1

I'm not a professional photographer, I take pictures only as a hobby currently owing a Nikon D3200 with 35mm 1.4 and the kit lens so nothing fancy. I want to buy myself a mirrorless camera, and I'm stuck between Fujifilm X-T100 and X-T10, as I can see X-T100 has more advantages over X-T10, however, X-T10 has a bigger pixel area, which is one of the reasons I want to switch from D3200, as it has a small sensor pixel area and the reason I got the 35mm lens.

The both cameras are on the same price range, which one would you recommend? I take pictures more of my girlfriend when we travel, or different people/ objects on the streets, not so much landscapes.

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Fujifilm-X-T10-vs-Fujifilm-X-T100

X-T100 is newer, has more focus points, has 24MP, X-T10 has only 16MP (Is this a big issue?) but a 49% larger pixel area. My D3200 also has 24MP so I don't quite know if there's a big difference between 24 and 16 MP (we don't make big prints) only print some of the most successful shots in standard picture format.

  • 1
    Related: Do megapixels matter with modern sensor technology? and note that pixel area is inversely proportional to megapixels (for the same size sensor), so that question is also "Does pixel area matter?" – Philip Kendall Feb 17 at 20:56
  • Please ask the "what would be a good lens" question separately, but note that wide-open equipment recommendations are off-topic here. If you want helpful advice, make sure to give specifics of what problem you want the lens to solve, and what you need to know to make the decision yourself. – mattdm Feb 17 at 21:28
  • Can you elaborate on the "small sensor pixel area" being the reason you got the 35mm f/1.4 lens? – mattdm Feb 17 at 21:37
  • @mattdm I used a 50mm but everytime I had to take a picture of a person, or 2 people I had to go quite far from the subject, and sometimes (especially in crowded areas or inside a place) that's not quite possible, so I bought the 35mm as to get more of the subject from being closer to it – Radu033 Feb 17 at 21:41
  • 1
    @Radu033 – OP seems to have confused the effects of "small sensor" and "pixel area", combining them into "small sensor pixel area". – xiota Feb 18 at 0:19
5

First important lesson: these automated comparison sites are terrible. They emphasize things which just aren't important and make them sound like a big deal. You say:

XT 10 has a bigger pixel area which is one of the reasons I want to switch from D3200 as it has a small sensor pixel area

I see that the site lists "49% larger pixel area" as an advantage. In this case, what it's talking about is the size of the individual pixels on the sensor. All of these cameras have the same size sensor *, but the one with more megapixels has to have smaller pixels, because that's the only way to fit 24 megapixels in the same space as 16.

Some people will make a big deal about this, but it's really not all that important. Fifteen or twenty years ago, the differences may have had an impact, but these days, they really do not. For pretty much the same reasons, the differences between 16 and 24 megapixels are largely irrelevant. Unless you are very, very careful, and are taking photos under very controlled conditions, and really really care that the resulting test chart scores beat some value, it's just not something that should be in your decision criteria.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that none of the things that site has identified are interesting (even the on-paper better video specs aren't necessarily reflected in real-world performance). Some things like the weight of the camera can be important, but the differences aren't big.

I think the main thing to consider is that the X-T100 is a current model, whereas the X-T10 is not. You say that the prices are comparable, but... are you sure you're buying new stock with full warranty?


* Because the sensors are all the same size, field of view with the same focal length of lens will be the same. In other words, if a 35mm lens on the D3200 gives you the framing you want, you'll want a 35mm lens for the X-T10 or X-T100, whichever you pick.

The good news — or, bad news if you hate making decisions! — is that Fujifilm makes two very nice 35mm lens, a compact f/2 and a bigger and more expensive f/1.4.

  • re sites: I don't trust their judgement, but side by side datasheets can be helpful. (gsmarena for instance, for smartphones) – Fábio Dias Feb 17 at 22:13
  • 1
    The more it is just datasheets and the less automatic "advice", the better. – mattdm Feb 17 at 22:53
  • X-T100 is a FauX camera at the bottom of FujiFilm's mirrorless lineup. I would expect the X-T10 to be a better overall camera, despite its age. But it might be worth waiting a bit for the X-T20 price to drop when the X-T30 is released. (It's not like OP doesn't have a camera to use in the meantime.) – xiota Feb 17 at 23:46
  • 1
    "I think the main thing to consider is that the X-T100 is a current model, whereas the X-T10 is not." Sometimes, but not always. – Michael C Feb 18 at 5:49
  • @MichaelC Well, that's what "consider" means. :) – mattdm Feb 18 at 14:32
2

... small sensor pixel area and the reason I got the 35mm lens...

