X-T1 or A6000

Fuji hands down, without even thinking about it. Sony is a video company with mediocre lenses. Zeiss? Without knowing, I assume Sony licensed the name and that lens is not made in Germany.

jinyoungkim7 said:

Wait what? You don't know who Zeiss is? I don't think you can just throw Sony in the bin if you don't know who the manufacturer of their premium lens is >.<

Click to expand...

You've misread fa8362's comment.

Their belief - until confirmed otherwise - is that Sony is licensing the Zeiss name in the same way that Panasonic licenses Leica's name.

Not all Zeiss or Leica lenses are actually designed and produced in Germany. A good chunk of them are made in China, Taiwan and Japan (mass-produced rather than hand-crafted).

In regards to your original question...Fuji. I would have gone Fuji if I didn't think that Olympus weren't hitting it with their OM-D series. Personally, been really unhappy with the output and mediocre quality of the E-mount system.

Of those choices the Fuji. Of all mirrorless options I'd buy the EM1 and some nice small lenses. Are you going to shoot much >100mm equiv shots? If you so I'd think twice about Fuji as their long lenses are huge.

jinyoungkim7 said:

I will probably ask the question that has been asked many times before, but I would really appreciate the advice, before committing myself.
Two new cameras, both similar in concept, sensor size, dimensions and popularity. Yet X-T1 with kit lens is double the price of A6000 with it's kit lens. Can it be twice as good?

I heard lots of good about Fuji lenses, especially about 18-55mm kit. Yet, A6000 with 16-70mm Zeiss lens is exactly the same price as X-T1 with kit lens, but then I lose out on Fuji's build/weather sealing/fuji colors/lens lineup/viewfinder. If one is prepared to spend this much money, would Sony-Zeiss combination be better, compared to Fuji kit?

My requirements are reasonably straightforward (I think). I want something compact and portable (so no FF or DSLR). IQ is important, so no m43 or smaller sensors. Fast AF is nice, but not critical as I do not shoot sports/action/toddlers photography. I do tend to like manual controls, so I would probably hate Sony's "Power zoom" kit lens. I must admit, Fuji's dials look attractive, although I didn't have a chance to actually try to use one

Sturdy build and quality 'feel' is also quite important

I do not have any lenses I can reuse, so this is not a factor

Thank you

Click to expand...

We are on vacation in the Dominican Republic at the moment with the our new X-T1 and I have to say it's the best camera I have ever used.

You need to get your hands on one and try the new EVF it is truly amazing and I'm told as good if not better than the Olympus.. As an aside we also we bit the bullet and bought the new UHD II SHD card that reads and writes at approx 240mbs. With the camera set for RAW+fine it is razor quick down loading and the burst shooting writes almost instantly.

It does hunt a bit in low light with the 55-200 XF lens, but with the 18-50 and 35mm the AF is very quick in all conditions so far.

I would post some early shots but the hotel internet is iffy at best as we are on Bacardi Island.

I would suggest looking at both in your hands....you'll see better then.

Full disclosure: I have an x-t1 and love it. To answer based on your criteria:

compact and portable - Sony because techincally it's a tad smaller

IQ is important - Mostly a wash but maybe a slight edge to Fuji based on it's lack of AA filter

Fast AF - Based on specs on paper, I would say Sony but after watching this video I'm not so sure: http://vimeo.com/90730624. Really though there simply aren't enough reviews out now to make a clear determination and even then I would be willing to bet that it's a wash between each camera having it's own strength in certain situations/lighting.

I do tend to like manual controls - Fuji, hands down

Sturdy build and quality 'feel' is also quite important - Fuji, hands down

If one is prepared to spend this much money, would Sony-Zeiss combination be better, compared to Fuji kit? To me they're very different cameras targeting different people. If price was a factor or I wanted more simplistic controls, I'd pick the Sony. If price isn't a factor (in your case it's not because they're the same) and I wanted more manual control, I'd pick the Fuji. I have to say though that I think the addition of the Zeiss is a little bit much for this particular camera.

