Admiring Light
Menu
  • Home
  • Review Index
  • Shop Talk
  • Technique and Vision
  • Opinion
  • Portfolio
  • Site Index
  • About
    • Privacy Policy
Menu

Fujifilm X-E1 vs X-E2 – RAW Performance

Posted on December 5, 2013December 5, 2013 by Jordan Steele

xe2_xe1

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.  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.

The Fujifilm X-E2 has a number of improvements over the X-E1, though almost none of them relate to image quality.  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.  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.  Let’s take a quick look.

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.  I then took the same exposures (same ISO, aperture and shutter speed) for ISO 200, 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400 and examined the output.

One thing I noted is that straight out of camera, the X-E1 files appeared a little sharper.  Delving deeper, I didn’t see any actual resolution difference, but rather a difference in the amount of sharpening present in the RAW file.  The X-E1 seems to have some sort of default sharpening.  Small adjustments in the Lightroom sharpening yielded essentially identical levels of detail. (X-E1 at 29 amount, 0.9 radius, 37 detail, X-E2 at 37 amount, 0.9 radius, 50 detail).  Interesting.  Cranking sharpening on both didn’t yield any more usable data on the X-E1 file, just more sharpening artifacts.  Since level of sharpening can have an impact on perception of noise, I equalized sharpness for the same output to compare noise output (Without this, the X-E2 files would appear slightly less sharp but significantly better in noise performance).

Next, I took crops from the images.  The best spot to examine any differences was actually about 25% into the frame on the left side, where there was a range of tones and some deep shadows.  This area was very slightly behind the focus point, but is within the depth of field, so the resulting crops are not the sharpest areas of the image, but are ideal for showing tonal transition and noise.

The crops below show the X-E1 and X-E2 at full stop ISO increments in this region.  To see the image at 100%, click below to enlarge, then press the green arrow at the bottom of the screen to zoom to 100%.

ISO Series, Fujifilm X-E1 on the left, X-E2 on the right.  Click to enlarge (and press green arrow to go to 100%)
ISO Series, Fujifilm X-E1 on the left, X-E2 on the right. Click to enlarge (and press green arrow to go to 100%)

At ISO 200, I see no real tangible difference between the two images.  While the X-E2 file is 30% larger, there’s no real advantage at lower ISOs that I can see, at least without manipulating the files (which I’ll get to later).  At ISO 800, though, the X-E2 looks every so slightly cleaner to my eye, and this continues at the higher ISOs.  While not an enormous difference, it is there when viewing at 100%, though you’d be hard pressed to notice it in a print or final web presentation.

Next, I wanted to show the point of focus to see if there is a resolution advantage or disadvantage with the new X-E2.  For this purpose, I show crops at ISO 200, 1600 and 6400.  Again, to enlarge to 100%, click the green arrow after clicking the image.

Detail series - Fujifilm X-E1 on the left, X-E2 on the right.  Click to enlarge (and press green arrow to go to 100%)
Detail series – Fujifilm X-E1 on the left, X-E2 on the right. Click to enlarge (and press green arrow to go to 100%)

To my eye, detail levels are extremely similar, and ISO 200 crops again are essentially indistinguishable.  At 1600 and 6400, again you can see that the X-E2 is slightly cleaner, especially in the darker areas.  Again, this isn’t a large difference, but could be equivalent to 1/3 to 1/2 stop improvement.  Finally, I wanted to see if the 14-bits of data allowed for added flexibility when pushing the shadows.  I pushed the shadows +85 in Lightroom and again compared the crop area from the first series.

Pushed Shadows - Fujifilm X-E1 on the left, X-E2 on the right.  Click to enlarge (and press green arrow to go to 100%)
Pushed Shadows – Fujifilm X-E1 on the left, X-E2 on the right. Click to enlarge (and press green arrow to go to 100%)

Does 14-bits make a difference?  Maybe.  But if so, only slightly.  There are similar noise levels in the pushed shadows, though, especially at 6400, the color information is better retained in the X-E2, which is most notable by the warm color of the notebook in shadow.

