Mixing
Is there any compact full-frame mirrorless camera?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I want to give mirrorless a shot (I have always and only used DSLRs), especially because I'm enthusiastic for street photography and I want something agile when traveling. I'm also a time-lapse fan.
I see that Sony a7s is full-frame (never had one, would like to try!), but I see also many people (e.g., here) complain that big lenses make it big as a DSLR.
I found also the Fujifilm X-T3 very interesting, it looks more compact when using lenses (is it?) and well-reviewed, but it's not full frame and doesn't seem so good for timelapses (or is it?).
Many recommended me also the Fujifilm X100, but the fixed length makes it a little bit too much constrained in my opinion (even if it looks perfect for street photography).
What do you think about this? Are any valid alternatives for what I am looking for?
sony timelapse fujifilm mirrorless street-photography
edited 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
asked 9 hours ago
user6321
1062
New contributor
user6321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 12 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I want to give mirrorless a shot (I have always and only used DSLRs), especially because I'm enthusiastic for street photography and I want something agile when traveling. I'm also a time-lapse fan.
I see that Sony a7s is full-frame (never had one, would like to try!), but I see also many people (e.g., here) complain that big lenses make it big as a DSLR.
I found also the Fujifilm X-T3 very interesting, it looks more compact when using lenses (is it?) and well-reviewed, but it's not full frame and doesn't seem so good for timelapses (or is it?).
Many recommended me also the Fujifilm X100, but the fixed length makes it a little bit too much constrained in my opinion (even if it looks perfect for street photography).
What do you think about this? Are any valid alternatives for what I am looking for?
sony timelapse fujifilm mirrorless street-photography
edited 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
asked 9 hours ago
user6321
1062
New contributor
user6321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
It depends what you mean by compact, and it depends what lens you want/use. All of the Sony Alpha 7 and 9 series cameras are full-frame, and they look pretty compact to me. There are compact lens options. If you look at a retailer like B&H or something, they have a pretty comprehensive listing and quite a usable website for whittling down options.
– osullic
9 hours ago
3
Also very relevant: When do the differences between APS-C and full frame sensors matter, and why?
– osullic
9 hours ago
I have been looling at the sony a7 series paired with samyangs 35 or 24 mm autofocus lenses as an compact alternative. That package gets quite compact.
– lijat
9 hours ago
APS-C mirrorless aren't thaaaat compact either ... an a6000 with the kit zoom is only marginally more compact than a small full frame film SLR (eg an X700 with the f2/45mm or some Olympus models....)....
– rackandboneman
9 hours ago
3
@user6321 "Good" for low light condition does not necessarily always translate to "good" for astrophotography. Sophisticated noise reduction routines that help reduce image noise in many low light scenes can also "eat stars" when doing astro.
– Michael Clark
7 hours ago
 |Â
show 12 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I want to give mirrorless a shot (I have always and only used DSLRs), especially because I'm enthusiastic for street photography and I want something agile when traveling. I'm also a time-lapse fan.
I see that Sony a7s is full-frame (never had one, would like to try!), but I see also many people (e.g., here) complain that big lenses make it big as a DSLR.
I found also the Fujifilm X-T3 very interesting, it looks more compact when using lenses (is it?) and well-reviewed, but it's not full frame and doesn't seem so good for timelapses (or is it?).
Many recommended me also the Fujifilm X100, but the fixed length makes it a little bit too much constrained in my opinion (even if it looks perfect for street photography).
What do you think about this? Are any valid alternatives for what I am looking for?
sony timelapse fujifilm mirrorless street-photography
edited 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
asked 9 hours ago
user6321
1062
New contributor
user6321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I want to give mirrorless a shot (I have always and only used DSLRs), especially because I'm enthusiastic for street photography and I want something agile when traveling. I'm also a time-lapse fan.
I see that Sony a7s is full-frame (never had one, would like to try!), but I see also many people (e.g., here) complain that big lenses make it big as a DSLR.
I found also the Fujifilm X-T3 very interesting, it looks more compact when using lenses (is it?) and well-reviewed, but it's not full frame and doesn't seem so good for timelapses (or is it?).
Many recommended me also the Fujifilm X100, but the fixed length makes it a little bit too much constrained in my opinion (even if it looks perfect for street photography).
What do you think about this? Are any valid alternatives for what I am looking for?
sony timelapse fujifilm mirrorless street-photography
sony timelapse fujifilm mirrorless street-photography
edited 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
asked 9 hours ago
user6321
1062
New contributor
user6321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
asked 9 hours ago
user6321
1062
New contributor
user6321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
edited 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
edited 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
117k37343633
asked 9 hours ago
user6321
1062
New contributor
user6321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 9 hours ago
user6321
1062
asked 9 hours ago
user6321
1062
1062
New contributor
user6321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user6321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user6321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
It depends what you mean by compact, and it depends what lens you want/use. All of the Sony Alpha 7 and 9 series cameras are full-frame, and they look pretty compact to me. There are compact lens options. If you look at a retailer like B&H or something, they have a pretty comprehensive listing and quite a usable website for whittling down options.
– osullic
9 hours ago
3
Also very relevant: When do the differences between APS-C and full frame sensors matter, and why?
– osullic
9 hours ago
I have been looling at the sony a7 series paired with samyangs 35 or 24 mm autofocus lenses as an compact alternative. That package gets quite compact.
– lijat
9 hours ago
APS-C mirrorless aren't thaaaat compact either ... an a6000 with the kit zoom is only marginally more compact than a small full frame film SLR (eg an X700 with the f2/45mm or some Olympus models....)....
– rackandboneman
9 hours ago
3
@user6321 "Good" for low light condition does not necessarily always translate to "good" for astrophotography. Sophisticated noise reduction routines that help reduce image noise in many low light scenes can also "eat stars" when doing astro.
– Michael Clark
7 hours ago
 |Â
show 12 more comments
4
It depends what you mean by compact, and it depends what lens you want/use. All of the Sony Alpha 7 and 9 series cameras are full-frame, and they look pretty compact to me. There are compact lens options. If you look at a retailer like B&H or something, they have a pretty comprehensive listing and quite a usable website for whittling down options.
– osullic
9 hours ago
3
Also very relevant: When do the differences between APS-C and full frame sensors matter, and why?
– osullic
9 hours ago
I have been looling at the sony a7 series paired with samyangs 35 or 24 mm autofocus lenses as an compact alternative. That package gets quite compact.
– lijat
9 hours ago
APS-C mirrorless aren't thaaaat compact either ... an a6000 with the kit zoom is only marginally more compact than a small full frame film SLR (eg an X700 with the f2/45mm or some Olympus models....)....
– rackandboneman
9 hours ago
3
@user6321 "Good" for low light condition does not necessarily always translate to "good" for astrophotography. Sophisticated noise reduction routines that help reduce image noise in many low light scenes can also "eat stars" when doing astro.
– Michael Clark
7 hours ago
4
4
It depends what you mean by compact, and it depends what lens you want/use. All of the Sony Alpha 7 and 9 series cameras are full-frame, and they look pretty compact to me. There are compact lens options. If you look at a retailer like B&H or something, they have a pretty comprehensive listing and quite a usable website for whittling down options.
– osullic
9 hours ago
It depends what you mean by compact, and it depends what lens you want/use. All of the Sony Alpha 7 and 9 series cameras are full-frame, and they look pretty compact to me. There are compact lens options. If you look at a retailer like B&H or something, they have a pretty comprehensive listing and quite a usable website for whittling down options.
– osullic
9 hours ago
3
3
Also very relevant: When do the differences between APS-C and full frame sensors matter, and why?
– osullic
9 hours ago
Also very relevant: When do the differences between APS-C and full frame sensors matter, and why?
– osullic
9 hours ago
I have been looling at the sony a7 series paired with samyangs 35 or 24 mm autofocus lenses as an compact alternative. That package gets quite compact.
– lijat
9 hours ago
I have been looling at the sony a7 series paired with samyangs 35 or 24 mm autofocus lenses as an compact alternative. That package gets quite compact.
– lijat
9 hours ago
APS-C mirrorless aren't thaaaat compact either ... an a6000 with the kit zoom is only marginally more compact than a small full frame film SLR (eg an X700 with the f2/45mm or some Olympus models....)....
