Very good comparison. I was glad when you commented on the XT-5 not being equal to the HS-2 for video. It brings home a point you didn't mention and that's what purpose and where in a brand's lineup each camera is intended to fill. The XT-5 wasn't designed to be a vlogging or really even a video camera, although it has a decent ability to handle the job. It's basically a still photographer's tool.
The dynamic range score I didn't agree with at all. The Fuji was visibly ahead when over-exposing, the Canon while under-exposing. Not sure why the Canon completely losing the car outside at +2 and +3 went uncommented, considering how much time was spent criticising the Fuji when underexposing. I would call that one a tie.
So true, Fuji files were usable still while the Canon ones were totally blown out. plus you can tell how much noise the Canon had all the time around the hair and dark areas trying to restore some shadows.. So much more work to do to fix the Canon files compared to the Fuji ones
Yeah that was absolutely mind blowing. Not sure how they could come to the conclusion of Fuji not keeping up when the fuji 40mp sensor clearly obliterated the even the R6 in their DR test with the a7iv involved too. So the lesser R7 somehow performed better than the R6 and beat Fuji? Lol
I agree with you, the fuji looks like if it hade better dynamic range. Canon sensors are known to have difficulties to deal with highlights, and we can see it in this test. that's why it's better to under expose sometime. I have a canon and i know that if i want more details in the highlights i need to underexpose a bit to don't loose details or in the menue i can put "priority highlights". Then i can have very good quality pictures. Fujifilm colours are better too, i love them, i think my next camera will be a fujifilm for those beautiful colours !!!
Thank you both for taking the time to do the comparison. I was using Canon DSLR (APC) cameras for a long time and was frustrated by Canon for many reasons so I’ve now tried the X-T5 and I’m blown away by the features, the quality and the tactile feel of the dials. I was contemplating a R7 or R8 but so far I have no regrets moving away from Canon. I should shortly receive my Fringer adapter so I can use my old Canon lenses. Thanks again.
I was surprised to see Canon get the win for the dynamic range test. The skin tones were far less useable on the Canon in the overexposed images. Youd have to do a lot more in post to try and get a useable image. And in the underexposed images it was extremely close.
Not to mention that uncontrolled, outdoor light was being used in the background for the comparison. What guarantee do we have that the lighting didn't change between shots? Very unscientific and makes it hard not to dismiss this part of the comparison out of hand. Also, how well the raw files recover lost highlights in post would have been good to know. I know Fuji's dynamic range settings allow the sensor to adjust iso & exposure for parts of the scene that are over-exposed but there's no mention of what settings were used here.
Great comparison, as always, but the Dynamic range test kind of bothers me. According to “Photons to Photos” the X-T5 should have slightly better dynamic range at very low ISO (roughly 100-200) and they're pretty much identical the rest of the ISO range. I'm 99% sure all the highlights on the car could've been completely recovered in post.
@@TheSlantedLens is the image you're showing an edited raw file or is that how it shows up straight after importing? It's hard to imagine that pulling the highlights down isn't bringing up more detail in this situation.
Agree the car is deceiving why didn’t he look at the bottom of the window frame at +2? It’s clear as day the Fuji had plenty detail were the Canon was completely blown out! Weird
Thank you for this test and all your work. My input is just about the famous articulated screen, and many reviewers go the same way: "an articulated screen is always a plus". Apart for vlogging stuff, how and why is it better? Even for video a tilt screen (in this case vertically and horizontally) is perfect, and obviously far better for photo works for reasons many time discussed. Among photographers AND videographers how many are vloggers? 1-2% ? The influence of RU-vid reviewers (who are vloggers...) is such that they have change the customers expectations on this particular matter, and it is really sad.
It is better when you want to shoot unique camera angles like inside a box, oven or frig, or in the corner of a room. It definitely comes in handy for both stills and video!
As someone who shoots a lot of macro, an articulating screen is a must have. If I had a camera with just a tilting screen it would have to tilt vertically and horizontally.
Great video, thanks! I have a question though. If you wanted one for birding and wildlife, would you go for the Canon with the RF 100-500 or the Fuji with the 150-600? Thanks!
I love the manual dials, and upgraded from the X-T4 to the X-T5 one thing because of the screen. With the X-T4, it usually got in the way when I go very low or very high. Photography is my main love, and the X-T5 intends to serve that way. I love Fujifilm as a good system, not as a single camera. The lenses are mostly compact and with good quality - great price/performance. Most of the time it gives me good enough AF performance for my works (We don't always need Ferrari's fast, do we?)
Thanks for sharing but I’m not really seeing what your seeing with dynamic range, go back and have a look at the bottom of the window frame at +2, the Fuji has heaps more detail were the Canon is blown out, the skin tones on the Fuji hold up a lot better to me.
I struggled between these two. It really came down to the R7's better autofocus vs. the X-T5's better lens selection. There are a few full-frame Canon RF lenses that are a good choice on a APSC body, but just not enough. I went with the Fuji.
@@jaymills1720 You should download the new firmware update. It's a substantial autofocus improvement. I'd still give the Canon R7 the edge, but it's much closer now.
Love my XT5 but... not all the lens work as well on it, some of the older lens just don't go as well, for the zoom lens, only the 16-55 works well, the 16-80 is rather disappointing now. I am sure the R7 can use all the full frame lens.
In my opinion it is wrong to compare the T5 with the R7. It was better to make the comparison with the H2. The T5 is dedicated to photographers and everything related to video is not to be compared with anything, it was not made for that.
@@karlgunterwunsch1950 I don't have a fuji camera but im interestedto buy one. However, im curious if the so called iso advantages of the system is legit considering that it is darker compared to canon's from what i have read. Do you have experience with the fujis?
@@jrc1156 Nope, wouldn't touch the mess that x-trans sensor CFA is. It prevents the use of a AA filter and because of the larger distance of red and blue pixels is more prone to moiree which you can neither remove nor (because of that technological blunder) prevent... x-trans is a total BS technology that should never have happened - and Fuji themselves don't fully believe in it because their best cameras avoid to use that mess and come with a traditional Bayer color filter array.
Canon has always been my choice. Much better color profile, Fuji seems to intensify greens way too much. Canon wins hands down in my book for wildlife photography. 👍
I find it unfair to give the screen point to Canon. On the X-T4 there was a vlogging style screen, but people didn't like it on the photography-oriented X-T line, and so Fuji obliged and put it back. You may like the vlogging style screen, but Fuji's X-T customers don't. The X-H series is their video line, and there they have the vlogging screen.
The flippy screen on the canon is really annoying when doing photography but I get it if you’re a videographer. I much prefer the xt5 screen for photography
Crop factor isnt always a negative that needs to seen as detrimental, aka "1.5 is bad enough".... OK, well... for wildlife, a crop factor is a GIGANTIC difference, and even more with a Micro 4/3 camera.... the reach of those cameras is way better without having to spend even more money on longer lenses and then also having to deal with the extra WEIGHT of those lenses. Try doing whale photography with a 100-400mm lens on a crop body vs. a 150-600m lens (that weighs and costs double) on a full frame that also weighs and costs more. You're not going to get as close as you'd want and boats are NOT ALLOWED to get close to some whales like Orcas...you're basically going to need as much reach as you can get. You'd almost have to be stupid to go full frame for wildlife photography.
Over the years I've had more dependable operation from Canon cameras than Fujifilm cameras, otherwise I'd prefer the XT-5. Your lighting for the talking head segments is very nice.
We’re not seeing what this fellow is seeing looks like Fuji auto focus is doing really well. I think this guy just don’t know how to really set the camera up.. you don’t watch it. This fellow is kind of bias. Canon fanboy…. !!!
Looks like Fuji sponsored video! Auto-focus is the most sought-after feature for a camera, IBIS is the second. Canon has full R series super fine lens. 1.6 crop factor is better than 1.5. This means more reach. This man is dishonest to the core. No one needs 5 mp viewfinders. High MP means poor low light performance 30 mp for crop sensor is itself quite high.
The ergonomics on the Fuji is horrible, wouldn't want to touch one if my life depended on it. What an idiotic metric that makes "contrast detect" a plus. It's a big minus if the camera needs to resort to that back water type of focusing. Why didn't the reviewer notice that the Fuji images in the noise test were almost a stop underexposed compared to the Canon.
@@TheSlantedLens So you are comparing apples to oranges, the Fuji were found to be shooting about 2/3rd of a stop lower ISO than indicated. So any noise performance comparisons you may have made were made on the wrong premise that the Fuji were adhering to the same sensor gain levels, they are not correct. So compare ISO ISO 5000 on the Fuji with ISO 3200 on the Canon - what is then going to happen? The Fuji is going to look significantly worse across the whole range. Also your dynamic range tests are screwed up by this incorrect ISO interpretation.
