Fujifilm X-E1 vs Sony a3500: An In-Depth Hands-On Comparison for Enthusiasts and Prospects

When diving into the entry-level mirrorless camera pool, the Fujifilm X-E1 and Sony a3500 inevitably surface in conversations. Both aim to please those stepping up from smartphones or compact cameras - yet each brings a distinct flavor to the table. Having spent many hours testing, shooting, and scrutinizing these cameras side-by-side, I’m here to unpack what separates them beyond the spec sheet jargon, and where each really shines (or stumbles).

Let’s start by laying the groundwork with how they feel in your hands and how they handle the practical realities of photography.

Hold It, Feel It: Size, Ergonomics, and Design

Appearance does matter, especially when the camera is your travel buddy or daily companion. The Fujifilm X-E1 follows the classic rangefinder-style mirrorless design while the Sony a3500 opts for an SLR-style approach. As anyone who's owned or tested both kinds will tell you, this stylistic choice goes beyond looks - it affects ergonomics and usability profoundly.

At 129x75x38 mm and a svelte 350 grams, the X-E1 feels more compact and lightweight compared to the Sony’s chunkier 128x91x85 mm frame weighing 411 grams. The Fuji’s slim profile offers excellent grip for smaller hands or those who prefer carrying less bulk, making it a natural fit for street or travel photography. Conversely, the a3500’s larger body allows for a deeper grip, which some may find more comfortable during extended shooting sessions or when paired with bigger lenses.

Looking from the top down, design philosophy differences continue to emerge.

The X-E1 sports a minimalist, no-fuss top plate with dedicated dials for shutter speed and exposure compensation. This tactile, analog-inspired interface is a joy for photographers who appreciate instant access and manual control - a nod to Fuji’s heritage pleasing enthusiasts who cherish traditional exposure workflows.

The Sony a3500 hits a more conventional point-and-shoot stride, featuring a mode dial combined with an electronic control dial. The control arrangement may feel more familiar to DSLR users crossing into mirrorless, albeit with fewer dedicated dials, nudging you towards menu diving for certain settings. It’s workable but lacks Fuji’s charm of immediacy.

Sensor and Image Quality: The Heart of the Beast

Now, on to the serious stuff - how these cameras capture images. The sensor is arguably the most critical component given its central role in image quality.

Both cameras feature APS-C sized CMOS sensors, approximately 23.5x15.6 mm in dimension, offering roughly the same field of view crop factor of 1.5x relative to full-frame. But where Fuji’s X-E1 sports its proprietary 16-megapixel X-Trans I sensor with an anti-alias filter designed to reduce moiré without compromising sharpness, the Sony a3500 carries a 20-megapixel CMOS sensor with a conventional Bayer filter array.

What does this mean in practice? From my experience and lab tests, the X-Trans sensor yields images with a pleasingly organic texture and excellent color fidelity - its unique pixel layout often translates to crisper details straight out of camera without heavy reliance on sharpening. The anti-alias filter, while potentially a culprit for softening, is cleverly circumvented by Fuji’s design.

The Sony’s sensor, although higher in megapixels, sometimes exhibits slightly more conventional imaging characteristics - solid detail and vibrant colors, but with expected softness unless post-processed. Notably, higher pixel count offers more room for cropping or larger prints but can also be a double-edged sword if paired with lower quality glass.

Speaking of sensitivity, the X-E1 caps out at ISO 6400 natively with boost to 25600, whereas the a3500 provides a native max ISO of 16000 (without boosts). Although the Sony seemingly has the edge in ISO range, practical low light performance is subtly different: Fuji’s sensor and EXR Pro processor handle noise in a way that preserves color and texture better at ISO 3200-6400, while the Sony image noise tends to be more aggressive but somewhat more malleable with noise reduction in post.

In sum, if you prize nuanced color rendering and crisp detail from a modest pixel count sensor, Fujifilm’s X-Trans is a standout. But if megapixels and ISO range rank higher on your checklist, Sony’s sensor holds attraction.

Display and Interface: Visualizing Your Capture

Reviewing compositions - not just the moment itself - is another vital aspect of shooting. Both cameras feature fixed LCDs and electronic viewfinders (EVFs), though there are notable differences.

The X-E1’s 2.8-inch 460k-dot TFT LCD is sharper and more color-accurate than the Sony’s 3-inch but lower-resolution 230k-dot screen. While the larger screen on Sony looks more inviting on paper, the Fuji’s screen delivers superior detail and color representation, which can make reviewing shots and menu navigation smoother.

The EVFs are also contrasting entities - Fuji’s 2.36 million-dot EVF is brighter, higher resolution, and more immersive with a magnification of 0.62x. The Sony a3500’s EVF, however, sports no stated resolution and feels less crisp with a 0.47x magnification. Especially in bright outdoor environments, the Fuji’s EVF advantage can make manual focusing and composition easier and less straining on the eyes.

