Jump to content

Fuji X-T2 vs. Nikon D750 for Image quality


Smorton

Recommended Posts

I switched from the D750 to the X-T1 a little over a year ago and don't feel that I've given up anything in terms of image quality. I just had a 20x30 print made from the X-T1 and it looks incredible even close up (and the X-T1 has a 16MP sensor). The dynamic range holds it own compared to the D750 and ISO performance is darn good compared to the D750. I wouldn't worry at all about image quality between the X-T2 and the D750. If anything, you'll see a negligible difference in extreme situations. If you liked the X-T2 more, but was concerned about giving up the "full frame," I wouldn't be at all. I certainly am not. I made a YouTube video showing my 20x30 print from the 16MP X-T1. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too, owned a D600 and D750. The D750 has a bit better dynamic range at base ISO. It also will give you a full stop+ of high ISO range. That said, I am the proud owner of an X-T2 and don't miss the Nikons at all. Image quality from the X-T2 is excellent. I can only tell the difference using a magnifier on large prints. If you need that kind of quality even full frame isn't good enough.

 

The better controls on the Fuji make me love the camera, where the Nikons were just picture taking machines for me. No love of the cameras themselves. Since most modern cameras are more than capable of making beautiful prints (with good lenses and technique) it seems to me that handling is a primary concern when choosing a camera. If you haven't handled your choices, you are not making an informed decision.

 

The colors are different. The Nikons are more neutral. When photographing artwork or clothing for clients I use the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport with Lightroom for accurate color reproduction. I did that with Nikon too. Part of the job requirement. However I like Fuji colors and use jpeg much more often with the Fuji. Fujifilm flat out does better B&W jpegs. Print size is great. With Perfect Resize I get beautiful 24x36 prints, though mostly my big ones are 16x24, as I can print that size myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael, solid and objective info there.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Perhaps off-topic, but I'll share it anyway. As one who normally wears corrective lenses to drive, but has a relatively strong left eye, I've always been in the habit of taking my glasses off and shooting 'left-eyed'. (These modern cameras with built-in diopters are a great aid to people like me, incidentally.)

 

So I've never gotten along with Nikons, the requirement to have the film advance lever pulled back a notch to activate the light meter put me off them ages ago, never mind they focus in the wrong direction.

 

With the X-T2 shooting left-eyed is easy (that EVF is nice to use, I gotta say) and the camera just delights me, whether it be in employing it to take pictures or scrutinizing those images later. If I ever want or need 'more sharp' images, I'll get a mortgage on the house and get a bigger format camera. It would, in all likelihood, be a Fujifilm camera - they're not perfect, but every one of them I've owned has delighted me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings:

 

I have been thinking about buying a Nikon D750.  Then I handled (briefly) a Fuji X-T2.  I much preferred the handling of the X-T2.

 

My question is whether you give up much in terms of image quality with the X-T2 vs. Nikon D750.  I would assume you do because of ff vs. crop.  I am not printing billboards.  I would print occasionally 16 x 20 approx.

 

I am not a professional and my photos are nothing fancy but I do like high resolution, etc.

 

I am sorry if I am asking a repeat question.

 

Thank you.

 

SM

Hey Smorton! 

 

Here are my 2 cents. I am proud owner of both cameras and  I am keeping both cameras because they serve different purposes in my photography. They are both great and honestly in normal conditions you will get the same quality, if you have good glass. I got the XT-2 because I hike a lot and hiking with the D750 + the glass was just becoming too much. So, why I didn't sell my Nikon stuff? because I do landscape astrophotography and the D750 does have an edge over the XT-2 in IQ on ISO 3200 and above. I love both of these cameras and you won't go wrong with either, but I think there is one thing that set them apart and it is not IQ. It is an absolute pleasure shooting the XT-2... the EVF does make the difference. If shooting at night is not your thing then go for the XT-2. And do not get me wrong, you can still get good quality photos at night with the XT-2 (see attached photo), but the D750 is better at high ISO. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a full -time pro I use a variety of FF cameras and have tested a number of others.

 

In my experience, good technique with decent lenses makes most cameras on the market excellent performers.

There are no pigs out there.

 

This has been repeatedly demonstrated in blind tests of prints made from a range of cameras where experts could not pick the camera beyond the range of probability.

 

Yes, FF may give you the last increment of IQ in some instances but in the real world these differences are invisible.

