I am not sure about what ? to buy.

[Mihle]

So, I want to possibly buy my own camera and stop just borrowing a Canon 600D forever (from someone I know)

Just a note, i own 0 canon lenses myself so I will basically be from scratch.

 

If my "plan" ever happens I will use it for both pictures and video. (If it doesn't, it will turn out mostly pictures) I will only use it as a hobby basis, I will never get good enough for anything more.

 

From what I have seen Sony a6300/a6500 and Fuji X-T20/X-T2 seems like quite nice cameras. Especially when X-T2 dropped in price recently.

 

But none of them seems like the best, I also don't quite know all other cameras that exists.

 

So Sony seems like are "technically" better with the possibility to take longer video(not max 10 min as Fuji) and log. 120 fps at 1080p for slo-mo, t least little bit autofocus. The a6500 also have IBIS that seems like a good thing to have. (But I don't know how good?)

 

But Fuji seems like it's more "comfortable" and easier/faster to use because of more buttons and dials. Some people say the menu system is better. Its also splash proof (well, the X-T2 is).

 

Also, I am not even sure if the a6500/X-T2 is worth it over a6300/X-T20 yet.

 

Also, one thing I haven't checked a lot yet, how good is really the lens option and price between them? And what lenses would be good options to start out with?

 

Is there anything I might not have thought about?

 

[Hashiba]

Hi, when buying a camera my first suggestion would be to try them first. I guess it totally depends on your style, some people like mirrorless for street photography due to the inherently conspicuous nature of the format. If you happen to buy a Canon body one of the benefits is that due to the flange distance you can get cheap adapters for Nikon and old school M42 lenses.

 

 

[cc143]

I have owned the a6000 and currently own the xt10, which share the same body with the a6300/a6500 and xt20 respectively. 

 

I love the xt10, in comparison to the a6000, the ergonomics are much better, controls are much better, menus etc. better thought out and the lens selection amazing, especially compared to sony's current aps-c glass selection. 

 

I would prefer an xt2 instead, and will probably upgrade to it once its refreshed and prices come down, which btw I consider pretty close to a perfrect camera. So overall, of the 2 selections I'd go with the fuji, but, I also have a Canon system and only use the fuji for packing light. My point being, why are you not considering Canon or Nikon? an 800d (or if you need something more wait for the 80d maybe?) or a d7200/d500 even? 

 

Hell, if video is not really a concern and its mostly for photography, you could get a used 5d3 or d810 for the same price as the cameras you mentioned, and if size isn't a concern either they both have a lot more to offer, the FF being a great selling point. 

[Bustapalapeno]

If you want to shoot video, I consider the a6500/a6300 to be superior. The recording limits and video processing on the Fuji cameras is (imho) not as good, plus there is a super easy hack to unlimited recording limits on the a6500/a6300 if you can keep the temps down. I've recorded for 2 hours straight without even seeing temperature warning light. 

 

On the flip side, I really like the way that Fuji processes the photos in camera, and with Lightroom's profiles feature, you can very closely replicate that look with their RAW files as well. I've played around with an X-T2, and the dials make shooting pictures so much better. In the short time I was playing with it, photography seemed to be more fun than it is on my a6500. Fuji also has tons of great lenses for their X series cameras. For Sony you have to bump up to full frame glass for some important focal lengths, like my 85mm f1.8. 

 

When I was buying my camera, I made the same choice, and I went for Sony. A local camera store was having a sale on it and some great glass which really sealed the deal. If you love photography, you will learn and love pretty much any system you decide to join with. Just don't forget about lens costs when factoring in price calculations. 

[xQubeZx]

Both options are great imo. I own a a6000 (waiting for a new a6xxx model to upgrade to) and I like it a lot. I have quite small hands so I don’t have as much of an issue with ergonomoics as some do. However I do agree that the Fujis are made more ergonomic but can sometime be a bit fiddely with all their buttons and dials, that seems to be a minor issue though. 

 

Lens wise Fuji has a lot more good lenses for their APS-C line. There is several good ones for Sony but some lenses you would have to get the FF version of to get a good one. That means its more expensive and larger though. But APS-C wise the price is quite similar between the two, at least here in Sweden. More and more brands have started making 3rd part lenses for Sony though so that is a plus. Sigmas ART series was just released for Sony E which is a very good thing. 

[cc143]

1 hour ago, xQubeZx said:

Both options are great imo. I own a a6000 (waiting for a new a6xxx model to upgrade to) and I like it a lot. I have quite small hands so I don’t have as much of an issue with ergonomoics as some do. However I do agree that the Fujis are made more ergonomic but can sometime be a bit fiddely with all their buttons and dials, that seems to be a minor issue though. 

 

Lens wise Fuji has a lot more good lenses for their APS-C line. There is several good ones for Sony but some lenses you would have to get the FF version of to get a good one. That means its more expensive and larger though. But APS-C wise the price is quite similar between the two, at least here in Sweden. More and more brands have started making 3rd part lenses for Sony though so that is a plus. Sigmas ART series was just released for Sony E which is a very good thing. 

Sigma's art series for sony E are all FFdesigns, of lenses that already are very bulky, in some instances, bulkier than they should be. it is a very welcome addition to the sony ecosystem since it is lacking and significantly overpriced in comparison to the others, but I disagree they are good options for APS-C overall. 

 

I'm also betting from personal experience that the fuji equivalent will be similarly if not better priced. 

 

Fuji has foregone a FF system, this means they have focused on aps-c thus creating probably the most complete apsc ecosystem around. Bad thing is, they don't compete in thw FF market. 

[xQubeZx]

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

Sigma's art series for sony E are all FFdesigns, of lenses that already are very bulky, in some instances, bulkier than they should be. it is a very welcome addition to the sony ecosystem since it is lacking and significantly overpriced in comparison to the others, but I disagree they are good options for APS-C overall. 

 

I'm also betting from personal experience that the fuji equivalent will be similarly if not better priced. 

 

Fuji has foregone a FF system, this means they have focused on aps-c thus creating probably the most complete apsc ecosystem around. Bad thing is, they don't compete in thw FF market. 

Yes they are for FF and larger. If you need a light system they are heavy yes, but if you can carry them you can’t deny that the ART series is very good. And hopefully that means their excellent 18-35 and 50-100 will soon be released as pure APS-C glass. 

 

As far as Fujis lenses competing with them they defentivly win in size and weight. But fuji still, as Sony’s native, lacks many f/1.4 primes and I doubt fujis are better optically. However the size saving of fujis lenses are an important part to consider. It all depends on what you want really but bottom line, borh systems would be more than enough for him whichever way he goes. 

[cc143]

1 hour ago, xQubeZx said:

Yes they are for FF and larger. If you need a light system they are heavy yes, but if you can carry them you can’t deny that the ART series is very good. And hopefully that means their excellent 18-35 and 50-100 will soon be released as pure APS-C glass. 

 

As far as Fujis lenses competing with them they defentivly win in size and weight. But fuji still, as Sony’s native, lacks many f/1.4 primes and I doubt fujis are better optically. However the size saving of fujis lenses are an important part to consider. It all depends on what you want really but bottom line, borh systems would be more than enough for him whichever way he goes. 

Oh yes undoubtedly, My 35mm f/1.4 is probably my favourite lens, there's just something about the way it renders colour and how sharp it is that amazes me every time I import something in LR (although it fringes like nothing I've seen before). But, it weighs about the same as my 24-105 and is only marginally smaller.

 

I don't think fuji will be making anymore f/1.4 primes tbh, they seem to have shifted to smaller and faster af f/2s since. which is not as wide for their wider primes, but their 90mm etc. are pretty fast at f/2. 

 

Also, I own the 23mm and 50mm f/2 and have to say, they are plenty fast. You can always go for the 56 1.2, (and obviously use 3rd party glass (like 7artisans) or even adapt). Optically, they are simpler designs and are at least as sharp as the art series, in some cases, I could even concede sharper, don't forget there's a huge variance in optical quality in sigma's glass still. 

 

My point is that as a native system, fuji is much more complete than Sony, which lacks quite a lot at the moment. 

[Mihle]

On 15/04/2018 at 5:29 PM, cc143 said:

I have owned the a6000 and currently own the xt10, which share the same body with the a6300/a6500 and xt20 respectively. 

 

I love the xt10, in comparison to the a6000, the ergonomics are much better, controls are much better, menus etc. better thought out and the lens selection amazing, especially compared to sony's current aps-c glass selection. 

 

I would prefer an xt2 instead, and will probably upgrade to it once its refreshed and prices come down, which btw I consider pretty close to a perfrect camera. So overall, of the 2 selections I'd go with the fuji, but, I also have a Canon system and only use the fuji for packing light. My point being, why are you not considering Canon or Nikon? an 800d (or if you need something more wait for the 80d maybe?) or a d7200/d500 even? 

 

Hell, if video is not really a concern and its mostly for photography, you could get a used 5d3 or d810 for the same price as the cameras you mentioned, and if size isn't a concern either they both have a lot more to offer, the FF being a great selling point. 

What is it that is better with for example 80D instead of Fuji?

 

I am not even sure yet if I want to spend something in the X-T20 price range or X-T2 price range.

 

22 hours ago, Bustapalapeno said:

If you want to shoot video, I consider the a6500/a6300 to be superior. The recording limits and video processing on the Fuji cameras is (imho) not as good, plus there is a super easy hack to unlimited recording limits on the a6500/a6300 if you can keep the temps down. I've recorded for 2 hours straight without even seeing temperature warning light. 

