Its default processing is arguably the most sophisticated as well, maintaining excellent detail, contrast and crispness while producing very few sharpening artifacts. The Sony A7 III is easily the overall winner here with great detail and contrast, and the least image degradation as sensitivity climbs, though that's not a surprise given its full-frame sensor. The APS-C D500 produces higher contrast across ISOs, but the Nikon isn't able to resolve quite as much detail as the X-H1, and it generates the most obvious sharpening halos. The X-H1 compares well to the Olympus E-M1 II and Panasonic GH5, with both Micro Four Thirds models dropping off in image quality more quickly as ISO rises. The X-H1 performs very similar to its predecessor here, with both able to fully resolve the line pattern inside the lettering even at ISO 6400, and with the only noticeable differences being contrast and color. High-contrast detail is also important, pushing the camera in different ways, so we like to look at it, too. Fujifilm X-T2, Nikon D500, Olympus E-M1 II, Panasonic GH5, Sony A7 IIIĭetail comparison. Overall, the Sony A7 III still comes out ahead here when viewed at 100% like this, but there is no denying the X-H1 does amazingly well for an APS-C camera.įujifilm X-H1 vs. Noise levels are indeed lower from the full-frame Sony, though less natural-looking noise reduction artifacts can be seen in flatter areas. The A7 III continues to produce a crisper, more contrasty and detailed image than the X-H1 here at ISO 3200. Both offer great color, but reds and greens are little more saturated from the Fuji.įujifilm X-H1 vs Panasonic GH5 at Base ISO The X-H1 actually resolves more fine detail in our red-leaf swatch even though contrast is lower, while the E-M1 II renders it smoother but with less fine detail, however the Olympus does better with thread pattern in the pink fabric. The Olympus produces a crisper image with higher contrast, though default sharpening also appears to be a bit stronger. Luminance noise appears higher from the Fuji, but chrominance noise is higher from the Olympus. You would think the 24-megapixel X-H1 would have a noticeable resolution advantage over the 20-megapixel E-M1 II here, but both cameras have similar resolutions along the vertical axis (4000 vs 3888 pixels) which is how this scene is framed, so the resolution difference is very minor and mostly boils down to different demosaicing algorithms and processing. And remember, you can always go to our world-renowned Comparometer to compare the Fuji X-H1 to any camera we've ever tested! Fujifilm X-H1 vs Fujifilm X-T2 at Base ISOĪbove we compare the Bayer-filtered Micro Four Thirds Olympus E-M1 Mark II to the X-Trans-filtered APS-C X-H1. For those interested in working with the RAW files involved, click these links to visit each camera's respective sample image thumbnail page: Fuji X-H1, Fuji X-T2, Nikon D500, Olympus E-M1 II, Panasonic GH5, and Sony A7 III - links to the RAW files appear beneath those for the JPEG images, wherever we have them. Clicking any crop will take you to a carrier page where you can click once again to access the full resolution image as delivered straight from the camera. All cameras in this comparison were shot with our very sharp reference lenses. NOTE: These images are from best quality JPEGs straight out of the camera, at default settings including noise reduction and using the camera's actual base ISO (not extended ISO settings). The Sony A7 Mark III is the only full-frame model in this comparison, however we decided to include it because at the time of writing it is selling for the same price as the X-H1, and because of Fujifilm's claim that their X-Trans APS-C sensors produce image quality that can rival full-frame Bayer-filtered sensors. Below are crops from our laboratory Still Life target comparing Fuji X-H1 image quality to its less expensive sibling, the X-T2, as well as against several recent premium interchangeable lens cameras: the Nikon D500, Olympus E-M1 II, Panasonic GH5 and Sony A7 III.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |