The Fujifilm XF10 and X100V produce comparable image quality despite their $900 price difference. The XF10's Bayer sensor shows more apparent detail in Lightroom, while the X100V delivers smoother tones and better bokeh. For $500, the XF10 is a pocketable alternative that punches above its weight.
Hey there. How's it going? I just wanted to do a really fast video where we're looking at the Fujifilm XF10 and the Fujifilm X100V. Some of their strengths, some of their weaknesses, and overall my kind of idea that the Fujifilm XF10 is very underrated for what it is. So gonna look at a couple quick RAW images, a couple of things that I've noticed owning both cameras, and we're gonna talk a little bit about that. So let's take a quick look. So on the left here, we're gonna have the Fujifilm X100V. You can see the 23 millimeter focal length here. And then on the right, we're gonna have the Fujifilm XF10. So the XF10's got an 18 and a half millimeter f2.8 lens. The Fujifilm X100V on the left here has a 23 millimeter f 2.0 lens. So they're not exactly comparable, and they're not exactly the same kind of camera. For, for example, the X100V has a Fujifilm X Trans sensor. So some of that, no need for a low pass filter. Trying to help with moire and things like that. And on the right, the XF10 has a Bayer sensor very similar to what you'd find in the XT100, XT200, and so on. So I want to do a couple quick comparisons, looking at a couple images that I took today just to talk about some of my observations. Again, I know this is not a very fair comparison, but again, I want to point out how strong of a camera the XF10 really is. So when we're looking at some of the image quality here, again, this is raws that were imported straight into Lightroom. I do understand that probably Lightroom is doing a little bit more sharpening on the XF10 files than it is on the X100V. But I think it's really important to note some of the key differences. So first things first. Right off the bat, you can see there's better image quality seemingly on the XF10 on the right. If you drill in even further, I think you'll see that it's not the best sharpening, but there is some sharpening going on. But just the level of detail again, is there on the XF10 and not so much on the X100V. It's very possible that focus missed. It's very possible that something else is going on. User error, who knows? So the XF10, at least in terms of details here looks better. The X100V obviously has more pleasant out of focus areas, or bokeh as it's called. You can see here on the right on the XF10, some real weird artifacting going on in the bokeh. On the X100V, even with the X trans issues with lightroom, you're seeing some much better bokeh there. Let's look at another couple images here of a. We'll get these kind of lined up again. It's a little tricky with the focal lengths, so let's get these guys kind of lined up in lightroom here for comparison. So again, on the left here looks like I switched over. So the Left now is XF10. The right is the X100V. If you take a look at the detail here again, you're seeing a lot more detail on the XF10. In the bottom of this sort of carousel on this Ferris wheel, you're seeing that more detail. You're seeing more noise. Of course, even at the same ISO level, I actually have these with the same settings, 1/1000th of a second and F4.5. So you're seeing more detail here. And even in the palm tree itself, it just seems like there's more detail being retained. But when you look at that detail, it looks more pixelated. It looks, you know, it doesn't look as Strong on the X100V. A lot of this detail that you're seeing on the right here could be sharpened up in post and made to be looking a lot better overall as an image. Both images are great. You can see the XF10 deals with some of the light a little bit differently than the X100V on the right. X100V looks a little bit smoother, looks a little bit more pleasant. But the wider angle on the XF10 is also very nice. You can see the building on the bottom here where it got cut off here. Again, really similar pictures. The color profile really, really similar as well. But it's good to kind of note some of these things. Moving on to the next image here, I've swapped it now. So X100V is on the left, XF10 is on the right. So pulling in this one actually missed focus entirely on the X100V. Again shooting at the same area. I got a green box on this one. So it said focus had, you know, gotten there, but clearly not. So I'm not really sure where the focus is here because it is just nowhere to be found. A little concerning there. The actual XF10, excuse me, get these names mixed up. Just a great amount of detail. Obviously some of the highlights are blown and some of the exposure is a little interesting, but a lot of detail, a lot of good stuff in this image. But again, that detail looks a little grainy, looks a little, you know, pixelated, if you will. So not as strong. Alright, so taking a look at this last image here on the left, we have the X100V at 23 mil and we have the XF10 here at 18.5 mil. So again, at first glance, very similar. This one really caught me off guard. Obviously the, you know, larger focal length or wider focal length rather kind of tells that part. But very interesting. Both images almost have the same kind of shadows and same kind of highlights. The exposure is very similar. They're both F 4.5. They're both at 1 500th of a second, both ISO 200. But you can see what the larger sensor, or rather the same size sensor, but the X Trans is doing here. You're seeing a little bit better. Better bokeh here, less pleasant bokeh here. A lot. Actually a little bit too detailed. But everything else is really similar. If we come down and look at some of these leaves here, let me try to compare them here a little bit closer. Where are the leaves? There they are. So let's take a look here. Obviously the XF10 has it a little bit more in focus, a little bit sharper. Again, I think going into post on the X100V here, you'll see some sharpening done here. If you go that route, I believe Lightroom is adding more sharpening because it is a Bayer sensor, but very similar, very similar image quality at first glance. If you're posting this on something like Instagram or Facebook, you're going to get really similar results. And from a $500 camera with the XF10 versus a $1,400 camera with the X100V, I don't think you can go wrong now. Now, again, not a fair comparison because the X100V is a beast of a camera. It is just really, really special. Camera does really, really well. But again, this guy I think is a little bit too. I don't know if I can see that here. It's just too underrated. We can get the logo there. Yeah, it's just a great camera. It's so small, it's pocketable. For the kind of pants I wear, I can definitely pocket the X100V. But I think both cameras just do an incredible job. So yeah, that was my really quick comparison of a few sample images. Some things I've noticed. Again, I guess my main point here is that the XF10 is much better than it gets credit for. So thanks for watching. Have a good one.