 

On the flip side, I really like the way that Fuji processes the photos in camera, and with Lightroom's profiles feature, you can very closely replicate that look with their RAW files as well. I've played around with an X-T2, and the dials make shooting pictures so much better. In the short time I was playing with it, photography seemed to be more fun than it is on my a6500. Fuji also has tons of great lenses for their X series cameras. For Sony you have to bump up to full frame glass for some important focal lengths, like my 85mm f1.8. 

 

When I was buying my camera, I made the same choice, and I went for Sony. A local camera store was having a sale on it and some great glass which really sealed the deal. If you love photography, you will learn and love pretty much any system you decide to join with. Just don't forget about lens costs when factoring in price calculations. 

I don't know how much video I will do, but I do know I will do photography, at least on a hobby basis now an then.

 

How big of a deal is IBIS ol camera or OIS on lenses?

 

14 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

Both options are great imo. I own a a6000 (waiting for a new a6xxx model to upgrade to) and I like it a lot. I have quite small hands so I don’t have as much of an issue with ergonomoics as some do. However I do agree that the Fujis are made more ergonomic but can sometime be a bit fiddely with all their buttons and dials, that seems to be a minor issue though. 

 

Lens wise Fuji has a lot more good lenses for their APS-C line. There is several good ones for Sony but some lenses you would have to get the FF version of to get a good one. That means its more expensive and larger though. But APS-C wise the price is quite similar between the two, at least here in Sweden. More and more brands have started making 3rd part lenses for Sony though so that is a plus. Sigmas ART series was just released for Sony E which is a very good thing. 

So Fuji have better lenses for the price? Ok.

 

Btw I mostly at least currently take most pictures of like travel, close up of things I see, and generally stuff I come over. I am not one that spesifically goes to events or anything. If I ever start doing video it will probably be me filming random stuff I am apart of, random stuff I come over, maybe me explaining something. Maybe trying to make some "Good-looking" shots of whatever I don't know.

[xQubeZx]

53 minutes ago, Mihle said:

What is it that is better with for example 80D instead of Fuji?

 

I am not even sure yet if I want to spend something in the X-T20 price range or X-T2 price range.

 

I don't know how much video I will do, but I do know I will do photography, at least on a hobby basis now an then.

 

How big of a deal is IBIS ol camera or OIS on lenses?

 

So Fuji have better lenses for the price? Ok.

 

Btw I mostly at least currently take most pictures of like travel, close up of things I see, and generally stuff I come over. I am not one that spesifically goes to events or anything. If I ever start doing video it will probably be me filming random stuff I am apart of, random stuff I come over, maybe me explaining something. Maybe trying to make some "Good-looking" shots of whatever I don't know.

If you mostly will take travel images and some street and easy portraits the fuji will probably suit you better tbh. I think its a system better used as a very good all round ”run and gun” while Sony may be a bit better for specialized setups. 

 

Fuji seems to be moving in a Leica kinda way in how they make their products. Small, light, easy and reliable. 

 

A XT-2 or XT-20 with some small f/2 primes is a sick travel setup imo. Personally I went Sony because they had better AF in my price range and because I’d might move to a FF system. But for pure travel rig and a light kit a Fuji is great. I’d love a X100F myself..but its a bit expensive for me as I will sink a lot of money into climbing this season..

[Mihle]

28 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

If you mostly will take travel images and some street and easy portraits the fuji will probably suit you better tbh. I think its a system better used as a very good all round ”run and gun” while Sony may be a bit better for specialized setups. 

 

Fuji seems to be moving in a Leica kinda way in how they make their products. Small, light, easy and reliable. 

 

A XT-2 or XT-20 with some small f/2 primes is a sick travel setup imo. Personally I went Sony because they had better AF in my price range and because I’d might move to a FF system. But for pure travel rig and a light kit a Fuji is great. I’d love a X100F myself..but its a bit expensive for me as I will sink a lot of money into climbing this season..

Fuji Af is totally usable right?

In video too I mean. Doesn't need to be perfect. I don't know how much video I will do. Sony after is proud better?

 

Well, I will probably take pictures of quite a bit of different stuff. Landscapes might happen but probably less often than other stuff. Me waiting outside for some animals to come by will never ever happen.

 

I don't think I will ever upgrade to something even more expensive (FF)

 

[cc143]

38 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Fuji Af is totally usable right?

In video too I mean. Doesn't need to be perfect. I don't know how much video I will do. Sony after is proud better?

 

Well, I will probably take pictures of quite a bit of different stuff. Landscapes might happen but probably less often than other stuff. Me waiting outside for some animals to come by will never ever happen.

 

I don't think I will ever upgrade to something even more expensive (FF)

 

I wouldn't say the AF in video with the fuji is great, I haven't actually used the video mode on the xt2 and xt20, hell, I don't think I've ever used the video mode on my xt10. I haven't heard anything too damning about them, I have seen footage off the x-h1 though and it seemed pretty great. 

