I'm seeing this error over and over. If you want to check for sharpness differences you need to scale the picture to be exactly the same size. Not 100% on both because that doesn't tell you much. Think of it as if you were to print the photos on 2 papers of the same size, the subject should be the same size on both. So stop looking at 100%, zoom in on the face, make the face appear same size for both pictures and there you should see if a Cannon or Sony file upscaled to 40 MP has the same level of details or you can downscale the Fuji to the 100% of canon or sony. What you are doing now is like comparing a photo printed on A4 paper vs A3 paper and telling that A4 is a lot sharper ...
This whole comparison is totally flawed. Yes, you need to scale to the same image size to compare the resolution and noise. You need to use the same image processing. You need to use equivalent settings as well. Would anybody compare Canon with 85/2 lens and with 85/1.2 lens wide open? Of course not, but this is what essentially happening here.
Compression too. Quote from video "... between the different focal lenghts. That's gonna give you the difference compression and background blur." No. "Compression" is a result of perspective, which is only determined by where you take the picture from. If you take a picture with a wider angle lens from the same spot and crop to the same field of view, you will see the exact same compression. As for background blur, it comes from the aperture diameter and the relative distances between the camera, the focus point and the background. Let's assume the distances are the same for each photo: 85mm f/1.4 lens has an aperture diameter of 85mm/1.2 = *71mm*, while a 56mm f/1.2 lens has an aperture diameter of 56mm/1.2 = *47mm*. That is where the difference in background blur comes from. That physically larger aperture is also what gathers more total light, resulting in less noise. It's easy in both FF and APS-C systems to find 85mm lenses with aperture diameters around 40-50mm (f/1.8 on FF), and they will perform the same. If you want bigger than that, you won't find it in an APS-C system and FF is your choice. Personally I don't need such massive apertures very often, so for me it's not worth the higher price and losing access to the compact Fujinon f/2 series which I don't see any equivalents to in FF systems.
Without indicating the camera, most of us would guess incorrectly, that’s how good these cameras are these days. Pixel peepers will argue otherwise lol. Personally, Sony files win ( biased of course) haha
Exactly. Pixel peeping and comparing tends to be pointless now a days because most all cameras are amazing. It comes down to the photographer and if they're taking great shots. All the systems work well as long as you know their quirks and how to work with them efficiently.
Awesome video. This is a HUGE reason why I stick with Fujifilm even for Wedding Photography (which many people act like isn't possible with crop sensor). But with that price difference and the great image quality, I don't care if someone says it's not the "best" I'm trying to run my business efficiently by not spending too much money up front. Fujifilm is able to make amazing images and I've always been a fan. Great comparison. Thanks for sharing.
It really comes down to one's definition of quality which can be very subjective. Some 'photographers' would prefer to scrutinise images under a microscope. Some wants to sit on their couch and chat about specs till the end of the world. There are others though who still prefee to shoot and deliver! I have been using full frame for many years then added m43 a decade ago then Fujifilm for the last five years. No matter how some would defend their system and say that sensor size is not important, i would still pull out the bigger sensor if want to deliver the best image and print. That said, fuji has come a long way however i personally think that their apsc ecosystem don't need to compete in megapixel war. I believe 26mp or 30 is a sweet spot for apsc. I'd rather see them improve the af system even more. In terms.of focus accuracy, i still would not trust their eye af even in the newer xt5 and xh2 hence the reason why i still shooy canon for weddings and sports. I always wanted to move out of canon ecosystem over to fuji for my commercial work due weight savings and cost but recent canon has better af system and high iso performance. Good thing is Fuji, i am sure will continue to imrpove their af system. I enjoy using their system though for less critical work.
