p.2 #1 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
marlinspike wrote:
Taking my own thread a bit off topic as it has now been answered many times, since you've shot Nikon, do you think it's equally good at achieving that goal, or would I definitely be sticking with RAW? They're the number one contender as they seem to have the next best lineup of lenses that are both pretty good and pretty compact/affordable, as opposed to having to choose between not very good lenses and amazing but very expensive lenses. (as far as why would I still change given what everybody has said, and the thing that is still nagging me is hearing how good the AF of Sony/Canon/Nikon has gotten, sadly no stores around where I could test).....Show more →
As a long time Fuji and not quite as long time Nikon shooter, I greatly prefer the JPEG output of Fuji cameras, but I still take some umbrage with the quite limited controls you have on tweaking the output, and often create LR presets to apply over the Fuji JPGS. This is, of course, far less work than starting from scratch with a RAW file.
Nikon can make pleasing JPEGs but I don't enjoy them as much as I enjoy the fully edited RAW files. This is the biggest difference between Fuji and Nikon for me. I find the Nikon RAW files are considerably more malleable than Fuji X RAW files.
p.2 #2 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
Re RAW, I've been shooting RAW since 2004, but never stopped hating having to do that work. The auto DR + classic neg + some changes to the modifiers I feel like I'm getting close for at least a large number of shots.
I do like to shoot a lot of different stuff, so I do usually end up with a lot of lenses (when I shot Nikon film I had 6 lenses, when I shot Canon I had IIRC 6, with Fuji I have 9 excluding the one that came with my X-Pro3 purchase that I'll flip). The Canon form factor and lens selection doesn't work for my needs. The Sony and Nikon can, and maybe it's just from waiting for an X-Pro4 for so long but I feel a malaise with Fuji when I see how other cameras AF, and now that Sony and Nikon have small camera and small-ish lens options, I'm not sure why I'm still with Fuji. The Fuji benefits that made me switch initially were size (X-E2) and the selection of good-enough affordable lenses (when everybody else was still going here are our mostly crap lenses and here are our amazing expensive lenses) no longer seem unique to Fuji anymore, but I would put up with any limitation if I could get away from RAW.
p.2 #3 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
I have a shot with a lot of cameras in search of that perfect camera that ticks all the boxes for me, part of it is that I just like trying new gear. I have an X-T2 and previously an X-T5, and shot with a Z7 for a while. I am currently using an SL3 and GFX 100s mostly.
All this to say that the X-T5 hands down is the most enjoyable camera that I have ever used, and it produces excellent image quality. The 40MP sensor is better than the 24/26MP all the way around IMO, better tonal qualities, excellent dynamic range and more room to crop in post.
I haven’t used the ZF, but the 24MP full frame sensor will provide more dynamic range and much better AF (at least from everything I have read). The main drawback is that it is bigger and not a great lens selection to go with the retro style camera. You could always adapt the Sigma Contemporary primes, which I’m using on the SL3 with excellent results (aperture rings, well made, relatively small and affordable).
I would definitely suggest trying the XT5 before jumping ship, but maybe also try the ZF…doubt you could go wrong with either.
For me, I will probably buy another X-T5 at some point, it is the best APSC camera period full stop…although an X-Pro 4 with the 40MP would definitely get my attention.
p.2 #4 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
The "there aren't any lenses for the ZF" trope needs to die, as you can adapt almost every FF lens ever made to it. Yes, Nikon has dropped the ball here, but many 3rd parties are filling the gaps on the native side.
p.2 #5 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
marlinspike wrote:
...maybe it's just from waiting for an X-Pro4 for so long...
It seems pretty likely at this point that that ship has sailed. The XPro3 was introduced something like 5 1/2 years ago, and there hasn't been anything beyond the flimsiest rumors of a XPro4.
I shot with an XPro for quite a while — many thousands of frames. YMMV, but for me the "shooting experience" of the XT5 is at least as good as that of the XPro models, and in many ways better. It is roughly the same size as the XPro, though it feels smaller in hand to me. It has improved AF. The 40MP sensor is excellent. It works with every lens Fujifilm makes for their APS-C cameras. It is solidly constructed — I've been carting mine around internationally and into the backcountry in a variety of packs and bags without problems.
p.2 #6 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
RoamingScott wrote:
The "there aren't any lenses for the ZF" trope needs to die, as you can adapt almost every FF lens ever made to it. Yes, Nikon has dropped the ball here, but many 3rd parties are filling the gaps on the native side.
