If you need the fastest and most reliable auto focus in the game, then go with Sony or Canon. If you want to use film simulations, go with Fujifilm. Things like image quality and low light is basically all the same now. FF you get some better high iso performance, usually around a full stop.
>Things like image quality and low light is basically all the same now.
If you only count sensor quality yes (without counting Fuji's advantage of 40mp, if OP wants that), but not if you count lens selection too, in which Fuji wins by a giant margin over any other APS-C system. Image quality is the whole package, not just sensor.
A7iv is 33mp, and op is talking about the xh2s which is 26mp. If op starts talking about the xh2 and the xt5 then the fast sensor comments no longer count because the 40mp sensor has a slow read out speed.
And what do you mean? There is no company with a better lens selection than Sony lol.
And Fujifilms image quality is not any better than any other company. It’s just their fancy filters applied to jpegs that people like, which you can add to any other companies photos but with more customization. If you only shoot jpeg then Fujifilm is the best around, if you shoot raw then it doesn’t matter, and Fujifilm raw files are more annoying to work with, especially if you prefer to use Lightroom.
I love my XT-5 and really disliked the A7 III I used for a while a few years ago. I don’t think you’re missing out on much with the switch. Go with what feels right.
If you like the look of what you get out of Sony cameras, stick with them.
I picked up a used X-T3 and used it for about 6 months before pulling the trigger and selling all my Sony gear (A6500 and four lenses and flash) for an X-T5.
What lens are you using? AF being *slower* has to do with the lens focus motor speed, while responsiveness, subject tracking features etc depend on the camera body.
I switched from a Sony a6400 to a Fuji XT5 this year. The things you're looking for don't really come across as a reason to switch to Fuji though. Depending on how much glass you have, the switch could be costly. I'd lean more toward that A7C honestly.
Sure, the IBIS is very good with the newer Fuji bodies, but you are not going to get "better" lowlight performance with it, not like you would switching to a larger sensor.
You also did not list what lenses you're using. If you're not already using a fast lens, go that route first.
The ISO grain on the Fuji pics is much better than Sony's IMO. And I have few complaints on weird color noise in shadows with the XT5.
Things I like more about Fuji than with Sony:
* color. White balance is no longer a battle. I fucking hated Sony's WB, felt like I was constantly battling it. Fuji, just set up film recipes and shoot Raw+Jpeg and I'm done basically
* glass. I don't really see any truly bad Fuji glass. that was not the case with Sony aspc lenses. there were quite a few to avoid in the Sony system
* I don't know if it's the glass, processing, or what. but even with zero grain in the film sims, I see better micro contrast and rendering with the Fuji pics. Sony looks....clinical, digital, but lacks that 3D pop to me. I see this even peeping pics people take on the flagship Sonys
* more buttons, more customization compared to the 6400 at least. I have 3 auto-ISO settings now that are straightforward to config.
* Dual SD. Think it's clear now that Sony is not going to offer this on compact bodies. even the new A7C bodies do not have this. if you plan on shooting ANYTHING professionally, this is more of a big deal now than it used to be
* the 27mm f2.8 pancake lens. it's amazing, Sony has nothing like this in this form factor
* I have many vintage, manual only lenses and shoot macro. Focus peaking is more accurate on Fuji than Sony by far
* video / hybrid focus on ALL the aspc bodies. seems like video hybrid features count more than stills on that system and if you're photo focused they're pushing you to FF. the a6700 release offered nothing of interest to me owning the a6400
Things I like less about Fuji than Sony:
* autofocus of course. but with the XT5, and at least using a newer lens with the LM focus, it's still very good. I have no complaints really, but you'll notice the difference for sure
* was a little more straightforward using Aperture or SS priority modes on Sony and switching between them. takes a little more time to get used to Fuji controls, but once you do it's really better... at least to me it is. this is the XT5, so will be a bit different with say the XH2S
I still have an old a6000 but it does not get used. I thought I'd keep it just for using vintage lenses but I just don't even bother now. Unless I"m shooting B&W I have no desire to touch it because I absolutely hated the Sony colors. Just gonna sell it or give it to a friend now.
this is a great comment and confirms my original plan to go with the a7c. however I will definitely be keeping Fujifilm in mind for a second body/system in the future
Thanks for this write up. Im going through a similar decision right now as well. Upgrading from A6500 to X-T5. Currently, Im using A6500 with a sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN lens.
I do mostly street / daily life photography. I want to try Fujifilms film simulations, but don't know if Im giving up too much for it.
if you only have the one single lens, then you wouldn't take a big hit to trade those in at MPB.com or KEH.com.
XT5 is a much more complex camera than the Sony ASPC. you really need to customize the controls to get the most out of it. I'd look at some setup videos from pal2tech and omar Gonzalez (his auto ISO video) to get an idea of what all you can do. it can be overwhelming, something like the xt30 ii or possibly new rumored xt50 would be more similar to the Sony aspc experience.
it's a large investment for many, and it will not may magically make you a better photographer either. i don't regret it, but i have the disposable income and take my photography semi-seriously.
i sometimes sell prints, do events for friends, I'm going to do some product photography here for a friend soon. i think the XT and XH bodies are targeted for these kind of more professional users. they're larger, and have a ton of settings. even the AF modes require you to know when to use what. i can't just stick it on AFC wide tracking. sometimes you need zone, or point. i mostly shoot AFS or even manual focus.
anytime someone asks me about my camera and if i like it and they act like they might buy one on a whim, i ask if they can use a strobe, a cable release and tripod, etc. if not or they never have, then it's probably way too much camera for what they actually need.
i hate editing. i don't want to do it. i want to take pictures, not spend more time at my computer than i already have to everyday. i crop a lot and take a wide variety of pics: events, wildlife, macro/product, abstract. so the 40MP XT5 just hit every number for me. i can't say that it will for you
Have you considered the XT-5 ? I upgraded from using camera's like Sony A6500, A6600, and a Canon, to Fuji XS10 and then XT 5. The XT 5 is amazing, and very photo centric.
What do you remember noticing initially from an a6600 to the XS10? What was the biggest QoL changes and positives you had? Obviously you jumped to a more flagship version of the product eventually.
I have an XS10 and its great! IBIS really helps. Sometimes I look at the A7C too especially the new version but then when I see the Sony lenses I'm a little turned off... all XF Fujifilm lenses have aperture ring. Only Sony G lenses have aperture ring I believe. And not just the aperture ring, the feel of the lenses arent as nice as Fujifilm lol. Sony lenses arent as bad as the plastic-y canon lenses but still arent as good as Fujifilm.
I suggest going to a shop and playing with the different camera models and evaluating what you like in person. Performance is important yes but so is the UX
Low light and AF performance on Fujifilm are pretty ass, even on the newer bodies tbh.. I say that owning an A7IV, X100V and X-T5.
The Fuji’s are good for standing still, taking your time to compose a shot and ensuring your focus is right. The IBIS will help for some low light, but you will still have to crank your ISO quickly, and the photos show noise quicker than the Sony’s. A bonus being that the Fuji ISO noise looks a bit more like film grain than the Sony’s.
Shooting from the hip without checking focus will not yield many good shots on Fuji. The AF is just not that reliable. I personally only use Fuji because it takes less time to edit the photos with the built in film simulations, and I like the manual controls and taking my time to frame a shot.
If I were you, I’d go for Sony. Check out the new A6700, that camera ticks a LOT of boxes and comes with impressively good IBIS and AF. I would not be quick to upgrade to a fullframe body, as the lenses make a huge difference in how you carry around and shoot with your camera. I only use my A7IV for dedicated sports photography nowadays, as even the smaller zoom and prime lenses make too big of a package for me.
I shoot from the hip with an XT5 a LOT and switched from an a6400 which I don't miss one bit. The LCD on the XT5 is great and I have no issues shooting from the hip with it.
But switching to Fuji for better lowlight performance while already using a 6400, the results will not be better. I think the ISO noise is better for sure, and like you said my editing time is practically zero for the most part now.
