Fujifilm X vs. Sony A7 Systems
This is a topic I've wanted to cover for quite a while - a showdown between two of the best mirrorless systems available. Whilst M4/3 and Samsung's NX systems are both great, I feel that M4/3's small sensor size and Samsung's small market share are two very large obstacles yet to be overcome. Looking at the statistics for growth and the potential for future development, the two best systems on the market right now are Fujifilm and Sony. This article will discuss some of the main battlegrounds between these two systems.
The first thing to note about Sony's system is they have both APS-C and full-frame cameras and lenses. Their current APS-C bodies are the A5100 and A6000 and their full-frame (35mm) bodies are the A7 series - currently the A7II, A7RII and A7S (which hasn't been updated to the Mark 2 yet). Sony's APS-C lenses are denoted F-mount and their full-frame lenses are denoted FE-mount. Okay, so with that gobbledegook out of the way, let's talk about the key strengths and weaknesses of Sony's system.
Sony's key strength is in their image quality. This is important if you're a landscaper, fine art photographer or if you regularly print exhibition sized prints. Otherwise, the image quality available from both Sony and Fuji (as well as all other manufacturers) are practically very similar. I would tend to err on Sony's colour rendition being the weakest of all the major brands. Sony's full-frame A7 lineup is also great in that it has a larger sensor, meaning better low light performance. Whilst Fuji's X-Trans sensor is very good at high ISOs, it can't stack up to the current low-light king - the Sony A7S.
Sony's main weakness is in their lens lineup. Not only is Sony lacking lenses at the moment, but the lenses that are available are often overpriced and there are serious gaps in Sony's lineup. For example, the lack of a cheap 50mm equivalent lens is simply a boneheaded decision, meaning that everyone who wants a ~50mm lens for day-to-day use needs to fork out $1,000 or so for Sony's 55mm f/1.8 (which is an excellent lens), but the lack of choice is appalling given most manufacturers offer an entry-level 50mm equivalent lens. Even Fuji's 35mm f/1.4 is relatively affordable in comparison.
Another one of Sony's weaknesses is the division of their attention between APS-C and full-frame. The problem with a tiered system such as this is that they have to be able to sell both APS-C and full-frame cameras. For example, it's not hard to realise that one of the reasons why the A7II has such a slow FPS is so that Sony can sell more A6000 bodies. Unlike Sony, Fuji has a very nice tiered system where each successive body has very good merit over the cheaper ones.
Sony's key strength is in their image quality. This is important if you're a landscaper, fine art photographer or if you regularly print exhibition sized prints. Otherwise, the image quality available from both Sony and Fuji (as well as all other manufacturers) are practically very similar. I would tend to err on Sony's colour rendition being the weakest of all the major brands. Sony's full-frame A7 lineup is also great in that it has a larger sensor, meaning better low light performance. Whilst Fuji's X-Trans sensor is very good at high ISOs, it can't stack up to the current low-light king - the Sony A7S.
Sony's main weakness is in their lens lineup. Not only is Sony lacking lenses at the moment, but the lenses that are available are often overpriced and there are serious gaps in Sony's lineup. For example, the lack of a cheap 50mm equivalent lens is simply a boneheaded decision, meaning that everyone who wants a ~50mm lens for day-to-day use needs to fork out $1,000 or so for Sony's 55mm f/1.8 (which is an excellent lens), but the lack of choice is appalling given most manufacturers offer an entry-level 50mm equivalent lens. Even Fuji's 35mm f/1.4 is relatively affordable in comparison.
Another one of Sony's weaknesses is the division of their attention between APS-C and full-frame. The problem with a tiered system such as this is that they have to be able to sell both APS-C and full-frame cameras. For example, it's not hard to realise that one of the reasons why the A7II has such a slow FPS is so that Sony can sell more A6000 bodies. Unlike Sony, Fuji has a very nice tiered system where each successive body has very good merit over the cheaper ones.
