Why do pro's seem to favor Fuji (next to CaNi) to Sony?

[lapino]

Let me first start by saying I'm not a brand loyalist, neither am I trying to stirr up a discussion which is 'better'. I recently sold my 5D3 + L lenses and in the process of either deciding to invest (further) in Sony by buying the A7 (or its successor), or going the Fuji route with the X-system (mainly X-T1 + primes). My main photography is weddings, indoor events and kids/people.

I currently own a Sony a6000 + 16702 + 24Z + SEL50 and I wonder why it is there seems to be so little 'professionals' choosing Sony for their work. Since I've been investigating different systems for a few weeks now, trying to decide what is the 'good' move for me, I bumped into a lot of blogs of professional photographers who either completely sold their SLR setups to go with Fuji, or who use Fuji extensively together with their SLR. I don't see this (almost at all) with Sony. Even though cameras like the a6000 have amazing AF, very good IQ and lens lineup which (if you pay for it) isn't that bad. Same thing for the A7. A lot of photographers seem to like it, but I see very little pro's going the Sony route.

The main reasons I can think of, is mainly the lens lineup of Sony isn't up to par of Fuji (at least quality-wise), but on the other hand, having first hand experience with some of the best glass Sony has to offer, this might be a misconception. Maybe the Sony support is bad compared to Fuji? (which can be a major factor for pro's). Maybe Fuji marketing is doing a better job reaching out to the pro's and Sony is more focussed on the enthusiast?

I really wonder what you guys are thinking about this. I am still very much debating if the Fuji X-T1 + primes can offer me about the same as my 5D3 did, but on the other hand since I already own a Sony system, investing in the Sony FF might be a better bet. Very hard to decide and I must say, by checking out all these blogs, Fuji is pulling me in more and more. It's also strange to see that the Flickr groups seem to show a lot more creativity when it comes to photographs taken with Fuji, compared to the Sony groups which seem kinda generic. Of course it's just the man/woman behind the camera that makes the difference, but browse flickr a bit, the difference is very easy to see.

[BernardLanguillier]

I think you should focus on proven camera performance.

I have been using an a5100 for a few weeks (same sensor/AF as the a6000) and am amazed by the level of performance.

Now, I am a bit less impressed by the lens line-up and that is one thing that Fuji has gotten very right.

Besides some people will just never shoot with consumer electronic companies equipment (Sony, Panasonic, Samsung,...) because it doesn't fit the image they like to project of people who know better. Fuji is a much better match and their cameras/lenses look much more like the equipment of someone who knows better.

IMHO.

Cheers,
Bernard

[lapino]

I have to admit when I would walk into a church for a wedding with my a6000 + lenses, I too would kinda feel uncomfortable. As stupid as it is, people tend to associate "big" with "pro".

[Paul80]

Its always been that way though, you should have seen the down the nose looks the old Hasselblad users used to give the Bronica & Mamiya or Pentax MF users and you should have heard the noise when 35mm for weddings started creeping in.

Just pick something you can use without thinking that is reliable and have two or more outfits just in case something goes wrong on the shoot. Which if you where a Hasselblad CM500 user was quite possible especially with their pre CF lenses that where prone to shutter collapse, but no one talked about that did they or the habit of overlapping frames or losing the top of the viewfinder if you used lenses longer than 80mm, or the accidental multi exposures, oh the joys of owning the Rolls Royce of Medium Format film cameras 

Paul

[armand]

I would think that besides lenses the jpeg quality plays a role also.

[melchiorpavone]

Let me first start by saying I'm not a brand loyalist, neither am I trying to stirr up a discussion which is 'better'. I recently sold my 5D3 + L lenses and in the process of either deciding to invest (further) in Sony by buying the A7 (or its successor), or going the Fuji route with the X-system (mainly X-T1 + primes). My main photography is weddings, indoor events and kids/people.

I currently own a Sony a6000 + 16702 + 24Z + SEL50 and I wonder why it is there seems to be so little 'professionals' choosing Sony for their work. Since I've been investigating different systems for a few weeks now, trying to decide what is the 'good' move for me, I bumped into a lot of blogs of professional photographers who either completely sold their SLR setups to go with Fuji, or who use Fuji extensively together with their SLR. I don't see this (almost at all) with Sony. Even though cameras like the a6000 have amazing AF, very good IQ and lens lineup which (if you pay for it) isn't that bad. Same thing for the A7. A lot of photographers seem to like it, but I see very little pro's going the Sony route.

