Fuji vs Nikon

[armand]

I went out today and I had a D750 and an X-T1 with me. I wasn't really planning to compare them but it happened I took a shot with both of the same subject.
Perspective is slightly different, DOF is slightly different also and so is the post processing (used the Fuji Velvia as a start vs Nikon Standard).

The X-T1 with the 10-14 @ 18mm, F8, ISO 1600, 1/60; the Nikon with the 24-120 @ 52mm, F8, ISO 1600, 1/60. Both handheld.

I don't know what the 18 is for the 10-24 but on the 24-120 the 52 should be close to peak performance.

All these being said, I'll let the images speak in regards to sharpness. I didn't think it's funny just having bought the D750 recently.

PS. in the comparison, the Fuji is the left one

[armand]

and few more

[John Koerner]

I think that is what some of the photographers mean by color.

Not only is sharpness a factor, but the color rendition is superior in the Fuji.

They look deeper and richer.

[Ken Bennett]

A couple of thoughts: They both look good for ISO 1600. The Fuji looks sharper, and the color is better, but I wonder if you can make them match better in post? I find my Canon files don't look as good as my Fuji files right out of the camera, but I can get similar good results after processing the raw files.

[armand]

I could play with the color more for Nikon (the Fuji is a little over saturated with Velvia) but I cannot fix the difference in sharpness.  I suspect that with a tripod the Nikon will look better than this but then again I could use ISO 100 at that moment.  You can see the shadows are less blocked on the Nikon, possibly because of higher contrast in Fuji.

[Paul2660]

A couple of thoughts, the DOF on the 1.5 crop will be better overall.  It's a nice feature of the crop.

The color to me on the Nikon is more "natural" on my monitor, I realize everyone's eyes are different.

On the shots did you use AF or Live View on the Nikon.  If AF, you might need a slight AF micro adjustment on your lens.  If you used Live view, then that's a bit more troubling.  I am interested in which you used.

The Fuji does very well, I am often torn on taking it or a Nikon out as back up for my Phase system.  The Fuji most times wins due to weight.  It's an excellent system with optics that really match up very well also.

I am assuming ACR or LR for raw conversion, curious what your sharpening was for the Fuji, as that's by far the hardest issue for me with most of the files.

Thanks for posting.
Paul

[AFairley]

I don't know the actual numbers, but the Fuji and Nikon lenses you used are in different classes.  The Fuji is by all accounts a stellar performer while the Nikon appears to be solidly in the kit lens category.  Note that I haven't used either.

[uaiomex]

Mirror shake in the Nikon and possibly not comprable optics kind of invalidates the test. imho.

[Martin Ranger]

I don't know the actual numbers, but the Fuji and Nikon lenses you used are in different classes.  The Fuji is by all accounts a stellar performer while the Nikon appears to be solidly in the kit lens category.  Note that I haven't used either.

Mirror shake in the Nikon and possibly not comprable optics kind of invalidates the test. imho.

I wouldn't call the Nikon 24-120 a kit lens. And while I own neither, the Fuji can be had for around $1000 while the Nikon is $1300, so I don't think the lens choice is necessarily biased against the Nikon. In any case, I use actual lens/camera combinations at actual shutter speeds so comparing two setups that I might actually use is pretty interesting. Mirror shake is part of the Nikon system and does not invalidate anything for actual shooting comparisons imo.
Surely one can find conditions under which the Nikon system outperforms the Fuji, but that doesn't make this comparison useless or biased.
And, yes, you can call me a Fuji fanboy 

[jwstl]

There are too many inconsistencies to make a judgement based on these testing methods: different lenses, different post processing, different DOF because of the sensors...

A better test of the sensors would include using the same lens via an adapter, adjusting aperture for DOF etc.

[Ken Bennett]

Mirror shake in the Nikon and possibly not comprable optics kind of invalidates the test. imho.

Not sure about that. When I test gear, I use it under my normal conditions -- hand held, with the lenses I own, etc. So in this case, the OP did just that, and got significantly different results. It's the kind of test that would be valid for me, with my own gear, not one that would be necessarily valid for anyone else.

armand, did you have the image stabilizer on for both systems? Could that make a difference?

[armand]

You are right that there are many inconsistencies as I didn't plan any comparison,  but it is real life. I suspect some mirror slap takes away some sharpness but the shoot was at 1/60 for a 52mm WITH VR enabled. I mean of that's not enough then where is the advantage? (and I recall taking several shots and selecting the sharper)
 
I have to try to see if there is any focus that needs fine tuning but the Nikon is not sharper anywhere in the frame. 
As it was said the Nikon is not a cheap lens and the extra megapixels of the D750 should be an advantage.

Again this one has serious limitations and should be seen as such.  I might try a slightly more rigorous one of I'm getting bored in the next week or so.

[Martin Ranger]

I am assuming ACR or LR for raw conversion, curious what your sharpening was for the Fuji, as that's by far the hardest issue for me with most of the files.

Paul, I use LR and C1 for raw conversion. With both I set sharpening to zero, and use Focus Magic for capture sharpening followed by Topaz Lab's Detail for creative sharpening. This works very well for what I shoot.

Martin

[armand]

I used LR for both.  From my preliminary testing the C1 is doing a better job but I'm reluctant to change my habits.

