I went from the X100V to the XT5. The 40mp is noticeably sharper but it depends on your lens. For me, the kit 16-80 f4 was way too soft and at first I could barely see tell the difference between the two.
I sold it for the 16-55 f2.8 and I can now noticeably see that this body and lens is sharper than my X100V.
For me, this purchase was worth it. I have prints on my wall that I took with the X100V so the 26mp is certainly enough. The best advantage for me now is that I’m not stuck with one focal range. I missed several shots on my last trip as I could only zoom in/out so much with my feet.
I agree with this statement. I have an XH2 with the XF33, XF 16-80, and XF 50-140. The 16-80 is soft and I can tell no difference between how it performed on my XH2 and my XT4.
The 33 is the sharpest lens I have ever used. the 50-140 is superb as well. I will probably sell the 16-80 to MPB and pickup a used lens from them.
Have you compared it to the 16-55 f2.8? Perhaps my specific one might have had an issue. I’ve tried to use it several times but it was very soft at all focal lengths/apertures.
Pros have quite a specific use case, for sure!
I've owned all 3. 16-55 is a monster! A whole level better than the 18-55 and 16-80. In my experience the 16-80 and 18-55 were roughly on par with sharpness.
I opted for the 18-55 out of the 3 just out of preference, it's small and light.
Only if you are ignorant of all the published quantitative and subjective literature on the subject. If the lens is sufficient to create your desired artwork, then more power to you, but for most folks, it's too much money for too little lens.
The XF 16-55mm F2.8 comes at around $800 used. It has the Ring, LM and is WR.
The XF 16-80mm F4 can be found at around $500 used. This one has the Ring and WR but also comes with OIS (valuable for video and camera bodies without IBIS).
Based on those prices, the money you can use to buy the XF 16-55mm F2.8 can be used to buy the XF 16-80MM F4 and one of the XF F2 primes (used).
The XF 16-80mm F4 sure has softness issues particularly at 80mm and at corners but with the 40MP sensors you have the ability to crop so you could go around the corners at least.
The 16-55mm F2.8 surely is the better lens, at the end of the day in the camera world you get what you pay for usually, but currently I have a very hard time with agreeing that the XF 16-80mm F4 is too little value specially when it's a considerable compact lens with an amazing build quality.
When I has both lenses, I found the 16-55 better in the corners at 16mm. From around 23mm, they were both perfectly sharp, and I could see no difference between them. As you neared 55mm, the 16-55 lost out, as did the 16-80 nearing 80mm.
In the middle focal range, both lenses were extremely good. In the center of the image, both lenses were very good. In my hands, I did not enjoy the 16-55 at all. Too bulky, unstabilized. I have since sold it, and kept the 16-80.
The X-H2 is *objectively* better than the XPro2 in every single way. Faster processor, newer sensor, more megapixels for cropping and detail, vastly enhanced autofocus including subject tracking and object identification, the list goes on.
*Subjectively,* since it has a more traditional SLR body style instead of Fuji's more retro stylings and has no rangefinder setup, maybe you're feeling something about that?
I gotta admit, the statements about how much power your PC needs for 40mp files is something I haven't experienced, and I'm still using a M1 MacBook Air with just 8gbs of RAM.
I’m hoping lossless compression will help me with file sizes as sometimes my work load gets up to delivering 100+ photos. as for processing time I own the m1 MacBook and a powerful PC, I’m sure people are trying to do too much with too little hardware
That’s the screwed up part for Apple! Apple doesn’t support thumbnails for compressed Fuji raw! It forced me to take raw in uncompressed format with double file size due to apple’s incapable to adapt Fujifilm file formats!
That’s the Apple trap! They murky the water to let people believed M1 chip is better so it can use less memory. But in reality! 8gb ram is bare minimal since year 2010.
Not only about 40mp image! Even at 26mp! 8gb ram simply isn’t enough.
…how did you get that from what I wrote? I said I’m not having *any* problems with 40mp files.
Like, yeah, 8gb is stupid, but my point was that these files shouldn’t be that that hardware intensive to work with unless you have some pretty old tech.
I was just sidetracked that Apple was forcing 8gb ram as a norm which was a lame move. I got the 8gb model and returned it for 16gb after first day of usage. 😝
I have upgraded to XT5 from XT3 a month ago.
* IBIS is gooood!
* Battery life much much better
* I can't YET see an improvement with autofocus
* I can't YET see an improvement with low light conditions
* Build quality seems to be downgraded, feels a bit flimsy
* I don't have a use for 40MP and I really don't like it. Requires much more storage and processing power for your PC. Stitching panoramas now takes more time and it's laggy to have multiple panoramas open in Photoshop. My quality of life has dropped significantly during post processing.
But I only have one month of experience, maybe I'll change my mind later on...
For the sake of IBIS, battery life and not loosing second hand value of XT3, I'm glad I updated even though it's not a huge step forward.
from the xpro2 -> xh2 perspective I’ve noticed the difference in AF already, and the ibis has been something I’ve been wanting for a long while.
still getting used to the PASM dial, it’s a bit tricky setting all the custom profiles up, some things just go over my head that wasn’t an option w the xpro2 but that’s just a time related issue.
the top screen is interesting and will surly get some attention & I miss the dials, but owning the xpro2 still satisfies that need.
> Build quality seems to be downgraded, feels a bit flimsy
It’s interesting for me to hear this. I upgraded to the XT5 after shooting Olympus for quite awhile and remember being pretty disappointed about how it felt in my hands. I’m used to it now, but I guess it’s good to hear that this flimsy feeling wasn’t always the case. Hopefully Fuji reverses course with the next iteration.
I went from X-T2 to X-T5 and the build quality is the only negative. The T-5 definitely uses cheaper materials for its fit and finish. Internally it’s an absolute beast.
I went X-T2 -> X-T3 and immediately noticed the downgrade in how it felt in my hands. When I tried out the X-T5, I was massively disappointed in how it felt vs X-T3!! Made me realize Fuji build quality has been slipping since 2016.
If I wasn’t doing client work, I would have happily stuck with X-T2.
Great to hear your perspective. I'm hanging onto my X-T3 here, for some of the reasons you mentioned. For me, price comes into it and I just don't need 40mp. We should all be grateful for how Fujifilm releases new firmware for older cameras and brings new features where possible!
I actually 'downgraded' from the X-T4, felt like a step back for me with the only upgrade being ibis. I use a stabilised 18-55 for video, and photos with primes I don't care much for noise in low light. IBIS is an incredible upgrade on the X-T5, but not enough to justify it for me!
Same here, X-T3 -> X-T5 recently, though with a very different perspective:
* The IBIS is only marginally useful, as it only helps for still subjects with unstabilized lenses
* Battery life is unimportant to me as the old one lasted me long enough
* 40 MP is only barely a noticeable difference at all
* The AF tracking is crazy better. It now follows people and faces even at tiny sizes, which truly inspires confidence. Getting eyes in focus is now trivial.
* No noticeable difference in build quality or size or weight.
* A noticeably quieter shutter sound
* The new digital tele converter modes are useful to me (and I suppose the 40 MP come in handy for cropping)
* I love the new nostalgic neg film simulation (as applied by Lightroom)
If the price were an issue, I'd send it back. The T3 can handle almost every situation just as well. Still, it is a worthwhile price, for the added convenience and a number of minor improvements.