Ian Worth and myself have run tests with the 40mp Fuji sensor vs the canon R5 and Nikon Z7II. The key is to use DXO raw processing for the Fuji files. The results were it's hard for anyone to tell the difference in meter wide prints. The XTrans sensor really needs a proper processing software. Pure raw 3 makes a DNG file if you want to use Lightroom. Ian's video is brilliant and well worth a watch. 👍👍
Thanks for the great video. One idea to consider - when comparing images at 100%, it might be more fair of a comparison if you zoomed in to match the area size, and not the pixel count. Higher megapixel sensors will show more noise at 100% zoomed-in when all else is equal, e.g. Canon R5 will almost always look worse than R6 when both are zoomed to 100%. But in reality R5 images downsized to match R6's resolution will always outperform in terms of noise and sharpness. So for this video, it would make sense to zoom everything in to match either Fuji's 40mp or zoom out everything to match Canon's R6 20mp. Cheers.
I've been watching quite a few XH-2 comparison videos and all the "photographers" don't even take advantage of the extra megapixels to compare. You can simply downsize the 40mp picture to the 24mp picture size and compare them at 100%, the 40mp photo will look clearer and sharper. Although the difference is quite little, it is still quite obvious. That is the advantage of a higher MP camera. Or you can set the zoom level of the image software to match the corresponding increase in megapixels. i.e. if I am comparing with a 24mp photo, I set the zoom of the 40mp picture to 77.6%. You can see a slight difference.
Thanks for putting together this comparison. Just want to point out a couple things: 1. Lightroom is absolutely terrible at handling Fuji RAW files. You would get quite different results in Capture One. 2. A higher resolution image will generally look less sharp when viewed at 100% compared to a lower resolution image at 100%. A better comparison would be to have the subject's face equal size in the frame.
Correct. I would say that that canon raw files are genuine better but you need to get your ass hours on lightroom. With fuji you could shoot very valuable jpegs without editing wich gives a more "natural" look to the photos. So somebody that do street photography or who like to play with colors and shadows may find canon lacks a lot. What's the point of pixel peeping if you only post online where aps-c suffers less ? But maybe you want to make big prints in wich case a full frame is the obvius choice.. Theses videos don't make much sense to me, cuz it's really very subjective what's better.
@@Mage_Noir except I have personally printed Fuji files as large as 24x36 and they look no different than full frame photos using the same subject and composition. Even printing bigger viewed at the correct difference, I'm willing to bet nobody could tell the difference. Pixel peeping is the only place FF has an advantage anymore, aside from the 1 stop better light gathering and depth of field. If spending triple the money is what makes you happy, then go for it. But I don't see the point in buying FF anymore.
@@JET-Photo missing focus is a big flaw in Fuji, not the shooter. That's literally its biggest flaw. Its autofocus is terrible in comparison with flagship full frame cameras
Sorry, but this Video is full of flaws and a lack of understanding as to how sensor size and pixel quantity influence noise. That the Canon has the least noise is to be expected since it has far less pixels. The Sony actually has worse noise it taken in relation sensor size and pixel count than the Fuji in my opinion, but this is in RAW, and in RAW one should not actually compare noise, because RAW is not a printable format. At minute 15:15 you are comparing Fuji RAW ISO 6400 with a Sony RAW ISO 1600 and saying how much better the noise on the Sony is. I'm sure that is just a mistake on your part, but you should have noticed it and reworked your video. Comparing at 100% is also wrong, because of the different mpx count. You should always think about how they would look when printed the same size, because that is where you need to compare. It is like comparing 35mm Film with 120 Film. If I print 35mm with less than DIN A4 it will look good, if I print it as large as I can print 120 it will look horrible. For noise it would be better to compare SOOC JPG Files, because then you will actually see the quality of in Camera Noise Reduction while maintaining detail, or not. I know your intentions were good, but it is simply not a professional comparison. So, please do try again and do better, because the idea of comparing is valid, you just need to validate your method.
Fuji doesn't underexpose or cheat ISO. But a 1600ISO on Fuji will be darker than 1600ISO of sony/canon. Why? Because they use different ISO standards. REI vs SOS. Canon, Sony and Nikon uses REI ISO standard Fujifilm, Pentax and Olympus use SOS standard Difference between the two generally between 1/3 to 2/3 stops.
