Fuji X100F vs X-T100 jpg comparison

Got a chance to compare the X100F and X-T100 side by side (Bayer vs X-Tran)

Using same focal length (X100F=23mm) and (X-T100=XF 23mm). It seems the jpeg images coming out of the X-T100 looks much sharper and more contrast.

What do you think?








Fuji X-T100 ISO 200 f/4 DR100 (lens=XF23mm)


Fuji X100F ISO 200 f/4 DR100 (lens=XF23mm)


Fuji X-T100 ISO 200 f/4 DR100 (lens=XF23mm)


Fuji X100F ISO 200 f/4 DR100 (lens=XF23mm)

I also wonder about the af accuracy of xtrans now as well, I had a lot of unusual af results with the x-t2, none with the x-t100 it seems positively faultless. As to the results will let others decide, I am biased to bayer.

scheekwok said:

Got a chance to compare the X100F and X-T100 side by side (Bayer vs X-Tran)

Using same focal length (X100F=23mm) and (X-T100=XF 23mm). It seems the jpeg images coming out of the X-T100 looks much sharper and more contrast.

What do you think?


Fuji X-T100 ISO 200 f/4 DR100 (lens=XF23mm)


Fuji X100F ISO 200 f/4 DR100 (lens=XF23mm)


Fuji X-T100 ISO 200 f/4 DR100 (lens=XF23mm)


Fuji X100F ISO 200 f/4 DR100 (lens=XF23mm)

Click to expand...

I had a quick look at the top two and you focussed in different places. Maybe try single point for both to get them to focus in the same spot?

Exit10 said:

I had a quick look at the top two and you focussed in different places. Maybe try single point for both to get them to focus in the same spot?

Click to expand...

Are we seeing a difference in the lenses rather than a major difference in IQ based on bayer vs xtrans?

blink667 said:

Exit10 said:

I had a quick look at the top two and you focussed in different places. Maybe try single point for both to get them to focus in the same spot?

Click to expand...

Are we seeing a difference in the lenses rather than a major difference in IQ based on bayer vs xtrans?

Click to expand...

That might be 1 reason, the XF 23mm is sharper than the 23mm on the X100. Both are soft at close distances. But not the only one, the X100 23mm is plenty sharp.

Now for the shutter speed difference, why is that? Auto metering? Can you use manual setting or exposure comp to force same settings?

blink667 said:

Exit10 said:

I had a quick look at the top two and you focussed in different places. Maybe try single point for both to get them to focus in the same spot?

Click to expand...

Are we seeing a difference in the lenses rather than a major difference in IQ based on bayer vs xtrans?

Click to expand...

If so that's not good news for the fixed lens 100F.

Sal

I know that the same exposure in a Fuji and a Sony does required 1/3 or 2/3 slower shutter speed on the Fuji. That is due to a different ISO approach / scale.

Now, the X-T100 should have the same ISO scale as the other Fujis, but still it shoots at 1/2 faster shutter speeds.... Can it be the X-Trans "filtering" light away from the sensor?

I prefer the way the X100F renders out of focus areas. I can't draw any conclusions about bayer vs. xtrans from these - which is a good thing!

This isn't really the type of foliage shot where X-Trans might have an issue due to the raw conversion software. You need very fine foliage detail such as small leaves or needles that are at or near the limit of the sensors resolution.

I don't think there's much to be learned from these.

Bob

Thanks for posting I was curious to see some photos like this. What is strange to me is the much greater background blur from the X100f shot with Xtrans compared to same aperture and focal length of the XT100. The XT100 seems to have a narrower depth of focus here despite the same aperture and focal length. I know part of that is the different spot the 2nd image set was focused at but I am not sure that is the only reason. Surely Xtrans does not give a smaller depth of focus?

But the XT100 images to me are more pleasant, sharper, more detailed and nicer tonality.

Another thing muddying the comparison though is both are jpegs and the jpeg engines may not be the same nor the same settings in the jpeg engine. RAW is more conclusive.

Earlier 16mp Xtrans was very sharp due to no AA filter primarily. 24mp Xtrans not such an advantage as many 24mp + cameras now don't have an AA filter.

Fuji colour has been a positive for a long time, others are catching up. My Sony A7r3 now seems to be giving very pleasant skin tones and colours. Not sure if they are in Fuji league yet but they are very nice.

I did a comparison between XT2 and A7r2 and as expected the A7r2 was sharper. It was a reasonable amount although less than I expected. Where the gain lay though was the ability to take more sharpening. The Fuji almost none, the Sony quite a bit.

I don't think Fuji colour is dependent on Xtrans though. In my opinion Xtrans days are over, it had its day in the sun and now things have moved on and now its more of a liability than a gain.

Greg.

What we’ve learned here today is that this was far from a scientific test so no definitive conclusions were made. One could argue that this was simply a test of two very different lenses that weren’t used to their potential.

ikaika777 said:

What we’ve learned here today is that this was far from a scientific test so no definitive conclusions were made. One could argue that this was simply a test of two very different lenses that weren’t used to their potential.

Click to expand...

My take-away so far is that some will say IQ from X-Trans may not be better, but most will say nothing is lost with bayer. In a well executed large print no one would know the difference. Good job Fuji.

Sal

Astrophotographer 10 said:

I don't think Fuji colour is dependent on Xtrans though. In my opinion Xtrans days are over, it had its day in the sun and now things have moved on and now its more of a liability than a gain.

Click to expand...

That has been my thinking for a while but what keeps me with fuji is their lens range and quality is well above that of its competitors. Lenses are keepers digital cameras tend to fade into the drawers.

Top Fujifilm GFX 50S and bottom seem to be bayer sensor based cameras

Thanks for the imput

The X-E3 for the fish shop the X-T100 for the trout streams

oops wrong thread

From the JPG outputs with no photoshop, both the Bayer and X-Tran images look identical

One more sample set

It's very strange! I like the X-T100 tones better (much warmer)! WB is the same?

Yes, all settings are identical on both cameras

scheekwok said:

From the JPG outputs with no photoshop, both the Bayer and X-Tran images look identical

Click to expand...

The image from the XT100 shows more color/punch. The other photos of the flowers you displayed show it even more. Obviously those two lenses are completely different. Which 23mm are you using on the XT100, the 23 f2 or 1.4?

And I think the xtrans looks better. Let’s see, two people, two opinions. Sounds spot on!

Batdude said:

The image from the XT100 shows more color/punch. The other photos of the flowers you displayed show it even more. Obviously those two lenses are completely different. Which 23mm are you using on the XT100, the 23 f2 or 1.4?

Click to expand...

Part of this is the different processors. The EXR processor has a higher level of color saturation than the X Processor Pro on default settings.

If you look at the measurements of the X-A5 on Imaging Resource (which is probably basically identical to the X-T100), it has 2.0% higher default saturation and an overall color DeltaE 1.59 higher than the X-T2.

(In theory RAW processors should produce closer results, but Lightroom may be an outlier.)

The punch you're seeing could be related to demosaicing though.