src=" Sony a6300 vs Fuji X-Pro2 - The two best mirrorless APS-C cameras

Date: 27/04/2016 | By: Mathieu

Sony a6300 vs. Fuji X-Pro2 – The two best mirrorless APS-C cameras compared (while we wait for the X-T2!)


Sony a6300 vs. Fuji X-Pro2 – The two best mirrorless APS-C cameras compared (while we wait for the X-T2!)

There are many differences between the Sony a6300 and the Fujifilm X-Pro2 but two of the most important characteristics actually perform in a more similar manner than you’d think. Both cameras sport new APS-C sensors that can be considered a reference at the time of writing this article, and they also have the two best autofocus systems I’ve had the chance to use. So even though price, build quality, additional features and target user are all different, there is actually a valid reason to compare these two cameras!

The X-Pro2 inaugurates a new generation of X series cameras for Fujifilm. It is highly probable that we will see other products in the future with the same 24MP sensor, hopefully at a lower price, which means that the competition for the a6300 will increase. On the other hand, the Sony camera is likely to become the newest “best bang for the buck” which is exactly what happened to the a6000 before it.

In this article, I’ll be sharing an in-depth comparison of the image quality and autofocus performance.

Hey Mathieu, are you telling me we’re going to pixel peep? You bet we are! But don’t worry, I’ve also included a summary to highlight the most important differences between these two flagship APS-C cameras following two months of use.

The Sony a6300 next to the Fujifilm X-Pro2
Mains Specs


  • Sensor: 24.3 MP APS-C Exmor CMOS
  • Lens system: E-mount
  • Weatherproof: Partial (Dust and moisture resistant)
  • Image Stabilisation: None (Optical steadyshot with compatible lenses)
  • Autofocus: Hybrid AF with 425 phase and 169 contrast detection points
  • Continuous shooting: 11 fps (AF-S and AF-C)
  • ISO Sensitivity: 100 – 25600 ISO (push 51200)
  • Shutter Speeds: 1/4000 to 30 seconds
  • Viewfinder: 0.39inch XGA OLED electronic viewfinder with 2,359k dots and 0.70x magnification
  • LCD Screen: tilting 3″ LCD monitor (921k dots)
  • Movie recording: XAVC S 4K up to 30fps, Full HD up to 120fps
  • Built-in Flash: Yes
  • Extra Features: WiFi, NFC, Panorama
  • Dimensions: 120 x 66.9 x 48.8mm
  • Weight: 404g (including battery and memory card)



  • Sensor: 24.2 MP APS-C X-Trans III CMOS
  • Lens system: X-mount
  • Weatherproof: Yes (splash, dust and freeze proof)
  • Image Stabilisation: None (Optical IS with compatible lenses)
  • Autofocus: Hybrid AF with 77 phase and 273 contrast detection points
  • Continuous shooting: 8 fps (AF-S and AF-C)
  • ISO Sensitivity: 200 – 12800 ISO (pull 100, push up to 51200)
  • Shutter Speeds: 1/8000 to 30 seconds
  • Viewfinder: 0.48inch TFT electronic viewfinder with 2,36k dots and 0.59x magnification / Reverse Galilean optical viewfinder with 92% field coverage and 0.36/0.60x magnification
  • LCD Screen: Fixed 3″ LCD monitor (1,62k dots)
  • Movie recording: Full HD up to 60fps
  • Built-in Flash: No
  • Extra Features: WiFi, Time-lapse
  • Dimensions: 140.5 x 82.8 x 45.9mm
  • Weight: 495g (including battery and memory card)

Image quality

Let’s start by sharing some numbers and specifications. I know, it’s less exciting than a nice set of images but it is helpful to understand the technology behind these two products.

The two cameras share approximately the same number of megapixels (24.3 million for the X-Pro2 and 24.2 million for the a6300). However the technology of their respective image sensors is different.

The Sony a6300 has an Exmor CMOS chip with a lower copper wiring layer and processing circuitry. This allows it to gather more light and use it more efficiently also thanks to the High-speed BIONZ X image processor.

