Quick Comparison: Fujifilm XTRANS vs. Canon EOS R Full Frame. Can it compete?

XTRANS vs. FULL FRAME

Half the size, same performance?

My Fujifilm X100F

I am a long time Canon Full Frame user since 2005 where I purchased the original Canon 5D.  Since then I have owned mostly everything under the Canon sun.  The Rebels, the Ds, and the 5Ds and the Canon 6D.  And now the Canon EOS R.  And I also shoot the Fujifilm XT20 which is a mini XT2.  Same sensor and processor.  I've also owned the Fujifilm XT2 and Fujifilm XT3, among many MANY others.

Then I switched to Fujifilm and owned nearly all the bodies and all the prime lenses with the exception of the ones north of $5,000.  

So I have extensive experience with both systems and currently own and shoot both.  I enjoy them for their unique experience and results.  I love both!

Many people think of APS-C as having a major disadvantage relative to Full Frame.  And they'd be mostly right.  However, Fujifilm is the unique player in the APS-C crop sensor field.  Fujifilm has created XTRANS technology which is different from every other APS-S sensor on the market.  XTRANS rearranges the color filter array and omits the anti-aliasing filter which increases sharpness and detail even further.  This essentially supercharges the results putting them just about on par with Full Frame when the final result is reached, and in some cases, even ahead, in my experience.  

One of the major real-world advantages of XTRANS is that it lacks color noise and false colors that all other traditional sensors have, including full frame sensors.  What does this mean in real-world practical applications?  It means that you don't have to correct this color noise in software which ends up degrading and softening image quality.  So once you do that to a Full Frame image which is inherently sharper (all other things being equal) you end up with both sensors having just about equal performance. Especially when that sensor, such as the one on the Canon EOS R, has an anti-aliasing filter.  

As you can see below, the images are about equally matched.  I shot my Fujifilm XT20 (same sensor and processor as XT2) with the legendary Fujifilm 35mm 1.4 vs. my Canon EOS R with Nikon 50mm 1.4.  The Fujifilm was shot at F/5.6 at its base ISO of 200 and the Canon at F/8 shot at ISO 100.  Both manually focused and checked on the live screen LCD for critical focus.  Both shot three times each to ensure the best of each picked.  (They turned out to all be identical).

Below is an overall shot and a cropped shot showing each. Both shot in raw and imported into lightroom.  The only modification was to match the white balance and color cast. Sharpness was not touched.  (No surprise Canon was way warmer comparatively so I had to turn the white balance way cool to match the Fuji)

Top is Canon EOS R full frame, bottom is Fuji XT20 APS-C XTRANS.  You won't see a difference at this res. Sorry for the not-so-exotic subjects. It's raining outside and my West Elm pillows are a decent subject with lots of texture, color, and detail ripe for comparison.  

So let's zoom in at 1:1.  Aside from the Canon's 30 megapixels vs. the Fuji's 24, I'm not seeing any differences.  If I examine the entire frame of each all over, it seems both cameras trade blows if you're really counting pixels at say, 3:1.  But for all intents and purposes, they match in detail.  I can see in some cases the Fuji having more detail despite having a lower pixel count.  

The Fuji on the left, Canon on the right.  Note I was using an adapted Nikon 50mm 1.4 on the Canon (extremely sharp lens at F8) so the EXIF shows blank.  

The reason, for those less informed, I used a 35mm lens on the Fuji and a 50mm on the Canon is to match the field of view.  35mm on a crop camera is 50mm.  5.6 on crop is F8 on full frame.  These are approximations as actual technical and physical measurements are bound to vary. But it's close enough for a quick comparison.  This backs up Fujifilm's claim that their XTRANS technology puts it on par with full frame.  It's not marketing, it's fact. Bravo, Fuji!

The skinny of the story is if you want really high quality photos, Full Frame isn't totally necessary.  Fuji is the absolute KING of APS-C due to XTRANS technology.  I love my Fujifilm XT20 for its style and the way it renders skin tones.  And this isn't just cliche, there's science behind it.  Fujifilm purposely tunes their colors to be flatter, more neutral for human skin.  Canon is also capable of great skin tones, but requires a bit more post processing.  Canon is geared towards objects, landscapes, and things.  And is absolutely unbeaten for beautiful vibrant colors. Nobody touches Canon in that regard--nobody.  This is why I shoot the Canon EOS R.  It's my primary landscape camera that can also do people photos while my Fujifilm is my primary portrait camera which can also do objects and landscapes, but not quite as well without a lot of work. 

There are advantages of Full Frame, don't get me wrong. I will do an article on that soon.  Most of the advantage has to do with ability to gather light.  It's lens dependent for the most part, Full Frame just gives you more options.  For APS-C though, nobody does lenses as good as Fujifilm and that's a fact.  The reason is because all of Fujifilm's R&D dollars (at least up until the GFX) goes into it's Fuji X lens lineup.  With Canon and Nikon, their premium engineering goes to their Full Frame line and their APS-C lenses are second tier.  Fuji leaves nothing to chance with its lenses for it's X lineup and has no choice but to make them superb. All their engineering dollars on lenses goes into their crop lenses. Particularly the faster ones in the 1.4 range and F2 range on the long end.    I'll do articles on all that shortly.  

Thank you for viewing my site and using my links to Amazon. I make a few pennies for every dollar you spend and it helps me out. Thank you.