Dear reader, thank you for visiting our website. The article you are looking for – Sony a6300 vs Fuji X-Pro2 – has been transferred over to our comparison website (link in the comments section below). We apologize for the inconvenience.
If you are looking for information about the a6300 or X-Pro2, you can check our individual reviews below:
The article can be found here:
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/sony-vs-fujifilm/a6300-vs-x-pro2/
Fuji doesn’t lie to customers, customer support is the best in the market period! Another thing to mention is that Fuji does not commercialize with the iso standard that’s why they start at 200 and don’t play the stupid iso marketing game. Their lenses are time proven world class even their cheapest lenses bring stunning quality something that no one else can say! you get into Sony you have to deal with heating problems, then they release a camera three to six months later rendering the other obsolete (this is why their customer support sucks!) to have a great lens is to purchase a G Master (whatever that pimped name means) lens or use metabones for Canon Glass thus supporting my claim! If one day I decide move from Canon it will definitely be Fuji!
DPReview is one of the more credible voices on the internet on a subject like this, so let’s just snip directly from their X-T1 review.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t1/16
“Even a cursory glance at this comparison tells you that Adobe Camera Raw’s processing of the X-T1’s files looks radically different compared to its output from conventional Bayer cameras. Chroma noise is strikingly low, and detail retention is impressively high – very much like the camera’s JPEGs, in fact. Because of this, direct comparisons have to be treated with a degree of caution – it’s best to assume that the demosaicing process of the X-Trans CMOS sensor behaves as though it’s doing substantial chroma noise reduction relative to ACR’s standard treatment of Bayer sensors. Again we also have to factor in the X-T1’s over-rating of its ISOs.
Even bearing this in mind, the X-T1 performs very well when its Raw images are converted with ACR. There’s essentially no chroma noise, and luminance noise is suppressed until around ISO 3200, at which point you start to notice some hints of noise reduction artefacts – something not normally seen in Raw files. But again, it’s very important to understand that the X-T1 looks artificially good in comparison to the other cameras here.”
Or from their X-Pro2 review, which is much briefer:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro2/7
“There appears to be a little less noise than the Nikon D7200 or Canon EOS 7D Mark II at ISO 3200. This story continues, even at very high ISOs, regardless of which brand’s sensors, you compare it to. The very slight softening of noise, compared to the likes of the Nikon D7200 hints that the X-Pro2’s Raw files may still have some degree of noise reduction applied but that it’s pretty subtle. Either way, the results are amongst the best we’ve seen from an APS-C camera.”
Chrome noise reduction is simply part of the X-Trans demosaicing process. It uses different algorithms than a conventional Bayer array.
Fuji does not reduce noise in the RAW file. You say that, where is your proof?
read the article. X-Pro2 is better.
My review sample of the 85mm GM should arrive today. Right now I also have the XF 56mm from Fuji with me. I’m thinking of doing a comparison between the two lenses/systems.
As for the 90mm, it does well for portraits (you can see some examples and comparisons here with the Batis 85mm: https://www.mirrorlessons.com/2015/07/13/portraits-with-sony-e-mount-primes-zeiss-batis-85mm-f1-8-vs-90mm-macro-vs-55mm-f1-8/) but I would buy it if I am also interested in macro. For portraits alone, the Batis or the GM are better.
Sony FE GM 85 or the Sony 90mm FE?
Is there any Fuji x lens can be comparable for sharpness? I would be very curious.
Any opinion or reviews for the comparison?
No that’s wrong.
Image quality favors the a6300. Didn’t you read the article here?
A6300.
Smaller, lighter, cheaper, better video, better AF and more adaptable lenses for further creativity.
For the difference in price you can treat yourself with e mount 50mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.8 OSS lenses. Which are very good lenses.
I love the Rokinon 8mm fisheye. If you buy these 3 lenses used, it won’t cost you that 700$ difference in price of bodies.
