Sony A-9 (24mp FF, £ 4,000) vs Fuji X-Pro2 (24mp APS-C, £ 1,250) IQ comparison

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
marco1974 Senior Member • Posts: 1,736
Sony A-9 (24mp FF, £ 4,000) vs Fuji X-Pro2 (24mp APS-C, £ 1,250) IQ comparison
5

...interesting results, I'd say.

 marco1974's gear list:marco1974's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R XF 90mm
Fujifilm X-Pro2
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
rafalczak Forum Member • Posts: 99
Apples and oranges NT
4

No text.

 rafalczak's gear list:rafalczak's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS2 Sony RX100 III Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +3 more
OP marco1974 Senior Member • Posts: 1,736
Re: Apples and oranges NT
6

Ha ha!

Of course it's a bit of horses for courses.

But if I were to summarize it in one line, I'd probably say the A-9 is a "much faster camera with slightly (but noticeably) worse image quality".

And given that the Sony is 3 times the price, is FF vs. APS-C, and that both are current 24mp offerings, I find that a bit surprising. That's all.

 marco1974's gear list:marco1974's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R XF 90mm
JS Burnie
JS Burnie Senior Member • Posts: 2,182
Re: Sony A-9 (24mp FF, £ 4,000) vs Fuji X-Pro2 (24mp APS-C, £ 1,250) IQ comparison
1

The moral of the story is not to shoot at ISO 12,800.

 JS Burnie's gear list:JS Burnie's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS +3 more
OP marco1974 Senior Member • Posts: 1,736
Re: Sony A-9 (24mp FF, £ 4,000) vs Fuji X-Pro2 (24mp APS-C, £ 1,250) IQ comparison
1

JS Burnie wrote:

The moral of the story is not to shoot at ISO 12,800.

I see better IQ from the X-Pro2 (a bit more detail, MUCH less false colour aliasing) at base ISO too.

 marco1974's gear list:marco1974's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R XF 90mm
ChrisH37 Regular Member • Posts: 125
Re: Sony A-9 (24mp FF, £ 4,000) vs Fuji X-Pro2 (24mp APS-C, £ 1,250) IQ comparison
2

Interesting might be pushing it a bit.

Stick both cameras out in the field shooting low light sports and a slightly grainier (but sharp) ISO12,800 image from the a9 would more than likely be preferable to the results from the X-Pro2.

(Don't get me wrong, I use Fuji for sports and love it, but I'm under no illusions that it would be even vaguely competitive with the a9.)

Matsu Senior Member • Posts: 2,026
Re: Sony A-9 (24mp FF, £ 4,000) vs Fuji X-Pro2 (24mp APS-C, £ 1,250) IQ comparison
2

Fuji seems to be cheating the ISO ratings a tad from ISO 800 upwards, where it gives shutter speeds about 1/3rd stop slower for the same apertures and ISO settings.  Not a huge deal though, especially considering the cost differences, and the mess Sony's made of its RAW files.    The X-Pro 2 isn't perfect either - but damn if it doesn't do a pretty great job of dealing with colour artifacts and edge contrast.  Pretty impressive.  IMHO, it strikes a nice balance of cost and features for a premium small camera.

 Matsu's gear list:Matsu's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II Nikon D800 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +9 more
DarnGoodPhotos Senior Member • Posts: 6,537
Re: Apples and oranges NT
2

marco1974 wrote:

Ha ha!

Of course it's a bit of horses for courses.

But if I were to summarize it in one line, I'd probably say the A-9 is a "much faster camera with slightly (but noticeably) worse image quality".

And given that the Sony is 3 times the price, is FF vs. APS-C, and that both are current 24mp offerings, I find that a bit surprising. That's all.

You are buying the A9 over the A7 for the sensor's fast readout, AF tracking, burst, zero-lag/blackout viewfinder, etc. If the Pro2 had all of those things then the discussion of why pay all that for the IQ is valid.

-- hide signature --

www.darngoodphotos.com

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Canon G7 X II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
OP marco1974 Senior Member • Posts: 1,736
Re: Sony A-9 (24mp FF, £ 4,000) vs Fuji X-Pro2 (24mp APS-C, £ 1,250) IQ comparison

Matsu wrote:

The X-Pro 2 isn't perfect either - but damn if it doesn't do a pretty great job of dealing with colour artifacts and edge contrast. Pretty impressive.

Exactly my impressions, also.

 marco1974's gear list:marco1974's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R XF 90mm
OP marco1974 Senior Member • Posts: 1,736
Re: Apples and oranges NT
3

darngooddesign wrote:

marco1974 wrote:

Ha ha!

Of course it's a bit of horses for courses.

But if I were to summarize it in one line, I'd probably say the A-9 is a "much faster camera with slightly (but noticeably) worse image quality".

