Fujifilm X-H1 Image Quality

Above, we compare the X-H1 to its less expensive sibling, the X-T2, which shares the same sensor and processor hardware. As expected, image quality is very similar at base ISO with both cameras providing great image quality, though we do see the X-H1's image is just a bit sharper here. This is mostly due to the lenses used, though, as we had to retire our Fujinon 60mm f/2.4 lens which is a "focus by wire" design that was no longer focusing reliably. We will probably switch to the Fujinon 56mm f/1.2 in the long term, but in the meantime the X-H1 shots above were taken with the Fujinon 90mm f/2. Still, it appears Fuji has tweaked default JPEG processing, with a revised tone curve that produces brighter upper midtones and highlights, and slightly higher saturation of greens and reds.

Here we compare the Fuji X-H1 to the 20.7-megapixel APS-C Nikon D500 at base ISO. The 24-megapixel X-H1 does resolve a bit more detail than the Nikon, however the D500 produces a slightly crisper image with higher contrast which is especially noticeable in the red-leaf swatch, though sharpening halos are more evident from the Nikon around high-contrast edges. Noise levels are low from both cameras here at base ISO, however keep in mind the higher base ISO of the Fuji. Both cameras offer great color, though the Fuji's appears a little more accurate overall.

Above we compare the Bayer-filtered Micro Four Thirds Olympus E-M1 Mark II to the X-Trans-filtered APS-C X-H1. You would think the 24-megapixel X-H1 would have a noticeable resolution advantage over the 20-megapixel E-M1 II here, but both cameras have similar resolutions along the vertical axis (4000 vs 3888 pixels) which is how this scene is framed, so the resolution difference is very minor and mostly boils down to different demosaicing algorithms and processing. Luminance noise appears higher from the Fuji, but chrominance noise is higher from the Olympus. The Olympus produces a crisper image with higher contrast, though default sharpening also appears to be a bit stronger. The X-H1 actually resolves more fine detail in our red-leaf swatch even though contrast is lower, while the E-M1 II renders it smoother but with less fine detail, however the Olympus does better with thread pattern in the pink fabric. Both offer great color, but reds and greens are little more saturated from the Fuji.

Here, we compare the X-H1 to another high-performance 20-megapixel Micro Four Thirds camera, the Panasonic GH5. Again, not much difference against the 24-megapixel Fuji X-T2 in terms of captured resolution due to the different aspect ratios. The GH5 image is however a little more natural-looking, with some areas such as the fabrics showing better detail, while the X-H1 image is a bit sharper and contrastier overall. The red-leaf pattern is more faithfully reproduced by the Fuji, however again that's partially because the Panasonic is reproducing more of the fine thread pattern which breaks up the leaf pattern a bit. Colors are also just a little more accurate from the Fuji.

Above we compare the 24-megapixel APS-C X-H1 to the new 24-megapixel full-frame Sony A7 III. This isn't really a fair comparison, but the A7 III body lists for a similar price, and Fuji has claimed their X-Trans APS-C sensors offer image quality comparable to full-frame cameras. Here, the Sony produces a sharper, crisper image with better detail and lower noise, however there are noticeable moiré patterns in the red-leaf swatch. The Sony reproduces many of the offset printing colors in the mosaic crop and resolves much more of the fine thread pattern in the fabrics, but overall color is warmer and generally more pleasing from the Fuji.

Again, we see slightly sharper, crisper results from the X-H1, while noise levels appear very similar. The tone curve used by the X-H1 continues to produce a brighter overall image despite both images having near identical middle-gray levels (which is how we try to expose these shots). Subtle detail in our tricky red-leaf swatch appears to be just slightly better defined from the X-T2, though.

Here at ISO 1600, the Nikon's rendering is much softer than it was at base ISO, while the X-H1's is only slightly softer, and the Fuji continues to resolve more detail in most areas. While contrast is still much higher in the red-leaf swatch, the D500's default noise reduction has blurred away more of the subtle detail than the X-H1. Luminance noise is however a bit higher from the X-H1, which is not unexpected thanks to its smaller pixels.

The Fuji X-H1 starts to pull away from the Olympus E-M1 II here at ISO 1600, with much lower chroma noise and fewer noise reduction artifacts, though luma noise is higher and a little coarser. The Olympus E-M1 II's default noise reduction starts to distort and flatten subtle detail in the mosaic crop and especially in the red-leaf fabric.

The GH5 compares fairly well with the X-H1 here at ISO 1600, producing an image with lower noise while holding onto almost as much detail, except in our troublesome red-leaf swatch where the Fuji does much better with fine detail. Overall contrast and color continue to be better from the X-H1.

Unsurprisingly, the full-frame Sony A7 III out-performs the X-H1 here at ISO 1600, with a crisper, cleaner and more detailed image overall, although moiré patterns and area/frequency-dependent noise reduction artifacts interfere with subtle detail in the red-leaf swatch. Colors are still warmer and more pleasing from the Fuji, though.

Again, very similar image quality here at ISO 3200 between the two siblings, with the X-H1 continuing to provide a brighter, contrastier and slightly more saturated image.

Once again, we see the Fuji X-H1 holds onto more detail than the Nikon D500 here at ISO 3200, though the D500 continues to produce higher contrast with more obvious sharpening halos. Luma noise levels are again a bit higher from the X-H1 but chroma noise is lower, and overall the X-H1 produced the better image here.

The Fuji X-H1 is the overall winner here at ISO 3200, with better detail and fewer noise reduction artifacts than the Olympus E-M1 II. Luminance noise from the X-H1 does appear a little higher, but chrominance noise is lower, and the Fuji hangs on to more fine detail in most areas. Colors remain warmer and a little more pleasing from the Fuji as well.

The Fuji X-H1 comes out ahead in this comparison as well. The Fuji image looks more refined and natural in areas of fine detail while the Panasonic's area-specific noise reduction tends to distort or blur fine elements a bit more than the Fuji. Luminance noise in flatter areas is lower from the Panasonic, but noise reduction artifacts are more visible compared to the Fuji's more film-like noise grain structure. The Fuji does significantly better with subtle detail in our red-leaf swatch, even though contrast is a little lower.

The A7 III continues to produce a crisper, more contrasty and detailed image than the X-H1 here at ISO 3200. Noise levels are indeed lower from the full-frame Sony, though less natural-looking noise reduction artifacts can be seen in flatter areas. Overall, the Sony A7 III still comes out ahead here when viewed at 100% like this, but there is no denying the X-H1 does amazingly well for an APS-C camera.