Fujifilm X-T2 Image Quality

The 24-megapixel Fuji X-T2 clearly resolves more detail in most areas than the 16-megapixel X-T1, but its predecessor does better with the subtle detail in our tricky red-leaf fabric. (The X-T2 manages to resolve some of the fine thread pattern which the X-T1 doesn't, interfering with the leaf pattern, as well as producing lower contrast.) Noise levels appear comparable here at base ISO, just slightly lower from the X-T1. Interestingly, colors are more pleasing from the X-T2, as the X-T1 exhibits slight shifts from orange to yellow and yellow to green. Default sharpening appears to be a little higher from the X-T2 as well.

Here we compare the Fuji X-T2 to the 20.7-megapixel APS-C Nikon D500 at base ISO. (The Nikon D500 is more expensive than the X-T2, but represents the current state-of-the-art in high performance APS-C DSLRs.) The 24-megapixel X-T2 does resolve a bit more more detail than the Nikon, however the D500 produces a crisper image with higher contrast which is especially noticeable in the red-leaf swatch, though sharpening halos are definitely more evident. 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 is 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-T2. You would think the 24-megapixel X-T2 would have a noticeable resolution advantage over the 20-megapixel E-M1 II here, but both cameras have similar resolutions on 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 higher. The X-T2 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 detail, however the Olympus does better with thread pattern in the pink fabric.

Here we compare APS-C sensors of the same pixel count and aspect ratio, with the main difference being X-Trans vs Bayer filtering, and of course in-camera processing. The Sony produces a much crisper, sharper image yet its sharpening algorithm produces less noticeable halos around high-contrast edges. Contrast is also higher from the Sony, especially in the red-leaf swatch, however it does contain obvious moiré patterns while the Fuji image does not. Luma noise is a bit higher from the Fuji, but again, chroma noise is much lower. Color is more pleasing from the Fuji, with less orange to yellow and yellow to green shift, but the Sony preserves more of the subtle coloration caused by offset printing in the mosaic label.

Above we compare the 24-megapixel APS-C X-T2 to the 24-megapixel full-frame Sony A7 II. This isn't really a fair comparison, but the A7 II body is currently available for less than the X-T2 and Fuji has claimed their X-Trans APS-C sensors offer image quality comparable to full-frame cameras. Results are similar to the A6500 comparison with the Sony producing a sharper, crisper image but with lower noise and even more noticeable moiré patterns in the red-leaf swatch. Again, the Sony reproduces some of the offset printing colors in the mosaic crop and resolves much more of the thread pattern in the pink fabric, but overall color is warmer and generally more pleasing from the Fuji.

The resolution advantage of the X-T2 is still evident in most areas at ISO 1600 while producing better color and similar noise levels, but the X-T1 continues to do a better job rendering our tricky red-leaf fabric.

Here at ISO 1600, the Nikon's rendering is much softer than it was at base ISO, while the X-T2's is only slightly softer, and the Fuji continues to resolve more detail in most areas. While contrast is still higher in the red-leaf swatch, the D500's default noise reduction has blurred away more fine detail than the X-T2. Luminance noise is however a bit higher from the X-T2, which is to be expected due to its smaller pixels.

The Fuji X-T2 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 coarser. While contrast and sharpness are a bit better from the Olympus, the E-M1 II's default noise reduction starts to distort and smear subtle detail in the mosaic crop and especially in the red-leaf fabric.

The Sony A6500 continues to produce a sharper, crisper, more contrasty image at ISO 1600, and the offset printing coloration in the mosaic crop is no longer present in the A6500 image, suppressed by the Sony's high ISO noise reduction. The Sony also appears to do better in the red-leaf swatch, however much of the fine detail is distorted and false. The A6500 definitely does better with detail in the pink fabric, though, however the X-T2 continues to deliver better overall color.

Unsurprisingly, the full-frame Sony A7 II out-performs the X-T2 here at ISO 1600, with a cleaner, punchier, more detailed image overall, although moiré patterns and somewhat heavy-handed noise reduction interfere with subtle detail in the red-leaf swatch.

Similar to the comparison of these two siblings at ISO 1600, the X-T2 still manages to resolve more high-contrast detail and renders more pleasing colors, but the X-T1 does noticeably better in our difficult red-leaf swatch, while producing slightly lower luma noise levels. Both cameras produce remarkably low chroma noise for this ISO.

Once again, we see the Fuji X-T2 hold 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-T2 but chroma noise is lower, and overall the X-T2 produces the better image here.

The Fuji X-T2 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-T2 does appear a little higher, but chrominance noise is lower, and the Fuji hangs on to more fine detail in most areas.

The Sony A6500 still produces a crisper, contrastier image with more punch here at ISO 3200, however noise levels in flatter areas are higher. Again, the red-leaf pattern may look more detailed from the Sony, but much of that detail is false, and the Fuji still produces more pleasing colors.

Like the A6500, the A7 II produces a sharper, more contrasty image than the X-T2 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, we think the Sony A7 II still comes out ahead here when viewed at 100% like this, but there is no denying the X-T2 does amazingly well for an APS-C sensor.