And given that the Sony is 3 times the price, is FF vs. APS-C, and that both are current 24mp offerings, I find that a bit surprising. That's all.

You are buying the A9 over the A7 for the sensor's fast readout, AF tracking, burst, zero-lag/blackout viewfinder, etc. If the Pro2 had all of those things then the discussion of why pay all that for the IQ is valid.

-- hide signature --

www.darngoodphotos.com

Agreed.

But none of this contradicts my previous summary statement that the A-9 appears to be a "much faster camera with slightly (but noticeably) worse image quality"

 marco1974's gear list:marco1974's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R XF 90mm
OP marco1974 Senior Member • Posts: 1,736
Re: Sony A-9 (24mp FF, £ 4,000) vs Fuji X-Pro2 (24mp APS-C, £ 1,250) IQ comparison

marco1974 wrote:

JS Burnie wrote:

The moral of the story is not to shoot at ISO 12,800.

I see better IQ from the X-Pro2 (a bit more detail, MUCH less false colour aliasing) at base ISO too.

Also, see for instance these ISO 100 (Sony) vs ISO 800 (Fuji) crops:

 marco1974's gear list:marco1974's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R XF 90mm
DarnGoodPhotos Senior Member • Posts: 6,537
Re: Apples and oranges NT
12

marco1974 wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

marco1974 wrote:

Ha ha!

Of course it's a bit of horses for courses.

But if I were to summarize it in one line, I'd probably say the A-9 is a "much faster camera with slightly (but noticeably) worse image quality".

And given that the Sony is 3 times the price, is FF vs. APS-C, and that both are current 24mp offerings, I find that a bit surprising. That's all.

You are buying the A9 over the A7 for the sensor's fast readout, AF tracking, burst, zero-lag/blackout viewfinder, etc. If the Pro2 had all of those things then the discussion of why pay all that for the IQ is valid.

Agreed.

But none of this contradicts my previous summary statement that the A-9 appears to be a "much faster camera with slightly (but noticeably) worse image quality"

It's already been demonstrated that the A9 has worse dynamic range than the A7 and most cameras don't do all that well at ISO12800. You buy the A9 for its speed, which no Fuji can match and you accept that there is a slight IQ trade off for that speed. If you want better IQ you get an A7 or A7R; if you want better low light, you buy the A7S.

This seems like a silly comparison. No one buys a sports car and then complains that it can't haul a family with kids and their stuff as well as a wagon, or SUV.

-- hide signature --

www.darngoodphotos.com

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Canon G7 X II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
DarnGoodPhotos Senior Member • Posts: 6,537
Re: Sony A-9 (24mp FF, £ 4,000) vs Fuji X-Pro2 (24mp APS-C, £ 1,250) IQ comparison
2

marco1974 wrote:

marco1974 wrote:

JS Burnie wrote:

The moral of the story is not to shoot at ISO 12,800.

I see better IQ from the X-Pro2 (a bit more detail, MUCH less false colour aliasing) at base ISO too.

Also, see for instance these ISO 100 (Sony) vs ISO 800 (Fuji) crops:

Don't use samples from the corner because you can end up with lens issues there. I compared the A9, A72, and Pro2 at ISO800 and the A72 had better detail on the illustrations. We already know Fuji's will do better on converging think horizontal lines; but those conditions int he real world are fairly rare. The best detail on the blocks of text was from the A7R2 as you would expect.

-- hide signature --

www.darngoodphotos.com

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Canon G7 X II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
John Carson Veteran Member • Posts: 4,232
Re: Sony A-9 (24mp FF, £ 4,000) vs Fuji X-Pro2 (24mp APS-C, £ 1,250) IQ comparison
3

The X-trans is at its best comparatively with black and white shots. It isn't quite as good with colour.

-- hide signature --

john carson

 John Carson's gear list:John Carson's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS
Whitesands Regular Member • Posts: 317
that moire and false color noise on the Sony

is awful.....However, test scenes don't always accurately reflect image quality in most shooting situations...But as far as the test scene goes the Fuji looks easily superior

OP marco1974 Senior Member • Posts: 1,736
Re: that moire and false color noise on the Sony

Whitesands wrote:

is awful.....However, test scenes don't always accurately reflect image quality in most shooting situations...But as far as the test scene goes the Fuji looks easily superior

That was my take-away too.

 marco1974's gear list:marco1974's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R XF 90mm
scst48 Regular Member • Posts: 277
Re: Apples and oranges NT
2

darngooddesign wrote:

marco1974 wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

marco1974 wrote:

Ha ha!

Of course it's a bit of horses for courses.

But if I were to summarize it in one line, I'd probably say the A-9 is a "much faster camera with slightly (but noticeably) worse image quality".

