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...

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

It gets nowhere.

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

Herr Martin...

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

@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...

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

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.

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

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.

@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?

I see. Thanks!

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

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

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?

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.

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

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?

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

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!

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

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

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.

source?

your eyes?

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

If you download both RAW files and import into a software such as LR or C1 you will see X-trans files are darker about 2/3 EV stop. DPR adjusted X-trans files to have the same brightness as other Bayer sensor based cameras in their studio tests.

There is more detail in the Sony chart regardless of the fake ISO setting of the Fuji.