The main reasons I can think of, is mainly the lens lineup of Sony isn't up to par of Fuji (at least quality-wise), but on the other hand, having first hand experience with some of the best glass Sony has to offer, this might be a misconception. Maybe the Sony support is bad compared to Fuji? (which can be a major factor for pro's). Maybe Fuji marketing is doing a better job reaching out to the pro's and Sony is more focussed on the enthusiast?

I really wonder what you guys are thinking about this. I am still very much debating if the Fuji X-T1 + primes can offer me about the same as my 5D3 did, but on the other hand since I already own a Sony system, investing in the Sony FF might be a better bet. Very hard to decide and I must say, by checking out all these blogs, Fuji is pulling me in more and more. It's also strange to see that the Flickr groups seem to show a lot more creativity when it comes to photographs taken with Fuji, compared to the Sony groups which seem kinda generic. Of course it's just the man/woman behind the camera that makes the difference, but browse flickr a bit, the difference is very easy to see.

Well, Sony used to be Minolta, which had very little to offer for pros even after they introduced the Maxxum auto-focus cameras.

[Chairman Bill]

Besides some people will just never shoot with consumer electronic companies equipment (Sony, Panasonic, Samsung,...) because it doesn't fit the image they like to project of people who know better. Fuji is a much better match and their cameras/lenses look much more like the equipment of someone who knows better.

Very true. Had Sony used the Minolta brand, or better still bought the rights to use Contax, things might be very different

[Iluvmycam]

Now, Fuji's lenses are high IQ, but terrible manual controls. So it is a love hate deal with Fuji.

[rgs]

I haven't looked at any Fuji digital but the brand itself is old an trusted with me. In the film days I used almost all Fuji chrome and color neg, no yellow boxes for me. Some of my best prints came from labs printing on Fuji papers, their view camera lenses were (are?) generally on par with Nikon, Rodenstock, and Schneider, and their fixed lens 6x7 rangefinder cameras were relatively lightweight marvels. In almost any photographic field, Fuji has my trust and would need to work to lose it.

[armand]

I feel the manual controls are ok with the Fujis, if you are not in a rush. If you need to change settings fast the current DSLRs are significantly faster (have no experience with the advanced m4/3). I almost get the idea behind Nikon DF, using classical manual controls but keeping the modern DSLRs controls also, from what I hear the implementation needs some rethinking though.

[David Sutton]

The thing with Fuji is that the lenses are stellar on a small lightweight unobtrusive body. Large prints on the whole surpass the best that the 5D II could manage. Sony didn't have the lens line-up and there was uncertainty surrounding the direction Sony was heading. That could well change dramatically as the range of auto-focus lenses improve.

[melchiorpavone]

Very true. Had Sony used the Minolta brand, or better still bought the rights to use Contax, things might be very different

You cannot be serious. Sony has a better reputation than Minolta.

[ndevlin]

There's some sort of intangible going on here.  Sony just doesn't make terribly likeable cameras.  hat's a weird thing to say, but there seems to be some truth to it.  They're ugly - that's one problem.  The ergonomics and UI are never that great. Keeps it from being an object of desire.  Fuji builds sexy cameras.  (Also with not so great UI), but there's something attractive about the form.  And the images are good (not better than Sony necessarily, but just fine) so people go Fuji. 

Strange, eh? Maybe not Spock's choice...

- N.

[melchiorpavone]

There's some sort of intangible going on here.  Sony just doesn't make terribly likeable cameras.  hat's a weird thing to say, but there seems to be some truth to it.  They're ugly - that's one problem.  The ergonomics and UI are never that great. Keeps it from being an object of desire.  Fuji builds sexy cameras.  (Also with not so great UI), but there's something attractive about the form.  And the images are good (not better than Sony necessarily, but just fine) so people go Fuji. 

Strange, eh? Maybe not Spock's choice...

- N.

I think there is some truth to that. Sony took over Minolta, so they don't have the long train of experience of making cameras.

