I'm not intending to cause problems, but I'm putting on my flame retardant suit nonetheless...
I love Fuji and I love Nikon. I have an X-T4 and and X100V. If that's all I could shoot, I'd have few complaints. But I also love Nikon FX and have a Z6II. I'm biased toward the overall file output of Nikon FX, but it's only a personal preference rather than a mindset that FX is "better."
But as I consider my next bit of gear for my needs, I'm really curious about Fuji's new 40 mp output bodies. High level, how does Fuji 40 mp compare (generally and specifically) to FX? I know it's a broad question, so any real world opinions are fine.
I ask because I've got some good Z lenses now that I've ventured into the Z series. But I have gaps, and I wonder if I'd be better filling those gaps with a new Fuji 40 mp body, which would allow me to use my very good red badge Fuji lenses, at a lower price than purchasing the FX Z lenses I need.
A higher-mp DX sensor has all the same basic qualities as a lower mp DX sensor, aside from the resolution increase. This means the FX sensor maintains the same differences (I won't use "advantages" here....)
whiteonline wrote:
A higher-mp DX sensor has all the same basic qualities as a lower mp DX sensor, aside from the resolution increase. This means the FX sensor maintains the same differences (I won't use "advantages" here....)
I haven't used the Fuji 40mp bodies but recently tested a 26mp body, with widely regarded good Fuji lenses (16mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4 and 35mm f2) against a Sony 24mp FF body with average Samyang lenses (24mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8 and 45mm f1.8). In most cases I was shooting wide open or one stop down.
I'd broadly regard the results as comparable, although the Sony files were perhaps a bit cleaner in terms of noise. All were shot near base ISO.
I interpret the results as implying you need very good lenses on APS-C to match FF with average lenses. Really good lenses on FF will clearly outperform APS-C. Once you up the sensor resolution of the APS-C camera it may catch up to a lower MP FF camera with average lenses.
It's possible the 40mp body may outperform say a 24mp FF body but I doubt the difference would be very large particularly if using very good lenses on FF. Most people are saying it is hard to notice the difference between the 26mp and 40mp Fuji bodies.
If it were me I would invest in which ever system you enjoy using more. The image quality differences between systems and formats are really not that great.
I’m in both camps right now. I have a Fuji X-T3 and recently got the Nikon Z7ii. Love the files from both and would be hard pressed to tell the difference from the images side by side. I probably am going to get the X-T5 and will do a comparison. Right now I might give a slight edge to the Nikon.
It's the same output, just a larger image size with slightly more detail. More cropping power and print size. The fundamental differences between the two formats still exist.
Fivesense wrote:
I'm not intending to cause problems, but I'm putting on my flame retardant suit nonetheless...
I love Fuji and I love Nikon. I have an X-T4 and and X100V. If that's all I could shoot, I'd have few complaints. But I also love Nikon FX and have a Z6II. I'm biased toward the overall file output of Nikon FX, but it's only a personal preference rather than a mindset that FX is "better."
But as I consider my next bit of gear for my needs, I'm really curious about Fuji's new 40 mp output bodies. High level, how does Fuji 40 mp compare (generally and specifically) to FX? I know it's a broad question, so any real world opinions are fine.
I ask because I've got some good Z lenses now that I've ventured into the Z series. But I have gaps, and I wonder if I'd be better filling those gaps with a new Fuji 40 mp body, which would allow me to use my very good red badge Fuji lenses, at a lower price than purchasing the FX Z lenses I need.
Which lenses do you own for both systems, which gaps would you fill if you don't buy the X-T5?
I have an X-T3 and a Z7 and I use both depending on what I want to do and how much I want to carry and tbh I don't really care that one is 26mp and the other one is 45mp - how often do you really print that big or crop that much? There are also many variables in real life photography that will limit your ability to extract all of the 40mp (lens quality, tripod, wind, haze, diffraction vs DOF, filters, etc.). You'll always get more than 24mp, just not always all of the additional 16
Imo the Fuji systems really shines with prime lenses and is overall more compact, whereas Nikon has some amazing zoom lenses. The Fuji red badge zooms are great, but so big and heavy that I'd rather go with the Nikon equivalents..
I'm currently traveling with both cameras, the Nikon paired with the 24-70mm f4 and 24-200mm and the Fuji with just the 33mm f1.4 and 50mm f2.
You generally asked how the higher-resolution crop sensor compares to full frame sensor.
In simple terms, the megapixel count doesn't change the comparison unless you are looking specifically at megapixels. Especially when comparing to a Z system. Generally, the modern full-frame sensor maintains advantages over the higher resolution Fuji crop sensor.
