Comparison | FUJI X WEEKLY

Comparing X-Trans Sensors

Posted on April 13, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

Omar Gonzalez posted an interesting video yesterday that I want to share with you. It poses the question: which Fujifilm X-Trans sensor is the best? I don’t want to get too deeply into what’s “best” because that’s very subjective. Omar directly compares images from X-Trans II, III & IV sensor cameras to see what the differences are. There can be, in fact, some pretty significant differences between sensor generations! If you have a few free moments and haven’t already watched it, push play on Omar’s video above.

I’ve done some pretty similar experiments. I’ve done my own side-by-side comparisons in the past. I know the differences between the sensors, particularly regarding JPEG output, and I agree with most of what Omar says in his video. Each sensor generation produces slightly different results, and that’s largely due to Fujifilm’s programming.

X-Trans II is programmed warmer than the others, and fairly significantly so. For example, my X-T1 Kodachrome 64 recipe requires a White Balance Shift of 0 Red & -3 Blue while my X-T30 Kodachrome 64 recipe requires a WB shift of +2 Red and -5 Blue, so there’s definitely a difference. X-Trans III is slightly warmer than X-Trans IV, but not by much—it would require a decimal in the shift, such as around a 0.3 adjustment, to make them match, which unfortunately isn’t possible. Omar doesn’t discuss X-Trans I, but it’s more similar to X-Trans III and IV in regards to warmth.

*Man in Red* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X-T1

I don’t find X-Trans II to be punchier than X-Trans III or IV, but they are certainly not programmed the same. Omar detected more contrast and more vibrant colors from his X-Trans II camera, but I think I can explain what is happening. First, the luminosity curve isn’t identical, so highlights and shadows are rendered slightly different on X-Trans II. Second, adjustments in X-Trans II cameras max out at +2 and -2, while adjustments in X-Trans III & IV cameras max out at +4 and sometimes -4; however, +2 on X-Trans II isn’t the same as +2 on X-Trans III & IV. +1 on X-Trans II is roughly equivalent to +0.8 on X-Trans III & IV, so it might seem to produce punchier results, but +3 on the newer sensors goes beyond +2 on X-Trans II, allowing you to get more contrast and color vibrancy from the newer cameras. X-Trans I is more similar to X-Trans II in how it renders shadows, highlights and saturation, but it’s not identical.

High ISO is something else Omar looked at, which is definitely subjective—what one person finds acceptable another might find detestable. On X-Trans I & II cameras, I don’t like going above ISO 3200 for color photographs. On X-Trans III cameras, I sometimes find ISO 12800 to be acceptable for color photography, depending on the subject and settings. On X-Trans IV cameras, ISO 6400 is my upper limit for color pictures. This isn’t too dissimilar to what Omar found, although I believe that ISO 3200 is his preference for the upper ISO limit no matter the camera. There’s no right or wrong acceptable threshold, just what works for you. For B&W photography, I don’t mind using even higher ISOs—in fact, it might be preferable to do so.

*100%* – Salt Lake City, UT – Fujifilm X100V

In my opinion, of the different X-Trans sensors, X-Trans II is the most “different” looking, although mostly because it’s programmed to produce warmer pictures. In some ways X-Trans I is more similar to X-Trans II and in other ways it is more similar to X-Trans III & IV. There are some differences between X-Trans III and X-Trans IV, but to my eyes they’re the most similar. I don’t personally believe that any one sensor generation is inherently better than another, but it’s clear that they’re not completely identical.

Fujifilm continues to add new JPEG options to newer cameras, which allows you to further customize your straight-out-of-camera look. X-Trans I doesn’t have Classic Chrome. X-Trans II doesn’t have Acros. X-Trans III doesn’t have Color Chrome Effect. This is just scratching the surface! There are just so many more picture aesthetics that one can get straight-out-of-camera on the X-E4 than the X-E3, and the X-E3 can get more than the X-E2, and the X-E2 can get more than the X-E1. For many people, that makes the newer sensors “better” than the older ones, but if you prefer how an older sensor renders pictures, then that sensor is likely “better” for you. It just depends on your preferences—whatever works best for you and your photography. While one camera will render pictures a little different than another, and one might have more features than another, the most important thing is what you do with it. Using your gear to the best of your ability is much more important than the gear itself.

