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

Did you use the same sharpening on both images?

In my experience, X-trans benefits from different sharpening settings than Bayer.

Also, it looks to me that the lowest part of the frame on the X-T2 shot is more OOF than the X-A7 shot, as if the X-T2 is trying to focus a little deeper into the frame than the X-A7.  Both are certainly OOF, again in the lower part of the frame.

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 got some of my best landscape shots for maybe 6 months with the 15-45... It is damn sharp at 15mm, nice. However, I just didn't like using the lens and switched to the 16 2.8 for that...when it came out, more pleasurable to use and stylish, which counts for something I think ;). I'll try to never use a "power zoom" again...

I've used a number of lenses on my X-H1, from adapted Pentax lenses to ancient M42 primes. Resolution wise they all seem to perform well at the pixel level. What sets the 16_55 apart for me is the all around utility. Good range and f/2.8 throughout. Also has fantastic flare control, particularly considering the size of the front element.

I want to pick up a 15-45 at some point for travel, but that's not happening until the pandemic winds down.