Sony a7iv but I had rather the opposite realization about my gear. I have found that for me the camera in my hand is just a tool, as long as the tool does what I tell it, I could care less what dials or buttons it has or how it looks. I found leaving the retro Fuji style liberating, rather than worrying about how each lens looked on the camera and what people would think of my choices (most don't care BTW), I have focused so much more on the photos I am creating. The switch has left me with a beautiful and profound realization that for me, it's what's on the card that matters, not the tool that captured it. I do have to say one thing that I love about Sony, when you ask it to focus on someone's eye, there is no question and no hesitation, it just does it and does it well, I really appreciate that.
Why anyone would care how it looks psychically is beyond me. Lol my XT5 is all black and so are my lenses. It’s more the color science and Fuji simulations (of course)
Same man, though I'm using an XT-20, but it's autofocus and face detection is wacky (even with fujinon lenses), my friend who uses A6300 (similar price to XT-20) rarely misfocus, and it's blazing fast autofocus. I'm saving up to move to A6400 with a zoom (Tamron 17-70) and a Sigma 56mm), then probably upgrade the body to A6700.
"I do have to say one thing that I love about Sony, when you ask it to focus on someone's eye, there is no question and no hesitation, it just does it and does it well..." It's extremely hard to quantify just how important this is. I have a 6 1/2 month old daughter that I have been shooting relentlessly with my 10 year old Sony a6000. The autofocus is simply not good enough for me; too many shots where the focus is not on her eye, which is where I want it to be 99% of the time. As a result, I'm looking at jumping not only to a newer Sony camera, but also to a full frame Sony camera. However, since I'm not a professional, and I don't need dual-card slots, I'm looking at the Sony A7C II as my next camera. The fact that it has a body just about as small as the a6000, has the internal sensors/guts of the A7IV, but ALSO has the crazy AI autofocus capabilities of the A6700/A7rV. Hopefully, I'll be getting the additional detail over APS-C that I've been craving for years, while still being a compact, fun-to-use body.
I sold my Sony a7IV with 24-70 f2.8, 16-35 f2.8, Tamron 70-180 f2.8, 85mm 1.4, 35mm f1.8 to Fuji used XT4 after watching your video, thanks man for motivating.
Damn I got pretty much the same gear and cam, and I am here because i thinking about a switch to Fuji, to the xt4 haha. Tell me your experience please 🙏
@@kevin-sj3wt tbh, because I was thinking about to just hold the other stuff, that’s why a xt4, if I decide to sell my Sony stuff, then it would be a xt5 for sure
I switched to Fujifilm and Sony a couple of years ago, because I wanted to fulfill 2 dreams, own a Fuji camera, and buy my first FF camera. Started with an XT3 and Sony 7a3, added the XT4 a bit later. Although I indeed see my Sony having more technical capabilities in specific situations, I'd never wanted to miss my Fujifilm colors and simulations, and just the experience of holding such a camera in my hands. It always feels like first love every time a grab a Fuji camera, whereas when I take my Sony camera it is truly more for specific trips and situations, so it's more like an assignment than just the pleasure of doing photography. So I fully feel and agree with Tobis' thoughts and remarks here! Well done video!
The film simulations recipes alone just make me want to shoot more and experiment with the colour. I think Fuji cameras just bring back a bit of that film shooting experience where the photos you should just require minimal processing. With other cameras, because of how chunky they are and how clinical every photo looks, it feels more like a chore
I’m heavily invested in Sony gear, which I intend to keep, but I am probably going to buy a Fuji XT-30ii & 27mm f2.8 just for some street fun. The Fuji. kit won’t cost more than a Sony FF lens!
Nice video. I can really relate to a lot of what you said about Sony. I had a Fuji X-T2 with several lenses and was very happy with it, but was always curious about Full Frame. I finally caved and purchased a Sony A7III, which is a great camera by all means. I also picked up the Sony 24mm GM, which really is an incredible lens, but in the end after the shine wore off the A7III, I just didn’t find any real joy in using it. Like you said, it felt more like a “tool,” and not something I wanted to grab and go shoot photos with. More and more, the A7III would sit on my shelf while the old X-T2 was the camera I was walking out the door with, even though the Sony outperformed it in every technical way. I ended up selling all my Sony gear and still have my X-T2 today. There really is something special about Fuji, despite all its quirks and flaws.
@@josephinevera9966 Me as well. I have a Canon R6 now, which I really enjoy, but my X-T2 still gets plenty of love and use. And it’s built like a tank!
I use a Q2 and Olympus/ OM M4/3. I’ve also used an M11. Most of the time I can’t tell which photo was taken with which camera. “Full frame” isn’t an upgrade and smaller sensors aren’t second best. They are choices we make depending on our priorities. We don’t all have the same needs and preferences. I think its great that we have some much choice.
Love my Fuji XT3, none of the newer cameras tempt me and so many professionals out there are still shooting with the XT3 some even with the XT2. In fact some of my favorite images I have taken were with the XT2!
I have the A7s. My walking around lens is the Sony Zeiss 16-35/4. It's silly how little light it needs to take photos (especially with the oss). As someone who remembers how groundbreaking Kodak's p3200 was, this camera is simply magic. I've been using it with only silent shutter for over a year now. It seems to be flawless. The EFV gives you a visual confirmation of taking a photo by going black for a moment.
We talk in FF/35mm equivalent because it's a standard by which we can compare FoV between systems, not because FF is the goal. The goal is different for everyone, depending on what/how/in what conditions they shoot. I switched from FF (and not some old outdated camera, but A7R V and A1) to MFT (OM-1) and I am still happy with my decision 9 months later. Are some aspects worse? Of course. But there is no perfect camera, or camera system, there are compromises to be made, no matter what you buy and how much you spend. Also what's stopping you from creating a custom picture profile on the Sony, just like you did on the Fuji?
Another way to look at the “soul” issue: so much of this is branding and identity. Cameras are machines; they don’t have souls. We do. But marketing and nostalgia and fashion affect how we feel when we take photographs and what kind of character or personality we project onto them. I can understand nostalgia-at least it derives from from lived history, our own or our relatives’ or heroes’-but fashion and marketing seem extra superficial. Do we feel warm and good and groovy shooting a Fuji because of a true heart connection, or because we’ve been manipulated by calculating mega-wealthy corporatations? Do we want to be *seen with our camera*, to look like a hipster in a retro colored ad-is that what actually makes us feel all warm and fuzzy and “passionate”-or do we want to take great pictures? I’ve gotten pretty attached to my Sonys. They seem like my children because of my experiences with them and joy in those experiences. I’d have trouble giving them up, even though I have positively drooled for a Fuji, Leica, and some hipster point and shoots. I’m just asking questions. I love the look of Fujis and other cameras as much as anyone.
Sony has adaptable picture profiles that will give you JPEGS exactly as Fuji does. You just have to customize if you don’t like Sony’s picture profiles. Making your custom profiles is part of the camera experience . Fuji is more for the instant gratification user. Sony for the experimenter who is curious to know all the possibilities his camera is capable of delivering. The one area I dislike about Sony is that Canon has a much more comfortable feel in the hand.
dude I did the exact same thing as you, I had the XT4 and XT20 and I wanted to get to the next lvl of hobby photography and video so I made the switch to Sony. I followed the Japanese creator AUXOUT a lot and he did some amazing videos with the Sony so that is what really sold it to me. After purchasing it, my wife was really happy with the performance (50mm F1.2) however I noticed right away that it is bloody heavy and I missed all the dials on my Fuji (including the shutter sound, I didn't even realize). I never once felt the urge to pick it up and go out to do street photography with it. Now I'm in the same conundrum of wanting to switch back but don't wanna make all the losses (my wife will kill me) she would not understand if I explain it to her lol
AUXOUT's stuff is amazing! Inspired me too. But then when you start to look at it, it's more about his skill and combination of equipment than it is actually the camera. You can do what he does on an xt4 with the right lenses/filters and a gimbal setup etc. So I just decided to chill and not go after the FF thing so much and just get better at using the xt4.
@@SuperALBSUREabsolutely man, I’ve realized it’s more about skills than anything, he had that one video by Fuji but it didn’t look anything like his Sony ones (maybe they didn’t pay him enough 😅). Good choice, I’ve been wanting to switch back too
I bought my first dSLR 20 years ago. Back then everything decent was really, really expensive. A 1 gig compact flash card was $300 US. I bought a Nikon d100 (6 megapixel) and took many good images with it - as did many of my fellow photographers. I eventually bought the next model up - the d200. That served me well... and like you - I always wanted to go full frame. I love Nikon's ergonomics, as I could do so much without looking at the camera... there's a reason why so many photojournalists use them. When the time came to make the change - I almost bought a friend's Nikon system... but then I was really intrigued by the technology of Sony's mirrorless offerings. I ended up getting the Sony A7R2 - and loved the portraits I could take with it. I do, however, still hate the menu on that camera. I've recently picked up the ZV-E1 to use for video - and the autofocus system along with the low-light capability of that camera is amazing. I'm eyeballing a new portrait camera and haven't settled on which one, yet. It's not that important, as the A7R2 with good glass continues to deliver amazing portraits. After you get totally comfortable with the Sony system - you'll probably find that they have a soul... it's just carefully hidden deep in the menu. ;-)
A month ago with the 2023 Winter Deals, I sold my main camera Fujifilm X-T1 , XF 16f2.8, XF 23f2 & XF 35f2 and use the money to buy a brand new Lumix S5 + S20-60 f3.5-5.6 and S50 f1.8 for less than the Fujifilm X-T5 Body alone. I am blown away. I love everything about this S5. The only issue I have is the weight but it is compensated by how good and feature packed the camera is. Fully Weather sealed too. Will use this for my gig. For an EDC, I sold my travel camera Lumix GX8 & Leica DG 12-60 f2.8-4 and bought a mint condition Nikon Z50 with Z 16-50mm, Z 50-250mm and Z 28mm f2.8 without extra expense ( under €1000 super deal ) from 2nd hand market and I will say, the way I love my X-T1 is the way I love my Z50 now, maybe more ( I don't feel the same for my GX8 ). The Z50 Jpegs are awesome too without editing, although I did tweak the in-camera color setting to my liking. The amount of 3rd partly lens are also a lot. I don't see myself expanding both my kit further right now and I don't see any reasons to go back to Fujifilm as well. Thanks for the video!
A long time ago I started my photography journey with one of the Lumix camera. After two years I switched to Nikon and 10 years later switched again but to Canon. For now I'm not satisfied and dreaming about Fuji camera. Maybe I need to take a step back and return to the roots? To the Lumix? :)
@@AleksandrDederer My problem with Fujifilm is I ended up copying other peoples composition and simulations. My transition is not easy as well but every time I look at the Jpeg of the S5, I am so satisfied. Full Frame renders differently. I am a Full Frame snob before until I owned one.
I have also got into same trap, I have Fuji XT5 and Sony A7R4 with the curiosity of full frame. It took me a while to realize it's not the camera which is making a great shot but it's person holding the camera. Today 95% time I still use Fuji because I love the design with all the buttons easily accessible, compact design and it can do almost everything what my Sony camera can do and maybe better in many cases. Now selling my Sony gear will be a great loss because there is not much resale value so I am just keeping it for occasional usage.
I am a beginner and I was confused about how many options there were, In the end I bought new Sony a7 iii, because only iii and iv have had waked up some emotion inside me idk why. I didn't buy iv because I didn't have enough money but still I am so happy with a7iii.
As someone who has done the same process, I agree with your sentiments when you say that Fuji is more fun than the soulless but capable Sony. I used to love the XT3 as a travel camera. The user experience, weight and size of the smaller Fuji is hard to beat!
Just went the other way from a Nikon D850 / Z7 to an XT-5. Very happy overall. Much lighter (and cheaper) and having the exposure triangle as a ‚mechanical‘ application is something I really like. Quality wise I don‘t see big differences to my F-lenses (Z-lenses are better though). There is a little more noise at high ISO. Having a greater depth of field is as often an advantage as it is a disadvantage. Overall I would say, that in the printed picture you don‘t see a difference - and definitely not on Instagram.
i would argue that wide angle lenses doesnt have much big difference for bokeh, but it has differences on longer focal length. like if we take common lenses like fuji 56 vs any FF 85, lets play fair and compare it at F4 instead of f2 or f1.4. you will immediately tell that the depth, bokeh is way swallow on the on FF compare on fuji. if i go further like comparing Fuji 90mm f2 vs any FF 135mm f1.8/2. you can see a huge difference now in depth if you compare it side by side. if you dont pixel peep nor compare it side by side, yes you won tell any difference. however for wider angle, i would say the point is not to shoot bokeh/depth. more like having more faster stop helps you to shoot in low light situations. and of course the 20/24mm on FF beats 13/16mm on apsc since the focal length is longer. I am saying this from my experience since i use both SONY and Fuji. the difference is there. i shot portraits alot and i can tell you, the reason i would stay with FF for pro work is mostly for the depth, dynamic range and better lowlight. (also lower noise in high ISO) anything else. Fuji works fine.