And given that the Sony is 3 times the price, is FF vs. APS-C, and that both are current 24mp offerings, I find that a bit surprising. That's all.

You are buying the A9 over the A7 for the sensor's fast readout, AF tracking, burst, zero-lag/blackout viewfinder, etc. If the Pro2 had all of those things then the discussion of why pay all that for the IQ is valid.

Agreed.

But none of this contradicts my previous summary statement that the A-9 appears to be a "much faster camera with slightly (but noticeably) worse image quality"

It's already been demonstrated that the A9 has worse dynamic range than the A7 and most cameras don't do all that well at ISO12800. You buy the A9 for its speed, which no Fuji can match and you accept that there is a slight IQ trade off for that speed. If you want better IQ you get an A7 or A7R; if you want better low light, you buy the A7S.

This seems like a silly comparison. No one buys a sports car and then complains that it can't haul a family with kids and their stuff as well as a wagon, or SUV.

-- hide signature --

www.darngoodphotos.com

I simply wonder where the target group is being able to invest into several bodies because Sony isnt able to come up with a body solution which is versatile enough to address basic needs or requirements
The investment in Sony might work for those which are indeed willing to spend more
than 10.000,- USD for several Sony bodies e.g. the sport car, the resolution champion etc.plus another 10.000,- USD for expensive Sony lenses.
I am not making money with my Fuji gear and do not belong belong to this exclusive sport car and SUV club. As such I prefer a cam like the XT2 which is fast enough with
up to 15 pics per sec (sorry 5 pics less in comparison with the Sony) with professional BQ, comparable IQ and a top notch lens portfolio for a reasonable pric.

-- hide signature --

Stefan

Matsu Senior Member • Posts: 2,026
Re: that moire and false color noise on the Sony
2

marco1974 wrote:

Whitesands wrote:

is awful.....However, test scenes don't always accurately reflect image quality in most shooting situations...But as far as the test scene goes the Fuji looks easily superior

That was my take-away too.

It's almost certain that the full frame sensors will perform better in low and mixed lighting. They just have more range, though perhaps Sony's A9 is more limited compared to the best FX.  The larger sensors tend to look comparatively better in real world conditions when both high sensitivity and low shutter speeds are needed to combat low light. High sensitivity performance in good light - which is what you have with the really high shutter speeds in the test widget - tends to mask differences.

 Matsu's gear list:Matsu's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II Nikon D800 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +9 more
DarnGoodPhotos Senior Member • Posts: 6,537
Re: Apples and oranges NT
1

scst48 wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

marco1974 wrote:

darngooddesign wrote:

marco1974 wrote:

Ha ha!

Of course it's a bit of horses for courses.

But if I were to summarize it in one line, I'd probably say the A-9 is a "much faster camera with slightly (but noticeably) worse image quality".

And given that the Sony is 3 times the price, is FF vs. APS-C, and that both are current 24mp offerings, I find that a bit surprising. That's all.

You are buying the A9 over the A7 for the sensor's fast readout, AF tracking, burst, zero-lag/blackout viewfinder, etc. If the Pro2 had all of those things then the discussion of why pay all that for the IQ is valid.

Agreed.

But none of this contradicts my previous summary statement that the A-9 appears to be a "much faster camera with slightly (but noticeably) worse image quality"

It's already been demonstrated that the A9 has worse dynamic range than the A7 and most cameras don't do all that well at ISO12800. You buy the A9 for its speed, which no Fuji can match and you accept that there is a slight IQ trade off for that speed. If you want better IQ you get an A7 or A7R; if you want better low light, you buy the A7S.

This seems like a silly comparison. No one buys a sports car and then complains that it can't haul a family with kids and their stuff as well as a wagon, or SUV.

-- hide signature --

www.darngoodphotos.com

I simply wonder where the target group is being able to invest into several bodies because Sony isnt able to come up with a body solution which is versatile enough to address basic needs or requirements
The investment in Sony might work for those which are indeed willing to spend more
than 10.000,- USD for several Sony bodies e.g. the sport car, the resolution champion etc.plus another 10.000,- USD for expensive Sony lenses.
I am not making money with my Fuji gear and do not belong belong to this exclusive sport car and SUV club. As such I prefer a cam like the XT2 which is fast enough with
up to 15 pics per sec (sorry 5 pics less in comparison with the Sony) with professional BQ, comparable IQ and a top notch lens portfolio for a reasonable pric.

People mistake 15fps with 10 in focus and 20fps with 15 in focus. if your lively hood depends on the latter you'll invest because you can deduct the investment on your taxes. You are a hobbiest and therefore have different needs.

-- hide signature --

www.darngoodphotos.com

 DarnGoodPhotos's gear list:DarnGoodPhotos's gear list
Canon G7 X II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
Touraine Regular Member • Posts: 354
Who cares ?
2

N/T

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads