Fujifilm X-T30, Sony a6400 added to studio test scene

Compared to A6300 there is no improvements which I can see. In some parts of the image the A6300 seems to be better.
The Canon M50 is on the same level as well.
A old 5D Mark II beats all of them out f the water ... hands down... whatever...
The APS-C reached the peak it seems to me and won't catch up to full frame anytime soon, even to old ones...

Apr 1, 2019*permalink

If you set the iso to 25600 in the comparison tool, switch to low light, and bring up images from the Canon M50, 5d II and 5d III for comparison, the results point in the opposite direction.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

When you have to sets ISO to 25600 you should probably look for another hobby :D You failed :D
Neither of the images is usable at all, no matter if the one is slightly worse.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

@dpfan32
A difference of more than 1 stop is anything but "slightly". At any rate, your claim the 5dII "beats them out of the water, hands down" holds no water, none whatsoever.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

OK then go and make your ISO 25600 photos an be happy.
I can assure nobody does such a silly thing...
There is a reason Auto ISO on the Sony cameras work from ISO 100-6400
Such high ISO of 25600 is probably achieved only with software tricks.
Nobody (but you) needs this and nobody (but you) would even consider for a second to shoot above ISO 6400.
I can only say a big LOL to your comments :D

Apr 1, 2019permalink

@dpfan32
If you´re as creative taking pictures as finding ways to muddy the waters you ought to be one fantastic photographer.

Auto ISO of the Canon 5dII goes up to 3200. The difference in SNR is the same whether you shoot 100, 200, 6400 or 25600 iso. "Software tricks" is speculation on your part and goes for any camera maker.

Are you going to entertain us with more ways to deflect from your original misjudgement?

Apr 1, 2019permalink

I don't have the time to feed you troll

Apr 1, 2019permalink

@dpfan32
I´m sorry facts are so offensive to you.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

ISO 25600 is like Fake News

Apr 1, 2019permalink

@dpfan32
LOL..... Collusion with reality is obviously not your forte.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

ISO 25600 is not real. Get over it. It's fake, like you.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

Your impeccable judgement re. image quality vouches strongly for your alternative facts.... LOL

Apr 1, 2019permalink

Please tell me this is a joke. How can Fuji's JPG colors be suddenly so bad? I have X-T20 and I love its color reproduction. I was thinking about upgrading to X-T3 but now I am not so sure about it. Also is it me or do some of those photos from Fuji seem soft?

Apr 1, 2019permalink

In the test scene the Fujis have always been soft.. X-T1, T2, T3... Same softness.
I don't get it...
Go out and shoot :P

Apr 1, 2019permalink

That's what I have been doing and my photos are not soft at all, that's with the hated-loved 18-55 kit lens. No complains there from me. Maybe dpreview test results are not as valid as they made them to be.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

DrewRick

They use Adobe software and the same white balance for all models, irrespective of sensor generation, where of course the color absorption character changes for example with a switch to BSI. The reasoning for dpr is to have comparable results but that makes it a very synthetic comparison, with limited real life relevance...

Apr 1, 2019permalink

I couldn't agree more. In that case C1 test would be more valid.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

Fuji color rendition has changed with every recent new sensor generation. I still hold onto my 16MP X100T for that reason.
Your mileage may vary but I like that generation best - despite the drawbacks of slower AF etc.

Apr 2, 2019permalink

Btw: the jegs are to my knowledge out of Camera.
No Abode in those.

Apr 2, 2019permalink

It did change but no complaints about their 3rd generation Xtrans sensor.

Apr 2, 2019permalink

multisystem

Compared the newer gear to my old, now cheapo A6000 just for the laughs. Lo and behold, I don't seem to be missing anything looking at static test scene IQ and even betters the Fuji. Good thing I've been exercising my credit card on old lenses instead of new bodies.