 

Onto the next part. I believe I spoke about the 800d not the 80d (the 80d is due for a replacement and I honestly believe the 800d is as good as if not better in many tangible areas). 

 

• Longer battery life
• WAAAAAAAY bettter ergonomics and menus, even on the fujis where everything is very well though out. 
• Tilting touch screen
• Dual pixel AF in video and liveview stills mode
• More robust than the others
• Perhaps the most comprehensive glass ecosytstem around (it would be nikon's due to the legacy mount, but they can't AF on the 800d's rivals so...). Which is cheaper than Sony at least (with fuji not always their glass is imo very fairly priced all things considered), but there is a lot of glass (especially APS-C glass) that is available used, at amazing prices that is great (The 17-55 f/2.8 and 10-22mm EF-S lenses come to mind). 
• You can buy Full Frame glass and have the ability to move on to a Full Frame camera in the future. 
• Better support from third party accessory manufacturers (lenses, flashes, battery grips). 

I think I've covered most of it, I'm sure there's a lot more, and not to be disingenuous there are benefits to the likes of the Sony and Fujis,

 

mostly size (really doesn't always apply though)

silent shooting, evf (depending on whom you ask I prefer an ovf personally)

faster burst rates

More video modes sometimes (although 1080p @ 60fps is plenty imo) 

Maybe deeper buffers, the xt2 mostly for that. 

[Bustapalapeno]

2 hours ago, Mihle said:

 

How big of a deal is IBIS ol camera or OIS on lenses?

 

Btw I mostly at least currently take most pictures of like travel, close up of things I see, and generally stuff I come over. I am not one that spesifically goes to events or anything. If I ever start doing video it will probably be me filming random stuff I am apart of, random stuff I come over, maybe me explaining something. Maybe trying to make some "Good-looking" shots of whatever I don't know.

Tony Northrup says ideally he likes to pick a subject, then a lens, then a body. If your main focus is travel and macro photography, I would definitely go Fuji. Fuji has a wider range of better long range zooms, and macro lenses, and at better prices, than the Sony system. 

 

IBIS and OIS, in photography, basically allow you to use a slower shutter speed handheld, without introducing motion blur. So lets make an example. We will be conservative, and say that turning on IBIS on the Fuji X-H1 will get you 2 stops of stabilization. Theoretically, you could, say, lower your shutter speed from 1/100 to 1/25, and lower your ISO from 800 to 200, and get the same picture with the same brightness, but with a cleaner image (assuming a still subject so that the slower shutter doesn't give you motion blur). 

Now, the way these measurements are taken for advertising purposes differs a great deal from how they will impact you in the real world, but as a point of reference, the X-H1's IBIS will take normal lenses and improve their blurriness by 3-5 stops. For lenses that are already stabilized, the IBIS will improve stabilization by 1-2 stops.

 

Is IBIS or OIS a big deal? Imho, yes. It significantly increases my "hit rate" as a photographer because it makes it easier for me to get not blurry pictures. But you can typically get enough stabilization in lens that IBIS is not worth a $300 upgrade. 

[YellowJersey]

As a photo nerd (and worked in a camera shop for a while), the first question I always ask is: what's your budget? You mentioned the Fuji X-T2, I'm guessing your price range is around $2,000 CAD for the body. And I'll assume you're primarily interested in stills but still want video capability.

 A lot of it really depends on what you want out of a camera. I'm a pixel peeper and want maximum image quality, so I don't mind paying more and lugging bigger, heavier glass around.

 Fortunately, the options are so good right now that it's hard to pick a bad camera.

My picks:

Sony A7III (probably the single best all-round camera on the market right now at a great price. Excellent for stills and video, plus it's full frame, ie big sensor = good in low light. The most expensive one on my list, but I'd definitely say it's worth it as this is a camera you can do pretty much anything with. Plus, the Z-type battery means that the usually poor battery life you get from mirrorless isn't an issue)

 

Fuji X-T2 (more stills-oriented, but quite good. A bit smaller and lighter, but Fuji currently has a bit better lens selection than the Sony E mount. I'd like one of these as a back-up body, but I blew all my money on the Sony A7rIII back in December.)

 

Panasonic G-9 (if you want to keep things really small and light, not great in low-light due to the smaller MFT)

Nikon D750 (older DSLR, but fantastic value, full frame, but pretty lacking in video features by today's standards. I almost bought a D750 instead of my A7rIII)

 The only brand I'd stay away from right now is Canon, as their bodies have been lacking lately. That said, Canon has some bloody fantastic glass. I used to shoot Canon (5D mkIII) and it was a really tough call to switch to Sony as I absolutely loved my Canon lenses.

 

[cc143]

8 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

 

 

Sony a7iii: Waaay more expensive than the Fujis mentioned, without the added cost of Glass. (Sony currently has the most expensive glass around overall, and that isn't because it is optically better than the competition. Its also not smaller or lighter, in some instances its even bulkier and heavier). Also, their ergonomics and user interface are still appauling. The a7iii packs a lot of punch into a seemingly inexpensive body, which is in general Sony's MO, but that's not everything. 

 

Panasonic G9: That tiny sensor..., Fuji is very similar in size and bulk, but has a larger sensor, so unless you are heavily into video there's no point. Its also not any cheaper all things considered. 

 

Nikon d750???? Its a really old camera (if you are buying new) that has been plagued with quality issues since release... Its not awful, I'm sure it can produce great results, but not really worth it at this point

 

Now about Canon (also noticed you mentioned this in other, older threads). 

 

As you mentioned, its probably the best ecosystem for glass right now, and that says something, considering a lot of it is due for a refresh (like the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 50mm f/1.2, 100mm L  Macro, 135mm f/2L etc.) These lenses don't only still compete with their rivals, but in some instances are even better. Hell the 24-70mm LII is probably the oldest in the market at this point and outperforms most of them. 

 

Also, If you actually do think about it, with the exception of the 6d2 and 5d4, they are pretty good in every other category. The 1dx2 is unbeatable at its segment(and is also at the tail end of its life), the 800d etc. are more worth it than Nikon's equivalents and pack a lot of punch considering their market placement and price and the 80d and 7d2 are also due for an upgrade probably by the end of the year. 

 

Even in the cases of the 5d4 and 6d2, The 6d2 has some uses, e.g. its not the best all rounder or anything, but is probably the best pragmatic option for vloggers or youtubers. 

 

As far as the 5d4 goes, if that thing had 6 more mps, no AA filter and a CFast+ faster sd card, it would be the perfect camera. It doesn't, which is very disappointing, but, you can find it right now for under £2000 if you look around (used obviously), and I get the argument that people are selling it, but the truth is while it leaves much to be desired, its not useless. I mean if you want to do something with it you are more than capable to. 

 

And herein lies the crux of my argument, I see this in other car people as well, you get obsessed with the fact that someone somewhere has put 700bhp in an estate car that can do over 200mph, and criticise others who have 500bhp and can do 180mph. That is still amazingly fast. There's people out there who will get amazing results from 10 year old cameras, are you seriously suggesting that a 30mp camera that can comfortably shoot at ISO6400, like the 5d4 is completely crap? That is subjectively true, but not objectively. 

 

I'm not trying to defend Canon's inability to produce a camera for this decade here, and I'm glad Sony is taking market share, just because at some point, they will either have to come up with something big, like Nikon with the d850, which they certainly can do, or if everyone keeps selling off their stuff, I'll just be able to buy shit on ebay for 1/5 of what they are worth, just like it currently is with the 5d4. 

[Mihle]

10 hours ago, Bustapalapeno said:

Tony Northrup says ideally he likes to pick a subject, then a lens, then a body. If your main focus is travel and macro photography, I would definitely go Fuji. Fuji has a wider range of better long range zooms, and macro lenses, and at better prices, than the Sony system. 

 

IBIS and OIS, in photography, basically allow you to use a slower shutter speed handheld, without introducing motion blur. So lets make an example. We will be conservative, and say that turning on IBIS on the Fuji X-H1 will get you 2 stops of stabilization. Theoretically, you could, say, lower your shutter speed from 1/100 to 1/25, and lower your ISO from 800 to 200, and get the same picture with the same brightness, but with a cleaner image (assuming a still subject so that the slower shutter doesn't give you motion blur). 

Now, the way these measurements are taken for advertising purposes differs a great deal from how they will impact you in the real world, but as a point of reference, the X-H1's IBIS will take normal lenses and improve their blurriness by 3-5 stops. For lenses that are already stabilized, the IBIS will improve stabilization by 1-2 stops.

 

Is IBIS or OIS a big deal? Imho, yes. It significantly increases my "hit rate" as a photographer because it makes it easier for me to get not blurry pictures. But you can typically get enough stabilization in lens that IBIS is not worth a $300 upgrade. 

Most pictures I have taken haven't been "macro" I don't think but ok. It's more "travel" or like just going out with the camara with me taking a picture of a building there, a lake there, a log with a lot of moss on it there,  a rusty lamp anither place, a fire hydrant and so on. Just hobby basis.

 

I would love X-H1 but it's sadly just too expensive.

I was more thinking because a6500 have IBIS.

Btw why is it so that both Sony and Fuji zooms seem to have OIS/OSS but Primes doesn't? Wouldn't it be easier to make OIS/OSS on primes because it has less moving parts generally? Just curious.

 

9 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

As a photo nerd (and worked in a camera shop for a while), the first question I always ask is: what's your budget? You mentioned the Fuji X-T2, I'm guessing your price range is around $2,000 CAD for the body. And I'll assume you're primarily interested in stills but still want video capability.

 A lot of it really depends on what you want out of a camera. I'm a pixel peeper and want maximum image quality, so I don't mind paying more and lugging bigger, heavier glass around.