Before I comment - I'll have to say I do have Fuji cameras and lenses.

Item 1 - Zeiss lenses. Just because a "Zeiss" lens is not made in Germany doesn't mean it is a bad lens. People suggesting this are doing a disservice to others here.

Item 2 - Fuji, Sony and Olympus all put out some impressive cameras and when married to the right lenses, they all are capable of taking great images. While some sensors are "better" than others, unless you are shooting in super dim light or making huge prints, all of them can turn out great results.

Item 3 - the hands one experience that makes the user want to go out with the camera is as important as the technical facets of the cameras themselves. What is the point of having the "top of the line" camera if one doesn't feel comfortable with it in hand, accessing menus and the like? I highly suggest people go to local camera stores and handle the cameras a bit and see if it suits their needs and ease of use and comfort.

I will admit that if I was not in the Fuji camp, I would be most likely in the Olympus camp. I find both makers to put out impressive product. As for Sony, only their FF cameras might be of interest to me. There are other excellent makers out there that also deserve some attention - Samsung and Panasonic come to mind. Having come from film days with Nikons (and larger format cameras), the digital cameras present far more complexities for a consumer who wishes to make an informed purchase.

Just more peanuts tossed into the gallery.

Better lenses, and better price points are with Fuji.

I too am looking at these 2, although the Sony A6000 is over $300 cheaper here.
Is the X-T1 worth the extra for a amateur?

If you like manual controls, the decision is a no brainer, go for the Fuji. The way a camera feels in your hand is much more important than anything else, as long as you have comparable camera systems you're fine basing your choice on that. That's why I bought a Nikon instead of a Canon (even though Canon makes cameras and lenses which are, on average, equally good).

OreoCookie said:

Canon makes cameras and lenses which are, on average, equally good).

Click to expand...

Definitely not true. Canon cameras have 2 stops less dynamic range and they're slightly noisier than Nikons. Focusing just on APS-C, Canon is significantly inferior to Pentax, Fuji, and Nikon in dynamic range and significantly inferior to Pentax and Fuji in noise.

This is not an opinion. Testing at dppreview and DxO clearly show this.

Until the dust settles next year from the digital camera market contracting, I'd stick with Canon, Nikon or Sony.

Paul

fa8362 said:

Definitely not true. Canon cameras have 2 stops less dynamic range and they're slightly noisier than Nikons. Focusing just on APS-C, Canon is significantly inferior to Pentax, Fuji, and Nikon in dynamic range and significantly inferior to Pentax and Fuji in noise.

This is not an opinion. Testing at dppreview and DxO clearly show this.

Click to expand...

For the record, I'm a Nikon and Fuji guy. However, to me these technical points (and I don't necessarily disagree with them, I think Nikon's do have better low-light performance) do not outweigh the impact a UI and the handling of a camera have. For that reason, I would never buy a Sony mirrorless camera or a Canon dslr, but that has nothing to do with Canon's worse noise characteristic at high ISO or whatnot. For almost all photographers, the tools have become so good that they are by far no longer the limiting factor. (My D7000 manages over 6 fps, that's faster than a Canon EOS-1V without booster.)

To be honest, given what Fuji has done in a very short amount of time, the most likely course of action is that I will switch to the X-mount system when the time comes to retire my D7000. I already have the X100s, and it is the most enjoyable camera to shoot with.

IMHO, if you're into strictly into photography (no video), like manual control and will invest into some high end quality glass, I'd go with the Fuji, hands down.

The files off the Fuji are beautiful, it's a pleasure to work with (my experience is with the X-E2, the X-T1 must be even better) and the lens lineup is superb. I think the Fuji lenses are nicer than the top-tier Sony and are also tad cheaper. - I also wouldn't be surprised if Sony stops releasing Zeiss lenses for the APS-C sensor and focus their premium offerings to full frame.