I love the a6300 but you hit it correctly. For Sony it’s lenses lenses and lenses-the lack of. I’m not going to use adapters unless they reach native level of AF. Yes I know Sony is producing new lenses but the prices are high. $1200 US for a 70-300 with slow and variable aperture? Same spec lens is available for Nikon at $500
Hi Edwin, I haven’t noticed any relevant difference between 100 and 200 ISO on the a6300. The results in comparison to the X-Pro2 are the same at 100 or 200 ISO.
Thanks for the very good review, Mathieu.
Just one question concerning the dynamic range comparison. As far as I know, the Sony has a native ISO range, which starts at 100, while the Fuji ISO range starts at 200.
You did the comparision at ISO 200. As we know, usually the dynamic range is the higher, the lower the ISO setting is (as long as you don’t exeed the native ISO range).
I am very interested to know if you did a dynamic range comparison at the native base ISO setting of the cameras, which means ISO 100 for the Sony and ISO 200 for the Fuji? Did you observe a dynamic range decrease for the Sony between ISO100 and ISO 200?
Great review thanks! What about low light autofocus where there is not a very clear contrast line? (Eg faces)
Overall how do they compare to similar prices DSLR?
maybe I am a Fanboy, but I argue, that the Fuji is better in nearly every way except for 4K video.
But then I again: I bought a Fuji to complement my µFTs and found the Fujis superior to the Sony A6000.
The A7R II has a great sensor and probably produces the best images (of all mirrorless cameras), but it gets big, heavy and expansive.
Nice article. Overall the Fuji seems to be the better overall camera. Resolution of the sensor is about the same, the Fuji is a bit better with color and noise. But all those things aren’t really that important anymore.
The Fuji is a real pro camera. That focus stick and the dual UHS cards make it really outstanding.
And of course Fujis lenses blow ways what Sony has for APS-C.
On the other hand the A6300 is really great value for filmers! (is the overheating still a problem. I heard a lot about that in the early reviews)
And the A6000 still is the best sensor for the buck.
no NR, only a converter handling demosaicing and standard settings a bit differently. I’d suggest that everyone downloads some RAWs and tries them with LR, Irridient and RawTherapee. Probably going to be an eyeopener
Did the whole SAR fanboys come here to troll?
Really disgusting how a good article (and discussion) turns into hate and trolling all the time as soon as Sony is involved.
only problem with this is, that Fuji doesn’t do any NR, but Sony does. Not what you wanted to hear, is it? 😉
as I said here: https://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/04/27/sony-a6300-vs-fuji-x-pro2/#comment-2646946617
There is no dishonesty with the Fuji file. At least there is no measurable noise reduction in the regular RAWs (there is, with extended ISOs). Sony on the other hand does noise reduction hat ISOs of 12600 and higher, even in what they call regular ISO range.
The differences in color noise probably have two sources:
1. the smaller one is probably the CFA. not (only) the pattern (X-Trans vs. Bayer) but the color filters itself. It’s possible, that Fujis filters are more efficient. That would introduce less color noise (at a cost of a bit luminosity)
2. the biggest effect has the raw converter. As you might have noticed, Fuji files are sharper with irridient, but also have a bit more color noise (with disabled noise reduction)
The differences in brightness have many sources, the biggest being the the ISO standard (REI vs SOS) and transmission of the lens.
it doesn’t.
Actually there is no noise reduction in RAWs within the normal ISO range for the fuji. (those things can be measured). The Sony on the other hand has noise reduction baked into their RAWs at high ISOs.
But what you are seeing is something different. On the one hand it’s probably due to a different (more efficient?) CFA. Not only the pattern but the color filters itself.
On the other hand it’s due to how converters handle different files. ACR/LR makes Fuji files a bit softer.
The most important thing is: if the end result is soft, it’s due to the photographer, not the gear.
Thanks for the Tip. It seems to take at least 3s to lock, a little bit slow but can be useful.
I added an example with NR applied in Lightroom for the 12800 ISO example.
I think the noise vs detail section only shows what has been known for ages: Fuji builds a bit of NR into their raw files, and it costs them a touch of final resolution. This result shows up every time this type of comparison is conducted. It is not so much an issue of capability so much as tuning.
Did you skip over the section showing the Sony output is noisier? And please be more respectful to people who may disagree with you. Calling out any dissent from your view as pure fanboyism is very rude.
