Thanks, ya I am more of one of those shooters that likes to be methodical about it hehe. Old school I guess. Also on XT1 you can leave what you want on auto and just set FStop or Shutter speed just like DLSR. At least with my shooting I spend 95% of my time in Aperture priority. Just using the aperture ring to me is a big deal its kinda like driving a manual or automatic sports car you are just so much more connected with the manual transmission. I am the same with cameras.
As far as the lenses the A7II kit lens is reviewed very poorly on several sites for bad distortion and other issues. Also its only F4 which is a stop worse than what I have now. I don't really wanna go back to an F4 lens and pay $1200 for it. Fuji has primes that are 1.2 which is even faster than my current lens. Fujis kit lens is even 2.8 for a little before settling out to f4 and is less than 1/2 the cost. I also looked at alot of the test images from the 70-200 E mount G glass and its looks ok its not nearly as sharp as my Canon 70-200. The Fuji also has a 50-140 F2.8 zoom. I know its not as long as my L glass but its also 2.8 and again I rarely max out my 70-200 so I think it will work for me. There are some good reviews on the Fuji glass and it looks very well made and sharp to me. Very little distortion etc.
Again I am comparing the Fuji X line of lenses to Sony Full Frame as I am choosing between these two cameras XT1 A7II. The only Sony Zeiss lens I am reading good things about overall is the 55 F1.8. And to be honest Sony charging another $500 for their 70-200 is laughable to me when you can get Canon L glass way cheaper. I guess from what I have read people are mixed on the Sony glass and when its as much or more than L glass that makes me think its just not worth it. I understand FF glass is always more $$$, but being more than lenses that have been used for years and are known quantity IDK.
I guess every review on the A7 that praised it was using legacy glass Leica, EF, Nikon etc. Barely anyone was praising the stock lens line up. I just don't want to spend 100s on adapting lenses to it.
A6000 is just not my cup of tea. I am not looking forward to going back to menus and buttons. I can play that game with my T3i right now and spend nothing. Also on dp review the noise from the a6000 is pretty close to my T3i so I think its more of a side grade.
Also after using the EVF in the XT1 it is way better than the a6000 or A7 they aren't even in same league if you look through them. XT1 is sharp and large EVF. A7 has very grainy look and wasn't nearly as big. It felt so compressed in its little window. I frame with VF so it probably sounds stupid but I would lean towards the best EVF and the Sonys didnt impress me at all. Maybe its better outside but BB I could barely even read letters on signs with it, looked very low res and grainy. After using it I almost thought man I am going back to optical how would you ever use that.
Sure I am the most indecisive person ever LOL. I just like the old school XT1 design and the glass is getting good reviews from alot of places and it has best EVF IMHO.
As far as the lenses the A7II kit lens is reviewed very poorly on several sites for bad distortion and other issues. Also its only F4 which is a stop worse than what I have now. I don't really wanna go back to an F4 lens and pay $1200 for it. Fuji has primes that are 1.2 which is even faster than my current lens. Fujis kit lens is even 2.8 for a little before settling out to f4 and is less than 1/2 the cost. I also looked at alot of the test images from the 70-200 E mount G glass and its looks ok its not nearly as sharp as my Canon 70-200. The Fuji also has a 50-140 F2.8 zoom. I know its not as long as my L glass but its also 2.8 and again I rarely max out my 70-200 so I think it will work for me. There are some good reviews on the Fuji glass and it looks very well made and sharp to me. Very little distortion etc.
Again I am comparing the Fuji X line of lenses to Sony Full Frame as I am choosing between these two cameras XT1 A7II. The only Sony Zeiss lens I am reading good things about overall is the 55 F1.8. And to be honest Sony charging another $500 for their 70-200 is laughable to me when you can get Canon L glass way cheaper. I guess from what I have read people are mixed on the Sony glass and when its as much or more than L glass that makes me think its just not worth it. I understand FF glass is always more $$$, but being more than lenses that have been used for years and are known quantity IDK.
I guess every review on the A7 that praised it was using legacy glass Leica, EF, Nikon etc. Barely anyone was praising the stock lens line up. I just don't want to spend 100s on adapting lenses to it.
A6000 is just not my cup of tea. I am not looking forward to going back to menus and buttons. I can play that game with my T3i right now and spend nothing. Also on dp review the noise from the a6000 is pretty close to my T3i so I think its more of a side grade.
Also after using the EVF in the XT1 it is way better than the a6000 or A7 they aren't even in same league if you look through them. XT1 is sharp and large EVF. A7 has very grainy look and wasn't nearly as big. It felt so compressed in its little window. I frame with VF so it probably sounds stupid but I would lean towards the best EVF and the Sonys didnt impress me at all. Maybe its better outside but BB I could barely even read letters on signs with it, looked very low res and grainy. After using it I almost thought man I am going back to optical how would you ever use that.
Sure I am the most indecisive person ever LOL. I just like the old school XT1 design and the glass is getting good reviews from alot of places and it has best EVF IMHO.
Upvote
0