Fujifilm X-A1 real-world and test scene samples

Have you compared the samples to each other side by side? The difference is not subtle, it is glaringly obvious - you can see it from Mars. This affects yellows and greens with a texture of all kinds quite a lot. Especially problematic when upsampled for large prints..

Jan 2, 2014permalink

jenbenn

RIght, such detail does not matter most of the times. But why build an x-trans sensor if the bayer sensor is superior (even be it ever so slightly)??????
As regards the lack of moiré , no, the xtrans is not any better than a bayer sensor with AA filter. (It is actually worse, just google for the online comparisms if you don believe me) The jpeg proessing has nothing to do with the colur filter of the sensor. e.g you can easily have fuji colours and lack of noise out of bayer filter. Thus, I would prefer if all fuji cameras had the x-a1 sensor. There is simply no adavantage in x-trans. It is just a marketing hype, selling people an inferior sensor for inflated prices. Honestly, I am not here to bash fuji. I think they build the best handling and well rounded mirrorless cameras with thze best lens selection on the market. It is just stupid that they go with an inferior sensor, even though they can do better as the x-a1 shows.

Jan 2, 2014permalink

oscarvdvelde

There are other comparisons which clearly show X-Trans to have the edge. But DPReview uses Adobe Camera RAW whose X-Trans conversions are still not as good as some other converters.

Jan 5, 2014permalink

How do you explain the poor results of the xtrans sensor on the out of camera jpg images in the textured greens and yellows of the studio scene test sample then? No camera raw involved in that.

Jan 5, 2014permalink

SiliconVoid

You know not what you speak of..
Your looking at the difference in raw converter (w/ raw files) and base jpg settings (w/ ooc jpgs) NOT the difference in sensors. The X-Trans sensors have better iso performance and detail resolve than comparable bayer array sensors, period.
Will that be the case forever, probably not, but is the reality atm. One would hope that manufacturers will get back to designing sensors with more concern in ISO performance rather than super high mp that you have to throw away (downsampling) but it is likely that it won't happen until some proverbial threshold is reached in mp..

You won't find it on DPR but you can find plenty of other sources that process X-Trans raw files with different apps than Adobe that show more of what the sensors can do.. Just because Adobe products are the most used doesn't mean they are the best to use - if you have trouble grasping that simple concept you probably should not be publicly voicing your criticisms of the products.

Jan 8, 2014permalink

srados

Not from DPR but this is too dark in shadows...http://www.pbase.com/photogenix/image/153986940

Jan 2, 2014permalink

Geir Ove

Hello DPReview Staff,

When can we expect to see the X-E2 Review? I have to resort to other sites to find Reviews nowadays; this is not like it was in the Phil Askey days...

Jan 2, 2014*permalink

Hugo808

I'll help out.

The XE-2 is an XE-1 with a bigger screen and faster focusing. Other than that you can't tell them apart.

I didn't like the XE-1 but those two things make the XE-2 a much much nicer camera to use. If only it had the fold out screen of the XM-1 it would be perfect....

Jan 2, 2014*permalink

It has a significant difference to the XE-1 in that the jpegs have less shadow range. Shadow setting at 0 is the equivalent of +1 on the XE-1.

For low contrast jpeg shooters (like portraits) this is a major bummer.

Jan 2, 2014permalink

Geir Ove

@Hugo808

Thanks, I already knew these facts. However, the same things can be said for every Canon and Nikon incremental model as well: Does this mean DPR should only review the first model, and then state that the newer models are "almost the same" QED ?

Jan 2, 2014permalink

copy and paste is an important work at DPReview.

Jan 2, 2014*permalink

Northgrove

@itsastickup: Interesting info that I actually haven't heard elsewhere. But why can't you just set it to +1 and forget it?

Jan 5, 2014permalink

"But why can't you just set it to +1 and forget it?"

What I meant is that the XE-2 loses on the shadow range. It goes down to an equivalent of -1 on the XE1, instead of -2.

I always have my cam on -2 and would prefer it on -3, and that's the XP1 which is the same as the XE-1.