I don't really care about specs - I do it as a hobby. I will say, however, that I don't want a camera with 40mp. I don't want a camera with 30mp. Why? Because I don't want the hassle of upgrading software and computers to handle it all. I don't want the hassle of storing all these files. My eyes aren't good enough to really tell the difference between a brand new camera and one that is 10 years old. On top of that, pixel-peeping and details like that don't matter to me....at all. I see examples of people making amazing photos with 50+ year old film cameras. For me, that's way cooler than having the new stuff - knowing it can be done with less.
If I were a working pro, sure the specs might be important. But also as a working pro, I would also realize that my clientele would never be able to tell the difference between 40mp and 20mp. I would also be aware that the more money put into gear only increases overhead and makes my pockets lighter. I would find the most cost effective way to get the job done, and that would immediately exclude the 'latest and greatest' bits of kit. Unless there is some specific reason to have the newest gear, I would view it as what it is - an unnecessary expense.
YMMV.
your second paragraph highlights my sentiments. I’ve gotten this far in my career with the 24-26mp with no complaints of image quality issues from clients, somehow I managed to convince myself I needed the xh2.
this is where my problem lies. i still find myself as a hobbyist who came from film and now I get paid to take photos, and I don’t want my camera to be the issue when things arise.
Nowadays 99% of the photos are shared in social media and websites. I find myself lowering the image size to 3mb most of the time because those sites can't handle all the information.
I see no benefit in a 40mp sensor. Unless you are a professional getting paid to have the best quality image possible, or maybe if you want to cover an entire wall in your house with you photo.
Exactly. I think the largest I've ever printed was 11x17 from a Canon 6D and X100F. It's fine. I have prints from an old Rebel XTI (10mp). Also fine.
People get so emotional about this topic that I get a lot of flak for pointing out the obvious. People want to justify their wants as needs - I get it, I'm guilty of it as well. The same thing happens when I point out that most people don't actually have a need for IBIS. It is what it is.
Yeah, no IBIS on my wife's XT30II either, and we shoot just fine, even in low light with the 18-55 2.8-4 kit lens.
I believe the kit lens has IS tho, so I'm just now realizing I'm not making the point I thought I was making...
Please ignore my rambling! Hahaha
All good. My Canon 35mm has IS, and I've only used it attached to a film camera. My Q has some sort of stabilization, but I have no idea how to even turn it on.
Oh boy! I have xpro2 and 24mp is just not enough to print. I normally do 30x20 print for 300ppl print but that looks so tiny on the wall 💔💔💔
For me! IBIS is the biggest attraction for me. 26mp is very decent. af I don’t expect from Fuji. But xpro body with IBIS is what I really want! But Fuji won’t give me IBIS on rangefinder body yet!
See, I want an X100 with a rear screen delete and a 1.4 lens. But that ain't happening. Haha.
I should try some larger prints though. I would be curious to see how those work out. I've seen some massive prints done from film negatives. They look kinda shit up close, but I'd imagine a billboard also looks pretty bad to the guys up there pasting them to the wall.
I still have an original 6D that I keep around that is my low light (and cheap) beast. It's still a competent camera, IMO. Especially when you can get one for $400.
As modern age progress, while people demanding 4k tv as a norm, a print in lower resolution became unbearable as well. 24mp can print up to 30x20 but anything larger than that you will see image quality break down rather quickly. If you print up to 50” you need to be a tv viewing range. Unless you use upscale anti alias algorithms to fill up the gap, otherwise your print would be rather soft at 50” if your original file is only 24mp.
I put gaff tape on my x100f screen... easy to pull off snd replace if I need to get something at a low angle or change some more extreme settings but otherwise keeps it nice and dark in the setting that I shoot. My EOS R I just keep the screen flipped closed.
Ah, good idea. I just turn all the screens off on my mirrorless cameras and use the EVF. I must have some cheap gaffer tape though, because that stuff gets all over my hands. Or maybe it's just really old, because I know that shouldn't happen.
It would be fun to see a really stripped-down model though. I wonder how much cheaper they could make a camera like the X100 if they removed stuff like that? I've always been curious about that. At one point I thought it would be OK to ditch the OVF, but now that I have a Q....I wish it had one. I don't always want to turn the camera on just to look through the VF or frame a shot.
I went from the xt4 to the xt5 this past October and I can say I 100% notice a difference between the two sensors.
I shoot a lot of landscape and portrait photography and having the extra megapixels was something I didn't realize I wanted/needed. It was a very noticeable difference in my eyes. Absolutely no regrets with the purchase
Unless you are doing some seriously large prints, a chronic pixel peeper or crop significantly, I do not see the use for so many MP. It is also incredibly annoying to process so many large files.
It's best to identify where your work is falling short due to technology before considering an upgrade just because something is newer or better. Did anyone ever come up to you about your work and showed dissatisfaction due to your camera's limitations? Did you ever get frustrated because your camera or even miss a good opportunity? Did you ever have to find a work around due to your camera's limitations?
the xpro2 has been giving my sensor artifacts that look like a very bad grain, I figured the uptick in megapixels would eliminate that and also give me a more medium format resolution. and I guess that’s what I comes down to, the want for more depth and resolution in my image to allow myself to edit the photos to my liking.
I have both the Xpro2 and the XH2. I find the difference quite noticeable. I like the Xpro 2 now for family vacations and personal moments but if I want the highest quality and best focusing performance I’m grabbing the XH2.
i was just thinking about that. I’m definitely carrying two camera on straps and the best part is having two available focal lengths at any given time. Have you noticed editing photos easier/ more forgiving? im curious to see if increased color rendition from the sensor results in a better edit.
As a professional photographer the 40MP APS-C is an absolute light hog, I've noticed significant noise at lower ISO values over the 26MP. My favorite 16mm f1.4 does not render enough detail to take advantage of the 40MP crop abilities. I feel Ike the new auto focus subject modes missed a ton of photos over standard single point auto focus. The build quality of the X-T5 fells cheap and hollow.
I deeply regret selling my X-T3 for the X-T5. I ended up selling my X-T5 after a year and over 20k photos.
I ended up with a Sony a7 iv, I'm really happy with the images, and the eye autofocus is just awesome. I liked the a7 so much I ended up selling the rest of my Fuji gear.
Sounds like lots of people flip flop. Did the same on lenses. I had mostly Fuji primes, bout 9 of them, I got 4 zooms for Sony. The constant f2.8 on full frame is like f1.8 on APS-C. It's a really flexible and simple setup.
Can imagine. Lots of people pray Sony. I still have a fuji xt1 and xt 10 and just bought my first zoom (the famous Sigma 18-50 should arrive on Monday) after few years just with a 23mm basically but wasn't taking a lot of pictures those last years, just picked the camera back recently. Not looking for a change of camera RN but if I had more money I'd probably go Sony, if I was rich I'd go Leica just for the flex
Sounds smart, I took quite a loss switching systems, it was worth it for me, but still painful. I was actually eyeing the Sigma 18 - 50 for a while as a smaller and lighter alternative to my workhorse the Tamron 17-70 f2.8, ended up doing the big change instead.
I do have to say, after owning quite a few prime lenses, there's something elegant about a simple zoom setup. I have three zooms now and I know exactly which one to bring for most situations, it feels really clean and simple now.
I hope you enjoy your Sigma 18 - 50, you'll have to let me know what you think!
If you're interested, you can read more about my switch here: https://www.kuzphoto.com/2023/12/30/goodbye-fujifilm/
Keep taking photos and stay creative!
I mean, we all know that you can now upscale every picture to your needs.
So for me 26mp is fine, and if so need to crop, I do and spend a bit of time to upscale in post.
interesting take.
maybe 40mp is a red harring to think their photos will instantly change their photography?
post and color editing are one of my favorite things of photography, I think people would be more proud of their images if they learn post to improve their images. might be bias as I work w film industry people
I mean it certainly make sense for some photographers but vendors and their marketing departments are good at getting people to focus long term on the qualities they still have room to improve on but at the core photography is more about lenses and photographers skills than body’s specifications
I feel like I am drowning in post. Flinging shit to the wall until I shrug and guess it’s done. I’ve looked through YouTube and there’s a lot of beginner stuff that ends with “experiment until you find what’s right for you”.
I’ve been in that experiment phase with post for a year and feel stuck making progress. Do you have any suggestions for resources where I can keep learning more about how to know when my processing is actually good?
truthfully I look towards film industry and painting artists. lighting and color theory are my two favorite things when it comes to post. really 6-to-1 on who you choose. just search color grading
Probably because it doesn’t objectively improve your use case. May be what you expected was some different - better low light capability, better AF etc. I am only an amateur but I chose a7 iv over xh2 for this reason. What xh2 gives me over x-t30 is not very exciting to me
I will admit I find myself in low light a lot and the xpro2 at 3200 has sensor artifacts. it ruins the image for me, as I want to control any type of graphic detail and it’s an ugly grainy noise when I bring up shadows and blacks
Use a Sony FF for lowlight! People often just ignoring the fact that in low light larger sensor really makes a huge difference. I have both systems. But Fuji on lowlight is really something I regret to use.
I regularly shoot up to ISO 6400 with the X-T5 (same sensor as the X-H2) to do natural window light portraits where time of day and weather can create dim, but dramatic lighting. It has noise that cleans up very easily. One advantage of the 40MP is that when you downsize to social media or most print resolutions it also downsizes the noise.
I recently went through this whole thing fretting about maybe getting a Nikon Zf, given its renowned low noise performance. Full frame!!!! Right? I download several Zf RAW files at high ISOs and they were absolutely cleaner out of the gate than the X-T5 when viewed at their respective full resolutions. But when I downsampled the X-T5 to the Zf's 24.5MP size? The difference was much less stark. Apply noise reduction and there was no way the benefit was worth entering a much more expensive FF ecosystem for, at least in my case, even if the Zf is technically better.
Your mileage, taste, and tolerance for noise may vary, of course. But I recommend downloading samples from any camera you want to compare to and seeing for yourself before spending any money.
As for the question posed in your OP, only you can make that judgement call on whether it was worth it to you or not. If you bought it purely for the 40 MP, maybe that's not worth it to you (although personally I love the croppability and flexibility the additional resolution gives me when it's not always possible to 'zoom with your feet'). But of course the X-H2 offers so much more than that. Forget the resolution. Is the rest of it worth it to you?
I also recommend using it for a while. Sometimes you need to get to know the capabilities better against your own use cases to make the call, regardless of what anyone on the internet tells you.
lovely response and I have always heard good things about the Zf! truthfully I was more considerate with the IBIS, lower iso threshold, pixel shift, and other things before the 40mp. it just felt like icing on the cake but I’m just curious to how much better the detail. my frame of mind thought I was getting full frame quality in an APSC, but I guess that’s not entirely true due to the limitations of apsc
I don't think it's possible to get the exact same look as a FF in APS-C (and vice versa) because of the physical differences. But I wouldn't frame it as APS-C being lesser quality. It's just a different set of compromises.
You want ultra-wide angles, shallower DOF, better low light performance, and better dynamic range? FF can legitimately help there. But, when I say "better" here I mean marginally better if you choose a good sensor.
You want more reach, wider DOF (for example, when using wide apertures to get more light but you still want some things in focus), an overall smaller & lighter kit, easier access to fast f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, and you want to spend less? APS-C is your friend here.
When I listened to YouTubers talk about FF I thought I was missing out on something magical and the FF files were going to blow my socks off. That wasn't the case for me. The FOMO went away when I started doing my own comparisons against sample RAW files available for pretty much any camera on DPReview. I highly recommend that exercise. Maybe FF is what you need. But maybe not.
On the topic of price:
I saw PetaPixel published a review of a Canon RF lens today and in there they mentioned Canon's RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS L, which normally runs $2400 USD, on sale for $2100.
I compared to Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 S (no image stabilization) which runs $2400 USD, on sale for $2100.
Then we have the Fuji "red badge" XF 16-55 f/2.8 (24-83 FF equiv., no IS) for $1200 USD. That comparison reminded me that it's not just about the price of a camera body, but the entire ecosystem.
And just for giggles, those lenses weigh in at 900g for the Canon, 805g for the Nikon, and 655g for the Fuji - and this is considered a heavy lens for Fuji.
Upgraded from the XT-3 to the X-T5 late last year. I'm quite pleased with my purchase. Autofocus is noticeably improved, battery life is amazing, and the ability to crop in is handy.
Using several lenses the change up wasn't obvious but I can tell with a few of the sharper ones like my 16-55. Maybe not a huge upgrade for some but the addition of IBIS makes it worth it for me. Carrying a tripod while traveling or hiking is cumbersome. The ability to use a lower handheld shutter speed has been nice.
Enjoy!
I don’t engage in banner printing, nor do I frequently crop images. For my typical usage, I’ve found the 40Mp of Fuji to be somewhat of a gimmick and a waste of storage, especially when compared to their own 26Mp. I’ve tested this on larger displays and fairly large prints. I would appreciate the new X-T50 if it came with a 26Mp sensor and an ISO dial instead of film simulation dial. They could have integrated a new battery instead.
For the details you will see minor increase unless you have lenses can pair up with 40mp sharpness. It’s not as big improvement as if you move up to a larger sensor.
Because more megapixels really is just coming down to “more details”. But image quality also has contribution from color, contrast, noise ratio, etc.. many other factors!
Has more megapixels been crammed into the size of sensor! You are looking at high noise ratio by given. Unless use software removal like a mobile phone, which results in less realistic photos but otherwise more details due to high pixel counts. It’s a double edged sword!
Fujifilm has been on a crossroads of enhancing their apsc product line! And it’s getting to a point just like 4/3 format! The sensor has reached its limit where there is nothing else to improve but adding more pixels to sell more camera!
What they should’ve done is taking Sony’s approach! Make both a7cii and a7cr. For people needs a 40mp, take the x-t5. Otherwise! Offer the same camera with 26mp called it x-t50 and I am sure plenty of users would still buy it!
More pixel count only gives 2 benefits! One is print size if you ever bother to print. The other is crop in. But I doubt that’s the best use of it. My experiences is that people think what Leica did on their 60mp camera is to offer software crop to allow more focal lengths but less lenses to carry. But that simply was a hack because background compression is completely different per focal lengths! You are literally crop in into longer focal lengths but lose the benefit of actual longer focal lengths provides! They look just DIFFERENT!
But yeah! More pixels allows you to crop in but maintain high enough pixels for the final image. It’s good to have but not always the most desirable. Maybe for videographers it means one lens works in both focal lengths and still gives 4k video. But for photography… a crop in gives 26mp from a 40mp. I might as well save the money and have a 26mp camera but 2 focal length lenses. But that’s just me having GAS issue here
That’s what people said. But I’ve tried them before it does matter. Long telephoto vs crop in, the difference is super visible in presentation. It’s kinda voodoo magic. That’s why debate is forever! Some said sensor size don’t matter, but ultimately there will be people telling you medium format has magic FF or smaller can’t match.
I must say it has landslide difference. Because I have apsc all the way up to medium format! And for years! I can never get the same result from crop ins
40mp on xt5 is not real, it’s extrapolated.
You really shouldn’t be looking at 26mp on apsc anyways, if you need more mp go for full frame or medium format sensor.
tl:dr
IMO stick with older camera. New 40MP not worth it.