Fujifilm's system is generally more complete and organised than Sony's. They have a very logical progression of camera bodies, from the entry-level X-A2 (which is quite comparable to the Sony A5100) all the way up to the mid-range bodies such as their X-E2 and X-T10 and then their flagship X-T1. Rumour has it that Fuji will be adding an X-Pro2 soon, which will become their new flagship. This more organised tiering makes much more sense and each successively more expensive Fuji can do all the cheaper ones can and more.
Fuji's main strength lies in their system and devotion to improvement. Fujifilm are known to support their cameras extremely well. They have transformed the original X-Pro1 from a quirky, buggy beta product to something that works quickly and reliably. Their X-T1 was recently improved from very good to excellent with firmware version 4.0, which added tracking autofocus amongst other things in their biggest update yet. Fuji has a great selection of lenses, from very good wide angle lenses to great telephoto lenses, especially ones for portraits. Unlike Sony, which is primarily an electronics company, Fuji has always been a major producer of lenses. Their Fujinon lenses are used for various purposes including in satellites and many retail for more than people's houses. This shows in their lens designs where all of their lenses, from the cheapest 27mm f/2.8 to the most expensive 50-140mm f/2.8 are all great lenses unlike Sony, who relies on Zeiss for their expensive lenses and whose cheaper lenses aren't as great.
Fuji's main weakness is in their sensor. Whilst their X-Trans sensor is excellent in rendering detail and in low light, being an APS-C sized sensor, it naturally doesn't perform as well in low light as larger sensors, such as the ones in the Sony do. Fuji's sensors, whilst excellent, are not the best choice if low light performance is extremely important to you. Fuji's sensor is also only 16MP and hasn't been updated in a while. Rumour has it that their new X-Pro2 will feature a new X-Trans sensor, but we'll have to wait and see. For now, though, as good as their sensor technology is, it's not quite where Sony is.
Perhaps one of Fuji's most odd strengths is that it attracts photographers and people who care about their images rather than amateurs who care more about the number of pixels their camera has or the dynamic range or sensor size. People who buy into Fujifilm overlook material weaknesses and see the system's strengths. Only real photographers care about the lens lineup of a particular system and only real photographers care about colour rendition and acute sharpness (which Fuji excels in). This is why there's significantly more technical talk for Sony than Fuji wherever you go (I prefer to avoid that).
Fuji's main strength lies in their system and devotion to improvement. Fujifilm are known to support their cameras extremely well. They have transformed the original X-Pro1 from a quirky, buggy beta product to something that works quickly and reliably. Their X-T1 was recently improved from very good to excellent with firmware version 4.0, which added tracking autofocus amongst other things in their biggest update yet. Fuji has a great selection of lenses, from very good wide angle lenses to great telephoto lenses, especially ones for portraits. Unlike Sony, which is primarily an electronics company, Fuji has always been a major producer of lenses. Their Fujinon lenses are used for various purposes including in satellites and many retail for more than people's houses. This shows in their lens designs where all of their lenses, from the cheapest 27mm f/2.8 to the most expensive 50-140mm f/2.8 are all great lenses unlike Sony, who relies on Zeiss for their expensive lenses and whose cheaper lenses aren't as great.
Fuji's main weakness is in their sensor. Whilst their X-Trans sensor is excellent in rendering detail and in low light, being an APS-C sized sensor, it naturally doesn't perform as well in low light as larger sensors, such as the ones in the Sony do. Fuji's sensors, whilst excellent, are not the best choice if low light performance is extremely important to you. Fuji's sensor is also only 16MP and hasn't been updated in a while. Rumour has it that their new X-Pro2 will feature a new X-Trans sensor, but we'll have to wait and see. For now, though, as good as their sensor technology is, it's not quite where Sony is.
Perhaps one of Fuji's most odd strengths is that it attracts photographers and people who care about their images rather than amateurs who care more about the number of pixels their camera has or the dynamic range or sensor size. People who buy into Fujifilm overlook material weaknesses and see the system's strengths. Only real photographers care about the lens lineup of a particular system and only real photographers care about colour rendition and acute sharpness (which Fuji excels in). This is why there's significantly more technical talk for Sony than Fuji wherever you go (I prefer to avoid that).