Great video! I've recently done the reverse. I've used Nikon for years (D60, D7200, D780, Z6II) and had a Fuji X-T3 for a few year for casual shots (travel/street etc). I have been fustrated a lot with the Z6II, with it's general feel and it's shocking AF though and so did struggle with it a lot. I upgraded X-T3 to the X-T5 a year ago, which I found I ended up using for almost everything. I then decided to take the mad jump and sold all my Nikon gear and got the X-H2S along with the 100-400mm lens a few month back. I find it excellent for sport and wildlife shots and the X-T5 works great for almost everything else. Because they use virtually the same menu system makes the operation flow for me and I now have a very decent selection of zoom lenses that are obviously switchable between them both. I know what you mean about the difference between Full frame and APS-C, especially with low light, and I'm still temtped to get a Nikon Z7 purely for landscape, but I don't know how I can hide gear that from my partner 🙂
Yeah, the Nikon Z system is a real letdown… specifically the z6 I… my worst investment in cameras bar-none! The worst part about the Nikons are, that they really did not embrace the possibilities enabled by mirrorless - having fixed size limited autofocus point and zone options is… just so… unambitious! The X-H2S and the GFX are really enjoyable to shoot and they perform! For smaller street style I settled on the Ricoh GRIIIx… what a gem!
Full frame versus apsc is so overrated! You mostly just get to buy more expensive lenses, and carry more weight, for not much difference! Full frame versus medium format… different story… maybe because medium format is just so much better than anything else… my GFX are amazing… also the now really cheap GFX50R
Appreciate your honest thoughts. I’m the opposite. I have Sony full frame and and curious to try Fuji for what I imagine is a more fun easy experience that gets beautiful photos with out messing around in Lr and Ps
A simple way to do this would just to stick to your sony system, and get a x100vi. That way you get to mess about with fuji system and the filters etc without having to commit and selling everything.
Sony cameras are expensive tinker toys. Sony does not even manufacture their own lenses, and the companies they choose are very expensive. Moreover, one model flash unit, as an example, will not be compatible with future Sony cameras, and Sony has quite a small market share for this reason, among many other reasons. Of course, you'll see sponsored videos which disagree with this, and they disagree very specifically because they are financially sponsored, like paid commercials for Sony - Color science also matters, which most manufacturers more or less ignore, except for Canon, Nikon, and most of all Fuji. Fuji now outsells all others in the formats which they manufacture, which does not include full frame cameras, but does indeed include large format (and DX) cameras.
Started out with a Sony A7C, bought another A7IV and could not stop buying lenses for it. I never had the "feeling" of a Fuji or a Leica, so I don't know what you are talking about - all I know is that I am very passionate about taking photos with my A7IV 🙂 Why not with the A7C? I kinda found out about the importance of a good viewfinder, when taking photos - not videos. The A7C now is my videocamera only.
Great Video! I've done the opposite: I had some Sony FF-cams (Rx1, A7, A7III) and was never really happy with them, the reasons were the same as you said in your video. Then I tried a X-E4 and some months later I switched to Fuji completetly. Working with an X-T4 (which was replaced by an X-T5, which is a superb camera!) was so much more pleasing than with the A7III. But I had (and still) have similar thoughts about better IQ and less DOF. Well, last year I bought a cheap 6D and some lenses (currently the Sigma Art 35mm f1.4) and when I want the FF-look I take this camera (or the Viltrox 27mm f1.2 which is quite near to a FF-look). Interestingly the shutter-sound really is one key-aspect for me too - in the X-T5 it is even quieter than in the X-T4 but the overall click-sound on the X-T4 was a tiny bit more pleasing for me. However I accepted for me that I will always think of other cameras and systems (GFX...😊) but the things in wich Fuji-cameras shine are really relevant for me. Let's see what I am using two years from now in the future 😂.
Appreciate your honesty! You do you ❤ Sometimes we also grow with our gear. At least now you know ;) I'm still with Fuji. No time to edit all my photos on a computer, although some more features would be reeeally nice. Anyways, I'm more up for that type of fun :D
So… if had choice again would you now have the xt5 to give you that feel in the camera and an xh2s to give that workhorse body you also need since the AF is much improved. Gave up my Sony A9ll and a7r4 for those. Have shot both FF and MF professionally for years and Fuji right now inspires me so win win…
Which is more important? The 'process' or 'getting the shot?' I would say that when you really need to get the shot, getting it is priceless. To capture those priceless moments with my baby daughter, I moved from a Sony A6000 to a Sony A6700 (I even tried the Sony A7C-II, which is full-frame), but I ended up with the A6700, as the APSC lenses are simply smaller and cheaper. So now, I can always count on 'getting the shot' with her. However, now that I have a guaranteed shot camera, I am seriously considering a Fuji XT-50 in order to get the extra pictures of her that I may never be able to take with the Sony. So really, they both matter, but in terms of priority, I bought the Sony first, and now I'm looking at getting the Fuji, just to see how things go with it. If only I could make my Sony pics look like Fuji film signs!
You sound like a fan of Fuji cameras. If I was you, I would accept it and act accordingly. I know what it's like. I was (am) a fan of Olympus. And for more than two years shot with my little E-M10II, while my FF camera was staying back home. What changed my mind was the new generation of smaller FF lenses. They are not as small as my toy-like favorites in the MFT world (like Pana 15/1.7 and Oly 45/1.8) but way smaller than the ones form DSLR years. And all came together for me - the IQ of a FF camera and the smaller overall size of the system. But if it was not for that, I would have sold the big system and used what I was a fan of.
Great video! I'm lucky that I own a Sony, Fuji & Leica. Usually I grab the Leica or Fuji. Both provide different experiences but the key is that both inspire me to want to go shoot. I usually grab the Sony on bigger photo projects. I think the Fuji X-T5 definitely has hit a nice spot for me. It's like a small Sony A74 but with Fuji color science.
The color science, customization profiles, manual controls are the reasons why I sold my sony equipment and got into fujifilm. I confess I do miss the better autofocus from sony, and the IBIS from my X-T4 is annoying. To each their own, what matters is that you are taking photos and enjoying them.
I was thinking long and hard about switching from a Nikon D500 to a Sony Alpha III. Then on a rather impulsive decision, I changed my mind and got a Fujifilm X-T5. Before buying I had tried my friends Sony Alpha III and just didn't like the experience. Also for the first time, I really tried a prime lens because of the focus peaking settings on the X-T5. I know the Sony would've had that too and maybe would've had the better autofocus but taking photos with Fuji was fun again while with the Nikon it always felt like a chore to take it with me because of the weight and size. Now I'm running around with my X-T5 and a Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f2.8 as an everyday setup just because even with the adapter, it's very portable. Also i LOVE the dials and buttons on Fuji! I got the lens for 35 dollars on a flea market and it made my approach to Photography more methodical and "slow". Now I take time to compose the image in my head before shooting and I'm giddy to get home and fire up Lightroom. Only after buying I also thought about what I like to photograph. I like to get close to my subjects and i like testing how far i can go with this so APS-C I'm technically already closer to the subject so i was like 'yay, I like that.'
I had a similar path in discovering the XT4 and selling the Canon equipment because Fujifilm was much better in low light and sharpness. I struggled with Canon trying to get the most out of it. When the XH2 and XH2S came out I thought it was my ultimate camera, it felt good and worked very well…until it started having focus issues and having to adjust myself to workaround those problems. Fujifilm tried fixing the glitches but never really did enough, but I was determined to make it work. Fast forward to this year and seeing Sony upgraded its menu system where it didn’t feel like a Cybershot camera, I thought adding the A7C2 would be good for my video side of work and shoot with Fujifilm for the pics. Nope. I absolutely loved the new Sony and its incredible tracking capabilities (plus the AI) that I sold everything and bought a second A7C2. I also forgot how nice it is to have more lens options with Sony because manufacturers were slow to make Fujifilm lenses. I also missed the Sigma ART lenses (I had one with the canon when trying to adapt Canon into being better) and so now I have two very capable Sony bodies and all ART lenses from Sigma. Yes, they’re a bit heavy compared to the fujifilm system of lenses but OMG they are very good! There was an adjustment period trying to re-learn the focal lengths of full frame because I was used to crop sensor but it’s the next level. You mentioned your A74 wasn’t as fun to grab and go shooting, maybe try the A7C2, it’s a beautiful camera. Thanks for your video review and story. It was nice to hear the similar experience even if I never could afford the Leica 😢
Do you know if the xt-5 solves any of your disappointments of your xt-4? How expensive are those G master lenses? My initial impression is that Sony is a very expensive system.
Sony for work. Fuji for fun! That’s how I use my cameras. I have the a7iv and kept my X-T4, just because I have too much fun with my Fuji. And I hate Lightroom.
Brilliant video. I'm coming back to photography after a few years out and a deciding what system to go with. I had the A7iv on hire last weekend (with the 24-70 f2.8GM), and this weekend I have the X-H2 with the 16-55 red label (or whatever Fuji call their top lenses) and also the 23mm f1.4 R LM WR. I agree entirely with your points - I think the Sony is a 'better' camera, but the Fuji is definitely more fun to use, which means I'm going to pick it up and go and shoot. With two young kids time is precious, and I found I was having to tweak everything out of the Sony before sharing it, whereas with Fuji, I'm shooting raw+jpeg, usually with a film simulation applied, and I'm sharing straight from the camera - it's so refreshing! Yes the Sony AF is stickier than the Fuji, but as you rightly say, it's nowhere near as bad as a lot of content online makes out, at least not for my use case. Obviously there are loads more pros and cons of both systems, and each person will have different wants and desires, but in summary I’d say the Sony is a Porsche - solid and utterly dependable. You know it's going to excel at everything you ask of it. The Fuji is a Ferrari - an amazing bit of kit but it’s going to make you work to get the best out of it and might let you down every now and then.
We have been on the same journey - minus the Leica Q2.. what Fuji taught me was to appreciate quality glass. Where we diverge in opinion is I put more emphasis in the glass than the body.. I love my 24, 35 85 and 135 gm glass… the body is a tool.
Regarding having to use different exposure comp values between Fuji and Sony, and - counterintuitively given the bigger sensor on Sony - Sony having to be overexposed: are you using the same metering modes?
I have the sony a7iv. Everytime i look at it i get that feeling in my stomache that says, "lets go take some photos." Maybe its because im new to the camera game, but i dont care how my camera looks. I just want my pictures to turn out incredible. The a7iv does that perfectly for me. I guess its like the people who drive a classic car switching to a modern sportscar. Less soul i guess
I personally like cameras like Sony a6700 or a7cR. It’s compact and light. Sony and Sigma make really small full frame and APSC lenses. And Voightlander makes great manual ones for the system. With the right lenses, any APSC or even M4/3 system can make fantastic photos. The features and retro styling of Fujifilm (and OM System) is hard to resist.
Thanks for your opinion and the great presentation. I personally have moved from Canon to Nikon to Sony to finally Fuji, and I will stay here. I have the GFX 50S and a X-S20 for video, and more than anything else, I love the controls, the awesome JPGs, and most importantly: the colours. FWIW I do not like the Sony colours, which I find sterile, nor the Canon colours, which I find boosted and inaccurate. The skin tones in this video perfectly summarise what I do not like about Sony. Even your internal Freud wants the Fuji back :D 14:43
Insightful! Thank you! I truly wish the Sony APS-C will become more Fuji-like, esp with better lenses. Will probably take 5 years or so. But for now, Fuji it is (XT-5).
I hear you, and I agree that Fujis are fun to use. Sony, I've had several, and they're not fun to use. It's like they have no soul. I'm very keen on Nikon and Canon. Canon ergonomics are great, beautiful color, but sometimes they back focus. Nikon, good color and I really like the way the bodies work. The Z7 is terrific, but I really loved the older D200 with the older sensor. The images always looked better than reality, jpegs perfect right out of the camera.
I have both Sony and Fujifilm, seems the best solution. The Sony is a work camera, it gets the job done, Fujifilm is for personal work for fun. But I wouldn't hesitate using APSC for pro work, clients would never know the difference. I'm pretty sure you will buying another Fujifilm camera if only an X100 :-). PS the pro shutter on the 7R and A9 cameras sound better than the 7
I switched from Sony A7iv and A7Riv to Fujifilm X H2s and X T5 They’re both awesome. I love Fujifilm’s film simulations and sooc images plus the experience of using Fujifilm cameras is pure joy. Sony af is the best and for the most part Sony images are too perfect sooc.
