Fujifilm X-H2 vs Canon R6 vs Sony a7 IV Hands On Comparison 

Thanks for the test! Here’s my 2 cents as a experienced Fujifilm X user. You need to work with the camera, lens and settings to get the most out of it. In case of the XF 33mm f/1.4 I only get (very) sharp results in the smallest single point AF placed manually on the iris. Sadly I’ve given up on eye af on this lens, it’s just not working as it should like you’ve experienced here. If you get the chance to test sharpness and resolution again, either focus manually or use single point af (smallest point) right on the iris and compare again. If not, be advised this is more an eye AF performance test than a sharpness and resolution test IMO.” As a side note, eye af works better (in my experience) on other lenses like the XF 90mm f/2, XF 23mm f/1.4 LM and even the older and slower xf 56mm f/1.2.

Excellent review. You went straight to subject, not bull****. We need more content creators like this.

I love these comparisons truly unique! Great content thank you 👍🏼😊

Thank you I’m been waiting for this

Great work. Was waiting for it

I tested fuji X H2 and X T5 just yesterday. I totally agree with your findings. Maybe we must define maximum pixel density for a sensor.

I am really happy to see this review. It's confirmed an issue that I have had with my Fuji x-series cameras which is leading me away from the system. The eyes are never quite there. And, for me, it's more than just a pixel-peeping problem. If you're delivering client work or posting anything larger than instagram (even just posting to a website), it matters. Everything doesn't always have to be tack sharp, but I was getting worried that my experience with Fuji was unique. I got good results with single point focus and not using continuous focus, but when eye-tracking is an option on this camera and works much better on others... well... it makes it hard to justify still shooting with single point still. They're fun cameras, but in my experience shooting them for about 3-4 years professionally, they're lacking and I think I might change systems soon.

Thanks for being one of the few channels that tests over and under exposure for dynamic range. Very interested to see the xh2 and xh2s compared in this regard.

Good job. Fuji has some issues in older models where spot focus on the eye gives sharper results than using auto eye focus. Fuji has improved, but perhaps it still needs to improve in this regard. I don't know if you're interested, but perhaps you can compare the two focusing methods for the still shot sharpness test. Also importantly, surely it would have been very pertinent to mention that the Sony and Canon lens costs 2.5x and 3.2x more than the Fuji lens. That's HUGE. (price comparison from a local favourite outlet.) Maybe that HUGE expense is for F1.2 sharpness, whereas the XF33mm is sharpest at F4. Maybe a different shooting style is required for the Fuji as it's a different system class. Maybe a different lens like the XF90mmF2 or the new 56mmF1.2 could have given a more insightful system comparisons. Those lenses just cost 1.08x and 1.37x to the XF33mm. But the 56mm may perform poorly on tracking!

I've tested Fujifilm X-H2 , It's super sharp with 33 1.4 ..Probably you have a bad copy of 33 1.4

Awesome review. Just wanted to thank you for the time and effort it took you to make this video. My biggest and most immediate observation: wow Fuji really nails color!!! I consistently found myself noticing and appreciating the Fuji color in every comparison image slide you had. It’s making me seriously consider the XH2s even with the drawbacks to an APSC sensor and a definitely inferior autofocus system. I’ve been a photographer for 8 years now, but I never owned full frame because it was too expensive for me at the time. I own a A6000 and currently have been planning on upgrading to a A7IV. I’ve been saving up for a while. Like years. But now I feel like I have some thinking to do 🤔 The A6000 is no means a bad camera but the XH2S is impressing me in how its keeping up with the R6 and Sony IV with still having a crop sensor. Most of the “losses” the Fuji seemed to take in this video were pretty minimal and nitpicky and I just have to go back to the fact that I genuinely preferred the Fuji picture most of the time. It just had by far the best color and contrast ratio to my eyes. Yeah you can edit colors in post, but i’m really loving the fuji look I have to be honest. Although it will seem really wrong to save up all my money just to buy another apsc camera. I’ve been really set on finally owning full frame and all the benefits, but mainly better low light performance. If there’s one thing I care about a camera performance wise, it’s how good it can shoot in low light

So glad I came across this video. I had the Fuji XH2s and the 33 1.4 for a time and thought either I just didn't understand focus or I had some setting wrong. Fuji needs a firmware update to get that focus on the eyeball.