The a6300 sensor uses a lower copper wiring.

The Fujifilm X-Pro2 has a new X Processor Pro engine and a new X-Trans CMOS III sensor. It includes a thinner copper wiring as well but has a different distribution of pixels. Unlike traditional Bayer sensors, it has an irregular pattern that guarantees the presence of at least one Red, Green and Blue pixel in each horizontal and vertical line. This ensures more sharpness while eliminating the need for an Anti-Aliasing filter.

X-Trans vs. Bayer
Bayer vs X-Trans sensor


IQ Test 01: resolution and detail

Our first test will compare the resolution of the two cameras to see how well they capture fine details. To avoid any negative or positive influences, we used the same lens for both products: the Zeiss Touit 12mm is available in both E and X mounts and is the perfect choice to conduct this comparison.

sony a6300 vs fuji x-pro2
The two cameras with the Zeiss Touit 12mm

Let’s have a look at the JPGs first to see how the image processors of the two cameras handle sharpness. In the first example, the settings for both the a6300 and X-Pro2 were left to 0. The results are very similar but the crops for each photo show that the a6300 JPG is a little crisper.

sony a6300 vs fuji x-pro2
Composition reference
  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 OOC JPG
  • Slide to the right: a6300 OOC JPG


If we increase the sharpness to the maximum on both cameras (+3 for the a6300, +4 for the X-Pro2), we find similar results. Once again the a6300 version is crisper while the details on the X-Pro2 version are more washed out. To double check, I also took two images for a different scene. You can notice more details in the boat’s writing and on the tyre in the a6300 version.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 OOC JPG (sharpness +4)
  • Slide to the right: a6300 OOC JPG (sharpness +3)


sony a6300 vs fuji x-pro2
Composition reference
  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 OOC JPG (sharpness +4)
  • Slide to the right: a6300 OOC JPG (sharpness +3)


Now let’s have a look at the RAW files. Here I saved crops from both Adobe Lightroom and Iridient Developer. The latter is more capable in demosaicing the Fuji X-Trans files and rendering sharper results so it was fair to run the test twice.

With Lightroom, the results are similar to the JPG comparison: the a6300 details are slightly crisper as you can see in the second example especially but we are talking about a tiny difference.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 RAW (Lightroom) –
  • Slide to the right: a6300 RAW (Lightroom)


sony a6300 vs fuji x-pro2
Composition reference


If we turn to Iridient Developer, the results are much more similar between the two cameras. Any small differences are more difficult to detect.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 RAW (Iridient)
  • Slide to the right: a6300 RAW (Iridient)



I ran a third test on green foliage and grass. In the past, there have been complaints about the X-Trans sensor not being able to resolve all the fine details of foliage (also referred to as the “watercolour effect”). Let’s see if that is still the case with the X-Pro2.

With Lightroom, we can notice that the results are basically identical in the case of the first example where there is more foliage. However, in the second example where the details in the grass are much more fine, we can detect some of that watercolor effect in the X-Pro2 crop.

sony a6300 vs fuji x-pro2
Composition reference
  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 RAW (Lightroom)
  • Slide to the right: a6300 RAW (Lightroom)


sony a6300 vs fuji x-pro2
Composition reference


With Iridient, the X-Pro2 files gain more details and they actual look crisper than the ones of the a6300. Again the difference is not big but it shows how this particular software is still the best way to get the most out of the X-Trans RAF files in specific situations.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 RAW (Iridient)
  • Slide to the right: a6300 RAW (Iridient)



Resolution and detail: a6300 2 – 1 X-Pro2

In the case of the RAW files, to me the difference is almost non-existent with the exception of a few situations where the software can impact the result. Considering that I had to include 200% crops most of the time to show you the differences, we can easily file these small discrepancies into the irrelevant folder if we concentrate on real world shooting. The a6300’s JPG engine has a tiny advantage because it renders finer details.