 Fortunately, the options are so good right now that it's hard to pick a bad camera.

My picks:

Sony A7III (probably the single best all-round camera on the market right now at a great price. Excellent for stills and video, plus it's full frame, ie big sensor = good in low light. The most expensive one on my list, but I'd definitely say it's worth it as this is a camera you can do pretty much anything with. Plus, the Z-type battery means that the usually poor battery life you get from mirrorless isn't an issue)

 

Fuji X-T2 (more stills-oriented, but quite good. A bit smaller and lighter, but Fuji currently has a bit better lens selection than the Sony E mount. I'd like one of these as a back-up body, but I blew all my money on the Sony A7rIII back in December.)

 

Panasonic G-9 (if you want to keep things really small and light, not great in low-light due to the smaller MFT)

Nikon D750 (older DSLR, but fantastic value, full frame, but pretty lacking in video features by today's standards. I almost bought a D750 instead of my A7rIII)

 The only brand I'd stay away from right now is Canon, as their bodies have been lacking lately. That said, Canon has some bloody fantastic glass. I used to shoot Canon (5D mkIII) and it was a really tough call to switch to Sony as I absolutely loved my Canon lenses.

 

I am not really sure yet what I want to spend, if I feel it's worth it to spend extra on a6500/X-T2 over a6300/X-T20 I will, but I am not sure yet.

 

A7III is just way to expensive, so even if it seems like a really good camera, it's not an option.

 

If you mean Panasonic DC-G9, again it's just too expensive, and I have heard Panasonic AF is quite bad.

 

I don't know much about D750, but new price at least is again, too expensive... Haven't checked used.

 

a6500 and X-T2 is really on top of the budget when it comes to the body itself.

 

10 hours ago, cc143 said:

I wouldn't say the AF in video with the fuji is great, I haven't actually used the video mode on the xt2 and xt20, hell, I don't think I've ever used the video mode on my xt10. I haven't heard anything too damning about them, I have seen footage off the x-h1 though and it seemed pretty great. 

 

 

Btw having the possibility to get a battery grip that makes it possible record longer if I find out I need it on the X-T2 and extra buttons and weather sealed (don't know if I need that) over the X-T20. And that X-T2 have probably more compatibility with changing batteries on a tripod  when I get that. Need an 2,5 mm to 3,5 mm on X-T20 if I end up doing some video with mic.  X-T2 seem quite good but I don't know if I am willing to pay for it yet. I am not sure. Btw I don't care about the dual SD cards.

[cc143]

53 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Btw having the possibility to get a battery grip that makes it possible record longer if I find out I need it on the X-T2 and extra buttons and weather sealed (don't know if I need that) over the X-T20. And that X-T2 have probably more compatibility with changing batteries on a tripod  when I get that. Need an 2,5 mm to 3,5 mm on X-T20 if I end up doing some video with mic.  X-T2 seem quite good but I don't know if I am willing to pay for it yet. I am not sure. Btw I don't care about the dual SD cards.

I don't really think IS is necessary for photowork before 50mm, although its nice to have. I usually pack a tripod anyway personally and find that its worth it given how useful it is. I only think I didn't use a tripod 1 time on a trip. I may leave it at home if I know I won't have time to setup or if I know I'll be shooting mostly street stuff. But I'll carry it for anything else, integral for landscapes and makes a good lightstand if I need to take a portrait and use a flash. 

 

The xt2's battery grip will only bring recording time in 4k to 30mins I think, not longer. 

 

The battery thing is an issue, especially if you use a capture clip or stuff like that, also the sd card is in there too. I believe the Xt-2 is worth it over the xt20, although the touchscreen on the latter is pretty nice to have. I like the xt2 a lot personally and was about to put one on my credit card a number of times this year (thank God the urge goes away fairly quickly). I think its definitely worth it over the xt20, but would probably wait until October/November in case they announce an xt3. It will bring used xt2 prices down, although if it has a touchscreen and a BSI sensor I think it will be the best apsc camera around.   

 

Small advise, do factor in lenses and other peripherals. You must have some idea of what you want, go to a store and look at what's available, check rumor sites for what glass might be coming out, and price out a system as complete as you'd ever want it. Look at the price difference. Then start taking things off, leaving only necessities. (e.g. 16-35+24-70+70-200+35+85+Macro) I think this is the basic ultimate lens kit. Look at what it costs, then start removing stuff according to how important each is and go from there. 

[Mihle]

20 minutes ago, cc143 said:

I don't really think IS is necessary for photowork before 50mm, although its nice to have. I usually pack a tripod anyway personally and find that its worth it given how useful it is. I only think I didn't use a tripod 1 time on a trip. I may leave it at home if I know I won't have time to setup or if I know I'll be shooting mostly street stuff. But I'll carry it for anything else, integral for landscapes and makes a good lightstand if I need to take a portrait and use a flash. 

 

The xt2's battery grip will only bring recording time in 4k to 30mins I think, not longer. 

