How come XT-1 in DPR comparison tool not behind X-T20 for RAW and JPEG?

I'm assuming that although there is a difference of 8MP in resolution, with the same glass, they would both be as good IQ with the only main difference being print size at the same ppi/dpi...?

I really loved the output from the X-T1 but the auto-focus was a bit frustrating. Since moving to an X-T20 my frustrations have been mostly resolved. Foliage was sometimes a bit funkier on the X-T1 as well. While I still get the occasional worm or two on the X-T20, it is nowhere near as bad. I did enjoy the X-T1 quite a bit.

Easy Rider said:

I'm considering these two for my next ILC as same sort of price range now

16MP is fine for me, and the files from my X-100T are smashing but the new 24MP X-trans sensor looks phenomenal from samples shots I've seen.

Of course I'd prefer the larger EVF and pro features of the XT-1.

Just confused how with it's lower MP and older sensor the comparison tool has it pretty much as good at RAW and JPEG as the newer model X-T20 and even the X-T2.

Also it puts it better than my X-100T and the X-E2s, despite having the same sensor.

Any ideas why...?

If it really is that good, I'd get it over the X-T20

Cheers

Click to expand...

Are you talking noise? I understand that the larger mp xtrans III has more pronounced noise than the 16mp sensor.

No, just overall IQ. In terms of AF I find my X-100T to be fine, so I assume the X-T1 AF is as good?

I guess what I'm asking is up to ISO 6400 is IQ - acuity, detail, colours, contrast, noise performance at high ISO up to 6400 and dynamic range - as good?

I mention print size as the higher resolution camera will obviously let one print larger at acceptable sharpness at any given ISO, so I'm asking barring the print size factor, is IQ on the same or close to the same level?

So at IR it states the print sizes you could use at each ISO if you scroll down just over halfway it says

Pepyn said:

Print Quality

Very nice 24 x 36 inch prints at ISO 100/200; a nice 16 x 20 at ISO 1600; and a good 5 x 7 at ISO 12,800.

ISO 100/200 produces very good, accurate images at 24 x 36 inches with excellent color reproduction. Wall display prints are possible at these settings up to 36 x 48 inches, looking quite good if viewed from the customary several feet away given the size of the print.

ISO 400 prints are still quite good at 24 x 36 inches, with no noticeable softness in the red channel, and wall display prints look good at 30 x 40 inches.

ISO 800 images look great at 16 x 20 inches. Wall display prints are possible up to 24 x 36 inches, which is terrific for this ISO on an APS-C camera.

ISO 1,600 yields a good 16 x 20 inch print as well. There is the first sign of softness in our target red swatch here but it's not bad at all, and just a hint of luminance noise in flatter areas. Overall, a very good image for ISO 1,600.

ISO 3,200 prints at 13 x 19 begin to lose detail in our difficult red swatch, but are otherwise quite good with only mild, film-like grain in shadows.

ISO 6,400 is where the red swatch and a few other areas, particularly reds, start to become too soft to be called good, even at 11 x 14. 8 x 10's print quite well here though, retaining very good color reproduction.

Click to expand...

I assume that with the X-T20 24MP sensor print sizes at each ISO would be larger is all but that say an ISO 100 24x36 from the X-T1 would look as good in terms of IQ as an Xt-30x40...?

based on X-T2 review

Pepyn said:

Fuji X-T2 Print Quality Analysis

Excellent 30 x 40 inch prints at ISO 100/200; a good 13 x 19 inch print at ISO 3200; and a good 4 x 6 inch print at ISO 51,200.

ISOs 100 and 200 deliver excellent prints at 30 x 40 inches and higher, until you run out of available resolution. These prints at base and extended low ISO display very rich color and terrific fine detail. They are in fact among the most natural-looking prints we've seen from any camera we've tested.

ISO 400 yields an outstanding print at 24 x 36 inches while still preserving top-notch fine detail. Wall display prints at this ISO are fine at 30 x 40 inches as well.

ISO 800 prints are surprisingly good at 24 x 36 inches. They're not quite as tack sharp as the ones at ISO 400, but they still very much pass our "good" rating. For most critical printing purposes we recommend a reduction to 20 x 30 inches here for ensuring maximum fine detail.

ISO 1600 images at 20 x 30 inches are quite good for this ISO sensitivity setting. Close examination reveals a mild trace of noise in flatter areas of our test target, but fine detail and full color reproduction are still very good here.