– rackandboneman
9 hours ago
APS-C mirrorless aren't thaaaat compact either ... an a6000 with the kit zoom is only marginally more compact than a small full frame film SLR (eg an X700 with the f2/45mm or some Olympus models....)....
– rackandboneman
9 hours ago
3
3
@user6321 "Good" for low light condition does not necessarily always translate to "good" for astrophotography. Sophisticated noise reduction routines that help reduce image noise in many low light scenes can also "eat stars" when doing astro.
– Michael Clark
7 hours ago
@user6321 "Good" for low light condition does not necessarily always translate to "good" for astrophotography. Sophisticated noise reduction routines that help reduce image noise in many low light scenes can also "eat stars" when doing astro.
– Michael Clark
7 hours ago
 |Â
show 12 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
I don't think you'll find what you're looking for, because: bigger things are bigger than small things. Full-frame cameras are bigger than APS-C cameras Medium format cameras are bigger than full-frame cameras. APS-C cameras are bigger than 1/2.3" format cameras. Just like full-sized pickup trucks are bigger than commuter cars.
I think it likely that you've been somewhat seduced by the forum-discussion-driven mystique around full frame. There's not actually anything inherently superior about that particular sensor size. Yes, it's true that twice the light gathering surface area is nothing to sneeze at. But, exposure in photography works in exponents: doubling is just one stop. (Compare going from f/2.8 to f/2 or from f/2 to f/1.4.)
If size (and price!) are major concerns, APS-C is a pretty awesome sweet spot right now, and will be for the forseeable future.
You say:
Many recommended me also the Fujifilm X100, but the fixed length makes it a little bit too much constrained in my opinion
Which is valid; having an interchangeable lens system lets you pick the lenses that best fit your usage. I'd suggest looking instead at the X-T20, which is quite compact especially when paired with the 35mm f/2 lens or another lens from that series. There are equivalent options from Sony — and even though the Micro Four Thirds sensor is a bit smaller still, Olympus and Panasonic.
You could also look at the X-T3 (which, by the way, is great for time lapses; I don't know where you got the idea that it wouldn't be). However, it is significantly bigger and heavier; you will definitely notice the difference in carrying it all day. It's a commitment while traveling; while it's smaller than some alternatives, I wouldn't really class it as an agile travel camera. For that, go with the smaller (and cheaper!) line.
All of these can produce top-quality astonishing first-class images. You do not need full frame for that. Full frame is not a magic bullet that makes cameras better. It makes them different, and it inherently makes them different in a way which conflicts with your needs.
answered 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
+1 for the philosophical intro
– Alexander von Wernherr
7 hours ago
+1 so far the best answer/comment, I really appreciate it. My enthusiasm for a7s for astrophotography is because it's ff (wider, brighter) and has incredible performance even with high ISO. Check out this video. Up to know, I didn't find any comparable source for the x-t3...but if you do, please share it! :) But it looks also great for street photography (dive deeper here)
– user6321
5 hours ago
I find this a very good video on the subject
– user6321
4 hours ago
All modern cameras have incredible performance. Fujifilm even uses sensors actually produced by Sony. They are very, very, very similar from a technical standpoint. Don't be seduced by people nitpicking the details.
– mattdm
4 hours ago
I find all your argument interesting, and believe me that now the choice for me will be between the Sony a7s (not ii), Fujifilm X-T20 and Fujifilm X-T3. Btw, here's a comparison in size between them, maybe there is a better configuration for Fujifilms ?
– user6321
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
Size and Weight
You should rank order your priorities, including sensor size, camera size, and weight. Although the sizes of the cameras you are considering are similar, their weights are quite different. (See these spec comparisons: 1, 2.) 
Sony A7S II 627g
FujiFilm X-T2 507g
FujiFilm X-T20 383g
Your priorities cannot be equally important by the definitions of 'priority' and 'important'. Further, there is no single camera that meets every possible need. For instance, adding weather sealing necessarily increases weight.
