DaveB88 wrote:
The only meaningful screen test would be viewed at 8K imo. Even viewing at 4K is compromised in a true test.
I do my PP on Capture One at relatively lowly 4K but the tone and texture of materials is superior than the XT4. It is simply more true to life and believable. Then when you work with the files you find you can be quite aggressive with contrast and clarity slider if necessary but still maintaining believable surface texture for all materials in the photograph. This is simply not true of the 26mp sensor imo. It used to drive me crazy just trying to get wood looking like 'real' wood, metal like metal, stone like stone etc. This sensor provides a significant improvement in that area and would benefit pro Architectual and Product photographers imo.
I say to anyone considering the XT5, rent the camera out and try for yourself before you buy. Work with the full size RAW files. See for yourself....Show more →
With a high enough screen resolution — say somewhere close to 300 ppi or so — the limits of our vision are such that the screen is about as good as a print comparison. (Prints often use 300 or 360 image ppi resolution, though printers construct that image by using even smaller "dots" of individual colors.)
But this doesn't resolve the problem with comparing 100% crops. We're still looking at a smaller portion of the original image from the higher MP sample, even if the monitor resolution is very high.
One other thing: Because the higher MP sensors persuade us to print larger these days, we tend to see things that we did not see at lower magnifications, especially if we look really carefully.
It is remarkable how our expectations have changed over the decades. There was a time when almost no one would seriously consider printing larger than maybe 11 x 14 from 35mm film. There were a lot of issues — partially the sharpness limits of the systems, partially that these cameras were often shot handheld, partly the use of less accurate methods of focusing... but largely the gigantic grain that would appear when magnifying the image more than that. (My point of reference has long been the larger Galen Rowell prints — beautiful photographs, but in the big prints they have absolutely gigantic grain!)
Today we take the image projected on the same 24mm x 36mm area (or an even smaller area in the case of APS-C) and magnify it by a much larger factor... AND we expect much higher quality that we saw in those old 11 x 14 prints. And, in fact, the quality of a 20 x 30 print from a APS-C sensor can rival that of an old print from not just 35mm film, but even from larger film formats. Most people, given a chance to look carefully a side-by-side 20 x 30 prints, would think that the APS-C sourced print is pretty much indistinguishable from a true MF film print.
Under EU law only purchases by internet allow 10 day return policy. In France camera shops refuse any returns after sale. On one occasion decided not to buy expensive Sony GM lens after ordering it. Unsurprisingly no longer helpful despite years of my business. Try contacting local distributor to request another copy as last resort.
If I were to describe the difference between the files of say XT4 compared to the XT5, I would say the stand-out difference is that the 40mp photos have an ultra smooth colour and tone gradient to them. Particularly noticeable in the black gradients. The gradients are so smooth they remind me of professional quality black & white gloss photographs. In comparison, 26mp photos now look rough to me. Something I would not have said before I had worked with these XT5 files.
DaveB88 wrote:
If I were to describe the difference between the files of say XT4 compared to the XT5, I would say the stand-out difference is that the 40mp photos have an ultra smooth colour and tone gradient to them. Particularly noticeable in the black gradients. The gradients are so smooth they remind me of professional quality black & white gloss photographs. In comparison, 26mp photos now look rough to me. Something I would not have said before I had worked with these XT5 files.
Dave, again, would be nice to share the example shots. In what I have seen online so far it is the opposite. But I don't own XT-4 and XT-5 so it will be very helpful if you can share the examples. Thanks and have a very Happy New Year.
bobby350z wrote:
Dave, again, would be nice to share the example shots. In what I have seen online so far it is the opposite. But I don't own XT-4 and XT-5 so it will be very helpful if you can share the examples. Thanks and have a very Happy New Year.
It is too soon for me to quantify things with exception specificity, but a few observations:
1. I have long said that a key to post-processing x-trans raw files is to minimize the level of "details" in post, particularly with noisier images shot at high ISOs. At this point — and, yes, it is still early — it seems to me that with the 40MP files I can use higher "details" settings with out the issues around sharp, high-contrast edges.
2. Whatever the real world detail advantages of 40MP versus 24MP or 26MP maybe, I can say with certainty that there is no downside to the 40MP sensor in this regard.
3. In my own tests with a variety of Fujiflm lenses, I have yet to encounter any don't gain some advantage in detail producing from the new sensor.
4. I'm not seeing any problems with noise that are any different from the other Fujifilm x-trans cameras. I have used. (I usually use the lowest ISO that allows the settings I need, but I don't shy away from using 1600 for night photography, will use 3200, and have used 6400 when the only option was not getting the shot. Post-producton NR is obviously necessary, but results can be very good.)
5. I am not quite ready to say that I have observed the "smoothness" described above in a way that I can describe objectively. I think I agree that this is there, but there are a lot of other variables than affect things in the photographs I've made so far. I certainly have not seen any decrease in this quality, and logically the improvement would make sense as gradients and so forth can be slightly smoother with smaller photo sites.
In the end, I'm very happy with the XT5. I'm not missing my XPro2 when I shoot with it. The overall package provides a lot of value to someone moving from a camera of a couple of generations ago — the higher resolution, of course, but also IBIS, improved AF, other additions and improvements to the system.
