.
Do you remember the very good X-E1 review (with 5D Mark III comparison) of Martin, posted on Fujirumors here?
Now Martin posted his second test. Again, the Fuji [shoplink 7756]X-E1[/shoplink] has to compete with the [shoplink 7748]Canon 5D Mark III[/shoplink]! But in addition to the 5D he compared the X-E1 also with the [shoplink 7759]Canon EOS 600D[/shoplink] (APS-C sensor). This time the leses tested are the [shoplink 7764]XF 14mm[/shoplink] and [shoplink 7766]XF 35mm[/shoplink].
And also this time the review of Martin is well worth a read. (click here to read the whole review). I’ll post just an extract of his detailed review.
XF 35mm
The manual focus of the 35mm is tedious (the behaviour of the focus ring is not intuitive). The 35mm offers, compared to the 18-55, just a slightly increased resolution. He suggests you to buy the XF 18-55mm rather than with the XF 35/1.4, “provided you can do without the larger apertures. In particular since the zoom lens also offers an effective image stabilizer.” And more:
“The resolution of the full-frame EOS 5D Mark III can not be matched by the Fuji with neither lens, which was to be expected. […]
I was surprised by the good performance of the EOS 600D with its rather simple kit zoom lens (Canon EF-S 18-55 IS II). In the aperture range from f/5.6 onward, this combination gives at least as good resolution as the Fuji X-E1 with XF 35 mm fixed focal length optics. You can even see the minimal pixel count advantage of the Canon (18 MPixel versus 16 MPixel) in the resolution charts.”
And what about chromatic abberation?
“It is striking to see the Fuji prime lens XF 35mm deliver somewhat worse results than the XF zoom 18-55. One can assume that Fuji performs electronic corrections in camera, which also have an effect on RAW data.”
XF 14mm
This is an excellent lens.
“The autofocus has little to do at this focal length (21mm equivalent to full frame) and it works quickly and flawlessly… A most unique feature of this auto-focus lens is the ability to switch to a mechanically coupled manual focus. After pulling the focus ring towards the camera body the focus can be set directly, i.e. without a remote controlled servo motor. To achieve the coupling the focus motor firstly drives the optics to the mechanically preset focal length. After that, the coupling is automatically engaged. No operation of the small M-C-S rotary switch is required. […]
[…]Ultimately, the XF 14mm is the first and only XF series lens, which constitutes an excellent manual focus that is a real alternative to autofocus. I very much hope that Fuji will bring more optics with this design to the market in the future.”
The optical performance is “outstanding“, and the chromatic abberation test results are even lower than the Canon 5D Mark III (with 16-35 zoom lens).
from the conclusions
“One can ask the question why the X-E1 delivers a rock-solid performance in my tests, but is not the celebrated stellar performer as in some other reviews. The reason might be that I was analyzing RAW files and not the JPEGs out of the camera. Fuji’s software department has obviously done a great job and the X-E1 produces excellent JPEGs. But a comparison of raw sensor data is more revealing, since resolution measurements can be manipulated by JPEG sharpening almost arbitrarily. Only RAW files show the real performance of the optical system under similar conditions.
It turns out the X-E1 provides a very good image quality, but ultimately, it is on a par with other top APS-C cameras of similar resolution. Even with the two excellent prime lenses the X-E1 does not reach the resolving power of a full frame camera.”
Read it all, see the resolution and chromatic abberation charts and sample shots here at Martin’s webiste.
_
Fuji X-E1 info and price at [shopcountry 7756]
Canon 5D Mark III info and price at [shopcountry 7748]
26 Responses
he compares raws developed with capture one, why not comparing the jpegs? we all know fuji x suffers from raw converters in this early days, and to say the CA results are worse than Canon FF is not a big surprise when comparing uncorrected raws.
I don’t understand why he focuses on resolution.
Non-full frame cameras can not match resolution, at least not without software magic which still wont maintain quality.
I’d rather read a review that focused on the fullness and quality of the image rather than size.
It sounds to me like the author is not talking about image size in this case (as sometimes is inarticulately done when talking about digital photography) he is using the more accurate definition or resolution which you can find on wikipedia/image_resolution
Thanks
What is the reason to write something like:
“Here again, the full-frame camera shows what is possible with a larger sensor and provides higher resolution at all comparable apertures. Whether this is really needed is an entirely different question.”
It sounds like: I’m going to test which car is faster. A is faster than B. But then do you need a fast car?
The last of a long list of junk reviews.
I suppose there are lots of reviews regarding resolution because its easy to compare, understand … and present. And perhaps, lots of comparisons against DSLR because that’s what most people have.