IQ Test 02: dynamic range

Sony claims that the a6300 sensor is capable of gathering light more efficiently. This can help not only in low-light situations but also for dynamic range. The X-Pro2 has the option of shooting uncompressed 14 bit RAW so it can record more information in comparison to the compressed 14 bit file of the a6300. Let’s see where the differences lie exactly.

I shot the two scenes below into the sun. The backlit situation gave a stronger contrast to work with. Then I recovered the highlights, whites, shadows and blacks entirely (-100 and +100) to see how much detail was retained without increasing colour noise. I kept noise reduction in Lightroom to 0.

We can easily see that both cameras have similar capabilities. However when looking at the 100% crops, the compressed RAW files of the a6300 produce more colour noise in comparison to the uncompressed RAF version of the X-Pro2.

a6300 vs x-pro2
Exposure reference
a6300 vs x-pro2
a6300, 1/400, f/8, ISO 200
Click on the image to open the full res version.
a6300 vs x-pro2
X-Pro2, 1/400, f/8, ISO 200
Click on the image to open the full res version.
  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2
  • Slide to the right: a6300


a6300 vs x-pro2
Exposure reference
a6300 vs x-pro2
a6300, 1/640, f/8, ISO 200
Click on the image to open the full res version.
a6300 vs x-pro2
X-Pro2, 1/640, f/8, ISO 200
Click on the image to open the full res version.

Because some people like to shoot “isoless” (keeping your ISO lower and increasing the exposure in post-production), I also ran an additional test by underexposing the image in a low-light situation to use the lowest native ISO available for each camera (100 for the a6300, 200 for the X-Pro2). Then I brought back the exposure in Lightroom and opened the shadows. Here again we can notice more noise from the a6300 file.

a6300 vs x-pro2
Exposure reference
a6300 vs x-pro2
a6300, 1/4, f/5.6, ISO 100
Click on the image to open the full res version.
a6300 vs x-pro2
X-Pro2, 1/8, f/5.6, ISO 200
Click on the image to open the full res version.

If we have a look at the JPG performance, the Sony a6300 has the DRO (Dynamic Range Optimiser) option that can be set in five different levels (LV5 being the one that gives the vastest range). With the X-Pro2, you can decrease the amount of shadows and highlights to -2. I used the standard profile on both cameras.

The a6300 image has more range in the shadows while the X-Pro2 keeps more information in the highlights.

a6300 vs x-pro2
a6300, 1/400, f/8, ISO 200 – OOC JPG (DRO 5)
Click on the image to open the full res version.
a6300 vs x-pro2
X-Pro2, 1/400, f/8, ISO 200 – OOC JPG (-2 for highlights and shadows)
Click on the image to open the full res version.

Dynamic range: a6300 0 – 1 X-Pro2

While in most cases the two cameras produce very similar results, we feel that the Fuji camera deserves to win this one. The uncompressed RAW option on the X-Pro2 gives more flexibility if you need to heavily post-process your images. The a6300 has the usual 14 bit compressed RAW file and can be more limiting in extreme situations. As for the JPGs, the settings on each camera work differently and the results are also influenced by the colour profile so it is more difficult to compare.


IQ Test 03: low light/high ISO

The a6300 sensor, being able to gather more light, should also be able to outperform the X-Pro2 at high ISOs.

  • The Sony camera has an ISO sensitivity range of 100 to 25600 with an expandable option of 51200.
  • The X-Pro2 ISO range goes from 200 to 12800 with expandable options of 100, 25600 and 51200 ISO.

Here I ran a side-by-side image comparison by using the new Sigma 30mm 1.4 DN on the a6300 and the XF 35mm f/1.4 on the X-Pro2 starting from ISO 800.

The first thing we notice is a difference in brightness between the two cameras: the X-Pro2 files are a little bit darker (0.5 Ev).


  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2
  • Slide to the right: a6300


Some would say that Fuji cheats with its ISO settings but I can’t confirm this because using two different lenses means that their light transmittance can be slightly different. I could also conclude that the a6300 sensor optimises the light better as the official press release suggests.

I did run a test with the two Touit lenses earlier but I made a mistake and had to run the test again. However I noticed a difference there as well so it is safe to assume that the a6300 gives you brighter results by approximately 0.5 Ev.

