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

Good work. I'm no fan of the 15-45 as by the time you are at 35mm its really starting to show its weakness... and i find it too weak at 45, and yet it still performs OK compared to the 16-55. 15-45 looks sharper for the majority of the photo apart from the right side. Dont see much else worthy to mention.

Now you could say its xtrans or a poor copy of the 16-55 etc but the way some talk about the 16-55 it should be blowing this tiny piece of plastic tat 15-45 out of the water.

in any case i prefer the 18-55 which is a compromise between the two, although its not super resolution and has af issues.. but when nails AF, its not bad, not my first pick for landscapes but neither would the 16-55 be....

i still have the 15-45 btw, 15mm with ois is useful..

Also at 35 mm the 15-45 is at about f5.2 wide open.. typically lenses are better across the frame a bit more stopped down.

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 got the 15-45mm about six months ago and have been impressed by the quality of the images. It is a nice low-cost 15mm prime for users who don't have something wider than 16mm. I plan to pair my 15-45mm with an X-T100 that is being converted to infrared (590nm) by LifePixel.

My understanding is that the higher-end bodies, such as the X-T2 and X-T3 don't have full firmware compatibility with the lens, so the lens resets the focal length to 15mm when those cameras are turned off. I have used the lens with both an X-T100 and X-T20, and that behavior does not exist.

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!

Hi, I am very interested in this camera, x-a7 and I believe another is the same, x-t200. Can you post any more samples and the original camera jpg if possible of x-a7?

Thank you for this comparison.

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.

maltmoose wrote:

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.

Well, I was more just thinking about comparing the lenses on the bayer sensor to get rid of the whole X-trans issue But you can of course compare both on the X-trans sensor as well.

JayPhizzt wrote:

maltmoose wrote:

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.

Well, I was more just thinking about comparing the lenses on the bayer sensor to get rid of the whole X-trans issue But you can of course compare both on the X-trans sensor as well.

Ok yea. But both lens on both sensors of same scene would be useful but even both on xa7 would be good, but I dont own a bayer fuji yet...

pifilos wrote:

They are close to my amateur eyes although one thing. Is it just me or anyone else can notice that the left side is more clean for X-A7 and the right side for the X-T2 ?

Yes, true. Nice shot, Ian!

More importantly, the center is sharper from the X-A7 and XC 15-45 than from the X-T2 and XF 16-55. Is this due to Bayer sensor, or lens? I dunno.

We know the 15-45 is excellent at wide angle, but 36.3mm ain't exactly wide angle. Lenstip tested only at 15, 28, and 45. I have not seen another test of the 15-45.

Does either lens test as de-centered?

This is from DPreview's X-T200 sample gallery. I just learned about the basic adjustments module in Darktable and tried to improve upon their ACR to taste. The out-of-camera JPEG is overly washed-out in comparison.

good center sharpness, could use better lens corrections