Apr 1, 2019*permalink

Don't you have the GAS? You must be sick! GAS GAS GAS ;)

Apr 1, 2019permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a6400&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt30&attr13_2=sony_a6000&attr13_3=fujifilm_xt20&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=160&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=200&attr171_0=1&attr171_1=1&attr171_2=1&attr171_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=670&x=0.8482205510185521&y=0.08478774922714782

The game changing features on the new bodies are on the video side. Sticking to an older body for stills makes all the sense in the world. Most of my budget is going on the lens side too. Thank heavens for Canon doing series II and series III of all their best lenses. I and II can often be had for a relative song.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

Lightright

The colors on Sony A6000 is actually pretty good under a good lighting condition. Just look how the camera handles the skin tone on other cameras (including Sony's other models):

Apr 6, 2019permalink

Igor Pro

The JPEG color of the last generations of Fuji is noticeably worse than that of the old generations, especially with respect to faces. The younger Fuji on bayer give out color better than the older ones on x-trans.

Mar 31, 2019permalink

DrewRick

Basically false color in the dpr test for comparison at the same white balance, raw converters adjust for it.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

Its not the test but the fact that processing RAW for our review on the webpage always influences the results.
We dont have labs on our desks and phones. Relax

Apr 2, 2019permalink

@Igor: I came to the same conclusion regarding recent C trans updates but am still holding on to the 16MP for that reason.

Apr 2, 2019permalink

Colours are better on X-Trans 2 16 MP but unfortunately skin tones are even more watercolour than on 24 MP X-Trans III and 26 MP X-Trans IV. Sony APS-C doesn't suffer from the watercolour effect but it's hard work getting attractive colours.

ISO above 200 exacerbates the watercolour issue. Compare skin tone in these three photos:

Fuji X-Trans II 16 MP: https://500px.com/photo/272331173/waterfight-i-by-alec-kinnear

Fuji X-Trans III 24 MP: https://500px.com/photo/273088795/late-afternoon-at-the-beach-by-alec-kinnear

Sony 16 MP (NEX-5T): https://500px.com/photo/276962547/siblings-by-alec-kinnear

Canon full frame offers both flattering colour and subtle gradations. But that means lugging around a much larger and heavier camera with lens.

Apr 7, 2019*permalink

Igor Pro

With each new generation, the color reproduction of Sony cameras is getting better, and the color reproduction of Fuji cameras is getting worse. On pictures Fuji the color of the lips and the eyeballs a little different from the color of the face.

Mar 31, 2019permalink

Emadn13

DPR your test is wrong everybody who tested the both,like Gerald undone
know that Fuji cheated in ISO,and keep the ISO one stop lower in youtube tested a6400 is better than xt-30

Mar 31, 2019permalink

Causio

The Fuji images in the test here have the same actual exposure (i.e. histogram) as the others at same iso/speed, hence they've been overexposed in post in order to compensate that "cheating". Fuji is iso invariant in most cases, meaning that you're in fact comparing here sony iso 3200 with a fuji higher iso equivalent. In terms of noise, I see no difference in luminosity, while Fuji has in fact less color noise. I'm looking at the low light shots since shooting iso 6400 at 1/2500s in daylight doesn't make much sense anyway.

Mar 31, 2019*permalink

Fuji does not cheat on iso. Some people need to up their education

Mar 31, 2019permalink

Less visible color noise is explained by demosacing of 6x6 trans matrix vs 2x2 bayer matrix. It works just like a noise reduction. Increase color noise reduction for bayer sensor in post and you get the same results as the trans: less noise and more blurring. And if you want to pull more information from trans sensor using 3-pass demosaicing then you'll pull more color noise as well.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

Hellraiser

Same sensors underneath the matrix - same results.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

Platinumkid

They look more similar than different. Tbh, I do not see much better IQ than the old APS-C cameras. Maybe they are better in terms of more accurate focusing or higher resolution in video. But on these charts I cannot see a big difference between the T30 and an old DSRL like D5600 for example.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

unbelievable

Always surprised how poor all these new camera's fare compared to the sigma dp1 merrill regarding sharpness (look for example at the sponge or the level of detail in the black white portrait of the guy with beard)

Mar 30, 2019permalink

I've had Sigma. The thing is that once you resize the file to the viewing size all that extra resolution disappears.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

Sezano

DP Merrill’s are idiot savants

Apr 13, 2019permalink

The Fat Fish

Can we get the A6400/Bayer sensor in the X-T30 and X-T3? That would be great.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Thanks, I'll pass on the nauseating Sony APS-C rolling shutter. Not the A6300, A6400, A6500 sensor ever please.

Mar 30, 2019*permalink

The Fat Fish

I admit the A6300 rolling shutter wasn't good, but isn't the Fuji sensor still a Sony underneath the X-Trans CFA?

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Whatever Fuji is using it's not the rolling shutter, weird yellow skin tone crap which comes with Sony's A6xxx series. Or Fuji's wrapper is so much better than Sony's to make the sensor unrecogniseable.

I savoured my years with the NEX 5T but the A6300 and A6500 are the two most frustrating cameras I've ever owned. Nasty viewfinder, nasty rolling shutter, weird skin tones, awkward button arrangement, horrid menus.

I would hate Fujifilm to adopt anything from those two cameras or their sensor.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

https://pasteboard.co/I7P29vf.png

Enough said, the A6400 is supposed to have improved skin tones, etc.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Tomasz_Wk

Why? The xt3/xt30 are great as they are. Have better colours.

Mar 31, 2019permalink

ACbright

The build quality of A6000 was atrocious. It is almost flimsy and my kit lens had to be repaired within a month. The LCD screen turns on and off randomly, sometimes blanks for half a sec, other times 2 seconds. I know it is not meant to be a pro all weather built like its Alpha top line, but it loses to cheaper canon G series. It is a fragile camera. We all know where they spend the money. But the build leaves alot to be desired.

Mar 31, 2019permalink

The Fat Fish

The majority of colour processing isn't done on the sensor. You could even have "Canon colour" on a Sony sensor. Also from the examples here, it looks like the A6400 actually has better colour.

That said, "Colour science" is subjective and easily editable in post so it's never going to be a deciding factor.

Mar 31, 2019permalink

SirPeepsalot

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Benjamin Kanarek

I only have one thing to say. You must you must you must use Capture One to process Fuji film RAW files. If you are using Nikon or Sony or Canon lightroom is fine. Fujifilm needs Capture One to shine. I know because I use two systems. I've been a professional photographer for over 30 years. I know that doesn't matter but I do have eyes and very discerning clients. My last five of six professional photo shoots were shot with the Fuji film XT3. Oh, did I I mention (or you might have read elsewhere) that I shoot my Fuji film at 80 ISO? I just make sure my highlights and shadows are under control. The noise levels are substantially lower.

Mar 30, 2019*permalink

Zed Man

I love when the Sony trolls try to tell professional photographers that what they are doing is impossible or wrong.

Capture One is great software if you know how to use it.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

zxaar

@GrapeJam don't feed the .....

It gets nowhere.

Mar 31, 2019permalink

herrMartin

you are wrong , so wrong, also when you are using nikon you must, must use capture one, with adobe the skintones are horrible. adobe makes nice colors with canon and leica files, all others are awful

Mar 31, 2019permalink

Benjamin Kanarek

Herr Martin...

Mar 31, 2019permalink

I have a paid versions of both LR and C1. There isn't any advantage to C1. You don't get better anything, you just spend more time editing and also get less functionality. I guess the C1 proponents just always accept the default results, which are more saturated, with higher contrast and sharpening, and that's why they praise it.

Apr 1, 2019permalink

The demosaicing is far better in C1 than Lightroom. Well known and discussed at great length in Fuji forums everywhere; with examples

Apr 1, 2019permalink

MikeStern

Fuji lacks detail in low iso. But then after 6400, sony has more chromatic noise. And on Fuji, low iso jpeg engine makes hallow / bright glow around sharp edges. Knowing the detailing is an issue trying to get it right by over sharpening.
If you don’t shoot above 6400iso, Fuji doesn’t show any advantage. As expected.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

tangbunna

holding my breathe for updated a6500 with new battery and new AF, New IBIS and New dual ISO, and NEW computational photography.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

How're they gonna fit all that in the little rangefinder body? Maybe it's true that they will change the look to an A7-1 size/shape body style.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

tangbunna

even A6500 is smaller than T30. rangefinder limit will not exceed much

Mar 31, 2019permalink

Luis Gabriel Photography

Was this tested at the same shutter speeds? Because recent tests show that Fuji is STILL pretty misleading with their ISOs compared to other companies.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Rob Tupper

Nothing misleading. Like Olympus and Panasonic, they use a different iso/metering standard. They are no more misleading than those who use a different standard like Nikon, Canon or Sony.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Robobonobo

Except your photo is a stop darker at the same iso with Fuji.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Luis Gabriel Photography

Exactly. How can you say is not misleading when for example at iso 3200 with same settings the Fuji will be one stop under exposed vs the sony??? Fools people into thinking their high iso is cleaner than the competition

Mar 30, 2019*permalink

Rob Tupper

Did you read what I wrote. Fuji is no more overstating iso than Sony is understating. They are different standards. Nothing more. Claiming Fuji, or Olympus, or Panasonic is lying is simply ignorance on your part.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Luis Gabriel Photography

As expected you are unable to argue without a childish attack so I will play your game.
The only ignorance is the one you are showing. Exposure is exposure, if a test shows all cameras with very similar exposures under the same settings yet the fuji is under exposed, guess that? They are trying to fool people into thinking their ISO is better than it is. Judging by your ignorant reply, they are succeeding with some people sadly.
Spin it anyway you like, facts are facts and no matter how you like to embelish the story, they are lying. Simple as that.
Now go ahead and have the last word if that makes you sleep better tonight.
I am out of this thread...cant reason with fanatics.
Regards

Mar 30, 2019*permalink

https://youtu.be/QVuI89YWAsw

I believe DPR equalizes the brightness (and maybe WB) when processing RAW files, which are shot at the same fstop, SS, and ISO. They also indicate that sometimes they change the light level.
Jpegs probably go as is, so the SS is what the camera has chosen for the specified ISO, so you can see how much the ISO is overstated.
I've been shooting with A7iii and X-T2 for a year and Fuji generally meters ISO 1/2 stop higher.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Rob Tupper

Nothing to do with fanatics. You are just too ignorant to understand the SOS & REI standards for ISO. Until you get some education under your belt, further discussion with you is like debating with a 3 year old.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

svezio79

Please stop this once and for all. I'm not an expert photographer and neither a novice (probably a dummy!), but I'm smart enough to move my mouse pointer on the "i" label on the images to see that the raw images are usually shot with the same aperture, iso and shutter time, and then both WB and exposure corrected within the same program (ACR). So noise levels are perfectly comparable. The only issue i personally see in this is that since ACR is not the best option for demosaicing x-trans files, you usually get slightly less sharp images with fuji files.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

upptick

Yes, back in the film days, ISO actually was standardized by a third party. Now, ISO is anything but standardized as each camera maker arbitrarily calibrates their own equipment and then uses their claimed ISO as a marketing tool. That’s part of the reason why different cameras perform differently at the same ISO. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Fishera

omg. you. have. no. idea. what. you're. talking. about. nor. you. want. to. understand. what. people. tell. you. luis. gabriel. there. is. an. article. on. this. site. about. ISO. read. it. then. jump. off. the. bridge.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

lumberjack63

ISO is not reliable ...

Mar 31, 2019permalink

Steve_tEkGuY

I looked pretty darn hard in full screen and there is little difference between XT3/XT30/A6400/Canon RP. The Fujis at RAW 6400 lose detail on the girls lips and nose compared to the other 2 cameras but has detail in the black and white painting. The Sony has more noise at 6400 compared to both - yes I know Canon is FF but for fun I compared it. So if they are so close at RAW ISO 6400 anything bellow this ISO will be wash I think. At the end these are all great cameras and its time to consider the lenses the eco system, price , portability and on and on. If you are so critical of an image at high ISO then bring a flash or start bracketing.
Article here: https://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/making-ev-bracketed-exposures.html

Mar 29, 2019permalink

robtec88

@Steve_tEkGuY "So if they are so close at RAW ISO 6400 anything bellow this ISO will be wash I think. At the end these are all great cameras and its time to consider the lenses the eco system, price , portability and on and on. If you are so critical of an image at high ISO then bring a flash or start bracketing."