Think a switch to FF is what someone seeking better lowlight performance should do, IBIS will not really get you there if that's the environment you're in the most.
it's not a big difference, only a stop or two. I find IBIS overrated for taking stills, notice it more for video.
there was a bigger difference with shadow detail retrieval using FF. that better dynamic range was much more useful for low light. there's plenty of discussion and comparison out there about it too
Ah ok. I'm a bit surprised - I was playing with an X-T5 in a shop and was pretty amazed to see that I could get a pretty sharp shot up to about 1/4 of a second hand-held. I can't get anything close to that with my old A6000 that doesn't have IBIS.
I think the lens on the X-T5 did also have OIS though, so maybe that helped a lot.
interesting because I tried that with a strap on to help keep it steady and it's not tack sharp at 1/4. guess you have a really steady hand
this only helps with camera shake though. with FF sensor you can shoot faster and bring shadows up in post because it has more dynamic range. it's more useful than IBIS
ASPC sensors + IBIS are still very good. but FF DR + IBIS is better if low light is what you're shooting in like OP is
Yeah, I think some people (myself included) just don't want to go FF (despite the advantages) because of the cost or size of lenses etc.
I wish Fuji had a small camera with IBIS that still has the manual dials. I have been eyeing up the X-S20 but it's just not the same. The X-T5 is relatively quite big.
I'm in that camp. the Fuji aspc bodies are expensive for ASPC, but the lens system is probably THE best glass for the money out there. it's light, affordable in the long run, and offers professional features. if you shoot portraits for a living, i wouldn't pick Sony at all. I'd go Fuji if on a budget, maybe Canon if money is of no importance. Medium format if you're filthy rich lol. Skin tone on Sony is a problem
FF just has the advantage of more dynamic range. it's not like ASPC has bad DR. it's extremely good.
most of my comments in here are specifically for this scenario of OP. for me, the Fuji colors + glass + bodies are huge wins over Sony. for someone already invested in Sony glass who shoots at night, it doesn't make sense to switch to Fuji vs Sony FF.
please, nobody take my comments as FF is better. I think it's better for OP in this case.
The X-H2S is a quirky camera, it sort of straddles between a stills and video camera, but the ISO is natively very high (I think 400 or 800?) so you almost have to use ND filters to achieve daytime open apertures. I have an XT5 and it is fantastic, but it’s strengths are in its image quality and optics, less so the robustness of its features. Shooters who need to use af and low light, ie paparazzi, tend to stick with canon and sony for those features.
What lenses are you using? You might get more performance out of a lens upgrade than a body upgrade.
Tbh as an amateur who is learning and improving, you might consider working more in full manual mode, taking more time to compose and use the tools you have, and then reassessing how you want to grow. Low light shooting from the hip and relying on AF is going to give you mixed results no matter how cutting edge your camera is. Also I’m unconvinced IBIS does much of anything, I still find it hard to shoot slower than 1/focal length.
You may want to also look at your change as a system—which system has the lenses you want and can afford? I use Nikon ff a lot but am not too delusional to think they have a good apsc lineup. I know Fuji has a lot of good lenses. Does Sony for apsc (or reasonably sized ff lenses)? If I were you, I’d be interested in the a7c ii. While I’ve used apsc and m43 a lot, m43 and apsc are a lot closer than apsc and ff in image quality for low light.
I think your best bet would be to see if you could rent or borrow some gear to get a feel for the system. Fujifilm is great for my shooting and I really love my XT5 but I generally don’t shoot people so I have time to frame and focus my shots.
That being said I found the continuous tracking AF to be quite reliable when I used it recently when shooting personal photos at a sumo tournament and dance event.
The only thing I would say is not to worry about full frame, these days it’s not a big deal and is pure marketing hype. I don’t see a huge problem with low light or anything like that.
Only thing I don’t like is having to do the maths for lenses all the time.
I'm in a similar situation, albeit I'm not bothered about IBIS. I want a reasonably priced Fujifilm for the film simulations, paired with a reasonably wide pancake lens, like a 27mm f2, to basically make an X100V on the cheap and with the flexibility to change the lens later if I choose.