Lightroom’s chroma noise reduction works extremely well. Gets rid of the Skittles with almost no loss of detail at all. I always use chroma NR.
LR’s luminance noise reduction, by comparison, is very average by RAW developer standards, but I almost never use luminance NR in my files.
I understand, but I feel like since Fuji doesn’t show the native noise because it’s masked in their proprietary demosaicing, it gives a bit of an unfair impression of the true usability of the RAW files from the different manufacturers.
So the cheaper A6300 clearly beats the Fuji in IQ in every possible way as show on the tests. That CANNOT be argued as the evidence is right there. If anyone wants to argue that, it will be pure fanboy talking. Now, there are other factors that can push a buyer towards one or the other as no product is perfect for everyone of course.
Thank you for the review. It is useful to me as I am in two minds about getting the Sony A6300 or the Fuji XT2 when it comes out (I think its basic performance will be similar to the XPRO1 but, along with other things, I want a flip out screen). I already have a Sony A7Rmk2 and and a number of full frame E Mount lenses – these would fit the Sony A6300 and make a nice two camera set up. But I also have a Fuji XM1 and some Fuji X glass which would go well with the XT2. I get brain ache pondering. Just lucky to have so much choice and a friendly bank manager….
Fuji’s RAW noise reduction is IN CAMERA, before files are written into the card. This has nothing to do with raw developing.
That’s why I would have preferred an additional dial on top.
If you slide to the left, you see the X-Pro2 image. If you slide to the right, you see the a6300 image. If you keep the slider at the centre, the image on the left is the a6300, the image on the right is the X-Pro2.
Slide to the left: X-Pro2
Slide to the right: a6300
I am confused. Does it mean the pic on the left is X-pro2, the pic on right is A6300
or “slide to the left” and show the pic on right, so the right is X-pro 2
Please help
I’m finding that the A6300 is not a camera I will keep because of the stupid ergonomics.
Specifically the wheel being used for controlling shutter speed.
FAIL – I turn the wheel OFF on my A7 series cameras because it is constantly being activated by the palm of my right hand as I grip the camera.
Sony should provide a method to lock the shutter speed instead of letting it spin around so easily 🙁
Well the closest I have right now are the XF 35mm 1.4 and the Sigma 30mm 1.4 E-mount.
I don’t have DxO but I tried with Capture One. Without NR there is colour noise as well on the a6300 files. I kept NR to 0 on Lightroom too. The only reason I used Iridient is to double check the results with the Fuji files. I never had issues with Lightroom and Sony raw files.
Hi David, on my X-T1 I can have both the single AF point and face detection. What firmware version is running your X-T1?
I kept the colour NR to 0 to show the native noise you can get. I don’t always keep 25 on Lightroom, depending on the camera/sensor and the situation I often set it at 10 or 15, sometimes even 5 and then I add 5 of luminance NR.
Try using a better raw processor on the Sony, and see what you think of its chroma noise. Lightroom’s noise reduction really isn’t that good. Run the Sony files through DxO instead, and that chroma noise totally disappears. And if the review can cherry-pick a specific raw processor for the Fuji (Iridient), then why not for Sony as well?
Mathieu great comparison! I own XT1 and AF is just not great for my always running 3 year old. I think my situation with always unpredictably running child is common to many other parents out there.
XT1 is useable in continous af mode with my child running but not great and shots are missed. To get more keepers, on XT1 I have to select ‘focus priority’ rather than ‘release priority’ and 8fps really becomes more like 4fps.
My DSLR (Nikon D800) in 3D tracking node makes it effortless.
The real problem with XT1 is its face detection which is a complete failure. And face detect is being relied more and more especially in mirrorless. While my panasonic GX7 image quality is on a different level with APS sensors, its Face Detection is what makes me want to pick it up when I go anywhere with my 3 year old. Because its face detection is instant and it does not matter where the face is looking, it just hits it and every photo of my kid is in focus.
Fuji on other other hand, if you turn on face detection 1) phase detect points turn off (at least on XT1, I suspect same is with XPRO2) and you are back to contrast detect af on a Fuji. Other things turn off too, like metering etc but that’s another story. Also if you pick the closest eye option on XT1, it is unreliable and often hits on the further eye. On GX7, you don’t have to ask what eye, GX7 will always focus on closest eye. Face detection is bad on XT1. Sounds from your review Fuji did not make it much better on XPRO2.
Finally one problem I have with Fuji and Panasonic for that matter, and I don’t understand what the problem is, since Sony and Olympus implement it, is how come I cannot select center AF box + face detection? On Olympus and Sony I can have center box focus, however when the face comes into the frame the camera will focus on the face, if no face, goes back to center box. I find this AF method the most convenient to me. On Fuji/Panasonic if you pick Face detect, you must then accept Full Area Auto, so if there is no face, the camera will pick what to focus on, which is always something not what I want to. So I have to go and turn off Face Detect (on Fuji) or switch from Face Detect mode to single area af (Panasonic) which is extra unnecessary steps. Why can’t Fuji and Panasonic implement Fade Detect always on, like Sony and Olympus?
What are your thoughts?
I find the easiest way to do an accurate comparison is just to turn up the Color Noise Reduction to 25 or so (as it defaults to in Lightroom) and leave the Luminance Noise Reduction at 0. This shows you image as its most likely to be used, and Color Noise Reduction almost never kills detail – usually it enhances it because the random color dots are too distracting.
When you equalize it that way, the Fuji loses its advantage. It still is a good performing sensor, but it’s pretty much exactly the same as the A6300, which makes sense because (by all accounts) it is probably the same sensor, just with the X-Trans Colour Filter Array on top!
Yes, if detail and resolution are you main goals, the E-M10 II is at least as good as an X-T1 using comparable lenses. The X-T2 will probably have an advantage if it has the 24MP sensor, but who knows what M4/3 cameras will be out then.
Well that’s a nice passion you are sharing together now, it’s the same for Heather and I.
That’s probably the case. Plus if with the same settings the Fuji image is darker, it also helps minimise noise more. I don’t think it’s a matter of dishonesty really but more about taking a different approach. We the right post production you can bring back the details and the right exposure while keeping noise low.
Actually, I believe the reason that the X-Pro2 tends to be slightly better in terms of noise performance, especially less color noise(whether high ISOs or dynamic range), is that Fuji always has a bit of in-camera noise reduction, even with RAW files that are supposed to be, well, raw.
It is quite obvious when checking RAW images compared side to side from, say, a X-Pro2 and an A7RII. What I can see is that the Fuji has much less color noise, which is pretty counter intuitive, given the larger BSI sensor of the A7RII. Also, it is very clear that there are quite a lot of softness which is often seen after noise reduction.
In fact, I’ve heard from people about images from Fuji cameras sometimes being soft even at lower ISOs. While this isn’t really an issue for everyday use, and can make high ISO images look better, it still feels kind of dishonest for Fuji to do noise reduction on RAW images.
(Image from DPreview)
The Leica T is also good but not as fleshed out in native lenses and its AF does fall short as nice as that camera is.
Thank you for this balanced review.
While I am a great admirer of Fuji cameras I have to admit the Sony has the edge in ultimate crispness and AF performance.
However I still would choose the Fuji because of its splendid lens line and better low light performance.
The funny part is when I first got the oM d it was for me and she just climed is because it was “cute” . She never had in interest what so ever in photography and used to get so annoyed when I was of don’t my thing . Now we go of together and have great little Photog adventures . All thanks to Olympus . But she does sneak Fuji time .
Haha, you should trade gear one day just for fun: the wife with the Fuji and you with the OM-D 🙂 From what I read, you have everything you need in the house 🙂
The Sony lens is actually not to bad on the A7s , but just didn’t seem to work on the 6300. But the 70-200 f4 on the 6300 is good. But I don’t want to come across as a Fuji fan boy but every time I go out with the Fuji gear I just get impressed . I come from a one eyed Canon background that drifted into the A7 range of gear and then stumbled across Fuji . I still have Canon , because I just like it but the Fuji more and more is the bag I grab on the way out . But my wife is a very dedicated Olympus person . She ended up with an o m d and didn’t even know the first thing and she’s become a very capable Photog and man those ( yes those ) OMD s continue to impress me . I’m just not allowed to touch em though . Ha ha
Very true but as a starting point folks lean more to one camera over the other regarding image quality.
