Both are great cameras that will serve you well. What do you think you will end up shooting most?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Both are great cameras that will serve you well. What do you think you will end up shooting most?
Good question, and one I should probably give more thought too. I initially wanted to get out and start taking pics and see what I end up doing most.
Makes sense. I was just going to say that the X-T3 will be a better camera for fast action type photography. It's got faster continuous auto-focus with better coverage across the image frame, faster burst rate, and a deeper buffer so you can take more photos at once. The A7R II is definitely going to have better image quality, though, so if you're just doing more general photography with mostly still subjects, then it might be the better route.
Ok so like, I'm just posting these to remind people that the subject doesn't need to be stone stiff for the A7RII to capture them:
AR206506 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
AR206469 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
AR206471 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
AR207795 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrShe couldn't even hold this pose.
AR207070 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrMy only keeper from a burst but it got it.
AR206793 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrMoving
AR204584 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrMoving.
Reverend Al Sharpton by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Reverend Al Sharpton by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrPassionate ass old dude giving a speech.
I'll agree the A7RII isn't a speed demon, but it's capable.
Oh, for sure. I took tens of thousands of action shots on the A7R II, but I think you'll agree that the X-T3 is a lot more suited to the task of capturing fast action, especially for someone who is not as experienced of a photographer.
X-T3 honestly depends on the glass though, some of their lenses were not built for speedy AF acquisition. The 16-55 is fine, the 90 is mostly fine, the 50-140 is fine, the 23 1.4 is ok, the 56 is okish if it's in the mood to be. They really need to refresh some stuff. With Sony I think most of the stuff you can buy from the is good AF wise to the point where I think the only weak link on that front is the A7RII itself and my biggest complaint with the A7RII is just the lack of a joystick and even that's not keeping me from getting shots. As a newbie the X-T3 helps, as an experienced shooter as long as it's not rocketing around the screen you should be able to get at least 1-2 decent pics of it with the A7RII. Even Birders can use the A7RII so it's not that bad.
I just want something released to tank the A7RIII used prices already. I want it so badly and I'm close to being able to afford one.
Guess you'll have to wait a full year before the A7RIV hits though.
Don't remind me. I would like to think anything new released would drop the price a bit because of early adopters.
I want an A7RIII and an A9 though unless they really bring some much needed new shit to the plate. I can basically live on an A7RII, but I want the cameras with the AF joysticks. I'm probably getting the A7RIII next month so if the price drops are a year out then fine.
Thanks for the help JadedWriter and Zefah. Decided on the X-T3. Got it with the 18-55mm kit lens from Amazon for $340 a month.
For now I'll just focus on learning the basics and getting out and taking pics. In the future I'll probably get a full frame if I feel the need to.
For now I'll just focus on learning the basics and getting out and taking pics. In the future I'll probably get a full frame if I feel the need to.
Last edited:
That is a great camera. I personally didn't like the image output on the X-T2 when I first got it till I got one of the primes. The 18-55 is quite fine, but I was coming off of the Nikon D810 and the 2.8 24-70 so the Fuji was coming off lacking, two years later with some good lenses and being used to working on the RAF files I'm very used to the system these days. I'm letting you know this now. Fuji tends to lean on the warm side so adjust your white balance to lean a little on the cooler side.
Great system, as a newb that's a great camera to use. I just met a dude yesterday who stopped me and we had a conversation about the XT-3, and this is the third encounter within a month or so. You tend to get a lot of people asking questions and sharing experiences. If you have any specific questions about settings feel free to ask. The kit lens is great for a beginner as well, though I always say one should learn with primes.
So much this. I know a beginner that started out with a Tamron 18-300 and he can't compose to save his life.
What is ugly about it? It looks like... a lens.
Anyway, I was hoping it would come in a bit lighter or smaller. It looks to be about the same size and weight as the 55mm f/1.8 Sony Zeiss, which isn't bad or anything, but I'll probably just stick with my 35mm f/2.8 and f/1.4 Sony Zeiss combo rather than consolidate to just this one.
The GM's are fine looking, the 50 I had was no frills, the Distagon looks good the 85 looks like an 85. I mostly have no real problem with the way most of them look minus certain Zeiss models.
Most of these autofocus lenses look pretty bad, IMO. Sony's seem bigger than usual, too.
Last edited:
For whatever reason they are very selective about which lenses get aperture rings... Seems like it's just the high-end Zeiss and GM branded primes.
It's a well machined piece of metal/glass/plastic, it's very plain looking but I fail to see the ugly part. What do you expect a lens to look like?
The coating is different. I think my 35 Art started showing scratches within the first month or some shit. I think with the GM's you have key them basically, though on my 70-200 there's like a rubbing mark on the front barrel or something.
That cute little 45mm
These Sigma's have everything I would want from a ergonomic point of view. Aperture ring, AF hold button, and af/MF click/ de-click switches. Nice.
Love the size of the 45 2.8. Will make a great street lens.
The 35 1.2 is, as expected, big.
Had hoped that 45 to be a a lot shorter like a "regular" pancake....
It's as big as the Zeiss 35/2,8.
It's as big as the Zeiss 35/2,8.
Man, I must have completely opposite tastes to you in terms of lens aesthetics. I've always disliked the cluttered look of "old" lenses.
With that response, I've now got you pictured as a fixie bike-riding hipster cruising around with a manual focus Leica.
Why would a hipster be using a Leica? Too mainstream and expensive. Would have an old Zorki or Zenit camera instead.
Small, manual focus lenses with focus distance on them >>>>>>
Looks so uncomfortable to hold. Very small though
Based on the video Sigma released for this thing it's pretty much a modular cine camera to be mounted on a tripod. I wouldn't dare even attempt to use this thing for any sort of street or event shooting. Imagine hand holding the Sigma 40 1.4 with this.
Looks so uncomfortable to hold. Very small though
In the video they show a modular grip and hot shoe, but yeah the camera makes no sense and will be never seen on the street.
I think it would have some really cool niche if the lenses were more along the lines of the really thin or collapsible rangefinder lenses, but standard Sigma lenses?
Lul
Lul