Pixel peeping on a monitor at 200% will reveal differences but that is a pathetic and lonely pastime that advances your art not one bit.

 

If the handling of  camera makes you happier than another, choose that one because that is the one you will enjoy and use with pleasure.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I owned the D750 for two and a half years and yes the IQ on the D750 is superior.

AF selection with the D-Pad is faster than the X-T2 joystick as well.

The biggest thing for me is that when shooting ISO 12,800 in actual low light and low shutter speed, the D750 still has a lot of detail in the eyes. The X-T2 doesn't retain much if any. You can't even tell what colour the eyes are half the time cause it is just all shadow and mush.

You could pull the shadows up till the cows come home on the D750 but not so much on the X-T2. On the X-T2, you can recover the highlights about 1/2 stop or so better than the D750.

The closest lens on the Fuji side that will give you a FF look is the 56mm f/1.2.

The D750 jpegs weren't very good. The D500 has a much better jpeg engine. The Fujifilm jpegs are good but has weird mid ISO (400-3,200) noise and can sometimes look very crunchy.

But saying all that, I still sold off my D750, grip, Nikkor 24-70mm G f/2.8, Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 and SB-910 for the X-T2, grip, 56mm f/1.2, 23mm f/1.4, and 35mm f/2.

The weight wasn't so much the factor but the size was. I started not wanting to take it out of the bag even though I took it out with me.

I wish Adobe would get its act together and improve LR for the Fujifilm sensors so we can really see the potential of its raw files.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about it. I've gone from a 36Mp d810 to an x-t2 and I'm loving it!

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

I have also come from Nikon D810 to XT2 and have no regrets, the AFC is far better and more accurate on the Fuji and the IQ / colours are superb.The other advantages are size and weight and my shoulders appreciate the reduced load.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chiming in here,

Just my opinion based on my use.  

May not agree with others.

 

I shoot with a d600 & x-t1 professionally for weddings and commercial photography.  I use both a lot.  

But I'm taking the fuji out for shoots more often, especially for any off camera flash work.  My last commercial shoot, I just left the nikon at home.  

 

I use an 85, and 24-70 on the nikon.  I got rid of my 70-200 to buy more fuji glass ;)

On fuji 10-24, 16-55, and 50-140.

Keep in mind, the Full-frame glass at 2.8 is gonna yield better performance than the fuji 2.8, but those details aside.

 

The d600:

  • I tend to use this for closer up (85) & medium range (24-70), and works like a charm in low low light.
  • Better in low light.  Its about a stop or two, but really handy when the wedding gets to 'evening' mode, during a reception, or when the couple may be doing some candle light shots.  The d600 is very good in that extreme low light, the fuji gets some weird artifacts when its at its max iso, its like a blue haze of some sort.  I just don't bother using it for that sort of thing.  Faster glass than 2.8 will probably help this.
  • Better dynamic range, not sure about the d750 or x-t2, but the d600 had a lot of room to recover shadow detail, so I shoot with that in mind.  The fuji is pretty decent as well, but you loose that range quickly as you get up in the iso range.  
  • Doesn't hesitate when I'm hammering the trigger.  If I know I 'have' to get something that's gonna happen quickly, I tend to drop my x-t1 and use the nikon.  The x-t1 has just a bit of 'lag'.  I can hammer the d600 more than I can with the x-t1 to get that shot.  When I hit the trigger, I know the shot was taken.  If I hammer quickly on the fuji, the last fire doesn't always get the AF right, and I can get a blurred shot.  There's a teeenie bit of lag.  This is not an issue if you're just doing studio/portrait work.  Event work, it can be annoying.
  • The buffer full 'state' of the nikon can really screw you at times.  I've lost all camera response while the 'read/write' light stays on.  I don't have this issue on the fuji when its buffer gets full.  It recovers nicely.
  • You can get more bokeh on the Full frame.
    Is it necessary?  depends on what you want.  I tend to compensate on the fuji by using my 50-140 on the longer end @ 2.8 if I really need that bokeh.  That being said, the 70-200 2.8 nikkor is very very nice as well.  I should really just buy the 56mm, but I haven't really used it much.  I do a lot of wider shooting on the fuji, so bokeh isn't as big of a concern.  
  • Nikon support is poor.  Don't expect them to fix a flaw...that will take a class action lawsuit.  The sensor oil/grease issue with the shutter was a prime example.  
    Fuji is great for support.  My camera had some issues with stuck pixels, I had to send back FOUR times.  They never hesitated to fix, and it's gone now.  They also fixed an issue with one of my lenses.  
  • Lateral CA's seem to be a bit worse on the Nikon.  Maybe fuji glass is just better than nikon g glass, but lateral ca's can sometimes be a problem when shooting wide open.  The fuji doesn't seem to give me this issue.

