360Photography

Introduction

The Sony a6400 and Fujifilm X-T30 are the two company’s mid-priced mirrorless cameras. They’re 4K-capable cameras with similar resolution APS-C sensors: 24MP on the Sony, 26MP on the Fujifilm.

Both build on the legacies of Gold Award-winning predecessors, which helps establish them as presumed big hitters. And, having tested both cameras extensively, this is a fair assumption: they’re both class-leading cameras. Chris and Jordan from DPReview TV have already looked at their various strengths and weaknesses, so we’re going to look at how they compare for different types of photography.

Spec comparison

From a specs point of view the a6400 and X-T30 look pretty similar: they’re both 4K-capable APS-C mirrorless cameras with very similar price tags. Both cameras offer similar resolution (24MP on the Sony, 26MP on the Fujifilm), both have 2.36M-dot viewfinders and both can shoot at an impressive frame rate 11 fps with autofocus on the Sony, 20 or 8 fps on the Fujifilm (depending on whether you’re in a situation that allows the use of electronic shutter).

The moment you pick them up, it becomes apparent that they’re very different creatures

And yet, the moment you pick them up, it becomes apparent that they’re very different creatures. Differences in performance and radically distinct design philosophies mean picking between the two becomes much more complex than simply ‘which feels more comfortable’ or ‘which has the lenses that I need?’

Handling comparison

The difference in design philosophy is immediately apparent just by looking at them: the Fujifilm is studded (perhaps overwhelmed) with direct control points, including a mixture of dedicated dials and customizable function wheels. By contrast, the Sony has fewer buttons and only the two control dials, which point to a camera that doesn’t invite (or, perhaps, require) such a degree of engagement with its settings.

The Fujifilm is studded (perhaps overwhelmed) with direct control points, the Sony has the more complex menu system

Conversely, the Sony has the more complex menu system, with vast numbers of options lodged in a structure that relies on user memory more than most (though, once configured, your need to delve into the menus can be minimized). The Fujifilm’s menus are crowded but they’re better laid-out and have more indication of where each setting is likely to be found. Both have customizable ‘My Menu’ tabs if you find yourself needing regular access to menu-only options.

The other major difference is in autofocus. Not so much in terms of performance (though the Sony is, as good or better across the board), but in terms of complexity and usability. The Fujifilm has a series of different AF modes that you’re likely to swap between, depending on what you’re trying to shoot, and the choice of using the AF joystick or touchscreen to choose a subject. The Sony also has a wide range of AF area modes but, for most shooting situations, can be left in one mode, pointed at your subject and trusted to follow it, requiring little user input or mode-changing.

Other contenders

The most direct video/stills competitor to the Sony/Fujifilm duo is probably the Panasonic Lumix DC-G95 (G90 or G91 outside North America). It’s also a 4K-capable stills/video camera, but one that brings an image-stabilized 20MP Four Thirds sensor to the table, rather than the unstabilized APS-C chips of the other two. We wouldn’t rule it out just yet, but our initial impressions are that its video and autofocus aren’t up to the same high standards as the pair we’re discussing here.

Canon appears to have retreated from this section of the market for now: it’s more enthusiast-friendly M5 and M6 models now looking rather long in the tooth and lacking 4K video. Olympus’s OM-D E-M10 III is a less-expensive alternative and lacks the AF performance of the more recent APS-C models.

Sports and wildlife

Sports and wildlife is a relatively comfortable win for the Sony. The Fujifilm’s AF system is more than up to the job of shooting sports (especially if you tune the AF behavior, manually follow the action and keep your subject under a Zone AF region), but the Sony system does well without the need for so much intervention, and is especially good at subject tracking.

Lens choice may be the deciding factor here. Both systems offer fairly expensive 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 lenses if you need a lot of reach, but Fujifilm’s APS-C-only version is both smaller and less expensive. Fujifilm offers a 50-140mm F2.8 zoom whose 70-200mm F4-like equivalent behavior is arguably more useful than Sony’s similarly-sized 70-200mm F4 (which ends up behaving more like a full-frame 105-400mm F6 if you mount it on the a6400).

Family and moments

The Sony is the clear winner here, primarily for how easy its autofocus is to use and how well it understands human subjects (focusing on an eye if it can see one, but reliably keeping focus on the same person if they look or turn away). The tenacity with which the a6400 will maintains focus on the person you’ve chosen is simply unequaled.

Both systems include the option of 18-135mm lenses, which provide huge amounts of flexibility

The Fujifilm still makes a handy family camera, though. It requires a little more patience and more user input, but can be paired with lenses such as the 18-55mm F2.8-4.0 OIS, which is a much better and more flexible zoom than the Sony 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 power zoom.

Both systems include the option of 18-135mm lenses, which provide huge amounts of flexibility, though their F3.5-5.6 maximum apertures may not give the shallow depth-of-field or low light advantages over using a good smartphone. Of course, if you don’t regularly zoom-in on your smartphone, it’s worth looking at the available prime lenses for both systems.

Landscape

There’s not a huge amount to choose between the two cameras in terms of landscape shooting. The Fujifilm lens lineup includes a series of nice zooms and a good choice of high-quality F1.4 prime lenses, which might just tip the balance in its favor.