Probably the X2Hs would be a more fair contender in the ISO department here. Still, just look at the huge amount of detail that XT-5 captures in that metal letter, a decently exposed shot, unless one's a serious pixel peeper or wants to print billboard size, should be perfectly OK for most people. Can't deny though that the FF sensor gets easily the upper hand here. Great video!
I own the Nikon Z8 and Z9 as well as the Fuji XT-5 and the X-H2s cameras. My Fuji XT-5 produces stunning images at iso 1600 and below with its massive 40 megapixel sensor ( the full frame equivalent of 90 megapixels). My Fuji X-H2s has a similar pixel density to my Z8 and Z9, which gets pretty noisy at iso 4000 and above. This requires significant noise reduction in post. My next camera for lowlight photography will be the upcoming Nikon Z6III with its 24-33 megapixel full frame sensor, which should be pretty clean up to iso 6400 to 10,000.
Awesome comparison. I like the the fuji colors more. You don't always need that extremely shallow dof. I use the x-t3 with the sigma 56mm f1.4 and it can create amazing portraits. I think one of the only areas where full frame still wins is with high iso noise... But i prefer the smaller and lighter footprint of the Fuji system, and the price is a bonus 👌
I’ve been shooting Fuji cameras for about 5 years in live music scenarios mostly shooting at 6400ISO… I’ll happily push 1.5 - 2 stops… if noise does get too bad Topaz Noise does a great job…. Most of my images end up on social media so no one can tell it was shot using an APS-C sensor
I have both a7iv and x-t5 and my a7iv produce much more noise you know why ? Because the noise is a colored noise and it's really hard to get ride of it. The x-t5 don't have color noise it's look like grains added to the picture
Thank you for the comparison. 👌 I think Canon and Sony files are better interpreted by Lightroom than the Fuji files. Did you also save the jpg files from the Fuji? Would be interesting to compare these with Canon and Sony, in terms of sharpness…
Hey Alex. Great vid overall, but I think there are some technical miscues that I'm sure other commenters have pointed too, like pixel size in relation to sensor size, etc. But at the end of the day, you can only test what you have on hand and so I don't and can't blame you for that. However I do think you gloss over one important factor in your stress tests (ISO and DR) and that's noise quality. Now it's all subjective in the end, but I find that the noise quality on Fujifilm cameras to be really pleasing. Often you'll hear the word "filmic" as a descriptor which I think works, but more specifically, noise is 1> less uniform and 2> more luminance shift than color shift. Even if you don't prefer the noise out of the Fujifilm, you have to admit that it's different from the noise quality produced on it's competitors.
Given its smaller sensor, and its 40mp resolution, the noise was expected. That said, I still consider the noise usable up til iso 12,000 when considering the entire image. Also, if you look at the iso comparispns at 1600, you see the XT5 outputting some incredible details.
I think there will always be two schools. Pixel peepers, landscape lovers, or photographs that like to make money, and actually masters of editing cause that sharpness often comes without tasty colors. Creative people who like to think they're special, don't like to edit photos "cheating", monochrome lovers and obviously shadows masters cause it hides the lack of sharpness.
The two photos at 4:50 have the identical amount of compression. You don't get more compression in the 85mm than you do in the 56mm. Compression is not background blur.
While the high ISO comparison isn't much of a surprise given sensor size, it was clear in the high ISO shots that the x-t5 was resolving alot more detail in the letter itself. The X-T5 was noisier for sure but the quality of the noise remains more "film like". I would have no problem with those files, it would literally take seconds to clean up in post if you felt the need to clean them up at all, I personally wouldn't do much to the Fuji files.
exactly what i thought... i got the X-T30, and i happily use ISO 6400 images with slight noise reduction and still looks awesome. Printed its even less of an issue.