 

The battery thing is an issue, especially if you use a capture clip or stuff like that, also the sd card is in there too. I believe the Xt-2 is worth it over the xt20, although the touchscreen on the latter is pretty nice to have. I like the xt2 a lot personally and was about to put one on my credit card a number of times this year (thank God the urge goes away fairly quickly). I think its definitely worth it over the xt20, but would probably wait until October/November in case they announce an xt3. It will bring used xt2 prices down, although if it has a touchscreen and a BSI sensor I think it will be the best apsc camera around.   

 

Small advise, do factor in lenses and other peripherals. You must have some idea of what you want, go to a store and look at what's available, check rumor sites for what glass might be coming out, and price out a system as complete as you'd ever want it. Look at the price difference. Then start taking things off, leaving only necessities. (e.g. 16-35+24-70+70-200+35+85+Macro) I think this is the basic ultimate lens kit. Look at what it costs, then start removing stuff according to how important each is and go from there. 

But with battery grip it's twice what it is without. I don't know if I need it tho. Maybe I don't. But it is an option for the future if I do.

 

I don't know if I want to wait that long, but maybe. In my country at least the price did drop a bit this month. (Probably because the X-H1?) I have heard the lack of touch screen isn't that big of a deal because it has a joistick. 

 

Ok, I will look at peripherals more than I have currently.

I think I won't get tripod from the start and just possibly continue to borrow the one I currently billow that isn't that good but is usable.

[cc143]

24 minutes ago, Mihle said:

But with battery grip it's twice what it is without. I don't know if I need it tho. Maybe I don't. But it is an option for the future if I do.

 

I don't know if I want to wait that long, but maybe. In my country at least the price did drop a bit this month. (Probably because the X-H1?) I have heard the lack of touch screen isn't that big of a deal because it has a joistick. 

 

Ok, I will look at peripherals more than I have currently.

I think I won't get tripod from the start and just possibly continue to borrow the one I currently billow that isn't that good but is usable.

Sure, but use the video mode first. I don't like the grip just because of the bulk it adds to the camera, which for me defeats the purpose. Its not pocketable as is, but I'd be carrying the Canon if I wanted something that large. That said, if its your only system, it will be nice to have the option eventually. 

 

Yes it probably is due to the x-h1 and people selling their backup cameras or just straight out upgrading. 

 

If you are set on the fuji system, what you could also do, is buy the glass etc. and get something like an x-e1, for the 5-6 months, which is very inexpensive, and decide once the x-t3 is announced. Honestly, its not that great, but it does the job for photography at least and there's not too much value in it anyway, so if you resell it you'll probably only lose like 20 quid, if that even. On that note, maybe look at the x-e3 as an x-t20 alternative as well. 

 

Definitely do that with the tripod until you can get something worthwhile. My recommendation 3lt leo or albert, pricy, but worth it. 

[Mihle]

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

Sure, but use the video mode first. I don't like the grip just because of the bulk it adds to the camera, which for me defeats the purpose. Its not pocketable as is, but I'd be carrying the Canon if I wanted something that large. That said, if its your only system, it will be nice to have the option eventually. 

 

Yes it probably is due to the x-h1 and people selling their backup cameras or just straight out upgrading. 

 

If you are set on the fuji system, what you could also do, is buy the glass etc. and get something like an x-e1, for the 5-6 months, which is very inexpensive, and decide once the x-t3 is announced. Honestly, its not that great, but it does the job for photography at least and there's not too much value in it anyway, so if you resell it you'll probably only lose like 20 quid, if that even. On that note, maybe look at the x-e3 as an x-t20 alternative as well. 

 

Definitely do that with the tripod until you can get something worthwhile. My recommendation 3lt leo or albert, pricy, but worth it. 

I was talking on new price, haven't checked used price but I probably will at some point.

I will look in to what you are saying and think about it

[Bustapalapeno]

5 hours ago, Mihle said:

Most pictures I have taken haven't been "macro" I don't think but ok. It's more "travel" or like just going out with the camara with me taking a picture of a building there, a lake there, a log with a lot of moss on it there,  a rusty lamp anither place, a fire hydrant and so on. Just hobby basis.

 

I would love X-H1 but it's sadly just too expensive.

I was more thinking because a6500 have IBIS.

Btw why is it so that both Sony and Fuji zooms seem to have OIS/OSS but Primes doesn't? Wouldn't it be easier to make OIS/OSS on primes because it has less moving parts generally? Just curious.

 

I am not really sure yet what I want to spend, if I feel it's worth it to spend extra on a6500/X-T2 over a6300/X-T20 I will, but I am not sure yet.

There are quite a few OSS lenses available for sony, the 35mm and the 50mm are common examples. My best guess is that zooms are bigger and have more room for OSS electronics, and sell better so the return on investment of developing OSS is better.