[Manoli]

There's some sort of intangible going on here.  Sony just doesn't make terribly likeable cameras... They're ugly - that's one problem.  Fuji builds sexy cameras.  Strange, eh? Maybe not Spock's choice...

Amusing but interesting sideline.
Never liked the look of the Sony Nex series, but I do like
 
The A7 series, (reminds me of the Leicaflex, Nikon F/ FM's slimline attraction).
The Fuji X-E2 ( reminds me of the Leica M)
Leica S (and M)
Olympus E-M10 (much preferred to the E-M1)
Nikon D3/D3x ( the last good-looking Nikon camera )

Don't like:
The Fuji X-T1 ( the angles are wrong, doesn't have the simple clean lines of the X-E)
Any of the latest Nikon / Canon plastic blob offerings ( D810 included)

So thinking about it, yup, I do think that some cameras have sex appeal - perhaps enough to at least influence Spock's choice ...

[michael]

For many "pros" availability of rental gear and fast repair trumps everything else. Both companies offer pro programs for loaners and repairs, and because of their market dominance rental houses in big media cities have lots of rental equipment.

If you're not someone who makes their full-time living from photography, and who needs these amenities, then simply buy the system that appeals to you the most. As I've written before.... most cameras are better than most photographers.

Do what makes you happy.

Michael

[Glenn NK]

Besides some people will just never shoot with consumer electronic companies equipment (Sony, Panasonic, Samsung,...) because it doesn't fit the image they like to project of people who know better. Fuji is a much better match and their cameras/lenses look much more like the equipment of someone who knows better.

IMHO.

Cheers,
Bernard

If you interviewed people on the street what associations come to mind when the names Sony, Panasonic and Samsung are mentioned, I suggest most would say:  Walkman/cassette decks, TV's, and refrigerators/cell phones.

The names Canon, Nikon, Fuji would most probably elicit "photography".

It takes a long time to build a track record of accomplishments.

Personally, I'd be hesitant to look at one of the first three.   But I'd also put Olympus into the Fuji category.

There was an interesting post by the technical editor of another forum; if the Fuji APS-C (XT-1) had a good 24 MP sensor, he said:  "it might even be my primary camera for everything but birds - the body itself is that good".

BTW - he is a pro photographer.

Glenn

[BernardLanguillier]

There was an interesting post by the technical editor of another forum; if the Fuji APS-C (XT-1) had a good 24 MP sensor, he said:  "it might even be my primary camera for everything but birds - the body itself is that good".

BTW - he is a pro photographer.

I am not surprised, the Fuji line up is impressive. Considering that Fuji uses Sony sensors "base", it would be fairly easy for them to release a 24mp version with excellent DR/noise characteristics.

I guess they are just pacing their releases to ensure a sustainable stream of income in the coming years.

Cheers,
Bernard

[melchiorpavone]

If you interviewed people on the street what associations come to mind when the names Sony, Panasonic and Samsung are mentioned, I suggest most would say:  Walkman/cassette decks, TV's, and refrigerators/cell phones.

The names Canon, Nikon, Fuji would most probably elicit "photography".

It takes a long time to build a track record of accomplishments.

Personally, I'd be hesitant to look at one of the first three.   But I'd also put Olympus into the Fuji category.

There was an interesting post by the technical editor of another forum; if the Fuji APS-C (XT-1) had a good 24 MP sensor, he said:  "it might even be my primary camera for everything but birds - the body itself is that good".

BTW - he is a pro photographer.

Glenn

Would Sony have been better off to retain the brand name Minolta, assuming this was an option? I don't think so.

[robdickinson]

Sont to me dont seem a good pro choice for so many reasons.

They are an electronics company not a camera company - this comes out a lot in their designs and in limited lenses
Many many bodies , mostly lower end and aiming upwards rather than starting at the pro end working down. Their pro bodies are few and far between and often dont have the feature set needed to keep up
Headline features win over usability. If sony can give you 14fps in a useless way they will because it looks good on the box. A pro doesnt like to find out that 14fps is for 12bit files with no metering or autofocus when they unpack the gear
No developed pro network for support. Canons CPS service will do its best to help you get your job done. Where is sonys support. where is sonys room full of gear at big events etc?

I doubt anyone would say you cant shoot pro with sony but they make it much harder to have a convincing argument to try , than canon or nikon.