The x-t1:

  • I will tend to use the opposite range of my nikon glass, wide, or zoomed in.  
  • Much more fun to use.  It's really hard to describe this feeling, but I think it has to do with form factor, and that you can easily memorize all the controls without looking at it.  The nikon hides a lot behind unintuitive digital controls. 
    When I'm shooting in low light, which happens a lot in weddings, I can't be hunting around through menus to find controls.
  • Better in Bright conditions.  The EVF creates a natural Loupe.  The nikon can be hard to use in direct sunlight compared to the EVF.  Especially for reviewing photos.
  • Quick review of the last photo on the evf can be pretty handy to make sure you didn't get a blink.  With the nikon I shoot, then I have to move the camera off my eye and review.  If its sunny out the lcd is next to impossible to view without a Loupe Cup.  The fuji removes this problem with the EVF.
  • Articulating Screen, I never thought I'd use this, but damn, you really can get some hard to see angles using this!
  • WYSIWYG:  This is not as HUGE of an issue if you are in control of your environment, but if you're doing event photography, and moving, having the EVF saves you from having to guess on exposure.  Really handy for off-camera flash as well.  I'm sure purists will say they don't need this, but then on that note they don't even need a viewfinder right?
  • Skin Tones, I have to say, something is wrong with the d600 and skin tones, it's just not right.  Kelby talked about this a bit. The fuji gets this right for my type of work.
  • White Balance:  My friend and I have both notice the fuji is better at gauging AWB compared to nikon.  That being said, you can adjust this later if you really have to.
  • This may not be an issue with the d8XX series, since they don't have the sensor filter as well, but the d600 does feel 'softer' for detail than the x-t1.  
  • Off Camera Flash:  I like the fuji for this better than the nikon.  They both effectively do the same thing, but the evf playing into your custom light calculations can save some time, and the final look of the fuji is a bit nicer.  (wb and color tones)
  • the 16-55 & the 50-140 are both semi-portrait glass for me too.  Yes they don't follow that golden rule for the 85mm-ish length for portraits, but that rule doesn't always work with different body types and trends.
  • Your back/neck won't be as sore with the fuji.
  • firmware upgrades are awesome.

 

Anyhow, just my experience, it may be different for others :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite recently added a D600 to my Fuji X-Pro2 to bring my old AIS lenses back to life. I would say that Nikon has certain advantages in IQ:

1. better shadow boosting in contrasty scenes, retaining colour better.

2. overall more natural colour and a bit more colour microcontrast. Even if Fuji colours are often very pleasing, they tend to overdo green in landscapes.

3. a little cleaner at high ISO though XTrans 3 is pretty decent.

 

The above are in general for a landscape situation. Smudged foliage with TransX is much discussed and is still there in JPEG's and to some extent in LR but I wouldn't make a meal out of this as, unlike with colour and overall tonality, you hardly notice something like this unless really pixel peeping and the situation is certainly less bad with TransX3 than previously.  In other types of photography, the differences may be reduced or vanish. Of course Fuji has all the advantages for general photography which are well know such as accurate exposure preview through the EVF, lighter weight, attractive controls and overall haptics. I imagine I'll stick with both systems for the moment though the clear dominance of Fuji at present may change.  On the other hand, if I had to choose only one, Fuji has to win overall even if I feel the Nikon FF sensor has an advantage. All my Fuji lenses are also excellent.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

have the Nikon D750 and got a XT-20. Not exact the model you are asking, but as you know, the same sensor on both models.

So, just a experience i've made during these 2 month i've using the two cams. I do a lot of night photography with my D750. Did some shots with the XT-20 too. As long the ISO settings are low (100-400 ISO) the Fuji is not so bad compared to the FF. I did some milky way shots, but for my eye, this is not the main area where the fuji is great. Shooting at ISO 3200 gives a lot of noise in the final image, compared to the Nikon. When shooting stars etc, i think the advantage of a full frame is still there, maybe when you can lower the ISOs to around 1000 it is ok (with a fast lens). But as i said, these are only some first impressions. I did some night shots in London with 200ISO, these pictures are great ;-)

 

33289277213_0309474d4b_z.jpg

 

34100963665_912b70bf0a_z.jpg

Edited by Brunok
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should try both - usability/handling/personal preferences will matter more than IQ, IMHO.