I have worked WITH fuji and have had fuji for many years... I switched to Sony when i stopped working for Fuji and now I am on the A7R V as my main body often with my 24-70 GM2, and although my hear always will be Fuji, my head and part of my heart now belongs to Sony... I do have an X100VI and still try all the new stuff when it comes out, but I simply can't see any benefits being with Fuji as my main camera.... :)
It all depends what you shoot but as much as I can defend Fujifilm x100vi for street photography, if we speak about an Xt-5, any same size Sony camera is far superior. In fact, in a comparison between an a7cr and a Leica m11 with the same lens it is difficult to see the quality difference. So I have both. Fujifilm for non demanding street photography and Sony for both more action oriented but also manual lens experience. I own Loxias, Ttartisans and other manual lenses and it is as fun as shooting Fujifilm.
Fuji cameras all have a "Romantic nostalgia with Photography" with all the tactile dials and rings. I shot with an XT-3 for 2 years before I made the pragmatic choice of switching to a canon FF. I've since used a few cameras since then and I always without fail find myself drooling over the fuji colour treatment over any other brand.
Hey. Super Video. 👍 Am Ende war ein kleiner Versprecher drin. (Stick to Fuji) 😅 Finde es toll das Du so offen darüber sprichst. Bei mir war es gerade anders herum. Ich habe mit der A7C meine erste Kamera gekauft, bis ich eine X100V in die Hände bekommen habe und komplett auf Fuji umgestiegen bin. Neben der X100V besitze ich eine X-H2S, die beim Autofocus einen grossen Sprung gemacht hat. Wie Du es sagst, die Sony ist super. Aber die Fuji nimmt man lieber in die Hand. Schönen Abend und Grüße Erik
How much better do you think the auto focus is on the Sony? I seem to be leaning into Fuji but come from a current full frame DSLR in Nikon. Only thing about Sony that pulls me is the auto focus and advanced tracking. I shoot mostly wildlife and birds.
Honestly and i have canons ,sonys but if i want great photos without needing video i use my pentax , no hybrid camera can follow a pure foto camera. And what is the whining about the shutter sound from any camera from many youngsters, you afraid the bride will fly away? And the silent fuji shutter sounds like it will not hold for long while the sony sounds more solid , still not comparable to the pentax though.
Auto focus on Fuji is garbage and the menu settings are absurdly confusing but it's the most enjoyable camera I've used. Really feel like you're holding something special.
I switched after 6 years with Fuji to Canon R8 and to be honest I don't miss much. Colors to my surprise are better with Canon but it's subjective. DR is much better although I assumed there will be not much difference. Images have more pop and 3d look for portraits. Handling with proper grip, great lcd with touch menu and custom modes for fast switching is so much better. AF is from another planet and now finally basically all photos of my running kids are in focus while with Fuji even X-H2s was struggling. Size and price is also better at least in my case example : X-H2s with 23 f1.4 LM WR vs Canon R8 with RF 35 f1.8 and images are sharper on Canon although LM WR lenses on Fuji are promoted as high end primes. OIS in lens is also much better than Fuji's jittery IBIS. I only miss smaller size of bodies like X-E3 and aperture rings so I may test A7C II with Sigma primes as this seems to be best of both worlds for me.
Every system - at least of that well-known manufacturers - is capable and one can take beautiful photos using any gear manufactured after 2010. These „switches” from one system to another have no sense whatsoever, and are nothing but „post-rationalization” of one's desire to spend a lot of money for new toys. But I support the „switchers”, because this way I can buy good gear on significantly reduced prices (on eBay). My main cameras are Nikon DSLRs (not mirrorless) - apart of them I also have a few others - and I'm not going to do any „switch”. Yes, „Z” Nikon cameras seem to be fantastic (as Canon's „R” and others) - but each year they will release new and newer models. The „switch” has no finish! My present gear is good enough for me. It's the gear 20 years ago I could only dream of.
I used Canon cameras from the EOS 630 to the 5Ds. At some point I bought some Canon lenses that I want to use as long as I can carry them. OTOH the Canon gear is getting heavier as I age, so I bought some (mostly used) micro four thirds cameras that are good enough for most purposes, better for many. Mike Lane FRPS switched from Sony to OM Systems in the time I have been watching his videos, for bird photography and video. He's added a Lumix G9 Mark II for video. Today I use two Lumix S1Rs, principally for my particular lenses, it's a more capable camera than the 5Ds. It's better than anything Nikon or Canon had at the time, still is, and the Sony camera mount makes it unusable. IBIS in my Lumix and Olympus cameras is better than Sony had, Canon, Nikon and I think Fujifilm didn't yet have it. You could switch back, or even to micro four thirds, if you are prepared to buy used. You will have much lighter gear. Low light performance might not be as good, but it might be good enough. AF has long been a problem with Lumix cameras, with the new S5 II, S5x and G9 Mark II, it's as good as it gets. Lumix S cameras are FF, but some of the lenses are surprisingly light.
I have the Fuji, XH1, and XT5. I had a chance to hold the Sonly a7iv and, hands down, the XH1 is the most comfortable camera I have ever held, and the Sony the most uncomfortable.
AFAIK Sony A7 4 has a bad rolling shutter when filming 4k 60 fps. Also (as one pro-photographer which is known to me and some other his subs) it has a worse IBIS than Canon. Fuji has a better IBIS as he claims. He did used Fuji a lot and the same with Canon. He did tried Sony too. Yeah, also and obviously: Sony is just a brick with a handle. I've didn't choose Canon by the most reason because it's like a "piece of soap". Better looking than Sony IMHO. But it's the same "modern design" thing. I hope Canon will go retro after Nikon :)) Maybe I'll buy it one day...
I since switched to the Nikon Z8, but in my opinion, the AF on Fuji cameras is *worse* than most people on this platform make it out to be. 🤨 Had an X-H2, and as soon as there's any action, the AF just misses like crazy, to the point that there wasn't a single tack sharp shot in a lot of bursts I took. Another thing that really bothered me with Fuji, is how it's supposed to be cheaper and lighter than FF, but their lenses are getting bigger and frankly, way too expensive. The Fuji 150-600mm f/8 zoom costs significantly more than the competing full frame 600mm f/6.3 zooms from Sigma, Nikon and Sony.
Agreed My A7iv is my Workhorse camera. But it probably is not the camera I would take just to walk around and have "Fun". I think I would prefer to just take any super old DSLR just for that shutter feel or even a Film camera. I reckon for Work related tasks = Sony. For the enjoyment of going through the process of taking photos. I take a Manual Vintage Lens and an Old DSLR
Can I recommend using a video centric/purpose camera for video and a photo centric for stills.. Sony ZV-E1 is inexpensive Full Frame that delivers no crop at 4K60, virtually no rolling shutter and the best low light sensitivity for price due to having bigger pixels on the sensor - only being 12MP sensor. Your rolling shutter footage from a7IV looked pretty awful, because its main purpose is photography ...
I go back to the years of a single 50mm prime lens, rolls of b&w film stuffed in my pockets, and developing our own film back in the dark room at the newspaper. "Content" is what mattered. Period. Most of my published shots were slightly out of focus, a little grainy, and exposed close to correct using that little red meter in the viewfinder. But, I got a lot of pictures in the newspaper: quite a few on the front page. A number of those far from perfect pictures framed and hung on the walls of the newspaper office as chosen by the editors. I was fortunate to capture nice "Content". Lots of back stage images, locker room images, and dressing room images where access was denied to the public eye and therefore interest was high for these coveted looks behind the curtain and behind closed doors. And some street shots that covered important current events. I share all of this to make the point that the entire focus of photography has been hijacked by the manufacturers through massive marketing efforts. Everyone is focused on MB, pixels, lens distortion, AF, and a whole list of other over-the-top features that truly have nothing to do with "Content". The camera is not identifying interesting subjects to capture. Whether you own Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Leica, and so on is irrelevant. Look through books of the older masters and you quickly see that "Content" fills the pages of those books. In many cases, the image quality is adequate at best, yet you remain riveted to the page because of how they captured the image.
agree 100 percent
You absolutely nailed it. How were the "Old Masters" with their inferior analog cameras and lenses able to take such stunning and legendary pictures? "Gearheads", who are longing for the best possible equipment are not really into photography....they are into "gear fetish". I use my PENTAX Spotmatic on a daily basis, for studio work I use this insanely "old fashioned" Nikon D700. It still works very well!
You are spot on with your "gear fetish" attribute. That's a perfect analogy. The exact same scenario is and has been happening with stereo equipment for years. You have people spending in the $100's and some spending in the $1000's on speaker wire. You have people claiming to be able to hear differences in the output of DAC's, tonearms on turntables, different CD players, and the overall improvement of the sound of an amplifier or other component with the use of an amp stand, a suspension shelving system and/or a weight placed on the top of the unit to dampen vibration. People are spending $100's on miniature stands to elevate their speaker wire off the floor as the electrons travel to the speaker. Now I am seeing over-the-top discussions debating the sound of different versions of the same album. People are dissecting the difference in sound output of different tubes (with the same specs) placed in the same component. It's stunning just how successful marketing campaigns have become in both industries. My advice to anyone assembling a stereo is to spend 80% of your budget on the speakers. The sound produced by the drivers and the crossover inside the speaker is what your ears are ultimately hearing. If you are staying strictly digital with CD's and/or streaming as your source material, move the budget allocation to 90% for the speakers. From experience, I can say without hesitation that you can hear the difference between tube amplification and solid state amplification. The tube route is far more expensive to acquire a clean output. There's nearly an undetectable difference between a $150 CD player and a $5,000 CD player. There is nearly an undetectable difference between an integrated amplifier or separates (preamp + amp). Separates are quite a bit more expensive. There's nearly an undetectable difference between a $500 turntable and a $5,000 turntable. My wife and I have done all of these A/B comparisons, in depth, when we assembled a new stereo system not too many years ago. At any cost and using any system, the sound of an album will include some ticks, pops, crackles and hiss sooner than later, if not immediately, depending on the album itself. Albums do wear down, albeit slowly, if you have a very expensive cartridge. CD's offer a flawless sound unless the disc is physically damaged. I was born in 1960. I KNOW albums. I was there in the early 80's when CD's made their entrance. I KNOW CD's. In between, we listened to cassettes and 8-track tapes in our cars and our homes. Albums offer a wonderful tactile experience of holding the album, enjoying the artwork, enjoying the liner notes, placing the album on the turntable, manually cueing the songs with the tonearm, and displaying the albums on shelving if so desired. CD's offer crystal clear sound, the convenience of small storage requirements, and pennies on the dollar to build a collection online. The speakers produce the sound that you hear. The sound difference between the two sources is present (albums v. CD), but it has a lot more to do with the tactile difference between the two as described above. In fact, the more you spend on analog the more you reveal the flaws of the albums that you own. It's comparable to the elevated quality of a magnifying glass or a telescope except we're referring to sound not sight. Consider the sound you hear at a concert or a night club. It's not that good. The din is awful. The distractions are endless. However, you thoroughly enjoy it because of the overall listening experience: being there, seeing it played live, and just taking in the wonderful moment with other like minded fans of said performer(s). Ignore the marketing campaigns for both cameras and stereo equipment. Just pick out an album, a CD, or a streaming choice, press play and simply enjoy the music: spend your hard earned money elsewhere or save it and earn some interest. Study the old masters who shot all of their photographs with a simple 50mm lens, who used their legs to zoom in and out, and placed their entire decision process on Content.
@@TnapvrvideoYou’re correct when it comes to audiophiles, most of them are daft as a brush. I do disagree slightly with your last sentence. A great photographer can see the most mundane thing and take a great photograph of it. A woman in a hijab in Afghanistan becomes a national geographic cover because the photographer knows lighting well and can pick out her eyes perfectly. A cliff face becomes the most photographed beauty spot in America because one photographer understood that it looks best on one particular day of the year at an exact time on that day and returned seven years in a row until he got that shot. These are, with all due respect to that lady, boring photos in every other photographers hands. Great photographers don’t need exciting subjects to make us all sit up and take notice. Why are you out looking for a shark when the most celebrated photo of a fish ever taken was in the photographers back garden of their goldfish?
