[thxbb12]

Hello,

I would like to share my experience about recently acquiring and using a Sony A7cII camera after having used Fuji-X gear for the last 10 years (and also MFT from 2013 to 2019).
I originally chose Fuji-X because I could get very good IQ in a small package, using mainly small prime lenses such as Fuji 23 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4 and 56 f/1.2. This was a strong benefit for me, especially early on about 5-10 years ago.

Today however, the situation is quite different. Small Fuji bodies such as the X-Txx and X-Exx series do not feature in-body stabilization and the viewfinders (IBIS) are the smallest in the industry. The X-Sxx series features IBIS, but the viewfinder is equally small. Recent Fuji lenses have inflated a lot to the point that I don't really see any benefits from the APS-C sensor size anymore. It's even more true of Fuji zooms.
If you actually compare equivalent systems between Fuji-X and Sony FE with a body like the A7cII, the more compact equivalent system is often the Sony fullframe, hence my motivation to switch. Furthermore, lenses for Sony FE can be had for much cheaper. The Sony body is more expensive, but the lowest price of lenses makes up for it. Also, if you value depth of field control, the Sony is clearly more interesting as you can purchase affordable f1.8 lenses which have an equivalent depth of field of f1.2 on APS-C which is available only for a couple of primes.
If we consider zooms, the Sony is even more interesting. Tons of choices of fast f2.8 zooms at very affordable prices with high image quality and unique offerings not found in Fuji land (such as Tamron 17-50, Tamron 28-200, Sony 20-70, Tamron 35-150, etc.).
When you realize that with Sony, a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 would be equivalent to a 18-49 f1.8 on Fuji-X, which doesn't exist, and for $800, the choice is not very difficult.

Another reason for looking at Sony FE, was the following frustrations:

- lack of AF reliability during "action" shots (still) and when shooting videos
- the lack of good, affordable, but not huge Fuji zooms and to a certain extend:
- the lack of good quality affordable lenses, whether fast primes or zooms
- the lack of good quality compact lenses, whether zooms or fast primes

When considering equivalent systems (in terms of field of view and depth of field), Fuji is really not that interesting in terms of cost and overall bulk compared to Sony FE.

Very recently, I purchased a Sony A7cII with the 28-60 kit lens and an additionnal Tamron 28-200. After having used it for a couple of weeks, I have to say I'm very impressed!
The picture quality I get from the "lowly" 28-60 is incredible for the lens size. Pretty much sharp over the whole frame and the lens is tiny, even for APS-C standard. The images I get from the Tamron 28-200 are better than I'd have thought possible. It's really good at all focal lengths, even the corners are descent. Impressive. In APS-C land, it would be equivalent to a 18-131 f1.8-3.7. If Fuji were to make such a lens, I think it would be larger, heavier and not as good optically. Take a look at the current Fuji 18-135 for instance. Sure it's an older design, but I used to have the Fuji 16-80 f4 and sold it because besides the center it was never really sharp.

In term of AF on the A7cII, the ability to use the "AF-ON" button on a subject and recompose works wonders. The AF sticks like crazy to the target (whether it moves or not and whether I pan around). Consequently, there is absolutely no need to move the AF point! Face detection is very reliable, even on small faces. On my Fujis, I never used it because it was not reliable enough, unless for close-ups (and the metering changes depending on whether it detects a face or not which is immensly annoying).
I'm still amazed at how well the AF works on the Sony. It's so liberating to not have to manually fiddle with AF points over the frame. The same goes with video: AF is so reliable and sticky it's amazing! That's definitely a revelation for me.
I was expecting bad ergonomics and operations, but it's actually pretty good given the size of the camera and the ability to customize the menu when pressing the "Fn" button is very convenient.

Finally, one word about jpegs. Fuji has awesome film simulations when you're lazy and don't want to convert from RAW. I particularily like Classic Chrome. Sony doesn't have similar pleasing jpeg already available.
However, Picture Profile gives the jpeg output a level of customization unmatched by Fuji which I was surprised about. It's daunting and not exactly user-friendly, but I found someone who actually provides (for $40) many film simulations that can be configured in camera and that mimic some of Fuji outputs: https://www.veresdenialex.com/sony-film-...on-recipes
It works really well and I found some that I find very pleasing.

