a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I wanted this 40MP APS-C camera to be my step up from my Sony 𝜶6500. I downloaded samples from ImagingResource. I downloaded the raw versions of my favorite scene with ISO as close as possible. The less-than-100% Fuji should have the advantage, if any.

I wanted the 40MP to give me more ability to crop on long-tele bird photos.

I was unable to open the Fuji raw with my PixelMator Pro so I compared them side by side with FastRawViewer using my screen at 4K and doing the second level of sharpening provided by that application.

I sized them the same. The Sony image is at 100% and the Fuji image is at 74.5% so they are almost exactly the same size on the screen. The difference in enlargement is because the sensors have unequal numbers of pixels.

You can see the filenames on the images' boundaries but to save you the squint, the Fuji is on the left. They are downloadable and are 6.3 and 6.9 MB. The original sizes are shown in the snapshot of my Finder's display. If anyone actually wants to compare the originals, he or she can get them from ImagingResource exactly as I did.

Ignoring color, I think the Sony image is sharper in both of these. I also like the Sony color better but that's really a non-issue since they are raw, not JPG.

(Download)


(Download)

therwol Loc: USA

One of the problems I have with these ImageResource comparisons is that they don't use the same lens in comparisons between cameras of different manufacturers, and I can imagine that internal settings in two cameras may be different causing different results. Your Sony lens may simply be sharper than the one used on the Fuji camera.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I agree that the lens is a non-sensor variable. It's not my lens, it's theirs. I have to assume that IR uses a suitable lens in both cases. The settings (EXIF) are given in the thumbnails on the site. I try to choose the most comparable when I do something like this.

If I were to buy the camera and a suitable lens, the lens would be their new ?-400 zoom. If I were to spend the $$ for the Sony lens it would be the 100-400 GM which would be as good or better than my 70/200 F4 which is very, very good.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Before you make judgements, let me suggest you download a trial copy of Capture One and convert the Fuji raw files using it. My and other’s experience has been that many raw conversion aps (such as LR/PS’ ACR), optimized for Bayer array sensors yield disappointing results in both sharpness and color when converting raw file from Fuji’s X-Trans sensor (and resizing).

Also, for this to be an accurate test of the sensor, you need to be using the same lens (which may require a converter) of you may need to pick the best quality lens available for each if you wish to compare the total system performance. You didn’t mention which Fuji lens was used, but they do have various quality lenses - XCs, XFs and Red Line XFs, and without using the best quality lens and camera settings plus using a conversion Ap designed for the X-Trans type of sensor, it’s difficult to draw an accurate comparison.

Finally, there’s a difference between resolution and perceived sharpness which also involves contrast, so again, the lens and exposure variables and post processing make this test problomatical.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

It looks like a tweak to the contrast and saturation of the Fuji file would get them looking very similar. If you check the fine bristles of the brush I would say that the Fuji has a slight edge.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Sorry, you cannot establish any type of comparison using home made results.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

👍

Stan

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Spot on advice! I reluctantly change from lightroom to capture one and it really makes a difference.

azted Loc: Las Vegas, NV.

I think that the focus point is different. The Sony shows more detail in the lower front part of the brush while the Fuji shows more detail in the upper middle part of the brush. Apples and Oranges in this case.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

If you want to really see differences, use Capture One for post work, which has the proper software for Fuji exposures. You will find a huge difference. Also, each camera's lens is different, which has a dramatic effect on results, but you already know that.

Cheers!

User ID

Keep it under your hat ! When I read the opening post I rejoiced that such a great camera would likely be for sale used with almost no miles on it.

Pointless geeky "testing" often leads to disappointment, which feeds the used camera pipeline for those of us who depend on that. Its possibly the most productive aspect of UHH.

Bottom line is that the OP is dissatisfied, and that will benefit someone else. And so please do not impede or disrupt that natural process. Its natures way, and nature favors her scavengers.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Those of you who think I had any control over the lenses or was doing something home made are just not reading what I wrote.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

No, there will not be a almost new camera for sale. If you read the post you will see that I downloaded the images from the Imaging Resource website. Duh!