I've been doing a lot of research recently as I am about to buy a new camera. Currently I have a Nikon DSLR which I love, but I need to upgrade.

Due to the weight of the DSLR gear I have been looking at Sony, Olympus and Fuji X.

Sony are definitely breaking new ground with their sensor technology. Yes their selection of glass is small, but this will change and the choice will becomes just as good as their rivals. A Zeiss is a Zeiss which means nothing less than top quality. Zeiss lenses are produced in Japan by Cosina who also produce Voigtlander glass.

I really wanted to buy into the Olympus OMD system. There are two main reasons why I won't. Olympus have had big financial problems and the question is even though they produce brilliant glass and cameras now, will they be able to do so in the future as the competition hots up. Secondly I have held the OMD in my hands many times and it just never feels comfortable.

With their sensor technology and new exciting glass on the way Fuji and the X system is getting a lot of attention. I believe they will just get better. Even though they don't compare and are different to Leica, you just have to look online at the number of comparisons between Fuji 100 and the Leica X2 and the Fuji Pro and Leica M by many serious photographers.

My conclusion is that there is just not that much between them. Each have their pros and cons and even examining and comparing their results using say http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM I think it boils down to what you feel comfortable with.

I am probably going to go with the Fuji as I also like their manual options. I believe they have done enough now with their x system to compete with Canon, Nikon and Sony in the future.

----------

I've been doing a lot of research recently as I am about to buy a new camera. Currently I have a Nikon DSLR which I love, but I need to upgrade.

Due to the weight of the DSLR gear I have been looking at Sony, Olympus and Fuji X.

Sony are definitely breaking new ground with their sensor technology. Yes their selection of glass is small, but this will change and the choice will becomes just as good as their rivals. A Zeiss is a Zeiss which means nothing less than top quality. Zeiss lenses are produced in Japan by Cosina who also produce Voigtlander glass.

I really wanted to buy into the Olympus OMD system. There are two main reasons why I won't. Olympus have had big financial problems and the question is even though they produce brilliant glass and cameras now, will they be able to do so in the future as the competition hots up. Secondly I have held the OMD in my hands many times and it just never feels comfortable.

With their sensor technology and new exciting glass on the way Fuji and the X system is getting a lot of attention. I believe they will just get better. Even though they don't compare and are different to Leica, you just have to look online at the number of comparisons between Fuji 100 and the Leica X2 and the Fuji Pro and Leica M by many serious photographers.

My conclusion is that there is just not that much between them. Each have their pros and cons and even examining and comparing their results using say http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM I think it boils down to what you feel comfortable with.

I am probably going to go with the Fuji as I also like their manual options. I believe they have done enough now with their x system to compete with Canon, Nikon and Sony in the future.

fa8362 said:

Fuji hands down, without even thinking about it. Sony is a video company with mediocre lenses. Zeiss? Without knowing, I assume Sony licensed the name and that lens is not made in Germany.

Click to expand...

What an absurd statement!

Some of the most recently released Sony Zeiss lenses are the best of the market.

i.e. the Sony Zeiss 55mm is the best AF lens ever tested:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony-fe-55-1-8

Some other reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/02/18/sony-fe-35mm-f2-8-za-carl-zeiss-sonnar-t-lab-test-report
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-FE-55mm-f1.8-ZA-lens-review-Exemplary-performance
http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...thusiast-and-pro-cameras-and-lenses#best-lens

thunng8 said:

What an absurd statement!

Some of the most recently released Sony Zeiss lenses are the best of the market.

i.e. the Sony Zeiss 55mm is the best AF lens ever tested:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony-fe-55-1-8

Some other reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/02/18/sony-fe-35mm-f2-8-za-carl-zeiss-sonnar-t-lab-test-report
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-FE-55mm-f1.8-ZA-lens-review-Exemplary-performance
http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...thusiast-and-pro-cameras-and-lenses#best-lens

Click to expand...

I agree that your statement is absurd. That's ONE lens. Most Sony lenses are mediocre.