In LR I got the detail slider to 100% and for this one I think the amount was 39. Masking I don't recall,  possible 10.

[Iluvmycam]

FF Nikon should best Fuji.

Here are my tests. (No D750 though.)

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

Fuji is stellar sensor. I wish they made Leica's sensor or a FF Leica knockoff.


Here is short summation.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/78657145604

Leica M6 Kodak Ektar 100 film


http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/78146710477

Fuji X-E1


http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/78143626409

Leica M240


http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/77677349888

Leica Monochrom


http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/78316730010

Fuji X100


http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/image/78320369123

Olympus PEN E-PM1

[barryfitzgerald]

I'm a bit alarmed at how little detail you have on the Leica/Ektar combo I've shot that film extensively and details are good for a negative emulsion. I'm not sure how you're scanning the film but I'd take a look at that again I've a Plustek and even with a kit lens I'd wipe the floor with your results for resolution, something isn't right on that side of things. You should be holding up to 12/16mp reasonably well with that film and a half decent lens let alone a Leica lens should yield very good results.

[StephaneB]

There are too many inconsistencies to make a judgement based on these testing methods: different lenses, different post processing, different DOF because of the sensors...

A better test of the sensors would include using the same lens via an adapter, adjusting aperture for DOF etc.

What you say is correct for a sensor comparison, but I do not think that is what Armand is doing. He has two cameras, each with a similarly priced zoom of the camera brand, he goes to a place and takes photos with both. I think it is a valid comparison of the system results. I could add that I think it would be a lot closer if Armand had taken raw files and processed them well, which means not with Lightroom or ACR for the Fuji. The killer for Nikon of course, is that it would be very close.

I have a similar experience with the X-T1, but coming from a D800. Of course, the X-T1 does not provide the resolution of a D800. But what I find out is that it takes a 20x30" print to be able spot differences by looking up close. I have arrived at the conclusion that to really take full advantage of the D800 sensor, I'd have to go with optics like the Otus series or the best Zeiss and Nikon primes, which I don't really want to buy for some and cannot afford at all for others. Add to that that the D800 has an anti-alias filter and the Fuji does not, it means that the system of a middle of the range (but still pricey) zoom on a D800 is not a giant leap in image quality compared to an X-T1 with a typical Fuji lens. I know about the D810 but that one is a big price jump over the D800 and that is too much for an amateur like me.

I do not have the D800 anymore and have traded most of my Nikon gear for a great assortment of Fuji lenses.

[jwstl]

What you say is correct for a sensor comparison, but I do not think that is what Armand is doing. He has two cameras, each with a similarly priced zoom of the camera brand, he goes to a place and takes photos with both. I think it is a valid comparison of the system results. I could add that I think it would be a lot closer if Armand had taken raw files and processed them well, which means not with Lightroom or ACR for the Fuji. The killer for Nikon of course, is that it would be very close.

I have a similar experience with the X-T1, but coming from a D800. Of course, the X-T1 does not provide the resolution of a D800. But what I find out is that it takes a 20x30" print to be able spot differences by looking up close. I have arrived at the conclusion that to really take full advantage of the D800 sensor, I'd have to go with optics like the Otus series or the best Zeiss and Nikon primes, which I don't really want to buy for some and cannot afford at all for others. Add to that that the D800 has an anti-alias filter and the Fuji does not, it means that the system of a middle of the range (but still pricey) zoom on a D800 is not a giant leap in image quality compared to an X-T1 with a typical Fuji lens. I know about the D810 but that one is a big price jump over the D800 and that is too much for an amateur like me.

I do not have the D800 anymore and have traded most of my Nikon gear for a great assortment of Fuji lenses.

I would agree with you had the processing been optimized for both-ACR and Lightroom aren't the best choices for Fuji or Nikon-and had the shots been adjusted for similar DOF. The images do show additional detail in the Fuji images but I don't know what that means because of the processing and DOF differences. And you bring up a good point about the anti-alaising filter: the Fuji does not have one but the Nikon D750 does. I'm not sure why Nikon decided to put one on the D750 after leaving it off the the previous models. But maybe additional sharpening was required for these images... Anyway..what this does show me is that the Fuji is capable of some really nice images with that lens. But it doesn't work for me as a comparison vs. the Nikon in any way.

[Ken Bennett]

This sort of test is very useful to conduct for oneself. While I understand the impulse to help others by publishing the results, that generally doesn't work too well on the internet. (Sorry, armand!)

I've done some testing with several different camera systems using 35mm or 35mm-equivalent lenses, with careful post processing and careful printing at 20x30 inches, and satisifed *myself* that the Fuji system holds up quite well against Canon and Sony full frame cameras -- using MY normal techniques and MY raw processing and printing skills, limited as they may be. These tests aren't valid for anyone else, and I would urge anyone who is contemplating the differences between rival systems to make their own comparisons (both before purchasing and before attacking someone else's tests as inadequate.)

[BAB]

If you compare the preview studio shots using the xt-1,d750,Sony 7ii and the em-1 the fuji files are so soft, Sony wins followed by d750, then Oly? Question is were the images sharpened and how were the images processed but clearly shows the fuji far off the mark?