Previous page Next page

Resolution Chart Comparison (JPEG and RAW)

Images on this page are of our standard resolution chart which provides for measurement of resolution up to 4000 LPH (Lines Per Picture Height). A value of 20 equates to 2000 lines per picture height. For each camera we use the relevant prime lens (the same one we use for all the other tests in a particular review). The chart is shot at a full range of apertures and the sharpest image selected. Studio light, cameras set to aperture priority (optimum aperture selected), image parameters default. Exposure compensation set to deliver approximately 80% luminance in the white areas.

What we want to show here is how well the camera is able to resolve the detail in our standard test chart compared to the theoretical maximum resolution of the sensor, which for the charts we shoot is easy to work out - it's simply the number of vertical pixels (the chart shows the number of single lines per picture height, the theoretical limit is 1 line per pixel). Beyond this limit (which when talking about line pairs is usually referred to as the Nyquist frequency) the sensor cannot faithfully record image detail and aliasing occurs.

This limit is rarely attained, because the majority of sensors are fitted with anti-aliasing filters. Anti-aliasing filters are designed to reduce unpleasant moiré effects, but in doing so, they also reduce resolution (the relative strength and quality of these filters varies from camera to camera). The X-E1 uses Fujifilm's unique X-Trans CMOS sensor and therefore doesn't require an anti-aliasing filter, which means that in principle it should be able to deliver resolution closer to its Nyquist limit compared to a Bayer camera with a similar pixel count. Nyquist is indicated in these crops with a red line.

On this page we're looking at both JPEG and RAW resolution. We usually convert the latter using Adobe Camera Raw, but in the case of the X-E1 this results in a lot of processing artifacts, so instead we've chosen to use Raw File Converters. We've use the following workflow for this conversion:

  • Load RAW file into Raw File Converter
  • Set sharpening profile to 'No Sharpness' (all sliders set to 0), all other settings default
  • Save file as a TIFF
  • Open file to Photoshop
  • Apply a Unsharp mask tuned to the camera, here 120%, Radius 0.6, Threshold 0
  • Save as a JPEG quality 11 for download
JPEG (4896 x 3264) 3.4MB RAW (4896 x 3264) 3.2MB

Vertical resolution

JPEG
RAW

Horizontal resolution

JPEG RAW

Like the X-Pro1 the X-E1 shows visibly higher resolution in this chart test than a conventional 16MP Bayer-type camera such as the Nikon D7000, or even the Sony NEX-6 (which has a particularly weak AA filter). In fact, in terms of resolution the Fujifilm is very close indeed to the 24MP Sony NEX-7 or the Sigma SD1, which uses a 15MP Foveon X3 sensor to record full color information at every pixel, and therefore (like the X-E1) uses no AA filter.

These chart shots also show very little of the false color that we'd expect from a Bayer camera with no AA filter - there's a little on the RAW version, just around the point where the X-E1 begins to struggle to accurately resolve the lines on our chart, but none at all in the JPEG. This supports Fujifilm's claim that the X-Trans CMOS is less susceptible to moiré than a Bayer sensor. Last but not least, the X-E1's JPEG processing can deliver just as much resolution as the converted RAW. We were impressed by the X-Pro's and X100's JPEG processing, and the X-E1 lives up to the same standards.

As we often see for a camera with no AA filter, the X-E1 continues to show line structure beyond its Nyquist limit. As usual this is false detail (i.e. it's not an accurate representation of the chart) but in real-world use it often helps give an impression of increased detail anyway.

Previous page Next page
732
I own it
69
I want it
129
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 11
BobFoster

I have had this camera for almost 3 weeks already and I also can’t figure out how to set the minimum shutter speed when using auto ISO, can you shed a light on that?

Thanks!

1 upvote
kreislauf

why was the X-E1 picture taken with a 35mm lens while MFT had the 50mm mounted and FF like A99 or 6D had 85mm???

1 upvote
Menneisyys

The 35mm F1.4 and the 60mm F2.4 Macro (the only two normal / short tele primes at the time of writing) are about equally sharp at f/5.6 and f/8 (see http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1487/cat/105 and http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1486/cat/105 ). In addition, the 35mm doesn't exhibit much field curvature, unlike, say, the latter-released 27mm/f2.8 pancake (more info on this problem: http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/855-fuji27f28?start=1 )

0 upvotes
Menneisyys

(cont'd)

Finally, now that the absolutely stellar (see http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1674/cat/105 ) Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R is out, non-macro people able to shell out the double the price generally prefer it to the old 60mm F2.4. (Of course, this may not have been a point in choosing the 35mm over the 60mm back then. Nevertheless, we are pretty lucky to have a studio shot demoing the field curvature / sharpness of prolly the most popular Fuji X prime, and not that of one that has since been overshadowed by a newly released one.)

0 upvotes
pscharles

continuing my post . . .

I understand why Fujifilm designed the lens rings with those slim grooves for stylistic reasons, but I find myself frequently turning the wrong one because they all feel the same. I'll get used to it, but a rubber ring on the zoom would help. Also, the zoom ring is stiff and those little grooves are slippery. Rubber would help the grip.

I would suggest turning off the image display as the default is 1.5 seconds. The image display clogs up the EVF for 1.5 seconds making it impractical to follow action. It's in the menu under setup screen 2.

1 upvote
pscharles

Had mine a short while, purchased in part due to this review.

A couple things worth mentioning in terms of this review. The exposure compensation dial on my camera has a very firm detent so there's no chance of an inadvertent movement of the dial. I've loaded body firmware 2.0 and 18-55mm lens firmware 3.0. According to Fujifilm, these updates are supposed to address a number of issues, including the slower focusing. I find the camera/lens focus speed to be quite good with this update in place.

0 upvotes
lbpix

Had my xe-1 2 weeks now and I'm blown away by the quality of the images taken with the kit zoom lens. The images could easily be printed at about 50" and are in practice comparable to my D800. AMAZING!
In use too I love it. The EVF whilst not as clear as an SLR viewfinder, tells me all I need to know and enables me to see all the menus without putting on reading specs. I use it exclusively in EVF mode. It is light and handles superbly. The image stabilisation seems incredible- so far, as good as the D800 shots from a tripod! If you're in doubt, go and buy one.

2 upvotes
Deardorff

Can the back screen be turned off completely so only the electronic viewfinder is used for composing and shooting?

0 upvotes
vratnik
0 upvotes
newtonseye

when you say ":but powering off usually cleared the error." can you expand a bit on that. Was there a different fix at another time?

0 upvotes
Deardorff

What about shutter lag? Any appreciable delay from the time one pushes the button til the shutter actually releases?

0 upvotes
Total comments: 11