 

I can't speak as well to the differences between the X-T2 and the X-T20, but the a6300 is a no brainer pick for still over the a6500. Infact, most photographers would be entirely happy with something as cheap as the a6000 if all you do is photos. They all have the same sensor and mostly the same electronics. The a6000 has slightly weaker AF performance but it doesn't sound like you are shooting sports. Quite the opposite, you are shooting still life, where composition and sharpness are far more important than AF drive speed, video features, and and the other faff that my a6500 has. You wouldn't use any of it. 

 

My advice is to get the a6000, and put the 500-1000 you save into some high quality prime lenses and a tripod. For what you are shooting, that will get you a lot further then blowing all your money on body features you won't use. Same goes for Fuji, get the cheapest camera with the X-Trans III sensor, and put the savings towards good glass. I guarantee you will get better results than if you get an expensive body and use crappy glass. 

[Mihle]

If I get Fuji or Sony, what some good lenses to get? 

[cc143]

1 hour ago, Mihle said:

If I get Fuji or Sony, what some good lenses to get? 

Really depends on your individual needs. Most of fuji's lenses are great, some small pointers from someone who has done the research themselves: 

 

1. The older designs (23, 35 f/1.4, 18mm f/2, 27mm f/2.8 etc. tend to be slower, with varying degrees)

2. I have been told to stay away from the 18mm f/2 and 14mm f/2.8, the first is supposedly very bad and the second is outperformed optically by the 10-24mm, unless you need f/2.8 that is. 

3. The newer f/2 WR lenses are amazing. 23mm, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm (there may be some I'm forgetting). The f/2 might put some people off as too narrow, but its just fine. That said, if you want a portrait lens, the 56mm f/1.2 is the best option, although the 50mm is faster and much lighter. 

4. The 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 OIS and 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 are not your typical kit lenses. In fact considering weight, size and price, with the exception of real professional use, they are preferable to the 16-55 f.2.8 and 50-140. Just don't go for the 16-50mm. 

5. the 16mm f/1.4 is simply amazing. 

 

I would steer anyone entering the fuji system towards the primes personally, simply because it imo fits the shooting style more. I don't personally want or need anything more than the 23mm and 50mm, although a wideangle is nice, but I mostly use it for travelling and some street stuff and use my Canon stuff for anything else. If you are looking for a first lens, the 18-55mm is probably the way to go, if this will be your only system, then I'd get something like an 85mm equivalent, 35mm equivalent or wideangle depending on what you shoot.

 

I'm not that well versed in Sony glass, so I'll leave it to someone else to talk about. 

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, Mihle said:

 If I get Fuji or Sony, what some good lenses to get? 

I don’t know much about the fuji lenses but for Sony there are some sweet options for lenses finally. Now, it all depends on budget and how large lenses you can live with, but I will point out a few I’d consider very good and worth getting if you need something in that focal length. 

 

• FE 70-200 f/4, this is a nobrainer if you need a tele and have a decent budget. Goes for around 900US used now. 
• Any Sigma ART lens, most costs around 600-700US new and are well made. If you need a fast prime I’d look at those first. 
• The Sigma 16mm f/1.4 and 30mm f/1.4 Contemporary lenses. Both amazing value and slightly smaller than the ART lenses. Costs ~300-400 new. 
• Sony FE 55 f/1.8, loved by many as a great portrait lens. 
• 18-105 f/4, solid allround zoom for decent price. 
• 20mm f/2.8, cheap wide angle prime, good results. 
• Sigma 60mm f/2.8, very sharp and nice to use. 
• 18-135 f/3.5-f/5.6, good lens if you only want ”one” that doesn’t cost too much. 
• Sony 35 f/1.8, nice prime
• Samyang 12mm f/2, wide angle prime, sharp but lacks AF. Would chose this over the 14mm as you can more easily use filters on this one
• Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5, supposodly very good, no AF but is very small and high quality. Can be found used for 400US

 

Stay away from the cheap zooms if you can and the ”older” Sony E mount lenses as the 18-55, 16 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8 for example. The new ones are much better. The kit zoom is pretty horrible too, I hate when I have to use mine. Primes are amazing on the Sony system as you can get a very small setup. The a6xxx bodies with the 20mm f/2.8 pancake lens is so small. 

 

There is a bit of lack in dedicated aps-c size glass but the full frame variants work flawless but are heavier and larger. 

 

If I’d pick three lenses I’d get these, Sigma 16 f/1.4, Sony FE 70-200 f/4 and the Sigma ART 50 f/1.8 or the Sony FE 85 f/1.8. These would be ideal for what I shoot but maybe not for you, although this kit covers a good range and usability imo. 

 

70-200 for action sports and wildlife, 16 f/1.4 for landscapes and action sports, 50 f1.4 and/or 85 f1.8 for portraits

[Mihle]

I was in a store and tried to hold them. I thik T-20 is too small but I  am still not sure what I want to get. I guess I just have to think about it some more.