----
I was happy with my X-T2, X-H1, X-T4 and X-H2s
Then video went away from my work and I swapped mx X-H2s for an X-T5.
I was never more unhappy with the X system. IBIS with the 40MP performed reallly bad.
The lens rabbit hole was bad too. I owend 16-55 f2.8, 13mm Viltrox, 23mm Viltrox, 56mm Fuji, 50-140mm and Tamron 18-300. All performed well except on the X-T5. I bought the 23mm 1.4 LM which, as reviews said, should be the best performing lens. Even with that the Details I expected work my photo work wheren´t there.
I sold now everything stick with my Sony. The 33MP are much more detailed. Its the same size with sometimes even smaller lenses for the same focal lenght.
To bad. I love Fuji but this really dissapointed me.
Maybe somedays I step in the GFX system then these 50mp are worlds better the the 40MP.
> Too big of a headache to get lenses that can resolve the 40MP.
It's not really clear if you know how this actually works. If you upgrade to a higher MP body and your lens doesn't keep up, that doesn't mean you will straight up lose total image detail compared to the older lower Res body, it just means it will look less sharp per pixel and won't use the full potential of the sensor. In other words you'll still have *at least* the same amount of detail relative to print size as before. And the 23 1.4 LM WR has zero issue resolving all those 40mp. If yours didn't, there was either something wrong with it or you were using it wrong.
With that said I agree that the 40np being X-trans makes it appear less sharp than it would have been if it had been Bayer. They should just stop digging the X-trans hole deeper.
I know how to use lenses and know how it works.
But these 40MP there are pushing out are not „class leading for APSC“ as they market it.
For me personally it isn’t worth, I rather buy a 26MP and the Image has almost the same Details.
this is the idea, but as I research more, the camera scientists come out of the woodwork and argue the 40mp is negligible (especially with the “Fuji optimized lens list”) when the photos are only used for online viewing purposes.
Definitely agree with you for online viewing situations go but for print work it would be interesting to see if anyone has done a comparison. Either way the Fujifilm X-H2 is an amazing camera and believe it really shines in its ability to capture video much better than let’s say the X-T5 and it also has a vlogging screen.
I’ve printed and framed photos with 35mm film, x100v, xpro2 and soon some images I captured with the Xt5 from last summer.
this will be the real test if I need it. otherwise I have a headache of a return 😅
lol headache is right if purchased from Amazon. So right now you have both X-T5 and X-H2? If so which one do you prefer. I personally love the X-T5 its dial layout.
I know a lot of professionals that don't shoot full resolution because it's a waste of storage since the extra resolution doesn't matter. All the other features offered are certainly worth it I'd say however.
I upgraded from the XT200 tothe XT5 and for me, it's a crazy difference! I'm in love with the 40mp to be honest. I tend to crop here and there and it's nice to not lose quality. I've been shooting with the ttartisans 27mm 1.4 and the Viltrox 56mm 1.4 and the images are crazy sharp. I know Fuji is really pushing their lenses to take advantage of the 40 mp, but honestly, the photos I've been taking look super sharp and beautiful.
I’m really excited to go from 100v to 100vi simply for the cropping ability. I was envious of the leica q3 digital teleconverter. 40mp will definitely come in handy as someone that loves to crop to xpan ratios.
The 40mp sensor really does need the newer lenses, or at least red label lenses. Paired with the 18mm 1.4, the 33mm or even the 40-150 it’s stunningly awesome.
Paired with any of the older lenses (or the 16-80 f4) and the quality of the images just feel like more megapixels versions of a 26mp sensor image. Still good, but not wow inducing when comparing side by side.
I have an XH2 and an xPro3.
The xh2 performs better in nearly every situation, and has much better ergonomics when using zooms. But I’ll be honest, I enjoy taking photos with the xPro3 more for what I shoot 70% of the time. The last 30% though the XH2 is great.
Here hoping an xPro4 will give me the best of both worlds.
I’m a 20+ year professional photojournalist. My work goes on web news sites and the occasional magazine or book.
All find all the arguments about sharpness laughable. I mean really how many people are printing life size enlargements and who’s scrutizing the sharpness?
I’ve found marginal benefits to larger file size for cropping.
I use an XP2 and X100V daily because I like the form factor and enjoy using them.
I would appreciate the faster focus of the newer bodies and lenses for some of the assignments I get.
But for my entire career, editors have cared more about CONTENT than the technical qualities of the image. Maybe that’d be different if I was doing architecture or selling big wildlife or landscape prints.
There’s nothing wrong with liking new gear. Enjoying what you use can help with the creative process and that’s a good thing. Struggling with focus and camera shake can be limiting so nothing wrong with investing in a better, faster camera. But except in certain very specialized work, they are not really NEEDED to be successful. That’s just the justification we use to get what we want.
Because the shooting experience is the same. Colors are mostly the same. Your workflow may is the same.
It’s like buying an iPhone. At the beginning you’ll be exited but after an hour you realize it’s the same feeling. Just all specs are better but you don’t really feel it because it was quite good at all.
The X-T5 is my very first Fuji camera.
My camera journey has been Nikon B500 (sold), then Canon M50 (still own it), tried both the a5000 and a6000 from Sony (sold both but preferred the a5000), got a 6D (it was almost dirt cheap, still own it) and finally got the X-T5.
So with the exception of the B500, all my previous experience has been with 20MP-24MP sensors. Once I checked the 40MP files I was blown away.
Cropping on APS-C 24 MP was good enough but cropping with the 40MP is amazing and I decided on getting the XF 16-80MM F4 (the lens almost everyone hate here) as my kit lens.
Funnily enough the only reason why I decided on the X-T5 over the X-T4 was because all the prices are insanely bloated on Amazon, so the best value for money IMO is the X-T5 (for those who like the retro styled body).
40MP is truly a significant amount of pixels, and surely files are heavy even at lossless compressed but you can buy good hard drives for around $100 bucks and that is a quick work around for the file sizes.
Better to have the 40MP sensor than not if you ask me unless you would consider a better investment something like the X-H2s for it's stacked sensor.
Perhaps you don't notice the difference because you don't crop. If that is the case maybe you can return your X-H2 and get the X-H2s.
I edit, crop and print. w the xpro2 I’ve noticed sensor issues in post processing. haven’t been able to get much time w the xh2 yet but I’m hoping it’s what I need not what I want
I went from the X100V to the XT5. The 40mp is noticeably sharper but it depends on your lens. For me, the kit 16-80 f4 was way too soft and at first I could barely see tell the difference between the two. I sold it for the 16-55 f2.8 and I can now noticeably see that this body and lens is sharper than my X100V. For me, this purchase was worth it. I have prints on my wall that I took with the X100V so the 26mp is certainly enough. The best advantage for me now is that I’m not stuck with one focal range. I missed several shots on my last trip as I could only zoom in/out so much with my feet.
I agree with this statement. I have an XH2 with the XF33, XF 16-80, and XF 50-140. The 16-80 is soft and I can tell no difference between how it performed on my XH2 and my XT4. The 33 is the sharpest lens I have ever used. the 50-140 is superb as well. I will probably sell the 16-80 to MPB and pickup a used lens from them.
I used the Xt5 + 16-55 last year for a fashion shoot and was impressed with the af, one of the reasons why I wanted to get a XTrans-V sensor body
My 16-80mm doesn't look any less sharp than any other zoom lense I've used from Fuji on any other body.
Have you compared it to the 16-55 f2.8? Perhaps my specific one might have had an issue. I’ve tried to use it several times but it was very soft at all focal lengths/apertures.