Nicely stated. All very good points. We're thinking the same. Your beautifully detailed descriptions of the woman on the cover shot, the cliff face, and the goldfish pond. Those celebrated shots were masterfully taken. That said, I still think "Content" (and the unstated story behind the image) is the true capture. Our subjective views aside, these amazing images had nothing to do with the camera brand, etc. which was truly the point of my post. I believe I know the image you are referring to of the woman on the cover with the blue eyes, and I am guessing an El Capitan or Half Dome shot by Ansel Adams. I don't know the fish image off hand. In your cited examples, the image was superbly shot by a highly gifted photographer. Someone who has insight, intuition, and skills to support their exceptional, creative eye furthering the point that the equipment does not instill these inherent skills into the owner. There's a B&W image by Dorothea Lange of a migrant women shot during the depression: one of a larger series. An image that you, no doubt, are quite familiar with given the depth of your post. That photo is stunning. It's not perfect with regards to clarity and focus. It might very well have ended up on a magazine cover though its content may have prompted censorship at the time; I don't know. All that aside, it tells a story. It reveals a devastating truth and a sad reality. It's a stunning capture requiring the level of skill you described in your examples. Since that image, and most likely before that image, there have been seemingly countless images of woman in all types of scenes, conveying all types of emotional feedback and viewer response. Yet, we have in our two posts identified two of the better known to date though some would argue there's a Marilyn Monroe shot worthy of this discussion or an image of Julia Childe or Amelia Earhart. You would identify the mastery of the photographer who took the image to a higher realm, and I would agree 100%. We'd both admire their demonstrated ability. Never in our discussion would we bother to mention the camera or the equipment used. I am not sure I would agree entirely that the subject isn't critically important in the overall appeal of an image. I think the subject (aka Content or Story) are the magnet pulling the viewer deeper into the photograph. If I were viewing a gallery exhibition and I came across two beautifully executed photographs of a fishing pier that were hanging side by side on the wall, one was simply set in the foreground of an empty seascape while the other had a rather tired, but actively used fishing boat tied to the pilings, I see myself investing more time and emotion viewing the image with the boat. Having a significant background in boating and fishing, I can imagine myself seeing things within that boat's image, its deck content, its equipment that would jolt a distant memory or prompt a flashback from my earlier lifetime. Afghanistan where I have not been, Yosemite where I actually have been and did climb Half Dome, Julia Childe who amazingly I did meet in her home at a photo shoot of her birthday party (I was the lowly equipment carrier), and the Depression which was before my time as were Monroe and Earhart are references to iconic, emotionally charged subjects which I feel advance their potential for long-term success as images when photographed well. I do truly feel that subject is the lasting ingredient. We'll all stop and admire a superbly executed image where lighting and everything else was done to perfection. I don't think it's the photograph we'll remember the longest without invested emotion and memory to keep it alive in our mind.
Great Video.
In many ways confirms my view that changing camera/systems does not necessarily improve the images or enjoyment in the photographic experience.
At various times I've been a freelance photographer, but have always retained an interest in photography as a hobby. Now long retired I can recall the problems of obtaining sharp well exposed images and hours in the darkroom to achieve them! Many cameras now regarded as classics, such as the Leica screw cameras, the Mamiya twin lens reflexes, & the various Bronicas, and some early Nikon F's, were a pain to operate and results, better than those achievable using the more mundane/cheaper cameras of the day we're often hard to come by.
However what often made it all worthwhile, was the user experience, and which camera made you want to go out and take the shot, where cameras like the Leica IIIf & Summitar lens, really excelled!
Today's digital mirror less cameras are so good, and great images are so readily achievable.
The law of diminishing returns still applies, and changing cameras/systems is so expensive that you really want to ensure that the "new" camera/lens not only performs significantly better than your existing item or gives you greater satisfaction in use.
Recently I became dissatisfied with my Fujifilm X-H2 photographic experience and looked to change possibly to the Leica Q or SL system. I've been with Fuji "X" since 2014, and knew the "move" would be expensive. In the end I decided that the Leica experience would be different, but hardly better. I remembered how much I enjoyed the original form factor and relative lightness of the X-Pro1 encouraged me to go out and take photos. Somehow the X-H2, however good the results just didn't inspire me in the same way - being excellent was not good enough!
It was only then I realised that my X-Pro2, although not nearly such a capable camera was the camera I needed - one that I could truly love...
Well said. Having joy using the camera is way under rated. That's what make you wanna take picture in the first place. I've been a long time fuji user for both professional and personal stuff, with the xt10 and xt2 + the usual prime lenses. But I've got a friend who works at Sony and had some internal sales going on with insane deals on Cameras... Basically 30% cheaper than used market. Too good to pass especially because video became big part of my paid gigs. Got the A7iii, the 24-70 2.8, 16-35 2.8, 70-200 f4, 35mm 1.8, 55mm 1.8, 85mm 1.4. Thing is I never enjoyed shooting them. It yielded nice results of course but I missed the fuji experience and lot. It became a tool. The EVF also sucked and colors weren't great in camera, making you feel like your were taking crappy pictures only to find out in post that the files were great... A rather stressful experience imo. I just decided to sell most of the gear for an xt4 that go for cheap and that covers my video needs. I'll keep a few Sony lenses around as my friend will most likely have some more deals in the future and I can test stuff out. As a sidenote, the only lens that really made me kind of enjoy picking up the sony was the lightweight Zeiss 35mm f2.8. Tiny, with a lot of character. Oh and the ricoh GR IIIX also rocks in its on way :) .
had been 2,5 years in fuji , i love the classic chrome for sure,, made my work easy, now with a74 + 50mm f1.2 mostly,. what can i say ,, mostly shoot in wedding project i must never miss focus in any moment and even in cramped and messy rooms I can still produce beautiful images because shallow depth of field, good bokeh and minimal noise are important ! :) ,, tobe honest ,, gear behind the man is telling the different🙏
I'm now a FF user with the Z5, BUT miss my Fuji kit, the likes of the XH1 and XT4, their shutters feel very special and feathery. And as you, the difference in IQ is very minimal. It is there but when you look at size, weight and cost....APSC is good enough for 90% of people including myself....I may well return to APSC one day soon.
I also went through several camera changes, from Canon to Nikon to Fuji to Sony and now I've bought the X-T5. Your video strongly resonates with me as the Fuji system is more fun to shoot with. The Sony is great for it's AF but doesn't make me want to go out and shoot. For now I have both systems but will be deciding whether I'll be keeping the Sony system going forward. My favourite lens on the Sony is the Sigma 85mm 1.4 that I own, curious to see how the newer Fuji lenses compare.
The autofocus of sony is unmatched
I'm feeling evil today, so I have only one thing to say: medium format. Bigger than FF 😉
1 minute and 50 seconds in and I hear a lot of "if I only had this or that". Of course there nothing wrong with with liking gear but don't think you'll make better pictures because of it. Great photographers can make take great pictures with even a kids toy camera. Also, if FF is better than APSC then that means we all should aspire to get a medium format camera because that should own the heck out of a measly FF right? Or lets go for a technical camera!
Try shooting with film and you'll soon find out what is important. It's not the hammer but the person wielding it.
I’m not sure I have ever seen such an honest appraisal of two camera systems or of one’s self. Terrific. All the best.
Real photographers don't care much, they just take photo's!
@@cirrus1964In my experience, the photographers we all celebrate and agree are real photographers care deeply about what they used. They are the people who bumped up against a cameras limitations and demanded more, and as they had a voice, camera manufacturers listened and designed to their specifications. They are hugely demanding as to what their camera can do - and have the sponsorships to not have to pay for it themselves.
👍🏻💯
There's only one problem here - he has compared a sony camera that costs about 700$ more than the X-T4 and is 1 Gen above.
If you want to compare between these 2 cameras that's cool, but if you want to compare the whole brand - you should go with the X-T5 (which is insanely better than the X-T4)
…the Sony is just a tool… that is the truth about most of the brands. Fuji (and Leica) simply engage you to take the Cam with you because of size, weight, usability, design and passion
What? Sony camera brand is just a tool but my camera brand is passion? Lol, you sound like a tool.
From: Sony Fanboy.
I kind of agree but once you start going XT5 route with a very big, fast prime, it’s actually quite a similar setup to an A7IV. A7C is actually much smaller and lighter. It’s hard to believe but it really is. But, the colours on Fuji are simply untouchable. There’s no right and wrong really. I’m very torn between this setup. Ideally, money no option, I’d have the Sony for jobs, and an X100 series for family and EDC haha.
@@HANKBRAVO81Fancy finding you here. Fuji this time perhaps 👀
@@POVwithRC MGS ‼️ Busted!! Window shopping haha. That bloody X100 series and your XE4 started all of this. True though, for EDC, it’s just the perfect size. Replaces the phone and makes it an event. But not paying these ludicrous prices with the new one en route soon.
But then I do like my different focal lengths and Sony autofocus. Anyway, truly not in any rush. Work waggon getting squared away next month.
…and colors.
The biggest reason after much research and shopping that I bought my barely used X-t3 kit three years ago was performance for the price. I looked at all of the FF choices. They all cost more for just the body that what I paid for the X-T3 with the 18-55, a grip and extra batteries. And, it was still in the original box all still wrapped up like new. In addition, I have been able to afford high quality lenses like the xf56 f1.2(V1.0) and the xf90mm f2 on the used market. I got each for under $500 US and both in like new condition with some patient shopping and a bit of luck! The FF lenses are just way too expensive for me. Finally, as an amateur/enthusiast photographer, the X-T3 is still more than capable enough for me. And, it's a beast of a camera. I take it out on trail hiking all the time. Not sure if I'll be shopping again any time soon, but for now I'm very happy with the X-T3. Thanks for the overview of your experience!! Have a great day.
I agree with you on the Xt3 being using mine now for nearly two years, love the Fuji colors, and I really love the way the camera looks. But the only downside is auto focus! I miss some really great shots and at the same time hit some great ones. But miss more than I would like to, the auto focus is not reliable! I wanted to upgrade to the Xt5 but no battery grip for that one, as I leave the battery grip on my XT 3 because with my big hands having the battery grip feels a lot better to me and I can hold on to the camera all day when using the grip. I look at the Xh2s and Xh2 but at those prices and the looks might as well go canon as I am really thinking about the R6mk 2 especially first for Af and second the second the color science, and third while not that important but welcome the bigger sensor. Next to Fuji colors i like the canon colors also. I really don’t want to make the jump, but for me the Af on my Xt3 is just to unreliable. The only way to make sure you hit shot is to manual focus and that is good in some cases! I would love to use my XT3 professionally but the AF is just to unreliable especially in lower light conditions! Beautiful camera to shoot with but it would even be more enjoyable if I didn’t miss those key shots sometimes it just takes away from the experience. FuJifilm looks like they improved the AF on the newer cameras, especially the XH2S. The XT5 I really wanted to give that one a go but no battery grip why Fuji? The XT line I just like the way they look and the user experience! But having more hit rate is more important to me especially if I am going to use the camera in a professional setting!! Thus Better Af is more important to me, come on Fuji I need a more reliable AF and bring back the battery grip for the XT6? Not every body has small hands.
Totally agree for the exactly the same reasons.
@@mr02gixxer1000 you can get a cage instead of a grip. It gives a bigger size. Also it partially protect your camera.
@@mr02gixxer1000or try the screw-on grip from Smallrig. Really happy with it, also with bigger lenses (in my case adapted Sigma 18-35 with Fringer Pro adapter)
You nailed it. Most youtubers advertise a system switch like money grows on trees. For people like me, It's more of a hobby than a profession, and like you mentioned, I got a used xt3, an 18-55 and a viltrox 23mm, all for lesser than what a full frame body alone costs.
When you said "that the Difference in image quality and such will not make my photos any better or my video's any more interesting" you hit the nail on the head for most of us. There are pro's shooting with older gear getting really amazing photos and video. But here we all are, rationalize our new camera purchase. Let face the facts, the camera companies are in business to sell you a new camera ever couple of years. So if they can add newer features and options your 2 year old camera doesn't have to get you to jump, then they are successful at their job. Reason why so many RUclips Photography/Videographer influencers are packing around $20k worth of gear, because camera companies give them the "New stuff" so it builds hype and they want you to want that new camera or lens.
You literally don't know what the heck you are talking about. Just another person ranting to justified making himself feel better about keeping his old cameras. Sony revolutionized the mirrorless cameras, something that Canon and Nikon didn't even considered until Mirrorless became super popular. Camera tech has to move forward, not backward. Sony is moving it forward with Canon and Nikon following. But it seems like you're the type who thinks all new cameras are just niches and offers nothing new or revolutionary. I'm glad you're not working in the R&D department. Better yet, stop using your smartphone and go back to using an old flip-phone.
These new cameras you're talking about were made by us, the users. We tell the companies what we want to see and how they can improve on it. They listened to us and implement the features in the next model thus giving us many reasons to upgrade. If we don't say anything or give any feedbacks, then I'm sure Canon, Nikon and Sony would be out of business by now.