I own both Fuji and canon eco system and I love both. I personally don't think the Fuji APS-C needs to compete in the megapixel race. I'd say a 30mp sensor would be the sweet spot for APS-C. I understand that a lot of Fuji users would like to embrace the so called 'Film-like' noise but I'd still prefer to shoot with the latest canon Full Frame for serious shoot like weddings as I could comfortably shoot at ISO 8000 or even higher without having to worry about cleaning my images. With Fuji it's different - the noise bothers me at that level of ISO. Problem with Canon these days is they are closing their doors to 3rd party lens manufacturer and the fact that Fuji is allowing Sigma/tamron to build some alternative lenses is a big plus for many!
@@amateurphotographer1096i wouldn't say that cause tamron and sigma lense do not shine much on xf system. But at least it offers cheaper options. The real problem with fuji is that it's really personal artistic vibe and less professional for the casual people. I mean, people who don't care about art they want crispy photos, and that's the people who would pay you for it soo... But artists or more selfish people may enjoy what fuji has to offer in terms of creativity, ergonomics.
I always love the rendering of Fuji...Sony can produce a more detail and light of course...This new 56mm 1.2 looks magical more interesting than FF 85...Fuji for me is always a winner when compare JPEG colours...
Very interesting video. Don't forget, though, that Fuji measures its ISO differently than the others, using a more absolute scale while the others use their own relative scales. This means that comparing ISO 1600 on Fuji vs other cameras isn't really comparing like for like as the other manufacturers are probably calling something 1600 that would get a different number on the Fuji system.
Thank you for the hard work on the video and also confirming I made the right choice for me. I guess I need to eat more Wheaties and my pocket will keep suffering 😆😆😆
Thanks for this. I appreciate this well controlled, real world, side by side test and really appreciate you including the files for download to compare in my own workflow (Capture One). In Capture One I saw some differences that seemed to narrow the gap between all the systems. This said, the Canon files seem to look the best in all cases. I'm mainly a Fuji shooter who was a Nikon guy in the past would have been interesting to compare the Nikon Z6II/Z7II with these others. I am currently considering finally letting go of my Nikon D610 in favour of the X-T5. For me the cost of the Nikon equipment compared to the Fuji equivalents and the ease of use of the Fujis compared to the Nikons make a very compelling argument.
If considerer that at any given f-stop the Fuji has a stop more depth of field (f5.6 on Fuji is equivalent to f8 on full frame), you’re not really losing much iso because full frame has to stop down. F5.6 on Fuji at the same shutter speed as full frame would be shot at 1600 iso vs 3200 for full frame at f8.
I don't think the is a completely fair approach. The fuji 56 1.2 is more like an f1.8 in terms of DOF equivalence, and it isn't weather sealed. So you could have easily done the canon R6II paired with the RF 85 f2 macro. That would make the canon kit just 100 grams heavier, and the price would be way down by 2k. This would out perform the fuji still (I think, but comparable in terms of weight and lot closer in price). Similarly the batis 85 f1.8 or the FE f1.8 could have been used on the Sony with cost and weight savings. And I still think it would have out performed the fuji. With the slightly narrower apertures than the 56 f1.2 the gap would have been smaller of course, but still more affordable for regular users.
Good video thank you. A few points. - recovery of shadows is not dynamic range. The way you measured that was incorrect and should be done with a properly exposed photo. - I had to laugh a bit (not in a mean way) at 1600 iso max on the Fuji. What did you used to do with things like the 5d2, exposure stack everything ? The Sony, I can say from experience, is good for a decent size print to the highest available iso. Up to and including 12800 it requires very little noise reduction. So I get it for video I suppose but photography expand your horizons mate!
The results here aren't surprising to me. One of the things to consider is the pixel density. Dustin Abbott has pointed this out on several reviews with Fuji 40MP sensors. If you compare the sensor of the A7R4 to the X-T5, the relative pixel density to sensor size on the Fuji is about 91MP vs the 61MP on the A7R4. Fuji may have pushed the pixel wars a bit too far. Trying to cram that much resolution into a crop sensor leaves things looking muddy when pixel peeping vs the 26mp fuji sensors. Another factor is Lightroom's default handling of X-Trans files. The default sharpening and luminance noise settings do Fuji RAWs dirty compared to Sony/Canon/Nikon. If you were to tweak the settings, or run all the files through Lightroom's Denoise protocol at base settings the Fuji files would improve dramatically in comparison to the Canon and Sony.
I believe the problem with the Fuji is that it missed focus and not that it's not sharp enough. I have the same problem with my X-T5 specially when using eye AF. The camera confirms that it has focus but when looking at the file it has totally missed focus. I get better reults using single point focus for sharper images. I know Fuji released a new firmware for the X-H2S that fixes alot of thise focus problems and hopefully the firmware will be availble for the X-T5 in the near future.
Great video. I haven't read a lot of comments yet but has anyone noticed, or mentioned Fuji had better color in most cases. The Canon tends to consistently look on the blue or cool side. Same with Sony, in some instances.
i saw this review and thought oh man... but i was a x-h2 user and now i have the a7r4 and when i look into the pictures i can't agree with this review... the fault is that for such a review a higher mp fullframe camera has to be taken... 40mp on a aps-c camera is like having about 80-90mp on a fullframe body but this amount of pixels isn't available so it should be an a7r4 which is more comparable to the x-trans 5 HR sensor that is used for such a comparison :)
Don't use Lightroom with Fuji RAW files, if you use Capture One I suspect the X-T5 images would not have displayed the defects you emphasise in this video - both noise and sharpness.
I don't think it has much sense comparing a full frame low resolution sensor to an ultra high resolution smaller sensor. At least the sensors resolution should be in the same order. I think you should have done this with the Canon R5 instead
My answer is no. Most likely the sensor in the Fuji is a Sony made sensor. Regardless, yes, in good light, it might be a little harder to tell But in lower light, the Fuji just cannot compete Also, the auto focus continues. Focus in the Footsy just isn’t keeping up and there’s no mats for that of the Sony and the canon. Not saying that the Fuji is not a good camera But simply that full frame sensors from Sony and Canon are better In 2024 We can include Nikon on as well as Nicon gets it sensors from Sony If we are to look at sensors, made the same year or close we know that a full frame sensor will always beat one inch sensors micro 4/3 sensors and Apsc sensors We also know that when you cram a lot of pixels into a small sensor, the result will be smaller, pixels less light, so more grain Yes, there is always improvement in sensors every so many years so far since the 33 mega pixel sensor in the Sony a74 is almost as good in low light as the 24 megapixel sensor But we also know that the 42 megapixel Sony sensor has more grain than the 33 megapixel sensor So sensor size does matter So for those who are mostly taking pictures during the day and good Llght the Fuji XT five its OK So no, the XT five cannot compete against the Sony a 74 and the canon RS 62 But more important to me is the fact that the fuji auto focus is not nearly as good as instead of Canon and Sony
I'm surprised that the new Fuji 56mm f/1.2 is as sharp as it is! I have a copy of the old 56mm f/1.2 and it is not nearly as sharp as other Fuji lenses because it is a portrait lens and a lot of people find that ultra sharp lenses aren't flattering given skin and such... I agree that ISO 1600 is probably a good max for XT-5... unless you are going for some artistic Fuji noise grain. In rare situations, it looks great.
Sharpness with different lenses it's like trying to compare a Ferrari v8 vs v12 and see which one has the higher displacement. Each lens has their own sharpness.
Most of the comments about test methodology make absolute sense. I’ve had my X-T5 for less than a week and as yet haven’t fitted my 56R to it. What has become evident is that not all lenses on the recommended list have the same resolving power, as a portrait lens the 56mm was not designed to be razor sharp, it has other qualities, bokeh amount and quality is a very subjective subject, how much is enough especially in environmental portraiture? The 50 - 140mm is great but the star performer has to be the 90mm f2, the sharpness and detail is incredible. The Viltrox 75mm f1.2 is a close second. My testing has been against my X-T4 not a FF camera but every lens so far produces sharper results. The most noticeable improvement is with the 80mm Macro with the 1.4 TC. Does the X-T5 compete with FF cameras? Of course it does but it isn’t the same, just different and can produce results better than a FF camera in some situations and not as good in others. (And is a smaller, lighter and less expensive system - bang for your buck!)
I don't know if my eyes are wrong but at 7:19 , I downloaded the 2 images and compared them. Fuji does look sharper than sony. Check out the teeth area. I zoom both the pictures exactly.
I have both the xt5 and the R6mkii and can verify that the xt5 is fantastic if you 1) don’t shoot RAW and just want great jpgs in Lightroom, 2) don’t mind the autofocus being 90% as accurate as Sony/Canon, 3) don’t need it to be a hybrid video camera like the Sony/Canon, 4) don’t mind mediocre low light performance, and 5) don’t mind all of the manual controls that make you take your hands off the lens to adjust (unless you reassign buttons). The Canon is a more pointed at pros that want a hybrid and it shows. Having said that, the xt5 form factor and price to features ratio are stellar. I just hate that it misses focus more, even with the new 2.0 firmware.
Thanks for video. I'm a Fuji user and the I can confirm Fujifilm lack sharpness, not matter how hard you try. That's one of their big flaws still present in their newest cameras.
Without the captions I don't think I would be able to tell the difference between crop and full frame. I'm no expert but from what I noticed Canon is sharper zoomed in, Sony has better dynamic range and Fuji just has better colors. Good stuff my dude!
Your photos are more arty with the XT5 & 56mm (85eq) f1.2. and Fuji RAWs are far much better with Capture One… and with the 50mm (75eq) f1.0, still the cheapest kit…
Subject, XT5 held its own, background blur and compression, the Sony stood out to me. Now, I do have the Sony 85 and I am familiar with it's performance.
Great video BUT you should have converted the Fuji files with Iridient/DxO/other BEFORE the comparison. All the fuji photographers know that the X-Trans sensors need a "special treatment" 🙂 Unfortunately Lightroom is not the answer in this case
@@memcrew1 And as I commented in a different section, the test should have also been done with the lenses set to f4, minimum. Nearly all lenses perform much better after being stopped down. The goal is to eliminate the issue of lenses from the equation so that we could focus on the camera body's. I thought this video was about comparing camera body's, and not about lenses.
@Alex Berrera I wouldn't want you to have to buy a version of Capture One that works with all cameras, but Capture One works much, much better pixel-peeping with Fujifilm's X-Trans sensor and Lightroom performs better with the Bayer sensors that Sony and Canon are using. Zooming in on Lightroom is not fair to Fuji, but its better than it used to be. It used to create these odd worm artifacts!
Coming from someone who knows nothing at all about photography, the R6ii, was objectively the most clear light and looked most professional. Others were not bad. Fuji seemed to be the darkest/coolest vintagy look. Sony was bland to me.
I must have crap eyes .. really not seeing those sharpness differences :D:D:D if you have the same budget as the canon ... lets see the comparison against the 100S Medium format ;)
back in the day I worked with digital backs from sinar around 2005. The way they made the large sensors was by putting two full frame sensors next to each other. Logically the same kind of sensor yielded the same result. The other being being larger is not going to make it perform differently just because it's large. An other thing is that a small megapixle file in many situations looks sharper than a high mp file. If you down scale them to the same size, things change.. But large megapixle files often needs some sharpening added in post since they often tend to have an high amount of details yet feel soft. what I like with medium format is generally the huge amount of details that have a softness in a way where they are less sticky to the eye, this effekt makes. skin looks really good! We also have to consider the different lenses, much of what you see is the character if the lens, a test between different cameras should preferebly be done with the same lens if the purpose is to compare the cameras. Been working professionally with canon, Sony and Fuji I most often prefer Fuji because of the color output that makes my post work more effective. Canon have nice colors as well, Sony have foot tech but I struggle more often with Sony files than other files. Great video! Surprisingly the x-trans 5 sensor have a simular vibe to medium format. Fuji also use a different iso standard than Sony and Canon making the file slightly darker at same value. www.fujirumors.com/dont-worry-why-fujifilm-x-h2-with-iso-125-cant-be-compared-with-iso-125-on-sony-canon-and-nikon/
Haze on the Rf 85mm f1.2L? I own both lens and I don’t think the Fuji is anywhere close to its quality. Also the color on the canon looks very wrong here. Never took your videos to be so biased before, but this looks way off from my own experience. I love the 56mm but If you’ve ever used the rf85 1.2, it’s a near perfect lens compared to every other brand. no aberrations, sharp as a tack and there’s no haze at all. The only reason it will show haze is from your editing or induced haze. The 56mm doesn’t even come close to its image quality. Completely misleading comparison.
I included raw files for you to play with. Can’t be be biased when those are the facts. The RF 85 is close to perfect but does introduce haze and flare when the sun hits it directly. The Fuji and the Sigma did not. Can’t argue with the files
The sad part about this test is that you shot everything at the maximum aperture of the lenses... i think you should at least shot f2.8 or f4 too so you can minimize the lens aspect of the test... if the fuji 50mm is less sharper at 1.2 it may not represent the xt5 full potential in detail representation
@@ABarrera But that doesn't make sense if you're trying to give the viewers accurate information about a system. If you're going to speak on a camera body's ability to resolve detail, then it would only make sense to TRY and eliminate the lens differences. A different lens, or even a lens that may come out in a year or two, might more accurately show what the X-T5/X-H2 can resolve in the resolution department. CLEARLY the lens is handicapping the sharpness test. f4 would have been good SPECIFICALLY for the sharpness test, since this video is not about lens quality. It is about the camera body. And that Canon lens CLEARLY costs more than the Fuji lens for a reason. It would be great to see someone actually adapt the Canon lens to the Sony, AND the Fujifilm body. Not sure if it has been done as of yet, and I am not sure if it would even resolve the lens issue, but it is worth looking into. That is actually the BEST way to remove the lens issue from the equation. That way all 3 bodys are on equal playing field with the best lens available on the market, and we could focus on what the sensors are doing. Maybe this isn't your type of work, though.
Yet many photographers shoot wide open, its a perfectly valid test based on a real world use case and scenario - someone cross shopping these 3 systems. This is the kind of information they would want to know.
@@joe2snj But if you’re doing a test to see if the body sensor can truly resolve 40mp then you don’t make that particular test all about a certain persons preference to shoot wide open. You specifically make sure to do everything within your power to eliminate the lens factor. You’re making the mistake of making this test about a persons preferences on how they shoot rather than about how good a cameras sensor is. If the glass is truly the weakness, then I should walk way with that understanding. Then maybe I can look forward to finding other glass that can give me the full clean image results I wanted in the first place. Am I making sense?
@@JonathanAcinity The title of the video is can the XT5 keep up with full frame. Alex shoots portraits and he has used each system’s best 85mm or equivalent lens. That is certainly a valid test case. As for which x mount lens can best resolve 40mp that is another perfectly valid test but under that scenario why test non Fuji cameras? The video is a direct comparison to FF. The need/desire for someone to shoot wide open at a particular focal length/fov and compare results across systems then the lens has to become a factor. You could buy a lens that can be adapted across all 3 and do the test but then you have to account for the potential differences in sensor stack thickness.
used a fujifilm setup for weddings for 3 years and it does seem that fuji "cheats" on ISO values to make it look like they could complete FF with ISO noise. In reality, the Fuji images are darker for the exact same settings when compared side by side with fullframe.
It’s going to be harder for a lens to resolve 40MP APSC sensor due to the smaller individual pixels. Considering this, the XF 56mm is performing really well.
One ‘secret’ for the higher MP Fuji is to play with detail slider & add more NR than you may normally. Detail from that sensor may be able to ‘overpower’ the NR to the extent that it comes out better than expected. I’ve shot Fuji for a long time. Recently switched from A7IV to the Canon R6ii…& the Canon is a low-light-high ISO beast. All 3 are amazing and can be used to make $. I will say in the early backlit comparisons it’s hard to truly know the difference as being off just a tad on that strong backlight can seriously impact the image.. but I get that it’s a ‘real world’ .. not clinical comparison. Thank you for making and sharing.
hey, why did you change A7IV to R6 ii if it's not a secret? I'm on r6 now and thinking to switch to a7 IV. I'm tired to use adapted heavy dslr lenses and not ready to pay a crazy amount of money for top canon rd optics. I was at sony system with a7 II and the biggest advantage here is the lenses market. Tamron, Sigma and even Sony 1.8 lenses, which are way better Canon's 1.8 rf plastic shit :/
@@lsagidullin the ‘secret’ I’m referring to .. not really a secret is to that higher MP new sensors often hold up well to NR.. so you don’t ‘lose’ (loss being tons of noise) when going higher MP. I personally think the A7IV at 33MP is my ceiling. The A7IV & X-H2S are my 2 favorite bodies but I went back to X-H2S for colors and overall Fuji preference. The R6ii is an absolute beast.. AMAZING high ISO noise performance & AMAZING AF.. but lenses bigger & heavier than I want to deal with. I can now fit an X-H2S/33 1.4, X-Pro2/27mm & 14mm in a Peak 6L sling and I’m happy.
FYI. Even if a full frame sensor has less mp than the highest mp apse body it will still produce more detailed images due to pixel pitch and size, there's simply more info in larger pixels than the tiny ones on apsc.
The separation between the subject and background on the canon really jumped out at me as being more stunning on the later photos. I say this as an owner of the x-t5.
Having played around with the RAW files, my mind is blown at how great the R6ii is, suppose alot of that could be down to the lens but I found the Canon colours were far better to work with than the Sony. I'm invested in both Canon and Fuji gear and I'm trying to decide if I should go all in with an upgrade to the R6ii or X-T5. The X-T5 is also so impressive compared to the files from my old X-T2. Tough decisions ahead
Whoa dudes! I understand this dilemma. I have most of the Fujifilm lenses, an XT3 and my faithful old XT1. I'm attending photography college and just returned my yearly Canon body rental. This year was a 6D, but in September I'll be getting an R6ii to shoot with for 8 months. My professors repeat the praises of full frame, while also mentioning film simulations. They're all craving a GFX 100. I'll probably get an XH2s if this new to me big city can provide client work over the summer. I'll have to weigh things out and shoot the R6ii long and hard in many situations. It would be hard to part with my 90mm and 50-140mm. I'm highly tempted by the newer primes on the wide end. I did sell my old versions when new ones were announced. They sold easy....
Hm to me the fuji pics look best and i cant stand the totally blured out look the full frame cameras have. Nothing is more overrated than bokee. I also dont understand why anyone would ever over or underexpose a picture 3 stops. So the dynamic range comparison is worthless for real life use
you talk NONSENSE!!!! so go and shoot with phone if bokeh is overrated!! Bokeh is NATURAL we see thsi way with our eyes, when focus the same goes to high dynamic range..maybe it's also overated?:DDD
as a fuji owner im not very pleased! Fuji should make full frames! at least one model for photography and one for video. it loses in bokeh, detail, high iso and basically everything else. Except read-out time since the sensor is smaller :(
As an opportunistic photographer, I like to carry my camera around "to be ready". Therefore I prioritize weight, and I don't care about FullFrame cameras, regardless of whether they are better or not.
