Coming from m43... which alpha to pick

[zuriha]

Hey,

 

I'm looking at Sony for quite some time now and lately thinking about going into the system to replace my m43 system.

 

My main concerns before I do that is weight of the body and lens.

 

My main use of the camera is family photos, mainly of my little girl and the upcoming baby boy. I also love to shoot flowers, landscapes and do some macro.

 

In my current system I got the following lenses: Panasonic 25mm f.17 (equal to 50mm FF), 42.5mm f1.7 (equal to 85mm) & 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 (equal to 24-280).

 

I shoot both still and videos.

 

The A7 seems to be the lightest and cheapest of all the alpha series, which is great. But it lacks IS of A7 II, and I heard it has some trouble fast focusing.

 

But A7 II weights decently more, bigger, and costs almost double.

 

If I could choose without any budget restrictions I would definitely pick the A7S II. I do not need that much high res stills as I don't print large.

 

The reason I'm leaning towards full frame is better low light performance and the shallower DOF which I just LOVE.

 

I guess am asking which route to go here.

 

My first pick would be the A7 II, but the extra weight scares me, I'm used to travel lightly.

 

Also what lens would suffice for video? If I pick A7 I will need IS.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Thank you!

 

Sent from my SM-G935F

[Golem]

"Thoughts ?" Not thoughts, but facts: 

  

Alpha lenses with IS are called by Sony "OSS" lenses. 

  

All OSS lenses are for APS-C [1 or 2 special purpose

exceptions, not relevant here].

 

The only IBIS bodies are the three in the a7 Mk-II series.

  

Do the math. Nothing adds up to what you need or want,

except for the most expensive option. Very unsurprising.   

  

Thoughts ? 

[addicted2light]

Ok, I'm gonna be killed on a Sony forum, but on the other hand I want to give you an honest advice.

 

A bit of background: I currently shoot with a Sony A7r (first generation) plus Contax Zeiss glass, an Olympus E-M10 + Contax Zeiss + 25/1.7 Pana + 35-100 Pana + 14-42 Oly, and a Fuji X-T10 with the cheap 16-55 and Contax Zeiss glass.*

 

*Sony exclusively for tripod use, Olympus given the small size of the lenses for when I'm around on the bike, Fuji for everything else.

 

NOISE

Everyone is different in how she processes the files, her taste etc., but IN MY OPINION (please keep this in mind) the Fuji X-T10 has better high Iso performance than the A7r. Sure, if you downsize the A7r images the noise will be a smidgen less, but the sensor in the A7r and in every other Sony cameras I shot with often puts out hundreds of hot pixels at everything over 800/1600iso, while the Fuji is whistle-clean.*

Fuji Iso values are calculated on a different scale, or if you wish are a bit optimistic. But even accounting for that I see a noticeable difference.

 

*Yes, I might have had a string of defective cameras, but it is unlikely. My guess is that it happens mostly under artificial light in interiors

 

RESOLUTION

Fuji and Olympus might be both 16Mp, but even using the crappy (that is, crappy with Fuji files) Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom to convert Fuji files* they still hold a pretty consistent margin over the Olympus ones, at least with the lenses I use. To be clear is the difference between not having glasses and putting prescription glasses on...

Between the 16Mp Fuji X-T10 and the 36Mp A7r the difference, obviously!, is there. But it is much less that you think, provided you know how to properly sharpen the files for print. It is hardly noticeable if at all, and even then ONLY examining two identical pictures side-to-side, printing up to 60x90cm. Depending on the subject and with an appropriate choice of paper, you might be able to stretch the Fuji 16Mp files up to 1m wide. The Sony goes on and on...but I seriously doubt you're in the business of printing your family pictures at over 2meters wide!

Fuji files might look crappier at 100%, especially if you use Lightroom or Camera Raw (they are not optimized for the X-Trans sensor, and tend to smear details in foliage), but they tend to print beautifully.

Keep in mind that with Fuji lenses with OIS or with an A7 II you will be able to get these results even shooting handheld, while with the old A7 or the A7r you will really need a tripod to exploit the resolution with most shutter speeds.

 

*(Irident Developer does wonders for them, it's like having a different camera with a much higher megapixel count...)

 

SKIN TONES & WHITE BALANCE

This is a strong point for Fuji: provided you don't use the Velvia simulation (is intended for landscapes) they get you the best skin tones, and under pretty much every lighting, straight out of the box.