I was thinking of getting the XE2 until I came across these and other problems.

Jan 11, 2014permalink

malteser01

Hmm...'real-world'. How do you figure? In the real world, this camera is going to be bought with the XC16-50, not the XF18-55. Yet you've used the XF lens in all these shots. So 'interesting' would be more appropriate since these shots allow direct comparison with the higher end cameras in the X series, but they're not really representative of what most XA1 buyers will expect.

That said, does this mean we can finally see DXO tests of the rest of the Fuji lenses? After all, this is a bayer array which is supported!

Jan 2, 2014permalink

Hugo808

Hey DPR, have you changed the way pictures download in the real world section?

When I click on "original" all I get is a thumbnail that doesn't open at a click of the mouse like they did last week.

Or is it just my computer?

Jan 1, 2014permalink

jmanzar

Very nice pictures in this gallery!

Jan 1, 2014permalink

RFC1925

It would be nice to see the exposure values right there on the comparison tool. Not very convinient having to download the JPGs to see them.

Think it's pretty important information to know while comparing the results that for example in the ISO 6400 shots the X-A1 required a longer exposure than the NEX-3N with the same ISO and aperture:

NEX-3N: 1/3200 f5.6

X-A1: 1/2000 f5.6

Jan 1, 2014permalink

bcalkins

Hover over the 'i' in the corner...right next to the download link.

Jan 1, 2014permalink

RFC1925

Thanks for the tip!

Jan 1, 2014permalink

CaseyComo

Are these taken with exposure on auto? Every one of them looks significantly underexposed to me. Fine on screen maybe, but they'll print awfully dark. If that's auto, I'd be using +2 compensation all the time.

Jan 1, 2014permalink

onlooker

Aside from a bit nervous bokeh of this lens, what is striking to me when I look at the studio scene's resolution slider, every Bayer sensor lights up with moire like a Christmas tree. By comparison, XTrans has no signs of moire. Can someone explain how XTrans filter pattern helps combat moire? Is it alternating patterns that do that?

Jan 1, 2014permalink

Moire can happen with an Xtrans sensor too but it is far rarer. The pattern on the xtrans is less regular and covers a larger area so interference effects with patterned materials are less common. I have seen it in a very distant shot of the pattern made by bricks on the wall of an apartment building when the camera was slightly off level.

Jan 1, 2014permalink

it may be more because that the new XTrans algorithm is not well studied yet. it should have more issues than Bayer.

but then part of the photography is about how to cheat human eyes, kinda like JPEG which loses details, introduces noises, and accepted by great mass of the people.

I'd avoid XTrans as much as possible and Fuji know that there are many people like me.

Jan 1, 2014*permalink

Azurael

That's funny. I'm sure there are real world examples where the XTrans doesn't perform too well, but it looks to be stomping all over anything in it's resolution class in the comparison tool. Even the Df is rendering less detail and a heck of a lot more moire at low ISOs. I'd certainly consider a Fuji X-series if I didn't already have NEX gear...

Sounds like you're just suspicious of the 'unknown'.

Edit: It seems a bit strange to be taling about this on the X-A1 article though. I've got to say I don't really see the point in this camera. It looks like it's well worth ponying up the extra few pennies for the X-E1/2!

Jan 1, 2014*permalink

Raist3d

"it may be more because that the new XTrans algorithm is not well studied yet. it should have more issues than Bayer."

No, it's because you clearly have no idea of what you are saying. Xtrans was precisely designed to reduce Moire occurrence and it does work.

Jan 1, 2014permalink

onlooker

Thanks, Raist3d. If XTrans was designed to limit moire, that would explain why it shows up a lot less than with Bayer. ;)

Jan 2, 2014permalink

> Xtrans was precisely designed to reduce Moire occurrence and it does work.

XTrans was designed to reduce cost,
and as a result it sacrifies image quality,
exactly how much is the question.

