Quick take on Fuji Xt1 compared to canon

Mornnb wrote in post #17138395
Plus you have access to all of Canon's, Nikon's and Leica's lenses via adaptors.

Which is fine, if you're happy to be restricted to basically a manual focus camera. Which personally, I am not. Not in this day & age anyway.
I myself, would only look at changing systems/brand, if that system works as a single, all purpose package. Not some niche product that requires different lenses from different manufacturers, adapters & what not, for mediocre results. And I'm not talking just pixel peeping at 200% when I say mediocre.
So far, Fuji seems to be the one that is closest to a full, overall replacement package. One body, and some good quality native lenses that would suit me. At a reasonable weight/price/feature point. But that's just me.

Mornnb wrote in post #17138284
It appears to be a great camera. But in terms of mirrorless bodies why would someone choose the X-T1 over a Sony A7 given that there's only a few hundred between them, yet significantly better capabilities.

Well if you're talking about tradition Canon's digital bodies have exactly the same layout as their film bodies, Canon cameras have changed very little in the last 25 years. And nor should they, Canon got an electronic camera interface right the first time.

"Significantly better capabilities" is a significant exaggeration. I own a FF Canon (6D) and the first gen X-trans (X-E1) and the files are very comparable. Of course FF has the advantage in low light, but for some shooters that doesn't really matter.

Personally I'll go with the company which puts the whole system ahead of just some new bells and whistles bodies every time, which is why I shoot Fuji and Canon and not Sony and Nikon. I feel like Sony and Nikon both release a new body almost as often (or more often) than they release a lens... to me that's completely bass-akwards.

speedync wrote in post #17138444
Which is fine, if you're happy to be restricted to basically a manual focus camera. Which personally, I am not. Not in this day & age anyway. .

I don't see this as an issue. Sony has the standard 35mm and 50mm focal lengths covered well with native lenses. Shooting with wide angles and manual focus is not a big deal.
Additionally the metabones EF adaptor works rather well. Autofocus with Canon lenses is little different to autofocus on Canon bodies in live view mode.

I don't want a replacement package, but rather something that can fit in with my existing set up because there is certainly no mirror less that can serve as a replacement for a DSLR. I wouldn't want to shoot a rugby game or a wedding with a Fuji or a Sony body.
I want to use the best lenses from any manufacturer on the best sensor any manufacturer offers. I also want a small body with a compact native 35mm for general walkabout shooting. That is what the a7R provides and for my needs it's ideal.
The Fuji doesn't make any sense to me, why go for the expensive APS-C set up, when the a7 offers better image qualify and access to better lenses.

Mornnb wrote in post #17138582
I don't see this as an issue.

Good for you. I do. I know someone with one, & there view of non native lens AF is a lot different than yours. Each to their own

I don't want a replacement package, but rather something that can fit in with my existing set up because there is certainly no mirror less that can serve as a replacement for a DSLR. I wouldn't want to shoot a rugby game or a wedding with a Fuji or a Sony body.

The only reason I go to weddings, is to have a few beers, enjoy a good meal, & socialize. I can't see the Fuji not coping with that.
Rugby game -can't see why the XT1 couldn't snap a few decent pickies. Not like I'm trying to make a living off my camera. It's just part of the whole experience -not the reason for going

The Fuji doesn't make any sense to me, why go for the expensive APS-C set up, when the a7 offers better image qualify and access to better lenses.

Well, that's just the difference between you & me. Their (Fuji) native lens lineup makes perfect sense to me. No need to go elsewhere, and loose performance.
You asked why someone would look at Fuji over a Sony. I simply explained why. Bet there's more people with similar requirements to me, than the number of people who want to collect vast quantities of different camera bodies, adapters & lenses from various manufacturers. At a guess

Mornnb wrote in post #17138582
I want to use the best lenses from any manufacturer on the best sensor any manufacturer offers. I also want a small body with a compact native 35mm for general walkabout shooting. That is what the a7R provides and for my needs it's ideal.
The Fuji doesn't make any sense to me, why go for the expensive APS-C set up, when the a7 offers better image qualify and access to better lenses.

