X-PRO 2 vs X-T1 Resolution Comparison

8 years, 4 months ago 13



Summation:  The X-PRO 2 really shines and shows it’s 33% more resolution in  these examples!!  I love my X-T1s, I have three but they will get little less use now that I have this incredible instrument to shoot.  The bitingly rich resolution is just stunning. Micro fine detail and contrast is right up there with the D810, quite amazing.  I will walk you through the examples I shot, but the summation won’t change, this is one hell of a camera!!! (excuse my French!  😉


All examples were shot with the subject cross/side lit with a LED light panel as the light source to create side lighting to show the most texture. The tripod mounted X-T1 and X-PRO 2 were  mated with the sharpest lens I’ve ever owned, the 90mm f 2   All images shot at f 11  The rezed up images were taken to 6 foot by 6 foot at 100 dpi and a small section was cropped out of these blown up files.


In each sequence the first or top image is the X-T1 the bottom the X-PRO 2


Here we go:


Now the blow ups of these files:



Keep in mind these are 72 dpi images for the web, in  the full res files the difference as much more apparent.


Round Two:


Now lets get big and close!



Once against the X-PRO 2 files are about a 1/3 stop darker and sometimes the detail is hard to seebut it’s there.



Where it really matters is unreal world application, the X-PRO 2 and the 100-400 do their job well!




the pilgrim



















13 Responses

  1. Carl says:

    The Santa Claus fabric is the clincher to me! Sharp and crystal clear!! Wow!

    Tree shot in the snow is fabulous!

    Wonder if the darker image with the Pro2 is due to the jpeg processing engine – would +1 in highlight/shadow tone would make it more that Pro1 – although who says X-Pro1 was perfect?

  2. Bill Fortney says:

    I am going to dial that in and we will see it’s affect.

  3. Jim Goshorn says:

    The X-Pro2 is definitely an improvement but it is interesting to see how well the X-T1 holds up against it.

    Makes me think that the X-Pro2 qualifies as an additional camera for it’s differences instead of an outright replacement for an X-T1.

    Here ya go, getting me in trouble again 😀

  4. […] through Scoop.it from: billfortney.com B&W straight out of camera | Peter Fauland Fujifilm 35 f/2 At The Beach | Jordan May 0 […]

  5. Stereotypical says:

    Thank you for these comparisons. Do you think you could get ahold of an X-T10 and repeat those resolution photos (at least some of them) ? X-T10 seems to have a bit more sharpening/microcontrast with OOC JPEGs. It’d be great to see that comparison with X-T1 and X-Pro2.

  6. Bill Fortney says:

    One step ahead of you, did some comparisons when I did these! X-T10 images were essentially identical to the X-T1s

  7. Peter Blahut says:

    Yes, thank you for the comparison. I can’t wait until Fuji comes out with a new X-T with the same 24 mp sensor.
    I don’t know why you did what you did i.e. up-res to 6 x 6 ft at 100 dpi and then crop out a small section, but I do know that dpi is a printing parameter, it is irrelevant for web. All that matters for web is pixel width by pixel height (dpi can be any number).

    • Bill Fortney says:

      All images that I post on the blog that need to be as sharp as possible, considering Word Press and internet speed limitations, are resized up to 100 dpi from 72 and sized to 14 inches on the long side.

      • Andy F says:

        Peter means that DPI numbers are irrelevant for digital viewing. My main computer screen is not 72 DPI, it’s about 110 PPI. My iPhone display is 326 PPI.

        You should find out what the actual pixel dimension limitations of WordPress are, and trim the cropped sections to that, not some meaningless DPI number. A 6000×4000 digital image has no physical size, and it makes no sense to describe it in physical dimensions like DPI unless you’re transferring it to a physical medium like a print.

        “resized up to 100 dpi from 72 and sized to 14 inches on the long side.” – this doesn’t mean anything without also knowing the number of pixels involved. I can take a 300×300 pixel image and make it 6000 DPI in Photoshop if I like, but it’s still only got 300×300 pixels, and will still show at 300 pixels wide on the web unless CSS rules say otherwise.

      • Andy F says:

        FWIW your current blog theme display images at 580 pixels wide.

  8. Otha Dobbins says:

    The X-Pro2 also strikes what I think is a better balance in terms of size and button arrangement. The slightly larger size has a dramatic impact on how much “breathing room” the buttons have, and how you grip the camera. So far, I’m never worried about accidental button presses.