Fuji X-T3 vs Sony A7III

[Destin]

This is a way closer fight than I'd have ever expected honestly. My Nikon kit went up for sale and I was fully planning on investing in Sony via the A7 III. Then I saw the X-T3 announcement, and it's making me question my decision.

I made this chart based on the specs and issues that matter to me, and it really isn't helping.

chart-1 by Destin Danser, on Flickr

If I'm being honest, I'm leaning towards the X-T3. I could get a lot more lenses for the money with Fuji, and I really like everything about fuji's business philosophy. I also prefer fuji's control layouts and color science. My only hangup is the "watercolor" issue and poor adobe camera raw integration. I could learn new editing software and I'm not opposed to doing so, but that doesn't appear to fix the watercolor issue. I shoot a good amount of landscape work, so this concerns me.

@Derrel, I seem to remember you having input about the fuji watercolor issue when I was buying my X-T20. You have any input here?

Am I missing anything here guys? Anyone else have any input on this comparison?

I've really been liking the 50 f/2 on my x-t20 the last few days quite a bit.

 

[Derrel]

I see you're selling off your entire, very nice Nikon kit on another thread here on TPF. For Sale: My Entire Nikon Kit

I have no real input on the watercolor issue except to say that on earlier X-Trans sensors with lower megapixel counts (16-MP range), I thought that Adobe raw conversions yielded rather poor fine detail and looked, well, sub-standard compared to fine-detail type photos made with what were contemporaneous, 24-megapixel Bayer array Nikon cameras (D3xxx,D5xxx,D7xxx models) and 24- and 36-MP FX Nikons...

But in this new camera, the first-look video I watched tonight from two dPreview hosts had some positive comments on the X-T3's video options, as well as overall mostly-positive comments on the X-T3 camera they reviewed. As to the new BSI sensor...it's a 26-megapixel sensor...to me, and I think that even with (potentially) lower detail resolving from raw conversions from a slightly less-than-optimal converter app, I think the higher MP count of 26-MP will make this camera "punch at a higher weight class" than earlier, lower-MP count X-Trans sensor models. I still hold out little faith in Adobe as the supplier of the best Fuji raw converter software: Irridient Developer maybe? Or Capture One?

I dunno...Fuji has some nice lenses, at good prices. I see a lot of good work done by Fuji shooters these days...they have nice cameras...lots of firmware fixes to rectify issues their user base finds annoying or less than satisfactory...I can totally "get" where you're coming from in going the Fuji route. Unlike Nikon, Fuji has a comprehensive set of lenses optimized for APS-C sensor cameras. Annnnd, very cool cameras too.

 

[SquarePeg]

You don’t mention weight and if I’m remembering right, that was a primary reason for your switch to mirrorless. My understanding is that Sony lenses are big and heavy. Is there no significant weight difference between these two once you add your prospective lenses?

 

[jcdeboever]

I really think you need to take a breath, and let out a gigantic fart. You would be better served to save up your money and go with a Fujifilm GFX 50R, and 45mm f/2.8 due out in October. You shoot a lot of landscapes and this should out perform anything you have ever had digitally. It's a medium format, mirrorless, in an oversized XPro2 body. Might as well buy another hard drive for your PC while your at it because the files are huge.

Watercolor issues? Hmmm, sounds like a software issue. I don't or haven't noticed that with the Fujifilm system. However, I am a really slow shooter and try to get the best image I can in camera. I don't use any fancy software either, just the supplied Silkypix when I need to convert outside of camera. Normally, I just convert in camera and download the raw and JPEG when the cards fill up. I don't pixel peep either, that would drive me insane. I'm a "it is what it is" kind of guy.

 

[Destin]

You don’t mention weight and if I’m remembering right, that was a primary reason for your switch to mirrorless. My understanding is that Sony lenses are big and heavy. Is there no significant weight difference between these two once you add your prospective lenses?

Weight was a primary reason for the x-t20 because I bought it to hike with. But weight isn’t too much of a concern right now with this decision.

 

[Gary A.]

I use Iridient and while I don't shoot a lot of landscape, I haven't encountered the wormy/watercolor effect at all. I've been shooting Fuji for years, ever since they first delivered the XP1. I've never used Lightroom.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

I’ve never shot a Fuji but I’ve had the NEX-7 then moved up to the a7ii and have really been thinking about going to the a7iii.

In looking at your points, some of them seem like minor advantages of one over the other. Personally I think the full frame over the aps-c sensor is a pretty big difference where as the 24mp vs 26mp is close enough to almost be equivalent. ISO is a pretty big difference but the card slots is again nearly the same (I think I recall you saying a second card slot wasn’t of importance to you in another thread. I could be wrong). The number of Af points is quite a bit more on the Sony but while the coverage is less, it’s not that much less. Plus if you’re shooting landscapes are you really using af that much? The lenses are a big area of difference but I think that’s expected with a ff. It’s the difference between dx and fx lenses. They are definitely more expensive and heavier/bulkier but I would argue they are worth it (at least that’s been my experience). Battery life is substantially more too. Is that with the regular Sony battery though. I thought the one it came with was closer to the Fuji one. I know you can buy a longer lasting one though.

In summation, it seems (to me) like the areas that the Fuji wins out it’s by a narrow margin where as when the Sony wins it’s by a landslide.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Gary A.]

For landscapes a FF is superior to an APS-C in this way. It is "easier" to go wide on a FF than an APS-C. What I mean is it is easier to craft a 24MM FF lens than an FOV equivalent 16mm lens ... it is easier to craft a 20mm FF than a 14mm APS-C. But if you're stitching files ... then lens focal lengths can pretty much be rendered irrelevant. How wide do you want to go? When speaking of FOV equivalence, all else being equal, it would be cheaper to go wide on a FF than an APS-C. Conversely, again speaking in terms of FOV equivalence, it would be cheaper to go long on an APS-C than a FF.

