Another difference (and maybe a subject for a detailed review) between X-Q2 and X30 is Macro. You know, you really have to show us more and in detail and convince us about the "equality" between these cameras. We need to SEE X-Q2 at work, shoulder to shoulder with X30. And make this review a priority (as always with more affordable equipment as that will sell first and the most - maybe Fujifilm can back me up on this?). Thanks a lot!
Thanks for commenting Vasile! Yes, I don't argue that the X30 can take better pictures at the equivalent apertures since the lens on the X30 is superior in quality and also much brighter than the XQ2. My point is that the sensor and processor is exactly the same so you will get similar images. If we are to pixel-peep, we will notice more even sharpness and less vignetting on the X30, especially when shooting RAW. In fact, shooting RAW on the X30 is amazingly good, especially for web-only applications. However, the majority of people buying the X30 and XQ2 are not going to shoot RAW, but JPEGs. When comparing JPEGS in real world shooting situations, I can not see a significant difference. Yes I can shoot the same image on a tripod side-by-side and compare in detail, but I've always said from the start that my website will not be about that. I am a 1 person team (except for YouTube) and it's hard enough to roll out reviews on time, let alone try and do what DPReview does with their image quality tests.
My biggest concern isn't if the XQ2 is better than the X30, but that this category of camera will soon be discontinued unless Fujifilm addresses the issue of sensor size. Now, I think the sensor size and image quality is perfect for this type of camera and at this price point. However, consumers are demanding higher quality images from these smaller cameras. Fujifilm hasn't sold enough of these cameras to make it a priority to redesign the 2/3" sensor, since they know they won't sell many of them. If Fujifilm wants to remain competitive in this sub $500-ish market, they need to do something drastic, either a new sensor, or add more features. For the size of the X30, other brands are squeezing sensors twice the size. This is a big problem for Fujifilm. I think a 1" sensor is necessary for Fujifilm at least on the X30, or they should just discontinue the line and not make an X40. By next year, the Panasonic LX200 and Sony RX200 will be out, and if the X40 still has the same 2/3" X-trans sensor, I predict the camera will not sell...
Thanks for commenting and let me know if you have any more questions!
I saw how you did the review of X30. That is enough, as you give us a lot of sample images. I know your style and that you don't do dpreview style reviews. I read also your opinion regarding X-Q2 on that site, but I would have liked a review as you did for X30. Anyway, I nderstand that you don't have the time and maybe also the motivation.
We know that X-A2 does not have the X-Trans sensor anymore, replaced by a usual CMOS sensor. So, we really want to know the impact reagrding image quality and film simulations. Is this new sensor a Sony sensor? A comparison between X-A2 and an X-Trans sensor based camera would be great. There were some discussions that some of the users liked much more the first generation of sensor from the X10 and X100 cameras. Is X-A2 in the same line?
The sensor in the X-A2 is similar to the first generation but not the same, as the megapixel count is different and also the processor driving it is different. However, there is a debate over the non-Bayer pixel layout of the current X-trans sensor and the original Bayer pixel layout that was invented in the late 1970s that is the current standard. However, more and more brands are removing the filter that helps to reduce artifacts (like colour moire) to help make the images sharper. Since the X-trans sensor does not need this type of colour filter array due to its unique layout of the pixels, the images are sharper. Saying that, the image processor make a big difference in image quality as well, and this is where the debate begins.
I have tried my best not to become a DPReview or other websites with the equipment, time and expertise to conduct these types of tests. All I can say is that I prefer the X-trans sensor over the traditional CMOS sensors. I have compared (I currently have the X-A2 testing its video capability, and yes its an improvement over the X-trans sensored cameras) and since I'm more about shooting f/8 and street style photography, the advantage of the non-X-trans sensor is not obvious to me. I can see the 'smudging' that people talk about (go to DPReview.com) but I don't care about how grass looks like at 200%. I shoot people on the street. Colour and skin tones is usually my highest priority. I think this is why not many nature photographers use Fujifilm cameras, versus urban, street and fashion photographers. The colours and skin tones are amazing on the Fujifilm cameras.
Hopefully I've answered your questions. Thanks for commenting though. I appreciate it, since no one has actually asked me to do this type of comparison. Check out this older DPReview article on the X-trans sensor, RAW files and the creation of the de-mosaicing algorithm for it: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1550547764/adobes-fujifilm-x-trans-sensor-processing-tested
I guess I am for a senzor without AA filter on it, as details are crucial for close-up and macro photography. But I am also tempted by a more cheaper camera, even ready to trade the amazing Fujifilm simulations (and the great X-Trans sensor) for an $430 Samsung NX300 camera. Thank you for your answers!
the Ricoh GR does not have an AA filter as well, and has a very sharp lens. The Samsung NX300 is nice too, but you also have to get a good lens. Remember with the Ricoh, the macro is about 9cm (or 0.23x magnification) so it's not bad but not considered a read macro lens. I hope this info helps.
Sorry yes I'm working on a new website on a different platform so I'm trying my best to migrate everything and create an easy workflow. For now I'm keeping this website up and I probably won't completely get rid of it. Once it's up and running I'll leave a note here to go to the new website, which will have the exact same URL anyway. For now, check out my reviews on YouTube, my images on Instagram, and also my articles on www.fujilove.com
Can't wait for you to settle on the new website and continuing with this blog, as I believe that this is equally important for you and for us, the readers. Until then, one question:
For it's 12Mp size, can you get a sharp and clean picture, corner-to-corner with a Fujifilm X-Q2 camera in good lighting conditions at 400 ISO?
Another difference (and maybe a subject for a detailed review) between X-Q2 and X30 is Macro. You know, you really have to show us more and in detail and convince us about the "equality" between these cameras. We need to SEE X-Q2 at work, shoulder to shoulder with X30. And make this review a priority (as always with more affordable equipment as that will sell first and the most - maybe Fujifilm can back me up on this?). Thanks a lot!
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting Vasile! Yes, I don't argue that the X30 can take better pictures at the equivalent apertures since the lens on the X30 is superior in quality and also much brighter than the XQ2. My point is that the sensor and processor is exactly the same so you will get similar images. If we are to pixel-peep, we will notice more even sharpness and less vignetting on the X30, especially when shooting RAW. In fact, shooting RAW on the X30 is amazingly good, especially for web-only applications. However, the majority of people buying the X30 and XQ2 are not going to shoot RAW, but JPEGs. When comparing JPEGS in real world shooting situations, I can not see a significant difference. Yes I can shoot the same image on a tripod side-by-side and compare in detail, but I've always said from the start that my website will not be about that. I am a 1 person team (except for YouTube) and it's hard enough to roll out reviews on time, let alone try and do what DPReview does with their image quality tests.
DeleteMy biggest concern isn't if the XQ2 is better than the X30, but that this category of camera will soon be discontinued unless Fujifilm addresses the issue of sensor size. Now, I think the sensor size and image quality is perfect for this type of camera and at this price point. However, consumers are demanding higher quality images from these smaller cameras. Fujifilm hasn't sold enough of these cameras to make it a priority to redesign the 2/3" sensor, since they know they won't sell many of them. If Fujifilm wants to remain competitive in this sub $500-ish market, they need to do something drastic, either a new sensor, or add more features. For the size of the X30, other brands are squeezing sensors twice the size. This is a big problem for Fujifilm. I think a 1" sensor is necessary for Fujifilm at least on the X30, or they should just discontinue the line and not make an X40. By next year, the Panasonic LX200 and Sony RX200 will be out, and if the X40 still has the same 2/3" X-trans sensor, I predict the camera will not sell...
Thanks for commenting and let me know if you have any more questions!