In terms of details there isn’t much difference between the E-M10 II and X-T1. It’s more about the colour profiles. If you really want more details then it would be a good idea to upgrade to a sensor with more resolution. I would wait for the X-T2 and then decided. Fuji has a more balanced choice of lenses so the X-T2 could be a good choice.
Great review, thank you. Let me side track you a bit. I’m not much of a Xpro 2, range finder kind of person. I like the XT1 still. I can deal with the a6300 because it’s much smaller. However with Sony, the camera body itself cost less the Fuji, but their lens are expensive. I know they just released some cheap lens, a lot of people said they are not so great. The Fuji on the other hand has great lens, small and reasonable price. Here is a question for you. I just bought a Olympus OMD EM 10 ii last December. I didn’t know much at the time. I realize the APS-C sensor gives a little more detail. Should I upgrade to a XT1 or a a6300? Should I wait for the XT2? I don’t really use video so that’s not so important to me.
I can’t believe my eyes the Sony to me has better image quality and I am viewing on a calibrated Eizo monitor. Not only is it brighter it has better color separation. Fuji feels heavy and I liked the Natural on Sony more than the Pro Neg on the Fuji. Fuji should really come out with a bayer version of the xpro or Xt cameras. I’m really surprised here.
I think the image quality now is irrelevant between the two. What matters is the handling and the lens selection. People looking at these cameras will always use a software to process these images anyway.
Not like there’s a plethora to choose from…
Comparing an average quality superzoom designed for full-frame on an APS-C camera has got to be just about the biggest hamstring you could apply to the A6300, especially when using one of the sharpest lenses in the Fuji system to compare it against.
This is specifically about APS-C cameras. If you’re willing to look at either Sony FF or Micro Four Thirds, the 2nd gen A7-series, E-M1, or GX8 all offer compelling advantages versus either of these cameras, but they all do different things better.
He doesn’t say that the Touit lenses are bad for Fujifilm, he says that they don’t give you a lot more in comparison to the Fuji lenses. It’s true that the 14mm Fuji is excellent and the XF 35mm 1.4 is even slightly faster than the 32mm 1.8.
But when it comes to optical performance, the Zeiss 12mm does well on both systems. They are designed for the two systems so I don’t really see what the problem is. Plus there is no better way to compare two cameras by using the same lens, which is not always possible unfortunately.
Well as you say. it is just that, an opinion.
I just wonder, why use Touit Lens, why not use Fujinon XC16-50mm (which i think no seller would pack X-Pro2 with this “cheap” lens) and Sony can use SAM16-50 as kit with same diaphragm. Compare between two camera means use their both own lens because own branded lens means designed for those camera.
Why i wrote this ? Because every brand and lenses support for the advantage of the system. If the lens not so match with the system, then the advantage will be suck off.
For me, when try 12mm Touit, hmm… suddenly remember a review video for this lens and please check what the reviewer talked about conclusion, is it good enough ? For Fuji and Sony, will be different result.
Please check the video and move directly to 06:09 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWZoJBLLd6I
Not specifically for this comparison but I’v used the 90mm wide open in other situations. I didn’t notice and drastic difference in performance. Perhaps it is more true with the 56mm because the AF is slower with that lens.
just one last question:
have you tried the Fuji in AF-C wide open? I know you stopped it down for comparison reasons, but the (Fuji) AF seems to work best with the maximum amount of light (even though the depth of field is incredibly small, I have found the af to work best this way, even with the 90mm or 56mm (last at f/1.2!!!)))
Thanks, I appreciated 🙂
If you look at the ISO comparison, up to 12800 the X-Pro2 has less colour noise. The a6300 files are brighter however (0.5 Ev more or less) and have a little bit more details.
I would go for the Sony, but wonder why you don’t mention the Olympus cameras. It would be interesting with an article were you on a more general ground reasoned why you chose how you chose, without going into camera details.
first I want to thank you for your review! Overall it’s very good and objective.
I think the live view is an interesting topic. First we should clarify what we mean with blackout and lag. The thing is:
The A6300 has a very short blackout and shows some live feed from the sensor between them. However (as you say) this results in many short blackouts and different levels of brightness.
The X-Pro2 on the other hand has longer blackouts. Due to this it doesn’t show a live feed but the last made pictures (and it also shows this during the blackout). This results in a more pleasing look, but what you see isn’t live (which is problematic with tracking things). For me this is still blackout and not lag (when I talk about lag I mean the displaylag – the time, the display is behind the sensor in live view)
I found your article about shooting birds in flight with the X-Pro2 (OVF) very interesting – no blackout or lag there ^^
About the ISO comparison: I find that very interesting. Every raw comparison I have seen yet, points to the X-Pro2 having less noise (especially color. Of course this comparison is only legit up to 6400, because the A6300 does noise reduction in RAW from ISO12600 upwards and the Fuji probably in their extended ISO range)
Thanks Alex!
I found the 24-240mm quite soft when I reviewed it. The XF 16-55 on the other end is excellent so part of the difference you found can definitely be attributed to the lens.
It’s my opinion summarised in the title 🙂 But I do think they are the best right now.
1. Thanks for the info. I forgot about that 🙂
2. The ISO comparison is from the RAW files and with NR kept at 0 (Lightroom).
3. The 1080p footage from the X-Pro2 is sharp, you’re right and the colours are good too because you can choose the different film simulation modes. As you noticed, it is difficult to open the shadows and gather more dynamic range. Unfortunately the shadows/highlights settings do not affect the video footage. The Pro Neg Std profile is the one that gives the widest DR.
4. The real live view of the a6300 is very interesting but the continuous blackouts (even if not 100%) are a little bit annoying (I guess it is also a matter of getting used to it). The X-Pro2 doesn’t have blackouts but then you loose the live view. The lag is not a lot however.
Nice review overall, but there are a few things I noticed:
1. you state that the Sony uses copper wiring allowing it to gather more light. Thing is: the Fuji uses exactly the same technology (and the X-Trans CFA is on top of that)
2. have you done ISO comparisons in RAW too? Because over at DPreview the X-Pro2 has clearly less noise (especially color noise) in RAW. (You can download and develop them for yourself: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xpro2&attr13_1=sony_a6300&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkii&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr171_0=off&attr171_1=off&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.1250862663906142&y=0.5291632560744444)
3. Interestingly I found the 1080p footage from the X-Pro2 sharper (and the color is fantastic). The main problem seems to be a bug, that crushes the blacks. You can work around this by remapping it to 16-255.
The A6300 is the (much) more capable video camera (S-Log for grading, 4K and much more options), but in pure image quality perspective, in 1080p the X-Pro2 interestingly wins.
4. The A6300 has a big advantage over the X-Pro2 when it comes to moving subjects: it has real live view at 8fps while the X-Pro2 only shows the last picture. This probably makes a bigger difference than the pure AF system. Congrats to Sony for implementing this!
‘The two best mirrorless APS-C cameras compared’ Somewhat unlike you to state an opinion as a ‘fact’.
I know it will sound a little corny but Fuji has a little photo-magic to it, the Sony is great but more of an awesome instrument than a romantic camera like the Fujis. I have both and use Fuji for stills and Sony for video. Prefer Fuji glass to Sony and Zeiss for Sony too. Wish I could use my Fuji glass on my Sony cams.
I used my 6300 with the 24-240 on it and my x pro 2 with the 16-55 on it only yesterday. Shooting the same subject with the sony doing the zoom in pics. There was a few that were shot at the same range and by far ,a long way in front the Fuji just smashed the sony out of the park. True the Fuji glass is superior to that particular Sony lens. But if I put the Sony 70-200 f4 the 6300 comes much better but the L series Canon its great.
Yes, Mathieu, we are going to “pixel peel” ahaha 😛 Good read though! Always love to read what you and Heather write.
Fuji any day and twice on Sunday !!