You hit the nail on the head!

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Magnar W

I'll take the one with best autofocus. A sharp test chart or a tad less noise doesn't help much if your real world pictures are out of focus.

Mar 29, 2019*permalink

(unknown member)

Both have equal AF-S focusing. Both have good face and eye detection.
Both have the same amount of noise.
Both are solid cameras.

The Sony moire is troubling since it is difficult to remove.
And Fujifilm has done a better job offering a good number of desirable "film" looks.

I give the edge to Fujifilm because I enjoy pictures taken from their cameras more than Sonys. And I really don't like that moire.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Magnar W

AF-S autofocus is good with most cameras.
Good tracking is way more important.
Moire is easy to remove at post.
Who are asking for grainy "film look" from digital?

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Both have very good autofocus. I'm amazed at how poor some photographers must be if they think they can't get a picture without the fastest tracking on an eye. Ridiculous. And no, moire is not easy to remove. The color effect is, but the luminosity remains destroyed forever by the artifact.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

I would like to see X-T3/30 AF to be thoroughly tested. One of the unfortunate traits of all my previous Fuji cameras was unreliable AF, such as back-focusing, misfocusing, or complete focus failure despite the fact that camera indicated focus acquisition on the target.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Bev81 from France

forpetessake : I also meet the AF accuracy problem with my X-T1 + 18-55, mainly for landscapes. I tried with the 50-230 and no problem (which is by the way far superior to Sony 55-210). So now I must decide between better lenses, or better AF, but in any case I've lost confidence in the 18-55 (too bad, that's a really good lens otherwise)

Mar 30, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

I wonder if he was trolling. As you say Moire is hard to remove and can ruin video.

I really like the Fuji picture profiles with colors based on decades of developing the most pleasing colors. Fujifilm really knows what they are doing there compared to electronics companies.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Hellraiser

@Magnar W
You know that a lot of photographers dont even use AF tracking. I for one one dont even use any kind of AF most of the time. I focus manually at hyperfocal distance on a tripod and thats it...

Mar 31, 2019permalink

Magnar W

@ Hellraiser: Are you trying to say that good autofocus is not important in general, since you don't use it?

Mar 31, 2019*permalink

Hellraiser

No, im saying it isn important to me as well to a lot of other photographers.
And im not implying that Fuji continuous AF is bad either. It is top notch. Sony is better in that regard and if i was a sports photographer id go with sony. But im not so there it is :)
And single AF (what most of photographers use) is pretty much same across most brands.

Mar 31, 2019*permalink

@Bev81,
The silver Sony 18-200 is also far superior to the 55-210. What's your point?

Mar 31, 2019*permalink

Bev81 from France

@captura

Hard to believe that a superzoom (18-200) is superior to anything, but I don't have it so I won't argue
My point was that a good AF is fine, but useless if the lenses are bad. In the end it's a mix of both AF precision and lens optics that will do a good or bad - technically - picture (assuming equivalent sensors)

So my point was : better AF with worse lenses or worse AF with better lenses, that's how I view the main differences between Sony and Fuji (own experience)

Mar 31, 2019permalink

My point was that Sony has a few decent APSC lenses, too. I can't say how the silver version of Sony's 18-200 compares to your Fuji lens, but it could be close. I dont know why you chose one of the poorer of the Sony lenses as that was an unfair comparison.