To simplify the comparison, I raised the exposure by 0.5 Ev in Lightroom so that the Fuji files would match the a6300 images. This could imply I am giving an advantage to the Sony camera but actually the X-Pro2 keeps the colour noise ratio lower than the a6300. However the a6300 retains slightly more detail. Note that I kept the NR in Lightroom to 0 to analyse the noise better.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 ISO 6400
  • Slide to the right: a6300 ISO 6400


  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 ISO 12800
  • Slide to the right: a6300 ISO 12800


From 25600 the noise starts to become really invasive but because we are still within the native range for the a6300, the results are better from the Sony camera. At 51200, the X-Pro2 image is 1.5 Ev darker which means that the brightness is boosted for the JPG only.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 ISO 25600
  • Slide to the right: a6300 ISO 25600


  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 ISO 51200
  • Slide to the right: a6300 ISO 51200


I also double checked the results in Iridient and my findings were the same with the exception that the software renders the details better with the X-Pro2 files (but also adds more luminance noise).

Keep in mind that with a few adjustments you can make the images from both cameras look better. Below you can see the ISO 12800 example with NR applied in Lightroom (+15 color NR, +80 color details, +5 Luminance NR). Also remember that different cameras produce different RAW files, and as such, they might need to be processed differently to get the best results.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 ISO 12800 (NR, Lightroom)
  • Slide to the right: a6300 ISO 12800 (NR, Lightroom) 


Note: you can check out the entire set in full resolution here.

If we have a look at the JPGs and the in-camera noise reduction performance, the a6300 is more capable once again. Even with the NR set to standard, the amount of details preserved is more than acceptable. If I set NR to +4 on the X-pro2, there are fewer details and the image looks more washed out.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2, 6400 ISO OOC JPG (NR +4)
  • Slide to the right: a6300, 6400 ISO OOC JPG (NR Standard)


With the NR set to ‘off’ and -4, the X-Pro2 has less colour noise but the a6300 preserves more details once again.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2, 6400 ISO OOC JPG (NR -4)
  • Slide to the right: a6300, 6400 ISO OOC JPG (NR Off)


High ISO: a6300 1 – 0 X-Pro2

Here again we feel the a6300 deserves to win. With the same exposure settings, you get a brighter image from the a6300. The X-Pro2 has less colour noise up to 12800 ISO but also less detail. As for the extreme values and the JPGs, the a6300 is superior.


Of course when used separately for a real world shoot, both cameras are capable of great results. Heather and I shot an evening football game with both cameras and we got very usable images up to 12800 ISO and that’s the most important thing.

a6300, 1/1000, f/4, ISO 12800
X-Pro2, 1/500, f/4.6, 12800 ISO


IQ Test 04: colours

Because of the different architecture of the sensors, we also find a difference in colour reproduction. If you work with the RAW files and match the white balance and tint without applying the camera profiles (in my case I kept the Adobe Standard profile in Lightroom), the difference is very subtle. The Sony file tends toward a slight magenta tint while the Fuji file tends more toward a green tint but it is hardly noticeable.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 (Adobe Standard)
  • Slide to the right: a6300 (Adobe Standard)



The real difference is evident in the colour profiles designed by the two brands so let’s have a look at the JPGs. If we compare both vidid profiles (also called Velvia on the X-Pro2), we can see that the Fuji produces a warmer and more saturated result.

Note: most of these colour profiles can be selected in Lightroom as well.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 Vivid/Velvia
  • Slide to the right: a6300 Vivid




The a6300 can also render a cooler/magenta tint in certain situations (such as images with backlight for example) when the white balance is set to Auto or a specific preset.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 Vivid/Velvia
  • Slide to the right: a6300 Vivid


The a6300 has a set of 13 colour profiles (called creative styles) including one B&W and sepia profile. The X-Pro2 has 9 film simulation modes including two monochrome profiles with 4 versions each. One of our favourites is Classic Chrome and the closest profile for the a6300 is the Deep style.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 Classic Chrome
  • Slide to the right: a6300 Deep


When it comes to portraits, the RAW files from both cameras have a pretty similar skin tone rendition. Now, let’s analyse two of the picture profiles. The a6300 default portrait profile tends to give an overall yellow tint to the image and that happens with the X-Pro2 Astia profile as well.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 Astia
  • Slide to the right: a6300 Portrait


If I apply the Neutral profile to the a6300 and the Pro Neg standard to the X-Pro2, they both give a more natural result with less saturation. The Sony version has a slightly reddish rendering while the Fuji camera is slightly greener.