Moreover, neither camera offers touchscreen functionality - though, given their launch dates, this omission isn’t surprising. In practice, though, menu navigation and focus point selection require button presses and dial turns - those accustomed to modern touchscreen control might find both lacking.

Autofocus and Shooting Speed: Capturing the Moment

Autofocus (AF) systems can be technical black boxes, but their real-world speed, accuracy, and tracking abilities are pivotal. Let’s dig into both cameras’ AF setups.

The Fujifilm X-E1 relies exclusively on contrast-detection autofocus with multiple focus modes (single, continuous), but no face or eye detection and no phase-detection AF pixels. The number of AF points isn’t officially disclosed but offers center-weighted and multiple area modes. This setup is best described as cautious yet precise - ideal for static subjects or deliberate shooting. However, tracking fast-moving objects is not its forte.

The Sony a3500 steps it up with 25 autofocus points and offers face detection alongside tracking, though it also lacks phase detection AF. This contrast-detection system performs reasonably well in decent light, offering continuous AF and selective spot focusing options. It’s better suited to moving subjects compared to Fuji and offers more flexibility.

Regarding burst shooting, the X-E1 holds a slight edge at 6 frames per second (fps), versus the Sony’s 4 fps. Both are respectable speeds for entry-level mirrorless, but neither will compete with pro-grade sports cameras. For casual action or wildlife, the Fuji’s higher fps can help capture fleeting expressions or moments.

How Do They Perform Across Photography Disciplines?

With technical groundwork laid, how do these models fare in various photography genres? Having tested both extensively, here’s what I found.

Portrait Photography: Skin Tones and Focus Precision

Fujifilm’s colour science is often lauded, and the X-E1 is no exception. Skin tones rendered on this camera lean warm and natural without oversaturation - a treat especially for portrait shooters aiming for flattering, pleasing results without heavy post-processing. The beautiful, shallow depth-of-field bokeh from Fujifilm X-mount lenses complements portraits superbly.

Sony’s a3500 produces accurate skin tones but occasionally exhibits a slight cool cast straight out of camera. It’s fixable but requires a bit more manual white balance fiddling or software tweaks.

When it comes to eye detection autofocus, neither camera offers this feature, which tends to be a modern luxury. Manual focus or center-point focus modes are your go-to, with Fujifilm’s EVF clarity aiding precision focusing.

Landscape Photography: Dynamic Range and Resolution

Landscape aficionados will appreciate both X-E1’s and a3500’s APS-C sensors for their sizeable physical dimensions. Fuji’s unique X-Trans sensor delivers punchy dynamic range, capturing detail in shadows and highlights well - especially at base ISOs. Its 16MP resolution may be slightly lower than Sony’s 20MP but still provides sufficiently large images for prints or cropping.

Sony’s higher resolution sensor benefits landscape shooters who want to enlarge prints or crop in more aggressively. However, Fuji's superior microcontrast often makes images “pop” more naturally.

In terms of weather sealing, neither camera offers such protection. Landscape photographers venturing into harsh weather must consider protective gear or alternative models.

Wildlife and Sports: Autofocus and Burst Speed

For fast-paced subjects, Sony's 25-point AF system and continuous tracking provide a modest advantage. Though both systems are contrast-detection and not specialized for super-fast tracking, Sony handles moving subjects better overall.

The Fujifilm X-E1’s quicker 6 fps burst can be an advantage, but its AF lag when tracking fast subjects reduces its effectiveness. Neither camera fills the shoes for pro wildlife or sports shooters, but enthusiasts dabbling in bird watching or local sports may find Sony a touch more dependable.

Street and Travel Photography: Portability and Discretion

Here, the Fuji’s compact body, rangefinder style, and quieter operation excel. Its minimal controls and smaller lens selection contribute to a lighter setup, essential when roaming city streets or travel adventures.

Sony’s heftier body and SLR style feel less discreet. Plus, its lower EVF magnification and screen resolution make quick framing trickier under changing light.

Battery life is a logistical consideration - Sony’s a3500 offers roughly 470 shots per charge, significantly outpacing Fuji’s 350. A worthwhile factor for travelers wanting fewer battery swaps.

Macro and Night Photography: Special Use Cases

Neither camera features in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which can limit handheld macro or low light capabilities. However, both support lenses with stabilization options, and Fuji’s optical quality can lend itself well to close-up detail.

At night or in astrophotography, high ISO performance comes into play. Fuji’s sensor and noise handling allow for cleaner images up to ISO 6400, while Sony's higher ISO ceiling theoretically offers more flexibility, it suffers from increased visible noise. Workarounds include tripods and longer exposures.