Because the Image quality really isn't that much better and the Fuji offers a far more complete package... it's not that complicated. Yes, the Sony has a couple of great lenses... the Fuji has a system of great lenses, make's it a pretty easy choice imo.

Mornnb wrote in post #17138582
Additionally the metabones EF adaptor works rather well. Autofocus with Canon lenses is little different to autofocus on Canon bodies in live view mode.

Well, the assessment of whether the EF-to-FE adapter solution (and more generally all non-native adapters, like Leica M-to-FE) will be an individual thing, based on what and how one shoots. For me, there are numerous issues with using non-native lenses on the A7/r bodies, too many to list, but AF speed deterioration for EF lenses (very real imho) and variation in adapted lens performance (most of my M-glass < 50mm is a non-starter on an A7r) loom large.

The knock on the alpha series is that, while their sensors kick a$$, you get no native FE glass outside of a modest 35/2.8 and an outstanding 55/1.8. If you're good with live view as a focus mainstay and with adapting non-native lenses, great, lots of glass is available. If you want optimal AF and the security of native glass interfaces, not so good.

I bought into the X-T1 nearly 6 months ago, my first new "system" in a long time. It sure has issues in use for the way I shoot, and the jury's out whether I'll keep it long-term, but image quality and the performance of every one of the native XF lenses I've bought are more than good enough for my needs.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17138812
Because the Image quality really isn't that much better and the Fuji offers a far more complete package... it's not that complicated. Yes, the Sony has a couple of great lenses... the Fuji has a system of great lenses, make's it a pretty easy choice imo.

For me the Sony was a no brainer as I can use all my existing Canon lenses for landscape photography.

Oh...and if you want to print large, there sure is a difference between the images from the A7R and a Fuji sensor...I have both.

MCTuomey wrote in post #17138856
Well, the assessment of whether the EF-to-FE adapter solution (and more generally all non-native adapters, like Leica M-to-FE) will be an individual thing, based on what and how one shoots. For me, there are numerous issues with using non-native lenses on the A7/r bodies, too many to list, but AF speed deterioration for EF lenses (very real imho) and variation in adapted lens performance (most of my M-glass < 50mm is a non-starter on an A7r) loom large.

The knock on the alpha series is that, while their sensors kick a$$, you get no native FE glass outside of a modest 35/2.8 and an outstanding 55/1.8. If you're good with live view as a focus mainstay and with adapting non-native lenses, great, lots of glass is available. If you want optimal AF and the security of native glass interfaces, not so good.

I bought into the X-T1 nearly 6 months ago, my first new "system" in a long time. It sure has issues in use for the way I shoot, and the jury's out whether I'll keep it long-term, but image quality and the performance of every one of the native XF lenses I've bought are more than good enough for my needs.

But that is the problem for many...you have to buy into a new system. With the Sony, you can keep your existing system, use your existing lenses on both the Sony camera and your existing DSLR and just augment if you need to with some native Sony lenses.

For me, being able to use my Canon TSE lenses on the Sony was the selling point. I don't want to duplicate my existing lenses with the same Fuji lenses.

Hogloff wrote in post #17138953
For me the Sony was a no brainer as I can use all my existing Canon lenses for landscape photography.

Oh...and if you want to print large, there sure is a difference between the images from the A7R and a Fuji sensor...I have both.

Seems truly a no-brainer for the landscape photographer who shoots relatively slowly and from a tripod and needs to print as large as possible from small format gear: FF Exmor v APS-C X-trans, 36mpx v 16mpx.

Hogloff wrote in post #17138957
But that is the problem for many...you have to buy into a new system. With the Sony, you can keep your existing system, use your existing lenses on both the Sony camera and your existing DSLR and just augment if you need to with some native Sony lenses.

For me, being able to use my Canon TSE lenses on the Sony was the selling point. I don't want to duplicate my existing lenses with the same Fuji lenses.