So, the final verdict?  The X-E2 has a very slight edge in RAW performance over the X-E1.  However, it’s not something that is a big enough difference to sway an upgrade, in my opinion.  The reasons to upgrade from the X-E1 to the X-E2 are predominantly due to improvements in speed and usability.  If you want more information on either camera, check out my full, in-depth reviews of the X-E1 and the X-E2.

10 thoughts on “Fujifilm X-E1 vs X-E2 – RAW Performance”

  1. Lorenzo Asso says:
    December 6, 2013 at 8:17 am

    Hi Jordan

    why don’t try the raw development with Silkypix that seems to be also better than C1 and it would be interesting to try also the native fuji developer that I suppose it would be good for the specific x-trans.
    Using LR could be interesting from comparison xe1/xe2 perspective, but it does not show the real potential of x-trans raf, since the LR demosaicization is weak….

    Reply
  2. Pingback: Comparisons Reloaded: X-E2 vs A7r (jpeg) + X-E1 vs X-E2 (RAW) | Fuji Rumors
  3. Pingback: Fujifilm X-E1 vs X-E2 – RAW Performance | Jordan Steele
  4. Doug says:
    December 8, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    An even better alternative is Photo Ninja, which just demolishes all other RAW converters for Fuji RAF.

    Reply
  5. Jorge says:
    December 10, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    I’ve used Silkypix, Aperture, LR5.x, Photo Ninja, and Iridient Developer. ID, for me, works the best and that’s what I’m currently using even though I do use Silkypix on occasion.
    Thanks for the testing. It confirms my decision to keep my X-E1 for a bit longer and hold off on any upgrade.

    Reply
  6. Gab says:
    December 17, 2013 at 4:42 am

    Photo Ninja is great for maximizing detail, but it fails utterly at very near (or just barely) burnt highlights, shadow recovery + noise control. Capture one is okay for xtrans processing + I like how it renders colors & it provides a fairly convenient workflow when jointly used with Lightroom. I have the feeling that small developers just don’t have the resources to complete with Adobe & Phaseone.. (I haven’t tried Irident, since I don’t own/or plan to own a Mac)

    Reply
  7. Pingback: Some new Fuji X links… | A Lens a Week Blog
  8. Ralph says:
    May 1, 2014 at 8:27 am

    Thanks, I shoot with a large Canon DSLR (1Ds Mark11) and have been struggling with finding a small camera for travel and other uses. I have struggled with making up my mind and would like one that can use my Leica M6 lenses as well. Haven’t decided between the X-E1 and X-E2 but this along with your full review is helping.

    Reply
  9. Ramprasad says:
    January 8, 2015 at 7:43 am

    Hi Jordon,
    Currently i am using Nikon D7000 and stated to exploring the features of XE1 and planning to migrate from Nikon to Fuji . Please help me whether the XE1 outperforms the Nikon D7000 in terms of Image Quality and Low Light performance.

    Reply
  10. 33Randi says:
    May 15, 2017 at 11:45 am

    I must say it was hard to find your website in google.
    You write interesting articles but you should rank your
    blog higher in search engines. If you don’t know how to do it search on youtube: how to rank a website Marcel’s way

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow Me:

Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on RSSFollow Us on Instagram

Most Popular Posts

  • "Full Frame Equivalence" and Why It Doesn't Matter (286)
  • Fuji X-Pro 2 vs. Sony A7 II: Noise Comparison (70)
  • Fuji 56mm f/1.2 vs. Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 Nocticron (63)
  • Review: Metabones Speed Booster (Canon FD to Fuji X) (56)
  • Review: Olympus OM-D E-M5 (48)

Recent Comments

  • Harry on Review: Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 Di III VXD
  • Jordan Steele on Review: Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 Di III VXD
  • Harry on Review: Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 Di III VXD
  • Harry on Review: Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
  • Jordan Steele on Review: Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM

Archives

©2021 Admiring Light | Theme by SuperbThemes
We use cookies to personalize content and ads and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services. You may consent to the use of cookies or opt out. Accept Reject Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Non-necessary

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.