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

[peterottaway]

Digital cameras are electronic devices - so ?

The photo sensor unit if the last few generations of the iPhone is from Sony and it seems that in the iPhone 6 the combination of software and hardware is very close to really justify dumping most P & S cameras - so ?

Canon can be described as a photocopier company or a printer company - so ?

[XE11]

as we all know when you buy camera, especially lens-intercahngeable ones. we are buying into a system and not just a mere camera body.

sony, since they took over, has made a few reboots of the whole system. first, they did well with the A900 and A850, it was at the time a big step up. but unforunately, not enough to tempt other away from nikon/canon. Then they introduce the SLT and completely discontinued the DSLR line. Especially at that time, EVF technology wasnt really up that it. then they did it again, this time even changing  the mount and come up with this LA-EA cccc. also the hot shoe as well, all changed.

pro needs stability, they have enough cccc to deal with on a daily basis, like arranging logistic, commerical, budget etc etc, they dont want to worry about having to change out their whole kit again and again every few years just because Sony's business isnt working out.

i dont think it's pro (((prefers))) fuji over sony. more like they just dont want sony fullstop. it's not like they have to have one or the other. many pro picks m43 too. 

(disclaimer: i use sigma DP2/3m, Fuji S5pro, XE1, Sony A77, A7, A6000. and im not into pro business.)

[robdickinson]

Digital cameras are electronic devices - so ?

So their emphasis is on whizy electronics, and yes great sensors. Not so munch on things like practical ergonomics, optics and many choices they go with are more for engineers than photography, time and again I look at their cameras and wonder why. Why didnt they ask just a hand full of real shooters to try them out..?

Canon can be described as a photocopier company or a printer company - so ?

Who were originally called precision optics company limited and have made cameras and optics since 1934, yes they make other stuff but photography is at the heart of their business. not so sony.

Whoever started this thread asked why, thats my reasons why I dont look at sony as such a good choice for a professional. If you dont like them suck it up. They are mine.

[MarkL]

Fuji have a long history in photography both with film, medium format and large format lenses. Sony’s commitment to photography has been in doubt, they are an electronics manufacturer and though they have been around a while their previous cameras have not made much of an impact and smaller cameras were distinctly non-pro (NEX). Sony’s strategy and systems seem a bit all over the place while Fuji (while having tons of models) has built their cameras around one system and given a roadmap for lenses which gives more confidence investing.

For most pros most of these small cameras are still ‘second’ cameras to a canon, nikon dslr system and fuji are just a lot more appealing/familiar with rangefinder looks, controls and marketing.

[John Hue]

Digital cameras are electronic devices - so ?

I think what was meant is not that Sony makes electronic devices but more importantly that they don't do anything else (than the electronic stuff, that is). A camera is not only about specs, its about user experience and being able to communicate your intentions to your tool in a timely and confortable manner. IMO Sony failed on all other points until the A7, and even then you still see its an electronic device and no so well built (that's a personal opinion of course but hey, look at the cables behind the tilting screen when you tilt it up, and all the stories about the shutter vibration and so on...), also the A7 line has not been out long enough to restore confidence.

(disclamer : I'm not a pro, and my opinion are mostly based on my investigations during the time I was looking for a mirrorless system to switch to, and since I didn't needed the high pixel count or the focusing speed, the X-t1 was a no-brainer.)

[Ken Bennett]

Probably off topic, but I was shooting at a classical guitar concert the other night. I used my Fujis, as they are close enough to silent that I could shoot without bothering anyone. Another photog was shooting with a Sony A7, and I was honestly surprised at how loud the shutter was. I was thinking that one advantage to mirrorless bodies was that the shutter sound was significantly muted (or sometimes gone altogether with an electronic shutter.)

Returning to the topic, I use Canon at work, and have gone through a number of mirrorless options for personal work. I had Panasonic for awhile, and didn't feel any angst due to Panny being an "electronics company." The cameras were pretty good, the lenses very good. But the Fuji cameras hit all the right buttons for me -- the old school user interface, excellent lenses, good color quality, excellent high ISO image quality, and an unquantifiable feeling while shooting. I've spent far too much on my Fuji system, but I shoot about 80% of my "work" work with them, and all of my personal work.

[synn]

I think what was meant is not that Sony makes electronic devices but more importantly that they don't do anything else

Actually, they make movies and gear that's used to make movies. They have more street cred there than most of their competition in the still camera division (Except Fuji, because of their film and lens heritage). So it's not like they were making walkmans one day and went straight into camera gear the next.

Besides, most of the Minolta guys went to Sony after the acquisition. From what I know, their current R&D is bigger than what Minolta's has ever been.

I really get what Sony is doing. They can't compete with Canikon offering the same stuff, so they are looking for the next disruption. This means abandoning some projects after a while. They want to get marketshare and mindshare. Fuji isn't very keen on gaining marketshare and are happy doing evolutionary things. They appeal to different people.

Regarding the pro argument though, Not Sony, not Fuji, not anyone can touch CPS and NPS. This is a fact and thus makes all these brands non viable to the sports/ event shooter. But if you're a pro who's more into portraiture/ landscaping/ fine art etc. any of the brands will work just fine. I know and know of several who do great work with Sony and Fuji. e.g. David Hobby shoots Fuji, Frank Doorhof shoots Sony. Both do amazing work.

"Street cred" can only go so far. The rest is all about how the system appeals to your personal use.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would say your analysis is probably pretty good.

What I would add that it takes a lot of consistency to build a reputation. The NPS and CPS is important stuff.

The A7/A7r seems to be a pretty smart move, but not enough for me jumping on that train, but it is quite possible that I will do that with a later model.

Just to mention, I have an Alpha 99 which shares sensor with the A7. The A7r has an older sensor that lacks on sensor phase detection, so it relies on contrast detecting AF and it also lacks electronic first curtain. The lack of EFC means that the shutter needs to be closed pre exposure. I always use EFC on the Alpha 99.

The third aspect for me is that I always carry some long lens, so camera size is not really an issue for me, because the long lens decides the size.

Finally, I have a P45+ giving me a bit more pixels, so I am not starved for resolution. Besides that, 24MP is fine for what I am doing.

But give me 50MP, on sensor PDAF, subsampled video, raw histograms a larger battery, a few more good lenses and an OLP filter and I may be glad to climb on that train.

The lenses may come from Sigma, Zeiss, Zony or some firm in China as long as they are good optically and allow manual focus.

I would add that I am not a pro, just and engineer taking pictures. Some of those are shown here:

http://echophoto.smugmug.com

Added:

One thing to note is that Fuji made attractive cameras, sort of retro well made, some even having an optical view finder.  But they did not venture into full frame. It can be that APS-C with enough MP, excellent lenses and Fuji's non Beyer CFA are good enough for demanding customers. So, they don't need full frame.

Best regards
Erik

Actually, they make movies and gear that's used to make movies. They have more street cred there than most of their competition in the still camera division (Except Fuji, because of their film and lens heritage). So it's not like they were making walkmans one day and went straight into camera gear the next.

Besides, most of the Minolta guys went to Sony after the acquisition. From what I know, their current R&D is bigger than what Minolta's has ever been.

I really get what Sony is doing. They can't compete with Canikon offering the same stuff, so they are looking for the next disruption. This means abandoning some projects after a while. They want to get marketshare and mindshare. Fuji isn't very keen on gaining marketshare and are happy doing evolutionary things. They appeal to different people.

Regarding the pro argument though, Not Sony, not Fuji, not anyone can touch CPS and NPS. This is a fact and thus makes all these brands non viable to the sports/ event shooter. But if you're a pro who's more into portraiture/ landscaping/ fine art etc. any of the brands will work just fine. I know and know of several who do great work with Sony and Fuji. e.g. David Hobby shoots Fuji, Frank Doorhof shoots Sony. Both do amazing work.

"Street cred" can only go so far. The rest is all about how the system appeals to your personal use.

[Rand47]

as we all know when you buy camera, especially lens-intercahngeable ones. we are buying into a system and not just a mere camera body.

sony, since they took over, has made a few reboots of the whole system. first, they did well with the A900 and A850, it was at the time a big step up. but unforunately, not enough to tempt other away from nikon/canon. Then they introduce the SLT and completely discontinued the DSLR line. Especially at that time, EVF technology wasnt really up that it. then they did it again, this time even changing  the mount and come up with this LA-EA cccc. also the hot shoe as well, all changed.

pro needs stability, they have enough cccc to deal with on a daily basis, like arranging logistic, commerical, budget etc etc, they dont want to worry about having to change out their whole kit again and again every few years just because Sony's business isnt working out.

i dont think it's pro (((prefers))) fuji over sony. more like they just dont want sony fullstop. it's not like they have to have one or the other. many pro picks m43 too.  

(disclaimer: i use sigma DP2/3m, Fuji S5pro, XE1, Sony A77, A7, A6000. and im not into pro business.)

Bingo!  I think this is a big part of it.  Sony seems very prone to dumping an entire line of products in pursuit of "the next thing" and that produces instability and a reluctance for professionals to commit to a "system" that might be extinct in a couple of years.  I think the success of the A7 series is due, at least in part, to the ability to adapt legacy lenses from other systems onto the body at nominal cost.  That lowers the "buy in" cost to something truly nominal for a professional and doesn't require one to marry the system for the long haul.  I also think that a lot of Canon users in particular have bought the A7r as a stop gap measure until Canon comes through with a D800e equivalent or greater.

Rand

[ian_t]

I have been trying to work these smaller cameras into my workflow. Last year I got the A7 when it came out. I used it with manual focus glass and got some decent results. Ultimately I couldn't really connect with it so I sold it.
This year I started using the Fuji XT1 and I like it much better. I have done a few small projects with it, like this and this. I prefer the old school dials which allow me to adjust everything I need without taking my eye from the viewfinder. And the lenses are great. (I have 2 primes.)
Ultimately I was hoping to use the Fuji to replace my M9 for travel projects, but I think I will use them both the time being. As for my regular job as a candid kids photographer, the focus on these isn't the speed I need for day to day action shooting. I think they are getting there though.