Mar 31, 2019permalink

Bev81 from France

I have / had several copies of the 16-50, the 18-55, and the 55-210 (3 of this particular one) and none were entirely satisfactory, average at best, and some were really bad. Now I only own 1 copy of the Fuji 55-230 and it is much better. Really !!!
Frankly I wish I could get something similar with Sony because in the end I prefer even an A6000 to the X-T1, but I'm annoyed to think twice each time I use a Sony lens; at that FL, what aperture do I need to get a reasonably sharp picture ?!? Sorry I don't want to bother. I tried but those poor lenses let me down, it's not dependable nor enjoyable. I know they can make good ones, but the prices go crazy, no thanks, even the 16-70Z which is very expensive for what it is does not get universaly good reviews. So yes Sony weakness is the lenses catalog.

PS: I also own the Sony 50 1.8 OSS, and I'm perfectly satisfied, but it's a bit expensive and it is a prime, so not much in common with the standard zooms we are speaking about

Mar 31, 2019*permalink

I share with you the dislike of those lenses, most of which I own. I also found the 50/1.8 OSS to be quite adequate. Perhaps the 18-135 might do for you? (I never tried it ) And yes there are a few other good Sony APS-C primes, too, also some Sigmas

Mar 31, 2019permalink

DrewRick

forpetessake FWIW I just did my first few photo sessions with the X-T30 and thoroughly impressed by the fast, accurate AF. Even with the slow 35mm F1.4 wide open eye autofocus gives me what feels like a keeper every nine out of ten shots. It sometimes focused on the slightly further away eye but you can set right or left eye priority. I used to get a lot of back focus on the T20, no more. Occasionally it focuses on the eye lashes (front focus) but that's with irises in the shade, so low contrast.

Apr 1, 2019*permalink

@Bev,
The Canon EFS 55-250 is really quite decent adapted onto the A6xxx bodies, I have found.
Thanks

Apr 1, 2019*permalink

NotANumber

The high iso performance of XT30 is going backwards, noticeably worse than XT20.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

attomole

Nobody cares becuse it does 4k 25fps on a log or somthing.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

SirPeepsalot

^ This

Mar 30, 2019permalink

BostonC

XT30 is softer than A5. x-trans pays cost for less noise.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Zed Man

It is because of poor focusing and using Lightroom instead of Capture One to process RAW files.
Lightroom has always done a terrible job with Fuji RAW files. So we don't get to see how good their files actually are.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

That's why I haven't sold my old X-A3. When I take portraits that's what I use and not my X-T2. The best skin colors, color separation, and sharpness comes from Fuji bayer cameras. I have LR and C1, and there isn't any real C1 advantage. C1 by default is more saturated, which higher contrast and sharpening, but all that is irrelevant for the final result.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

SpeedyNeo

I hereby conclude both are great photography beginner-enthusaists cameras. You can't go wrong with either of them. We are lucky to live in a time where sub-1k midrange cameras can produce great images like that.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

zakaria

It seems. It looks. It appears etc.
No one can judge from this studio scene correctly!
For me it seems both are good cameras. But fujifilm is a winner not because the xt30 is better but because the X mount .

Mar 29, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

Fuji pictures straight of of the camera always look better to me. That means less work, and knowing the pictures will look great even without a lot of post processing.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

No one can judge correctly because it's simply impossible to do with that test scene. When I do testing, I take two cameras with 35mm eq. lenses set at the equivalent settings and take 100 or so selfies in various light situations. Do that and you'll clearly see which camera has better image quality in which situations.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

The images on the X-T30 look softer than the X-T3. Does that mean that Fuji is not processing the full data from the sensor?

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Mnweni

I noticed the same thing between the X-T2 and X-T20 studio test scene.
I wonder if someone who has both had tested this?

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Tomasz_Wk

I think it’s bad focusing.

Mar 31, 2019permalink

flockmock

Strange Sony artifacts?

Could someone with more experience please explain me, what kind of artifacts in the black/white parts are visible in the Sony photos?
I mean the greenish-pink stripes on the chest of the small child in the b/w photo inside the studio scene, for example.
Is it from the sensor or from the lens? Is there a way to avoid that?
Thanks a lot.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

Are you talking about moire?

Mar 29, 2019permalink

flockmock

@GrapeJam: Yes, this is what I meant. So they are produced by the in-body processing? In the Jpegs, they are still there. I find them annoying. Is there a way to get rid of them, or do Sony users have to live with it?