My point is not to argue which is best in absolute terms. For you, adaptation of existing lenses to the Sony is a benefit because you're interested in landscape work, big prints, and you'vve got your preferred glass. For me, because I'm interested in AF speed and also using my excellent wide Leica M lenses, adaptation is a detriment because AF speed suffers with adapters in my experience and most Leica wides have edge performance problems on the A7r.

I've considered the A7r for use with my Canon TSEs, still unsure because it's a lot of money for what for me is limited use. The Fuji checks a lot of boxes with its developed native lenses and reasonably sure AF with same; I can use the X-T1 for a range of shooting: travel, event, documentary, light action (and I mean light - its continuous AF is not great for me), everyday carry. And, btw, the X-T1 plays much nicer with my Leica lenses.

Different needs, different conclusions.

Hey hogloff do you have a link to the converter your using?

The A7 is appealing to me due to having both phase and contrast detection. I was having a discussion with a person that owned an A7R and he had more keeper rates when he sold the A7R and purchased the A7. He wasn't a landscape shooter.

Price point the Sony A7 is incredibly affordable. Sony with its native lenses is still not really a small package. However on the other hand the ergonomics of a smaller 6d with canon lens with minimally more weight may be easier to sport around due to hand holding comfort.

This is why I sit on the fence. An Olympus em-1 (my em-5) tiny form factor crop 2x micro 4/3 system fitted with a zuiko 12mm f/2, panny leica (15mm f/1.7, 25 f/1.5) or even a panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 has incredible image quality for a small camera.

Hogloff, for your scenario a sony A7r for landscape is a no brainer and is a killer system. For my application I seek small form factor with high IQ and the M43 "just" makes this a more ideal system with a huge selection of incredibly high quality glass ranging from primes to zooms. The fuji xt1 is so appealing but really lacks in glass.

If anyone has ever used a 45mm or 75mm micro 4/3 zuiko prime you'd understand how amazing images can be with a small m43 sensor. I struggle to sell my m43 system because I use it both for high quality HD vids with my panasonic gh3 and Em-5 for small form factor casual shooting.

AlanU wrote in post #17138979
Price point the Sony A7 is incredibly affordable. Sony with its native lenses is still not really a small package. However on the other hand the ergonomics of a smaller 6d with canon lens with minimally more weight may be easier to sport around due to hand holding comfort.

AlanU wrote in post #17138979
The fuji xt1 is so appealing but really lacks in glass.

Fully agree that the A7 + native lenses is not "small" relative to a less bulky dSLR + equivalent focal length/speed lenses.

Not sure what you're comparing it with, but I disagree that the X-series lacks glass. Lenses I have experience with (18-55, 55-200, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 55/1.2) cover a wide range of lengths and speeds, all very good to excellent IQ. And there's a half-dozen or more others I haven't used.

I guess it all depends on what you shoot and where you are in your photography.


I don't own any amazing EF lenses yet. If I switched I would be ditching all of my Canon gear. I could care less how well it plays with my current lenses. Fuji's line-up for autofocus use is perfectly acceptable for me. As I would no longer have a DSLR, the sony's slower autofocus is a deal-breaker for me. A friend has an A7 and while I haven't handled it, it has not been able to keep up with our kids at play. He breaks out his wife's t4i for candid shots of the kids at play. It has to be able to keep up with my daughter at least.

I am really interested in the idea of being able to adapt FD, LTM, and M mount manual lenses. The ways fuji has implemented manual focus assist on the X-T1 seem perfect. I've got a 50/0.95 Canon rangefinder lens that was adapted to M mount. The M3 that it used to sit on was destroyed in a fire several years ago. The reduced DOF with the sony and this lens would actually be a disadvantage to me.