Could you re-shoot some of the XH2 face shots using manual focus to determine if the reduced detail was a difference in lens and sensor - or actually, as was suggested by some Fujifilm users a focusing anomaly/ problem?

It’s amazing how far cameras have come in recent years!! We are living in such amazing times. Fuji color rendition wins in my opinion! Would love a camera with fuji colors, sony AF-C and Canon ergonomics.

Excellent review. I know it's not fair to compare an APS-C to a Full Frame but I like reviews like this as I also both Canon FF System and Fuji APS-C and I am recently contemplating of upgrading my X-T2 to X-T5. I have recently tried the X-T5 and was a bit disappointed with the ISO performance and eye AF focus accuracy. My observations are very consistent with your sharpness and ISO test. And like you said, I already really like the Fuji colours out of the box and I don't take this lightly as I have been shooting with canon for almost 20 years now. Great video! Bofore I even saw this video, I already made the decision not to get the X-T5.

I am an inexperienced hobbyist but I could follow along on all of your conclusions and I agree with them. In regards to the eye with the Fuji, I think the camera didn't focus on it. It is interesting to note that generally speaking, there is this mix or change of leadership depending on what you are looking at.

Thanks for this Indepth review. Four years ago, I switched from Canon DSLR system (5DIII+ L lenses) to mirrorless Fuji APS-C system due to the weigh issue while the Sony A7 III was better in focus capability the GM-I lenses were expensive, heavy and poor IQ. As you have shown in the IQ comparison, the eyes are much less clear than the FF cameras and the older Fuji AF for moving subject was.... I waited for four years for the flagship X-H2/s and though they have improved the AF a lot; however, still behind Sony or Canon. Most people think Sony is more "tech" feel on its manual and physical layout; however, Fuji is the one that needs fine tweaks between individual lenses and the body (and third-party flash exposure is hit and miss) to get things right (no PnP). I ended up with the A7 IV and finally able to enjoy the sharp & clear eyes on the portraits again as well as the spot-on AF with moving subjects even only have Tamron (35-15mm/50-40mm) and Sigma (16-28mm) third-party lenses (all fits in a ThinkTank TurnStyle 20 sling bag with Godox V1 flash and Sony microphone) at much affordable price yet similar IQ. HEPIE tripod... Can't wait to receive mine!

9:50 The model looks so much better in the Fuji at that ISO test. It really shows how color and tonality are key

great reviews, can I ask is it possible to save simultaneously to both cards, video and photos

I have the Xh2 and the 33 1.4 and the sharpness is just increíble. I can't belive this test. There's something wrong here

Great comparison. I agree the colors on the Fuji are better. I use an X-T5 and the only issue I have is autofocus on birds in flight. Other than that It's a great camera for almost anything. Thanks. Excellent video.

I’ve tested the 26mp Fuji sensor with reputedly good Fuji lenses against a Sony A7III 24mp with average Samyang lenses but also the 24-105 f4G and the results were pretty close. A lot closer than this. I’m surprised at your results.

interesting video, I wish someone does a similar comparison using the new fuji 56 1.2 wr, which is already considered one of the best lenses for the system against the best 85mm for each of the other systems, maybe the difference will be less clear-cut....

I can’t tell you how relieved I am to have found this review. I am experiencing the exact same “muddy” look to all of my X-H2 images using their newest LM motor lenses and can’t for the life of my workout why it’s happening. At least I know it’s not just me who has experienced it.

On the XH2, did you cut the Inbody stabilization off to shoot? Much sharper with it off. The XT3 and xt4 do better with high iso.

