X-T20 vs. X-A2. A to B

[deemkey 0]

Hi all,

I've been an X-A series user since beginning (X-A1, A2). 

Although I have most of the Fuji primes.

 

Now I'm owning both X-A2 and X-T20.

 

Several A to B crop files are attached.

 

I've purchased X-T20 about several days ago, only because of the 4K.

I wish X-A3 would have it, otherwise I bought it instead of X-T20.

 

Pros of the X-A2 over X-T20 (IMHO)

 

1. Battery life - endless comparing to X-T20

2. Much better ergonomics on X-A2:

   - a dedicated button for recording

   - Play and Delete buttons are on the right side which is perfect for one hand operations, on X-T20 you have to use another hand or move you thumb thru the display which triggers the EVF and turns off the display for a second. Hence you spend more time.

   - Expo-correction dial is so stiff on X-T20 that you have to use both fingers to rotate it, it's the most used element fro me, it's a pleasure to use it on X-A2, and it's a pain to use it on X-T20. Also the dial a bit extends on X-A2 from the body which is another plus.

   - the same concerns the top Fn button right after the dial. X-A2 - no complaints. on X-T20 it's too flat. Almost impossible to press it until you use your nail.

   - Built-in Flash is tillable on X-A2. On X-T20 it's fixed, facing forward, almost useless for me.

   - special ultra-bright display mode useful in bright sun. No such mode on X-T20, probably because of the EVF (but I prefer using display in most cases, because it allows to shot in so many different positions, e.g. from the ground... etc.

   - Joystick buttons are to thick on X-T20, easy to activate them accidentally. Did not have such a problem on X-A2 at all.

   - IMHO, but shiny silver plastic on X-A2 looks more real than soft one on the X-T20, same with "leather"

   

Pros of the X-T20 for me

  - 4K video, better video

  - touch screen (although they have positioned the focus-finger-option on the right top of the display, it triggers accidentally too much, so sometimes it turns off autofocus (they could make it like on Nikon J5, it has it on the left side)

 

 

Both cameras have a bit different AWB so I have tried to match it. Also X-A2 has higher shadows by default (I've added -6 to shadows in Lightroom)

Also with absolutely same settings X-T20 gives always brighter picture. (Exp +0.25)

Also for ISO 6400 X-T20 gives softer picture if Mechanical Shutter is used, it gives identical to lower ISO modes sharpness if ES is selected. 

 

For now I have attached 2 crops (100%) of both cameras.

A to B comparison. X-A2 enlarged to match the 24Mp size of the X-T20

Lightroom 6.9, Detail section is turned off (in order to show raw details),

ISO3200, 56mm f5.6, 1/5s,

Later I will upload other photos.

 

 

Please try and guess which one is which.

 

UPDATE:

I have attached the same comparison, but now both RAF files were processed by internal RAW converter, all settings by default, Noise Reduction was set to the lowest value available.

Dropbox Link to 100% view

 

Just in case X-A2 shows more precise AWB. The red color is tend to be orange on X-T20.

Edited March 14, 2017 by deemkey

[Advertisement]

Hi,

This might be interesting too: Fuji X Cameras

[deemkey 0]

The answer is

the left side is X-T20, the right side is X-A2.

As you can see X-T20 shows more moiré than X-A2 on the stripes which have a dotted pattern.

I can send both RAF files if needed.

 

Also added +0.25 to exposure for X-A2 as I said it's always shows darker picture than X-T20 with same conditions.

Sharpening and noise reduction is off.

Edited March 13, 2017 by deemkey

[renes 12]

I would love to see same landscape shots with both cameras (with greens and reds), with the same settings, including NR on -2 and sharpening on -2, Neg Std or Astia film simulation. Or RAWs. And 18/2 or 35/1.4 or 60/2.4 used. Do not know if you can do it.

Edited March 13, 2017 by renes

[tom3q 3]

Lightroom 6.9, Detail section is turned off (in order to show raw details),

 

I might be wrong, but I think it's not a fair comparison, as what you see on the attached pictures are not raw pictures, they are already processed. I don't know exactly how Lightroom uses the parameters, but if I remember correctly, the Detail section affects the demosaicing stage, which is very important for X-T20 (with X-Trans color filter) and not so much for X-A2 (Bayer filter). Not even mentioning the not-so-good quality of Lightroom X-Trans demosaicing algorithm...

[DanGleabols 0]

Each to our own. I think that you will be in the minority prefering the x-A2 to the x-T20, but there's nothing wrong with liking what works for you!

 

Just a quick tip: if you are struggling with the EV dial on the X-T20, then turn it to "C" and then you can just press the front control dial and change the EV compensation that way.

[deemkey 0]

I might be wrong, but I think it's not a fair comparison, as what you see on the attached pictures are not raw pictures, they are already processed. I don't know exactly how Lightroom uses the parameters, but if I remember correctly, the Detail section affects the demosaicing stage, which is very important for X-T20 (with X-Trans color filter) and not so much for X-A2 (Bayer filter). Not even mentioning the not-so-good quality of Lightroom X-Trans demosaicing algorithm...

Re: Details section, that's why I turned it off

I will try to use ONE1 for comparison or Iridient developer

I have downloaded a trial, although at first try the output files just looked noisier than from the Lightroom, didn't see more details, but just tried it once.

Btw I can try to use internal raw processor of X-T20 or X-A2 to process both files from different cameras as it seems one can do it.

Edited March 14, 2017 by deemkey

[deemkey 0]

Each to our own. I think that you will be in the minority prefering the x-A2 to the x-T20, but there's nothing wrong with liking what works for you!

 

Just a quick tip: if you are struggling with the EV dial on the X-T20, then turn it to "C" and then you can just press the front control dial and change the EV compensation that way.

I will use both now, 

Thanks for the tip 

[deemkey 0]

I would love to see same landscape shots with both cameras (with greens and reds), with the same settings, including NR on -2 and sharpening on -2, Neg Std or Astia film simulation. Or RAWs. And 18/2 or 35/1.4 or 60/2.4 used. Do not know if you can do it.

Ok I have 35/1.4 and 60/2.4, will try to get something similar, but unfortunately it's early Spring here, so difficult to find lots of colors at this moment. But I can try conifers

.

[deemkey 0]

I might be wrong, but I think it's not a fair comparison, as what you see on the attached pictures are not raw pictures, they are already processed. I don't know exactly how Lightroom uses the parameters, but if I remember correctly, the Detail section affects the demosaicing stage, which is very important for X-T20 (with X-Trans color filter) and not so much for X-A2 (Bayer filter). Not even mentioning the not-so-good quality of Lightroom X-Trans demosaicing algorithm...

I have attached same comparison, but now using internal raw converters of both cameras, drop box link

[kimcarsons 61]

Quite convincing.

[kimcarsons 61]

Might I suggest using a more moire-prone target and placing the camera farther away from it? There's only so much that can be learned from comparing sensors of different resolutions, but it would still be interesting to see.

 

Any chance you're going to try the X-A3?

[deemkey 0]

Might I suggest using a more moire-prone target and placing the camera farther away from it? There's only so much that can be learned from comparing sensors of different resolutions, but it would still be interesting to see.

 

Any chance you're going to try the X-A3?

 

Before buying X-T20 I took several shots from both cameras X-A3 and X-T20. From my previous experience with x-trans sensors (X-T1) the files never gave me the same sharpness that X-A1/X-A2 did (Lightroom). Yes I know about other converters. but when used still not better than X-A1/A2. The colors were very similar in both camera versions... so for me the X-trans is more a marketing thing that gave more problems than advantages..

One thing I hated about the cameras was video quality...  

 

Anyway, I needed a decent 4K camera that could use Fuji lenses , thus X-T20 was my only option (X-A3 supports 1080p only unfortunately and X-T2 is too bulky)

 

I went to a local store, grabbed both cameras X-A3 and X-T20 and took several shots of the same spots, different ISO, same lens. I did not have a tripod so all the shots were handheld, so it wasn't 100% identical but still...

Also I was in a rush because the battery shows 1 bar.

 

I have recorded several clips on both cameras as well.

I expected (actually I hoped) that X-A3 would give better results than X-T20 in picture quality in Lightroom... but no, they were almost identical, less color noise in X-T20 if color NR is turned off,

but if turned on  - didn't see any advantages over X-T20 or over X-A3. All settings were default in LR,

So as I needed 4K I decided to get an X-T20  (What to lose, right?)

 

And then I compared it to my X-A2...

 

and yes will find some moire-prone targets.

 

P.S. now I want an X-A3 just for re-testing.

Edited March 14, 2017 by deemkey

[kimcarsons 61]

I can't say I'm surprised either... When I got the X-Pro2 I did some resolution-matched tests against the X-Pro1 and found it was almost impossible to discern the extra detail in the X-Pro2 images even at 200% magnification. 16 to 24 just isn't that big of a jump. It's a shame the X-A3 doesn't shoot 4K. But you know, a similar principle applies to 4K... Good 1080P upscaled can look better than bad 4K.

[deemkey 0]

I can't say I'm surprised either... When I got the X-Pro2 I did some resolution-matched tests against the X-Pro1 and found it was almost impossible to discern the extra detail in the X-Pro2 images even at 200% magnification. 16 to 24 just isn't that big of a jump. It's a shame the X-A3 doesn't shoot 4K. But you know, a similar principle applies to 4K... Good 1080P upscaled can look better than bad 4K.

Yeah, but one thing which is better on X-T20 comparing to X-A3 for sure is video in both modes, 1080p and 4K.

Also 4K have more details than 1080p mode on X-T20.