Jan 2, 2014permalink

BarnET

The X-A1 has a bayer colour filter AND an AA-filter to reduce Moiré
The X-trans does not have an AA filter. Which means sharper crispier photo's while the different colour pattern reduces Moiré.

the x-trans also produces a different kind of noise much more like film. The more complicated filter means you need a more powerful image processor. That means a more expensive product.

Jan 2, 2014permalink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DZL7aM3ZmI

> Which means sharper crispier photo's

non-LPF means more noise. though some people interpret those noise for resolution (there is a bit more resolution while the noise destroying them).

Jan 2, 2014permalink

midimid

One of the better reviews I've seen between these three cameras - to me the only con to the X-A1 is white balance issues and workflow issues that differ between non-Bayer and Bayer (i.e. if you own both, the processing is quite different between them). But when you take price into account, I'm definitely looking at the X-A1 as my future walk-around camera.

Jan 1, 2014permalink

peterpainter

Perhaps Fuji should produce a version of the XE-2 with this Beyer sensor and at $200 cheaper........

Jan 1, 2014permalink

all of their cameras should have Bayer and AA-filters but that's not very interesting for a less colorful world.

Jan 2, 2014*permalink

JapanAntoine

Looks nice.
This A1 could make a perfect second body to take on a stroll with a small prime (although the XF primes tend to be a bit big...).
To be continued!

Jan 1, 2014permalink

b craw

I know, I know, call me a fanboy (btw, that term applied in nearly every context, is asinine): I dropped the Nikon and plugged in the Samsung NX300; someone, I'll let you guess who, is being left out of the party (at least in the comparison default). Easy to make the XA-1 look good if you contrast it against the Nikon. [and that is not just picking on Nikon for the sake of picking on Nikon]

Jan 1, 2014permalink

b craw

X-A1 - sorry.
By the way, I do really like the X-A1. You can argue Bayer array versus non Bayer X-Trans until you are blue in the face. In most scenarios, the qualitative differences are only slight. But that's the case with nearly all APS-C mirrorless in this price range.

Jan 1, 2014permalink

Northgrove

True... Heck that there even IS a long argument is evidence enough that the difference is minor.

Jan 1, 2014permalink

plasnu

Good micro contrast. Is this Sony Sensor?

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Coguar

really great gallery, one of the best in last time ....

Dec 31, 2013permalink

JKP

So A1 is a tad sharper, while "X-trans" M1 yields a bit less noise at ISO 6400. In addition, X-trans avoids moire in RAW, as seen in the three text samples.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

RichRMA

Why buy a Fuji if it doesn't have the X-trans sensor? I thought that was the whole idea behind owning that system?

Dec 31, 2013permalink

viking79

Personally, I think they make some of the best lenses. All sensors are pretty close to the same, the real reason to buy a camera are the lenses. The 14mm f/2.8, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 and likely the upcoming 56mm f/1.2 are pretty sweet lenses.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

plasnu

IQ is as good as low pixel full size.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Timbukto

New studio scene reveals that although x-trans greatly reduces chroma noise, luminosity noise is not due to anything but just barely in spec manufacturer ISO settings that are heavily inflated. Just look at the shutter speeds used...they are receiving a LOT more exposure compared to the Sony siblings.

It's interesting to see how many people demand more detail even though 85% of it is absolutely false. Just take a look at the fine text. People are just *used* to moire which is unfortunate...so much that they demand more from removing AA filters without any truly clever scheme to reduce it.

Dec 31, 2013*permalink

Dimit

...saying Fugi,I mean Fuji !

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Dimit

I say the 200$ difference between X-A1 and XM-1 is another contribution to depreciating Fugi costs of developing the X myth!!!...People,be smart!

Dec 31, 2013permalink

pacnwhobbyist

I'd almost be willing to bet that the sensor in the X-A1 is from Sony. Not that that's a bad thing at all.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

miniTO

Of course its from Sony all the Fuji sensors are from Sony. The color filter array is Fuji specific (X-Trans)

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Robert Garcia NYC

they finally got someone that can shoot

Dec 31, 2013permalink

dougster1979

I`ll second that, finally!!!

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Zograf

+1 as well. Most of their shots in the albums are done by mindlessly pointing the camera in random directions, except some portraiture of models.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Richard Franiec

Nice set of pictures.

I agree that pictures in most of typical "real life" galleries are not as well composed or executed but on the other hand, the majority of camera or smart phone users approach the picture taking as "spray and pray" exercise. In this case the typical "real life" gallery is closer to reality than the best possible scenario showing what the camera is capable of - thus objections from more advanced and artistically inclined users as yourself.

Dec 31, 2013*permalink

Asylum Photo

DPReview's bayer settings continue to harm the test results of X-Trans sensors. I don't know why they would use bayer settings for non bayer cameras.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Andy Crowe

What bayer settings? The test shots from x-trans cameras are OOC jpegs, and anyway this camera IS a bayer camera.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Asylum Photo

I was referencing the RAW comparison selections. Sorry. The X-A1 is bayer. The X-M1 is not. In the comparisons for Raw, the X-M1 looks horrible, because ACRs sharpening settings for X-Trans is a bit conservative. My apologies for the confusion.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Andy Crowe

But DPR have posted several analyses about x-trans raw support (and how it's improved greatly) and IIRC DPR turn off all sharpening in ACR and instead use photoshop to apply a uniform sharpening setting.

Certainly to my eyes the raw studio scene x-trans sharpness compares favorably to bayer cameras.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

midimid

I have to agree with Asylum here - look at the sketch drawing of a man's head in the lower-right at ISO 200 RAW between the XA-1 and XM-1 - the XM is crazy soft, almost like its out of focus.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Raist3d

If dpreview wants to keep using a non optimal Adobe raw converter from Xtrans, yes, it will be softer. However, with Capture one, Iridient that's not the case.

Jan 1, 2014permalink

That settles it for me - no more x trans sensor fuji products in my bag. I want this sensor in an x pro1 .

Dec 31, 2013permalink

fierlingd

What settles it? judging by what I'm seeing the x-pro1 sensor resolves more detail. Better ISO too.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Suit yourself, the bayer appears sharper to me compared to the xtrans which appears soft and noise reduced.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

mcshan

These look good. I know it isn't popular to say but I don't find the X-Tran sensor to be anything miraculous. I like my X-E1. It is a good camera but I can't rave about it.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

HowaboutRAW

"The Fujifilm X-A1 is nearly identical to the X-M1 except for one key detail - it uses a 16MP sensor with a conventional Bayer color filter array." So no Xtrans in this body.

As for your XE1 are you shooting raw and using ACR, CaptureOne and/or PhotoNinja to do extraction?

The XE1 samples I've seen and test shots I've done look excellent; the AF isn't great though.

Dec 31, 2013*permalink

mcshan

@How, Hello, I think you misunderstood my post. As many are concerned with X-Trans vs Bayer I was noting that the Bayer shots looked good. X-Tran often gets over hyped on the DPR.

Yes, RAW and on and on. The X-E1 is merely one camera I shoot with. It isn't amazing but good enough to keep in the mix.

Thanks for the reply.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

HowaboutRAW

mschan:

Guess I skipped the "These look good."

Dec 31, 2013permalink

mcshan

@How, Thanks for the reply and have a Happy New Year. Hope you get some great shots in 2014 !

The same goes to all DPR posters...Happy New Year.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

BertVelo

nice set

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Joel Benford

Would be interesting to see some XTrans vs Bayer raw conversion comparisons...

Dec 31, 2013permalink

momo

Are these real world samples all jpegs produced by the camera? Also, is this how the x-a1 kit is being sold, with the 18-55. Here, it's the 16-50. Comparable image quality?

Dec 31, 2013permalink

D1N0

great real life samples. Much better artwork than with the k-50. The sensor seems to be comparable to other 16mp cmos sensors made by sony. A little sharper than the x-trans

Dec 31, 2013permalink

KL Matt

I'd say the sensor in the K-50 (same or nearly the same as my K5 and possibly this Fuji) is certainly capable of these results. I'm not so sure my Pentax kit lens can render this beautifully in so many different situations, however. Just look at that contrast and bokeh! This is a fabulous lens if my eyes are not mistaken. Love the colors, especially if these are jpegs, they look georgeous. And yes really nice work by the photog, these shots would be a pleasure to view rgardless of the camera/lens used.