  • Slide to the left: X-Pro2 Pro Neg Std
  • Slide to the right: a6300 Natural


Another thing I noticed is that with artificial lights and the same manual white balance, the colours tend to be quite different. The a6300 goes for a warmer orange tint while the X-Pro2 prefers a yellowish tint.


Colors: a6300 0 – 1 X-Pro2

The topic of colours is subjective so it is harder to make a choice. Excluding the RAW files where the colour palette can be easily matched, I admit I prefer the rendering of the X-Pro2 Film Simulation Modes. The look of the images is warmer and some profiles like Classic Chrome and the various monochrome profiles (including the new Acros) definitely make the camera stand out. Its Auto WB is also more reliable.



At the time of writing this article, the a6300 and the X-Pro2 are the best mirrorless cameras I’ve tried concerning the autofocus performance. They are not perfect but the keeper rate as well as the accuracy and overall performance are definitely the best I’ve seen so far.

The a6300 has a hybrid autofocus system with 425 phase detection (the highest ever on a mirrorless camera) and 163 contrast detection points. Basically its phase detection points cover almost the entire surface of the sensor.

a6300 AF points

The X-Pro2 also has a hybrid autofocus system with 273 points with 77 being phase detection points. You can choose to work with a 7×11 grid or a 13×21 grid. Note that in some situations the camera will use the central 7×11 grid only.

X-Pro2 AF points (11×7 grid)
X-Pro2 AF points (23×11 grid)

In Single AF, both cameras work really well and I can count on one hand the number of times they struggled or refused to focus. Of course their performance can vary depending on the lens being used. Fuji’s latest lenses have a faster AF motor while some earlier products like the XF 35mm f/1.4 will slow down the speed (but it still remains more than decent). The a6300 doesn’t seem to struggle with older lenses as long as they are compatible with phase detection.

The Sony camera can shoot up to 11fps in continuous AF but you can also select slower speeds including 8fps, 6fps and 3fps. With the exception of 11fps, the LCD and EVF give you are real time “live view” of the burst sequence. The blackouts are transparent which allows you to see the action better but they are still annoying as the brightness in the EVF or LCD changes constantly. The EVF can be set with a frame rate of 100fps or 120fps to get a more fluid live view.

The X-Pro2 can shoot up to 8fps in C-AF. With those settings, only the 77 central phase detection points are used. At 3fps, you can also use the other AF points. The EVF has a refresh rate of 85fps which is really excellent. There are no blackouts but as a result the action is less fluid and the lag time is slightly higher than with the a6300.

I performed a side-by-side test just to see if I would find a concrete difference in performance but as expected it wasn’t the case. I had the 18-105mm f/4 on the a6300 (set at 90mm) and the XF 90mm on the X-Pro2. The latter is a prime lens but has a very fast AF motor designed for action and fast moving subjects.

I ran the test twice. Out of 47 shots, the a6300 got 40 perfectly sharp and 7 slightly out of focus. That means that the shot is still usable but if you view it at 100% you will notice that it is a little soft. This gives us a keeper rate of 85% more or less.

a6300, 1/1000, f/4, ISO 200
Click on the image to see the entire sequence.

Out of 43 shots, the X-Pro2 got 34 razor sharp and 9 slightly soft which gives a keeper rate of approximately 80%.

X-Pro2, 1/1000, f/4, ISO 200
Click on the image to see the entire sequence.

