![]() ![]() Cranking sharpening on both didn’t yield any more usable data on the X-E1 file, just more sharpening artifacts. (X-E1 at 29 amount, 0.9 radius, 37 detail, X-E2 at 37 amount, 0.9 radius, 50 detail). Small adjustments in the Lightroom sharpening yielded essentially identical levels of detail. The X-E1 seems to have some sort of default sharpening. Delving deeper, I didn’t see any actual resolution difference, but rather a difference in the amount of sharpening present in the RAW file. One thing I noted is that straight out of camera, the X-E1 files appeared a little sharper. I then took the same exposures (same ISO, aperture and shutter speed) for ISO 200, 800, 1600, 32 and examined the output. To set up the test, I took the X-E1 and X-E2 with the Fujinon XF 35mm f/1.4 at f/5.6 and placed each camera on a tripod, focusing on my bookshelf. However, the X-E2 RAW files are 14-bit, vs the 12-bit X-E1 files, so there is potentially an improvement to be had, at least in extreme circumstances. The X-E2 has a newer sensor, the X-Trans CMOS II, but the primary difference is the addition of phase detection pixels, rather than an improvement in the imaging properties of the sensor. The Fujifilm X-E2 has a number of improvements over the X-E1, though almost none of them relate to image quality. ![]() I’d like to do the comparison in Capture One 7 (and I may revisit it later), but right now Capture One doesn’t support the X-E2 RAW files. In the second (and last) of my tests between the new Fujifilm X-E2 and X-E1, I take a look at the image quality over the ISO range in RAW, using Lightroom 5.3 RC. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |