Fuji Xpro 2 or Sony A7rii

[Kaypee]

I'm looking for a walk around camera that needs to be suitable for a couple of different purposes. I shoot mainly architecture with Canon and tse's and if I'm not on a commercial assignment I leave all the heavy goods at home and reluctantly use my dated iPhone.

There are times when I'm missing shots that could be sold passed to the agency I'm represented by for future sale, travel/family shots of a reasonable quality and I'm missing the experience of taking photos and honing skills. So that camera needs to be light enough to carry around, feel good, have a good IQ and be able to cover architecture and portraits.

I'm have looked at a few fixed length point and shoots but they wouldn't cover the portrait and landscape end. The A7ii as it could also be used instead of my 5DII for commercial work, but the handling always gets a bad rep and I would want to be carrying around the 24tse on the end of it. The Xpro 2 has quite good reviews from the samples but I haven't used any of the X range and it would be a step into the unknown.

Thanks
KP

[Petrus]

I have to say X-Pro1 rekindled my love of (street/travel) photography, as it was perfectly suited to that purpose. Also it being old looking helped, harmless old man with old camera. X-Pro2 should be even better in all respects, possibly the next best thing to a Leica M or even better with auto everything also. Small it is really not. Also not ideal with longer focal lengths.

Some samples from my X-Pro1 to get the idea about the joys of using one, not technical side of things: http://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/albums/72157639618037194

[Kaypee]

I have to say X-Pro1 rekindled my love of (street/travel) photography, as it was perfectly suited to that purpose. Also it being old looking helped, harmless old man with old camera. X-Pro2 should be even better in all respects, possibly the next best thing to a Leica M or even better with auto everything also. Small it is really not. Also not ideal with longer focal lengths.

Some samples from my X-Pro1 to get the idea about the joys of using one, not technical side of things: http://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/albums/72157639618037194

Lovely work. I think the longer focal lengths you're using are similar to what I would need. The Xpro 1 is very cheap here (UK) at the moment at about £350. The reported problems with the auto focus out me off though. Your images don't seem to have an issues.

[Petrus]

I had 18, 35 and 60 mm Fujinons at that time. Optical frame with the 60mm was badly off.

There are also 4 albums from Eastern Tibet, shot with X-Pro1 and X100s, this time with 14, 23 (X100s), 35, and 55-200mm lenses. https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/albums

Next summer I will return there, but armed with two X-T1 bodies and probably with 26, 35 and 56mm primes, with the 55-200 thrown in. I try to stay away from shorter zooms (even though I have them) because they cramp my shooting style. For street less is more.

[Kaypee]

I had 18, 35 and 60 mm Fujinons at that time. Optical frame with the 60mm was badly off.

There are also 4 albums from Eastern Tibet, shot with X-Pro1 and X100s, this time with 14, 23 (X100s), 35, and 55-200mm lenses. https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/albums

Next summer I will return there, but armed with two X-T1 bodies and probably with 26, 35 and 56mm primes, with the 55-200 thrown in. I try to stay away from shorter zooms (even though I have them) because they cramp my shooting style. For street less is more.

The 55-200 look good in the Tibet shots. Can I ask why the X-T1 rather than the X-Pro? The lens line up is completely new to me. The 35mm's look good in your albums.

[Petrus]

The 55-200 look good in the Tibet shots. Can I ask why the X-T1 rather than the X-Pro? The lens line up is completely new to me. The 35mm's look good in your albums.

Because I have sold the X-Pro1...

After liking the X-Pro1 a lot I realized that the new EVF on the X-T1 was good enough to replace the quite inaccurate optical frame viewfinder on X-Pro1, and for simplicity I want two identical bodies (well, one is black, other silver…). X-T1 is also slightly smaller and lighter. If I used only WA to normal lenses, X-Pro2 would be a viable alternative, but it is not the best zoom and tele body, which I also need.

All Fujinon for these bodies are good, but some are even better. Like 14, 16, 23, 35, 56, 60 and 90 mm primes and 10-24 and 16-55mm zooms which are quite exceptional. Even the kit zoom 18-55 is very good, 18mm is good. This based on personal observation (except 23, 90 and kit zoom where I rely on hearsay).

[Kaypee]

Because I have sold the X-Pro1...

After liking the X-Pro1 a lot I realized that the new EVF on the X-T1 was good enough to replace the quite inaccurate optical frame viewfinder on X-Pro1, and for simplicity I want two identical bodies (well, one is black, other silver…). X-T1 is also slightly smaller and lighter. If I used only WA to normal lenses, X-Pro2 would be a viable alternative, but it is not the best zoom and tele body, which I also need.

All Fujinon for these bodies are good, but some are even better. Like 14, 16, 23, 35, 56, 60 and 90 mm primes and 10-24 and 16-55mm zooms which are quite exceptional. Even the kit zoom 18-55 is very good, 18mm is good. This based on personal observation (except 23, 90 and kit zoom where I rely on hearsay).

Thanks of the info. Maybe the Xt-1 is the way to go.

[scooby70]

I have no problem with the handling of my A7. I'd take an A7 over a Fuji every time based on image quality. I don't think that bulk or weight would count against the Sony compared to the Fuji, not for me anyway as a prime user.

Good luck choosing.

[armand]

I have no problem with the handling of my A7. I'd take an A7 over a Fuji every time based on image quality. I don't think that bulk or weight would count against the Sony compared to the Fuji, not for me anyway as a prime user.

Good luck choosing.

With the new 24MP sensor in Fuji the difference will probably be small.
Body wise they are a close (Sony is heavier) but it depends on how many lenses you will take with you. The more you want the bigger the difference and so far the quality of the primes favors Fuji (on average). I see they are coming with some good Zeiss lenses, I didn't follow them that closely to see how good they are rated.


On the Fuji side I have all their primes other than the 18.
I think the 90mm is their best lens to date. After they have the 23, 56 and maybe 16 (looks good in the reviews, not so much when I did some limited testing myself). 35 has so so borders but at times magic shows up.
14 is very good (sharp and no distortion) but in other reviews it was less sharp than the 16 and there is the compromise in the aperture vs weight.
27 is a sharpish (stopped down) and small pancake albeit slower at 2.8

Only the 16 and the 90 are weather resistant rated.


I would wait until the X-Pro2 is out in the wild for some comparison by non Fuji people before deciding. If you don't like the form factor the tech should show up in X-T2 in the summer (plus maybe more).

[Kaypee]

I have no problem with the handling of my A7. I'd take an A7 over a Fuji every time based on image quality. I don't think that bulk or weight would count against the Sony compared to the Fuji, not for me anyway as a prime user.

Good luck choosing.

Which primes are you using and is it the a7ii?

[Chris Kern]

If you're looking at Fujis and don't need the new higher-resolution sensor, the X-E2 is another option.  I often put the 27mm pancake lens on mine, and stuff the combination in a jacket pocket.  No optical viewfinder, but I find the electronic viewfinder more than acceptably fast for casual shooting.  (It's not as nice as the spectacular viewfinder on the X-T1, though.)  Although it has the older sensor technology — the same as the X-T1 — Fuji continues to provide firmware updates that include feature enhancements; in fact, another is scheduled for this week.

[Eric Brody]

Used to use the D800E, now I have the X T-1, love it. Rented the A7RII to get it out of my system. I await the X T-2. Only advantage of the Pro -2 is the optical finder. Sony-Zeiss lenses are great, but nothing to match the 16-55 f/2.8 and 55-200, plus they are pricey. I also have most of the Fuji primes which are superb. I don't do huge enlargements, 13x20, Max and the differences while certainly there, physics is physics, they were not huge. With the Pro-2 you pay for the optical finder, which I do not use. Hated the Sony menu system.  Good luck.

[Alan Smallbone]

The X-E2 is about to get a big firmware update in a week or two that will give it a lot of the features of the X-T1. The X-T1 is also due for an update. That it the great thing about Fuji is they do update firmware and actually add features as well as correct issues. That is unlike Sony. I have not used the A7RII so I cannot directly compare them, but I have had a Fuji camera since the X-Pro1 came out, in fact I am going to sell the one I have. I have an X-T1 that I use mostly, and I got my wife an X-E2 which she is happy with and likes to use. I really like the Fuji cameras they have listened and they have updated, instead of coming out with new bodies all the time. The largest my printer will print is 17" in width and I am perfectly happy with the images from the Fuji. I have done a few prints larger and they came out great, I decided I did not need the extra megapixels of the Sony. I will most likely get the X-T2 when and if it comes out. Even though I liked the X-Pro1 when it came out, after awhile I hardly used the optical finder and used the EVF, and the X-T1 is a lot better with the EVF, it also handles better in my hands. I like the configurability of the Fuji, for me it works.