ISO 3200 produces a 16 x 20 inch print that almost passes our good standard. Similar issues exist as found in the 20 x 30 inch print at ISO 1600, but there is now a noticeable softening in the red channel in general, and a trace more noise in a few areas of our target. While that size is certainly usable for less critical applications, we'll call the 13 x 19 inch prints good here.

ISO 6400 is the common turning point for image quality in most APS-C cameras these days, but the X-T2 fares about as well here as the best we've seen, delivering a very nice 11 x 14 inch print with virtually no discernible issues or noise reduction artifacts. For such a lofty ISO this is a nice, large and vibrant print.

Click to expand...

If there's anything I'm overlooking or not taking into account please let me know?

Cheers.

From what i have seen the X-trans III resolves details clearly better, and there is a small improvement in dr. I can not tell much about noise, but i would not expect improvements due to the smaller pixel size.

However, 50% improvement in resolution does not mean that the images will look always significantly better. The next variable is the lens. For example when a good prime can resolve 12 MP with a 16 MP sensor, then the lens is already at the upper limit and will most likely not resolve more than 13-15 MP with a 24 MP sensor. On the other hand a kit zoom lens that is less sharp than every Fuji prime, will most likely show not real difference in resolution (maybe in the center).

This are only theoretical thoughts, and my knowledge is limited in this area. But my advice is mostly not to jump on every sensor generation, because the lenses are far more important.

I am talking about the two sensors IQ comparison using the SAME lens. Cheers.

--I really loved the output from the X-T1 but the auto-focus was a bit frustrating. Since moving to an X-T20 my frustrations have been mostly resolved. Foliage was sometimes a bit funkier on the X-T1 as well. While I still get the occasional worm or two on the X-T20, it is nowhere near as bad. I did enjoy the X-T1 quite a bit.
-Paul

I'm more into general art photography over primary tack sharp landscape work so the odd worm or two at 100% viewing would be neither here nor there for me.

I assume AF on the X-T 1 is at least as good as on the X-100 T?

If it is it would be good enough for me, I'm into slow shooting these days and even for street the X100 T is fast enough for me, so...

Then the XT1 will be a good fit.

Yeah that was my thinking, just never used it so wanted feedback from people that have.

My real conundrum is budget and either the X-T1 and a sweet lens or a entry level FF camera like the A7 I or A7 II / Nikon D610 and a nifty fifty plus 35mm when I've got more money for slow art photography.

I still need the X-100T as I need a camera I can carry in my pocket every single day so can get shots that present themselves even on the way to and from work or during social occasions etc, you really do not know when they can just turn up if the light is good, be it natural or artificial. I'm not Jeff Wall yet so don't need larger format ha ha. In a way the X100T is like an X-T1 with a sweet lens already, it easily rivals my 24MP D5300 with good glass at all but very close distances and F2. So I need to rid of the D5300 and all lenses and reinvest in Fuji ILC or FF ILC. But I am budget restricted.

I'm not likely to ever do weddings or other pro work and my X100T is perfect for my street work and will print way large enough for that if and when I have a good enough collection one day.

For slow shooting art work (mostly found objects, places, shadows and light type stuff, a current series of documentary at a local allotment over a whole year) I'm leaning towards FF I guess as the time in post post I have to put in with the D5300 and Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM is getting annoying (X-100T gets there without all the PP work and the EVF lets you get it perfect in one shot without guesswork) but the entry price even for used puts me off hence the X-T1 option either with the 18-55mm F2.8-4 ois or one of the 35mm's (prices almost same and size not matter for this type of photography.)

The difference in price between say one of the used FF's I've mentioned and a 50mm F1.8 and X-T1 and 35mm F1.4 / 2 (I'm getting put off zooms these days, good for travel but not preferable for art work) is not much to most people and literally only £200-£300 at most for used, so maybe I should wait until budget is not pressing my decision and then my decision would be easier I guess.

I can get about £500 for my D5300, 17-50mm F2.8, 18-55mm VRII kit lens, 70-300mm, and Sb-600 Speed light, if I'm lucky (would have been more before the latter models came out ) so that gets me very close to the XT-1 and a 35mm but only halfway to a FF and nifty fifty....

I am enjoying the X100T though so could wait I guess.

The entry level Nikon is annoying me with the tiny small coverage tunnel VF, having to use zooms for good quality at the FL's I shoot at (I do not like the 35mm F1.8 DX) and the damned clipping whenever the sun even peeps out.....