It seems you are confusing "pixel area" with "small sensor". Pixel area is associated with pixel density and does not affect the focal length required to frame your subject. Sensor size does change field of view and framing. FujiFilm X-series cameras and your current Nikon DSLR share the same APS-C sensor size ("small sensor"), so you will still need a 35mm or wider lens to get the framing you're after.

As with other individual camera specs, there's more to cameras than [pixel area]. That said, the X-T10 is likely still a better overall camera than the X-T100. The X-T100, along with the X-A# series, sits at the bottom of FujiFilm's mirrorless camera offerings. They are FauX cameras that use Bayer sensors instead of X-Trans sensors. It is not in FujiFilm's interest to make low-end cameras with Bayer sensors that outperform, even old, higher-end cameras with X-Trans sensors.


The FujiFilm mirrorless cameras I have used include X-E2, X-T20, and X-A5. The X-A5 is horrible in terms of both camera performance and image quality. If the X-T100 is anything like the X-A5, you'd be better off sticking with Nikon than to switch to a FauX camera.

The X-E2 is far superior to the X-A5 in just about every way imaginable except megapixels. The lower megapixel count is also fairly forgiving of older, manual-focus lenses. I'd expect the X-T10 to perform similarly to the X-E2. If so, the X-T10 would be a solid choice despite its age.

The X-T20 performs better overall than the X-E2, but doesn't handle highlights quite as well. The difference is noticeable only in side-by-side comparisons and inconsequential with post processing. If you're considering an X-T20, I'd suggest waiting for the price to drop after the X-T30 is released.


If you plan to get a kit lens, get the XF 18-55/2.8-4. It is very sharp, and about a stop faster than the kit lenses from other manufacturers. Avoid the XC 15-45/3.5-5.6, which is not only a slower lens, but also has a slow, annoying-to-use power zoom.

As with other mirrorless cameras, you can also use old, manual-focus lenses with adapters. This allows you to try different focal lengths at low cost before you purchase more expensive XF lenses.

  • "The X-A5 is horrible in terms of both camera performance and image quality." — well, for a very high value of "horrible". Like, it's an A-level camera instead of an A+ one. And it's $500 new. – mattdm Feb 18 at 2:33
  • A-level is way too generous. It performs worse than a similarly priced compact camera. If the X-A5 had been the first FujiFilm camera I'd used, it would also have been the last. At best, it gets a C. – xiota Feb 18 at 4:16
1

The D3200, T10, and T100 are all APS-C as far as I can tell, so no difference in sensor size.

More focus points is a double-edged sword. I disabled most of the points in my T6 (it as only 9, I'm using only the middle one) because it would not focus on what I wanted it to, especially on a small DoF.

Sensor resolution (the MP) only comes into play if you want to large print it or make aggressive crops. Most screens are smaller than 8MP, so 16 or 24 won't make a difference for electronic use (again, apart from aggressive crops).

I'm not sure that you would see any difference between the D3200 and the T10/100:

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Fujifilm-X-T100-vs-Nikon-D3200

Maybe a bit less ISO noise, since the T100 sensor is newer... But the Nikon "ecosystem" is bigger...

  • Thanks for your answer, but here in this link, if I compare X T 10 and D3200, I get that the X-T 10 sensor size is 55% bigger: prntscr.com/mmecp9 Or is that a mistake? Between D3200 and X-T 100 you wouldn't recomend me to switch to X-T 100? – Radu033 Feb 17 at 21:29
  • 1
    "Between D3200 and X-T 100 you wouldn't recomend me to switch to X-T 100?" is kind of like asking someone for a recommendation between pie and cake. They're both delicious, but they're different and we can't really tell you what to do. – mattdm Feb 17 at 21:34
  • 1
    @Radu033 scroll down to "sensor comparison" to see the actual difference. I don't see a usage scenario where any of these cameras would stand out, I might be wrong tho. – Fábio Dias Feb 17 at 22:11
0

Does the bigger pixel area of the Fujifilm XT-10 make it a better choice than the XT-100?

That all depends upon what you are choosing the camera to do. Sometimes bigger pixels are a better choice. Sometimes more pixels are a better choice. It all depends upon what you want to do with them.

Since you haven't told us what kind of photos you want to take under what kind of lighting conditions, it's hard to answer your question.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.