There are links to 2 lenses there if you bothered to look. I can dig out more if you wish:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_carl_zeiss_planar_t_50mm_f_1_4_za_ssm_review/

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/12/24/review-sony-zeiss-135mm-f1-8-tested-with-the-a99/

Like I said, they are some of the best on the market.

And a few more here

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_carl_zeiss_sonnar_t_e_24mm_f_1_8_za_review/conclusion/

http://kurtmunger.com/sony_nex_carl_zeiss_24mmid316.html

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/carl-zeiss-24mm-f-1-8-sonnar-e-za-t--lens-review-21753

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1452

http://m.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony_24_2_m15/5

http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/568-zeiss24f2ff?start=1

That's a total of 3 e-mount and 3 a-mount sony zeiss lenses that are best in class that they compete in. That make your original assertion of mediocre sony zeiss lenses absurd

@thunng8
I think you're hurting your argument by claiming »best in class« instead of just great (for instance, dpreview did not claim the 55 mm prime was the best lens of that class they've tested).

Just for the record: I don't think Sony's lenses are bad, I think they're competitive with everyone else -- which is meant as a compliment. I don't think glass is the deciding factor here (unless there is this one special lens you need to have).

To the original poster - try both cameras out. See what feels right to you with respect to handling, menus and the like. Consider what you will use the camera for in general. Next, find which lenses are most likely to suit your needs and check the high end reviews on those lenses. If your budget allows for either maker's choices, then just go pick one. I have yet to see a "perfect" camera come from any maker. Then again "perfect" to me might be atrocious to another person. There is a bit of give and take on all of them.

Last - my ideal camera would be a Fuji-ized Sony sensor in the high end Olympus body that could use both Olympus and Fuji lenses. Go figure - to each their own.

OreoCookie said:

@thunng8
I think you're hurting your argument by claiming »best in class« instead of just great (for instance, dpreview did not claim the 55 mm prime was the best lens of that class they've tested).

Click to expand...

Not directly, but just read the review.. Some quotes:

Sharpness is simply spectacular. At F1.8 the 55mm is impressively sharp, outperforming the 50mm F1.8s for Canon and Nikon SLRs by a substantial margin (and the 50mm F1.4s for that matter, too). It just gets better on stopping down; at F4 and F5.6, central sharpness is literally off the charts (helped here by being tested on the 36MP, AA filterless A7R). Diffraction takes the edge off sharpness at F22, as usual, but this setting should still be perfectly usable when depth of field is a priority.

Compared to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II or Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G, the Sony is quite simply in a different class in terms of wide-open sharpness. This is only to be expected, given its much higher price and far more modern design, but it does give some idea of why Sony feels it can charge a premium for the lens. The Zeiss also beats Nikon's latest, and even-more-pricey AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G for sharpness in these tests - it really is very good indeed.

In fact if you read all the other reviews in dpreview for 50-60mm af lenses, the 55mm is best in class. Dxomark also listed the lens as the highest performing af lens they have ever tested.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings

In any case, I was just making the case that Sony Zeiss are not mediocre as fa3862 asserted in a blanket statement , in fact, most are great.

I got a Sony A6000 today $849 on sale here in Australia. First new camera for over 10 years except a iPhone. Last camera was a Pentax istd still going that i have given to my 11 year old daughter to play with.
Loving it so far.

Robster3 said:

I got a Sony A6000 today $849 on sale here in Australia. First new camera for over 10 years except a iPhone. Last camera was a Pentax istd still going that i have given to my 11 year old daughter to play with.
Loving it so far.

Click to expand...

I spoke to soon it just died today, won't do a thing had 60% battery too, light won't even come on when charging. Lucky i bought it locally. Took some great photos. Got the wifi sync going with my macbook and HTC one M8, very fast transfer. Got it to connect with NFC on my phone but couldn't get the remote camera to work, won't do anything.
Not sure if to swap it or get a refund.