galenapass Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Sal Baker wrote:
Prints look at least as good as my Canon 5DII in apparent resolution, probably due to the Canon's AA filter. Tonality is better in the Fuji prints because shadow/highlight recovery is cleaner and more flexible. That's why I didn't keep the Canon.
Sal
I have had a similar experience. When I initially bought the X-E2 it was to complement my 5DII and Canon gear. In fact, I bought the Fuji simply because I was tired of waiting for Canon to release a high MP camera so I started looking around at other options (mostly thought about going back to Nikon) and became interested in mirrorless. After a lot of comparison with the 5DII I concluded that the prints from Fuji looked better due to tonality (as Sal mentioned), and after pixel peeping the 5DII only gave marginally better resolution - less than I would have thought based on the difference in paper specs between the 2 cameras. Fuji has some great glass, at reasonable cost, and after a few more lenses the 5DII pretty much sat on the shelf. I was only using my Canon gear for wildlife, but everything else was Fuji. In fact one thing that surprised me was how well the xtrans did at higher ISOs compared to the 5DII.
When the A7 series came out I almost bought one (and I still may) but on a lark I bought a Sigma DP2M, and that was it for Canon. Fuji gives me my everyday shots, Merrills give me high res, and now Olympus gives me long lenses for wildlife. I sold all the Canon gear.
When I travel I that is usually my biggest opportunity for taking pictures. Mirrorless makes that so much easier. I have digressed a little OT but print quality is just one facet. If you don't have your gear with you to take shots, what does print quality matter?
|