Unfortunately being able to read the small print does not make for a useful review in these cases, both are sufficiently good at that task.
Fuji X-pro cameras seem to fall behind DSLR on lens behaviour and focus, however the newest cameras and the 14mm lens show that they know how to fix this. The next generation of comparisons might be more interesting.
Obviously a modern APS-C sensor won’t compete with a modern FF sensor, other than in Fujifilm marketing material.
However, I think what matters here is quantification. While one sensor is smaller than the other, and see performance differences because of that, is it _too_ much smaller? There are major advantages to a smaller sensor too. The difference need to be quantified and the scenarios taken into consideration.
This review is a good example of why I nowadays shun technical comparisons of theoretical max resolutions at optimal apertures, etc. In the past, this has only served to lighten my wallet, not to produce better photos.
I’ve X-Pro1 and 35 1.4, and 5d mark II and contax 35 1.4. One day perhaps I’ll publish a test. If I have not already done so, it is because I wonder if it makes sense doing it.
Well, before buying fuji, I already knew canon had better resolution both on screen both on printing (at least over A2 format, on high ISO is another story).
But I did not purchase my X-pro to compete with the Mark II.
With the x-pro I re-discovered the experience of shooting with light gear and good results. While if I’ve to shoot a landscape, I take with me my best resolution gear. But again, I’Il do not leave home the fuji: I’ve found in many shots the delightfulness (not only mere resolution) of raf file surpasses the full frame one.
Exactly. I totally agree (I own a 1Dx, but same situation).
To judge an image solely on resolution is like judging a painting on the number of brush strokes used to make it.
I owned 5D Mk3 , Nikon D800E , resolution detail wise they are unbeatable in 35mm range , well hasselblad digitalback will beat any 35mm DSLR .
however thats not all about photography , sometimes these bulky cameras and time spent on raw file tuning can be headache .
fuji does the best on out of camera jpeg , awesome high iso , and retro-ish/compact body , which makes lots fuji users, not only love their camera, but also love using it , because you don’t have to think about tuning or editing your raw photos afterward, I would take this camera with me any day and not worry how much time i need to spend editing thousands of my photos from a trip.
Totally offtopic, but last week i dropped my X-E1 from about 2 meters when photographing at an abandoned hotel. It was a crazy drop (first it hit the stairs mid-way, and then bounced down over the side on the concrete floor), and I was 100% sure that it will never work again.
But oh behold, besides a dent in the exposure dial, a scratch in the rubber grip and a small dent in the side of the lens – it works perfectly. I just removed the battery and inserted it again, and it started to work just like before.
Now, from experience i know that would I have dropped a semiplastic dslr from that height – it would have smashed into pieces. Now THATS a big reason why I bought the Fuji in the first place.
24mp is 20% higher resolution than 16mp. Charts show just that. If you scale X-E1 charts by 1.2 you’ll have the same performance as full-frame Canon. I bet upcoming upgrade for X-E1 (be it in X-E2 or X-E3) with 24mp sensor will have the same or better resolution than 5Dm3.
If we stop talking pure numbers you might ask yourself when was the last time you needed more than 12mp? When was the last time you printed in larger than A3 size? 16mp is way too much for most of the people.
Thank you Martin for an informed and informative review. I hope Fuji is listening to your points about the 14mm manual focus refinement. Full control of exposure is a given – now Fuji needs to step up with the mechanical focus option across the entire lens line to achieve a true world beating system.
(resolution: blah blah blah)
At the end of the day all that matters are photographs we take. If somebody takes shitty photographs on FF he will continue to do so on smaller sensor. Comparison between the two is interesting and maybe even entertaining but do I really care? Whatever camera I have, if I am happy with results, that is what ultimately matters. I love shooting both. I have FF, I have X-E1. I tend to use them for different situations. I agree with one of the comments above, X-E1 or any X camera was perfect to feel how to go out light and unnoticed, It sort of gave me freedom I didn’t know for a long time. And I don’t care that RAW performance is not in par with FF camera. If you care then get FF camera. Also agree that the current status with RAW converters that natively support RAF files is bad…..I really hope it will change soon. Adobe, are you listening?
I agree in what Richard writes! Owning a D800 and a rx100 I use both a lot – for different purposes and in different situations. However there is a hole between the two where neither is perfect. There a EX-2 probably would fit in very well. (expect that an EX-2 will be mature enough for purchase.)
I think doing the comparison is valid because there a number of reviews comparing the fuji x cameras comparable to a FF digital camera which doesn’t seem realistic so I suspect this was done to try to put that to rest.