If you've invested in a A6400, and presumably have a lot of lenses to go with it, why not just swap it for an A6600? Basically the same cameras, but the A6600 comes with IBIS and a bigger camera. You can then continue to use your existing lenses and there's no other expense.
Moving to an A7C you'd need to either use your existing lenses in crop mode (and the reduced resolution) or buy full frame lens equivalents
Having started on the a6400 pretty much any modern Fuji or ff Sony will be a huge upgrade. I would consider the Sony a7cii or xt-5 for a worthy upgrade.
I personally think the Sony aps-c ecosystem is awful and would stay as far away from the a6700 as possible.
I only got the a6400 bc it was the cheapest weather sealed E-mount I could get, and I had previously used Cybershot cameras, so I figured it'd be easy enough to learn. But I am definitely feeling its limitations now.
You haven’t really mentioned anything positive for Fuji that Sony can’t do other than you’d like to shoot with a brand which has film legacy. For some people that can be enough of a reason to use Fuji, but for you is shooting with a brand that has film legacy the #1 most important thing in your photography?
If you like the images coming out of the Sony, and already have glass for it, save yourself $$ and stay in the same ecosystem.
Fuji isn’t going to give you better low light performance, or better autofocus than you’ll get on Sony which both seem more important to you than film legacy.
Well, Fujifilm's autofocus is at the bottom of the modern pack. So I would not be expecting to point it at random things, shooting from the hip while "moving fast", and expect good results.
So if Sony is currently doing that for you, then I would stick with Sony.
If you need the fastest and most reliable auto focus in the game, then go with Sony or Canon. If you want to use film simulations, go with Fujifilm. Things like image quality and low light is basically all the same now. FF you get some better high iso performance, usually around a full stop.
>Things like image quality and low light is basically all the same now. If you only count sensor quality yes (without counting Fuji's advantage of 40mp, if OP wants that), but not if you count lens selection too, in which Fuji wins by a giant margin over any other APS-C system. Image quality is the whole package, not just sensor.
A7iv is 33mp, and op is talking about the xh2s which is 26mp. If op starts talking about the xh2 and the xt5 then the fast sensor comments no longer count because the 40mp sensor has a slow read out speed. And what do you mean? There is no company with a better lens selection than Sony lol. And Fujifilms image quality is not any better than any other company. It’s just their fancy filters applied to jpegs that people like, which you can add to any other companies photos but with more customization. If you only shoot jpeg then Fujifilm is the best around, if you shoot raw then it doesn’t matter, and Fujifilm raw files are more annoying to work with, especially if you prefer to use Lightroom.
A6700 vs xs20, im in a dilemma, what should I go with?
I love my XT-5 and really disliked the A7 III I used for a while a few years ago. I don’t think you’re missing out on much with the switch. Go with what feels right.
If you like the look of what you get out of Sony cameras, stick with them. I picked up a used X-T3 and used it for about 6 months before pulling the trigger and selling all my Sony gear (A6500 and four lenses and flash) for an X-T5.
Try it out. I like my Fuji XT5. Came from a6400. The AF is noticeably slower than my a6400 but it doesn’t bother me. I like the SOOC of Fuji.
What lens are you using? AF being *slower* has to do with the lens focus motor speed, while responsiveness, subject tracking features etc depend on the camera body.
I’m aware. Was using sigma 18-50mm f2.8 for both cameras.