Fujifilm X100F vs. Sigma DP2 Merrill

Posted on August 30, 2017 by Ritchie Roesch

My current camera is a Fujifilm X100F and I used to own a Sigma DP2 Merrill. Both of these are fixed-focal-length digital cameras that can fit into a large pocket. I thought it might be worthwhile to briefly compare the two. Perhaps someone right now is trying to decide which one to buy.

The Sigma DP2 Merrill was introduced in 2012. It has Sigma’s unique three-layer APS-C Foveon sensor with a whopping 46 megapixels (15.3 megapixels on each layer). It has a 30mm (45mm equivalent) f/2.8 lens permanently attached to the front.

The Fujifilm X100F was introduced in 2017. It has Fujifilm’s unique APS-C X-Trans sensor with 24 megapixels. It has a 23mm (35mm equivalent) f/2 lens permanently attached to the front.

Both the DP2 Merrill and the X100F have excellent image quality. They both have great lenses that have a few minor flaws. There are a lot of similarities.

Let’s take a look at a few example photographs from both cameras:

Red Field, Green Field – Tehachapi, CA – Sigma DP2 Merrill

Red Bicycle – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X100F

From The Past – Mojave, CA – Sigma DP2 Merrill

Have A Seat In The Filth – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X100F

The Desert Cross – Mojave, CA – Sigma DP2 Merrill

Building Storm Over Ridge – South Weber, UT – Fujifilm X100F

Cheese – Big Bear, CA – Sigma DP2 Merrill

Look What I Drew – South Weber, UT – Fujifilm X100F

Rangefinder & Film – Stallion Springs, CA – Sigma DP2 Merrill

Ilford Harman Technology – South Weber, UT – Fujifilm X100F

There’s a lot to love about both of these unique cameras, but which one is better? Which one should you buy? I’ll share with you my opinions based on my experience of using both.

Where the Sigma DP2 Merrill is better:

Hall Loves You – Newberry Springs, CA – Sigma DP2 Merrill

The DP2 Merrill has a slightly sharper lens than the X100F. Even though the Sigma camera has almost 90% more megapixels, the actual resolution difference isn’t nearly so big, with the DP2 Merrill just winning out with perhaps a 10% advantage. The DP2 Merrill has a little bit larger dynamic range, particularly in the highlights.

At base ISO, the Sigma DP2 Merrill produces superior image quality to the Fujifilm X100F, but not by a large margin. Honestly, the DP2 Merrill at base ISO has the best image quality of any camera that I’ve ever used. But the X100F isn’t very far behind.

Where the Fujifilm X100F is better:

Haugen – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm X100F

The X100F has a five stop high-ISO advantage over the DP2 Merrill. The X100F creates far superior JPEGs. The X100F is much, much quicker. Everything “auto” on the camera is superior. The X100F has way better battery life (which is an understatement). It’s significantly better designed and better looking.

Basically, the Fujifilm X100F is a better camera in every aspect outside of lens sharpness, resolution and dynamic range, where the DP2 Merrill wins by a small margin.

Conclusions

Which one is better is for you to decide. I can’t choose for you which one you’ll like more. I will say this: some of my all-time favorite photographs were captured with a Sigma DP2 Merrill, but I love my Fujifilm X100F. The DP2 Merrill has enough negative aspects about it to make it a frustrating experience, but boy did it make nice-looking pictures! The X100F makes nice-looking pictures, too, without hardly any bad points.

One of the big differences for me, and the reason that I prefer the X100F, is time. My time. The time it takes to get a finished photograph. You have to shoot RAW with the Sigma camera, and you have to use their painfully slow software (maybe it’s better now) to process the RAW files. I would have to dedicate 15 to 20 minutes (and sometimes more) per exposure to edit the Sigma pictures.

The Fujifilm X100F files, on the other hand, are straight-out-of-camera JPEGs. No editing. Just shoot and upload. My time is limited and precious, and I literally save hours and hours and hours by not having to post-process my photographs.

If you have lots of free time to spend sitting at a computer, the Sigma camera is a very good option. If not, I’d look at the X100F.