All in all, I'm very very happy with the camera and I think I'll sell most of my Fuji gear (maybe just keep 1 body and a couple of small primes) to fund addtionnal Sony FE lenses!

[toni-a]

I never used Fuji, but I am surprised it still has those drawbacks, especially when it comes to autofocus, even my 5 years old EOSRP which is considered very basic model doesn't have those drawbacks.
I know you are happy with shallow DOF now, but once you need some DOF for landscape or macro you will miss APS-C. My suggestion, it's not the fast primes that you need on Fuji, sell them they will generate good money, and just keep ultrawide and macro lenses and continue using 2 systems just like what I do

[Klaus]

I think Fuji is in a tricky spot but their marketing has been awesome.

Instead of emphasizing pure tech, they are marketing the system as "modern retro" - which is certainly smart.
I'd say that for many consumers, cameras also represent a bit of nostalgia - as opposed to smartphones - reminiscent of a time when things were slower and more focused on the artistic part rather than just taking a snapshot. And Fuji cameras are providing this "good feeling".

e.g. If we look at the camera design neutrally, the top dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation are just poorly placed regarding ergonomics. And the positioning of the front dial isn't ideal either. But this doesn't matter, of course, if people just want it this way. For the others, there's the X-Hx series, which targets professionals instead. So that's the other smart move by Fujifilm - they are using essentially the very same underlying tech for different target audiences. As far as AF goes, I'm fairly happy with the X-H2 but it's not as good as Sony's.

The retro thingy also benefited their lens lineup, especially their prime lenses. There's the discussion that modern lenses do feel too "clinical," and most Fujinons don't. However, in terms of sheer hard numbers, their lenses aren't really special. The best are keeping up with the state of the art but there's also a whole lot that isn't. And their zoom lenses are generally nothing to write home about really.

I'd say Fuji is a place to "feel" good but not necessarily to "be" good. But then, photography is about feelings. As long as it feels good, it's good enough, really.

Conversely, Sony—probably even more so than Canon and Nikon—is about "clinical" performance - and they aren't even overly shy to stress this.
Nikon is probably a bit of a middle ground. I'm not sure how to classify Canon at this point. I suppose they are the most narcissist ;-) if that's a thing for a company.

[thxbb12]

I never used Fuji, but I am surprised it still has those drawbacks, especially when it comes to autofocus, even my 5 years old EOSRP which is considered very basic model doesn't have those drawbacks.
I know you are happy with shallow DOF now, but once you need some DOF for landscape or macro you will miss APS-C. My suggestion, it's not the fast primes that you need on Fuji, sell them they will generate good money, and just keep ultrawide and macro lenses and continue using 2 systems just like what I do

AF for stills is ok.
It's mostly for video that it's mega annoying where it goes in and out of focus constantly which makes the video almost unwatchable.
Since I used the Sony, it made me realized how good Sony AF is. It's incredible. You probably don't realize how much better it is from your RP until experiencing it.

"but once you need some DOF for landscape or macro you will miss APS-C" : how can miss APS-C when it comes to large DOF? It doesn't make any sense. All I need to do to match APS-C is close my lens' aperture. I can always stop down a lens, but I can never open the aperture more than is physically possible. If if want to match the DOF I'd get at f5.6 with APS-C, all I need to do it to use f8 or f9 on FF. How difficult is this?
So no, a small format doesn't bring any DOF advantage, it's the opposite. Funnily enough it's something I read online from time to time, yet it doesn't make any sense.

---

I think Fuji is in a tricky spot but their marketing has been awesome.

Instead of emphasizing pure tech, they are marketing the system as "modern retro" - which is certainly smart.
I'd say that for many consumers, cameras also represent a bit of nostalgia - as opposed to smartphones - reminiscent of a time when things were slower and more focused on the artistic part rather than just taking a snapshot. And Fuji cameras are providing this "good feeling".

e.g. If we look at the camera design neutrally, the top dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation are just poorly placed regarding ergonomics. And the positioning of the front dial isn't ideal either. But this doesn't matter, of course, if people just want it this way. For the others, there's the X-Hx series, which targets professionals instead. So that's the other smart move by Fujifilm - they are using essentially the very same underlying tech for different target audiences. As far as AF goes, I'm fairly happy with the X-H2 but it's not as good as Sony's.

The retro thingy also benefited their lens lineup, especially their prime lenses. There's the discussion that modern lenses do feel too "clinical," and most Fujinons don't. However, in terms of sheer hard numbers, their lenses aren't really special. The best are keeping up with the state of the art but there's also a whole lot that isn't.  And their zoom lenses are generally nothing to write home about really.

I'd say Fuji is a place to "feel" good but not necessarily to "be" good. But then, photography is about feelings. As long as it feels good, it's good enough, really.

Conversely, Sony—probably even more so than Canon and Nikon—is about "clinical" performance - and they aren't even overly shy to stress this.
Nikon is probably a bit of a middle ground. I'm not sure how to classify Canon at this point.  I suppose they are the most narcissist ;-) if that's a thing for a company.

Indeed, Fuji has been very clever in their marketing strategy.
I like what Fuji did originally with their X-System. It was quite a unique proposition. However, times have changed.
I still think it's a good system for prime shooters. However, for zoom shooters it's a different story. Unless you use long lenses (zooms) and primes, I'm not convinced Fuji is such a great system.
Their zooms are really not that great and their pro line is really bulky to the point of being larger than FF for equivalent outputs.

Yes, Sony glass can be extremely good and clinical (and very pricey). On the other hand, one can buy very affordable lenses that are actually very descent. Or dirt cheap glass that not even half-bad! Or very compact lenses too. For instance, I currently own the Tamron 28-200 but I'd like a wide-angle. I can buy a Viltrox 20mm f2.8 for almost nothing and it's tiny. There are quite a few cheapo lenses that are pretty descent. This is a strong selling point for the system as a whole IMO. No other manufacturer comes remotely close to this. The body is one thing but the most important is the lenses.

[stoppingdown]

Very interesting points.

[toni-a]

I never used Fuji, but I am surprised it still has those drawbacks, especially when it comes to autofocus, even my 5 years old EOSRP which is considered very basic model doesn't have those drawbacks.
I know you are happy with shallow DOF now, but once you need some DOF for landscape or macro you will miss APS-C. My suggestion, it's not the fast primes that you need on Fuji, sell them they will generate good money, and just keep ultrawide and macro lenses and continue using 2 systems just like what I do

AF for stills is ok.
It's mostly for video that it's mega annoying where it goes in and out of focus constantly which makes the video almost unwatchable.
Since I used the Sony, it made me realized how good Sony AF is. It's incredible. You probably don't realize how much better it is from your RP until experiencing it.

"but once you need some DOF for landscape or macro you will miss APS-C" : how can miss APS-C when it comes to large DOF? It doesn't make any sense. All I need to do to match APS-C is close my lens' aperture. I can always stop down a lens, but I can never open the aperture more than is physically possible. If if want to match the DOF I'd get at f5.6 with APS-C, all I need to do it to use f8 or f9 on FF. How difficult is this?
So no, a small format doesn't bring any DOF advantage, it's the opposite. Funnily enough it's something I read online from time to time, yet it doesn't make any sense.

---

I think Fuji is in a tricky spot but their marketing has been awesome.

Instead of emphasizing pure tech, they are marketing the system as "modern retro" - which is certainly smart.
I'd say that for many consumers, cameras also represent a bit of nostalgia - as opposed to smartphones - reminiscent of a time when things were slower and more focused on the artistic part rather than just taking a snapshot. And Fuji cameras are providing this "good feeling".

e.g. If we look at the camera design neutrally, the top dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation are just poorly placed regarding ergonomics. And the positioning of the front dial isn't ideal either. But this doesn't matter, of course, if people just want it this way. For the others, there's the X-Hx series, which targets professionals instead. So that's the other smart move by Fujifilm - they are using essentially the very same underlying tech for different target audiences. As far as AF goes, I'm fairly happy with the X-H2 but it's not as good as Sony's.

The retro thingy also benefited their lens lineup, especially their prime lenses. There's the discussion that modern lenses do feel too "clinical," and most Fujinons don't. However, in terms of sheer hard numbers, their lenses aren't really special. The best are keeping up with the state of the art but there's also a whole lot that isn't.  And their zoom lenses are generally nothing to write home about really.