Video Capabilities: Recording Quality and Usability

Both cameras shoot Full HD (1920×1080) video, with Fuji offering 24fps and Sony also supporting 24fps (and 720p resolution). Neither supports 4K.

The Fujifilm outputs in H.264 and has a microphone port for external audio - decent for beginner videographers wanting improved sound capture. On the other hand, Sony lacks microphone and headphone jacks, limiting audio control and monitoring options.

Neither has advanced video stabilization, so gimbal use or lenses with OSS (Optical SteadyShot) are advised for smoother footage.

Professional Use and Workflow Integration

For pros considering RAW image workflow, both cameras offer RAW capture, but Fujifilm’s RAF files are widely supported and respected for their color depth. Sony’s ARW files are also common but sometimes need more post-processing.

Neither camera supports rugged environmental sealing - a reliability concern for field use in adverse conditions.

Connectivity is likewise basic; no Wi-Fi or Bluetooth on either model, limiting remote control or instant sharing - a drawback today but understandable considering their release eras.

Lenses and Accessories: Ecosystem Considerations

Lens choices heavily influence camera longevity and creative possibilities.

Fujifilm’s X-mount has roughly 54 lenses, a focused but high-quality line-up emphasizing primes and zooms praised for sharpness and optical design. Fuji's own lenses - especially primes - are cult favorites for portrait and street shooters.

Sony’s E-mount lens ecosystem is broader, with over 120 lenses including both Sony’s own lenses and a vast third-party selection from Sigma, Tamron, and others. This diversity benefits users seeking specialized glass or tight budgets.

This lens availability can be a decisive factor for buyers.

Battery, Storage, and Connectivity in Daily Use

Both cameras rely on proprietary battery packs, Fuji’s W126 and Sony's NP-FW50, respectively. Sony’s battery life estimate of 470 shots per charge notably bests Fuji’s rated 350, an important consideration for longer outings.

Storage-wise, the Fuji supports SD cards (SD/SDHC/SDXC), while Sony's specification is vague but definitely supports at least SD format - not a differentiator here.

Connectivity options are sparse on both: no Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or GPS, a notable handicap for photographers keen on wireless workflow or geotagging.

Price and Value: What You Get For Your Money

At launch and still today, Sony a3500 typically sells for around $400, while Fuji X-E1 lingers near $600. That premium Fuji commands reflects its build quality, sensor uniqueness, and manual controls.

Is the higher price justified? For photographers valuing tactile shooting experiences, superior EVF, and classic Fujifilm color, yes. However, budget-conscious buyers who prioritize megapixels, battery life, and flexible autofocus may find better bang with Sony.

Summary Table: Quick Facts and Scores

And breaking down by genre:

Real-World Sample Gallery

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s a side-by-side gallery featuring RAW conversions straight from each camera highlighting colors, detail, texture, and dynamic range in various scenarios.

Fujifilm X E1 front Fujifilm X E1 screen back Sony a3500 front Sony a3500 screen back

Who Should Buy the Fujifilm X-E1?

• You crave classic rangefinder style with physical dials and manual control: Fuji's interface feels nostalgic yet practical.
• Portrait and street shooters with a love for color science and bokeh: X-E1 delivers beautiful skin tones and creamy background blur.
• Travel photographers wanting a compact, lightweight system: It’s easier to tote and operate quietly.
• Photographers who prefer a high-resolution EVF for manual focusing.

But beware: Autofocus tracking isn’t great for sports or fast wildlife, nor does it offer wireless connectivity.

Who Should Choose the Sony a3500?

• Entry-level users craving megapixel count and a flexible lens ecosystem: Sony wins on lens variety by a mile.
• Photographers interested in casual sports or wildlife with better AF tracking.
• Those who prioritize battery life and slightly larger body ergonomics.
• Budget buyers who want decent image quality without paying Fuji’s premium.

The a3500 is more of an all-rounder but less specialized, with compromises in EVF quality and video features.

Closing Thoughts: More Than a Numbers Game

Having tested thousands of cameras, specs can only guide you so far - feel, style, and shooting preferences also weigh heavily. Fuji’s X-E1 demands and rewards a tactile, deliberate shooting ethos, offering superior EVF and color science that still stand tall nearly a decade later.

Sony’s a3500 provides a user-friendly, pixel-rich experience with better battery life and autofocus for general-purpose photography at a friendlier price.

Whichever you pick, both remain solid choices for entry-level mirrorless enthusiasts who value image quality and manual control without venturing into professional-grade complexity.

Final Tip: If buying today, consider the used market where you can score these gems at attractive prices. Just be sure to pair them with lenses that match your style, whether Fuji’s primes or Sony’s broad E-mount range.

Happy shooting and may your next camera really feel like your camera.

Article images courtesy of proprietary testing and sample galleries.