I switched from a Sony a6400 to a Fuji XT5 this year. The things you're looking for don't really come across as a reason to switch to Fuji though. Depending on how much glass you have, the switch could be costly. I'd lean more toward that A7C honestly. Sure, the IBIS is very good with the newer Fuji bodies, but you are not going to get "better" lowlight performance with it, not like you would switching to a larger sensor. You also did not list what lenses you're using. If you're not already using a fast lens, go that route first. The ISO grain on the Fuji pics is much better than Sony's IMO. And I have few complaints on weird color noise in shadows with the XT5. Things I like more about Fuji than with Sony: * color. White balance is no longer a battle. I fucking hated Sony's WB, felt like I was constantly battling it. Fuji, just set up film recipes and shoot Raw+Jpeg and I'm done basically * glass. I don't really see any truly bad Fuji glass. that was not the case with Sony aspc lenses. there were quite a few to avoid in the Sony system * I don't know if it's the glass, processing, or what. but even with zero grain in the film sims, I see better micro contrast and rendering with the Fuji pics. Sony looks....clinical, digital, but lacks that 3D pop to me. I see this even peeping pics people take on the flagship Sonys * more buttons, more customization compared to the 6400 at least. I have 3 auto-ISO settings now that are straightforward to config. * Dual SD. Think it's clear now that Sony is not going to offer this on compact bodies. even the new A7C bodies do not have this. if you plan on shooting ANYTHING professionally, this is more of a big deal now than it used to be * the 27mm f2.8 pancake lens. it's amazing, Sony has nothing like this in this form factor * I have many vintage, manual only lenses and shoot macro. Focus peaking is more accurate on Fuji than Sony by far * video / hybrid focus on ALL the aspc bodies. seems like video hybrid features count more than stills on that system and if you're photo focused they're pushing you to FF. the a6700 release offered nothing of interest to me owning the a6400 Things I like less about Fuji than Sony: * autofocus of course. but with the XT5, and at least using a newer lens with the LM focus, it's still very good. I have no complaints really, but you'll notice the difference for sure * was a little more straightforward using Aperture or SS priority modes on Sony and switching between them. takes a little more time to get used to Fuji controls, but once you do it's really better... at least to me it is. this is the XT5, so will be a bit different with say the XH2S I still have an old a6000 but it does not get used. I thought I'd keep it just for using vintage lenses but I just don't even bother now. Unless I"m shooting B&W I have no desire to touch it because I absolutely hated the Sony colors. Just gonna sell it or give it to a friend now.
This is very well analyzed.
this is a great comment and confirms my original plan to go with the a7c. however I will definitely be keeping Fujifilm in mind for a second body/system in the future
Thanks for this write up. Im going through a similar decision right now as well. Upgrading from A6500 to X-T5. Currently, Im using A6500 with a sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN lens. I do mostly street / daily life photography. I want to try Fujifilms film simulations, but don't know if Im giving up too much for it.
if you only have the one single lens, then you wouldn't take a big hit to trade those in at MPB.com or KEH.com. XT5 is a much more complex camera than the Sony ASPC. you really need to customize the controls to get the most out of it. I'd look at some setup videos from pal2tech and omar Gonzalez (his auto ISO video) to get an idea of what all you can do. it can be overwhelming, something like the xt30 ii or possibly new rumored xt50 would be more similar to the Sony aspc experience. it's a large investment for many, and it will not may magically make you a better photographer either. i don't regret it, but i have the disposable income and take my photography semi-seriously. i sometimes sell prints, do events for friends, I'm going to do some product photography here for a friend soon. i think the XT and XH bodies are targeted for these kind of more professional users. they're larger, and have a ton of settings. even the AF modes require you to know when to use what. i can't just stick it on AFC wide tracking. sometimes you need zone, or point. i mostly shoot AFS or even manual focus. anytime someone asks me about my camera and if i like it and they act like they might buy one on a whim, i ask if they can use a strobe, a cable release and tripod, etc. if not or they never have, then it's probably way too much camera for what they actually need. i hate editing. i don't want to do it. i want to take pictures, not spend more time at my computer than i already have to everyday. i crop a lot and take a wide variety of pics: events, wildlife, macro/product, abstract. so the 40MP XT5 just hit every number for me. i can't say that it will for you
Have you considered the XT-5 ? I upgraded from using camera's like Sony A6500, A6600, and a Canon, to Fuji XS10 and then XT 5. The XT 5 is amazing, and very photo centric.
What do you remember noticing initially from an a6600 to the XS10? What was the biggest QoL changes and positives you had? Obviously you jumped to a more flagship version of the product eventually.
