XA1 and XE1

Based on the feedback from people on the forum, I tried to buy the X-A1.... but wound up with an X-A2 and X-E1 combo.  I can't say I'm disappointed.

linbaolong wrote:

I have both the XA1 and XE1 and took the same scene using the kit lens on both bodies (ie. 16-50mm on XA1 and 18-55mm on XE1). I have to say the XA1 has really impressive colours and sharpness. It is really an under-rated camera. The first with XA1 and the 2nd with XE1:

regards,

Lim

better lens on xe1

Thanks for all the comments. Over here, I agree the settings here are not entirely the same. However, I am trying to emphasize the impressive colours rendered by the XA1 (ie. brighter and more pleasing compared to XE1) and the sharpness of the 16 to 50mm lens.

In my opinion, the 16 to 50mm is no way inferior to the 18 to 55mm. It is really value for money given it is much cheaper. It delivers in both day and night shots.

The only advantage of the 18 to 55mm is the bokeh it can produce with its large aperture.

Elyharbour wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't think you can compare anything because of the exposure and ISO differences, and you don't tell us if the JPEG settings were the same or what film simulations were chosen, etc.

You've also got two different capture dates (4 years apart) - haze / mist / visibility? Hand-held with OIS or not? Tripod?

I'm sure you're pleased with the output of the 16-50mm and X-A1, and it might be better for you than the X-E1, but on the basis of what you've told and shown us here, this really is no useful comparison at all IMO.

PS - I almost bought a used X-A1 just out of interest to compare with the X-E1, but as I'd never use it (no EVF) I didn't bother in the end.

Thanks for your comments. Ignore the date setting on the XE1, both pictures are taken one day apart, as I did not change the XE1 date settings.

Both were hand held with OIS on. jpeg settings are identical.

The only difference is I did not use the same ISO on both cameras.

regards,

Lim

Elyharbour wrote:

Or the same exposure...the poor old X-E1 got less than half the light of the X-A1. It must be feeling really sad and unloved Go on, give it break and re-do these with everything identical and preferably a tripod...

and kindly use the SAME lens on BOTH cameras

photo perzon wrote:

Davidgilmour wrote:

The X-A1 is Fujis little secret. Amazing Bayer colours!

Let the people decide, bring the Bayer choice to the Trans, Fuji

An xt10 Bayer body with a leaf shutter.

photo perzon wrote:

Elyharbour wrote:

You mean like $4000? Better tell Fuji They've clearly missed a very high value segment of the market!

I spent years loving Fuji's Bayer products X100, X-A1, now X-A2

Never understood the soft images of the Trans

Then bought the X70 and took baby pictures that came out great. Made the skin tones so attractive. Then I saw the power of the Trans (for me)

I then got a X-E1 because of the high ISO feature of the Trans I

But now I appreciate the Trans II X-T1 and T10 pictures

Took me years to come around

Fuji had a lot of guts coming out with the Trans. To my mind, Trans makes people look good.

Being a small company, it was a risk that paid off.

I would still if I were CEO of Fuji have the X-T10 and the X-T10Bayer

I'd have both

I've had an Xe2, Xt1 and now a Xt10/X70 and even though it's the same trans II I found that the Xe2 & Xt1 has more noise reduction applied to the raws.

Yep, but I would like X-E3 with Bayer instead X-Trans. Best Fuji X pictures I saw and liked most regarding quality of colour were X-100/X-A1/X-A2. All have Bayer CFA. I would pay extra if X-E3 has Bayer.