I shot with Fuji for the last year and I'm currently in the process of moving back to Canon (6d). The Fuji lens are great. I've owned the 14,35,18-55,55-200, and 56. All are super sharp. My issue with the system is the Xtrans sensor. I'm just not crazy about it for what I shoot which is primarily landscapes. It's fine if you're just viewing at web sizes but for larger prints artifacts start showing up. I spent enough money on RAW convertors trying to pull the most I could out of the sensor to have almost paid for another lens. I'm not trying to say the Xtrans is all bad because it's not. For instance I think it has amazing skin tones (better than Canon IMO) but I don't do much people photography so that didn't ultimately matter to me. I also prefer the colors I get with Canon for landscape photography especially with the sky. I still think it's the best over all mirror less system. IF Fuji offered a non X trans 20-24MP sensor in a X-T1 body I would be using it.

The retro design of the Fuji was hit and miss for me. I love the aperture being on the lens but the shutter dial never felt right to me. IMO it's much easier and quicker to use the thumb wheel on a DSLR with out ever having to move your hand. I realize people have different feelings about that. Another thing is the poor implementation of A/E bracketing, which would be a simple firmware fix (that has been requested multiple times) but it evidently doesn't matter to Fuji.

I've seriously considered the A7 or A7r. But have held off for a few reasons for now. One of them being the lack of native lens. If I'm going to shoot with EF lens then I'm losing the size advantage of the A7. The other issue I have with the Sony is the RAW compression. I played around with several A7R RAW files and some of them had pretty bad posterization artifacts in the sky. Worse than I've ever seen with Canon or Fuji files. Most likely due to the RAW compression. I'm going to wait and see what Sony does with the A7R. If they fix the shutter shock issue and do something about the RAW compression either with a new model or a firmware update I will probably pick one up with an adapter.

One thing that both Fuji and Sony lacks is resale value in comparison to Canon or Nikon. Partly due to them coming out with a updated body every time you turn around. The X-E1 should have been what the X-E2 was right out of the gate.

MCTuomey wrote in post #17138856
Well, the assessment of whether the EF-to-FE adapter solution (and more generally all non-native adapters, like Leica M-to-FE) will be an individual thing, based on what and how one shoots. For me, there are numerous issues with using non-native lenses on the A7/r bodies, too many to list, but AF speed deterioration for EF lenses (very real imho) and variation in adapted lens performance (most of my M-glass < 50mm is a non-starter on an A7r) loom large.

The AF speed is comparable to EF lenses on live view mode on Canon bodies, the problem is the EOS platform is not designed for contrast AF.
35mm and 50mm M glass mostly performs well on the a7R, for wide angles you have a huge range of lenses from Canon and Nikon that work on the body great. AF really isn't important for wide angles.

The 35mm 2.8 is actually a great lens, it's comparable to the 24-70mm II 2.8 and Sigma 35mm in sharpness. Additionally, given this is full frame we're talking about, the performance in terms of noise, depth of field and angle of view is what a 22mm f/1.7 would provide on the Fuji X-Pro.
I want the security of established platforms like Canon EF and I want to be able to use my EF lenses which I have no intention of selling as their performance is fantastic. I don't consider the FE mount interface to be something that provides much in the way of security or longevity.

MCTuomey wrote in post #17138967
Seems truly a no-brainer for the landscape photographer who shoots relatively slowly and from a tripod and needs to print as large as possible from small format gear: FF Exmor v APS-C X-trans, 36mpx v 16mpx.

Yes, this is the use case for me. Landscape and architecture. Plus a general purpose walk about with best of class image quality (i.e. a Leica killer).
With the Sony a7R you get something that integrates well into your existing EF system and provides a few things that the Canon EF system doesn't do well.

MCTuomey wrote in post #17139170
Fully agree that the A7 + native lenses is not "small" relative to a less bulky dSLR + equivalent focal length/speed lenses.

The Sony a7 is half the weight of any DSLR that offers comparable image quality, including the light 6D. It is also lighter than a Leica body. It is the smallest and most compact full frame body anyone makes. When you need it to be compact, you put on the 35mm. But you very much notice the smaller size even with big DSLR lenses.
And this is advantage of the a7, it's a compact camera that makes no compromises. It's like a medium format that fits in your pocket.