Of course this is just a basic test but the results are perfectly in line with the experience of both Heather and myself while using these cameras for sports and other action situations. The a6300 has something more because of the extra phase detection points and the High Density AF that concentrates as many of the points as possible around the subject.

The X-Pro2’s best AF setting is without a doubt Zone AF that can be selected with three different sizes. It is a more flexible solution because the Zone Area of the a6300 doesn’t allow you to increase or decrease the number of points used.

X-Pro2, 1/1000, f/5.6, ISO 640

Both cameras offer different AF area settings and there are various options to enhance the performance as well.

What the a6300 does better in my opinion is Eye AF. Like the A7r II, it just works. It rarely focuses on something else other than the left or red eye and it is very reliable when combined with C-AF. On the X-Pro2, it is often unreliable even when the person’s face fills the entire frame. The camera will think there is a third eye hidden under the hair or will lock onto the nose instead.

I also prefer the 3D Tracking of the Sony camera (called Lock-On AF). You can use it in all AF modes and it works across the entire frame even at the fastest burst speed. On the X-Pro2, if you select 8fps it will only work in the central area of the frame where the phase detection points are.

Another thing worth mentioning is that the a6300 has good AF capabilities with A-mount and DSLR lenses if you use the right adapter. There are advantages and disadvantages to using those lenses but it is definitely something that the X-Pro2 can’t do.

a6300, 1/2000, f/5.6, ISO 1600

A final word goes to the buffer capabilities. These are the results I found when using the same SD card (SanDisk 64GB SDXC Class 10 U3 95MB/S) on both cameras. Note that the X-Pro2 is also compatible with the UHS-II standard (slot 1) so it can use cards with a faster writing speed.

a6300, Hi+ burst (11fps)

  • RAW+JPG: lasts for 2s, then slows down but doesn’t stop
  • JPG (X.fine): last for 5s, then slows down but doesn’t stop

a6300, Hi burst (8fps)

  • RAW+JPG: last for 5s, then slows down considerably but doesn’t stop
  • JPG (X.fine): last for 12s, then slows down but doesn’t stop

X-Pro2, 8fps

  • RAW+JPG: last for 3s then slows down but doesn’t stop
  • JPG: last for 18s then slow down a little but keeps shooting

The X-Pro2 has better buffer capabilities if we look at the JPG results. The results are worse with the RAW files but let’s not forget that its lossless compressed files are heavier than the a6300 AWR files (30MB vs 25MB approx.).

Autofocus and continuous shooting: a6300 1 – 1 X-Pro2

The a6300 has a few advantages (faster burst speed, better Eye AF and 3D Tracking) while the X-Pro2 has a better buffer with JPGs and is easier to use. When we look at the results and the consistency of the performance, both cameras work really well.

The a6300 offers the possibility to work with DSLR lenses with decent results and that can be a plus in some situations. The X-Pro2 OVF can sometimes be an unexpected ally, allowing you to have a clear and continuous view of what’s happening in your scene.

Pro vs Semi-Pro: a round-up of the other major differences

As I said at the beginning, I won’t go in-depth about every single aspect of these two cameras. However I’ll give you an overview about what I like and what I don’t like about each product and why certain aspects make one model superior to the other.

Top view

What the a6300 does better

  • Size and weight
  • Video

The a6300 is smaller and lighter but has a better handling thanks to the prominent grip on the front. With small primes and zooms, it is really nice to use. With heavier lenses, the combo can be front heavy because the camera is so light but as long as you use it with native E-mount lenses (including some full-frame lenses like the FE 70-200mm f/4), the balance remains excellent.

Its main strength over the Fuji camera is without a doubt the video capabilities. The a6300 can shoot 4K with full pixel readout at a native resolution of 6K (the footage is down-sampled in the process). It can do Full HD up to 120fps (slow motion capabilities). It has advanced video options, and picture profiles designed specifically for video including S-log2 and S-log3 to enhance dynamic range. The X-Pro2 video quality (Full HD only) has been improved over the previous generation but the settings are limited. The a6300 is clearly superior for everything video related.