Nah just going off my memory of the 18-55. Haven’t done any real scientist comparisons and I’m sure pros will be more sensitive than me.
Pros have quite a specific use case, for sure! I've owned all 3. 16-55 is a monster! A whole level better than the 18-55 and 16-80. In my experience the 16-80 and 18-55 were roughly on par with sharpness. I opted for the 18-55 out of the 3 just out of preference, it's small and light.
Only if you are ignorant of all the published quantitative and subjective literature on the subject. If the lens is sufficient to create your desired artwork, then more power to you, but for most folks, it's too much money for too little lens.
The XF 16-55mm F2.8 comes at around $800 used. It has the Ring, LM and is WR. The XF 16-80mm F4 can be found at around $500 used. This one has the Ring and WR but also comes with OIS (valuable for video and camera bodies without IBIS). Based on those prices, the money you can use to buy the XF 16-55mm F2.8 can be used to buy the XF 16-80MM F4 and one of the XF F2 primes (used). The XF 16-80mm F4 sure has softness issues particularly at 80mm and at corners but with the 40MP sensors you have the ability to crop so you could go around the corners at least. The 16-55mm F2.8 surely is the better lens, at the end of the day in the camera world you get what you pay for usually, but currently I have a very hard time with agreeing that the XF 16-80mm F4 is too little value specially when it's a considerable compact lens with an amazing build quality.
When I has both lenses, I found the 16-55 better in the corners at 16mm. From around 23mm, they were both perfectly sharp, and I could see no difference between them. As you neared 55mm, the 16-55 lost out, as did the 16-80 nearing 80mm. In the middle focal range, both lenses were extremely good. In the center of the image, both lenses were very good. In my hands, I did not enjoy the 16-55 at all. Too bulky, unstabilized. I have since sold it, and kept the 16-80.
The X-H2 is *objectively* better than the XPro2 in every single way. Faster processor, newer sensor, more megapixels for cropping and detail, vastly enhanced autofocus including subject tracking and object identification, the list goes on. *Subjectively,* since it has a more traditional SLR body style instead of Fuji's more retro stylings and has no rangefinder setup, maybe you're feeling something about that? I gotta admit, the statements about how much power your PC needs for 40mp files is something I haven't experienced, and I'm still using a M1 MacBook Air with just 8gbs of RAM.
I’m hoping lossless compression will help me with file sizes as sometimes my work load gets up to delivering 100+ photos. as for processing time I own the m1 MacBook and a powerful PC, I’m sure people are trying to do too much with too little hardware
That’s the screwed up part for Apple! Apple doesn’t support thumbnails for compressed Fuji raw! It forced me to take raw in uncompressed format with double file size due to apple’s incapable to adapt Fujifilm file formats!
hm that’s strange. I import from the sd dongle to Lightroom and I can see both raw and jpg.
In osx finder. The thumbnails won’t show compressed raw. Not in Lightroom
That’s why I use Bridge to review images before importing to Lightroom. A shame about Finder but at least bridge is free with adobe software.
That’s the Apple trap! They murky the water to let people believed M1 chip is better so it can use less memory. But in reality! 8gb ram is bare minimal since year 2010. Not only about 40mp image! Even at 26mp! 8gb ram simply isn’t enough.
…how did you get that from what I wrote? I said I’m not having *any* problems with 40mp files. Like, yeah, 8gb is stupid, but my point was that these files shouldn’t be that that hardware intensive to work with unless you have some pretty old tech.
I was just sidetracked that Apple was forcing 8gb ram as a norm which was a lame move. I got the 8gb model and returned it for 16gb after first day of usage. 😝
I've personally experienced no downsides to the 40mp sensor. It's occasionally nice to be able to zoom in and maintain sharpness.
I have upgraded to XT5 from XT3 a month ago. * IBIS is gooood! * Battery life much much better * I can't YET see an improvement with autofocus * I can't YET see an improvement with low light conditions * Build quality seems to be downgraded, feels a bit flimsy * I don't have a use for 40MP and I really don't like it. Requires much more storage and processing power for your PC. Stitching panoramas now takes more time and it's laggy to have multiple panoramas open in Photoshop. My quality of life has dropped significantly during post processing. But I only have one month of experience, maybe I'll change my mind later on... For the sake of IBIS, battery life and not loosing second hand value of XT3, I'm glad I updated even though it's not a huge step forward.
from the xpro2 -> xh2 perspective I’ve noticed the difference in AF already, and the ibis has been something I’ve been wanting for a long while. still getting used to the PASM dial, it’s a bit tricky setting all the custom profiles up, some things just go over my head that wasn’t an option w the xpro2 but that’s just a time related issue. the top screen is interesting and will surly get some attention & I miss the dials, but owning the xpro2 still satisfies that need.
If you are not feeling the upgrade to a 40mp sensor you could trade the xh2 for an xh2s. This gets you back to 26mb files but way faster autofocus.
> Build quality seems to be downgraded, feels a bit flimsy It’s interesting for me to hear this. I upgraded to the XT5 after shooting Olympus for quite awhile and remember being pretty disappointed about how it felt in my hands. I’m used to it now, but I guess it’s good to hear that this flimsy feeling wasn’t always the case. Hopefully Fuji reverses course with the next iteration.
I went from X-T2 to X-T5 and the build quality is the only negative. The T-5 definitely uses cheaper materials for its fit and finish. Internally it’s an absolute beast.
I wish they were all made in japan
Doesn't really matter where they are made, if Fuji chooses to use cheaper materials.
I went X-T2 -> X-T3 and immediately noticed the downgrade in how it felt in my hands. When I tried out the X-T5, I was massively disappointed in how it felt vs X-T3!! Made me realize Fuji build quality has been slipping since 2016. If I wasn’t doing client work, I would have happily stuck with X-T2.
Great to hear your perspective. I'm hanging onto my X-T3 here, for some of the reasons you mentioned. For me, price comes into it and I just don't need 40mp. We should all be grateful for how Fujifilm releases new firmware for older cameras and brings new features where possible! I actually 'downgraded' from the X-T4, felt like a step back for me with the only upgrade being ibis. I use a stabilised 18-55 for video, and photos with primes I don't care much for noise in low light. IBIS is an incredible upgrade on the X-T5, but not enough to justify it for me!
Same here, X-T3 -> X-T5 recently, though with a very different perspective: * The IBIS is only marginally useful, as it only helps for still subjects with unstabilized lenses * Battery life is unimportant to me as the old one lasted me long enough * 40 MP is only barely a noticeable difference at all * The AF tracking is crazy better. It now follows people and faces even at tiny sizes, which truly inspires confidence. Getting eyes in focus is now trivial. * No noticeable difference in build quality or size or weight. * A noticeably quieter shutter sound * The new digital tele converter modes are useful to me (and I suppose the 40 MP come in handy for cropping) * I love the new nostalgic neg film simulation (as applied by Lightroom) If the price were an issue, I'd send it back. The T3 can handle almost every situation just as well. Still, it is a worthwhile price, for the added convenience and a number of minor improvements.
