Old Sensor / New Sensor...Same Look?

[Leighton]

One of the things that drew me to Fuji in the first place was the look of the files coming out of the 16mp sensor. I'm shooting the X-T10 and LOVE what I get out of it, but now, I have my eye on the upcoming XT2.

 

For those that have shot with the older X cameras and now have used the XP2, are you finding that the new 24mp sensor has the same "look"?

[aceflibble]

Depends what how you define the "look", what you're shooting, and whether you shoot raw or jpg.

 

For jpg, the newer files are sharper. Noise reduction is less aggressive by default and can be turned lower than before. For high frequency detail, like grass, leaves, or a fabric texture, you'll find the new files are less smeared. Shadow detail is very slightly cleaner. Skin tones aren't so heavily optimised just for Asian tones now, so if you shoot portraits and your clients/subjects cover a wide range of skin tones from all ethnicities, the new files will be more flattering overall. Red and intense orange tones hold detail and are smoother, now, with less chance of a bright red object burning or blocking out. If you shoot black & white you'll probably appreciate the built-in S-shape tone curve of the Acros profile, as it nicely increases contrast and sharpness without crushing/burning detail or increasing blocking like the normal shadow/highlight and sharpness controls do. The red, yellow, and green filters for the monochrome and Acros profiles are also very slightly less severe than they are on the older cameras, so they look a bit more like what you get with an actual colour filter and not the overly-photoshopped nature of the old files.

For raw, it's basically the same as you had before. A few things are better, like intense red tones not getting crushed as badly, and of course the resolution is higher so you naturally get more detail, but that's about it. This is of course better if you're shooting technical stuff. Panels, product packaging, macro, etc. It's nicer if you shoot landscapes, just like any higher-resolution, lower-noise sensor always is. If you shoot portraits, street, events, or travel, and you shoot raw, I don't think you'll notice any difference at all. 

 

The in-camera jpgs have changed in a small but noticable way, which not everybody is going to like. (Just like how some people still prefer the look of X-Trans I files to X-Trans II.) The raw files... they're raw files. The changes are minimal and you could correct them back to how the X-Trans II files looked, if you really want.

 

I say this as someone who most commonly uses the T1 & T10 and has rented a Pro2. People who have lived/worked with the Pro2 more intensely may have spotted further changes, but I mean, I put about 500 shots on the thing, so I feel I've got a good grasp on what the new sensor will do. 

[Leighton]

Thank you for the detailed reply, it really helps. I soot raw, so it's nice to know that I can easily achieve the same "look". I guess my decision will come down to the feature set of the T2, that will make me buy it or not. I like to shoot old MF lenses so this is the reason I'm even considering a change from the T10. A bigger and brighter viewfinder would be nice.

Depends what how you define the "look", what you're shooting, and whether you shoot raw or jpg.

 

For jpg, the newer files are sharper. Noise reduction is less aggressive by default and can be turned lower than before. For high frequency detail, like grass, leaves, or a fabric texture, you'll find the new files are less smeared. Shadow detail is very slightly cleaner. Skin tones aren't so heavily optimised just for Asian tones now, so if you shoot portraits and your clients/subjects cover a wide range of skin tones from all ethnicities, the new files will be more flattering overall. Red and intense orange tones hold detail and are smoother, now, with less chance of a bright red object burning or blocking out. If you shoot black & white you'll probably appreciate the built-in S-shape tone curve of the Acros profile, as it nicely increases contrast and sharpness without crushing/burning detail or increasing blocking like the normal shadow/highlight and sharpness controls do. The red, yellow, and green filters for the monochrome and Acros profiles are also very slightly less severe than they are on the older cameras, so they look a bit more like what you get with an actual colour filter and not the overly-photoshopped nature of the old files.

For raw, it's basically the same as you had before. A few things are better, like intense red tones not getting crushed as badly, and of course the resolution is higher so you naturally get more detail, but that's about it. This is of course better if you're shooting technical stuff. Panels, product packaging, macro, etc. It's nicer if you shoot landscapes, just like any higher-resolution, lower-noise sensor always is. If you shoot portraits, street, events, or travel, and you shoot raw, I don't think you'll notice any difference at all. 

 

The in-camera jpgs have changed in a small but noticable way, which not everybody is going to like. (Just like how some people still prefer the look of X-Trans I files to X-Trans II.) The raw files... they're raw files. The changes are minimal and you could correct them back to how the X-Trans II files looked, if you really want.

 

I say this as someone who most commonly uses the T1 & T10 and has rented a Pro2. People who have lived/worked with the Pro2 more intensely may have spotted further changes, but I mean, I put about 500 shots on the thing, so I feel I've got a good grasp on what the new sensor will do. 

[deva]

I've been using the X-T1 and X-Pro2 together while out shooting various events. There is no significant difference between the look of the images from both cameras. Making a photo gallery of mixed images, it would be hard to tell the difference under most situations.

 

Like aceflibble said, the X-Pro2 has some improvements in handling red and I agree with his other comments too... None of the changes are big as in images shot with both immediately stand out. 

 

If you use jpegs, then there are small differences in at least some of the film simulations. I have not done any meticulous testing (and likely never will) but my sense when shooting both is that the WB and exposure calculation are slightly different in the 2 cameras so those are other variables which affect how images look. 

 

I shoot raw and jpg and sometimes use one or the other. 

[Leighton]

Thanks. I'm looking forward to seeing what the XT2 brings with it.