The main caveat to this is at base ISO. The differences would be negligible from a quality perspective.
The S line lenses in Nikon are exceptional, so there's that to factor in as well.
I canceled my T5 preorder when I realized the answer to the same question (I have a Z7 and Pro3, and more invested in Nikon lenses).
You really can't go wrong either way. Seems it would be best to stick to one system and focus on quality lenses.
whiteonline wrote:
You generally asked how the higher-resolution crop sensor compares to full frame sensor.
In simple terms, the megapixel count doesn't change the comparison unless you are looking specifically at megapixels. Especially when comparing to a Z system. Generally, the modern full-frame sensor maintains advantages over the higher resolution Fuji crop sensor.
The main caveat to this is at base ISO. The differences would be negligible from a quality perspective.
The S line lenses in Nikon are exceptional, so there's that to factor in as well.
I canceled my T5 preorder when I realized the answer to the same question (I have a Z7 and Pro3, and more invested in Nikon lenses).
You really can't go wrong either way. Seems it would be best to stick to one system and focus on quality lenses....Show more →
Thank you. I'm specifically speaking toward the megapixels, as I'm curious if there's any "bridging of the gap" (my personal opinion) on the IQ output from the higher resolution APS-C vs. the lower (24 mp) FX. Perhaps it only matters if one is printing larger images, but I'm still curious...
I suppose there's really no way to answer my question other than by me renting a higher mp Fuji body. My Z lens gap is the 24-70 focal range (tried the f/4 but need the f/2.8 for my kind of shooting). I have nearly all I need in XF mount lenses (16-55 and 50-140) so my conundrum is, do I spend $2K+ on a new 40 mp Fuji body, or do I spend $2K+ on the Z 24-70 f/2.8 S line lens?
It's a matter of practicality, but at the end of the day I don't need to do anything. My X-T4 is still brilliant, and I've become adept at shooting both bodies; the X-T4 with the 16-55 attached, and the Z6II with the 70-200 f/2.8 S line attached.
If I want a closer approximation in Fuji for my needs, I'd probably be better looking at the XH2S since I shoot a lot of indoor events and action. Either way, I'm likely to be a two system shooter for awhile. Which is good, because I really enjoy shooting with both.
Throwing the different MP sensors into the mix makes things really complicated.
I guess one way to look at it is that if you are happy with what you get from a 24MP FF system, there's every likelihood that you'll be very happy with what you get from a 40MP APS-C system. In the end, both can produce very good quality image files, though their pluses and minuses are both small and a bit different.
"More megapixels" can have a range of effects on your image file. When using excellent lenses and excellent technique, there's a chance for some additional overall image detail resolution. If you were asking the question about two cameras using the same format, the 40MP sensor would have that potential, virtually without question — though the actual impact of the difference on your photography would be open to discussion.
However, given lenses of equal resolving power (as measured in line-pairs/picture-height or similar) a camera with a smaller sensor has lower system resolution. To put it simply, there are "fewer millimeters to hold line pairs," so the system cannot resolve the same number of line pairs across the full image with the smaller sensor. But... do either of them (the FF or the APS-C) cross the resolution threshold in a meaningful way? Hard to know!
There are other potential pluses from a higher MP system on any format in addition to detail resolution. For example, any noise will have a smaller "grain size" on the higher MP system, and it is possible that a higher MP system may have some advantage in rendering smooth transitions and gradients.
I think there are a few ways for you to resolve your question.
1. As you note above, get your hands on the 40MP APS-C system with good lenses and try it for yourself. (Fujifilm is putting on some "demo" sessions here and there. I just missed one in my area yesterday. I've been to them in the past, and was able to put my own memory card in a camera and make some test exposures to take home.)
2. Decide that the pluses of the smaller system are worth enough to you that given the size at which you typically reproduce your images, no difference is likely to be important. (In my experience, I'm confident about the quality of 20" x 30" prints from APS-C.)
3. Do a bunch of math to try to quantify the difference, and then try to extrapolate that to real world conditions. Good luck! ;-)
I cannot recommend renting highly enough. I have rented so many lenses and a few bodies from Lensrentals out of Tennessee. (No affiliation with them.) They make it so easy, and the cost is very reasonable. If you really do want to see for yourself, you'd want to be shooting where and when you normally do, as that seems to be the best test.
I have an XH-2 coming next week myself. I rented the XH-2s, but since I've never used a camera with 40 mp, I thought I owed it to our organization to try it, and then we'll make the purchase.
Sharona wrote:
I cannot recommend renting highly enough. I have rented so many lenses and a few bodies from Lensrentals out of Tennessee. (No affiliation with them.) They make it so easy, and the cost is very reasonable. If you really do want to see for yourself, you'd want to be shooting where and when you normally do, as that seems to be the best test.