I was gonna test it with my Nikon 1 J5 which is my second system for Tele and Video (Nikon 1 CX 70-300mm (810mm in 35mm) is an absolute gem)

[zen4life 0]

I have often seen people downsize the higher MP to match lower one. In theory, this would give the higher MP one an advantage. Can you post a comparison this way? I have a few backyard shots comparing the same cameras. I will post a comparison later.

[zen4life 0]

Attaching 2 comparisons using 18-55 lens at 18mm and F5.6. These were hand held at very fast shutter speeds and similarly framed. It is not a perfectly scientific test, just a quick and dirty one. I downsized the 24MP to match the 16MP using photoshops recommended bicubic sharpener. I also had to boost the exposure +.48 in the X-A2 image to match the X-T20. After comparing, if you are using the default LR settings, the X-T20 shows a very slight improvement over the X-A2 in terms of sharpness (apparent in the larger leaf in first comparison, otherwise it really is hard to see an improvement in most of the image). Given the MP difference, I would have expected a more noticeable difference. I took the same image and ran it through Iridient X-Transformer and that shows a much more noticeable improvement in sharpness and detail. If I were to use a LR only workflow, the IQ difference is minimal and in my opinion, would not be reason for upgrade. However, if you use a better demosaicer like Iridient's, that is a different story. The X-T20 wins here. One thing I noticed about colors is that the X-A2 AWB did a better job producing natural looking greens where the X-T20 showed a slight yellow bias. However, using the same neutral point to set WB, the colors looked fairly identical. Bottom line for me anyway, is if I did upgrade from an X-A series camera to an X-T series, I would always use a better demosaicer (probably the Iridient one).

 

[kimcarsons 61]

 

Attaching 2 comparisons using 18-55 lens at 18mm and F5.6. These were hand held at very fast shutter speeds and similarly framed. It is not a perfectly scientific test, just a quick and dirty one. I downsized the 24MP to match the 16MP using photoshops recommended bicubic sharpener. I also had to boost the exposure +.48 in the X-A2 image to match the X-T20. After comparing, if you are using the default LR settings, the X-T20 shows a very slight improvement over the X-A2 in terms of sharpness (apparent in the larger leaf in first comparison, otherwise it really is hard to see an improvement in most of the image). Given the MP difference, I would have expected a more noticeable difference. I took the same image and ran it through Iridient X-Transformer and that shows a much more noticeable improvement in sharpness and detail. If I were to use a LR only workflow, the IQ difference is minimal and in my opinion, would not be reason for upgrade. However, if you use a better demosaicer like Iridient's, that is a different story. The X-T20 wins here. One thing I noticed about colors is that the X-A2 AWB did a better job producing natural looking greens where the X-T20 showed a slight yellow bias. However, using the same neutral point to set WB, the colors looked fairly identical. Bottom line for me anyway, is if I did upgrade from an X-A series camera to an X-T series, I would always use a better demosaicer (probably the Iridient one).

 

 

 

 

 

Are you 100% certain that lightroom isn't also responsible for the softness of the X-A2 output? Anyway, when doing comparisons like this its best to change one variable at a time. Different sensor pattern, different resolution, different software--it's just too many variables.

[zen4life 0]

No, I would not say I am 100% certain. To reduce variables, I used the LR default settings for both cameras. Which, of course, is not ideal for the X-Trans sensor. However, LR is optimized for Bayer sensor cameras like the X-A2, so the default settings should be a pretty good starting point. In my opinion, it is more likely that the softness seen in the A2 is from the AA filter which the X-Trans camera is lacking.

[kimcarsons 61]

No, I would not say I am 100% certain. To reduce variables, I used the LR default settings for both cameras. Which, of course, is not ideal for the X-Trans sensor. However, LR is optimized for Bayer sensor cameras like the X-A2, so the default settings should be a pretty good starting point. In my opinion, it is more likely that the softness seen in the A2 is from the AA filter which the X-Trans camera is lacking.

 

It's so subjective though. You really can't assume the defaults are correct. There's absolutely no reason to believe lightroom's sharpening is in any way ideal for either camera. A better approach would be to tune the sharpening to match visually. Even if you end up with both images oversharpened, it should be possible to tell which is cleaner. One will look (really) sharp, and one will look like it has wet mascara.

[zen4life 0]

True, that sounds like a good approach. Will give it a try.

[eioeio 0]

upgraded from A1 to T20.

T20 is a vastly superior camera than A1 for sure, especially in the image quality and focus speed department.

 

but there are somethings about A1 that I missed...

portablity:  A1 paired with XC kit lens is much more portable than T20 paired with XF kit lens, the latter feels more like a DSLR system.

flash: agree with deemkey, T20's fixed flash cannot be used as a bounce flash, which makes it almost useless.

EVF: I'm joking   but not entirely...the the DSLR style EVF on T20 is more awkward to used than the rangefinder style EVF on Pro & E line. you have to sweeze your face to get close to EVF as close as possible, reminds me of the good old DLSR days, which I was rather happy to forget aboout.

 

if E3 comes with a tilt screen, it might be an ideal camera for me...