Sony and Fujifilm have crafted some of the most popular mirrorless cameras we’ve seen over the past few years, and their respective A6300 and X-T20 models are each currently vying for the enthusiast user’s attention. But which has a better set of specs? Let’s find out.
Design and ergonomics
Naturally, one of the reasons you may be drawn to the X series is for the more traditional design and operation of its cameras.
Whereas the X-T20 features physical dials for shutter speed, drive mode and exposure compensation on its top plate, and two further dials on either side of this, the A6300 opts for just mode and command dials on the top plate, with a further control dial on the back.
Although both cameras are equipped with 3in displays, the aspect ratio of the X-T20’s screen means that images captured on standard settings are displayed larger than the A6300’s. With a more elongated display, the A6300’s screen is better suited to video recording, although one area where they match is with their flexibility, as both can be pulled away from the body and tilted up and down.
The resolution of the X-T20’s screen is marginally higher at 1,040k dots (vs 922k dots on the A6300), although what makes more of a difference is that the X-T20’s screen is the only one that’s equipped with touch functionality. Although the extent of what you can control isn’t quite as high as it is on other models, this is still likely to be called upon by the average user for focusing if nothing else.
With regards to build, perhaps the A6300’s main advantage over the X-T20 is weather resistance. Although both bodies make use of magnesium alloy in their construction, only the A6300 claims any kind of dust and moisture resistance.
Both model sport small flashes that spring up from their top plates, and both can have an external flashgun mounted inside their hot shoes too.
Each of these cameras has a 24MP APS-C sensor at its heart.
Fujifilm has employed a third-generation, X-Trans CMOS design, which lacks an anti-aliasing filter due to the more random nature of the colour filter array. Sony, meanwhile, has continued with its Exmor CMOS technology, using copper wiring and a revised design from previous sensors to help with readout speed and light-gathering power.
Neither camera is equipped with image stabilisation in the body itself. Instead, this is provided through lenses with the feature designed into them.
While both cameras capture raw files in a proprietary standard, only the X-T20 offers in-camera raw processing after capture.
The X-T20’s Hybrid AF system is impressive, with 91 points that can be expanded to 325 points, and 169 of these are of the phase-detect variety. Nevertheless, the Sony comes out on top here, with 425 phase-detect AF pixels. These points also cover a much wider proportion of the frame than the X-T20’s square array of phase-detect pixels, but when you combine these with the contrast-detect pixels, the difference between the two is less signficant.
When shooting continuously, you can fire up to 8fps with focus tracking with the A6300, and 11fps if you’re happy to sacrifice live view. The X-T20 also shoots at up to 8fps, although you can boost this up to 14fps with the camera’s electronic shutter.
Both models sport Wi-Fi but only the A6300 also offers NFC.
Those looking to use either of these for more serious video work will be pleased to learn that each offers 4K video recording to the 4K UHD standard, both recording at 100Mbps.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it’s the A6300 that offers a wider assortment of options for video recording, such as a Log shooting option (which Fujifilm’s more senior X-T2 does offer) and High Frame Rate recording for slow-motion footage past 60p.
With similar sensors, burst rates, electronic viewfinders, advanced AF systems and magnesium-alloy bodies, these two models are fairly closely matched in many ways. There’s also very little difference in price, although the extent to which this stays the case is likely to change over time.
Where they perhaps differ the most is in style and operation, and to a lesser extent, with secondary video functionality. So, unless either of these is a deal-breaker, you may be served just as well by either model.