BHT
I saw how you did the review of X30. That is enough, as you give us a lot of sample images. I know your style and that you don't do dpreview style reviews. I read also your opinion regarding X-Q2 on that site, but I would have liked a review as you did for X30. Anyway, I nderstand that you don't have the time and maybe also the motivation.
DeleteThe old X-Q1 had a problem with the red color inside a building... rendering the camera unusable. Is the same with X-Q2?
DeleteWe know that X-A2 does not have the X-Trans sensor anymore, replaced by a usual CMOS sensor. So, we really want to know the impact reagrding image quality and film simulations. Is this new sensor a Sony sensor?
ReplyDeleteA comparison between X-A2 and an X-Trans sensor based camera would be great.
There were some discussions that some of the users liked much more the first generation of sensor from the X10 and X100 cameras. Is X-A2 in the same line?
The sensor in the X-A2 is similar to the first generation but not the same, as the megapixel count is different and also the processor driving it is different. However, there is a debate over the non-Bayer pixel layout of the current X-trans sensor and the original Bayer pixel layout that was invented in the late 1970s that is the current standard. However, more and more brands are removing the filter that helps to reduce artifacts (like colour moire) to help make the images sharper. Since the X-trans sensor does not need this type of colour filter array due to its unique layout of the pixels, the images are sharper. Saying that, the image processor make a big difference in image quality as well, and this is where the debate begins.
DeleteI have tried my best not to become a DPReview or other websites with the equipment, time and expertise to conduct these types of tests. All I can say is that I prefer the X-trans sensor over the traditional CMOS sensors. I have compared (I currently have the X-A2 testing its video capability, and yes its an improvement over the X-trans sensored cameras) and since I'm more about shooting f/8 and street style photography, the advantage of the non-X-trans sensor is not obvious to me. I can see the 'smudging' that people talk about (go to DPReview.com) but I don't care about how grass looks like at 200%. I shoot people on the street. Colour and skin tones is usually my highest priority. I think this is why not many nature photographers use Fujifilm cameras, versus urban, street and fashion photographers. The colours and skin tones are amazing on the Fujifilm cameras.
Hopefully I've answered your questions. Thanks for commenting though. I appreciate it, since no one has actually asked me to do this type of comparison. Check out this older DPReview article on the X-trans sensor, RAW files and the creation of the de-mosaicing algorithm for it: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1550547764/adobes-fujifilm-x-trans-sensor-processing-tested
I guess I am for a senzor without AA filter on it, as details are crucial for close-up and macro photography. But I am also tempted by a more cheaper camera, even ready to trade the amazing Fujifilm simulations (and the great X-Trans sensor) for an $430 Samsung NX300 camera.
DeleteThank you for your answers!
the Ricoh GR does not have an AA filter as well, and has a very sharp lens. The Samsung NX300 is nice too, but you also have to get a good lens. Remember with the Ricoh, the macro is about 9cm (or 0.23x magnification) so it's not bad but not considered a read macro lens. I hope this info helps.
DeleteTaco.
ReplyDeleteIs this blog still active?
I've been checking-in a lot, but you seem to have stopped posting.
Cheers,
Josh.
Hey Josh,
DeleteSorry yes I'm working on a new website on a different platform so I'm trying my best to migrate everything and create an easy workflow. For now I'm keeping this website up and I probably won't completely get rid of it. Once it's up and running I'll leave a note here to go to the new website, which will have the exact same URL anyway. For now, check out my reviews on YouTube, my images on Instagram, and also my articles on www.fujilove.com
Thanks for commenting and checking my website.
BHT
Can't wait for you to settle on the new website and continuing with this blog, as I believe that this is equally important for you and for us, the readers. Until then, one question:
DeleteFor it's 12Mp size, can you get a sharp and clean picture, corner-to-corner with a Fujifilm X-Q2 camera in good lighting conditions at 400 ISO?
Thank you for reviewing! The video is very helpful.
ReplyDelete192.168.l.l