UKC

Hi there,

I'm a happy owner of an ancient Canon EOS 350D but as it seems the times are changing and there are amazing small cameras on the market with much better image quality.

I done quite a bit of research "narrowed" the selection to Sony a6000, A7, Fuji X-E2 and X-T1. However at this point I'm in trouble, can someone using these cameras on the field (mountains) comment with first hand experience?

To be specific:
- Generally the Sony cameras seem to have a much better price/weight/IQ. However lots of people on these forums seem to like the Fuji X-E series. Why is that? Why do people prefer them over say NEX-7 or a6000?
- A7 is an FF camera (!) for the same price as the X-T1. Is the startup time or battery performance of A7 is that bad? Or simply the handling of Fuji cameras in the wilderness is better?

Forgot to mention that I have a Canon S95 for rock climbing purposes.

In reply to Aldaris:

The image quality of the Fuji X series is stunning. I have an XT-1 and use it in a studio environment and am amazed at the image quality. I have actually sold my Nikon gear as I wanted something smaller but with stunning image quality. The Fuji lenses are very good, in fact quite a few commentators regard their prime lenses on a par with Leica. If most of your photography is in a mountain environment you cant go wrong with the XE-2.

In reply to Aldaris:

I agree. Sold all my canon stuff and went for an xt1. Never regretted it for a moment. Firstly, it's loads lighter and secondly I feel like I'm in control of my camera again.

In reply to Aldaris:

The A7 decision is all about lenses, in that there aren't many native ones. If you already have decent FF lenses or the lenses you can get for it are for focal lengths you use then it's a valid choice, otherwise it's not such a good idea at the moment. My mate has an A7s and says it's awesome in low light but the dynamic range isn't as good as other cameras.

In reply to Aldaris:

I've sold all of canon kit except for a wildlife photography setup (5d3, 600mm lens and teleconverters). In its place I've gone Fuji and have shot weddings and in a studio with it with no regrets at all.

The x-fit lenses are incredible, the R designated line is entirely comparable with the Canon L series.

I tried but didn't get on with the Sony- the lens options aren't quick or extensive - and I preferred the IQ with the fuijis. The x-t2 is stunning.

All it's missing is a longer tele but there's a 400mm zoom coming this time next year.

In reply to london_huddy:

Thanks guys, but I was interested in what way the Fuji is better than the Sony alternatives. It is a piece of trivia that both are better than the DSLRs. Finally I went for the Sony a6000 with the 18-55 lens. The price/size/weight/image quality is unbeatable. The XE-2 is nice, but no tilting LCD.

I already used it in a recent hike and I have to say the image quality is brilliant! I agree that the Fuji produces images with these nice fairytale colours, but I'm happy with the "similarly good" colours as my old Canon. I'm definitely happy with the camera and now listing all my Canon gear on ebay .

The Sony kitlens is not that good I admit, but the Zeiss 16-70/f4 is a stellar alternative. The the a6000 body and the Zeiss 16-70 is still cheaper AND better than the X-T1 with kitlens. I just wait till january, as there are rumours about an updated Zeiss 16-70 .

In reply to Aldaris:

I'll add to what I said about the Fuji-Sony comparison then.
Neither are bad cameras and you'll take lovely photos with either of them (or, indeed, pretty much anything on the market).

The factors for me were:

1 - Lenses - for what I shoot (weddings, sports, landscape and a bit of studio), I found the Fuji collection to be superior. More fast primes (56mm 1.2, 35mm 1.4, 18mm f2) and cracking standard zooms (18-55 2.8-4 and 55-200 3.4-4.8 and the new 50-140mm 2.8 which looks stunning).

2 - Handling. I liked the X-E1 and X-E2 and the X-T1 is a delight.

3 - General performance. Image rendering, jpg production in camera and overall IQ is great. The low light isn't as good as the newest Sony offerings but the fast lenses see to that and AF is perfectly acceptable but I'll enjoy the next generation of the X-Pro and X-T ranges even more.

Anyway, that's why I made my decision and didn't go Sony.

In reply to london_huddy:

The decision was really tough. The reasons for Sony a6000 were the following:

- Handling was better for me than the X-E2. It has a pronounced grip, unlike the X-E2. The X-T1 is much better indeed... but paying twice the price for just the ergonomics was not justifiable for me.

- The X-Trans sensor of the Fuji was a problem. I borrowed an X-T1 with the kitlens for an afternoon and shot landscapes. Unfortunately the fine detail is not satisfactory, the grass and leaves look like an oil-painting. Truth to be told, I used Lightroom 5.6 for RAW conversion.

- I'm a casual user, and I use my camera almost exclusively for hiking and mountaineering. I completely understand that the Fuji has some amazing primes. However, I need a really good travel zoom, like the Zeiss 16-70/f4. The Fuji lineup currently does not have one. Maybe I'll need a 85mm prime for portrait, but that is something the Fuji is also lacking.

- Lack of tilting LCD for the Fuji X-E2!

- Lack of proper video support for both Fujis, both have noticably worse image quality than the Sony.

In reply to Aldaris:

Totally agree on video - it's not an issue for me.

Interested in your comments on fine detail - my X-E1 and the XT-1 that I hire are both stunning and almost a match for my 5D3. The 18-55 kit lens throws out superb images for me - no clients have complained yet!

On the 85 portrait - that's what the 56 1.2 is for me - with the crop factor. It's every bit as good as the Canon 85 1.2 and a hell of a lot less money!

Anyway - glad you've got a camera that works for you.

In reply to london_huddy:

for fine detail the a6000 outperforms the fujis..
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000/12

In reply to malk:

Fair enough - looks pretty impressive!

In reply to malk:

Which lens is the comparision being made with? In their Overall Conclusion, DPReview says, "the a6000's kit lens can't hold a candle to the Fujifilm X-E2's excellent [kit] XF 18-55mm F2.8-4R LM OIS."

In reply to malk:
in low light (click the light bulb icon) the xe-2 does better imo after iso1600 (looking at the raw files). it seems there is a lot less chroma noise. But, as someone else said, it is probably lens dependant. pixel peeping is not the way to pick a camera.

In reply to franksnb:
Pixel peeping is indeed a wrong attitude towards photography. My problem with the fine detail is more like this oil-painting-like artifacts on leaves, grass, see:
http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2014-09/509725_fujifestmeny.png

Here is a sample for an ordinary Canon APSC:
http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2014-09/509725_canonnemeles.png

The second is not sharp at all, just to show how strange the Fuji rendering of grass is. Sometimes it can be seen not just on greens but on rocks as well, there are some brilliant samples on photozone.de. This is lens independent and a feature of the X-Trans sensor.

Or look at this blogpost:
http://www.michalography.com/blog/2014/5/31/the-fujifilm-x-e2-a-landscape-p...

The kitlens with the Fuji is better. But this X-Trans problem is still there.

In reply to Aldaris:

the sensor is not at fault, it's the colour filter array that sits in front of the sensor. Its slightly different and requires a slightly different de-mosaic algorithm. the standard colour filters de-mosaic algorithms have had many years of refinement, whereas the xtrans has had only a couple of years. some raw converters don't cope so well. other such as rawtherpee (free) and photoninja do an excellent job. the author of the review was using Lightroom which is know to give poor results unless you know what you are doing with it when using an xtrans cfa.

I wont respond to two random pictures of grass. post the same scene with the same lens, exposure and sensor but different cfas. then we can talk.

anyway pros and cons, as always

In reply to franksnb:

a nice picture of the grass in my garden

https://www.flickr.com/photos/128498864@N06/15658787811/in/photostream/

In reply to franksnb:

Those grass samples I just searched on the internet as I was not in my workshop. All the other samples I took was developed using LR 5.6, so I can't comment on the RawTherapee and PhotoNinja way. If you are still interested in grass comparisons I dig up my samples in the afternoon, but they will be from LR5.6 RAWs. By the way, it is a bit unrealistic wish to have the same lens on two different camera makes. The scene will be the same.

Otherwise:
- My workflow is in LR so switching is not an option. I won't reimport and recategorise 6-7 years of photos, sorry.

- That is not an argument that "X-Trans is awesome but there are no refined algorithms to develop it". If there are no good algorithms and the outcome is bad then I don't care how good the sensor otherwise is. If Fuji introduces a 24Mpixel X-Trans sensor camera with tilting LCD that handle the greens properly AND there will be good algorithms to handle these RAW files, I'll think about switching. Otherwise I like the idea behind the X-Trans sensor, but I'm afraid that it will be the Betamax of the mirrorless world.

In reply to Aldaris:

"By the way, it is a bit unrealistic wish to have the same lens on two different camera makes. The scene will be the same. "

the X-A1 has a bayer colour filter array with the same sensor as the X-E2/X-T1which have the xtrans colour array. With the bayer filter image developed in the 'best in class' software and the xtrans developed in rawtherapee, a good comparison can be made.

"..but I'm afraid that it will be the Betamax of the mirrorless world. "

you could well be right. I'm happy with the XE-2 as a whole package, each to their own.