They’re fairly evenly balanced in terms of battery life and portability, and both have rear screens that tilt up for tripod use. There’s not much to choose between the cameras in terms of Raw performance: not all Raw converters do a great job with Fujifilm’s X-Trans sensor pattern, but conversely Sony insists on applying damaging compression to its files, which slightly reduces their flexibility.

Neither camera is especially easy to operate with gloves, though if you deactivated the command dials, the Fujifilm’s dedicated shutter speed, aperture and exposure comp dials are easier to use than the Sony’s rear dial, which is fiddly at the best of times.

Lifestyle and social

The Fujifilm’s attractive JPEG output and selection of lenses makes it a very credible choice for lifestyle and social photography. It has face and eye detection and can offer shallow depth-of-field images if you pair it with the right lens. A wide selection of prime lenses (with a choice of F2 or F1.4 in several focal lengths), makes this pairing easier.

The Sony comes out in front, for us, though, especially on the ‘social’ side of things. Its AF system is more responsive and easier to use when trying to shoot spontaneous photos, particularly of photos with people in them. Added to this, Sigma’s trio of F1.4 lenses may well include a focal length that works for your style of photography.

With its screen that flips all the way up, the Sony is also the clear winner if you want to take selfies.

Formal portraits

When it comes to posed portraiture, again it’s probably a slight win to the Sony. Its uncannily sticky eye-detection system can be entirely relied upon, freeing up the photographer to concentrate on their lighting, their composition and engaging with their subject. Stick the comparatively affordable Sigma 56mm F1.4 on the front and the camera will do much of the rest.

It’s only a slight win, though. Fujifilm’s 56mm F1.2 APD is a lovely portrait lens, as is its 135mm-equiv. 90mm F2 (though neither comes cheap). Eye detection works well, especially with a single subject and the X-T30’s choice of film-mimicking color modes makes it easy to deliver attractive results.

Sony has stronger native flash options, with a radio-frequency remote flash system, but both are well supported by third-party makers, making it easy to find flash heads that can be remotely triggered.

Candid and street

Both the Sony and Fujifilm are pretty small cameras, and can be paired with fairly small lenses (though it’s worth checking whether there’s a small prime lens available in your favored focal length). Both have rear touchscreens that tilt upwards for from-the-hip shooting and both have relatively quiet shutter mechanisms. They both offer completely silent electronic shutter modes, with the Fujifilm exhibiting less rolling shutter distortion in that mode.

Both cameras make it pretty simple to transfer your images to a smartphone, with the Sony offering NFC in addition to Bluetooth, which makes it a little quicker to use with Android devices.

Again the Sony’s simpler, more precise AF system may give it a bit of an edge, particularly for candid people pics. It’s also a little smaller and more discreet.

Video

The Sony a6300 was one of the first sub-$ 1000 cameras to offer really detailed 4K capture, but video performance (and our expectations of it) have been one of the areas of greatest improvement since then. It’s much easier to spot the rather poor rolling shutter performance now that a range of cameras can offer the level of detail capture that once rather dazzled us.

Fujifilm matches the Sony for detail capture but with much less rolling shutter and no crop (as the a6400 does when shooting 30p). And that’s before you consider the Fujifilm’s array of attractive and useful Film Simulation modes (including the flexible Eterna mode and the option of Log capture with a downloadable LUT to make processing easier). Unlike the Sony, the Fujifilm can offer headphone monitoring via a USB-C adapter.

The a6400’s video is easier to point-and-shoot: again thanks to its impressive tap-to-track autofocus, though the X-T30 can track human subjects fairly well. The Fujifilm is the better video tool overall, if you’re serious about videography and are willing to manual focus. There’s even the option to output 10-bit footage if you get serious enough to buy an external recorder.

Conclusion

Looking at these two cameras through the lens of specific photographic applications is an interesting exercise, with the importance of the simplicity and reliability of the a6400’s AF system shining through (when assessing them in general terms we concluded there wasn’t a lot to choose between them).

The a6400’s updated AF system is genuinely phenomenal

We’re still not big fans of the experience of shooting with the Sony: its two command dials are undermined by the need to stop and adjust your grip every time you want to use the lower one. Its menus are still difficult to navigate and its touchscreen is poorly utilized. That said, its updated AF system is genuinely phenomenal, removing, at a stroke, one of the things you previously would have had to mess around with. If your photography benefits from fast, precise focus (particularly for human subjects), the Sony is the stronger choice.

Both these cameras are significantly better than the already good cameras they replace, so there’s no wrong choice here

We still really like the X-T30, though. It looks pretty, is engaging to use and produces attractive JPEGs and consistently better video than the Sony. It’s not without its own usability flaws: the joystick and Q buttons are awkwardly placed and the pressable command dials are fiddly and easily knocked. Overall there are arguably too many control points for such a small camera, but it’s a camera that can be set up to be really enjoyable to use.

Both these cameras are significantly better than the already good cameras they replace, so there’s no wrong choice here. So which is more important to you: the experience of photography or the certainty of getting the shot?

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)