You can get there with Sony, but this involves more post processing. And in general the A7r* has a yellowish tint even at the same white balance values, while the Fuji is cooler/more neutral.

 

*The A7 II has a different white balance behavior on which I can't comment not owning one

 

DYNAMIC RANGE

Here there is a big difference. The A7r, from my own tests, has a dynamic range of more or less 11 2/3 stops at 100 Iso; the E-M10 of 8 1/3 stops at 100Iso; the X-T10 of 7 1/3 stops at 200Iso.*

That said, I find easier to merge, when needed, a few shots in an HDR (actually in an exposure fusion, for more natural results) with the Fuji, than having to focus stack pictures to get my subject in focus with the Sony**. That because focus staking is much more prone to user or software errors compared to HDR.

Besides, paper has generally only 5 1/2 stops of dynamic range, so if you plan to print you will have to compress this dynamic range anyway. So not a big of a deal as I feared at first. And if shooting jpgs, with the Iso sets to Auto (with a cap of 800iso to avoid excessive noise) and the DR400 setting on with the Fuji it is almost impossible to blow the highlights and the noise will still be minimal.

 

*Tested without extensions of any sort on (DR200 etc.)

**With 36Mp even stopping down you will be rarely able to have everything in focus, even with a wide angle, unless you can tilt the lens or you focus stack several pictures taken at different focus distances

 

SHALLOW DOF

Obviously with a full frame you'll get this. But even on an APS-C sensor the difference with the m4/3 will be huge. And the 35/1.4 and the 56/1.2 (or even a cheap 50/1.4 adapted lens, if you can live without af) Fuji will give you shallow DOF in spades.

 

AF

The A7 mark II has improved af, and on that I can't comment. But the af of the original A7 / A7r series is nothing to write home about, and it is much slower than Olympus'. On the other hand, in my experience the af of the Fuji X-T10 (and X-T1, they have the same innards) is more or less as fast, but quite a bit more accurate than the Olympus E-M10. Meaning that with the Olympus I'm sometimes unable to acquire focus or I get false positives, while with the Fuji if it locks it generally locks, and the images are sharp. This especially if you use the medium-small af focus points (you can set them larger for faster focusing, or super small for improved precision).

 

VIDEO

Fuji cameras with the 16Mp sensor are generally not much well regarded in terms of video (the new 24Mp sensor seems way better and it does 4k, but IMO the new cameras are still too expensive, being sold at an early adopters premium price). I don't shoot video so I can't really comment, but if you use video only for family stuff it might be more than good enough.

 

GENERAL SHOOTING EXPERIENCE

I loved the E-M10 at first, but after having tried and subsequently bought the X-T10 this is the camera I now pick most of the times. YMMV, but I found Fuji files way easier to process in terms of getting the right colors compared to Sony. And for most users even the jpgs, thanks to the film simulations Fuji has implemented, are already pretty much perfect straight out of the camera.

In addition, Fuji has a really nice wi-fi app with really low lag, useful if you want to remotely control the camera and/or share immediately your pictures, that IMO works a smidgen better than the Sony one.

 

LENSES

Fuji lenses are MUCH cheaper than their Sony counterparts, especially so if bought second-hand, and IMHO at least as good. I'm seriously thinking of completely switching to Fuji because while the resolution difference, like I said, is visible only on very large prints the difference in the colors you can see it even at postage stamp sized prints or on Instagram.

 

Sorry for the encyclopedia-lenght answer! And now lets be beaten up to a pulp from the fanboys

[Golem]

@zuriha.  

   

What do you mean by "Better low light performance" ?  

  

I know 4 possible aspects that improve low light results: 

  

1. Stabilization 

2. Low noise

3. AF sensitivity, speed, and accuracy 

4. Suitable lenses available

  

You mention the a7S-II and concern for "fast focusing".

That would be aspects 2 and 3. What about 1 and 4 ? 

  

`

[Mr_A7s]

@ Op - I have 3 kids myself and mirrorless is great for family photos.  

 

I'm currently own a7rII, a7s, FE35f1.4, FE35f2.8, FE55f1.8, 2470GM and 85GM. Here is my thought. I feel a7 will give good image quality, however, AF might become a challenge to photograph kids. AF feature on a7 is very simple. I think your decision on a7 II is excellent. AF is much better.

