Fuji X: 16 vs. 24 megapixels, with a vintage lens :)

Fuji’s X system cameras so far come in two flavors, either with a 16 MP or a 24 MP sensor. Most of them, bar the entry models, feature Fuji’s exclusive X-Trans sensor with its unique characteristics. Given that nothing loses more value than an aging computer, you can pick up the oldest Fuji bodies for a song these days. And there are of course some nice (maybe even kind of collectable) models out there with the old 16 MP sensor generation, such as the X-T1 Graphite edition or the original X-Pro 1, the camera that started the whole system and also introduced that very peculiar double viewfinder system.

So what’s the difference in resolution that we are talking about here? I thought I’d just set up a quick comparison and let you download, examine and judge the files in original size for yourself. For fun, I used a vintage lens – the Olympus PEN Zuiko 38/1.8. (I already wrote something about photographing with that lens here.)

Fuji X-E3 with PEN Zuiko 38/1.8.

To get somewhat controlled results, I lit the scene with a small Godox TT350 and placed the camera on a tripod. I provide two full-size files per shot:

1. JPG out of cam, standard contrast and sharpening settings, Velvia film setting;
2. developed in RAW to taste with Lightroom, exported as full size JPG. The sharpening settings are standard “landscape” settings of Lightroom. I did not apply any correction of CA, color fringes, distortion or vignetting so you still see what the lens itself delivers.

Glitches of this comparison

Of course, as always, this is not a really scientific comparison – as you can easily see below, the two cameras chose a very different white balance so the JPG out of cam shots look very different. For the RAW conversions, I set the white balance manually for all shots.

Also I think I varied ISO between 160 and 320, well the reason is simple: cause I did not pay enough attention when adjusting the brightness of the flash :) But then, who cares? ISO performance is really good anyway for these Fuji bodies. You won’t see any real difference when selecting ISO 320 instead of ISO 200 in a shot like the ones below.

Last not least, I did use Lightroom for these shots. But then anyone knows that Lightroom is not perfect for Fuji X-Trans files, right? Yes, I agree. But then, this is not a landscape shot – where typically Fuji RAW files can be problematic with Lightroom. I found that for this subject, Lightroom was absolutely up to its task … the fine synthetic hairs of the tiger did not look better or worse when I opened the files with RAW Therapee.

The things I do for my readers!

The comparison images

The focus point was set on the small hairs in front of the tiger’s left eye (thus, the eye to the right edge of the photo):

X-E3 (24 MP) with 38/1.8 at f/1.8. Converted from RAW.

1. JPG out of cam
2. RAW converted to JPG

X-E1 (16 MP) with 38/1.8 at f/1.8. Converted from RAW.

1. JPG out of cam
2. RAW converted to JPG

X-E3 (24 MP) with 38/1.8 at f/4. Converted from RAW.

1. JPG out of cam
2. RAW converted to JPG

X-E1 (16 MP) with 38/1.8 at f/4. Converted from RAW.

1. JPG out of cam
2. RAW converted to JPG

And last not least, I tried to frame an X-E3 shot in such a way that if you watch it at 100% size, all details would have the same size as on the X-E1 image:

X-E3 (24 MP) with 38/1.8 at f/4. Framed to match the 16 MP sensor.

1. JPG out of cam
2. RAW converted to JPG

Feel free to download and evaluate for yourself on your personal computer, but please pay attention that I hold the copyright on these images.

My conclusion? To all intents and purposes (bar the difference in white balance on the JPG out of cam samples), these pictures look virtually identical to me on a per-pixel level. Yes, the ones at f/1.8 are a bit more soft on the X-E3 due to the lens used, but those shot at f/4 look plenty sharp and crisp to me. Overall, with the newer X-E3 you get basically the same image quality – just with those extra 8 megapixels over the old X-E1. You get 6000×4000 pixels instead of 4896×3264.

That’s it. Personally, I can use that extra resolution very well for very big prints. That’s where it counts: Let’s say you print an X-E1 file at 49 x 32.6 cm (or 98 x 65.2 cm) – you’ll basically get exactly the same level of fine detail resolution as with an X-E3 file printed at 60 x 40 cm (or 120 x 80 cm). It’s not a world of a difference, but when printing really big, you’ll gonna notice it. The second reason where more resolution matters is if you want to crop your image in post.

So if you also need that extra resolution of Fuji’s newer 24 MP cameras, or would be just as happy with a nice older Fuji body with the 16 MP chip … that, after all, is up to you. :)

Cheers,
Thomas