While waiting for new models is an option, it is unrealistic to expect smaller, lighter full-frame cameras because Sony hasn't significantly changed it's full-frame line since inception, FujiFilm has opted to stay out of full-frame, and the new cameras from Canon and Nikon are even larger and heavier.
Canon EOS R 660g
Nikon Z6/Z7 675g
Lens Size
Lens size is a separate issue from camera and sensor size. Lenses with similar specs and designs will have similar sizes, regardless of sensor size or camera type. For instance, FujiFilm's 100-400/4.5-5.6 APS-C lens (94.8mm x 210.5mm) is slightly larger than Tamron's 100-400/4.5-6.3 full-frame lens (86mm x 197mm).
It is unreasonable to do the same thing, yet expect different results. If you purchase fast, constant-aperture zooms, expect them to be large. If you want to have smaller lenses, purchase smaller lenses, such as primes and variable-aperture zooms.
answered 48 mins ago
xiota
6,87721246
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
I don't think you'll find what you're looking for, because: bigger things are bigger than small things. Full-frame cameras are bigger than APS-C cameras Medium format cameras are bigger than full-frame cameras. APS-C cameras are bigger than 1/2.3" format cameras. Just like full-sized pickup trucks are bigger than commuter cars.
I think it likely that you've been somewhat seduced by the forum-discussion-driven mystique around full frame. There's not actually anything inherently superior about that particular sensor size. Yes, it's true that twice the light gathering surface area is nothing to sneeze at. But, exposure in photography works in exponents: doubling is just one stop. (Compare going from f/2.8 to f/2 or from f/2 to f/1.4.)
If size (and price!) are major concerns, APS-C is a pretty awesome sweet spot right now, and will be for the forseeable future.
You say:
Many recommended me also the Fujifilm X100, but the fixed length makes it a little bit too much constrained in my opinion
Which is valid; having an interchangeable lens system lets you pick the lenses that best fit your usage. I'd suggest looking instead at the X-T20, which is quite compact especially when paired with the 35mm f/2 lens or another lens from that series. There are equivalent options from Sony — and even though the Micro Four Thirds sensor is a bit smaller still, Olympus and Panasonic.
You could also look at the X-T3 (which, by the way, is great for time lapses; I don't know where you got the idea that it wouldn't be). However, it is significantly bigger and heavier; you will definitely notice the difference in carrying it all day. It's a commitment while traveling; while it's smaller than some alternatives, I wouldn't really class it as an agile travel camera. For that, go with the smaller (and cheaper!) line.
All of these can produce top-quality astonishing first-class images. You do not need full frame for that. Full frame is not a magic bullet that makes cameras better. It makes them different, and it inherently makes them different in a way which conflicts with your needs.
answered 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
+1 for the philosophical intro
– Alexander von Wernherr
7 hours ago
+1 so far the best answer/comment, I really appreciate it. My enthusiasm for a7s for astrophotography is because it's ff (wider, brighter) and has incredible performance even with high ISO. Check out this video. Up to know, I didn't find any comparable source for the x-t3...but if you do, please share it! :) But it looks also great for street photography (dive deeper here)
– user6321
5 hours ago
I find this a very good video on the subject
– user6321
4 hours ago
All modern cameras have incredible performance. Fujifilm even uses sensors actually produced by Sony. They are very, very, very similar from a technical standpoint. Don't be seduced by people nitpicking the details.
– mattdm
4 hours ago
I find all your argument interesting, and believe me that now the choice for me will be between the Sony a7s (not ii), Fujifilm X-T20 and Fujifilm X-T3. Btw, here's a comparison in size between them, maybe there is a better configuration for Fujifilms ?
– user6321
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
down vote
I don't think you'll find what you're looking for, because: bigger things are bigger than small things. Full-frame cameras are bigger than APS-C cameras Medium format cameras are bigger than full-frame cameras. APS-C cameras are bigger than 1/2.3" format cameras. Just like full-sized pickup trucks are bigger than commuter cars.
I think it likely that you've been somewhat seduced by the forum-discussion-driven mystique around full frame. There's not actually anything inherently superior about that particular sensor size. Yes, it's true that twice the light gathering surface area is nothing to sneeze at. But, exposure in photography works in exponents: doubling is just one stop. (Compare going from f/2.8 to f/2 or from f/2 to f/1.4.)
If size (and price!) are major concerns, APS-C is a pretty awesome sweet spot right now, and will be for the forseeable future.
You say:
Many recommended me also the Fujifilm X100, but the fixed length makes it a little bit too much constrained in my opinion
Which is valid; having an interchangeable lens system lets you pick the lenses that best fit your usage. I'd suggest looking instead at the X-T20, which is quite compact especially when paired with the 35mm f/2 lens or another lens from that series. There are equivalent options from Sony — and even though the Micro Four Thirds sensor is a bit smaller still, Olympus and Panasonic.
You could also look at the X-T3 (which, by the way, is great for time lapses; I don't know where you got the idea that it wouldn't be). However, it is significantly bigger and heavier; you will definitely notice the difference in carrying it all day. It's a commitment while traveling; while it's smaller than some alternatives, I wouldn't really class it as an agile travel camera. For that, go with the smaller (and cheaper!) line.
All of these can produce top-quality astonishing first-class images. You do not need full frame for that. Full frame is not a magic bullet that makes cameras better. It makes them different, and it inherently makes them different in a way which conflicts with your needs.
answered 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
+1 for the philosophical intro
– Alexander von Wernherr
7 hours ago
+1 so far the best answer/comment, I really appreciate it. My enthusiasm for a7s for astrophotography is because it's ff (wider, brighter) and has incredible performance even with high ISO. Check out this video. Up to know, I didn't find any comparable source for the x-t3...but if you do, please share it! :) But it looks also great for street photography (dive deeper here)
– user6321
5 hours ago
I find this a very good video on the subject
– user6321
4 hours ago
All modern cameras have incredible performance. Fujifilm even uses sensors actually produced by Sony. They are very, very, very similar from a technical standpoint. Don't be seduced by people nitpicking the details.
– mattdm
4 hours ago
I find all your argument interesting, and believe me that now the choice for me will be between the Sony a7s (not ii), Fujifilm X-T20 and Fujifilm X-T3. Btw, here's a comparison in size between them, maybe there is a better configuration for Fujifilms ?
– user6321
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
I don't think you'll find what you're looking for, because: bigger things are bigger than small things. Full-frame cameras are bigger than APS-C cameras Medium format cameras are bigger than full-frame cameras. APS-C cameras are bigger than 1/2.3" format cameras. Just like full-sized pickup trucks are bigger than commuter cars.
I think it likely that you've been somewhat seduced by the forum-discussion-driven mystique around full frame. There's not actually anything inherently superior about that particular sensor size. Yes, it's true that twice the light gathering surface area is nothing to sneeze at. But, exposure in photography works in exponents: doubling is just one stop. (Compare going from f/2.8 to f/2 or from f/2 to f/1.4.)
If size (and price!) are major concerns, APS-C is a pretty awesome sweet spot right now, and will be for the forseeable future.
You say:
Many recommended me also the Fujifilm X100, but the fixed length makes it a little bit too much constrained in my opinion
Which is valid; having an interchangeable lens system lets you pick the lenses that best fit your usage. I'd suggest looking instead at the X-T20, which is quite compact especially when paired with the 35mm f/2 lens or another lens from that series. There are equivalent options from Sony — and even though the Micro Four Thirds sensor is a bit smaller still, Olympus and Panasonic.
You could also look at the X-T3 (which, by the way, is great for time lapses; I don't know where you got the idea that it wouldn't be). However, it is significantly bigger and heavier; you will definitely notice the difference in carrying it all day. It's a commitment while traveling; while it's smaller than some alternatives, I wouldn't really class it as an agile travel camera. For that, go with the smaller (and cheaper!) line.
All of these can produce top-quality astonishing first-class images. You do not need full frame for that. Full frame is not a magic bullet that makes cameras better. It makes them different, and it inherently makes them different in a way which conflicts with your needs.
answered 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
I don't think you'll find what you're looking for, because: bigger things are bigger than small things. Full-frame cameras are bigger than APS-C cameras Medium format cameras are bigger than full-frame cameras. APS-C cameras are bigger than 1/2.3" format cameras. Just like full-sized pickup trucks are bigger than commuter cars.