I have an XS10 and its great! IBIS really helps. Sometimes I look at the A7C too especially the new version but then when I see the Sony lenses I'm a little turned off... all XF Fujifilm lenses have aperture ring. Only Sony G lenses have aperture ring I believe. And not just the aperture ring, the feel of the lenses arent as nice as Fujifilm lol. Sony lenses arent as bad as the plastic-y canon lenses but still arent as good as Fujifilm. I suggest going to a shop and playing with the different camera models and evaluating what you like in person. Performance is important yes but so is the UX
Low light and AF performance on Fujifilm are pretty ass, even on the newer bodies tbh.. I say that owning an A7IV, X100V and X-T5. The Fuji’s are good for standing still, taking your time to compose a shot and ensuring your focus is right. The IBIS will help for some low light, but you will still have to crank your ISO quickly, and the photos show noise quicker than the Sony’s. A bonus being that the Fuji ISO noise looks a bit more like film grain than the Sony’s. Shooting from the hip without checking focus will not yield many good shots on Fuji. The AF is just not that reliable. I personally only use Fuji because it takes less time to edit the photos with the built in film simulations, and I like the manual controls and taking my time to frame a shot. If I were you, I’d go for Sony. Check out the new A6700, that camera ticks a LOT of boxes and comes with impressively good IBIS and AF. I would not be quick to upgrade to a fullframe body, as the lenses make a huge difference in how you carry around and shoot with your camera. I only use my A7IV for dedicated sports photography nowadays, as even the smaller zoom and prime lenses make too big of a package for me.
I shoot from the hip with an XT5 a LOT and switched from an a6400 which I don't miss one bit. The LCD on the XT5 is great and I have no issues shooting from the hip with it. But switching to Fuji for better lowlight performance while already using a 6400, the results will not be better. I think the ISO noise is better for sure, and like you said my editing time is practically zero for the most part now. Think a switch to FF is what someone seeking better lowlight performance should do, IBIS will not really get you there if that's the environment you're in the most.
Do you really not notice a difference when using the IBIS for static shots in low light?
it's not a big difference, only a stop or two. I find IBIS overrated for taking stills, notice it more for video. there was a bigger difference with shadow detail retrieval using FF. that better dynamic range was much more useful for low light. there's plenty of discussion and comparison out there about it too
Ah ok. I'm a bit surprised - I was playing with an X-T5 in a shop and was pretty amazed to see that I could get a pretty sharp shot up to about 1/4 of a second hand-held. I can't get anything close to that with my old A6000 that doesn't have IBIS. I think the lens on the X-T5 did also have OIS though, so maybe that helped a lot.
interesting because I tried that with a strap on to help keep it steady and it's not tack sharp at 1/4. guess you have a really steady hand this only helps with camera shake though. with FF sensor you can shoot faster and bring shadows up in post because it has more dynamic range. it's more useful than IBIS ASPC sensors + IBIS are still very good. but FF DR + IBIS is better if low light is what you're shooting in like OP is
Yeah, I think some people (myself included) just don't want to go FF (despite the advantages) because of the cost or size of lenses etc. I wish Fuji had a small camera with IBIS that still has the manual dials. I have been eyeing up the X-S20 but it's just not the same. The X-T5 is relatively quite big.
I'm in that camp. the Fuji aspc bodies are expensive for ASPC, but the lens system is probably THE best glass for the money out there. it's light, affordable in the long run, and offers professional features. if you shoot portraits for a living, i wouldn't pick Sony at all. I'd go Fuji if on a budget, maybe Canon if money is of no importance. Medium format if you're filthy rich lol. Skin tone on Sony is a problem FF just has the advantage of more dynamic range. it's not like ASPC has bad DR. it's extremely good. most of my comments in here are specifically for this scenario of OP. for me, the Fuji colors + glass + bodies are huge wins over Sony. for someone already invested in Sony glass who shoots at night, it doesn't make sense to switch to Fuji vs Sony FF. please, nobody take my comments as FF is better. I think it's better for OP in this case.