If I had a XT4 I would probably not update. But folks with a camera of an earlier generation should probably at least consider it.
madwolfa wrote:
> 3. In my own tests with a variety of Fujiflm lenses, I have yet to encounter any don't gain some advantage in detail producing from the new sensor.
For what it's worth, I've always thought my 23mm 1.4 was a bit soft and somewhat underwhelming compared to my 56mm 1.2. I've rediscovered this lens since I've received my X-T5.
I use the 23mm f/1.4 a lot for night street photography, and I've always liked its results quite a bit. I have not tested it yet with the XT5, but I'll put that on my to-do list.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I use the 23mm f/1.4 a lot for night street photography, and I've always liked its results quite a bit.
Don't get me wrong, it's my main prime out of the two because of versatility, but in terms of sharpness and sheer IQ it always left me wanting on my old X-T1 body compared to 56mm. I'm yet to try the latter on the X-T5 (only got it yesterday), but I'm pretty excited about it.
As an example, I never thought this image would've been possible on X-T1 and 23mm shot wide open where I could discern individual strands of hair and tiny nose and eye detail on my cat's face. Previously I could only get this much detail on my old Nikon D800 with 24-70/2.8. Fuji truly closed the gap.
madwolfa wrote:
As an example, I never thought this image would've been possible on X-T1 and 23mm shot wide open where I could discern individual strands of hair and tiny nose and eye detail on my cat's face. Previously I could only get this much detail on my old Nikon D800 with 24-70/2.8. Fuji truly closed the gap.
See on the nose, face all those hairs what looks like one big mess to me. No I haven't tried XT5 yet. Here is an example from GFX. 20220320_Family_Kids_0013 by Vishi A, on Flickr
madwolfa wrote:
As an example, I never thought this image would've been possible on X-T1 and 23mm shot wide open where I could discern individual strands of hair and tiny nose and eye detail on my cat's face. Previously I could only get this much detail on my old Nikon D800 with 24-70/2.8. Fuji truly closed the gap.
See on the nose, face all those hairs what looks like one big mess to me. No I haven't tried XT5 yet. Here is an example from GFX. 20220320_Family_Kids_0013 by Vishi A, on Flickr
I know totally different price range but I want to see clear detail in hair, skin from that XT5 sensor, which I am not seeing it yet in most pictures that I have seen on forums etc.
bobby350z wrote:
No I haven't tried XT5 yet. Here is an example from GFX..
I don't think we should expect a 40MP x-trans camera to equal the detail resolution of a GFX, whether 50MP or 100MP. One of the primary reasons for a larger, higher MP sensor is its greater sensor resolution and greater system resolution.
We can stipulate that the 40MP XT5 or XH2 will not equal a GFX when it comes to detail resolution, and that those differences can be visible in large reproductions.
The real question seems to be: How well does the 40MP sensor do in situations where using the smaller camera makes more sense?
Or: Will the potential resolution advantage of a larger, higher MP sensor system make a difference in my photography that justifies using that system — e.g. what are the trade-offs in my photography?
Yes. I need to get my hands on XT-4 and XT-5 and a couple of models. Camera might be easier than models as most models I knew before covid have moved on.
I know totally different price range but I want to see clear detail in hair, skin from that XT5 sensor, which I am not seeing it yet in most pictures that I have seen on forums etc.
It’s completely addictive, the detail and smoothness the larger sensor allows. I’m with you as well. I want the potential to see that detail at reasonable print sizes. It’s difficult though. The lenses need to be an order of magnitude better than the GFX glass to account for the larger sensor to equalise the playing field. What I’m seeing is the GFX glass is generally better.. So even at smaller sizes the differences are there.
It can be done. My, now discontinued, Leica CL lenses mostly match larger formats to somewhere between A4 and A3. Those lenses are unreasonably expensive and Leica have made the incredibly stupid decision to not make a CL2, but some of the lenses are as good as the M and SL APO glass. In most cases the CL lenses on the 24MP sensor out resolve the XT5 with Fuji glass. The range for the Leica is limited though. But it does show that APSC lenses can resolve that level of detail if required.
The XT5 can really shine though. There are some lenses that seem to do very well. The new 30mm macro and the older 60mm macro certainly resolve well. I don’t have the 80. I like the 16mm and the 90. I seem to have a particularly good copy of the 16-55 as my standard zoom is as good or better than most primes in it’s range even with the primes stopped down.
I’m going to try the Sigmas. I’ve seen the results on a Sony and they were really good. Hopefully I can organise a decent copy to try on the XT5.
As soon as I tried the 60mm I’ve had for years, on the XH2 I bought I knew it could work really well and that the sensor was up for it. It’s just finding the lenses that are the best of the best for the system.
I do wish Fuji would dump the Xtrans though. I see zero benefit at these resolutions over other systems. It just adds another layer of complication to the processing. And it affects IQ depending on which software you load images into. Currently I’m round tripping files I like to DXO for the XH2. XT5 support is this month, apparently.
Looks about right. My copy of 23 1.4 R is pretty soft wide open at that distance. It does perform well closer up, and that's what I normally use it for (event stuff). But if shooting scenes at wider apertures... yea no.
madwolfa wrote:
As an example, I never thought this image would've been possible on X-T1 and 23mm shot wide open where I could discern individual strands of hair and tiny nose and eye detail on my cat's face. Previously I could only get this much detail on my old Nikon D800 with 24-70/2.8. Fuji truly closed the gap.