I think it likely that you've been somewhat seduced by the forum-discussion-driven mystique around full frame. There's not actually anything inherently superior about that particular sensor size. Yes, it's true that twice the light gathering surface area is nothing to sneeze at. But, exposure in photography works in exponents: doubling is just one stop. (Compare going from f/2.8 to f/2 or from f/2 to f/1.4.)
If size (and price!) are major concerns, APS-C is a pretty awesome sweet spot right now, and will be for the forseeable future.
You say:
Many recommended me also the Fujifilm X100, but the fixed length makes it a little bit too much constrained in my opinion
Which is valid; having an interchangeable lens system lets you pick the lenses that best fit your usage. I'd suggest looking instead at the X-T20, which is quite compact especially when paired with the 35mm f/2 lens or another lens from that series. There are equivalent options from Sony — and even though the Micro Four Thirds sensor is a bit smaller still, Olympus and Panasonic.
You could also look at the X-T3 (which, by the way, is great for time lapses; I don't know where you got the idea that it wouldn't be). However, it is significantly bigger and heavier; you will definitely notice the difference in carrying it all day. It's a commitment while traveling; while it's smaller than some alternatives, I wouldn't really class it as an agile travel camera. For that, go with the smaller (and cheaper!) line.
All of these can produce top-quality astonishing first-class images. You do not need full frame for that. Full frame is not a magic bullet that makes cameras better. It makes them different, and it inherently makes them different in a way which conflicts with your needs.
answered 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
edited 5 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
answered 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
answered 7 hours ago
mattdm
117k37343633
117k37343633
+1 for the philosophical intro
– Alexander von Wernherr
7 hours ago
+1 so far the best answer/comment, I really appreciate it. My enthusiasm for a7s for astrophotography is because it's ff (wider, brighter) and has incredible performance even with high ISO. Check out this video. Up to know, I didn't find any comparable source for the x-t3...but if you do, please share it! :) But it looks also great for street photography (dive deeper here)
– user6321
5 hours ago
I find this a very good video on the subject
– user6321
4 hours ago
All modern cameras have incredible performance. Fujifilm even uses sensors actually produced by Sony. They are very, very, very similar from a technical standpoint. Don't be seduced by people nitpicking the details.
– mattdm
4 hours ago
I find all your argument interesting, and believe me that now the choice for me will be between the Sony a7s (not ii), Fujifilm X-T20 and Fujifilm X-T3. Btw, here's a comparison in size between them, maybe there is a better configuration for Fujifilms ?
– user6321
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
+1 for the philosophical intro
– Alexander von Wernherr
7 hours ago
+1 so far the best answer/comment, I really appreciate it. My enthusiasm for a7s for astrophotography is because it's ff (wider, brighter) and has incredible performance even with high ISO. Check out this video. Up to know, I didn't find any comparable source for the x-t3...but if you do, please share it! :) But it looks also great for street photography (dive deeper here)
– user6321
5 hours ago
I find this a very good video on the subject
– user6321
4 hours ago
All modern cameras have incredible performance. Fujifilm even uses sensors actually produced by Sony. They are very, very, very similar from a technical standpoint. Don't be seduced by people nitpicking the details.
– mattdm
4 hours ago
I find all your argument interesting, and believe me that now the choice for me will be between the Sony a7s (not ii), Fujifilm X-T20 and Fujifilm X-T3. Btw, here's a comparison in size between them, maybe there is a better configuration for Fujifilms ?
– user6321
3 hours ago
+1 for the philosophical intro
– Alexander von Wernherr
7 hours ago
+1 for the philosophical intro
– Alexander von Wernherr
7 hours ago
+1 so far the best answer/comment, I really appreciate it. My enthusiasm for a7s for astrophotography is because it's ff (wider, brighter) and has incredible performance even with high ISO. Check out this video. Up to know, I didn't find any comparable source for the x-t3...but if you do, please share it! :) But it looks also great for street photography (dive deeper here)
– user6321
5 hours ago
+1 so far the best answer/comment, I really appreciate it. My enthusiasm for a7s for astrophotography is because it's ff (wider, brighter) and has incredible performance even with high ISO. Check out this video. Up to know, I didn't find any comparable source for the x-t3...but if you do, please share it! :) But it looks also great for street photography (dive deeper here)
– user6321
5 hours ago
I find this a very good video on the subject
– user6321
4 hours ago
I find this a very good video on the subject
– user6321
4 hours ago
All modern cameras have incredible performance. Fujifilm even uses sensors actually produced by Sony. They are very, very, very similar from a technical standpoint. Don't be seduced by people nitpicking the details.
