Direct comparison: X-T2 16-55 vs X-A7 15-45 - f5.6 landscape

JayPhizzt wrote:

Ian387 wrote:

There's a new X-A7 in the house and I was curious how well it may perform against the X-T2, given all the talk about X-trans vs Bayer, brick vs pancake and so on.

Here I've taken the same scene at 35mm and f5.6 and processed the raws in Capture One 20 to match each other. First, the shots so people can first draw their own conclusions:

X-T2

X-A7

Given the difference in price, size and weight, at the typical landscape 5.6 aperture the difference to my eyes is much smaller than I would have expected. The centre seems very similar, the A7 15-45 is perhaps a tiny bit sharper on the bottom left, while the T-2 16-55 is sharper on the right side. Zoom out to any kind of normal distance and I doubt it would be obvious which was which.

Now, I love my X-T2 and 16-55 and won't be giving it up, but it shows Fuji continues to punch above its weight at the budget end (and quite literally too - we're talking total body+lens weights of 1162g vs 445g here!).

Other notes: I used the Capture One Film Standard profile for both, since the film simulations seem to be unavailable for the X-A7. I used auto white balance and before processing the X-A7 defaulted much, much cooler than the X-T2. Before processing the X-T2 underexposed by a third of a stop (which I've always noticed and so it proved here too - perhaps protecting the highlights for the pros?)

Anyway, take from it what you will - your eyes may vary!

I believe this could at least partly be because of X-trans. The 15-45mm seems like a great performer for the price, though. What you should do however is put the 16-55mm on the X-A7 instead and see how it compares with the 15-45mm when used with a bayer sensor.

I agree 16-55 on the xa7 and 15 45 on xt2 with same processing same 35 focal length.  I think this will be a useful comparison.