 

At this moment, I'm thinking upgrade my a7s to mrk II as well. AF is much more reponsive, still, can't compare to a7 II or a7r II in term of tracking moving subject.

 

As for the lenses, I feel smaller primes fit better for family out exp. FE28f2, FE35f2.8, FE55f1.8. These are great lenses for a7 series. The lens that I highly recommend for those special kid portrait shots is 85GM or Batis 85mm. The Batis is a bit friendly to buy and carry around. Image quality is SUPER. Those don't zoom in 100% and looking for negative in Bokeh etc...I find the batis is excellent choice. If money is no issue and you willing to go bigger, the 85GM is just SUPER-SUPER. 

 

Best wishes,

D

[pflapf]

Ok, I'm gonna be killed on a Sony forum, but on the other hand I want to give you an honest advice.

Actually I've been thinking about switching to Fuji from Sony as well and I can only recommend to give Fuji a try when coming from m43.

A few things to think about is:

 

1) how important is IBIS for you? I'm loving to shoot my Canon FD 300/4 handheld at 1/30s. I'm just to lazy to carry a tripod and it's not family friendly as well.

 

2) AF performance. I can't judge on that for Fuji cameras. My A7R2 is probably faster in C-AF which I often use for kids. Older cameras tend to be slower, focus capabilities are developing fast these days.

 

3) Carrying lesser lenses having a megapixel monster like the A7R(2). 85mm lens means over 250mm equivalent after cropping, still keeping a reasonable amount of pixels for printing.

 

4) Sony is expensive! And concerning E mount they just start to develop towards "pro" users.

[addicted2light]

Actually I've been thinking about switching to Fuji from Sony as well and I can only recommend to give Fuji a try when coming from m43.

A few things to think about is:

 

1) how important is IBIS for you? I'm loving to shoot my Canon FD 300/4 handheld at 1/30s. I'm just to lazy to carry a tripod and it's not family friendly as well.

 

2) AF performance. I can't judge on that for Fuji cameras. My A7R2 is probably faster in C-AF which I often use for kids. Older cameras tend to be slower, focus capabilities are developing fast these days.

 

3) Carrying lesser lenses having a megapixel monster like the A7R(2). 85mm lens means over 250mm equivalent after cropping, still keeping a reasonable amount of pixels for printing.

 

4) Sony is expensive! And concerning E mount they just start to develop towards "pro" users.

 

 

All great points.

 

I just wanted to add a few notes about:

 

2) last month I shot the 2nd birthday of the daughter of a friend of mine in a nearly dark venue with the Fuji (for this I could have used even the A7r, but the shutter sound would have scared the poor kids!     ) and a 40/2 M-Rokkor, manual focus. Shooting most of the times at f/2 and 6400 Iso I had a keeper rate, in terms of in-focus shots, of probably 90%. So manual focus is not that daunting assuming you're accustomed to do it with an Aps-c camera (more depth of field at the same f/ stop compared to a full frame one*).

 

*because you're using a shorter lens to get the same frame, not because of some black magic

 

and 

 

3) I plenty agree, but not forget that, for handheld use, the more you enlarge / crop an image the sharper the results had to be in the first place, and this without some form of image stabilization can be something difficult to achieve.

 

Lastly, about 4): they are going plain nuts! IMO you don't need a 3000€ 50mm lens to print mural sized, sharp pictures. I'm afraid Sony is trying to Leica-ize (?, Leica-transform?, Leica-mutate? you get the gist) itself...

[Mr_A7s]

"Thoughts ?" Not thoughts, but facts: 

  

Alpha lenses with IS are called by Sony "OSS" lenses. 

  

All OSS lenses are for APS-C [1 or 2 special purpose

exceptions, not relevant here].

 

The only IBIS bodies are the three in the a7 Mk-II series.

  

Do the math. Nothing adds up to what you need or want,

except for the most expensive option. Very unsurprising.   

  

Thoughts ? 

 

There is nothing wrong shooting with Fuji mirrorless system either. Fuji has beautiful old looking  & retro body style in today mirrorless market(my taste of course). Huge lens selection. I wish they make some FF or medium format  

[addicted2light]

Between the 16Mp Fuji X-T10 and the 36Mp A7r the difference, obviously!, is there. But it is much less that you think, provided you know how to properly sharpen the files for print. It is hardly noticeable if at all, and even then ONLY examining two identical pictures side-to-side, printing up to 60x90cm. Depending on the subject and with an appropriate choice of paper, you might be able to stretch the Fuji 16Mp files up to 1m wide.

 

 

Even if the OP looks like is AWOL, this might be interesting for someone else.

 

If you're curious of how much difference there is printing 1 meter wide between a properly sharpened 16Mp Fuji X-T10 file and a properly sharpened 36Mp Sony A7r file you can take a look at this post of mine on the Fuji forum:

 

Fuji X-T10 vs Sony A7r for landscapes, with samples

 

I did this for my own education given, like I said, I'm considering going for a full Fuji setup to replace the Sony one.

 

I was getting great results from the X-T10, but not having it shot side-to-side with the A7r I wanted to be sure I wasn't "seeing things", so this morning I took both for a spin using the same lenses.

[addicted2light]

...and if you want to see a more detailed comparison, with more & bigger samples this thing developed in a full fledged post:

 

http://www.addicted2light.com/2016/07/29/giving-the-boot-to-sony-a7r-vs-fuji-x-t10/

 

Have fun!

[Guest all8]

Do I understand correctly that you are using "picture/film" style processing built into the cameras, and then you are taking the produced JPG for further processing? Or are you working on the Raws?

 

Just wondering because generally the film style is not effecting the RAW data, so its not clear what is being presented.

[addicted2light]

Do I understand correctly that you are using "picture/film" style processing built into the cameras, and then you are taking the produced JPG for further processing? Or are you working on the Raws?

 

Just wondering because generally the film style is not effecting the RAW data, so its not clear what is being presented.

 

 

I'm working on the raws (I'm allergic to jpgs...).

 

In Lightroom, under the "Calibration" panel, I then choose "Landscape" for the A7r and "Velvia" for the X-T10. The "picture style / film simulation" options that Adobe provides have been, AFAIK, developed jointly with Fujifilm to reflect as much as possible the results you get with the in-camera produced jpgs. And honestly I'm extremely happy with them, even more so than with the jpgs.

 

They are the main reason I try to avoid as long as I can using Irident / RawTherapee, that do not provide these film simulations, even though in terms of sharpness these two raw converters (especially Irident) produce quite better results.

[Guest all8]

What happens if you use Velvia for both? I only really noticed a difference in color and contrast between the images.

[addicted2light]

What happens if you use Velvia for both? I only really noticed a difference in color and contrast between the images.

 

 

Unfortunately the "film simulations / styles" are tied to the camera sensor and model. So I can't use the "Velvia" with the A7r files, or "Landscape" with the Fuji's for that matter. 

 

Even if I could circumvent the software restrictions somehow Lightroom still would not be able to properly map the data from the Sony sensor using the Fuji picture style.

 

"Landscape" or "Vivid" are the closest Sony approximations to Fuji "Velvia"; I used "Landscape" because it's the one I generally employ on my camera to help me previsualize the final result, given it is reasonably high-contrast.

 

BTW, the fact that the only discernible differences at that print size are contrast and color is exactly my point. Considering I'm not doing 3 meters wide prints, why bother to carry the A7r that's much more finicky to shoot compared to the Fuji, especially with the long lenses (200, 300mm) that I love to use? That's what I'm trying to decide.

[Guest all8]

Ah, I see, that's a shame.

 

A lot of people pick the Fuji because of the film simulations. I can understand that.

[addicted2light]

My guess is that the biggest improvements Sony could make to their lineup would be hiring in a decisional position someone that: a. is a photographer (to solve the various quirks with the interface etc.); b. has experience, as an engineer / color specialist, with film.

 

The advantage of Fuji would be easy to "overcome": they are just being smart in monetizing the sectors in which they had more experience, and they are listening a bit more to their base.

 

Not to mention the famous "kaizen" philosophy in terms of firmware updates. Not giving uncompressed raw or an improved af algorithm to the A7r, a camera that costed big bucks just the year before? Come on Sony.

[Guest all8]

There is a significant difference between Fuji and Sony. Fuji tends to release unfinished products, which become finished over time but gain no new real capabilities - its all buttons and dials, and exercise in platform packaging. Mean while, Sony tends to release released finished products, fixes real deficiencies, and occasionally marginal ones - and then they release 3 difference sensor variants and roll out new real capabilities each 18 months.

