Photography News 10

Camera review

27

Resolution

CANON E0S M

FUJIFILMX-M1

Amongst the others, the two Samsung cameras do well, also because of their pixel counts – the Raw files are impressively sharp, and not that far behind the Sony. With only 16 megapixels, the Fujifilm cameras suffer slightly in comparison, but in fact have the edge over the higher-resolution Canon EOS M. The two Fujifilms do the best job with JPEG processing too – they’re the most sympathetic to subtle tones and details.

We photographed a number of scenes containing plenty of detail with each of our cameras to test their resolution and image quality in Raw and JPEG files. For each scene, cameras were adjusted to the same ISO, aperture and equivalent focal length, and focused on the same point in the scene. For each camera, its own kit lens was used, so the judgement is based on the camera-lens combination you get for the standard price – differences in lenses means performance could vary if you use other lenses. The combination of the higher number of pixels and bigger full-frame sensor size means there is more detail in the Sony images than the others – exactly what you’d expect, but it costs the same as the X-T1, so you get the benefits for the same outlay.

RAW

RAW

JPEG

JPEG

FUJIFILMX-T1

SAMSUNG NX30

SAMSUNG NX300

SONYA7

RAW

RAW

RAW

RAW

JPEG

JPEG

JPEG

JPEG

The verdict

Compact system cameras might be a category of camera that you wouldn’t normally look at twice, but whether you’re interested in a small backup on a budget or a highly specified lightweight replacement for your DSLR, there’s something in the CSC category that’s worth considering. Spend less, and you obviously get less advanced specs and handling, but in our tests, core performance wasn’t always compromised. Or if you’re willing to invest big, then you can get a camera that adds more advanced features and DSLR-like handling to impressive performance. Each camera has its own advantages, and the one that suits you best will depend on what you want to shoot with it and how much you want to spend. The Canon EOS M, Samsung NX300 and Fujifilm X-M1 sit at the lower end of the CSC market, offering reasonable prices for good performance. Of these three, the Canon disappointed slightly. It was Canon’s first stab at this kind of camera, so improvements were always going to be needed – hopefully a successor is imminent. If you’re a Canon DSLR user, the lure of using your lenses might be tempting, and of course its price is extremely low. It’s a close call between the Fujifilm X-M1 and Samsung NX300 – each has its own advantages. The pixel count of the Samsung offers high-quality images if you shoot Raw, alongside all-round solid performance and great connectivity. The Fujifilm,

The full version of this CSC test, including comparisons with DSLRs, appeared in issues 45 and 46 of Advanced Photographer. Issue 46 is on sale now for £4.95. Issue 45 is available to back order from http:// bit.ly/apissues.

the best CSC Samsung has produced, offering very high Raw image quality. If you want a camera for high-resolution photography, then the Fujifilm X-T1 probably isn’t the one for you simply because of the pixel count, but the X-Trans technology still delivers and everything else about the camera is superb, particularly the ISO performance. The viewfinder is probably the best electronic version around, and the manual controls make for a delightful experience. All round, the X-T1 is our pick of the bunch.

with a more traditional feel, also produces great image quality despite its low pixel count, thanks to the X-Trans sensor technology, and it was way ahead in low light performance. At the top end, the Sony A7 is most likely to pique the interest of photographers, since it offers what everyone wants – a huge sensor in a small body. With this, you get great image quality, although the ISO performance was disappointing with no advantage over the APS-C cameras. The NX30 is a worthy flagship for Samsung, and is undoubtedly

www.photography-news.co.uk

Issue 10 | Photography News

Powered by