 

I am a long time Nikon user (30y), with the D750 being my most recent camera, and have also developed a little Leica M system on the side - a luxury position I admit.

 

For the last few years I tended to use my M9 with 2-3 lenses for most of my pictures, and only use the Nikon for "action" photography. When the Fuji X system came out it looked like a good compromise and could potentially replace both my Nikon and Leica systems: nice selection of quality lenses, small size and weight, traditional controls I'm found of, convenience of AF...

 

After 2 years of testing the Fuji X system, I decided to resell it and keep my Nikon and Leica equipment. Image quality was not the issue and I find Fuji's lenses truly excellent (with perhaps the exception of the 18mm f/2 which, while good, is clearly not a match for the Nikon 28mm 1.8, not to mention the Summicron 28mm).

 

The main issues, to me, were:

  • my inability to totally "bind" with the EVF, in particular outside with strong sunlight where I often couldn't see much at all. I am a rangefinder lover so this may have biased my judgement;
  • the sometimes unreliable AF behaviour, both in single AF (as with many contrast-based & hybrid AF based cameras, there is a tendency to sometimes focus on background items while I find PD-only cameras are better at identifying foreground elements) and continuous AF (I find Nikon's "group" AF tracking combined with Lock-On particularly efficient in fast-paced sports).

But I've rarely been disappointed by the image quality coming from the Fujis

Link to post
Share on other sites

Between a D750 (which I used to own) and an X-T2 (I own an X-Pro2, which is almost the same thing) it is impossible to name one as having better image quality. You have to break it down like this:

 

-In good light you will see meaningful difference in the usual metrics like resolution, dynamic range and noise, except in extreme shadow shadow brightening.

 

-In good light your Fuji photos will often look better because your Fuji lens is better than the Nikon lens you would have bought instead.

 

-In very low light the Nikon will beat the Fuji's ass up and down the block. If shooting in pitch black in something you're interested in, the D750 sensor is great. The AF won't work, but the sensor will do a remarkable job recording your out of focus shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliantly said, Mr Spudboy. One of the best photographers I've ever seen shoots everything on a cheap point and shoot Canon. I love those videos of professional photographers being given cheap cameras and making art with them. I have a Nikon Df. Beautiful camera, but it's like a cudgel. Now I use my X-T2 and my X100F and enjoy every minute with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've owned both, and I no longer own any Nikon gear. It was fantastic gear don't get me wrong, but it was the shooting experience and how much more enjoyable it is with Fuji that made me jump. But more do the OP's question about image quality and which is better; it's Nikon but with a red asterisk. The thing that I've found in most of my more challenging environments (churches, dance recitals, indoor sports), the difference is negligible. The reason why it's negligible is because you don't pay a penalty shooting wide open with Fuji lenses. I can shoot any of my 1.4 primes wide open, bring down my ISO, and have an image that is absolutely fantastic. Whereas with the Nikon gear I always had to stop down a little to get critical sharpness, but I knew that the files were so good that it didn't bother me to let the ISO ride up. So in real life for me, image quality out of both systems is stellar. So the question really is, which do you enjoy shooting with more and which experience is better. For me, electronic leveling in the EVF, having a histogram in the EVF so you don't inadvertently blow highlights, having exposure preview with an EVF, and being able to have all of your three main exposure components right on top of the camera as dials were what swayed me to go Fuji. The size and weight thing was nice, but not key as I never minded hauling around a FF camera with primes or even a 70-200. Also, the af on the X-T2 is fantastic and I trust it completely to get what I need. The gap in af has closed.

 

Having said all of that, the things I miss about Nikon: 1) 70-200's bokeh is soooo much better than the 50-140. 50-140 is nice and sharp, but I hate how jittery the bokeh is with specular highlights in the background. 2) Some long fast glass. It doesn't exist on the Fuji side yet and makes shooting field sport less than fun. The 100-400 just doesn't do it for me as I'm only really interested in the long end of the lens at 5.6. That being said, you're basically paying nearly $2000 for a 400mm 5.6. That doesnt' work for me, and I truly miss the 300mm f4 from Nikon. That was wicked sharp (almost as good as the 300 2.8 VR), and had lovely bokeh and compression on a FF body.