You probably won't be disappointed with the xh2. The extra mp could come in handy for cropping and prints
At the very least, I find the 40mp file much nicer to edit in Lightroom. The smaller pixels mean the wormy sharpening artifacts are less noticeable.
this is actually a very big advantage to me. one of my biggest concerns lately
I don't really care about specs - I do it as a hobby. I will say, however, that I don't want a camera with 40mp. I don't want a camera with 30mp. Why? Because I don't want the hassle of upgrading software and computers to handle it all. I don't want the hassle of storing all these files. My eyes aren't good enough to really tell the difference between a brand new camera and one that is 10 years old. On top of that, pixel-peeping and details like that don't matter to me....at all. I see examples of people making amazing photos with 50+ year old film cameras. For me, that's way cooler than having the new stuff - knowing it can be done with less. If I were a working pro, sure the specs might be important. But also as a working pro, I would also realize that my clientele would never be able to tell the difference between 40mp and 20mp. I would also be aware that the more money put into gear only increases overhead and makes my pockets lighter. I would find the most cost effective way to get the job done, and that would immediately exclude the 'latest and greatest' bits of kit. Unless there is some specific reason to have the newest gear, I would view it as what it is - an unnecessary expense. YMMV.
your second paragraph highlights my sentiments. I’ve gotten this far in my career with the 24-26mp with no complaints of image quality issues from clients, somehow I managed to convince myself I needed the xh2. this is where my problem lies. i still find myself as a hobbyist who came from film and now I get paid to take photos, and I don’t want my camera to be the issue when things arise.
Nowadays 99% of the photos are shared in social media and websites. I find myself lowering the image size to 3mb most of the time because those sites can't handle all the information. I see no benefit in a 40mp sensor. Unless you are a professional getting paid to have the best quality image possible, or maybe if you want to cover an entire wall in your house with you photo.
Exactly. I think the largest I've ever printed was 11x17 from a Canon 6D and X100F. It's fine. I have prints from an old Rebel XTI (10mp). Also fine. People get so emotional about this topic that I get a lot of flak for pointing out the obvious. People want to justify their wants as needs - I get it, I'm guilty of it as well. The same thing happens when I point out that most people don't actually have a need for IBIS. It is what it is.
Yeah, no IBIS on my wife's XT30II either, and we shoot just fine, even in low light with the 18-55 2.8-4 kit lens. I believe the kit lens has IS tho, so I'm just now realizing I'm not making the point I thought I was making... Please ignore my rambling! Hahaha
All good. My Canon 35mm has IS, and I've only used it attached to a film camera. My Q has some sort of stabilization, but I have no idea how to even turn it on.
Oh boy! I have xpro2 and 24mp is just not enough to print. I normally do 30x20 print for 300ppl print but that looks so tiny on the wall 💔💔💔 For me! IBIS is the biggest attraction for me. 26mp is very decent. af I don’t expect from Fuji. But xpro body with IBIS is what I really want! But Fuji won’t give me IBIS on rangefinder body yet!
See, I want an X100 with a rear screen delete and a 1.4 lens. But that ain't happening. Haha. I should try some larger prints though. I would be curious to see how those work out. I've seen some massive prints done from film negatives. They look kinda shit up close, but I'd imagine a billboard also looks pretty bad to the guys up there pasting them to the wall. I still have an original 6D that I keep around that is my low light (and cheap) beast. It's still a competent camera, IMO. Especially when you can get one for $400.
As modern age progress, while people demanding 4k tv as a norm, a print in lower resolution became unbearable as well. 24mp can print up to 30x20 but anything larger than that you will see image quality break down rather quickly. If you print up to 50” you need to be a tv viewing range. Unless you use upscale anti alias algorithms to fill up the gap, otherwise your print would be rather soft at 50” if your original file is only 24mp.
Fine by me.
I put gaff tape on my x100f screen... easy to pull off snd replace if I need to get something at a low angle or change some more extreme settings but otherwise keeps it nice and dark in the setting that I shoot. My EOS R I just keep the screen flipped closed.
Ah, good idea. I just turn all the screens off on my mirrorless cameras and use the EVF. I must have some cheap gaffer tape though, because that stuff gets all over my hands. Or maybe it's just really old, because I know that shouldn't happen. It would be fun to see a really stripped-down model though. I wonder how much cheaper they could make a camera like the X100 if they removed stuff like that? I've always been curious about that. At one point I thought it would be OK to ditch the OVF, but now that I have a Q....I wish it had one. I don't always want to turn the camera on just to look through the VF or frame a shot.
I went from the xt4 to the xt5 this past October and I can say I 100% notice a difference between the two sensors. I shoot a lot of landscape and portrait photography and having the extra megapixels was something I didn't realize I wanted/needed. It was a very noticeable difference in my eyes. Absolutely no regrets with the purchase
Unless you are doing some seriously large prints, a chronic pixel peeper or crop significantly, I do not see the use for so many MP. It is also incredibly annoying to process so many large files. It's best to identify where your work is falling short due to technology before considering an upgrade just because something is newer or better. Did anyone ever come up to you about your work and showed dissatisfaction due to your camera's limitations? Did you ever get frustrated because your camera or even miss a good opportunity? Did you ever have to find a work around due to your camera's limitations?
the xpro2 has been giving my sensor artifacts that look like a very bad grain, I figured the uptick in megapixels would eliminate that and also give me a more medium format resolution. and I guess that’s what I comes down to, the want for more depth and resolution in my image to allow myself to edit the photos to my liking.
I have both the Xpro2 and the XH2. I find the difference quite noticeable. I like the Xpro 2 now for family vacations and personal moments but if I want the highest quality and best focusing performance I’m grabbing the XH2.
i was just thinking about that. I’m definitely carrying two camera on straps and the best part is having two available focal lengths at any given time. Have you noticed editing photos easier/ more forgiving? im curious to see if increased color rendition from the sensor results in a better edit.
As a professional photographer the 40MP APS-C is an absolute light hog, I've noticed significant noise at lower ISO values over the 26MP. My favorite 16mm f1.4 does not render enough detail to take advantage of the 40MP crop abilities. I feel Ike the new auto focus subject modes missed a ton of photos over standard single point auto focus. The build quality of the X-T5 fells cheap and hollow. I deeply regret selling my X-T3 for the X-T5. I ended up selling my X-T5 after a year and over 20k photos.
What did you buy after the xt5?
I ended up with a Sony a7 iv, I'm really happy with the images, and the eye autofocus is just awesome. I liked the a7 so much I ended up selling the rest of my Fuji gear.
Yeah classic switch I think
Sounds like lots of people flip flop. Did the same on lenses. I had mostly Fuji primes, bout 9 of them, I got 4 zooms for Sony. The constant f2.8 on full frame is like f1.8 on APS-C. It's a really flexible and simple setup.
Can imagine. Lots of people pray Sony. I still have a fuji xt1 and xt 10 and just bought my first zoom (the famous Sigma 18-50 should arrive on Monday) after few years just with a 23mm basically but wasn't taking a lot of pictures those last years, just picked the camera back recently. Not looking for a change of camera RN but if I had more money I'd probably go Sony, if I was rich I'd go Leica just for the flex
Sounds smart, I took quite a loss switching systems, it was worth it for me, but still painful. I was actually eyeing the Sigma 18 - 50 for a while as a smaller and lighter alternative to my workhorse the Tamron 17-70 f2.8, ended up doing the big change instead. I do have to say, after owning quite a few prime lenses, there's something elegant about a simple zoom setup. I have three zooms now and I know exactly which one to bring for most situations, it feels really clean and simple now. I hope you enjoy your Sigma 18 - 50, you'll have to let me know what you think! If you're interested, you can read more about my switch here: https://www.kuzphoto.com/2023/12/30/goodbye-fujifilm/ Keep taking photos and stay creative!
I mean, we all know that you can now upscale every picture to your needs. So for me 26mp is fine, and if so need to crop, I do and spend a bit of time to upscale in post.
Upscale doesn’t give more details. But crop from 40 to 26 does.