– mattdm
4 hours ago
All modern cameras have incredible performance. Fujifilm even uses sensors actually produced by Sony. They are very, very, very similar from a technical standpoint. Don't be seduced by people nitpicking the details.
– mattdm
4 hours ago
I find all your argument interesting, and believe me that now the choice for me will be between the Sony a7s (not ii), Fujifilm X-T20 and Fujifilm X-T3. Btw, here's a comparison in size between them, maybe there is a better configuration for Fujifilms ?
– user6321
3 hours ago
I find all your argument interesting, and believe me that now the choice for me will be between the Sony a7s (not ii), Fujifilm X-T20 and Fujifilm X-T3. Btw, here's a comparison in size between them, maybe there is a better configuration for Fujifilms ?
– user6321
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
Size and Weight
You should rank order your priorities, including sensor size, camera size, and weight. Although the sizes of the cameras you are considering are similar, their weights are quite different. (See these spec comparisons: 1, 2.) 
Sony A7S II 627g
FujiFilm X-T2 507g
FujiFilm X-T20 383g
Your priorities cannot be equally important by the definitions of 'priority' and 'important'. Further, there is no single camera that meets every possible need. For instance, adding weather sealing necessarily increases weight.
While waiting for new models is an option, it is unrealistic to expect smaller, lighter full-frame cameras because Sony hasn't significantly changed it's full-frame line since inception, FujiFilm has opted to stay out of full-frame, and the new cameras from Canon and Nikon are even larger and heavier.
Canon EOS R 660g
Nikon Z6/Z7 675g
Lens Size
Lens size is a separate issue from camera and sensor size. Lenses with similar specs and designs will have similar sizes, regardless of sensor size or camera type. For instance, FujiFilm's 100-400/4.5-5.6 APS-C lens (94.8mm x 210.5mm) is slightly larger than Tamron's 100-400/4.5-6.3 full-frame lens (86mm x 197mm).
It is unreasonable to do the same thing, yet expect different results. If you purchase fast, constant-aperture zooms, expect them to be large. If you want to have smaller lenses, purchase smaller lenses, such as primes and variable-aperture zooms.
answered 48 mins ago
xiota
6,87721246
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Size and Weight
You should rank order your priorities, including sensor size, camera size, and weight. Although the sizes of the cameras you are considering are similar, their weights are quite different. (See these spec comparisons: 1, 2.) 
Sony A7S II 627g
FujiFilm X-T2 507g
FujiFilm X-T20 383g
Your priorities cannot be equally important by the definitions of 'priority' and 'important'. Further, there is no single camera that meets every possible need. For instance, adding weather sealing necessarily increases weight.
While waiting for new models is an option, it is unrealistic to expect smaller, lighter full-frame cameras because Sony hasn't significantly changed it's full-frame line since inception, FujiFilm has opted to stay out of full-frame, and the new cameras from Canon and Nikon are even larger and heavier.
Canon EOS R 660g
Nikon Z6/Z7 675g
Lens Size
Lens size is a separate issue from camera and sensor size. Lenses with similar specs and designs will have similar sizes, regardless of sensor size or camera type. For instance, FujiFilm's 100-400/4.5-5.6 APS-C lens (94.8mm x 210.5mm) is slightly larger than Tamron's 100-400/4.5-6.3 full-frame lens (86mm x 197mm).
It is unreasonable to do the same thing, yet expect different results. If you purchase fast, constant-aperture zooms, expect them to be large. If you want to have smaller lenses, purchase smaller lenses, such as primes and variable-aperture zooms.
answered 48 mins ago
xiota
6,87721246
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Size and Weight
You should rank order your priorities, including sensor size, camera size, and weight. Although the sizes of the cameras you are considering are similar, their weights are quite different. (See these spec comparisons: 1, 2.) 
Sony A7S II 627g
FujiFilm X-T2 507g
FujiFilm X-T20 383g
Your priorities cannot be equally important by the definitions of 'priority' and 'important'. Further, there is no single camera that meets every possible need. For instance, adding weather sealing necessarily increases weight.
While waiting for new models is an option, it is unrealistic to expect smaller, lighter full-frame cameras because Sony hasn't significantly changed it's full-frame line since inception, FujiFilm has opted to stay out of full-frame, and the new cameras from Canon and Nikon are even larger and heavier.
Canon EOS R 660g
Nikon Z6/Z7 675g
Lens Size
Lens size is a separate issue from camera and sensor size. Lenses with similar specs and designs will have similar sizes, regardless of sensor size or camera type. For instance, FujiFilm's 100-400/4.5-5.6 APS-C lens (94.8mm x 210.5mm) is slightly larger than Tamron's 100-400/4.5-6.3 full-frame lens (86mm x 197mm).
It is unreasonable to do the same thing, yet expect different results. If you purchase fast, constant-aperture zooms, expect them to be large. If you want to have smaller lenses, purchase smaller lenses, such as primes and variable-aperture zooms.
answered 48 mins ago
xiota
6,87721246
Size and Weight
You should rank order your priorities, including sensor size, camera size, and weight. Although the sizes of the cameras you are considering are similar, their weights are quite different. (See these spec comparisons: 1, 2.) 
Sony A7S II 627g
FujiFilm X-T2 507g
FujiFilm X-T20 383g
Your priorities cannot be equally important by the definitions of 'priority' and 'important'. Further, there is no single camera that meets every possible need. For instance, adding weather sealing necessarily increases weight.
While waiting for new models is an option, it is unrealistic to expect smaller, lighter full-frame cameras because Sony hasn't significantly changed it's full-frame line since inception, FujiFilm has opted to stay out of full-frame, and the new cameras from Canon and Nikon are even larger and heavier.
Canon EOS R 660g
Nikon Z6/Z7 675g
Lens Size
Lens size is a separate issue from camera and sensor size. Lenses with similar specs and designs will have similar sizes, regardless of sensor size or camera type. For instance, FujiFilm's 100-400/4.5-5.6 APS-C lens (94.8mm x 210.5mm) is slightly larger than Tamron's 100-400/4.5-6.3 full-frame lens (86mm x 197mm).
It is unreasonable to do the same thing, yet expect different results. If you purchase fast, constant-aperture zooms, expect them to be large. If you want to have smaller lenses, purchase smaller lenses, such as primes and variable-aperture zooms.
answered 48 mins ago
xiota
6,87721246
edited 18 mins ago
answered 48 mins ago
xiota
6,87721246
answered 48 mins ago
xiota
6,87721246
answered 48 mins ago
xiota
6,87721246
6,87721246
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
user6321 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user6321 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user6321 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user6321 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f102373%2fis-there-any-compact-full-frame-mirrorless-camera%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
4
It depends what you mean by compact, and it depends what lens you want/use. All of the Sony Alpha 7 and 9 series cameras are full-frame, and they look pretty compact to me. There are compact lens options. If you look at a retailer like B&H or something, they have a pretty comprehensive listing and quite a usable website for whittling down options.
– osullic
9 hours ago
3
Also very relevant: When do the differences between APS-C and full frame sensors matter, and why?
– osullic
9 hours ago
I have been looling at the sony a7 series paired with samyangs 35 or 24 mm autofocus lenses as an compact alternative. That package gets quite compact.
– lijat
9 hours ago
APS-C mirrorless aren't thaaaat compact either ... an a6000 with the kit zoom is only marginally more compact than a small full frame film SLR (eg an X700 with the f2/45mm or some Olympus models....)....
– rackandboneman
9 hours ago
3
@user6321 "Good" for low light condition does not necessarily always translate to "good" for astrophotography. Sophisticated noise reduction routines that help reduce image noise in many low light scenes can also "eat stars" when doing astro.
– Michael Clark
7 hours ago