I didn't expect such difference in sharpness in good lighting conditions, especially with that lens. Like others said, maybe it's not quite hitting the focus. In the second image, it looks like it focused on the tip of the nose instead of the eye. Not hitting the focus is a big disadvantage, but at least it's not the same as having a sharpness problem.

With the sharpness test. Did you just shoot at f/1.4, or did you try stopping down to between f/5.6 to f/8, where lens sharpness will becomes much less of an issue? Otherwise, the test is more about the lens wide open than the sensor.

The Fuji surely missed focus every time on the iris. Another RU-vidr mentioned the same, as the 33 1.4 can definitely resolve the 40MP sensor.

Very useful video, it would be nice to see this comparison between Sony a7iv , Canon r6 ii, and Fujifilm X.h2s for video work... Big hug!

Thank you for this comparison

Nice test, JP. Shows how these cameras perform out of the box. I thought all three were off in one way or another. Below, I argue that, in case of exposure differences between cameras becoming visible in our images, we have to blame the photographer and in case our images have noise when or where it is not too dark we need to blame our raw processing software. EXPOSURE DIFFERENCES One thing to note here, about "testing ISO" is that the ISO institute that defines the ISO norm does not actually define correct exposure. In the past we had the all dominant Kodak that had its ideas about correct exposure of their films relative to metering approaches in the market and sort-of everybody followed that - other film manufacturers, camera manufacturers with TTL metering, or manufacturers of lightmeters like Weston, Sekonic, or Gossen. Today with digital cameras, Kodak setting a worldwide reference is no more and digital camera manufacturers can do whatever they like. They give us a tool that also has a histogram and assume we make the best of it. As an example of a "new way of metering", my Nikon Z 7ii has a metering mode called "Highlight-weighted" and this simply takes the brightest measuring photosite in the sensor and treats its measured value as pure "white". The rest of the image then must fall inside the 14..15 EV of dynamic range. This works well if you do not want to loose detail in highlights, like white bridal dresses or contrasty white/blue skies. In less contrasty shots, a couple twinkles can drive exposure down, even when each of the twinkles is only one photosite - this easily makes a shot feel like it is 3 EV underexposed when you first open it. NOISE Another thing to note is that digital color photography starts with a raw image and people have no idea how ugly that would be when they could see raw images as is. Everybody would agree with me that raw images are 100% color noise and 100% luminance noise, if they could see them. That's important in the sense that we need software that can do "raw processing" in order to make a nice image from the raw file. Raw processing happens in camera when we shoot JPEG but also in order to constantly update a rear display in LiveView or to update an eVF. When we shoot raw, we need to raw process the files in, say, Lightroom Classic. This is important again because the extent to which we get "noise" rather that "details" or "noise" rather than "color", from that raw processing, really depends on how the raw processing is done. When we open a raw image in our favorite raw processing app and see color noise or luminance noise, we may blame the camera or the sensor. That seems justified because a raw image is 100% noise, right? No. Bluntly put, I would just call noise at this point "failed raw processing". Is that justified? Well, run you image through an app that does this better and you get my point. Here we have to distinguish four classes of noise: (1) inherent noise following from the Bayer sensor architecture, (2) noise caused by lack of precision in a photosite's measurement, (3) noise caused by raw processing as artefact following from the methodology used in the "wild-assed color guessing" that is raw processing, (4) noise caused by imprecision in raw processing or its limitations in dealing with (2). As to (3) - we recognize this easily in the case of Moiré where the artefact is very visible and it even is clear what pattern in the subject trails through the rendered image because of deBayerization. But when this happens at pixel level, we are inclined to classify noise as (1) or (2). The general theme here is though, that we see apps in the market that are specialized in dealing with these 4 classes, better than your generic raw processing software. Some approaches to dealing with these noise classes (some or all) do this in a way that modifies a raw file into a variant that can be processed by, say, Lightroom Classic (LrC, =Camera Raw), into a result that has no noise. I would say that LrC needing this outside help just means that it failed in doing what it should do.

Do you compare RAW's or Jpegs? Wich Software did you use? XTrans RAWs in Adobe SW are less sharper than RAW's from cameras with bayer sensors. Capture One ist does a better job with Fuji Xtrans files.

I have owned the sony a7iii, nikon z6ii, and several fujifilm cameras. Unfortunatly I have never had a chance to spend more than a couple days with a Canon r6. I have had autofocus issues in the past with older fujufilm cameras but I have almost no issues with my xt5. I shoot steet photography and I also do professional portraits and I always go for the fujifilm because it's a blast to use. I am leaning towards a nikon z7ii in the future to go with my Fujifilm kit.

Nice test, but you should try another sample of the Fuji 33mm. As an owner of that lens-camera combination I know for sure the 33 is much better than that. For all the rest, one of the best test I've seen in this regard

Excellent, unbiased analysis. Thank you.

Please test ISO at the same resolution. Higher resolution sensors gets bigger noise to signal ratio because their pixels' physical sizes are smaller. But if you down sample them at the same resolution, a lot of that noise average out, and higher resolution sensors actually get cleaner images.

Great video. As a newbie, I've been trying to really understand the difference between full frame and crop sensor. In terms of DOF (Bokeh) isn't the difference between the Fuji and the full frame due to the lense being 33mm instead of 50mm at the same distance? So it's not directly the sensor that causes the DOF delta but rather the shorter focal length that needs to be used by the crop sensor (indirectly the sensor size) to fit the same field of view at the same distance. This is the part I'm trying to wrap my mind around. If true, then you could get similar DOF on a crop sensor compared to FF if with the shorter lense you have a one stop faster aperture. So, could you get the same full frame look if you had 50mm F2.8 on FF vs 33mm F1.8 at the same distance to the subject? If so, then you can still get the FF look on a crop sensor provided the crop sensor lense can go one stop faster than the FF lense at /1.5 focal length. Am I in the ballpark?

Very nice test. The orange jacket definitely pops the most on the Fuji!

Hey y’all! I’m looking for some opinions. I’m new to mirrorless photography. I had previously been pretty sold on either an XH2 or XT-5 partially due to cost effectiveness with not only bodies but lenses as well. All the RU-vid reviews have been positive other than a couple too! Unfortunately where I live I don’t have the ability to shoot them myself without driving 3 hours. I don’t shoot professionally, I shoot street and my family (including sports for family) and seeing all these AF concerns I’m now leaning toward saving up a little bit longer for the Sony A7IV. Worth the price difference and wait? I mostly do photography with about 25% video. Any recs appreciated!

Thanks for your review, the best way to test cameras, using the skin tones, now l can make a purchase decision, l go with Fuji, you have to be blind to not notice that the Canon and Sony highlights in the cheeks on the closed up pics are blown out, dynamic range is more imp than a little noise, the must important thing for a wedding photographer who have to shoot white weeding cakes, white dresses and multiracial engagements, you really need that amazing dynamic range that Fuji film is offering for less.

When you have the exposure compensation under zero I like canon color more but in any other situation in these pictures I really am liking the Fuji and Sony way more. I currently shoot with Sony I plan to either get the xt-5 or Sony a7 III but leaning more towards Fuji I like the Fuji color more than both Sony and Canon

Very informative.

so i didnt realize fuji xh2 has 16bit color, did you find there was a difference in transitions between fuji and the other FF cameras..& what about the color depth? i would love to see some studio portraits comparison

It is good to see you used native glass for the focus test. The sharpness test, maybe testing the glass or the sensor/ low pass filter. Too many variables to know. Two things to add. The R7 sharpness with RF glass and with an adapted sigma art lens for all the cameras. I expect the R7 to fall apart in the DR test, but could win the autofocus test. Using adapted Sigma Art lenses will eliminate the lenses as a variable for sharpness testing.

Fuji af has a problem - front focus (instead of the eye, the focus is on the eyelashes and the tip of the nose), and lens adjustment is required (don't know if fuji has that option).

Nice comparison ! Wich filmsimulation did you use ?

Can you create a new updated video, especially now with the new updates to the FUJI, and since the new lumix came out? Would like to see Fuji, lumix and sony comparisons video

Thank you very informatic video

FUJI has a list of it's lenses that are recommended for the X H2's 40 mp sensor for max performance. Is the XF 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR lens on that list?? Try your comparison test with the new XF 56mm f 1.2 MK2 for a more fair comparison and you may be surprised! The results are stunningly sharp. Also, the XF 33mm R LM WR lens is a f 1.4, where as the Canon and Sony lenses you used are f 1.2, giving them a slight bokeh edge! FUJI colour science is magic and next level, as is that of Leica and Hasselblad.

There s really a big issue in that test, even on an older X Trans sensor with a lens wide open at 1.4 I get a much better sharpness that what is shown here. There is just no way the new 40 mpix sensor renders skin details so poorly ! Obvious bad focus that I think comes from the Fuji eye AF. I barely use it as I often get poor result just like here. No much more improvement in that regard as it seems. Manual single point AF on the iris is the way to go for maximum sharpness. Also it would have been nice to see the XF50 F1 stepped down at F1.2 in that comparison.

I would like to see another comparison using the 26 megapixel Fuji XH2s.The high pixel density of the 40 megapixel XH2 gives it a distinct disadvantage with high iso noise.

Fuji X lenses at f/1.4 is like a full-frame camera lens at f/2.1. Isn't that also why the background doesn't blow out as much and the sign in the foreground stay more in focus? I would think so, but maybe I am wrong. Also, I have set Fuji cameras to a lower ISO than 125, I've had it at 50 or 80. I am not sure if that's an X-H2 thing, though.

nice test , can you give us the raws to play with? i believe fuji in capture one can look better . thanks

I shoot FF, MF and APS-C. Currently really enjoying the results of the XT4+XF90/2. I don't have that poor eye IQ issue that you're seeing here. I have seen examples of the XH2 doing wonderful for IQ, but I have also seen it do poor (especially eye AF). I think there is a gremlin here that needs addressed by Fuji. Other than that, the review is spot on. Fuji colour game is strong, AF is weaker, dynamic range is ok but ISO is the enemy (you have to shoot competently and question your shutter speeds constantly, throw nothing away more than needed in a bid to keep 1600 or under). I do not mind the slightly shallow DoF look either, if I must I crack out the Kipon 40/.85. Fair review.

When will You Do any comparison wit Sony FX 30 🙂? And some filming Lens two ? F1.4 or brighter

were these out of camera JPEG or raw.i find that my straight out of camera jpeg with default settings are a tini bit soft than my fuji raw images

Interesting test, going pretty much as expected, except for the sharpness test. The Fuji seemed far too soft compared to a lot of the samples I have seen.

R6 is better than r6ii in dynamic range for highlights ? I saw the video of r6ii vs s5ii and both were very green.

The 33mm F1.4 will give identical results to a 50mm F2.1 full frame lens in terms of field of view and background separation. The Sigma 50mm F2 for Sony weights 345g, slightly less than the 360g for the Fuji. For the same result, you roughly have the same size lenses in APS-C or full frame.

The sharpness difference is huge, more than I expected. Maybe a Fuji lens problem?

Great review ad usual. As someone who transitioned from olympus to sony a7iv good to see the sony do so well

I think u may need to freshen up on setting up fhe xh2. I'm no fuji fan boy but own the xh1 and the xt2. I took my xh1 with the 16-55 f2.8 right away after looking at your presentation,to my wife and popped off some shots at her eyes hand held at 2.8 and got sharper and more detail than the ones you had on a tripod on a 40 mp camera. I wasn't even at base iso on the xh1. So why is the representation here so off? I didn't even use auto eye detect. My 24mp camera got sharper images. Please explain?

Thanks for the great video Which one do you think is better Xt5 or A7c? Especially in video autofocus and low light performance

I checked photos I took with the H-S2 with a 16-55 lens after updating the firmware and the sharpness is very high. In digital zoom, the image starts to become pixelated before it loses sharpness. In my opinion it is a very successful camera in this respect, only that its operation is so cumbersome and requires a lot of patience that I prefer Canon or Nikon

Without reading through the comments, what software was used to edit the RAW files? I use Canon R5 and found Lightroom didnt deliver the detail and was very disappointed (fine art reproduction photographs) and then learned that RAW conversions through Canon's DPP greatly enhanced the RAW, made the whole aystem lengthy as I had to convert to TIFF to then layer in Photoshop but for high end reproductions there is no option. The same with Fuji, going from Lightroom to CaptureOne is remarkable.

A thought - apart from many other variables associated with lenses etc - if you processed the Fuji files in Lightroom they will have less detail than if processed in Capture 1

I’ve done portraits with the old 35 1.4 and wide open I know it’s capable of extreme detail at f/1.8, I’m talking eye lash fibers. So it is weird this 33 is soft here. It’s possible it’s just soft at 1.4 i never tested it. But it does suck for the Fujifilm since it performed in most other ways (except AF)

With the Fuji I feel it’s front focused. The resolution should be there. The comparison would have been even better with the new r6 mk2, or an r5. Color science doesn’t seem to be identical on the r5 and r6 in some tests.

With the prices, might be worth calling out the cost of the lenses used as that would push the difference between the three even further? In summary, it seems the Fuji marginally falls short in sharpness, shallow DoF, AF, and high iso and shadow noise but pulls ahead in color and highlight recovery, and of course entry price and size. So I guess it depends what is more important as to which camera is better suited. I wonder where a Nikon z6ii would fit in?

Thank​ you​ for​ this​ video,​ for​ me it​'s​ correct​ result in​ term​ of​ comparision​ between these​ 3​ camera​ performance. I​ decide​d​ to​ change​ my​ current​ camera​ from​ A7RIII​ now​ I​ got​ XH2.​ Previous​ I​ owned D800, XT3​ and​ A7RIII​ and​ I'​m​ really​ happy​ with​ XH2.​ The​ Color​ is​ good​ as​ it​ has​ always been. Shapness, Clean on​ Hi​ ISO and​Focus​ing​ may​ not​ the​ strong​ Point​s on​ Fujifilm​ Camera.​ But​ Fujifilm​ always​ gives​ a​ best​ Skintone​ when​ you​ understand​ correct​ how​ to​ shoot​ in​ each​ Lighting​ situation.​ Even​ the​ Filming​ simulation that​ you​ still​ need​ to​ learn a​ lot​ how​ to​ Master​ the​ Color​ on​ the​ camera.​A​ bit​ difference on​ Color​ each​ Cameras​ make​ huge​ difference​ once​ you​ manual shifting Color. As​ we​ are​ Photograph​er what​ we​ do​ concern​ is​ Camera​ Overall​ performance, but​ on​ the​ subject people​ just​ how​ look​ good​ they​ are.​ If​ you​ finished​ the​ immage behind​ camera Jpeg​ without​ process​ing, for​ me​ it's quite​ hard​ to​ beat on​ Fujifilm.​ In​ term​ of​ Professional​ shooting​ file​ current​ XH2​ has​ improve a​ lot​ of​ quality​ and​ detail​ when​ you​ understand​ correct.​ The​ last​ is​ reasonable on​ Camera​ price​ +​ Lens​ and​ Weight which​ is​ good​ for​ me​ to​ not​ break my​ Bank​ 🤣. Thank​ you​ for​ the​ video.​🙏😀👍​

Great stuff

For a correct comparison between full frame and a APS-C you should use a 50mm in ff and 33mm in APS-C as you did but using a f/1.2 in ff and in APS-C a f/1.8 but to compensate an ISO 225 or 200 in ff and 100 in APS-C.

should I throw my h2& 33.4? ㅜㅜinteresting video thank you

With the Fuji, you need to pay way more attention to shutter speeds and tripods etc, due to the very high pixel density. You can get the sharpness though.

Thanks for doing this. Great review... but, oh dear... something was VERY off with your settings on the Fuji. That rig should be getting tack-sharp results like the other two.

The Fuji has definitely front focused on the eye lashes not the eye ball, that’s the first issue and it’s quite obvious because the Fuji should have more DOF but it’s fall off is already starting at the brows, were the Sony & Canon eye brows are in focus. The Fuji is also wide open where FF are both half stop closed that would also make a slight advantage to FF, interesting to see if F2 was tested? Why F1.4? I compared the 33f1.4 with Sigmas F1.4 art and both wide open and after doing side by side tests zooming in 200% I couldn’t see any noticeable difference. Unfortunately I couldn’t afford Canon R 50mm f1.2 but you would expect the Canon to blow the Fuji away especially it costing 2.5 times more then Fuji, but it definitely didn’t blow it away it was just a bit better. Not bad at all for Fuji.

I have been using a Nikon full-frame d800E and also a d850. I have also been using a Fuji system since 2014. XT-1, XT-2, and the XH-1. I have made side-by-side tests numerous times. On a practical level, I have made scads of 20 x 30-inch prints off of the Fuji. Your sharpness results are way off. In my tests comparing the d800E vs the Fuji XT-2 although the Nikon has more information and no lacking of sharpness but the Fuji always appears sharper. Fuji has a better edge definition algorithm. Plus the fineness of detail is recorded on the Fuji sensor a bit better than the Nikon. I suspect that whatever you did with the Fuji in terms of focusing, it was not what the Fuji can deliver. I will be getting the XT-5 soon and I will be testing it with all of my lenses vs the Nikon d850. I am a retired commercial photographer, an educator, and an exhibiting artist. As for the ISO test, these must be JPEGs. I shoot at 25000 ISO regularly on the Fuji. It cleans up perfectly. I am less interested in what the raw file looks like but I am much more interested in how well it cleans up. This was not a fair nor accurate test,

I tried to use DxO PureRaw 3 on pics taken with my Fuji X-H2 at high ISO - it worked wonders I highly recommend))

Look For our video coming out next week where we have some super sharp images of an owl using the X-H2!

I can't believe the difference in quality between the Fuji and the other two. Maybe it's missed focus or something else because 40mp even on a smaller sensor shouldn't look this much worse.

That's nice you used the best 50mm of each World. But did you used the best software for each brand ?

Work with both sony and fuji. In my tests I get more dept in the images with the fuji. So sharp. That might be a bad copy. I have the exact lens 33mm and I also use the 55mm on the sony. Both unbelievable sharp. The sharpness and sept from the fuji files with easy edits is why I use them but use the Sonys when in low lit areas and need that tracking.

It is a frequent error in online reviews. RAW images from Fuji lose a lot of quality if they are processed with Adobe software. The worm effect appears. For a fair comparison, use another editing software for Fuji files (Capture One). Only then will you have a fair comparison.

even though the Fuji has the biggest resolution (in relationship with its smaller sensor size) - it looks like the most unsharpest by far all the time. I have the Fuji here for testing, overall it is an amazing camera, but I always was wondering why it is not that sharp - now I saw the effect also at your direct comparison. That is sad, it is a great camera

The Fujifilm 33mm f1.4 MTF is NOT high enough to compared. What I recommend adapt the sigma 40mm f/1.4 art using the Fringer pro 2 adapter and you’ll see a big difference.

Thanks for this good review. The Fuji had far better color than the canon and Sony with the Sony having the worst, as expected the Fuji's noise was the worst however I liked the contrast it rendered. I think the lens on the Fuji may be responsible for the focusing issues. Question: Were all the shots done in RAW?

