Fuji vs Canon image quality

Hey all,

I've got a 5D mkiii and use it for work shots (non professional) of a reference type and basically holidays, safaris, etc like everyone else which I often print into Blurb books.
I do love the quality of this camera and don't mind spending the money on quality.......however, I would love a smaller camera as most people probably would.....

So, has anyone ever been inclined to go head to head on everyday shots to comparison test the raw and/or jpg quality with the 5d3 and Fuji X-T1? And using a similar top of the line lense from each manufacturer.
I realise for the hardcore pixel peeps there may well be a significant difference but just say for a pro am....would there much of a difference and especially after pp in LR? (of course it depends how much) .

Any thoughts...

If you google the topic, there's quite a bit of blogs, forum posts, etc on this topic and people attempting to post comparison shots. So there may be something there that is of interest to you. I'm not a pixel peeper, I view images at the size I'd normally view them and make my judgments from that.

I have a 6D and an X100s, and my personal opinion is the IQ from my 6D is superior. How much superior? Well that's subjective. I'd say maybe 20%? But how does one quantify such things?

Personally whenever I see comparisons, I generally think sensor size DOES matter. I always seem to prefer the images that come out of a larger sensor camera. A poster here (everydaygetaway) recently made a post comparing the X-E1's images with the Sony A7r. I don't think this was his intent, but I thought the images coming from the full-frame sensor was clearly superior, even at web viewing. Not exactly a 5D3 vs X-T1 comparison, but his post might be of some interest to you.

I pretty much agree with The Dark Knight. I have a 6D and an x100s. The 6D files are generally cleaner, have better high ISO handling, that kind of thing. That said, the x100s is my preferred camera. I cannot really tell you why, but its kind of like the flaws in the x100s make it beautiful. The 6D is clinical, almost sterile at times. The x100s files are raw and organic, they are more alive. Of course, these are personal feelings so take it for what it is. The x100s files are by no means bad. I would venture to bet that an identical exposure on a well lit scene you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Its when things start to get imperfect is when the nuances come out.

Of course, the x100 series you have only one lens choice and I know that Fuji makes some great glass. If you have a Fuji with interchangeable lenses, your results might be more in line with what a Canon 6D or 5D3 would produce. The x100 lens is great but it doesnt resolve details as well as some other Fuji glass.

I bought an X-E1 to supplement my 6D and before long the 6D started collecting dust and I took the X-E1 with me everywhere instead. The IQ from the 6D was still marginally better and significantly better past ISO3200, but it wasn't enough to make me want to lug it around. Because of this I've now sold both cameras and got an a7R, but that camera's low light ability (or lack thereof) already has it listed for sale to fund the a7S.

As for your question; I think you'll be very happy with the Fuji files, I certainly was.

Here's a direct comparison

X-E1 + XF 18-55mm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nAPS​TW

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nTeP​rh

One other thing to consider is that Fuji is fast becoming a "mature" system. They just introduced the 16-55 f/2.8. The 50-140 f/2.8 came a little earlier. 10-24 already exists, and a full complement of excellent prime lenses. And they should be coming out with a flash system if you are into that.

So if you can live with some of the compromises of going from full frame to APS-C (such as the lesser low light performance), seems like Fuji is as good of a system as any. If I was okay with APS-C, Fuji would be THE system I'd commit to at this point.

Since you're coming from a fullframe sensor, do yourself a favor and take a look at the Sony A7II, A7S and A7R cameras (they all have a fullframe sensor too) and combine one of these cameras with the Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm F/1.8 which is also called a mini-Otus. That's currently the biggest compliment you can give a lens.

jocau wrote in post #17369851
Since you're coming from a fullframe sensor, do yourself a favor and take a look at the Sony A7II, A7S and A7R cameras (they all have a fullframe sensor too) and combine one of these cameras with the Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm F/1.8 which is also called a mini-Otus. That's currently the biggest compliment you can give a lens.

True, the a7's are great cameras, but they're also significantly more expensive than the Fuji line. I would recommend an a7 if you're like me and you use MF lenses so you can just cary the lenses over from your main system, but to adopt the a7 line as a secondary system to a 5D3 is going to break the bank. The body is $1700 for the cheapest of the ones you listed, the 24-70mm is $1200, the 70-200mm is $1500, the 55mm is $1000, and the 35mm is $800 (and it's 2 stops slower than the cheaper Fuji equivalent).

If getting the a7 line as your primary system, they're excellent and I definitely recommend them. As a complimentary system though, I don't think they're the best choice for that, especially since the Fuji lenses are generally smaller and lighter than the Sony ones.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17369981
True, the a7's are great cameras, but they're also significantly more expensive than the Fuji line. I would recommend an a7 if you're like me and you use MF lenses so you can just cary the lenses over from your main system, but to adopt the a7 line as a secondary system to a 5D3 is going to break the bank. The body is $1700 for the cheapest of the ones you listed, the 24-70mm is $1200, the 70-200mm is $1500, the 55mm is $1000, and the 35mm is $800 (and it's 2 stops slower than the cheaper Fuji equivalent).

If getting the a7 line as your primary system, they're excellent and I definitely recommend them. As a complimentary system though, I don't think they're the best choice for that, especially since the Fuji lenses are generally smaller and lighter than the Sony ones.

Well, I didn't get the impression from his first post that he was going to use the camera as a second camera next to his 5D3. He also said that he didn't mind spending money on quality, so I'm not so sure about the "breaking the bank" statement.

Also when I think of the 5D3, I think of "great AF performance" and "fullframe sensor" (and its high ISO performance). And there's of course the extra DOF control (better subject isolation) that comes with a fullframe sensor. Fuji in my opinion doesn't offer any of these. For "great AF performance" in a mirrorless body you need to look at the Olympus OM-D EM-1 or the Sony A6000. And for a fullframe sensor in a mirrorless body, you need to look at the A7 cameras.

Fuji does indeed have great lenses, but their top of the line lenses are about just as expensive as the top of the line Sony lenses.

I'll share my experience. This past summer I went looking for a mirrorless system to replace my FF DSLR kit. I borrowed and played with a bunch including the XT-1. My final conclusion was that for how and what I shoot there isn't a mirrorless system that can replace my DSLR - yet. I'm sure the day will come. My bottom line and process was, excluding comparison charts and reviews, to look back in my catalog and determine if a mirrorless system would have provided results equal or better than what I've produced since buying the 5D3. The answer was no but what ended up happening was I added a mirrorless system (OM-D E-M1) to my kit and slimmed down the DSLR kit quite a bit. I can travel with both systems now carrying an equivalent weight. Image quality in any system depends largely on how, where and what you shoot. There are many people who are perfectly happy with the IQ for the XT-1 and others...not so much. Like so much else in photography it depends on your personal use and expectations. You have to consider IQ within a larger context, not the least of which is how the system as a whole works within your photographic pursuits. Speaking to your comment about not having a problem paying for quality I am of the same belief but also of the realization that the payment is not always monetary. To get the IQ I want I often have to carry a few extra pounds and I consider it a fair price. I hope that helps you out.

I can give you my experience from a few months with a fuji xe1 and now a xe2. I have shot all apc cameras from canon, currently a 7d, so can not speak about FF. I picked up a used xe1 with kit lens for $500, less than most decent single lens from canon. I was astonished at the jpeg iq upto iso6400. I have since upgraded to a xe2. To me, if you are shooting non moving things, try it out. I have come down that I want to shoot jpegs, I no longer want to go in and spend time editing photos. With the ex2, the wifi transfers great images to my ipad. Xmas time it was great that I took photos at some family functions and people were looking at them on my ipad. This is just a sooc jpeg, iso6400 with kit lens.

I own a 6D/5D3 combo and I recently rented an X-T1 for two weeks, but I wasn't overly pleased with its image quality.

I think renting a Fuji camera is the best way to decide for yourself. Nobody else can answer this for you.

mclaren777 wrote in post #17377474
I own a 6D/5D3 combo and I recently rented an X-T1 for two weeks, but I wasn't overly pleased with its image quality.

I think renting a Fuji camera is the best way to decide for yourself. Nobody else can answer this for you.

what about the image quality didn't meet your requirements? There is usually only one area where I generally feel the Fuji under performs. When a sky is really blue, and I convert to B/W and want that dark, red filter from the film days sky, often the blue sky falls apart into a pixelated mess. The Canon sensor doesn't do this unless the blue sky has been heavily over saturated. On the flip side, I usually have to desaturated the blues with the Fuji files to avoid this, but it introduces an extra couple steps and affects the image quality in my opinion.

crackennz wrote in post #17368659
So, has anyone ever been inclined to go head to head on everyday shots to comparison test the raw and/or jpg quality with the 5d3 and Fuji X-T1?

This may not be helpful but my X-E1 has the same resolving power as my 5Dii, but more than a stop more dynamic range.

I find where the Fuji shines are those situations where the dynamic range has you shooting EV -2/3 to keep from blowing out the highlights. From the 5D3 these files are always very noisy at ISO 1600, but I have to get the Fuji up to about ISO 3200 before I start noticing that amount of noise.

Well lit scenes don't count in the comparison, because even my iPhone does well with those. It's when you get outside the bell curve that you pick up fairly significant differences.

jocau wrote in post #17370368
Fuji does indeed have great lenses, but their top of the line lenses are about just as expensive as the top of the line Sony lenses.

Sony has lenses besides that 55mm f1.8. Sorry couldn't help. I know they have those f4 zooms but man Sony is lot more $$ than Fuji.

If Sony could put A6000 AF in thAT A7, it would be nice, but no. Why they don't do it, I don't know. They seem hell bent in releasing new cameras ever so often.