Camera companies gives them new stuff to try out, not to keep dude. Reason why they do so is because they want to prove to the world that their products are amazing and revolutionary. I don't see you going out there and reviewing the newest lenses or cameras. But its easier for you to talk bias since you're just a bias photographer yourself. The more the merrier and majority of these companies back up their claims too. Can you do the same?
Otherwise, keep talking nonsense to justify keeping your old gears my friend.
@@harryvuemedia5106 Are you serious about it? We're talking about how camera gear upgrade translates into the perceivable improvement of your work while what you put down there was just a bootlick of tech company. I'm not saying all that is not worth it but it's still not the decisive factor at the end of day in your photography or videography skill.
Image quality has reached a point of diminishing returns. The investment in switching from one camera to another can't usually justify the upgrade. I have been an event photographer for 4 years and I'm still happy with the photos from my XH1 and Nikon Z6. The essence of photography lays behind the brain behind the camera not the camera itself. Photography is a form of art not fully quantifiable by means of tech. It matters to a certain point then it doesn't any more.
@@harryvuemedia5106 Just keep consuming. Don't think, just keep buying new stuff. What's that? 2 year old model doesn't have the new hardware? You need to chuck that thing into the garbage and take out a loan to buy the newly released camera! The newer and better technology, the better your photography will be, no more worries of finding a good composition or timing, don't let old tech hold you back!
@@jac1207 it did improved it dude. a7iii to a7iv is a massive jump, not a small one. A9ii to a9iii is another massive leap in photography. There are cameras like the a7riii to a7riv that wasn't a huge leap. But yes, let's hear it from you who have no work to show us. Let's see your work and prove me wrong. Show me everything you have and prove me wrong. My work is available, go watch it and tell me how my work didn't improve again. Otherwise, keep your opinion to yourself.
@@jac1207 Someone deleted my comment again. I guess they are so insecure that they have to delete it because they don't want people hearing the facts. What 2 year old models that new models dont have? A lot of things dude. A7iii to a7iv was a huge leap. A7iii doesn't have 10-bit colors so a7iv filled in that hole. a9ii has a rolling shutter while a9iii revolutionized the camera world again with its global shutter. Same thing with a7sii to a7siii and a7Riv to a7Rv. Show me your fudging work and stop hiding behind a fake account because of your insecurities. Talk so much sh*t but can't back it up besides spitting out gibberish.
Great vlog subject. I understood your dilemma, however...I just sold off all of my Full Frame Nikon gear, that is 4 FF bodies and 10 lenses. I use all Fujifilm now, that is 3 x GFX Medium Format cameras and 7 Fujifilm XT series bodies, i.e. 2 x XT3's, 2 x XT4's, 2 X XH-2's and a cute XT20 for street stuff. I also own 25 Fuji lenses. I sold my Nikon gear as I hadn't touched them in over 2 years. All of my pro shoots have been shot with Fujifilm of which 60% have been with the XT's and 40% with the GFX's. I was published in VOGUE and ELLE with the XT series and VOGUE, ELLE, GRAZIA and major advertorial campaigns with the GFX and XT's. I think most cameras today can do a great job and most are overkill.
I'm going to follow you and subscribe
A year or so ago, I sold some Nikon things and start a conversation with the buyer, I commented about going mirrorless with Fuji, and the buyer told me that Fuji wasn't a good option for pro use, that Fuji is unreliable and nothing more than a toy.
I love Sony, Nikon, Fuji. I worked with all 3. I sticked with Nikon because of the xqd, body feel, z lenses.
@@amermeleitor who ever says Fuji is nothing more than a toy has 0 knowledge in photography
Following your channel and IG. You've proven that it's the shooter and not the gear. There are those that pushed the ideology that you're only a professional if you use a full frame and up and look down at those that don't.
Your work shows that on any modern camera, even APS-C, you can do pro work.
Plus you've been published in major publications.
I met a speaker at a ohotography event and he also showed his work for a major publocation and he use an old entry-level DSLR just to prove a point to the new ones that it isn't the gear first and foremost.
At least you were honest enough to admit you were caught by the marketing. I've been shooting for 15 years now and holy moly did social media created huge fomo and gear envy.
Less gear, more art!
I sold my my Sony a71v and a7r with lenses & switched to Fujifilm.
I did the same thing. BUT, to olympus.Couldn't be happier.
but now you don't have the same camera as every single photo youtuber
Did you ever consider the Nikon ZF?
Seems to be the perfect blend between the retro feel of Fujifilm and the amazing capabilities of a modern full frame camera..
And the best thing is that you can easily adapt all your Sony lenses to Nikons Z mount 👍🏻
I know SONY is a better camera. It's just ugly for me and honestly, I want to enjoy the camera, touch and having it when walking and taking pictures. There is many good girls with good heart and good soul, but if the chemistry is not there, it's not there, they may be better and nicer, whatever, if I like this naughty, not excellent but good for me Fuji girl, what can i do?. Fujifilm is a nicest camera, I like using it and taking pictures with it ❤️❤️❤️. Just so simple.
"i actually bought leica q2 " bro said that like its nothing hahha from having no money to buy FF to buying 5k dollars camera is impressive gj man
I've been a photographer since the 1980's, I've had many full frame cameras, mainly canon. I picked up a Fuji X-E3 with some primes a few years ago. I wanted a light carry and the manual dial controls and aperture rings on the lenses appealed to me in a nostalgic way. My Canon R5 is relegated nowadays. The Fujifilm gear has rejuvenated my love for photography and reignited my passion in a way I've not felt since my film camera days. I love getting the image right in the camera with the film emulations and recipes. I spent hours in lightroom tweaking RAW images, but no more. I now have a Fuji X-Pro 3 and I love it. The Canon is clinically better but the Fuji has the soul and I love the tactile experience of the dials, the whole experience is superior and I am getting out with the camera much more often. The Canon Images are scientifically sharp and precise but my Fuji images are gloriously imperfect. I have recipes that match the look my old 35mm Film pictures, perfectly. I'd lose the canon before I'd give up my fuji gear.
Went from X-T1 to X-H1 and now to A7RV.
Actually wanted to stay Fuji. Been with them for over a decade. However, was tired of the poor AF performance and got super excited when the X-H2 was announced. People were raving it as finally Sony/Canon level. Went out to give it a whirl but conflicted. Yea, AF was way better, only because it was so bad, but not fully satisfying. Didn't feel polished. Most notably the AF green box always lagged behind the subject. Not as sticky.
While standing at the store bummed about my experience I gave a Sony a try. "whuut..." the AF was so good. What have I been missing out all these years. Yup, now I am an owner of an A7RV and sold all my dozen Fuji lenses for half it's cost. A7RV felt like an X-H3 of the future made available today for more money. Better in every way. More MP, nicer IBIS, tilt+flip lcd, and AI AF that works perfectly.
All the things people praise Fuji for I didn't care much of. Color science, retro look, tactile button/knobs, jpeg recipes film simulation, the aesthetic or inspiration. I'm geeky & just use the tool to get the shot I want then fiddle with the image on my laptop. Suppose I never really fit the Fuji hipster profile and was at heart more a techy Sony. Totally fine with being what people call "soul-less"
Yeh I want it to work, not have a “soul” whatever that means, the Fuji dials are useless and slow, adjusting simple things requires too many steps, the AF still sucks even if better it falls apart if the subject is a bit further away or if light conditions aren’t perfect, horrible corner wobble with wider lenses and the sensor high ISO noise and low light performance lag about 10 years behind full frame. I went from an X-S20 to a ZV-E1 and the dials are more precise and feel higher quality, the grip has more clearance so your knuckles don’t rub against the lens, it’s a sexy camera that’s so tiny but has the AI processor of the A7R5, the legendary sensor of the A7S3 with the firmware of an FX3 with other AI functionality, it’s so inspiring to pick this incredible machine knowing it has all this power and it’s still much smaller than the subpar APS-C Fuji bodies…
"fuji hipsters" lmao pretty much sum it up whats going on the internet lately, i wanted to get into fuji after years of hiatus with an entry level canon dslr and wanted to get a cheap body in order to start collecting the lenses but the prices are just absurd, even for 10yrs old bodies at $600+, i gave up and went with sony
Makes sense, photography vs tech I guess
@@DigiDriftZone The ZV-E1 is crazy expensive, though.
@@DigiDriftZone Depends what you are shooting...Wddings/Events yeah Sony FF does the trick much easier than Fujifilm crop.But for street photography fujifilm x-pro 3 is a better tool in my opinion than any Sony camera and lets be honest Sony has the best AF but is known to have the nastiest color.But for fashion or Boudoir a Fujifilm GFX will knock the sox off the Sony a7r5 so in my opinion it really gets down to what you are shooting.
The whole “Sony doesn’t have a soul” is tired and a personal thing. I buy cameras to take pictures, not to make me look cool or to inspire me. The places I go and the people I am with is what inspires me to shoot. I do get excited with new gear and new lenses but having a camera with me matters more than what it looks like. I own both Sony and Fujifilm cameras and really enjoy both. I have always had Sony and currently have an a7c and an a7iv and fujifilm x-e4 and x-pro3. I enjoy the shooting experience with Fujifilm but still prefer the results I get from Sony. I end up editing the film simulations anyway and eventually got tired of trying new recipes. The hunt for the best recipe became exhausting so I just edit instead.
The x-pro3 is a beautiful camera but I care more about enjoying the process, being able to capture moments and be confident that the results will be sharp and in focus a majority of the time. You can say it is user error but there are somethings I can count on from Sony. It might not feel like a “soul” to some but it feels like a buddy I can always count on to me.
The whole video is basically saying his Sony camera is too good therefore it lacks soul and he misses the shutter sound of the Fuji. I take my Sony A7IV everywhere. I've gotten it wet, full of snow, dirt and sand. Right now it still has dirt from the last time I went to the mountains. It's a workhorse and I enjoy using it because I actually go out and take pictures of my adventures. I'm not worried about "soul" or if I look cool with it. It's not always about the process of taking the photo. Most of the time, it's me wanting to quickly capture a moment and go right back to living the moment before it ends instead of tinkering with non customizable dials and poor autofocus because I wanted a camera with soul.
@@fivefivesix-sevensixtwo4114 honestly this video is pretty grating to listen to even for a typical broke amateur who doesn't care too much about the results of shots (like me) as well. Man starts off the video rambling about his insecurity of not having muh _"full frame image quality"_ and proceed to give backhanded "praise" for the "inferior" camera in the latter half of the video.
He didn't even mention value per cost, lighter weight and typically more compact size of smaller sensor cameras that makes them less of a hassle to carry around. Facts that might actually "inspire" someone to take more pictures just from the added convenience alone, and not vague "feeling" and "soul" that pretentious people often spout.
@@shira_yone you nailed it. Dumb video
About 18 months ago I moved from an XT3 and traded in for a Original Sony A9 I had found i was struggling with action photography with Fuji and have been nothing but impressed with the AF of the A9 I missed the film simulations of the Fuji and the video functions aren’t the up the Xt3 but as a predominantly stills photographer couldn’t be happier!
Full frame just makes it easier to get a shot most the time and gives you the extra flexibility of an extra stop of light. The difference I found was that I could finally get good results out of a zoom lens. What I will say though is that sometimes restrictions help inspire creativity… the struggle helps us enjoy taking the photo more. I started on full frame with the original Sony A7 in 2014 (which definitely was a struggle) and I have had the same feeling as I have upgraded through the years. I am really thinking that all this technology is separating us from the process, and that’s why we are seeing people gravitate to systems like Fuji with all the manual dials, the Leicas, and why there has been such a surge back into film photography. Hope this makes sense…
How can full frame just make it easier to get a shot ? what kind of comment is that, please explain, no disrespect intended.
@@ashtonal.2634 There's a few reasons. Larger sensors (often) deliver more dynamic range for editing. Another significant advantage is depth of field. For example, an f2.8 lens on an aps-c body is equivalent to an f4 lens on a full-frame body. The same thing is true 'upgrading' from a full-frame camera to a medium format camera. Except medium format cameras are typically slower, bulkier and more expensive. Many photographers find full-frame to be the perfect balance. It's also the digital equivalent of 35mm film. Hope this helps.
There are tradeoffs and accommodations regardless of format size. Also, as the technology advances, i.e., greater dynamic range, better low light capability, higher resolution, etc,. we are presented with choices as to whether at some point we are willing to go with gear that is more manageable in size and handling or rather choose larger gear that gives optimal IQ. As so many photographers rarely print their work but mostly share it online, there is a certain absurdity to working with 50 and 60 MP cameras that are twice the size of 35mm counterparts that we used in the film days. I realize that ultimately this argument may result on most of us photographing just with our phones, which may be a day coming rather soon. In any case, my bet is that we will see a trending towards the former as a matter of sheer practicality.@@nicholassmith7723
In which way does fullframe have an extra stop of light? F1.8 is f1.8 on all formats. F1.8 on your phone is just as bright as f1.8 on fullframe. That's why when you set up your camera with the exact same settings as on your phone, you get an image of the exact same brightness.
Full frame does NOT give an extra stop of light. F 1.8 provides the same amount of light no matter the size of the sensor. With two sensors of exactly identical sensor technology, a larger sensor will have better noise levels at equivalent exposures, but not brighter. But as seen with things like the XH2s, not all sensors are created equal, and that camera competes with most FF for noise as well.
Full frame being brighter is a misunderstanding of the physics.
I love my A7 IV. I've never shot jpeg or wanted to, so I just don't get it, when it comes to that. When you said that with the Sony you lose the 'fashion aspect' of having a camera, I felt like you gave away the hidden hipster chalice for a second. I've always felt the photographer puts the soul into the camera, and not the other way around.
Before I got the A7 IV, I had a Nikon D80, which I bought in 2008 or so. It had a lot of limitations (no video, relatively low megapixel, all the hangups of a CCD sensor) and many people would think of it as ugly. While I have nostalgia attached to it and would never sell it, I also always just saw it as a tool, a means to an end. I only upgraded last year to the A7 IV because I actually needed more sensor resolution and video capability. I still use the Nikon as a second camera for BTS stuff for my projects because it's still a perfectly capable camera even after all these years. That's it, though: They're just cameras, and they're nothing without the person.
My only criticism of the Sony A7 IV would the menus. I get around some of that with the desktop app when I shoot tethered and a bit with the mobile app. But the menus are a bit of a drag.
@@cristibaluta I wonder if you were a painter, if you would settle for nothing less than the most beautiful palette knife. Or the most beautiful brush.
I'm happy with having versatile tools that work. The art comes from the artist.
@@bloodswarms Hardly a good comparison, for such cheap items it doesn't really matter
You should have seen the menus on the A7iii. The menus are vastly improved on the A7iv.
Got Sony A7Cii. Sold it after a few months, can't live with those colors.
I don't feel like my a7iv is just a tool, I find it inspiring and I love the design. It's interesting to me how often people will say Sony bodies are 'boring' or even 'soulless' 💀.
While I agree x100v or the xpro for example have a different kind of charm and I appreciate those a lot, I think the design of the xt5/xt4 is no more beautiful or charming than the modern Sony bodies.
Fujis colour recipes in camera are super cool and I wish sony would have the same. I like to play with the creative looks in my a7iv and those are cool but the fuji ones are better.
I just went through the same switch for very similar reasons. I sold all my fuji gear including the x-t5 to pick up Sony a7iv but I had rather the opposite realization about my gear. I have found that for me the camera in my hand is just a tool, as long as the tool does what I tell it, I could care less what dials or buttons it has or how it looks. I found leaving the retro Fuji style liberating, rather than worrying about how each lens looked on the camera and what people would think of my choices (most don't care BTW), I have focused so much more on the photos I am creating. The switch has left me with a beautiful and profound realization that for me, it's what's on the card that matters, not the tool that captured it. I do have to say one thing that I love about Sony, when you ask it to focus on someone's eye, there is no question and no hesitation, it just does it and does it well, I really appreciate that.
Words of wisdom right there. My photography took a big leap when I stopped worrying about the gear.
Why anyone would care how it looks psychically is beyond me. Lol my XT5 is all black and so are my lenses. It’s more the color science and Fuji simulations (of course)
Same man, though I'm using an XT-20, but it's autofocus and face detection is wacky (even with fujinon lenses), my friend who uses A6300 (similar price to XT-20) rarely misfocus, and it's blazing fast autofocus.
I'm saving up to move to A6400 with a zoom (Tamron 17-70) and a Sigma 56mm), then probably upgrade the body to A6700.
"I do have to say one thing that I love about Sony, when you ask it to focus on someone's eye, there is no question and no hesitation, it just does it and does it well..." It's extremely hard to quantify just how important this is. I have a 6 1/2 month old daughter that I have been shooting relentlessly with my 10 year old Sony a6000. The autofocus is simply not good enough for me; too many shots where the focus is not on her eye, which is where I want it to be 99% of the time. As a result, I'm looking at jumping not only to a newer Sony camera, but also to a full frame Sony camera. However, since I'm not a professional, and I don't need dual-card slots, I'm looking at the Sony A7C II as my next camera. The fact that it has a body just about as small as the a6000, has the internal sensors/guts of the A7IV, but ALSO has the crazy AI autofocus capabilities of the A6700/A7rV. Hopefully, I'll be getting the additional detail over APS-C that I've been craving for years, while still being a compact, fun-to-use body.
I sold my Sony a7IV with 24-70 f2.8, 16-35 f2.8, Tamron 70-180 f2.8, 85mm 1.4, 35mm f1.8 to Fuji used XT4 after watching your video, thanks man for motivating.
In retrospect ... how satisfied are you with the transition. Sony A7IV with such a set of lenses .. It must have been great
Damn I got pretty much the same gear and cam, and I am here because i thinking about a switch to Fuji, to the xt4 haha. Tell me your experience please 🙏
@@TimKrauseFilms why not xt-5??? i have old xt-20 and maybe i am going to upgrade someday
@@kevin-sj3wt tbh, because I was thinking about to just hold the other stuff, that’s why a xt4, if I decide to sell my Sony stuff, then it would be a xt5 for sure
Lol, I'm making the opposite transition now. Fuji X-T4 + 16-55/2.8, 23/1.4, 50-140/2.8 to Sony A7Cii + Tamron 28-75, Sony 35/1.8
I switched to Fujifilm and Sony a couple of years ago, because I wanted to fulfill 2 dreams, own a Fuji camera, and buy my first FF camera. Started with an XT3 and Sony 7a3, added the XT4 a bit later. Although I indeed see my Sony having more technical capabilities in specific situations, I'd never wanted to miss my Fujifilm colors and simulations, and just the experience of holding such a camera in my hands. It always feels like first love every time a grab a Fuji camera, whereas when I take my Sony camera it is truly more for specific trips and situations, so it's more like an assignment than just the pleasure of doing photography. So I fully feel and agree with Tobis' thoughts and remarks here! Well done video!
The film simulations recipes alone just make me want to shoot more and experiment with the colour. I think Fuji cameras just bring back a bit of that film shooting experience where the photos you should just require minimal processing. With other cameras, because of how chunky they are and how clinical every photo looks, it feels more like a chore
I’m heavily invested in Sony gear, which I intend to keep, but I am probably going to buy a Fuji XT-30ii & 27mm f2.8 just for some street fun. The Fuji. kit won’t cost more than a Sony FF lens!
If you want a Sony camera that looks good buy a Sony A7cII and you will enjoy taking it with you
Nice video. I can really relate to a lot of what you said about Sony. I had a Fuji X-T2 with several lenses and was very happy with it, but was always curious about Full Frame. I finally caved and purchased a Sony A7III, which is a great camera by all means. I also picked up the Sony 24mm GM, which really is an incredible lens, but in the end after the shine wore off the A7III, I just didn’t find any real joy in using it. Like you said, it felt more like a “tool,” and not something I wanted to grab and go shoot photos with. More and more, the A7III would sit on my shelf while the old X-T2 was the camera I was walking out the door with, even though the Sony outperformed it in every technical way. I ended up selling all my Sony gear and still have my X-T2 today. There really is something special about Fuji, despite all its quirks and flaws.
this is me precisely. I never liked the clinical nature of Sony
I love the XT2 some of my favorite images were taken with that camera. I only recently “upgraded” to the XT3.
@@josephinevera9966 Me as well. I have a Canon R6 now, which I really enjoy, but my X-T2 still gets plenty of love and use. And it’s built like a tank!
I am very satisfied with my XT3 and see no reason to upgrade at this time.
Now if you only had a chance to hold in hand an X-Pro line of Fujifilm cameras, then I assure you that you will never touch any other camera.
I use a Q2 and Olympus/ OM M4/3. I’ve also used an M11. Most of the time I can’t tell which photo was taken with which camera. “Full frame” isn’t an upgrade and smaller sensors aren’t second best. They are choices we make depending on our priorities. We don’t all have the same needs and preferences. I think its great that we have some much choice.
Love my Fuji XT3, none of the newer cameras tempt me and so many professionals out there are still shooting with the XT3 some even with the XT2. In fact some of my favorite images I have taken were with the XT2!
Same here, it has been joyful experience, I don't need anything new for another decade, or more. I enjoy photos not the new gear.
I have the A7s. My walking around lens is the Sony Zeiss 16-35/4. It's silly how little light it needs to take photos (especially with the oss). As someone who remembers how groundbreaking Kodak's p3200 was, this camera is simply magic.
I've been using it with only silent shutter for over a year now. It seems to be flawless. The EFV gives you a visual confirmation of taking a photo by going black for a moment.
Get an osmo pocket 3 for low light video, it's better than all.
We talk in FF/35mm equivalent because it's a standard by which we can compare FoV between systems, not because FF is the goal.
The goal is different for everyone, depending on what/how/in what conditions they shoot. I switched from FF (and not some old outdated camera, but A7R V and A1) to MFT (OM-1) and I am still happy with my decision 9 months later. Are some aspects worse? Of course. But there is no perfect camera, or camera system, there are compromises to be made, no matter what you buy and how much you spend.
Also what's stopping you from creating a custom picture profile on the Sony, just like you did on the Fuji?
You are almost mature to switch to Olympus 😇
Another way to look at the “soul” issue: so much of this is branding and identity. Cameras are machines; they don’t have souls. We do. But marketing and nostalgia and fashion affect how we feel when we take photographs and what kind of character or personality we project onto them. I can understand nostalgia-at least it derives from from lived history, our own or our relatives’ or heroes’-but fashion and marketing seem extra superficial. Do we feel warm and good and groovy shooting a Fuji because of a true heart connection, or because we’ve been manipulated by calculating mega-wealthy corporatations? Do we want to be *seen with our camera*, to look like a hipster in a retro colored ad-is that what actually makes us feel all warm and fuzzy and “passionate”-or do we want to take great pictures?
I’ve gotten pretty attached to my Sonys. They seem like my children because of my experiences with them and joy in those experiences. I’d have trouble giving them up, even though I have positively drooled for a Fuji, Leica, and some hipster point and shoots.
I’m just asking questions. I love the look of Fujis and other cameras as much as anyone.
Sony has adaptable picture profiles that will give you JPEGS exactly as Fuji does. You just have to customize if you don’t like Sony’s picture profiles. Making your custom profiles is part of the camera experience . Fuji is more for the instant gratification user. Sony for the experimenter who is curious to know all the possibilities his camera is capable of delivering. The one area I dislike about Sony is that Canon has a much more comfortable feel in the hand.
Thanks! I honestly haven't really played around with custom picture profiles on my sony at all. Maybe thats something I should get into.
dude I did the exact same thing as you, I had the XT4 and XT20 and I wanted to get to the next lvl of hobby photography and video so I made the switch to Sony. I followed the Japanese creator AUXOUT a lot and he did some amazing videos with the Sony so that is what really sold it to me.
After purchasing it, my wife was really happy with the performance (50mm F1.2) however I noticed right away that it is bloody heavy and I missed all the dials on my Fuji (including the shutter sound, I didn't even realize). I never once felt the urge to pick it up and go out to do street photography with it. Now I'm in the same conundrum of wanting to switch back but don't wanna make all the losses (my wife will kill me) she would not understand if I explain it to her lol
May suggest you buy the 50mm Sony 1.8 or the 55mm 1.8 to cut down the weight.
AUXOUT's stuff is amazing! Inspired me too. But then when you start to look at it, it's more about his skill and combination of equipment than it is actually the camera. You can do what he does on an xt4 with the right lenses/filters and a gimbal setup etc. So I just decided to chill and not go after the FF thing so much and just get better at using the xt4.
@@SuperALBSUREabsolutely man, I’ve realized it’s more about skills than anything, he had that one video by Fuji but it didn’t look anything like his Sony ones (maybe they didn’t pay him enough 😅). Good choice, I’ve been wanting to switch back too
I bought my first dSLR 20 years ago. Back then everything decent was really, really expensive. A 1 gig compact flash card was $300 US. I bought a Nikon d100 (6 megapixel) and took many good images with it - as did many of my fellow photographers. I eventually bought the next model up - the d200. That served me well... and like you - I always wanted to go full frame. I love Nikon's ergonomics, as I could do so much without looking at the camera... there's a reason why so many photojournalists use them.
When the time came to make the change - I almost bought a friend's Nikon system... but then I was really intrigued by the technology of Sony's mirrorless offerings. I ended up getting the Sony A7R2 - and loved the portraits I could take with it. I do, however, still hate the menu on that camera. I've recently picked up the ZV-E1 to use for video - and the autofocus system along with the low-light capability of that camera is amazing. I'm eyeballing a new portrait camera and haven't settled on which one, yet. It's not that important, as the A7R2 with good glass continues to deliver amazing portraits.
After you get totally comfortable with the Sony system - you'll probably find that they have a soul... it's just carefully hidden deep in the menu. ;-)
A month ago with the 2023 Winter Deals, I sold my main camera Fujifilm X-T1 , XF 16f2.8, XF 23f2 & XF 35f2 and use the money to buy a brand new Lumix S5 + S20-60 f3.5-5.6 and S50 f1.8 for less than the Fujifilm X-T5 Body alone. I am blown away. I love everything about this S5. The only issue I have is the weight but it is compensated by how good and feature packed the camera is. Fully Weather sealed too. Will use this for my gig.
For an EDC, I sold my travel camera Lumix GX8 & Leica DG 12-60 f2.8-4 and bought a mint condition Nikon Z50 with Z 16-50mm, Z 50-250mm and Z 28mm f2.8 without extra expense ( under €1000 super deal ) from 2nd hand market and I will say, the way I love my X-T1 is the way I love my Z50 now, maybe more ( I don't feel the same for my GX8 ). The Z50 Jpegs are awesome too without editing, although I did tweak the in-camera color setting to my liking. The amount of 3rd partly lens are also a lot. I don't see myself expanding both my kit further right now and I don't see any reasons to go back to Fujifilm as well. Thanks for the video!
A long time ago I started my photography journey with one of the Lumix camera. After two years I switched to Nikon and 10 years later switched again but to Canon. For now I'm not satisfied and dreaming about Fuji camera. Maybe I need to take a step back and return to the roots? To the Lumix? :)
@@AleksandrDederer My problem with Fujifilm is I ended up copying other peoples composition and simulations. My transition is not easy as well but every time I look at the Jpeg of the S5, I am so satisfied. Full Frame renders differently. I am a Full Frame snob before until I owned one.
change your Sony A7iv to an A7CR . and buy small G lens set (aside from your GM F1.4 sets). You can then sell off your Q2 as well.
I have also got into same trap, I have Fuji XT5 and Sony A7R4 with the curiosity of full frame. It took me a while to realize it's not the camera which is making a great shot but it's person holding the camera. Today 95% time I still use Fuji because I love the design with all the buttons easily accessible, compact design and it can do almost everything what my Sony camera can do and maybe better in many cases. Now selling my Sony gear will be a great loss because there is not much resale value so I am just keeping it for occasional usage.
I am a beginner and I was confused about how many options there were, In the end I bought new Sony a7 iii, because only iii and iv have had waked up some emotion inside me idk why. I didn't buy iv because I didn't have enough money but still I am so happy with a7iii.
Soon begins the nagging voice thats wants to know about medium format 😅
As someone who has done the same process, I agree with your sentiments when you say that Fuji is more fun than the soulless but capable Sony. I used to love the XT3 as a travel camera. The user experience, weight and size of the smaller Fuji is hard to beat!
Just went the other way from a Nikon D850 / Z7 to an XT-5. Very happy overall. Much lighter (and cheaper) and having the exposure triangle as a ‚mechanical‘ application is something I really like. Quality wise I don‘t see big differences to my F-lenses (Z-lenses are better though). There is a little more noise at high ISO. Having a greater depth of field is as often an advantage as it is a disadvantage. Overall I would say, that in the printed picture you don‘t see a difference - and definitely not on Instagram.
I have both too but I just love my z lenses way more than my fuji lenses.
i would argue that wide angle lenses doesnt have much big difference for bokeh, but it has differences on longer focal length.
like if we take common lenses like fuji 56 vs any FF 85, lets play fair and compare it at F4 instead of f2 or f1.4.
you will immediately tell that the depth, bokeh is way swallow on the on FF compare on fuji.
if i go further like comparing Fuji 90mm f2 vs any FF 135mm f1.8/2. you can see a huge difference now in depth if you compare it side by side.
if you dont pixel peep nor compare it side by side, yes you won tell any difference.
however for wider angle, i would say the point is not to shoot bokeh/depth. more like having more faster stop helps you to shoot in low light situations.
and of course the 20/24mm on FF beats 13/16mm on apsc since the focal length is longer.
I am saying this from my experience since i use both SONY and Fuji. the difference is there.
i shot portraits alot and i can tell you, the reason i would stay with FF for pro work is mostly for the depth, dynamic range and better lowlight. (also lower noise in high ISO)
anything else. Fuji works fine.
Great video! I've recently done the reverse. I've used Nikon for years (D60, D7200, D780, Z6II) and had a Fuji X-T3 for a few year for casual shots (travel/street etc). I have been fustrated a lot with the Z6II, with it's general feel and it's shocking AF though and so did struggle with it a lot. I upgraded X-T3 to the X-T5 a year ago, which I found I ended up using for almost everything. I then decided to take the mad jump and sold all my Nikon gear and got the X-H2S along with the 100-400mm lens a few month back. I find it excellent for sport and wildlife shots and the X-T5 works great for almost everything else. Because they use virtually the same menu system makes the operation flow for me and I now have a very decent selection of zoom lenses that are obviously switchable between them both. I know what you mean about the difference between Full frame and APS-C, especially with low light, and I'm still temtped to get a Nikon Z7 purely for landscape, but I don't know how I can hide gear that from my partner 🙂
Sounds like my voyage...see above.
Yeah, the Nikon Z system is a real letdown… specifically the z6 I… my worst investment in cameras bar-none! The worst part about the Nikons are, that they really did not embrace the possibilities enabled by mirrorless - having fixed size limited autofocus point and zone options is… just so… unambitious! The X-H2S and the GFX are really enjoyable to shoot and they perform! For smaller street style I settled on the Ricoh GRIIIx… what a gem!
Full frame versus apsc is so overrated! You mostly just get to buy more expensive lenses, and carry more weight, for not much difference! Full frame versus medium format… different story… maybe because medium format is just so much better than anything else… my GFX are amazing… also the now really cheap GFX50R
Very interesting breakdown! Thank you! I'm curious about how you use your Leica...
If you really enjoy Fujifilm, did you consider getting a Fujifilm GFX 50 model to complement your crop sensor Fujifilm camera?
Appreciate your honest thoughts. I’m the opposite. I have Sony full frame and and curious to try Fuji for what I imagine is a more fun easy experience that gets beautiful photos with out messing around in Lr and Ps
A simple way to do this would just to stick to your sony system, and get a x100vi. That way you get to mess about with fuji system and the filters etc without having to commit and selling everything.
Sony cameras are expensive tinker toys. Sony does not even manufacture their own lenses, and the companies they choose are very expensive. Moreover, one model flash unit, as an example, will not be compatible with future Sony cameras, and Sony has quite a small market share for this reason, among many other reasons. Of course, you'll see sponsored videos which disagree with this, and they disagree very specifically because they are financially sponsored, like paid commercials for Sony -
Color science also matters, which most manufacturers more or less ignore, except for Canon, Nikon, and most of all Fuji. Fuji now outsells all others in the formats which they manufacture, which does not include full frame cameras, but does indeed include large format (and DX) cameras.
I have tried many, Canon, Sony, Fujifilm, but still miss the colors I was getting from Nikon D3400.
Started out with a Sony A7C, bought another A7IV and could not stop buying lenses for it. I never had the "feeling" of a Fuji or a Leica, so I don't know what you are talking about - all I know is that I am very passionate about taking photos with my A7IV 🙂
Why not with the A7C? I kinda found out about the importance of a good viewfinder, when taking photos - not videos. The A7C now is my videocamera only.
Great Video!
I've done the opposite: I had some Sony FF-cams (Rx1, A7, A7III) and was never really happy with them, the reasons were the same as you said in your video. Then I tried a X-E4 and some months later I switched to Fuji completetly. Working with an X-T4 (which was replaced by an X-T5, which is a superb camera!) was so much more pleasing than with the A7III. But I had (and still) have similar thoughts about better IQ and less DOF. Well, last year I bought a cheap 6D and some lenses (currently the Sigma Art 35mm f1.4) and when I want the FF-look I take this camera (or the Viltrox 27mm f1.2 which is quite near to a FF-look).
Interestingly the shutter-sound really is one key-aspect for me too - in the X-T5 it is even quieter than in the X-T4 but the overall click-sound on the X-T4 was a tiny bit more pleasing for me.
However I accepted for me that I will always think of other cameras and systems (GFX...😊) but the things in wich Fuji-cameras shine are really relevant for me. Let's see what I am using two years from now in the future 😂.
Appreciate your honesty! You do you ❤ Sometimes we also grow with our gear. At least now you know ;)
I'm still with Fuji. No time to edit all my photos on a computer, although some more features would be reeeally nice. Anyways, I'm more up for that type of fun :D
xt4 is an instrument, Sony is a hammer, I have both and I know why I have both
So… if had choice again would you now have the xt5 to give you that feel in the camera and an xh2s to give that workhorse body you also need since the AF is much improved. Gave up my Sony A9ll and a7r4 for those. Have shot both FF and MF professionally for years and Fuji right now inspires me so win win…
Which is more important? The 'process' or 'getting the shot?' I would say that when you really need to get the shot, getting it is priceless. To capture those priceless moments with my baby daughter, I moved from a Sony A6000 to a Sony A6700 (I even tried the Sony A7C-II, which is full-frame), but I ended up with the A6700, as the APSC lenses are simply smaller and cheaper. So now, I can always count on 'getting the shot' with her. However, now that I have a guaranteed shot camera, I am seriously considering a Fuji XT-50 in order to get the extra pictures of her that I may never be able to take with the Sony. So really, they both matter, but in terms of priority, I bought the Sony first, and now I'm looking at getting the Fuji, just to see how things go with it. If only I could make my Sony pics look like Fuji film signs!
You sound like a fan of Fuji cameras. If I was you, I would accept it and act accordingly. I know what it's like. I was (am) a fan of Olympus. And for more than two years shot with my little E-M10II, while my FF camera was staying back home. What changed my mind was the new generation of smaller FF lenses. They are not as small as my toy-like favorites in the MFT world (like Pana 15/1.7 and Oly 45/1.8) but way smaller than the ones form DSLR years. And all came together for me - the IQ of a FF camera and the smaller overall size of the system. But if it was not for that, I would have sold the big system and used what I was a fan of.
Great video! I'm lucky that I own a Sony, Fuji & Leica. Usually I grab the Leica or Fuji. Both provide different experiences but the key is that both inspire me to want to go shoot. I usually grab the Sony on bigger photo projects. I think the Fuji X-T5 definitely has hit a nice spot for me. It's like a small Sony A74 but with Fuji color science.
The color science, customization profiles, manual controls are the reasons why I sold my sony equipment and got into fujifilm. I confess I do miss the better autofocus from sony, and the IBIS from my X-T4 is annoying. To each their own, what matters is that you are taking photos and enjoying them.
I was thinking long and hard about switching from a Nikon D500 to a Sony Alpha III.
Then on a rather impulsive decision, I changed my mind and got a Fujifilm X-T5.
Before buying I had tried my friends Sony Alpha III and just didn't like the experience.
Also for the first time, I really tried a prime lens because of the focus peaking settings on the X-T5. I know the Sony would've had that too and maybe would've had the better autofocus but taking photos with Fuji was fun again while with the Nikon it always felt like a chore to take it with me because of the weight and size. Now I'm running around with my X-T5 and a Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f2.8 as an everyday setup just because even with the adapter, it's very portable. Also i LOVE the dials and buttons on Fuji! I got the lens for 35 dollars on a flea market and it made my approach to Photography more methodical and "slow". Now I take time to compose the image in my head before shooting and I'm giddy to get home and fire up Lightroom.
Only after buying I also thought about what I like to photograph. I like to get close to my subjects and i like testing how far i can go with this so APS-C I'm technically already closer to the subject so i was like 'yay, I like that.'
I had a similar path in discovering the XT4 and selling the Canon equipment because Fujifilm was much better in low light and sharpness. I struggled with Canon trying to get the most out of it. When the XH2 and XH2S came out I thought it was my ultimate camera, it felt good and worked very well…until it started having focus issues and having to adjust myself to workaround those problems. Fujifilm tried fixing the glitches but never really did enough, but I was determined to make it work.