Another fascinating, in-depth review. I'd certainly like to know more about the Fuji's failings in sharpness, though looked at without pixel-peeking the pictures still look impressive. One of my main takeaways is how unpleasant I find the Canon colours. In a moment of madness I bought an Rp, but I found the dynamic range so bad and the colours so unappetising that I stopped using it. Now I only use Fuji and Nikon, which have the best colours in my experience (I assume RAW shooters can adjust colour as much as they like).

In future comparisons, you need to try out low-light AF. I have heard from other reviewers that Sony struggles in this area.

I have had several Canon DSLRs including (several!) 5DSr, Sony A7R2 and A7R3 and lately Leica CL. Yesterday my XT5 (same sensor) arrived and I am confused?! On all your unzoomed shots I instantly preferred the Fuji files. They looked somehow brighter/cleaner without seeming garish and the colour WAY better. That doesn’t surprise me except I am amazed at how bad the Canon was. Didn’t fit my experience. Also - the confused bit - can’t understand the lack of sharpness of the Fuji. I don’t have a native lens yet and have tested with a VERY old Olympus Zuiko 50mm Macro lens, manual focus with viewfinder assists only. It is way sharper than I’d get from your copy and in Lightroom gives away nothing easily visible to my 5DSr files using good lenses like the L series 100 and 180 Macros or 200mm F2. Or to the A7R3 which ought to compare well to your A74. And more detailed than the CL with their Elmarit Apo Macro 60mm F2.8. Could it be lens variability/issue or an auto focus thing? If mine was as bad as that on any focus setting it would be going back.

what a great, straighforward, informative video. Congrats. ps: i have both a fuji system and a a7iii. I agree with all the comments. Sony IS the superior camera, no doubts. But size and weight make the fuji the best travel camera.

Can you guys please do an R6markii review. Especially vs a74 please!!! Thx

Other than the slightly missed focus on the Fuji, I’d say it held up really, really well for an APS-C sized sensor. The color and skin tone was really beautiful! The dynamic range held up good, too. The noise not so much, but it was pretty expected. Overall it was a good test.

I would like to state that you only name the price difference rence of the bodies (about $500) but forget the price difference of the lenses (about $1.300!!) so you compare the apsc camera with ff camera with lenses with a price diffrence of $1.800 !! You should mention that. On another note, but is already mentioned, with an xt4 and xf 35 1.4 I get sharper eye images than what you did with the fuji. Software update needed for eye af?

It would be awesome if you could add a nikon z camera to the comparison too. To me I don't like this latest fuji sensor's color algorithm, all of the images looks darkish kinda like underexposed and too magentaish in all reviews. Sony always seems to have great sharpness and wb. If I was a pro and looking for a ff I'd probably go for sony or nikon. As an enthusiast I like r cameras photos much better overall to xf systems, but xf system is such a complete package, and the affordability is very tempting. Though it was like that for me until x-t5, & xh5 for me, whose outputs I don't like. Now I'm not sure what would I buy, if only canon had a better and more complete lens setup for the mirrorless..

For bokeh you need to use equivalent focal lengths, not image size. Throw on Fuji’s sharpest 50mm (F1.0), and you would see the difference.

As someone who bought into the Fuji ecosystem I am really disappointed in the resolution test. Hopefully it’s either a bad lens or missed focus. But Fuji is not know for af. But as far as the detail in the skin a canon D3 3mp camera does better.

XH2 could be a tad out of focus, I think since this video Fuji released firmware that improved AF, there were some issues where the eye tracking was showing but then for some reason you got a slightly out of focus image, seems i like the eye detect and subject detection were not working in tandem with the focus.

As a Fuji user (X-T3), I can confirm that I have the same issues nailing focus... I'm thinking about switching to the new Lumix S5IIX.

Hey thanks for the review. For me considering price and weight, fuji is a clear winner. I like the colours a lot more. And we are comparing sub 1000 euro lenses to more than 2000 euro lenses here. I don't think that clients would pay twice as much for the results from the Canon or Sony.

Could you get the same color of the Fuji on the Sony body? The Sony AF is amazing