I'd say Fuji is a place to "feel" good but not necessarily to "be" good. But then, photography is about feelings. As long as it feels good, it's good enough, really.

Conversely, Sony—probably even more so than Canon and Nikon—is about "clinical" performance - and they aren't even overly shy to stress this.
Nikon is probably a bit of a middle ground. I'm not sure how to classify Canon at this point.  I suppose they are the most narcissist ;-) if that's a thing for a company.

Indeed, Fuji has been very clever in their marketing strategy.
I like what Fuji did originally with their X-System. It was quite a unique proposition. However, times have changed.
I still think it's a good system for prime shooters. However, for zoom shooters it's a different story. Unless you use long lenses (zooms) and primes, I'm not convinced Fuji is such a great system.
Their zooms are really not that great and their pro line is really bulky to the point of being larger than FF for equivalent outputs.

Yes, Sony glass can be extremely good and clinical (and very pricey). On the other hand, one can buy very affordable lenses that are actually very descent. Or dirt cheap glass that not even half-bad! Or very compact lenses too. For instance, I currently own the Tamron 28-200 but I'd like a wide-angle. I can buy a Viltrox 20mm f2.8 for almost nothing and it's tiny. There are quite a few cheapo lenses that are pretty descent. This is a strong selling point for the system as a whole IMO. No other manufacturer comes remotely close to this. The body is one thing but the most important is the lenses.

Sure for DOF you can go to f8 instead of f5.6 but would you use f32 ? so there's still some advantage, besides  remember a 10mm lens has significantly more DOF than a 16mm lens when both used at the same aperture, I use both APS-C and full frame and when I need DOF for ultrawide shots APS-C has its advantage, obviously if you need shallow DOF you should go elsewhere.
Also for macro you always have more magnification with APS-C because of the crop factor.
Of course full frame can replace APS-C and you don't have to use dual system, but if you happen to have both like me, you will definitely find some advantages for APS-C especially for macro

[thxbb12]

I never used Fuji, but I am surprised it still has those drawbacks, especially when it comes to autofocus, even my 5 years old EOSRP which is considered very basic model doesn't have those drawbacks.
I know you are happy with shallow DOF now, but once you need some DOF for landscape or macro you will miss APS-C. My suggestion, it's not the fast primes that you need on Fuji, sell them they will generate good money, and just keep ultrawide and macro lenses and continue using 2 systems just like what I do

AF for stills is ok.
It's mostly for video that it's mega annoying where it goes in and out of focus constantly which makes the video almost unwatchable.
Since I used the Sony, it made me realized how good Sony AF is. It's incredible. You probably don't realize how much better it is from your RP until experiencing it.

"but once you need some DOF for landscape or macro you will miss APS-C" : how can miss APS-C when it comes to large DOF? It doesn't make any sense. All I need to do to match APS-C is close my lens' aperture. I can always stop down a lens, but I can never open the aperture more than is physically possible. If if want to match the DOF I'd get at f5.6 with APS-C, all I need to do it to use f8 or f9 on FF. How difficult is this?
So no, a small format doesn't bring any DOF advantage, it's the opposite. Funnily enough it's something I read online from time to time, yet it doesn't make any sense.

---

I think Fuji is in a tricky spot but their marketing has been awesome.

Instead of emphasizing pure tech, they are marketing the system as "modern retro" - which is certainly smart.
I'd say that for many consumers, cameras also represent a bit of nostalgia - as opposed to smartphones - reminiscent of a time when things were slower and more focused on the artistic part rather than just taking a snapshot. And Fuji cameras are providing this "good feeling".

e.g. If we look at the camera design neutrally, the top dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation are just poorly placed regarding ergonomics. And the positioning of the front dial isn't ideal either. But this doesn't matter, of course, if people just want it this way. For the others, there's the X-Hx series, which targets professionals instead. So that's the other smart move by Fujifilm - they are using essentially the very same underlying tech for different target audiences. As far as AF goes, I'm fairly happy with the X-H2 but it's not as good as Sony's.

