| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Langstrum
Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Posts: 351
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:42 pm Post subject: Fujifilm X-M1 outperforms Canon 6D with ISO performance |
 |
|
Langstrum wrote:
I was shocked after testing  . I read many reviews on the X-trans sensor of Fuji and found a 50% debate for the new X-M1 body, so I got it right away. Currently I don't have any lens since the XF 35/1.4 is coming, I'm really curious about the quality of this camera compared to the 6D. So I did the shots using only the body, with a white paper in front. Then I used 100% crop in the center to compare these cameras.
It's amazing that X-M1 images look cleaner at ISO400 and 1000. They are pretty similar at ISO3200, but somehow at ISO6400, 6D photo got worse so dramatically while X-M1 photo didn't change much. Maybe there is a error with the light intensity came to the sensor to cause that difference, but I repeated the shots with X-M1 twice, got the same result.
At least I can tell that within normally used ISO, X-M1 (and of course other Fuji X cameras using the same sensor) produces photos with less noise than 6D, which is considered among the best in the market now. This is the first time I find a crop sensor performs better than a fullframe sensor.
For full side images, please visit this link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/langstrum/15641343217/
PS: I've just found another review on this camera, and this time it outperforms both 5D mark III and D800!!
https://photographylife.com/reviews/fuji-x-m1/6
_________________
Camera: Sony A7 mark III, A6300
AF Lenses:
Canon EF 50/1.8; EF 200/2.8 L, EF 200/1.8 L, EF 300/4 L Sony E mount SEL 50/1.8 OSS, SEL 16/2.8 Fuji X mount XF 35/1.4 R
MF Lenses: Peleng MC 8/3.5, 17/2.8 Samyang 14/T3.1, 35/T1.5, TS 24/3.5 ED, 85/T1.5, Polar 85/1.4 Auto Revuenon 28/2.8; MC 50/1.4 Vega11U 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 (exakta mount) Auto Chinon 50/1.9 Zenitar ME1 50/1.7 Sears Auto Sears 55/1.4; Sears 135/2.8 Auto Yashinon DX 50/1.4; Tomioka 50/1.2 SMC Pentax 50/1.7; 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 S.S.C; 55/1.2 S.S.C; FD 50/1.2 L; FD 85/1.2 L; 85/1.2 S.S.C Aspherical; FD 80-200/4 L 300/2.8 S.S.C Fluorite FD 300/2.8 L FD 200/1.8 LCosina-S 50/1.2 Helios Helios 44 Chrome f/22, 44-2, 44-3, 44M-4, 44M-7 (58/2), Helios-40 85/1.5 Jupiter Jupiter-9 85/2; Jupiter-37A 135/3.5; Jupiter-21M 200/4 Nikon Ai 105/2.5 Tairs-3S 300/4.5
Voigtlander 15/4.5 Aspherical; Ultron 35/1.7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
trev
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Posts: 580
Location: North Wales - UK
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
trev wrote:
I got rid of my dslr's as they were too much weight, bought myself a Fuji X10 for starters - all I can say is WOW!!!!! The results are brillia
nt
_________________
Fuji X10, X-A1 and Samsung nx 20 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 6624
Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Sorry, but I don't agree with your results in real world performance I'm afraid (I have the X-E1 with the same sensor as the X-M1 and I also own the 6D).
Fuji overstate their ISO ratings so:
If you need to shoot at 1/50th second, the Canon will need ISO 1600 whereas the Fuji will need ISO 2000+ (assuming you use the same aperture with both cameras). Comparing ISO 1600 with ISO 1600 isn't a fair test.
Here's an example I shot earlier to test this. With both cameras set to same shutter speed of 1/50th second at ISO 2500, I needed to increase the exposure on the Fuji shot by +0.83 stop in Lightroom to get the correct exposure. The Canon exposure was slightly wrong too, so needed to be increased by +0.24 stop. Therefore the Fuji is overstating ISO values by +0.59 stop.
Here's the two shots after the adjustment in Lightroom:
Canon
Fuji
Canon 100% crop
Fuji 100% crop
The Fuji cameras are superb, and I love my X-E1, but high ISO noise performance is far better on the full frame Canon. You just need to remember to ignore Fuji's ISO values 
_________________
Graham - Moderator 
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013
Posts: 942
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
Reading the review linked, I discovered that Fuji's Raws are "cooked". Is it possible to make a relevant conclusion ?
Is it an illusion but in you test, the Fuji's 6400 iso is better than its 3200? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2014 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
| memetph wrote: |
Reading the review linked, I discovered that Fuji's Raws are "cooked". Is it possible to make a relevant conclusion ?
Is it an illusion but in you test, the Fuji's 6400 iso is better than its 3200? |
In my experience Fuji's ISO numbers are exaggerated by about one stop. So, ISO-1600-Fuji = ca. ISO-800-Nikon as far as metering is concerned.
That's a bit disappointing, yes, but you can live with it and the Fuji X-Trans sensors are still very, very good.
My X-T1 shows lower noise at ISO 1600 than my Nikon D7000 at ISO 800.
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator 
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