Mar 29, 2019permalink

flockmock

I see. Thanks!

Mar 29, 2019permalink

You can't fix moire in post. You can only remove the color artifacts. The moire in the luminosity channels cannot be fixed.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Show me how you remove moire from the b&w luminosity data. Can't wait to see it.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

How is that you're saying that moire artifacts can't be removed in software when Fuji does exactly that. You don't really believe Fuji marketing BS, do you?

Mar 30, 2019permalink

jwasturias

Yes, my A7R shows it as well. A bit annoying.
The sigma foveon cameras, however, look completely pure and clean. And pictures seem to be sharper than full frame Nikon 850 in areas, despite a lower resolution (at iso100). Look at the text shown for the Sigma Quattro SD H.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

The mix brush does not get rid of luminosity moire without destroying texture. Sorry, but you are wrong; and I think you know that as well.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

I started to pixel peep. ISO6400 Fuji looked better, ISO12800 Sony had a slight edge.
Then I looked at other parts of the scene and it was reversed.

I am calling it a tie (sorry fan dudes).

But looking at the galleries, the Fujifilm camera emerges as a clear winner.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Gesture

Good, because this is the present and future of photography.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Checat

Why XT3 looks sharper then XT30? A different lens is used in the test? Or in body RAW NR? I know why it is softer then Sony but why it looks different if booth has the same sensor?

Mar 29, 2019permalink

SSM51

I read your post and it didn't make any sense. So, I read it again, and realized that every time you said "then" you actually meant to say "than"!

Mar 29, 2019permalink

LiangMing

Looks like the Fuji is much better IQ.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Androole

The differences are not huge, but the A6400 is the clear winner to me.

Less noise than the A6300, more detail and fewer artifacts than the X-T30.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Dave Oddie

At first I thought the Xt30 had it by being almost a stop better at ISO 1600 and up but if you look at the tubes of paint (top left) the writing is clear with Sony but blurred on the XT30

Mar 29, 2019permalink

StopTheGAS

The difference in the level of detail is most likely due to the different lenses used.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Androole

Is the Sony 55/f1.8 - an FF lens mounted on an APS-C body - really considered to be that dramatically better than the $1000 Fuji 56mm/f1.2?

Mar 29, 2019permalink

StopTheGAS

Androole
Well assuming it wasn't misfocused it seems to be that way.

The Fuji sensor has a higher resolution and while X-Trans will produce certain types of artifacts (yes, Fuji fans, even in Capture One, although to a lesser degree) it doesn't mean overall lower detail than Bayer.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Imager of

Any new camera is capable of taking fantastic quality photos nowadays. People who continue to pixelpeep are not photographers!

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Dave Oddie

Who cares. Some people's enjoyment of the hobby is in the gear as much as the photos.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Rob890

Don't you come here with your rational this is DEEPEE and we like it the way it is

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Imager of

Yeah. Like a mechanic buying the best tools but still can’t fix a car!
Learn how to use a camera. Amazed at how many people think these new and bigger MP cameras are going to save them!

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Endgame Trigger

That was always the argument - not always, but for the last ten years - of the Canon fanbabies.

Who cares, when an actuall small and nimble crop camera has the SNR/ISO performance of a 35mm mirror lump? Who cares when the competition's entry level FFs are performing one huge EV better, than the market leader's flagship cameras? I care!

I do want more 'photograpic degrees of freedom'! I do want to take pictures at nowadays ISO 1600 speeds with former day's ISO 800 qualities, I do want faster and more intelligent AF-systems, but personally don't care about video.

But I do also care about price and weight! I do want better technology and therefor more functions in a smaller package for less money! I really, really care!

I just like Fuji and Sony for their drive! Because, if there had not been competitive stress for Canon e.g., its victims would still shoot their 5Douche Mk IIs and still felt as an elite, cause they finally can afford that overpriced lump of a dinosaur.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

Ian_B

Is the XT30 focus off, all images look soft to me.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

It is the Lightroom demosaicing

Mar 29, 2019permalink

mdb1974

Yep, softer across the board. Looks like it's lens vs sensor.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Ian_B

How come the Xt20 looks a shade sharper too though? Seems odd, run another set of tests to confirm DPR?

Mar 29, 2019permalink

c_at_light

Sony's jpg engine is producing a lot of artifacts:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a6400&attr13_1=olympus_em1ii&attr13_2=fujifilm_xt30&attr13_3=nikon_d810&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&attr126_1=2&attr126_2=1&attr171_0=1&attr171_1=1&attr171_2=1&attr171_3=1&normalization=compare&widget=670&x=-0.6522496288683338&y=0.06483843537414978

Mar 29, 2019permalink

sav04ka

no capture one procession = not objective results

Mar 29, 2019permalink

sankos

Well, Lr normal (non-enhanced) demosaicing doesn't do justice to Fuji (softness or watercolour effect), but it also disappoints with Sony (see the moire complaints here and there). For high ISO files, Sony has an advantage because you can use DxO PRIME noise reduction, while C1 is worse in this respect even than Lr.

Mar 30, 2019permalink

ZeBebito

No surprises here. As expected, there is more detail in the Sony chart.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

NILREDLOH

It looks more like heavy sharpening/seeing artefacts everywhere.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3705275119/photos/3871415/

True. Heavier default sharpening on the Sony. Lots of moire rainbows and aliasing. Looking at the two compared, pretty visible the Fuji has higher resolution. And this is with Lightroom which is poor on xtrans. I use C1 on my XT3 and it offers better sharpness and resolution

Mar 29, 2019permalink

ZeBebito

Just check the "organic" portions of the chart, lower left, and upper right. As usual, Fuji can't handle those textures, a green mess with no detail.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

That is because of Lightroom. I have no mess with C1 and my XT3.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Tadeusz60

no ibis no fun

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Mortal Lion

They are both applying is NR on the RAW files. Fuji's seems a little more effective.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

yes

Mar 29, 2019permalink

uMad

source?

Mar 29, 2019permalink

your eyes?

Mar 29, 2019permalink

uMad

well that's not a really good source. My eyes can't process undemosaiced files and nr in raw implies that you look at the files that way.
You may want to ask Bill Claff to look into it, but he hasn't found nr in fuji raws. The Sony does it in some situations with specific settings, but those don't apply here either

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Is the white balance off on the two new cameras or all the characters in the test scene have a failing liver?

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Looks like Fuji has another winner. Better noise. Better resolution. And, when the raws are processed in other software than these Lightroom samples, the sharpness and resolution are even better. All for a great price.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

StopTheGAS

What do you mean by resolution?
The Sony images in this comparison show more detail and sharpness than the Fuji ones.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

mr.izo

yes, sony have more details. looks like fuji is using noise reduction in raw.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3705275119/photos/3871415/

Sony has lower resolution and less aliasing

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Fly18

Sony a6400 is the best APS-C camera ever made. Only Sony can make a better camera. /s

Mar 29, 2019permalink

chill dude, chill

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Fly18

@photomedium
Haha. You’re triggered because that’s what you were planning to say, fb!

Mar 29, 2019permalink

fb? lol
It is better than the a6300.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

PWPhotography

AF-C and eye-AF tracking are definitely better,

Mar 29, 2019permalink

ozturert

Can you use it in desert or under pouring rain? Can you hold it properly with big telephoto lens? Can you reach all buttons when your eyes are at EVF? No? Then it is the worst camera for me.
Best depends on your needs.

Mar 29, 2019permalink

Oz,
what about sex? Will it do it? For ~$900 it should. lol

Mar 29, 2019*permalink

ozturert

Photomedium, it doesn't have to because other APSC cameras don't do either. We are comparing here. "Best" is defined according to one's needs. There is no one universal best. To me the best APSC camera now is the D500, for my friend's it is Canon Eos M50 because of the excellent articulated touch screen and DualPixel AF.
Best...

Mar 29, 2019permalink