Studio Comparison

Our latest test scene is designed to simulate both daylight and low-light shooting. Pressing the 'lighting' buttons at the top of the widget allows you to switch between the two. The daylight scene is shot with manually set white balance aimed at achieving neutral grays, but the camera is left in its Auto setting for the low-light tests (except Raw, which is manually corrected during conversion). We also offer three different viewing sizes: 'Full', 'Print', and 'Web', with the latter two offering 'normalized' comparisons to more fairly compare cameras of differing resolutions by ensuring equivalent viewing sizes.

The X-T10 produces fairly similar results to those produced by the X-T1: low on moire, with a good amount of detial but some rather odd renditions of fine green detail. The high ISO JPEGs are good, too, with noise very well controlled and most types of detail well retained.

Despite the claimed advantages of the X-Trans design, it's starting to look a little out-of-date compared with the 24 and 28MP sensors being offered by its rivals. The X-T10 can't match the best of its peers in terms of critical detail. As ISOs rise, the Fujifilm does very well, though: even when the higher pixel-count rivals are scaled to a common size.

As we've seen before, the Raw noise performance is good. Almost too good... We don't know whether the noise reduction is a side-effect of the calculation that goes into demosaicing or if it's an intentionally applied step, but the X-T10's Raw files are impressively low in noise at high ISOs.

Frustratingly, although the X-T10 is happy to shoot JPEGs up to ISO 25,600, it will only shoot Raw up to a rather limiting ISO 6400. This is unusually low for a contemporary camera and can be restrictive unless you're using the very brightest lenses, if you're shooting in low light. We're not sure why Fujifilm doesn't simply store Raws with a metadata tag telling the processor to push the result by 1 or 2EV, since this is apparently occurring in-camera.