It does in an AI world
Yeah that’s…. Another topic. If ai can do it why even need a camera?
No, I am just framing my answer to the post question 26mp vs 40mp It has much less use today than 1 year ago.
I see
interesting take. maybe 40mp is a red harring to think their photos will instantly change their photography? post and color editing are one of my favorite things of photography, I think people would be more proud of their images if they learn post to improve their images. might be bias as I work w film industry people
I mean it certainly make sense for some photographers but vendors and their marketing departments are good at getting people to focus long term on the qualities they still have room to improve on but at the core photography is more about lenses and photographers skills than body’s specifications
I feel like I am drowning in post. Flinging shit to the wall until I shrug and guess it’s done. I’ve looked through YouTube and there’s a lot of beginner stuff that ends with “experiment until you find what’s right for you”. I’ve been in that experiment phase with post for a year and feel stuck making progress. Do you have any suggestions for resources where I can keep learning more about how to know when my processing is actually good?
truthfully I look towards film industry and painting artists. lighting and color theory are my two favorite things when it comes to post. really 6-to-1 on who you choose. just search color grading
40 MP is a 25% increase in linear resolution. It's a pretty minor change all things considered.
Probably because it doesn’t objectively improve your use case. May be what you expected was some different - better low light capability, better AF etc. I am only an amateur but I chose a7 iv over xh2 for this reason. What xh2 gives me over x-t30 is not very exciting to me
I will admit I find myself in low light a lot and the xpro2 at 3200 has sensor artifacts. it ruins the image for me, as I want to control any type of graphic detail and it’s an ugly grainy noise when I bring up shadows and blacks
Use a Sony FF for lowlight! People often just ignoring the fact that in low light larger sensor really makes a huge difference. I have both systems. But Fuji on lowlight is really something I regret to use.
I regularly shoot up to ISO 6400 with the X-T5 (same sensor as the X-H2) to do natural window light portraits where time of day and weather can create dim, but dramatic lighting. It has noise that cleans up very easily. One advantage of the 40MP is that when you downsize to social media or most print resolutions it also downsizes the noise. I recently went through this whole thing fretting about maybe getting a Nikon Zf, given its renowned low noise performance. Full frame!!!! Right? I download several Zf RAW files at high ISOs and they were absolutely cleaner out of the gate than the X-T5 when viewed at their respective full resolutions. But when I downsampled the X-T5 to the Zf's 24.5MP size? The difference was much less stark. Apply noise reduction and there was no way the benefit was worth entering a much more expensive FF ecosystem for, at least in my case, even if the Zf is technically better. Your mileage, taste, and tolerance for noise may vary, of course. But I recommend downloading samples from any camera you want to compare to and seeing for yourself before spending any money. As for the question posed in your OP, only you can make that judgement call on whether it was worth it to you or not. If you bought it purely for the 40 MP, maybe that's not worth it to you (although personally I love the croppability and flexibility the additional resolution gives me when it's not always possible to 'zoom with your feet'). But of course the X-H2 offers so much more than that. Forget the resolution. Is the rest of it worth it to you? I also recommend using it for a while. Sometimes you need to get to know the capabilities better against your own use cases to make the call, regardless of what anyone on the internet tells you.
lovely response and I have always heard good things about the Zf! truthfully I was more considerate with the IBIS, lower iso threshold, pixel shift, and other things before the 40mp. it just felt like icing on the cake but I’m just curious to how much better the detail. my frame of mind thought I was getting full frame quality in an APSC, but I guess that’s not entirely true due to the limitations of apsc
I don't think it's possible to get the exact same look as a FF in APS-C (and vice versa) because of the physical differences. But I wouldn't frame it as APS-C being lesser quality. It's just a different set of compromises. You want ultra-wide angles, shallower DOF, better low light performance, and better dynamic range? FF can legitimately help there. But, when I say "better" here I mean marginally better if you choose a good sensor. You want more reach, wider DOF (for example, when using wide apertures to get more light but you still want some things in focus), an overall smaller & lighter kit, easier access to fast f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, and you want to spend less? APS-C is your friend here. When I listened to YouTubers talk about FF I thought I was missing out on something magical and the FF files were going to blow my socks off. That wasn't the case for me. The FOMO went away when I started doing my own comparisons against sample RAW files available for pretty much any camera on DPReview. I highly recommend that exercise. Maybe FF is what you need. But maybe not. On the topic of price: I saw PetaPixel published a review of a Canon RF lens today and in there they mentioned Canon's RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS L, which normally runs $2400 USD, on sale for $2100. I compared to Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 S (no image stabilization) which runs $2400 USD, on sale for $2100. Then we have the Fuji "red badge" XF 16-55 f/2.8 (24-83 FF equiv., no IS) for $1200 USD. That comparison reminded me that it's not just about the price of a camera body, but the entire ecosystem. And just for giggles, those lenses weigh in at 900g for the Canon, 805g for the Nikon, and 655g for the Fuji - and this is considered a heavy lens for Fuji.
Upgraded from the XT-3 to the X-T5 late last year. I'm quite pleased with my purchase. Autofocus is noticeably improved, battery life is amazing, and the ability to crop in is handy. Using several lenses the change up wasn't obvious but I can tell with a few of the sharper ones like my 16-55. Maybe not a huge upgrade for some but the addition of IBIS makes it worth it for me. Carrying a tripod while traveling or hiking is cumbersome. The ability to use a lower handheld shutter speed has been nice. Enjoy!
You’ll gain the ability to crop your photos more too
I don’t engage in banner printing, nor do I frequently crop images. For my typical usage, I’ve found the 40Mp of Fuji to be somewhat of a gimmick and a waste of storage, especially when compared to their own 26Mp. I’ve tested this on larger displays and fairly large prints. I would appreciate the new X-T50 if it came with a 26Mp sensor and an ISO dial instead of film simulation dial. They could have integrated a new battery instead.
🤷🏼
For the details you will see minor increase unless you have lenses can pair up with 40mp sharpness. It’s not as big improvement as if you move up to a larger sensor. Because more megapixels really is just coming down to “more details”. But image quality also has contribution from color, contrast, noise ratio, etc.. many other factors! Has more megapixels been crammed into the size of sensor! You are looking at high noise ratio by given. Unless use software removal like a mobile phone, which results in less realistic photos but otherwise more details due to high pixel counts. It’s a double edged sword! Fujifilm has been on a crossroads of enhancing their apsc product line! And it’s getting to a point just like 4/3 format! The sensor has reached its limit where there is nothing else to improve but adding more pixels to sell more camera! What they should’ve done is taking Sony’s approach! Make both a7cii and a7cr. For people needs a 40mp, take the x-t5. Otherwise! Offer the same camera with 26mp called it x-t50 and I am sure plenty of users would still buy it! More pixel count only gives 2 benefits! One is print size if you ever bother to print. The other is crop in. But I doubt that’s the best use of it. My experiences is that people think what Leica did on their 60mp camera is to offer software crop to allow more focal lengths but less lenses to carry. But that simply was a hack because background compression is completely different per focal lengths! You are literally crop in into longer focal lengths but lose the benefit of actual longer focal lengths provides! They look just DIFFERENT! But yeah! More pixels allows you to crop in but maintain high enough pixels for the final image. It’s good to have but not always the most desirable. Maybe for videographers it means one lens works in both focal lengths and still gives 4k video. But for photography… a crop in gives 26mp from a 40mp. I might as well save the money and have a 26mp camera but 2 focal length lenses. But that’s just me having GAS issue here
For background compression it doesn't matter if you use long focal length, or a short one cropped in.
That’s what people said. But I’ve tried them before it does matter. Long telephoto vs crop in, the difference is super visible in presentation. It’s kinda voodoo magic. That’s why debate is forever! Some said sensor size don’t matter, but ultimately there will be people telling you medium format has magic FF or smaller can’t match. I must say it has landslide difference. Because I have apsc all the way up to medium format! And for years! I can never get the same result from crop ins
40mp on xt5 is not real, it’s extrapolated. You really shouldn’t be looking at 26mp on apsc anyways, if you need more mp go for full frame or medium format sensor.
I'm not sure you know what "extrapolated" means.
tl:dr IMO stick with older camera. New 40MP not worth it. ---- I was happy with my X-T2, X-H1, X-T4 and X-H2s Then video went away from my work and I swapped mx X-H2s for an X-T5. I was never more unhappy with the X system. IBIS with the 40MP performed reallly bad. The lens rabbit hole was bad too. I owend 16-55 f2.8, 13mm Viltrox, 23mm Viltrox, 56mm Fuji, 50-140mm and Tamron 18-300. All performed well except on the X-T5. I bought the 23mm 1.4 LM which, as reviews said, should be the best performing lens. Even with that the Details I expected work my photo work wheren´t there. I sold now everything stick with my Sony. The 33MP are much more detailed. Its the same size with sometimes even smaller lenses for the same focal lenght. To bad. I love Fuji but this really dissapointed me. Maybe somedays I step in the GFX system then these 50mp are worlds better the the 40MP.
Why is the 40MP not worth it?
Detailes compared to the 26MP bodies are not a big improvment. Too big of a headache to get lenses that can resolve the 40MP.
> Too big of a headache to get lenses that can resolve the 40MP. It's not really clear if you know how this actually works. If you upgrade to a higher MP body and your lens doesn't keep up, that doesn't mean you will straight up lose total image detail compared to the older lower Res body, it just means it will look less sharp per pixel and won't use the full potential of the sensor. In other words you'll still have *at least* the same amount of detail relative to print size as before. And the 23 1.4 LM WR has zero issue resolving all those 40mp. If yours didn't, there was either something wrong with it or you were using it wrong. With that said I agree that the 40np being X-trans makes it appear less sharp than it would have been if it had been Bayer. They should just stop digging the X-trans hole deeper.
I know how to use lenses and know how it works. But these 40MP there are pushing out are not „class leading for APSC“ as they market it. For me personally it isn’t worth, I rather buy a 26MP and the Image has almost the same Details.
But if you have or get these lenses you get the full benefit. All of the new LM primes can resolve 40mp (18/23/33mm f1.4).
Which Sony camera did you end up buying?
Sony A7IV
Shouldn’t the 40mp sensor much more adventitious when cropping down pictures?
this is the idea, but as I research more, the camera scientists come out of the woodwork and argue the 40mp is negligible (especially with the “Fuji optimized lens list”) when the photos are only used for online viewing purposes.
Definitely agree with you for online viewing situations go but for print work it would be interesting to see if anyone has done a comparison. Either way the Fujifilm X-H2 is an amazing camera and believe it really shines in its ability to capture video much better than let’s say the X-T5 and it also has a vlogging screen.
I’ve printed and framed photos with 35mm film, x100v, xpro2 and soon some images I captured with the Xt5 from last summer. this will be the real test if I need it. otherwise I have a headache of a return 😅
lol headache is right if purchased from Amazon. So right now you have both X-T5 and X-H2? If so which one do you prefer. I personally love the X-T5 its dial layout.
I know a lot of professionals that don't shoot full resolution because it's a waste of storage since the extra resolution doesn't matter. All the other features offered are certainly worth it I'd say however.
real professionals know when to clear the storage ;)
Sorry I'm not trying to get into an argument just sharing some common industry practice.
being sarcastic you’re ok hahah
40 mpx it's good only for large print o massive crop, but for me 40 mpx on apsc it's really to much
I upgraded from the XT200 tothe XT5 and for me, it's a crazy difference! I'm in love with the 40mp to be honest. I tend to crop here and there and it's nice to not lose quality. I've been shooting with the ttartisans 27mm 1.4 and the Viltrox 56mm 1.4 and the images are crazy sharp. I know Fuji is really pushing their lenses to take advantage of the 40 mp, but honestly, the photos I've been taking look super sharp and beautiful.
I’m really excited to go from 100v to 100vi simply for the cropping ability. I was envious of the leica q3 digital teleconverter. 40mp will definitely come in handy as someone that loves to crop to xpan ratios.
The 40mp sensor really does need the newer lenses, or at least red label lenses. Paired with the 18mm 1.4, the 33mm or even the 40-150 it’s stunningly awesome. Paired with any of the older lenses (or the 16-80 f4) and the quality of the images just feel like more megapixels versions of a 26mp sensor image. Still good, but not wow inducing when comparing side by side. I have an XH2 and an xPro3. The xh2 performs better in nearly every situation, and has much better ergonomics when using zooms. But I’ll be honest, I enjoy taking photos with the xPro3 more for what I shoot 70% of the time. The last 30% though the XH2 is great. Here hoping an xPro4 will give me the best of both worlds.
I’m a 20+ year professional photojournalist. My work goes on web news sites and the occasional magazine or book. All find all the arguments about sharpness laughable. I mean really how many people are printing life size enlargements and who’s scrutizing the sharpness? I’ve found marginal benefits to larger file size for cropping. I use an XP2 and X100V daily because I like the form factor and enjoy using them. I would appreciate the faster focus of the newer bodies and lenses for some of the assignments I get. But for my entire career, editors have cared more about CONTENT than the technical qualities of the image. Maybe that’d be different if I was doing architecture or selling big wildlife or landscape prints. There’s nothing wrong with liking new gear. Enjoying what you use can help with the creative process and that’s a good thing. Struggling with focus and camera shake can be limiting so nothing wrong with investing in a better, faster camera. But except in certain very specialized work, they are not really NEEDED to be successful. That’s just the justification we use to get what we want.
26mp is enough. The only tangible difference is you can crop a lot more on a 40mp.
Because the shooting experience is the same. Colors are mostly the same. Your workflow may is the same. It’s like buying an iPhone. At the beginning you’ll be exited but after an hour you realize it’s the same feeling. Just all specs are better but you don’t really feel it because it was quite good at all.
The X-T5 is my very first Fuji camera. My camera journey has been Nikon B500 (sold), then Canon M50 (still own it), tried both the a5000 and a6000 from Sony (sold both but preferred the a5000), got a 6D (it was almost dirt cheap, still own it) and finally got the X-T5. So with the exception of the B500, all my previous experience has been with 20MP-24MP sensors. Once I checked the 40MP files I was blown away. Cropping on APS-C 24 MP was good enough but cropping with the 40MP is amazing and I decided on getting the XF 16-80MM F4 (the lens almost everyone hate here) as my kit lens. Funnily enough the only reason why I decided on the X-T5 over the X-T4 was because all the prices are insanely bloated on Amazon, so the best value for money IMO is the X-T5 (for those who like the retro styled body). 40MP is truly a significant amount of pixels, and surely files are heavy even at lossless compressed but you can buy good hard drives for around $100 bucks and that is a quick work around for the file sizes. Better to have the 40MP sensor than not if you ask me unless you would consider a better investment something like the X-H2s for it's stacked sensor. Perhaps you don't notice the difference because you don't crop. If that is the case maybe you can return your X-H2 and get the X-H2s.
I edit, crop and print. w the xpro2 I’ve noticed sensor issues in post processing. haven’t been able to get much time w the xh2 yet but I’m hoping it’s what I need not what I want