It would be interesting to know which lenses, and which JPG settings they used. The 5DIII looks borderline over-sharpened, and the colours are quite boosted. The Nikon quite the opposite. The Fujis look good and more relaxed. Most of this could presumably be equalised in RAW, so unless you really want to shoot JPG, you might want to wait for a RAW test before deciding.

Both the Nikon and the Canon has more color intensity left at ISO6400 (and less chroma NR) than the Fuji's do at ISO200. Remove that difference (add as gigantic amounts of color noise reduction as the Fuji's receive to the Nikon and the Canon), and the images will tell another story.

-And secondly, static tests like this are pretty useless, unless the provider of the test also clearly states what the exposures were.
When I tested the X-pro, I needed TWICE the exposure time of the D800 to get the ISO6400 images equal. That means that when Fuji say ISO6400, they really mean ISO3200. I shot the D800 at 1/100s F4.0, and the Fuji at 1/50s F4.0, and then the images looked equal.

I don't have the raw images here, but IR arrived at the same conclusion. These two images both have 1/200s exposures at F4.0 in static lighting conditions:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-pro1/FULLRES/XPRO1INBI12800.HTM
and
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d600/FULLRES/D600INBI06400.HTM

If one camera is "outclassing" any other, it very well isn't the Fuji...

Comparing JPEGs, really? And that shows quality of sensor how?

Quite apart from the serious issues raised by theSuede, it is always best for reviewers to provide details of their methodologies, so others can (i) take the method into consideration in their assessments, and (ii) so the results can be replicated by interested parties.

Absent these revealing details, few sophisticated readers will give these claims (as that it what they are) much credence. The details are the study's foundations, without them, it is a house of cards waiting for a slight breeze to blow it away.

Jpeg comparisons are more reflective of internal processing than image quality. I would look further into these issues if I were considering this purchase.

I do like the work of the IR site, it was a factor in buying the Sony a99 for me - the Nikon D600 is now apparently confirmed as sharing that same Sony sensor, about which very few users are complaining:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/nex-5r-tested-nikon-d600-has-same-a99-sensor/

A useless test for me since I shoot RAW, and I don't see it out classing the others, just different.
In the first series, the Canon shots look under exposed vs the rest.

It will never happen. The high ISO noise performance of the best full frame sensors is better than a theoretically perfect APS-C sensor. The light hitting the sensor is noisy, so the only possible way to get an advantage is to raise exposure.

Is the point of these two camera really the same though ?

Would anyone who wants/needs a DSLR, the huge range of AF glass (MF glass too for you alt folks), a real optical VF, the wide range of speedlights, fast phase detect AF etc really going to give all that up for the limited lens selection of the X system, an EVF, poor tracking AF etc ??

Whats the point if the Fuji has a slightly better sensor if the overall camera style and operation are all wrong for ones shooting needs ??


People still do buy cameras for purposes other than taking comparison shots of sensor performance right ?

I think the point is that the Fuji may work pretty well for you if your needs are not outside of it's overall capabilites, limited as they are vs a FF Canon or Nikon.

That conclusion may be overstated, as many posters are pointing out fallacies in the evaluation, but I think that is the point.

The X-E1 could find use as a digital back for manual lenses, which is what I use my NEX-7 for, and IIRC it has similar issues with RF wides, and since I'm happy with my 7(as an APS-C camera) I don't see myself buying another any time soon, a FF version would be another story.

I don't think the story here is about outclassing.

I think it demonstrates that the Fuji X-system currently produces remarkable quality for the size, style, and relative youth in the system. That bodes well for the future.

But at the same time, DSLR and Fuji X are different tools, even if there's overlap in how they can be used.

In my opinion, the single most overlooked factors in photography-tool-use are non-image quality related. We have never had so high image quality as today. There isn't a living photographer whose work would improve more than in a diminishing way with improved image quality. Does that mean we wouldn't welcome better IQ as it comes down the line? Of course we welcome it. Bring on the DR, clean ISO (base and high), etc, etc. But I don't care if you're shooting for Nat Geo, selling prints for $10K or more a pop, or working on $1 Million budget commercial jobs. The image quality is not what's holding you back.

Far more important are direct usability issues: AF/MF, lag, metering, etc. And that stuff, except in specific cases, is outshone by lighting and exposure 100-1.

An XE just can't do all of what a DSLR can do. And a DSLR can't be used in all the same ways as an XE can. Horses for courses.

I'm happy to own and will continue owning my 5D2, and I'm thrilled about my coming XE.

The story here is that IQ is not a major issue in choosing cameras among the higher end equipment (and anything in the $1K is higher end in the scheme of things). Size, usability, availability, system, etc, are the important factors. That's what I take from a test like this.

Ι see bugger all difference
maybe I gotta have my eyes tested

I did however notice the "watercolour" thingo while processing xpro1 files in LR and it wasnt foliage, it was a portrait. Still made a very nice 1m print

I think the X-Pro and X-E1 look awesome.

Isn't X-E1 a APS-C size sensor ? And yet, Image sizes are exactly the same, which makes me wonder we are looking images at different magnification from each camera. If that is the case, wouldn't it be true that images with less magnification would look better than images looking at actual pixel?

Actually I like the Canon 5DIII results. Nice vibrant yet neutral colors without that plastic-sony-sensor-look of FF nikons.

If you take lens/mpix/sensor size out of equation, its about photographer and his skill, when it comes to "look". Not who makes sensor.

And that piece of silicon is just part of whole assembly and that assembly isnt made by manufacturer of sensor. Just bare sensor.

Exactly.
But then, to display on the web, it has to be jpg at some point?

Mescalamba wrote:
Comparing JPEGs, really? And that shows quality of sensor how?

cbreiland wrote:

Any thoughts?


Yes... after looking at RAW files from both cameras, it's apparent that the XE-1 currently doesn't even come close to the D600 sensor, especially when it comes to rendering fine detail. If a better RAW converter for the Fuji files comes along, it might get a little more competitive.

However, if your only interest is displaying thumbnail-size JPEGs on the web, virtually any digital camera made in the last 10 years will look just as good...

buggz2k wrote:
Exactly.
But then, to display on the web, it has to be jpg at some point?

Mescalamba wrote:
Comparing JPEGs, really? And that shows quality of sensor how?


Sure it is, but made by us with careful processing, not depending on what camera manufacturer decided to punish us with.