 

If I had it to do all over again I'd still be shooting Fuji as my main rig, but I would've kept one Nikon body and never let go of the 300mm f4 and 1.4 TC until I had something proven from Fuji on the telephoto side of things. My two cents, and hope it helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am a convert from Nikon to the Fuji system and haven't looked back.  I have owned a wide range of cameras over the past 30 years and recently was using a Nikon D810 and D500.  Both of these cameras worked well and I was able to get great shots with both but after buying the X-T2 and some lenses my Nikon's stayed home.  Eventually I sold all of my Nikon gear and purchased a second Fuji X-T2.  As others have already stated the Fuji system is not perfect nor was the Nikon system but I just love taking photos with the Fuji and especially like the colors it produces.  Even the mediocre Lightroom Raw conversion produces some amazing photos but if you really want to see your Fuji shine and see just how good it is try the Iridient Fuji- X-transformer Raw converter.  I honestly couldn't believe the difference and that is all I use now.

 

I have also owned a D750 and while I thought it did a great job I would be happy to put the X-T2 up against it anytime.  For me the main reasons to switch systems was size, overall system weight and probably the biggest was the personal joy in using a camera again.   The Fuji is not necessarily the right system for everyone but for me it was a damn near perfect fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest crop and ff sensors are so good now, the differences are more subjective or even imagined. Hence the divergent views from the experts in this thread, all of whom have impressive, hands-on experience.

 

If size bothers you, then go medium format, as both ff and aps-c are small by comparison. But if you can get over the size hang-up, then go for the one that has the handling you prefer.

 

And don't be fooled by the marketing term 'full frame'. It's no more 'full' than aps-c or micro four thirds, it's just an old standard based on 35mm film, which was considered to be compact when it replaced larger roll film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Even the mediocre Lightroom Raw conversion produces some amazing photos but if you really want to see your Fuji shine and see just how good it is try the Iridient Fuji- X-transformer Raw converter. I honestly couldn't believe the difference and that is all I use now.

 

I have to confess I've only used lightroom to date. I'll have to check it out. Do you convert to dng or tiff with it and then continue to process in lightroom?

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to confess I've only used lightroom to date. I'll have to check it out. Do you convert to dng or tiff with it and then continue to process in lightroom?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

The program creates a DNG file and you can adjust a multiple of settings before importing. It's not the fastest converter but it does a wonderful job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

If I need to worry about battery life, or If I'm in a situation where I need a system that will take a beating / hammer nails, the Nikons come out; but for a lot of work that doesn't have the physical demands, the Fujis work just as well. and if you need recommendations on choosing a camera, I suggest checking it  http://fixthephoto.com/blog/tech-tips/best-camera-for-amateur-photographer.html will help you get started!

Edited by Elle Harper
Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave up my D750 just because of its bulk and weight with FF lenses, despite being the most compact FF Nikon. Tried m4/3 for some time and found Fuji the ideal bulk/IQ/useability to me.

Although my X-T2 provides great IQ, the D750 was the best camera that I have owned since old days with a Nikon FM2n: from birds in flight to sports to kids running etc etc it never missed a shot using the Group Area AF under CAF, and its low light capbilities result in great pictures under many situations. Even family pictures taken with the integrated flash were excellent IMHO.

The X-T2 is, for me, is the "next-to-D750 big thing": it has a good Group AF, turns out excellent images but falls short comparing to the D750. If size/weight were not such an important issue, I'd go back to the D750 immediately...  :)

Edited by EdricBF
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I sold off my Nikon D800 & D800e when I switched to Fuji together with a boatload of Nikon glass.  Have never looked back.  Largest I've printed (and this from ONLY 16mp X-T1 was a 30" x 20" and it was SPECTACULAR!

 

With my X-T2 I've printed up to 13 x 19 and 16 x 20 with amazing results.  The savings in weight alone were worth it for me. I shoot travel/stock/landscape images and no one, ever has complained about the lack of resolution to me yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

It is wise to get some solid years of experience taking pictures on a cheaper DSLR before chunking out the big bucks for this, so you can get the most use out of it when you do get it and aren't overwhelmed with all the different controls and settings.

Edited by Elle Harper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...