There was a lot of hype surrounding the X cameras and I think it is a good thing to try to put it all into perspective.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with them and I do rather like my x-e1, especially for every day walking around or travel, but some folks were giving the impression it could give the quality rivaling FF which it can’t and especially not with the way the RAF files are processed currently. When shooting professionally it’s my Nikon System all the way, but when I’m walking shooting for fun it’s the Fuji.
I’ve definitely made room in my bag for both systems.
+1
Funny, as soon as someone offers a more unbiased review, some people jump on the fence…
I think there was a lot of postings and reviews saying that the X-Trans is comparable with fullframe and the resolution is magical, so this review picks up an interessting topic.
I like my X-E1 too but I think it is great to put the things back to a normal view right now – thanks Martin!
For all hardcore Fujians: you might want to take a look here:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/rogers-law-of-new-product-introduction
The true potential of the x-series cameras will remain a mystery until the raw files can be properly converted…it is amazing that the image quality is comparable too full frame…but, if the files can’t be converted accurately, the true potential will remain uncertain and the uncertainty will remain a disappointment…
I think Capture One Pro 7 and Silkypix 5 already use the full potential – that´s it.
I doubt Silkypix 5 uses the full potential of the x-sensor. Capture One Pro 7 is a decent convertor but Silkypix ver.3.2.13.0 is much better regarding details.
To me the selling point for Fuji X is:
Form and weight factor + usability
Very good selection of lenses if you include those in roadmap
Very good balance quality/price of lenses
The question that remains to be answred is wether the X – Tran sensor spoils or utilizes the gains by not having an AA-filter. We will not know until RAW converters can bring the best possible from the RAW files. (Most owners of Fuji X cameras shoot RAW, so that is the benchmark.
And:
Larger sensor always better image quality, all else equal.
Fuji X camera housings are a bit overpriced I think.
I agree that RAW is a fair way to compare IQ, but then again, when Fuji still doesn’t have a decent RAW converter, what’s the point?? It won’t be fair.
I’m glad I bought an X-E1. I’m actually thrilled I did. I also like to use it as opposed to writing ridiculous articles comparing it to something it’s not.
I use a Canon 5D (a Mk II & a Mk III) and a 7D. I also have an X-E1. My Canon Kit includes several L lenses and is, frankly, unbeatable, unless by medium frame bodies. However, it is bulky and heavy. But I never go out without a camera and take a Canon GX1 as a (deep!) pocket stand-by. But travelling – especially on low cost flights – was a problem. The heavy kit is usually too bulky for hand luggage and the GX1, while being very good at what it does, has some shortcomings. After a lot of heart searching and trials (including the Olympus) I opted for the Fuji X-E1, with the 18mm and the 18-55mm zoom. For me, while the publicity talks the talk, this combination walks the walk. These two great lenses and the high performing body give me 99% of what I need when travelling. I do not like the 35mm and am waiting for the second zoom (the first one is simply fantastic!). I work in RAW only and find the quality fine for what I need – although the JPEGs are superb. It is not a FF DSLR nor a compact, but as a “serious” carry everywhere piece of kit, it is great.
P.S. When can we expect to see an X Pro ” (or 1S) with al the bugs ironed out and manual split-image focussing? In any case, in the meantime well done Fuji for the X E1!!!
I use a Canon 5D (a Mk II & a Mk III) and a 7D. I also have an X-E1. My Canon Kit includes several L lenses and is, frankly, unbeatable, unless by medium frame bodies. However, it is bulky and heavy. But I never go out without a camera and take a Canon GX1 as a (deep!) pocket stand-by. But travelling – especially on low cost flights – was a problem. The heavy kit is usually too bulky for hand luggage and the GX1, while being very good at what it does, has some shortcomings. After a lot of heart searching and trials (including the Olympus) I opted for the Fuji X-E1, with the 18mm and the 18-55mm zoom. For me, while the publicity talks the talk, this combination walks the walk. These two great lenses and the high performing body give me 99% of what I need when travelling. I do not like the 35mm and am waiting for the second zoom (the first one is simply fantastic!). I work in RAW only and find the quality fine for what I need – although the JPEGs are superb. It is not a FF DSLR nor a compact, but as a “serious” carry everywhere piece of kit, it is great.
P.S. When can we expect to see an X Pro ” (or 1S) with al the bugs ironed out and manual split-image focussing? In any case, in the meantime well done Fuji for the X E1!!!
I like so much my 5D mark III. But, alas!, it´s too much heavy and bulky in the street. Even my 600D could be an “obstrusive” gear. I love the body of the X-Pro 1 or that one of the E 1. Neverthless I am waiting for a X-Pro 2 or an E-2 with a faster and better focus… and more lenses.