Just for fun, below you can watch a comparison video between the Full HD capabilities of both cameras. Surprisingly, the X-Pro2 does quite well in continuous AF.


Rear view

What the X-Pro2 does better

  • Ease of use
  • Pro build

The Fujifilm X-Pro2 is one of the most straightforward mirrorless cameras I’ve ever used. It’s only two Achilles heels are the ISO dial, which can be very frustrating to turn, and the lack of a tilting screen. Apart from these two complaints, the camera is a pure joy to use.

Changing the AF area is more intuitive thanks to the AF joystick (every flagship mirrorless camera should have it). The grip is good, and all the buttons are in the right place. The dual SD card slot is a big plus for professional and sports photographers. The hybrid viewfinder might not appeal to everyone but it can be an unexpected ally in some situations (including birds in flight!). Not to mention that the camera is completely weather-sealed.

Finally, the re-designed menu system is living proof that it is possible to enhance the user experience with an intuitive and easy-to-navigate interface. If there is one thing that the X-Pro2 can teach Sony, this is it!

The usability of the a6300 leaves me with mixed feelings. An amateur or enthusiast might complain about a few things, but the camera remains a good product overall. However, if you are planning to use it for intense work, you will find some flaws and it soon becomes a question of compromise.

Some issues have been inherited from previous Sony cameras, the menu system being the first one. It lacks a more intuitive and fast interface, as well as more buttons and dials. I understand that compactness requires some sacrifice but for example, I would have replaced the built-in flash with an extra dial. I would have also made the camera slightly larger to make it more suitable for demanding photographers. Even an optional battery grip to increase battery life might have been a good idea.

My impression of Sony remains the same as it always has. They give priority to technology, impressive numbers and specifications (and this strategy works, I’ll give you that). The a6300 is probably the best mirrorless camera for sports photography today but the brand needs to put more effort into the user experience, perhaps by consulting photographers and taking their suggestions into account. Shooting with these two cameras so much over the last two months has made me realise just how superior the X-Pro2 is in that way.


The last thing to mention is of course the price. With the Sony a6300 being almost $700 cheaper, there is no doubt that the two products target different markets. This is why it doesn’t seem entirely fair to mention it as a negative or positive point.

The Fujifilm X-Pro2 is a professional camera that shows what Fujifilm is capable of doing in 2016. It doesn’t have the most impressive numbers if we purely consider specifications, but when it comes to substance, it is one of the best on the market right now.

The a6300 has a more attractive price and its performance is the same, if not slightly better. The video capabilities are clearly superior. If you can cope with some flaws in the user experience, there’s no doubt it is the best mirrorless camera you can find right now when it comes to quality/price.

These two products also prove that APS-C still makes sense and there’s still room for improvement. Once Fujifilm releases the X-T1 successor (and later on the X-T10 successor), the competition will increase. (Even when this happens, I am pretty sure this comparison will still be valid in terms of autofocus and image quality.) I also feel that if Fujifilm releases a cheaper camera, it could become a clear winner in its category, unless you want advanced video features of course.

On the other hand, Sony has two systems to deal with (full-frame and APS-C). Perhaps they are aiming to make a truly 35mm format professional camera instead. However, I do hope they will concentrate on making a professional APS-C camera, as it could do very well for certain genres.

How about you? Which of these two cameras would you prefer to own and why?

Files to download

You can download some original files (OOC JPG and RAW) here.

Like our blog? Be sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter! If you’re planning on buying camera gear, you can check out Amazon, B&H Photo and PhotoMADD. Prices remain the same for you, but a small percentage of your purchase value is valued back to us. Thank you!

About the author: Mathieu Gasquet

Mathieu Gasquet is a professional photographer with French and Italian origins. Besides running his own video and photography studio 3Dit Lab, he is also the official photographer for the National Cinema Museum in Turin. You can follow him on Google+, Twitter or Facebook!

  • Turbofrog

    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.

    “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:

    “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.

  • Jase1125

    Fuji does not reduce noise in the RAW file. You say that, where is your proof?

  • Zuikocron

    read the article. X-Pro2 is better.

