Discussion in 'Mirrorless Cameras' started by Elkhunter, Sep 10, 2017.
That is also the domain of the photographer, not the equipment.
This may or may-not, (see how I cleverly covered all bases ...), be what you're seeing/asking about. Sony uses a standard Bayer CFA and Fuji uses a proprietary X-Trans CFA. Depending on your eye, the differences in RAW images can be significant or insignificant. To my eye, X-Trans looks more like film than Bayer, but it is a subtle difference. As most regard Fuji's SOOC JPEGs to be one of the best, in-camera software may also play a role in the difference between X-Trans images and other camera systems images.
hi have moved from mirrorless to Dslr. use to have Sony a7 and then xt-20 and now Nikon d600.
I am just a gadget freak and like to change time by time.
Sony a7 altho a full frame sensor, but doesn't perform very well at high iso. I get plenty of colour banding (purple) at high iso plus the lens are extremely expensive
xt-20 is a good camera with a modern sensor with less purple noise at high iso. however at lower iso, the a7 will be sharper.
the best thing about mirrorless is that all the lens will be calibrated and you will get sharp images. Since I have moved to Nikon d600, I am having a lot of problems with different lens calibration...I even sent my camera for a fix and still struggling to get pin sharp images with the setup.
I agree with this 100%, I shot with Canon, Fuji, Nikon & Sony....trust me it's about the photographer....you can't go wrong with any of those major companies for a body or glass.....If you shoot in raw you can get that different look you are talking about in lightroom...
The trick is that some equipment feels/works/shoots/handles better than others. Don't tell me this isn't a contributing factor to a likeable shot, absent cost or chronic GAS. Crap gear in the "artist's" hands is a threadbare(and tiresome) little truism. Who needs the moralizing?
The Fuji X-100 and X-T series cameras sometimes help me make images a notch or two above mediocre. Why? I just like 'em.
I’m switching from my Nikon D500 to the Fuji x-t2 for the pure reason I cant shoot wildlife as much now to warrant having it and with now having my son space is now paramount and the opportunities to use my telephoto lens diminished. I’ve got more into Astro/landscapes/seascapes and photographing my son, which has left little time for wildlife. Plus there are some great deals on the x-t2 at the moment with the x-t3 having come out.
Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app
I agree with a lot of the comments here, changing systems to get sharp images is a big no and waste of time and money. Both Nikon system will give great images , invest in good glass unless you simply want a smaller body and / or FF, but beware, as mentioned the a7ii I had did not perform well at high iso, lenses are super expensive for Sony and battery life was absolutely awful. Owning either Sony or Fuji or both won’t give you sharper pictures.
I assume you shoot RAW and post process yourself? Then the colour difference you may notice can be amended for in post or tweaked more to your liking, warmer skin tones etc. But to get sharper make sure you’re nailing your focus and using a fast enough shutter speed or a tripod should give you the sharpness you’re looking for, I remember my D7000 with a 50 1.8D was razor..
I can only agree this could be an expensive lesson in photography, I now own a d850 but I didn’t buy it to get sharper images, it was for many other reasons and I’ve seen images from the 7100 that are far better than some of my work. ‘Better cameras’ don’t take better pictures, sharpness is more down to technique and glass, not technology.. but best of luck..
Sent from my mobile device because I’m either outside or too lazy to get my MacBook..
Separate names with a comma.