Fuji X-Pro2: Shooting @ High ISO at tavphotography youtube
_ _ _
The Sony A6300 and the Fuji X-Pro2 are maybe the two best APS-C cameras you can get today on the market. Both sell very good, but which one is the better performer?
The Sony Vs. Fuji battle is a hot topic and comparisons are inevitable. Cameralabs tested the A6300 Vs. X-Pro2 here.
Admiringlight even compared Fuji’s new flagship to the Full Frame Sony A7II, as you can read here… with surprisingly good results for the X-Pro2, btw!
Sure, both, the A6300 and the X-Pro2 deliver amazing images in real life and you’ll hardly find something to complaint. But today let’s go deeper into the pixel peeper territory and look at “200% crops most of the time to show you the differences,” and where “we can easily file these small discrepancies into the irrelevant folder if we concentrate on real world shooting” as mirrorlessons said in their A6300 and X-Pro2 comparison.
Resolution and detail: RAW files difference is “almost non-existent“. Especially when using Iridient to demoisac the RAW files “the X-Pro2 files gain more details and they actual look crisper than the ones of the A6300. […] The a6300’s JPG engine has a tiny advantage because it renders finer details.”
Dynamic Range: “The uncompressed RAW option on the X-Pro2 gives more flexibility if you need to heavily post-process your images”
Low Light and High ISO: At ISO12,800 the X-Pro2 shows less color noise, while the Sony A6300 has more details. In real world, both are “very usable” at high ISO. “As for the extreme values and the JPGs, the a6300 is superior.”
Colours: Guys, you know the winner here, right? ;)
Autofocus: “The a6300 has a few advantages (faster burst speed, better Eye AF and 3D Tracking) while the X-Pro2 has a better buffer with JPGs and is easier to use. When we look at the results and the consistency of the performance, both cameras work really well.”
Check out the full review at mirrorlessons.