  • Mathieu

    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: but I would buy it if I am also interested in macro. For portraits alone, the Batis or the GM are better.

  • Mikestern

    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?

  • Mikestern

    No that’s wrong.
    Image quality favors the a6300. Didn’t you read the article here?

  • Mikestern


    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.

  • JoeFunny30

    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

  • Mathieu

    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.

  • Edwin

    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?

  • Art M.

    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?

  • Zuikocron

    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.

  • Zuikocron

    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.

  • umad?!

    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

  • umad?!

    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.

  • umad?!

    only problem with this is, that Fuji doesn’t do any NR, but Sony does. Not what you wanted to hear, is it? 😉

  • umad?!

    as I said here:

    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.

  • umad?!

    it doesn’t.

  • umad?!

    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.

  • Mathieu

    Thanks for the Tip. It seems to take at least 3s to lock, a little bit slow but can be useful.

  • Mathieu

    I added an example with NR applied in Lightroom for the 12800 ISO example.

  • T N Args

    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.

  • T N Args

    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.

  • Turbofrog

    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.

  • Turbofrog

    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.

  • Gabriel

    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.

  • Stephen Dexter

    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….

  • Carrefinho

    Fuji’s RAW noise reduction is IN CAMERA, before files are written into the card. This has nothing to do with raw developing.

  • Mathieu

    That’s why I would have preferred an additional dial on top.

  • Mathieu

    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.

  • Jeff

    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

  • EvilTed

    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 :(

  • Mathieu

    Well the closest I have right now are the XF 35mm 1.4 and the Sigma 30mm 1.4 E-mount.

  • Mathieu

    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.

  • Mathieu

    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?

  • Mathieu

    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.

  • Melvis

    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?

  • David B

    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?

  • Turbofrog

    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!

  • Turbofrog

    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.

  • Mathieu

    Well that’s a nice passion you are sharing together now, it’s the same for Heather and I.

  • Mathieu

    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.

  • Carrefinho

    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)

  • markthetog

    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.

  • markthetog

    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.

  • Martin Grant

    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 .

  • Mathieu

    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 :)

  • Martin Grant

    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

  • Rg

    Very true but as a starting point folks lean more to one camera over the other regarding image quality.

  • Mathieu

    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.

  • Sam Wong

    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.

  • rg

    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.

  • Mahesh

    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.

  • BlueBomberTurbo

    Not like there’s a plethora to choose from…

  • Turbofrog

    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.

  • Turbofrog

    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.

  • Mathieu

    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.

  • soundimageplus

    Well as you say. it is just that, an opinion.

  • Yoga

    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 :

  • Mathieu

    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.

  • umad?!

    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!!!)))

  • Mathieu

    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.

  • Geir

    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.

  • umad?!

    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)

  • Mathieu

    Thanks Alex!

  • Mathieu

    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.

  • Mathieu

    It’s my opinion summarised in the title :) But I do think they are the best right now.

  • Mathieu

    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.

  • umad?!

    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:

    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!

  • soundimageplus

    ‘The two best mirrorless APS-C cameras compared’ Somewhat unlike you to state an opinion as a ‘fact’.

  • whensly

    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.

  • Martin Grant

    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.

  • Alex Lee

    Yes, Mathieu, we are going to “pixel peel” ahaha 😛 Good read though! Always love to read what you and Heather write.

  • Kevin Starr

    Fuji any day and twice on Sunday !!

Disclaimer & Copyright Notice

The owner of this website, Heather Broster, is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, B&H Photo Affiliate Program, the eBay Partner Network, and the Adorama Affiliate Program, all of which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking MirrorLessons ( to Amazon, B&H Photo, eBay and Adorama properties. She is also a member of Google AdSense. AdSense publishers must have and abide by a privacy policy that discloses that third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your users’ browsers, or using web beacons to collect information as a result of ad serving on your website.

To see more information, visit our full Disclaimer page. Thank you!

© Heather Broster/Mathieu Gasquet and MirrorLessons, 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Heather Broster/Mathieu Gasquet and MirrorLessons with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.