Jan 1, 2014permalink

Serious contrast issues. Seems like the early shadow cut is affecting this camera also.

Apparently this disaster is due to dpreview saying that the pics of the earlier cams were rather low contrast.

Fuji should listen to their engineers not dpreview.

It's because of this problem that I definitely won't be getting an XE-2, and now I'm worried about the XP-2.

fix this issue, Fuji, or at least let shadows go down to -3 to allow us to compensate for your manipulation.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

I thought the same... looks like shot in velvia mode. Often half of the pic is pitchblack. Maybe advisable to shoot with shadow tone -1 as standard?

Dec 31, 2013permalink

57even

Easy to adjust both for JPEG and of course in RAW. Why is this an issue?

Dec 31, 2013permalink

TDyrkacz

I believe this is just the fuji jpg processing. I find thius to be the case with the x100s as well, but the raw file has all the information needed to fix the issue. Don't get me wrong i kind of like the jpg processing, but if you want to recover the shadow detail you certainly can.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

"Easy to adjust both for JPEG and of course in RAW. Why is this an issue?"

Not if this is like the XE2, where shadow 0 is now the equivalent of shadow +1 on the XE1.

The point is that for jpeg shooters, which is one of the major attractions of Fuji, this IS an issue. They've lost quite a bit of shadow detail when all Fuji had to do was give us -3 shadow.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

KL Matt

jpegs look great on my monitor. The photog appears to have made excellent use of exposure compensation to darken shadows for a very nice effect in some shots. I don't think it's the camera doing this, but rather a talented individual.

Jan 1, 2014permalink

Wow, a lot of luminance noise at higher iso (studio scene)! really grainy… but that way it seems to keep considerably more low contrast details than competitors, even entry-level D-SLRs.

Olympus will be forced to lower the price of its M4/3 cameras soon, because this one comes with a nicer kit lens & (to my taste) better IQ at exactly half the price of an E-M5 or an E-P5! Even the E-PL5 is more expensive.

Plus, I actually find the A1 feels more comfortable in your hand than the Olympuses. (is that the correct plural of Olympus? ^^ )

Dec 31, 2013*permalink

harrisoncac

...than the Olympus'.
or ... than those from Olympus.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

thanx!

Dec 31, 2013permalink

Reg Natarajan

Don't listen to him. Olympuses was correct. The apostrophe is only used for possessives or contractions, neither of which applies here. For plural, add "es" as you did. The variant of "than those from Olympus" was also correct.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

misolo

If you want to follow the Latin, I believe it should be Olympi.

Dec 31, 2013permalink

citizenlouie

The correct sentence should be:

Plus I actually find the A1 fells more comfortable in your hand than the Olympus'. (notice the apostrophe at the end)

Because it IS used as a possessive. It's a contraction of "Olympus's cameras" like harrisoncac suggested. You know, the OP could avoid the confusing sentence structure by complete the entire sentence, which should be:

Plus, I actually find the A1 feels more comfortable in your hand than Olympus' cameras (notice "the" is omitted if the entire sentence is spelled out).

What is being compared as more comfortable? (Fuji) A1 vs Olympus's cameras OR A1 (camera model) vs Olympus (the brand). Be careful with subject parallel agreement....

Dec 31, 2013*permalink

JF69

NB: If it's the possessive you're after you have to add the letter "s", even though the word "Olympus" ends with an "s".
So it would be " Olympus's ".

Dec 31, 2013permalink

KL Matt

You never contract the possessive 's' in written English, sorry but that's hogwash. I agree that Olympuses is technically correct but it does sound unusual. The easiest edit would be "feels more comfortable in your hand than the Olympus cameras/ILCs/models/bodies/etc."

Jan 1, 2014*permalink