Yeah I guess sell that off, wait until budget is not pressuring the decision and then I know I'd think 'I have an X-100T so that's 35mm covered already' and would likely then go for one of the FF options. I also have a mate in S.Korea where the used market is cheap as chips as Koreans do not like buying used so I could get him to bring / mail a D610 or A7 model to me and would be same price as the XT-1 anyway (was there recently and used prices literally astounded me - literally £600 for mint used D610's with 10-20K shutter clicks and similar for A7 models.)

Cheers....

Ahh, GAS. It tends to drive us insane looking at the details of things. I made all the same comparisons and analysis earlier this year when I bought my XT1 instead of an XT20. The XT1 is a fun camera to use and the AF is fine unless you wanna do action or sports. It's a bigger camera than the XT20 or XT10 and I find bigger cameras easier to use and shoot one handed when you need to. I have the battery grip and that makes the ergonomics of the XT1 excellent compared to the teeny XT20. As for AF, I use manual and focus peaking when I can,, or hyperfocal, and have never had a problem with blurry shots. I think you'll be happy with the XT1, it's more a pro camera than the XT20

Yeah this is to be used for slow photography so MF or AF-S is fine. Like I said the X100T AF is enough for me even for street, so.... (though I prefer Zone focus anyway, gives better look.)

I don't have GAS at all I love my X100T.

This choice is all about balance between good usability (Nikon DX = poor VF experience and crippled prime selection, poor metering, prone to HL clipping like crazy and fast but very unreliable AF) and IQ.

Ideally I'd buy a used MF camera but do not have space, equipment or time nor inclination to develop film, so it's a toss up between Fuji APS-C and the great lenses or entry FF and good lenses.

I'll wait until sold the Nikon gear and been paid salary a few more times and likely I'll plump for a FF tbh and it'll be a toss up between the size of the DSLR's like the D610 they are like carrying a small house around so a used Sony is the only credible smaller option and then the good lenses get crazy expensive compared to the Nikons. So size VS cost.

Then again I said I'd use a MF camera so probably no big deal...

Plus I consider myself a photographer so have used APS-C so should for experience sake try out FF as a learning experience tbh. It wouldn't hurt for night work either.

Always have the X100T for perfect small camera.

I got rid of the XT1 and picked up and XT20 because I wanted to make a conscious decision to keep the kit small. I also had an XT10 but the auto-focus was so slow it annoyed me to no end. I had a grip on the XT20 but it made the camera larger than what I wanted so I used some SUGRU and made an ad-hoc grip. Not the most beautiful thing in the world but it makes a big difference to the ergonomics of the camera.



Fast moving objects can be tracked reasonably well with this set up.



The X-T1 does a great job on most things I am interested in.











--
-Paul

They really shouldn't be compared that way because you have to click the box that allows cameras from other like cameras to be compared.

I only did it on that other thread to show that both have good RAW and jpeg output.

Either your glasses are a bit old and there is an urgent need to visit the ophtalmologist :-D or there was something wrong when using dpr comparometer see below

Cheers bob



















--
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

baobob said:

Either your glasses are a bit old and there is an urgent need to visit the ophtalmologist :-D or there was something wrong when using dpr comparometer see below
Good judgment comes from experience
Experience comes from bad judgment

Click to expand...

Yep, in my experience the new sensor shines in high ISO. It also has increased dynamic range which you wont be able to see in the studio scene.

But most importantly if you are a JPG shooter, it greatly reduces the high-ISO, waxy skintone issue. Not to the point where it matches the first-gen cameras, but it is much better than the XT1 generation of cameras.

--
www.darngoodphotos.com

Anyway after 17000 shots I'm most pleased with XT2, by far the best camera I ever had eventhough not perfect (tracking ability)

baobob said:

Either your glasses are a bit old and there is an urgent need to visit the ophtalmologist :-D or there was something wrong when using dpr comparometer see below

Cheers bob

Click to expand...

Yes, something is wrong with the DPR comparometer as you present it. Your image shows the two comparisons THE SAME SIZE. This would happen if you are comparing X-T10 with X-T1, or X-T20 with X-T2.

When I go to the DPR review of the X-T20 and look at the same thing, the X-T20 image in the comparator is LARGER than the X-T1 image. This would only make sense if the sensor on the X-T20 is more megapixels. And of course it is: 24mp vs 16mp for the X-T1.

Here is a link to the DPR review page I am talking about:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t20-review/4

--
Tom Schum
Every day a new image.

Yes you can use either full or comp

The final print result being the only IQ criterion (what you finally get and see) I always use COMP parameter

Then it is obvious that the final result is much better with the 24 megapix sensor in all the situations I have choosen

best

Bob