fuji xt3 or sony a7iii

[stefanocps]

Wheter they are not exactly in the same price range what would you choose between the 2? I like to have a quick setup and quick use for most of the situation. In this side they seems both good, perhaps A7 little better because of stabilizer. Also is importantforme to have a good image straight out of the camera, as i am not that good in grading, so the more is good as it is the file, the best is. Another point is the workability of the file, as i have not so new pc. Last is the lens, the sony being FF i am afraid it will cost me much more to have those minimum couple of lenses needed for video.

So resuming, good looking image, good af, stabilizer if possible and budget...

Thanks for suggestions

[webrunner5]

My biggest beef with e Fuji is lenses or the lack there in. True these is not a lot of cheap Sony FE lenses, but there is a ton of adapters out there for there compared to the Fuji. Plus there is a good upgrade path with Sony, not so much with Fuji. But the XT-3 is a damn nice camera for the money. Not an easy choice.

[thebrothersthre3]

A73 is going to give you a noise free image past 12,800 iso. Color is pretty good with HLG. Definitely a lot of lens options going into the future like webrunner said.

The XT3 was my camera of choice for its internal 10 bit and high speed recording, as well as its color science. Kind of depends on your needs though. 

The XT30 plus the fuji 18-55 is a hell of a combo for anyone on a budget. 

[Andrew Reid]

On 6/15/2019 at 6:44 AM, thebrothersthre3 said:

The XT30 plus the fuji 18-55 is a hell of a combo for anyone on a budget. 

I'd agree with that.

A7 III ripped a hole in the full frame market pricing and we see a race to the bottom, but Fuji is doing something far more interesting with insane value for money APS-C cameras that simulate the look of film.

The 18-55mm OIS works incredibly well, it's as good at run & gun (great AF, par focal) as it is at cinema.

[thebrothersthre3]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I'd agree with that.

A7 III ripped a hole in the full frame market pricing and we see a race to the bottom, but Fuji is doing something far more interesting with insane value for money APS-C cameras that simulate the look of film.

The 18-55mm OIS works incredibly well, it's as good at run & gun (great AF, par focal) as it is at cinema.

The A6400 could have been a great contender but the rolling shutter and subpar 1080 is kind of crippling. The 18-55 is really awesome. I don't miss IBIS when I have it on. They also go for really cheap used.

[MrSMW]

Another XT3 user and vote here.

Originally with the Fringer Pro adapter and Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 but swapped back to the 18-55 f2.8-4 (plus some Canon f1.8 primes) which is a compromise on being able to capture a very shallow DOF (unless using the primes), but a winner everywhere else.

Also dumped HLG which I dumped Flog for because when trying to grade with DJI products (Pocket, Action and Mavic Air), it's all been a pain in the derriere so shooting tweaked Eterna again.

Happier.

[stefanocps]

13 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Another XT3 user and vote here.

Originally with the Fringer Pro adapter and Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 but swapped back to the 18-55 f2.8-4 (plus some Canon f1.8 primes) which is a compromise on being able to capture a very shallow DOF (unless using the primes), but a winner everywhere else.

Also dumped HLG which I dumped Flog for because when trying to grade with DJI products (Pocket, Action and Mavic Air), it's all been a pain in the derriere so shooting tweaked Eterna again.

Happier.

sorry don't understand exactly

You saying that with 18-55 it is not easy to get a shallow dof?

[thebrothersthre3]

2 hours ago, stefanocps said:

sorry don't understand exactly

You saying that with 18-55 it is not easy to get a shallow dof?

Its 2.8 at 18mm and f4 at 55mm, compared to 18mm 1.8 and 35mm 1.8 on the sigma lens. 

[stefanocps]

Ok.but he would not suggest the sigma apart for the shallower dof right?why?

[thebrothersthre3]

14 minutes ago, stefanocps said:

Ok.but he would not suggest the sigma apart for the shallower dof right?why?

The Sigma has no OIS and also has less range 18-35 vs 18-55, its also a lot heavier and like twice the price, (not including an adapter). 

[thephoenix]

you said budget, so sigma isn't your first choice.

xt3 is great, but you want an is lens if you shoot handheld unless you shoot 60fps and go 24 in post. but i guess you don't only want to do slowmo.

beacause if you take the sigma and shoot handheld then you need a gimbal, and it doesn't sound budget to me

 

[MrSMW]

7 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

The Sigma has no OIS and also has less range 18-35 vs 18-55, its also a lot heavier and like twice the price, (not including an adapter). 

This plus the AF is faster with the native lens and I need to rely on it quite a bit when shooting video and stills at the same time. Two different cameras obviously, but at the same time.

The Sigma 'wins' in only one area and that is f1.8 between it's 18-35mm zoom range, ie, can shoot a shallower depth of field than the Fuji or in lower light without having to increase the ISO as much, ie, there is a compromise either way.

Because the combo of XT3 and Sigma has no form of stabilisation, I work off a freestanding Sirui monopod and unless perfectly balanced on a flat surface, it's too top heavy.

If I wanted to slow my pace down considerably...and I shoot weddings so I do not, then on a tripod, no problem, but it's a much slower way to shoot. Too slow for me.