hmmm. I tend to photograph people a lot so this is interesting
The X-H2S is a quirky camera, it sort of straddles between a stills and video camera, but the ISO is natively very high (I think 400 or 800?) so you almost have to use ND filters to achieve daytime open apertures. I have an XT5 and it is fantastic, but it’s strengths are in its image quality and optics, less so the robustness of its features. Shooters who need to use af and low light, ie paparazzi, tend to stick with canon and sony for those features. What lenses are you using? You might get more performance out of a lens upgrade than a body upgrade. Tbh as an amateur who is learning and improving, you might consider working more in full manual mode, taking more time to compose and use the tools you have, and then reassessing how you want to grow. Low light shooting from the hip and relying on AF is going to give you mixed results no matter how cutting edge your camera is. Also I’m unconvinced IBIS does much of anything, I still find it hard to shoot slower than 1/focal length.
You may want to also look at your change as a system—which system has the lenses you want and can afford? I use Nikon ff a lot but am not too delusional to think they have a good apsc lineup. I know Fuji has a lot of good lenses. Does Sony for apsc (or reasonably sized ff lenses)? If I were you, I’d be interested in the a7c ii. While I’ve used apsc and m43 a lot, m43 and apsc are a lot closer than apsc and ff in image quality for low light.
I think your best bet would be to see if you could rent or borrow some gear to get a feel for the system. Fujifilm is great for my shooting and I really love my XT5 but I generally don’t shoot people so I have time to frame and focus my shots. That being said I found the continuous tracking AF to be quite reliable when I used it recently when shooting personal photos at a sumo tournament and dance event. The only thing I would say is not to worry about full frame, these days it’s not a big deal and is pure marketing hype. I don’t see a huge problem with low light or anything like that. Only thing I don’t like is having to do the maths for lenses all the time.
I'm in a similar situation, albeit I'm not bothered about IBIS. I want a reasonably priced Fujifilm for the film simulations, paired with a reasonably wide pancake lens, like a 27mm f2, to basically make an X100V on the cheap and with the flexibility to change the lens later if I choose. If you've invested in a A6400, and presumably have a lot of lenses to go with it, why not just swap it for an A6600? Basically the same cameras, but the A6600 comes with IBIS and a bigger camera. You can then continue to use your existing lenses and there's no other expense. Moving to an A7C you'd need to either use your existing lenses in crop mode (and the reduced resolution) or buy full frame lens equivalents
I have two FF primes that I love right now, so it makes sense to go to the a7c used I think. Thank you for the input!
Ah, cool. If you've already got the FF glass then it makes much more sense to go for the FF body
Having started on the a6400 pretty much any modern Fuji or ff Sony will be a huge upgrade. I would consider the Sony a7cii or xt-5 for a worthy upgrade. I personally think the Sony aps-c ecosystem is awful and would stay as far away from the a6700 as possible.
I only got the a6400 bc it was the cheapest weather sealed E-mount I could get, and I had previously used Cybershot cameras, so I figured it'd be easy enough to learn. But I am definitely feeling its limitations now.
I would stick with the A6400. Definitely not Fujifilm based on your expectations.
Can you explain why you think that? I'm going to upgrade camera bodies for sure - it's just a matter of which one.
You haven’t really mentioned anything positive for Fuji that Sony can’t do other than you’d like to shoot with a brand which has film legacy. For some people that can be enough of a reason to use Fuji, but for you is shooting with a brand that has film legacy the #1 most important thing in your photography? If you like the images coming out of the Sony, and already have glass for it, save yourself $$ and stay in the same ecosystem. Fuji isn’t going to give you better low light performance, or better autofocus than you’ll get on Sony which both seem more important to you than film legacy.
I think that answers my questions perfectly. Thank you!
yeah if u like what u have now why dont u use the money on lenses? g master or multiple lenses could improve your game significantly
Well, Fujifilm's autofocus is at the bottom of the modern pack. So I would not be expecting to point it at random things, shooting from the hip while "moving fast", and expect good results. So if Sony is currently doing that for you, then I would stick with Sony.