The retro thingy also benefited their lens lineup, especially their prime lenses. There's the discussion that modern lenses do feel too "clinical," and most Fujinons don't. However, in terms of sheer hard numbers, their lenses aren't really special. The best are keeping up with the state of the art but there's also a whole lot that isn't.  And their zoom lenses are generally nothing to write home about really.

I'd say Fuji is a place to "feel" good but not necessarily to "be" good. But then, photography is about feelings. As long as it feels good, it's good enough, really.

Conversely, Sony—probably even more so than Canon and Nikon—is about "clinical" performance - and they aren't even overly shy to stress this.
Nikon is probably a bit of a middle ground. I'm not sure how to classify Canon at this point.  I suppose they are the most narcissist ;-) if that's a thing for a company.

Indeed, Fuji has been very clever in their marketing strategy.
I like what Fuji did originally with their X-System. It was quite a unique proposition. However, times have changed.
I still think it's a good system for prime shooters. However, for zoom shooters it's a different story. Unless you use long lenses (zooms) and primes, I'm not convinced Fuji is such a great system.
Their zooms are really not that great and their pro line is really bulky to the point of being larger than FF for equivalent outputs.

Yes, Sony glass can be extremely good and clinical (and very pricey). On the other hand, one can buy very affordable lenses that are actually very descent. Or dirt cheap glass that not even half-bad! Or very compact lenses too. For instance, I currently own the Tamron 28-200 but I'd like a wide-angle. I can buy a Viltrox 20mm f2.8 for almost nothing and it's tiny. There are quite a few cheapo lenses that are pretty descent. This is a strong selling point for the system as a whole IMO. No other manufacturer comes remotely close to this. The body is one thing but the most important is the lenses.

Sure for DOF you can go to f8 instead of f5.6 but would you use f32 ? so there's still some advantage, besides  remember a 10mm lens has significantly more DOF than a 16mm lens when both used at the same aperture, I use both APS-C and full frame and when I need DOF for ultrawide shots APS-C has its advantage, obviously if you need shallow DOF you should go elsewhere.
Also for macro you always have more magnification with APS-C because of the crop factor.
Of course full frame can replace APS-C and you don't have to use dual system, but if you happen to have both like me, you will definitely find some advantages for APS-C especially for macro

You don't seem to understand equivalence (between sensor sizes).
f32 on fullframe is equivalent to f21 on APS-C. Would you use f21 on APS-C?

Again, there is zero advantage to having more depth of field with APS-C (vs FF) as you can always match the larger depth of field with FF by stepping down more.

When considering equivalent systems, you must take in account aperture, ISO and focal length.
I remember Klaus had written an article on equivalence with examples, but it seems the article is gone :-( 
I recommend you read the DPR article on the same subject here to help you understand it better: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

Again, there is no inherent advantage to APS-C or smaller formats for macro photography.
The only reason why you might think APS-C is more interesting is because there is no equivalent lens available for FF. 
For instance a 100mm f2.8 macro lens on APS-C would be equivalent to a 153mm f4.3 on FF. So yes, there is no such lens available for FF (yet) ;-) But this has nothing to do with sensor size.

[toni-a]

I understand equivalence quite well, and I totally agree with you that full frame can indeed replace APS-C
I was talking about the practical part
let me explain with photos
This is David-a with 85mmf1.8 on 5D



This is David-a with 85mmf1.8 on 7D2
both taken at MFD
of course you can crop 5D image and get the same result yes, but it's practical with 7D2
suppose you are shooting macro, you can see the obvious advantage, be it only in resolution 
That's why I recommended a macro lens rather than a fast lens if you want dual system like me.
For me I usually carry only EOSRP however during events, to avoid swapping lenses i carry also 7D2

[Rover]

I see BC lives among us in spirit.

[thxbb12]

Toni, your example simply shows that a 85mm f1.8 fullframe lens mounted on an APS-C camera acts exactly as a 130mm f2.8 lens would on fullframe...
It's a consequence of the crop factor.

Talking about macro, if you really want to carry the lightest/smaller gear, then you should strongly consider an MFT system such as an Olympus/OM body with the 60mm f2.8 macro. This lens is super tiny.
Such a system would be equivalent to:

- 120mm f5.6 on fullframe
- 80mm f3.7 on APS-C

Even greater gains ;-) (at the cost of equivalent aperture obviously).