>>3798275Yes, I tried to find lenses that were close based on the 35mm equivalents. The 50mm, 35mm, and 85mm equivalents are close. The Sony kit is over a stop faster for the 135mm and 24mm equivalent lenses. I would have chosen closer equivalents for those too but there aren't any slower primes at those focal lengths in the Sony native system.
The lenses are still faster in Sony; even though f/2.14 is close to f/1.8, it isn't equal. If I were to pick f/1.4 primes for every Sony lens, I could have had it even faster, but that would have falsely exaggerated the price difference. However, if you do want more subject separation and better low light performance (and improved sharpness, contrast, and correction, because the faster lenses tend to be better performers), you have the option of getting better 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses on Sony, whereas on Fuji, you're stuck at the ones I selected.
But I'm not trying to advocate for one over the other. I'm trying to compare them. The way you responded, you make it seem as if you think I'm anti-Fuji, but I'm not.
>>3798275>What you've shown is that you can get the same low light abilities and DoF of the Sony in a much better, smaller and more ergonomic body, for $1,000 less.>same low light abilities and DoFNo, the shadow recovery is better on Sony and the lenses are still faster, even though some of them are close. f/1.8 to f/2 is 1/3 stop, f/2 to f/2.2 is 1/3 stop, so it's just under 2/3 stop difference for the f/1.8 Sony primes, and over a stop difference on the f/1.8 vs f/3.06 and f/1.4 vs f/2.14 primes.
>much better...bodyThat's subjective.
>smaller...bodyNot really. They're extremely close in size, picrel.
>more ergonomic bodyDepends if you prefer dials where your fingers naturally are, SLR-style, versus dials on the lens and on the top of the camera. Subjective.
>for $1,000 less.For $944 less.