Another option is buying used, trying out the equipment and if it does not fit your needs, sell it for basically what you bought it for. This allows you to fully test the equipment for an extended time.
Overall, while I do like the smaller form factor of the Fuji system, it's not that much of an advantage, except when I'm comparing apples to apples focal lengths, ie: 50-140 vs. 70-200. The big advantage comes when I used my X100V, but that's not a fair comparison, as I rather view it as my favorite f/2 lens. 😂
I carry my gear with me every day, whether I have a known project or not. That gear is my Fuji and two lenses (16-55 and 50-150) 90% of the time. I bring my Nikon Z set up too if I have a specific project.
Ultimately, if I really wanted to duplicate my Nikon Z capabilities with Fuji, I'd probably get the H2S at this point, but then again, why would I need to?
I guess that begs the question: how are people finding the 40 mp sensors for indoor sports and action? I've shot sports with the X-T4 and was happy with the output. Has anyone here shot sports with the 40 mp Fujis?
Thanks to all who have responded in this thread. I very much appreciate the candid and intelligent dialogue.
Fivesense wrote:
Overall, while I do like the smaller form factor of the Fuji system, it's not that much of an advantage, except when I'm comparing apples to apples focal lengths, ie: 50-140 vs. 70-200. The big advantage comes when I used my X100V, but that's no a fair comparison, as I rather view it as my favorite f/2 lens. 😂
I had a chance to shoot with the previous version of the camera, the X100f. I was impressed with the camera and liked its concept a great deal. I do a lot of street photography with my XPro2, generally carrying it with me almost all the time, so the small, light design of the X100f and the current X100v are quite attractive.
But...
I love the little 27mm f/2.8 as a "always on the camera" lens, and for me it works quite well as my primary lens for almost all street photography, too. Although my heart tells me that the X100v would work really well...
... the XPro2 plus 27mm f/2.8 is also quite small and allows the use of other lenses when necessary (as for my night street photography, etc.), Each time I try to convince myself to get the X100v... I ask whether I really need another camera body and the answer so far has been no.
It is a very nice little camera. I kind of which I could justify it. ;-)
Sharona wrote:
I cannot recommend renting highly enough. I have rented so many lenses and a few bodies from Lensrentals out of Tennessee. (No affiliation with them.) They make it so easy, and the cost is very reasonable. If you really do want to see for yourself, you'd want to be shooting where and when you normally do, as that seems to be the best test.
I have an XH-2 coming next week myself. I rented the XH-2s, but since I've never used a camera with 40 mp, I thought I owed it to our organization to try it, and then we'll make the purchase....Show more →
I use Lens Rentals enough that I should finally plunk down on the $99 "free" shipping deal. Great service, great products. If you rent more than twice a year, it's a no brainer.
Fivesense wrote:
Overall, while I do like the smaller form factor of the Fuji system, it's not that much of an advantage, except when I'm comparing apples to apples focal lengths, ie: 50-140 vs. 70-200. The big advantage comes when I used my X100V, but that's not a fair comparison, as I rather view it as my favorite f/2 lens. 😂
I carry my gear with me every day, whether I have a known project or not. That gear is my Fuji and two lenses (16-55 and 50-150) 90% of the time. I bring my Nikon Z set up too if I have a specific project.
Ultimately, if I really wanted to duplicate my Nikon Z capabilities with Fuji, I'd probably get the H2S at this point, but then again, why would I need to?
I guess that begs the question: how are people finding the 40 mp sensors for indoor sports and action? I've shot sports with the X-T4 and was happy with the output. Has anyone here shot sports with the 40 mp Fujis?
Thanks to all who have responded in this thread. I very much appreciate the candid and intelligent dialogue. ...Show more →
I haven't shot the bodies you mention but I considered the 6D vs 18mp Canon aps. I lost momentum in that direction since the resolution of the ff looked no better at 100. High ISO looked really good, but I'd have to turn up the ISO since I didn't have stabilized ff lenses. Can be hard to get ahead.
For carrying around I'd say aps. Idk that
Z6 II or XT or XH series are fast af, Probably better than the older bodies I used to use though. I'd probably say D series Nikon for sports.
I shoot birds with a Nikon D780 (same sensor as Z6II I think) + the Nikor 200-500mm, alongside a X-H2 with XF 150-600mm. I find that the Nikon kit has significantly better image quality than the Fuji, even when doing large crops. The Fuji has more visible noise in the shadows and doesn’t resolve as much fine details as the D780.