The two cameras are very close spec-wise. Sure Sony has more AF points, but it needs more AF points because it is a larger sensor. Fuji has two UHS II slots, but how many high speed slots do you need for landscape? On ISO, Sony goes half a stop lower but Fuji goes a full stop higher. For me, if I was getting a camera for landscape, my primary criteria would be sensor. Fuji has a much different Color Filter Array than Sony. To my eye, Fuji looks closer to film than a normal Bayer sensor. For me that is a good thing. I would research if I could live with the film-esque look of Fuji, over the slightly more digital look of Bayer. I'd research the robust quality of Sony versus Fuji of both cameras and lenses. Build quality is important in my book. Then I'd look at money. What does the additional cost of Sony gives me? Is the difference in cost significant? Ease of use is important. Fuji has a SLR design with all pertinent settings being mechanically controlled via dials or levers on the outside of the camera ... minimal menu diving. Lastly, but still important in my book, is the looks of the camera. What would I want to be seen hanging off my shoulder or around my neck (okay, I'm shallow).

Honestly, I don't think you'll be able to do more or consistently get significantly better shots with one camera over the other.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

For landscapes a FF is superior to an APS-C in this way. It is "easier" to go wide on a FF than an APS-C. What I mean is it is easier to craft a 24MM FF lens than an FOV equivalent 16mm lens ... it is easier to craft a 20mm FF than a 14mm APS-C. But if you're stitching files ... then lens focal lengths can pretty much be rendered irrelevant. How wide do you want to go? When speaking of FOV equivalence, all else being equal, it would be cheaper to go wide on a FF than an APS-C. Conversely, again speaking in terms of FOV equivalence, it would be cheaper to go long on an APS-C than a FF.

The two cameras are very close spec-wise. Sure Sony has more AF points, but it needs more AF points because it is a larger sensor. Fuji has two UHS II slots, but how many high speed slots do you need for landscape? On ISO, Sony goes half a stop lower but Fuji goes a full stop higher. For me, if I was getting a camera for landscape, my primary criteria would be sensor. Fuji has a much different Color Filter Array than Sony. To my eye, Fuji looks closer to film than a normal Bayer sensor. For me that is a good thing. I would research if I could live with the film-esque look of Fuji, over the slightly more digital look of Bayer. I'd research the robust quality of Sony versus Fuji of both cameras and lenses. Build quality is important in my book. Then I'd look at money. What does the additional cost of Sony gives me? Is the difference in cost significant? Ease of use is important. Fuji has a SLR design with all pertinent settings being mechanically controlled via dials or levers on the outside of the camera ... minimal menu diving. Lastly, but still important in my book, is the looks of the camera. What would I want to be seen hanging off my shoulder or around my neck (okay, I'm shallow).

Honestly, I don't think you'll be able to do more or consistently get significantly better shots with one camera over the other.

The Sony has better iso on both sides. 100 vs 160, and 51,000 vs 12,800.

 

[Gary A.]

For landscapes a FF is superior to an APS-C in this way. It is "easier" to go wide on a FF than an APS-C. What I mean is it is easier to craft a 24MM FF lens than an FOV equivalent 16mm lens ... it is easier to craft a 20mm FF than a 14mm APS-C. But if you're stitching files ... then lens focal lengths can pretty much be rendered irrelevant. How wide do you want to go? When speaking of FOV equivalence, all else being equal, it would be cheaper to go wide on a FF than an APS-C. Conversely, again speaking in terms of FOV equivalence, it would be cheaper to go long on an APS-C than a FF.

The two cameras are very close spec-wise. Sure Sony has more AF points, but it needs more AF points because it is a larger sensor. Fuji has two UHS II slots, but how many high speed slots do you need for landscape? On ISO, Sony goes half a stop lower but Fuji goes a full stop higher. For me, if I was getting a camera for landscape, my primary criteria would be sensor. Fuji has a much different Color Filter Array than Sony. To my eye, Fuji looks closer to film than a normal Bayer sensor. For me that is a good thing. I would research if I could live with the film-esque look of Fuji, over the slightly more digital look of Bayer. I'd research the robust quality of Sony versus Fuji of both cameras and lenses. Build quality is important in my book. Then I'd look at money. What does the additional cost of Sony gives me? Is the difference in cost significant? Ease of use is important. Fuji has a SLR design with all pertinent settings being mechanically controlled via dials or levers on the outside of the camera ... minimal menu diving. Lastly, but still important in my book, is the looks of the camera. What would I want to be seen hanging off my shoulder or around my neck (okay, I'm shallow).

Honestly, I don't think you'll be able to do more or consistently get significantly better shots with one camera over the other.

The Sony has better iso on both sides. 100 vs 160, and 51,000 vs 12,800.

Opps, you're right. With extended ISO the XT3 goes from 80-51,200 and Sony in extended mode goes from 50-204,00. Yes, Sony has greater range, but the question is the additional range in native or extended mode significant?

 

[Destin]

Well, I committed to a decision. Pre-order is in for an X-T3 + grip, and I have a 90 f/2 on the way as well.

I’m super excited and I really think I made the right decision, but time will tell.

 

[Gary A.]

Good Luck. Personally I think either camera would deliver super-duper images and both would serve you equally well. For me, I love the Fujinon lenses. I am also giving serious thought to a XT3.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

I agree with Gary. I think you’d be happy with either.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app