 

Although I doubt too many will admit it, the real decider is that Fuji cameras are cheaper ... because as you have shown, there is not too much difference (esp if you use a tripod). And the film simulations   

 

Neither brand impresses me that much, but I like Zeiss lenses, and Zeiss likes FF ...

[addicted2light]

There is a significant difference between Fuji and Sony. Fuji tends to release unfinished products [...]

 

Although I doubt too many will admit it, the real decider is that Fuji cameras are cheaper ... because as you have shown, there is not too much difference (esp if you use a tripod). And the film simulations   

 

Neither brand impresses me that much, but I like Zeiss lenses, and Zeiss likes FF ...

One of the reasons I went with Sony is because I got burnt with the first X100. I was one of the early adopters, and at that time (before several firmware upgrades) the camera IMHO was a pain to use. So for years I avoided Fuji products like the plague.

 

As Fuji being cheaper: for one I'll be the first to admit that price is a big factor! Not just with cameras, I don't see the point of spending more than it is necessary as long something will do the job, but that's just me.

 

And there are a couple of Zeiss for Fuji a 12mm and a 32mm. But I'm not going to buy them, I love Fuji and Zeiss both since the time I was shooting medium format.

 

Not for anything my two favorite lenses ever were the 50 Zeiss for Hasselblad and the 75 Fujinon on the GS645.

[technomad]

Hey,

 

I'm looking at Sony for quite some time now and lately thinking about going into the system to replace my m43 system.

 

My main concerns before I do that is weight of the body and lens.

 

My main use of the camera is family photos, mainly of my little girl and the upcoming baby boy. I also love to shoot flowers, landscapes and do some macro.

 

In my current system I got the following lenses: Panasonic 25mm f.17 (equal to 50mm FF), 42.5mm f1.7 (equal to 85mm) & 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 (equal to 24-280).

 

I shoot both still and videos.

 

The A7 seems to be the lightest and cheapest of all the alpha series, which is great. But it lacks IS of A7 II, and I heard it has some trouble fast focusing.

 

But A7 II weights decently more, bigger, and costs almost double.

 

If I could choose without any budget restrictions I would definitely pick the A7S II. I do not need that much high res stills as I don't print large.

 

The reason I'm leaning towards full frame is better low light performance and the shallower DOF which I just LOVE.

 

I guess am asking which route to go here.

 

My first pick would be the A7 II, but the extra weight scares me, I'm used to travel lightly.

 

Also what lens would suffice for video? If I pick A7 I will need IS.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Thank you!

 

Sent from my SM-G935F

Having gone myself from Sony to M4/3, I did some comparative system weights for Oly, Sony FF and Nikon FF. You might find it helpful, at http://highland.photography/gear/weighting-for-the-day/

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[addicted2light]

Having gone myself from Sony to M4/3, I did some comparative system weights for Oly, Sony FF and Nikon FF. You might find it helpful, at http://highland.photography/gear/weighting-for-the-day/

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

Interesting article, thanks for sharing!

 

Btw, the reasons you listed are why I have an "alternative" m4/3 setup I use on non-photographic travels and on the bike. Here you can see how it compares against the corresponding Contax ff focal lengths (keeping in mind the Contax are more or less comparable is size or even smaller than their Sony equivalent lenses):

 

 

 

From left to right: Contax 28-85, Olympus 14-42 kit zoom (soon to be replaced with the even more compact & sharper Panasonic 12-32 pancake), Contax 100-300, Panasonic 35-100

[EvilTed]

@zuriha

 

I like the A6300 + Sony/Zeiss 16-70 F4 for family snapshots.

Set to JPEG fine and using in-camera corrections, it's really very good and plenty fast enough for keeping up with them.

 

I've owned A7s (loved it), A7 II (hated it) and tried A7s II but traded it on a second A7r II body.

A7r II is amazing quality, but it has been relegated to a static still camera for landscapes and portraits.

The files are huge uncompressed and it is slow and clunky to write them.

Not ideal for anything fast moving.

 

HTH

[Qamera]

HI. I just recently came over from M43 and wrote a short blog post about it, together with some comparisons.  If you like the E-M1 with 12-40 Pro lens, it's actually pretty much the same as the A7R with 24-70, with the additional advantages that FF has to offer...  https://qamera.smugmug.com/Galleries/A-New-Camera/