Fast forward to this year and seeing Sony upgraded its menu system where it didn’t feel like a Cybershot camera, I thought adding the A7C2 would be good for my video side of work and shoot with Fujifilm for the pics. Nope. I absolutely loved the new Sony and its incredible tracking capabilities (plus the AI) that I sold everything and bought a second A7C2.
I also forgot how nice it is to have more lens options with Sony because manufacturers were slow to make Fujifilm lenses. I also missed the Sigma ART lenses (I had one with the canon when trying to adapt Canon into being better) and so now I have two very capable Sony bodies and all ART lenses from Sigma. Yes, they’re a bit heavy compared to the fujifilm system of lenses but OMG they are very good!
There was an adjustment period trying to re-learn the focal lengths of full frame because I was used to crop sensor but it’s the next level.
You mentioned your A74 wasn’t as fun to grab and go shooting, maybe try the A7C2, it’s a beautiful camera.
Thanks for your video review and story. It was nice to hear the similar experience even if I never could afford the Leica 😢
Do you know if the xt-5 solves any of your disappointments of your xt-4? How expensive are those G master lenses? My initial impression is that Sony is a very expensive system.
I shoot Sony and the GM lenses are very expensive. I'm thinking about switching to Fuji.
Sony for work. Fuji for fun! That’s how I use my cameras. I have the a7iv and kept my X-T4, just because I have too much fun with my Fuji. And I hate Lightroom.
Can’t describe it but I switched from Sony to Fuji and I enjoy it more, which means I shoot better images.
Have you considered getting the A7cii or the A7cR?
those are my upgrade path from a6400
Brilliant video. I'm coming back to photography after a few years out and a deciding what system to go with. I had the A7iv on hire last weekend (with the 24-70 f2.8GM), and this weekend I have the X-H2 with the 16-55 red label (or whatever Fuji call their top lenses) and also the 23mm f1.4 R LM WR. I agree entirely with your points - I think the Sony is a 'better' camera, but the Fuji is definitely more fun to use, which means I'm going to pick it up and go and shoot.
With two young kids time is precious, and I found I was having to tweak everything out of the Sony before sharing it, whereas with Fuji, I'm shooting raw+jpeg, usually with a film simulation applied, and I'm sharing straight from the camera - it's so refreshing!
Yes the Sony AF is stickier than the Fuji, but as you rightly say, it's nowhere near as bad as a lot of content online makes out, at least not for my use case. Obviously there are loads more pros and cons of both systems, and each person will have different wants and desires, but in summary I’d say the Sony is a Porsche - solid and utterly dependable. You know it's going to excel at everything you ask of it. The Fuji is a Ferrari - an amazing bit of kit but it’s going to make you work to get the best out of it and might let you down every now and then.
Great perspective and spot on about Sony. They are really just a tool, but they are the best tool. Also please clean your sensor! 😁
We have been on the same journey - minus the Leica Q2.. what Fuji taught me was to appreciate quality glass. Where we diverge in opinion is I put more emphasis in the glass than the body.. I love my 24, 35 85 and 135 gm glass… the body is a tool.
Regarding having to use different exposure comp values between Fuji and Sony, and - counterintuitively given the bigger sensor on Sony - Sony having to be overexposed: are you using the same metering modes?
I have the sony a7iv. Everytime i look at it i get that feeling in my stomache that says, "lets go take some photos." Maybe its because im new to the camera game, but i dont care how my camera looks. I just want my pictures to turn out incredible. The a7iv does that perfectly for me. I guess its like the people who drive a classic car switching to a modern sportscar. Less soul i guess
I personally like cameras like Sony a6700 or a7cR. It’s compact and light. Sony and Sigma make really small full frame and APSC lenses. And Voightlander makes great manual ones for the system. With the right lenses, any APSC or even M4/3 system can make fantastic photos. The features and retro styling of Fujifilm (and OM System) is hard to resist.
Thanks for your opinion and the great presentation. I personally have moved from Canon to Nikon to Sony to finally Fuji, and I will stay here. I have the GFX 50S and a X-S20 for video, and more than anything else, I love the controls, the awesome JPGs, and most importantly: the colours. FWIW I do not like the Sony colours, which I find sterile, nor the Canon colours, which I find boosted and inaccurate. The skin tones in this video perfectly summarise what I do not like about Sony. Even your internal Freud wants the Fuji back :D 14:43
Insightful! Thank you! I truly wish the Sony APS-C will become more Fuji-like, esp with better lenses. Will probably take 5 years or so. But for now, Fuji it is (XT-5).
I hear you, and I agree that Fujis are fun to use. Sony, I've had several, and they're not fun to use. It's like they have no soul. I'm very keen on Nikon and Canon. Canon ergonomics are great, beautiful color, but sometimes they back focus. Nikon, good color and I really like the way the bodies work. The Z7 is terrific, but I really loved the older D200 with the older sensor. The images always looked better than reality, jpegs perfect right out of the camera.
Great video. I appreciate the perspective you provide because I think many fuji shooters are wondering what it would be like to switch.
I have both Sony and Fujifilm, seems the best solution. The Sony is a work camera, it gets the job done, Fujifilm is for personal work for fun. But I wouldn't hesitate using APSC for pro work, clients would never know the difference. I'm pretty sure you will buying another Fujifilm camera if only an X100 :-). PS the pro shutter on the 7R and A9 cameras sound better than the 7
I switched from Sony A7iv and A7Riv to Fujifilm X H2s and X T5 They’re both awesome. I love Fujifilm’s film simulations and sooc images plus the experience of using Fujifilm cameras is pure joy. Sony af is the best and for the most part Sony images are too perfect sooc.
I have worked WITH fuji and have had fuji for many years... I switched to Sony when i stopped working for Fuji and now I am on the A7R V as my main body often with my 24-70 GM2, and although my hear always will be Fuji, my head and part of my heart now belongs to Sony... I do have an X100VI and still try all the new stuff when it comes out, but I simply can't see any benefits being with Fuji as my main camera.... :)
It all depends what you shoot but as much as I can defend Fujifilm x100vi for street photography, if we speak about an Xt-5, any same size Sony camera is far superior. In fact, in a comparison between an a7cr and a Leica m11 with the same lens it is difficult to see the quality difference. So I have both. Fujifilm for non demanding street photography and Sony for both more action oriented but also manual lens experience. I own Loxias, Ttartisans and other manual lenses and it is as fun as shooting Fujifilm.
Fuji cameras all have a "Romantic nostalgia with Photography" with all the tactile dials and rings. I shot with an XT-3 for 2 years before I made the pragmatic choice of switching to a canon FF. I've since used a few cameras since then and I always without fail find myself drooling over the fuji colour treatment over any other brand.
the day fuji guys do something about AF its the best camera for the price.
Hey. Super Video. 👍 Am Ende war ein kleiner Versprecher drin. (Stick to Fuji) 😅
Finde es toll das Du so offen darüber sprichst. Bei mir war es gerade anders herum. Ich habe mit der A7C meine erste Kamera gekauft, bis ich eine X100V in die Hände bekommen habe und komplett auf Fuji umgestiegen bin.
Neben der X100V besitze ich eine X-H2S, die beim Autofocus einen grossen Sprung gemacht hat.
Wie Du es sagst, die Sony ist super. Aber die Fuji nimmt man lieber in die Hand.
Schönen Abend und Grüße
Erik
How much better do you think the auto focus is on the Sony? I seem to be leaning into Fuji but come from a current full frame DSLR in Nikon. Only thing about Sony that pulls me is the auto focus and advanced tracking. I shoot mostly wildlife and birds.
Honestly and i have canons ,sonys but if i want great photos without needing video i use my pentax , no hybrid camera can follow a pure foto camera.
And what is the whining about the shutter sound from any camera from many youngsters, you afraid the bride will fly away?
And the silent fuji shutter sounds like it will not hold for long while the sony sounds more solid , still not comparable to the pentax though.
I have 2 Sony Cameras and it's still very uninspiring. I've actaully invested in Fuji cause I love shooting with it.
Auto focus on Fuji is garbage and the menu settings are absurdly confusing but it's the most enjoyable camera I've used. Really feel like you're holding something special.
I switched after 6 years with Fuji to Canon R8 and to be honest I don't miss much. Colors to my surprise are better with Canon but it's subjective. DR is much better although I assumed there will be not much difference. Images have more pop and 3d look for portraits. Handling with proper grip, great lcd with touch menu and custom modes for fast switching is so much better. AF is from another planet and now finally basically all photos of my running kids are in focus while with Fuji even X-H2s was struggling. Size and price is also better at least in my case example : X-H2s with 23 f1.4 LM WR vs Canon R8 with RF 35 f1.8 and images are sharper on Canon although LM WR lenses on Fuji are promoted as high end primes. OIS in lens is also much better than Fuji's jittery IBIS. I only miss smaller size of bodies like X-E3 and aperture rings so I may test A7C II with Sigma primes as this seems to be best of both worlds for me.
Every system - at least of that well-known manufacturers - is capable and one can take beautiful photos using any gear manufactured after 2010. These „switches” from one system to another have no sense whatsoever, and are nothing but „post-rationalization” of one's desire to spend a lot of money for new toys.
But I support the „switchers”, because this way I can buy good gear on significantly reduced prices (on eBay).
My main cameras are Nikon DSLRs (not mirrorless) - apart of them I also have a few others - and I'm not going to do any „switch”. Yes, „Z” Nikon cameras seem to be fantastic (as Canon's „R” and others) - but each year they will release new and newer models. The „switch” has no finish! My present gear is good enough for me. It's the gear 20 years ago I could only dream of.
I used Canon cameras from the EOS 630 to the 5Ds. At some point I bought some Canon lenses that I want to use as long as I can carry them.
OTOH the Canon gear is getting heavier as I age, so I bought some (mostly used) micro four thirds cameras that are good enough for most purposes, better for many. Mike Lane FRPS switched from Sony to OM Systems in the time I have been watching his videos, for bird photography and video. He's added a Lumix G9 Mark II for video.
Today I use two Lumix S1Rs, principally for my particular lenses, it's a more capable camera than the 5Ds. It's better than anything Nikon or Canon had at the time, still is, and the Sony camera mount makes it unusable.
IBIS in my Lumix and Olympus cameras is better than Sony had, Canon, Nikon and I think Fujifilm didn't yet have it.
You could switch back, or even to micro four thirds, if you are prepared to buy used. You will have much lighter gear. Low light performance might not be as good, but it might be good enough.
AF has long been a problem with Lumix cameras, with the new S5 II, S5x and G9 Mark II, it's as good as it gets. Lumix S cameras are FF, but some of the lenses are surprisingly light.
I have the Fuji, XH1, and XT5. I had a chance to hold the Sonly a7iv and, hands down, the XH1 is the most comfortable camera I have ever held, and the Sony the most uncomfortable.
AFAIK Sony A7 4 has a bad rolling shutter when filming 4k 60 fps. Also (as one pro-photographer which is known to me and some other his subs) it has a worse IBIS than Canon.
Fuji has a better IBIS as he claims. He did used Fuji a lot and the same with Canon. He did tried Sony too.
Yeah, also and obviously: Sony is just a brick with a handle. I've didn't choose Canon by the most reason because it's like a "piece of soap". Better looking than Sony IMHO. But it's the same "modern design" thing. I hope Canon will go retro after Nikon :)) Maybe I'll buy it one day...
I since switched to the Nikon Z8, but in my opinion, the AF on Fuji cameras is *worse* than most people on this platform make it out to be. 🤨
Had an X-H2, and as soon as there's any action, the AF just misses like crazy, to the point that there wasn't a single tack sharp shot in a lot of bursts I took. Another thing that really bothered me with Fuji, is how it's supposed to be cheaper and lighter than FF, but their lenses are getting bigger and frankly, way too expensive. The Fuji 150-600mm f/8 zoom costs significantly more than the competing full frame 600mm f/6.3 zooms from Sigma, Nikon and Sony.
Agreed My A7iv is my Workhorse camera. But it probably is not the camera I would take just to walk around and have "Fun". I think I would prefer to just take any super old DSLR just for that shutter feel or even a Film camera.
I reckon for Work related tasks = Sony.
For the enjoyment of going through the process of taking photos. I take a Manual Vintage Lens and an Old DSLR
Can I recommend using a video centric/purpose camera for video and a photo centric for stills.. Sony ZV-E1 is inexpensive Full Frame that delivers no crop at 4K60, virtually no rolling shutter and the best low light sensitivity for price due to having bigger pixels on the sensor - only being 12MP sensor. Your rolling shutter footage from a7IV looked pretty awful, because its main purpose is photography ...
I still have a custom preset in my Fuji called TOBIS T COLOR from one of your older x100 videos. It is my standard color profile.