 |
| Fujifilm X-E2, FUJINON XF 18-55mm, ISO 200, ƒ/16, 1/180 |
I posted a blog earlier today showing my observations with my moon shots comparing the Nikon D750 to the Fujifilm X-E2. I received many comments that this was not a good test. Well it really wasn't meant to be a test.
This here is a test of the difference between the Nikon D750 and the Fujifilm X-E2 shooting a test image under studio strobes at the same ISO, aperture and extremely close shutter speeds.
 |
| Fujifilm X-E2, FUJINON XF 18-55mm, ISO 200, ƒ/16, 1/180 |
You can see the overall image of the test image and then I came in closer on both cameras. Mind you that the 24 megapixel is a larger file and more information than the 16 megapixel of the other camera.
 |
| Fujifilm X-E2, FUJINON XF 18-55mm, ISO 200, ƒ/16, 1/180 |
I will let you come to your own conclusions between the two cameras. The Fujifilm X-E2 was shooting at 83mm and the Nikon D750 at 85mm. Again some minor difference.
 |
| Nikon D750, Nikon 85mm ƒ/1.8G, ISO 200, ƒ/16, 1/200 |
I will let the photos speak for themselves on this blog post.
 |
| Nikon D750, Nikon 85mm ƒ/1.8G, ISO 200, ƒ/16, 1/200 |
 |
| Nikon D750, Nikon 85mm ƒ/1.8G, ISO 200, ƒ/16, 1/200 |
7 comments:
You might want to limit your aperture to around f8 when doing this type of test. At F/16 you are actually degrading the resolution due to diffraction limits. The Fuji will use LMO to try to mitigate this but a best result would have the fuji at around 5.6 to 8.0 and the Nikon at around 8.0 to 11. Due to being full frame, diffraction sets in a bit later for the Nikon.
Aside from the diffraction comment above, which I agree with, you are comparing an 18-55 zoom lens with a prime 85mm. Like many zooms, the 18-55 is at it's weakest resolution at 55mm. A better comparison would be the Fuji 60mm or 56mm vs the Nikon 85mm, with both at f8/f11.
I don't understand what exactly is being compared here. Resolution? Color rendering? Something else?
This "test" tests lenses, not cameras.
While the XF 18-55 is a fantastic zoom lens, the 85 Nikkor is one of Nikon's best primes no zoom can hold a candle to.
(I have both, on X-E2, X-T1, and D800, rsp.)
While prime lenses tend to test better than zooms traditionally, I am finding that after carrying all primes for years my back was just getting overloaded.
My tests are more for me to see if a lens is acceptable, not if one is resolving the smallest lines if blown up the size of a billboard.
I am interested in seeing if a lens renders a good acceptable image at the size my clients will be using those images.
I bought the Fujifilm X-E2 because I wanted something really small and light. I also realize it cannot fully replace my Nikons. Since it cannot replace it I am using it as a specialty camera. One I use on vacation or when on a job and do not want to be caught without a camera.
The Fuji 60mm weighs very little. When working out which gear to take for landscapes, I field tested a Nikon prime (20mm f2.8 on a D600) against the Fuji 10-24 and the Fuji 14mm. The 10-24 is better at f4, the 14mm Fuji is streets ahead at f2.8-F5.6. The Nikon just about catches up the zoom at F6.3, but never equals the Fuji 14mm. For me, my Nikons are now the speciality cameras.
I shoot sports and do a great deal of multimedia and need to do video. Both of these are what customers are paying for. I cannot find clients wanting to pay me to shoot landscapes and flowers.
I am a commercial professional and not a hobbyist shooting for myself primarily.
Panning with the Fuji the focus just isn't locking in on a subject.
For those who shoot still objects like landscapes Fuji would be all you need.
Post a Comment