Hi. Sorry for opening another thread as I have decided on either one of these for an upgrade from Fujifilm X-T100. My main is more to photography and not much on video. I am considering between these 2. The X-T3 is very tempting as it is newer with more features but lack of IBIS. Wonder if Sony IBIS is really worth the extra ringgit. Which of these would have the more superior image quality?

For photography XT-3 hands down if youre not doing much videography. XT-3 does videography well too, IBIS correction can always be done in post processing. I'll pick Fujifilm color science over Sony's big time.

This post has been edited by Vincy8925: Feb 9 2019, 08:00 PM

Do elaborate more on “photography xt-3 hands down”. You shoot in JPEG? 😂

I shoot raw. I rather spend less time doing post processing work for photography for non-professional work. If you've handled a Fujifilm before you'll know you can do with little to no post processing with Fujifilm in most situations.

Not trying to spark a debate here. There's no way an APSC (XT-3) can outdo the sharpness levels of a full frame (A7III), but the XT-3 is no slouch either. Its a close second. Though Keep in mind that full frame lenses might take up a huge chunk off your budget if you opt for full frame in the long run, and full frame files takes up more space and more pc processing power too. Go and pick up both in a camera store and feel how it handles. You wont go wrong with either one.

Btw, dont compare your current T100 with the XT-3. The T100 is using a generic bayer sensor. XT-3 is using the X-Trans III sensor with a low pass filter and different array arrangement which puts it in a whole diff league over the T100.

This post has been edited by Vincy8925: Feb 9 2019, 09:07 PM

Sony A7iii

A73 no doubt

I don't think you know what you're talking about 😂

Kejap hands down, kejap a close second.

"Full frame files takes up more space and more pc processing power too" - Ahahaha. Need so much power to edit photo? I edit using Lightroom CC (mobile) on phone or ipad only. Clients like it anyway.

You probably need to check out all the reviews & compare specs side by side.
Then only ask others for some specific areas which causing u dilemma.

what im seeing your point here is too generic
-requirement : photo than video
-newer camera
-more feature (what is more and what is missing )
-ibis or no ibis
-worth the ringgit = value for money or limited budget.

list out la what feature u want/need/dowan/dont need
what genre of photography u mostly do/ want to do/ limited by the current camera u own
all the question already listed in the pinned thread https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/2201160

simple vote for generic detail, i & probably most will vote for Fullframe kamera for sure.
in the end of the day, most photographer/videographer will lust and upgrade to fullframe.
unless they has/need a specific reason for a certain camera/brand/model.

etc, fujifilm is famous for its color reproduction of film tones.
classic chrome of kodachrome.

do the research further and let us know the questions.
for sure more would like to contribute in answer.

This post has been edited by mastering89: Feb 10 2019, 02:34 PM

I agree with Vincy regarding the little to no post processing part with fujifilm. To be honest, I still shoot raw and Jpeg even after I've switch from sony to fuji, but the irony is that I do more post processing with fuji (xt20) files that I did when I was with Sony (a6000)....in a good way! Why? It was much easier (hence much more enjoyable with retouching) to get nice colors with fuji raw files, I simply apply the Classic chrome simulation to the raw files, adjust the saturation and contrast, and crush the blacks a little bit at the tone curve if I desire the film look, it always comes out nice. Where as when I was with Sony files, I might have to do a lot more post processing and yet still not necessary getting the pleasing results.

Honestly, I still don't enjoy the physical dials and aperture ring on lenses of fujis (I grew up using yashica FX3) and I still miss the wheels dials on Sony cameras. And one little annoyances with shooting fuji camera with flash is that, the AI in controlling flash output and compensating iso are not so intelligent compared against a sony camera. And AF of fuji cameras are still generally slower than Sony camera, especially the eyes AF. But having said all that, I can never go back to Sony camera from fuji after seeing how easy to get nice colors from fuji cameras, both raw and jpeg.

If I were you, I will go for Fuji XH1 instead of XT3 for the IBIS and add a speedbooster to make it a FF on the cheap, with some decent priced canon or sigma glasses. On the other hand, if you absolutely need the low light high iso performance and the slightly higher dynamic range of the FF, then my vote goes to the A7III. Do keep in mind that while fuji glass are most expensive in APSC world, it is still no match for some good glasses in Sony FF world.

A7III

Went for Sony a7iii and performance is damn good. Even iso 51200 still quite useable for normal social media posting. Haha thanks all ...

From the one who owned A7iii for video, I would suggest XT3 if your main usage is for photo simply because the amazing colour right off the bat. You don't meet Ibis for photo. Now if you compared with A7Riii than it is a different story.

not exactly true.

i used to own Olympus EM10 and even with the basic 3-axis ibis, it made my shooting experience a lot more enjoyable from focusing to composing.

you can even shoot long exposure handheld (1 to 2 seconds are possible) without a tripod.

with the help of IBIS, you don't have to spend as much effort in keeping your camera stable.

I totally agreed with mingyuyu, this is my support

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lKV3SVfvFY&t=13s



This post has been edited by Loseeker: Feb 13 2019, 11:34 AM

A7III is just a beast of mirrorless. That full frame sensor just wins everything over XT3. The only thing XT3 might excel is on the Fuji color science. But that also fully comes down to personal preference. Congrats TS for the ugprade!

Correct. If you want to shoot long exposure hand held than Ibis is the answer. It is essential... but certainly not absolute. For the same result I used tripod. That is what i ment 'you don't really need it' and not 'you don't need it'. After all it is why we shoot a picture not how we shoot it.

you missed the part where I mentioned about the assistance in focusing and composing a shot.

saying that IBIS is not important is the same as saying IS/VC/VR on lenses are redundant.

Tripod is not always practical in a run and gun situation, family outing, or indoor with crowded scenario. I normally find tripod practical only when I do pre-planed shoot such as milkway, multiple exposure, landscape. On top of that, it is an extra piece of equipment which I don't think anybody will always carry with them to friend's gathering, outing or parties. But of course, YMMV. Usually for those situation, I would find lens stabilization or IBIS extremely essential when I have to shoot at a very low speed, handheld, without flash to lower the iso.

Correct again. See, twice I agree with you, I’m not disputing the fact IBIS is a convenience way to achieve the intended shoot nor did I mention IBIS is not important. I just merely telling other way of doing things to get the job done. Because TS asking a simple question, is it worth the extra ringgit as I quote below


To justify weather it worth or not, you need to know both options. You either go with convenient way but expensive or hard way but cheaper. One option is not better the the others depending on what is TS constrain.
This I agree too, new technology open up new possibility but not necessarily in any way making the old way impossible. This is not about right or wrong.

But this is all academic now as TS has abandon this tread and open up another one with the same content.

That's kinda true for a full fledged standard tripod design.

I ditched my tripod as it was always a hassle to setup during travels or in a casual occasion where you just need your camera to be placed at a certain position/height to take portrait shots with a timer. I don't really need the stability of a 1-2kg tripod. I just need my camera to be placed somewhere to take pictures of myself and my family/SO/etc which was why I started using a mini tripod+selfiestick combo (Benro MK10/BK10) which is much easier to set up. It does wobble and all but gets the job done - just make sure there's no strong wind and the shutter speed is fast enough to counteract any shakiness.

Also, I was doing some searching and came across this:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lumapo...-fastest-tripod

Man that's gonna be awesome for travels and I can foresee myself using that for everything except for serious landscape shooting. It's not gonna be as stable as your standard tripod but man is this so practical during travels or when you need to take pictures very quickly. So fast to setup and has adequate height. Weight load of 1kg or 2kg is perfect for my mirrorless camera.

However, I wouldn't be using that if I have a pre-planned landscape shooting like you mentioned or if I decide to go traveling somewhere for the sole purpose of taking landscape pictures. You'd still want a super stable tripod like those from Mefoto, Sirui, Gitzo, Manfrotto, etc.

This post has been edited by -kytz-: Feb 14 2019, 09:51 PM