My advice is try both, side by side if you can, rent them if you can and see what works best for you.

Alan

[David Sutton]

Both the X-E2 and the X-T1 are good as walk around cameras. Small, quiet shutters, and anonymous. The X-T1 has the edge in IQ and handling, and the flip screen is very handy for street shooting. No one pays much attention to someone looking down at their camera.
I didn't go for Sony because the lenses are back to full frame size and I loathe adapters for general work. Plus the Fuji is a complete system, apart from fully auto flash. When I found that the image quality from X-T1 out performed my 5DII I went to Fuji exclusively. It's the total system that gives me visibly better results for 24" wide prints.
But, there is a small learning curve to get the best out of the sensor.
David

[BernardLanguillier]

I personally love the rendering of the 56mm.

This lens is getting a cult following in Japan for portrait work.

I don't see many people getting crazy about any of the Sony lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Paul2660]

One other thing, the Fuji is a cropped sensor, vs the Sony being full frame.  If you are shooting architecture, to me a full frame solution would be more advantageous? 

The Canon TSE-II 17 and 24 lenses are considered by many architecture shooters to be some of the best glass for this type of work.

Fuji, really doesn't have any lenses that can do this, albeit they have excellent glass.

As for size and handling, to me the Sony is a bit bigger, than the Fuji, but not too much.  The Fuji X-T1 is an excellent camera (I use it quite often) and hopefully Fuji will add the 24MP sensor to it later this year. 

Paul C

[David Sutton]

In the past I could really see the difference between, say, the 5DII and 7D, but with modern APS-C sensors I don't see any advantage for one sensor over the other in terms of IQ in print. I can't pick it. I think you'd need to go to MF for that.
I've heard the Canon tilt-shift lenses are very good indeed and worth hanging on to, so it becomes a question of staying with Canon, or using both systems, or trying an adapter.
FWIW, I use a number of lenses with adapters for macro work and portraiture, and manual focus is pretty easy with mirrorless. YMMV. The Russian made Helios 44mm f/2 from the 1960s in particular is a stunner for portraits.
Edit: of course a "full frame" sensor allows you to be closer, so that may be an issue.

[Kaypee]

I think it would be keeping both systems. I like the Canons for architecture and commercial work and  the 17mm and particularly the 24mm are great. If I was change my main camera it would be for the Sony due to the IQ and I would use the metabones.

At the moment it's more of a second, carry anywhere camera and it would be used without a tripod.

 I'm not sure the Sony has the lenses or portability so I will take a good look at the Fujis. The primes ,zooms and portability seem to fit what I need.
Thanks for all the info.

[Paul2660]

One other note on the Fuji lenses.  The 16-55 is huge as is the 10-24.  The 50-140 is probably 2/3 the weight and size of a Nikon 70-200.  So, if you go with the modern zooms, the weight becomes pretty close to a D750 and similar glass.  If you stay with the primes, not the case.  The 14, 23, 35 F2.0 35. 1.4 and 16 1.4 and 56 are all quite reasonable in both weight and size.  The 90mm, which is excellent does start to get a bit heavy. 

Since I started carrying my X-T1 with the 50-140, the grip is really a consideration as the mass of the lens is not balanced well by just the X-T1.

My point, is that you can quickly get to a pretty hefty weight by going with the high end zooms. 

My current kit is the X-T1, grip, 16-55, 14mm, and 50-140, along with the TC 1.4.  It required moving up to a much larger bag for sure. 

But I still love the results.

Paul C

[armand]

One other note on the Fuji lenses.  The 16-55 is huge as is the 10-24.  The 50-140 is probably 2/3 the weight and size of a Nikon 70-200.  So, if you go with the modern zooms, the weight becomes pretty close to a D750 and similar glass.  If you stay with the primes, not the case.  The 14, 23, 35 F2.0 35. 1.4 and 16 1.4 and 56 are all quite reasonable in both weight and size.  The 90mm, which is excellent does start to get a bit heavy. 

Since I started carrying my X-T1 with the 50-140, the grip is really a consideration as the mass of the lens is not balanced well by just the X-T1.

My point, is that you can quickly get to a pretty hefty weight by going with the high end zooms. 

My current kit is the X-T1, grip, 16-55, 14mm, and 50-140, along with the TC 1.4.  It required moving up to a much larger bag for sure. 

But I still love the results.

Paul C

While the 10-24 is not small it's not that big either, has the same weight as the 56. The 16-55 is 60% heavier.