Adapting lenses does kind of miss the point of being smaller and simpler though. That said the s line 1.8s, while not being perfectly aestheticall6 suited do seem to be size appropriate, and some of the smaller aperture zooms.
p.2 #7 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
marlinspike wrote:
Adapting lenses does kind of miss the point of being smaller and simpler though.
Uh, many of the Sony primes are markedly smaller and the adapter adds almost no thickness. Plus, many Sony lenses have aperture rings where the Nikons don't, making them a more logical pairing with a camera like the ZF.
And yes, to your point, all of the F4 zooms balance just fine on a ZF, while all of the 1.8 primes are a good fit as well (if not just a SHADE large for what they are). There's no Fuji lens that's going to give you the IQ of the 50/1.8 for instance.
p.2 #8 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
marlinspike wrote:
I appreciate your response (along with those of many others). I guess maybe the tech has jumped a bit (my last body purchase was an X-T2, until this X-Pro3 I just recently bought but haven't had a chance to just much). I do have this so-far impossible dream of switching to jpeg now that all my photos are just for myself/family, and with the X-Pro3's profiles it seems like maybe with some experience I can make that dream come true (presumably the X-T5 would be the same or better).
Taking my own thread a bit off topic as it has now been answered many times, since you've shot Nikon, do you think it's equally good at achieving that goal, or would I definitely be sticking with RAW? They're the number one contender as they seem to have the next best lineup of lenses that are both pretty good and pretty compact/affordable, as opposed to having to choose between not very good lenses and amazing but very expensive lenses. (as far as why would I still change given what everybody has said, and the thing that is still nagging me is hearing how good the AF of Sony/Canon/Nikon has gotten, sadly no stores around where I could test)....Show more →
Well… I am probably not the best person to ask because I typically shoot raw only and convert. BUT! I did a test just for my own edification a few months ago. I shot raw plus jpeg on some typical outdoor, full sun landscape style images, and my conclusion was that my XH2 (same exact sensor as XT5) canned jpegs were very close to my own “ideally processed” raws of the same frame — so close I can see why many Fuji shooters would rather not bother with raws. It actually surprised me somewhat they were as good as they are. I never did the test with Nikon, so maybe they’re similar, IDK. I’m on a two-week road trip, but if it’s still a question when I get back, I probably have a few collections from the Z9 where I took raw+jpeg and could check.
PS: arguably you can enhance Fuji JPEG output by turning on DR400 (don’t bother with Auto or 200), but I’d only recommend it for jpeg only as it definitely does something weird to the raw files I haven’t fully figured out; raws without it on process a lot better, at least for me.
p.2 #9 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
Jack Flesher wrote:
Well… I am probably not the best person to ask because I typically shoot raw only and convert. BUT! I did a test just for my own edification a few months ago. I shot raw plus jpeg on some typical outdoor, full sun landscape style images, and my conclusion was that my XH2 (same exact sensor as XT5) canned jpegs were very close to my own “ideally processed” raws of the same frame — so close I can see why many Fuji shooters would rather not bother with raws. It actually surprised me somewhat they were as good as they are. I never did the test with Nikon, so maybe they’re similar, IDK. I’m on a two-week road trip, but if it’s still a question when I get back, I probably have a few collections from the Z9 where I took raw+jpeg and could check.
PS: arguably you can enhance Fuji JPEG output by turning on DR400 (don’t bother with Auto or 200), but I’d only recommend it for jpeg only as it definitely does something weird to the raw files I haven’t fully figured out; raws without it on process a lot better, at least for me. ...Show more →
For my part, I’ll continue to shoot raw-only since I typically do enough post processing on my images that I want to always have the full image data t that is in the raw files… and I really don’t mind post-processing. I just think of it as one part of the. process of image-making.
However, there’s noting* wrong with shooting in raw+jpg mode and just using the jpg when the it seems sufficient for your needs, I guess. Given the size difference between jpg and raw files, it is a trivial addition.
* There is one potential downside. If you like having two card slots in your camera for security (e.g. — if one has a problem your files are still good on the other), you lose that full backup option when you use the second card for jpg only. Real world risk? Probably pretty small. Consequences if something goes wrong? Who knows?
p.2 #10 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
gdanmitchell wrote:
* There is one potential downside. If you like having two card slots in your camera for security (e.g. — if one has a problem your files are still good on the other), you lose that full backup option when you use the second card for jpg only. Real world risk? Probably pretty small. Consequences if something goes wrong? Who knows?
In the X-Pro3 I can do jpeg+raw and still set the cards to be backups (so each card gets both raw and jpeg). Would you mind checking for me if the X-T5 can do both simultaneously? I would just go read the manual, but my X-Pro3 experience has been the manual leaves out a lot of quirks.
I speced out a travel kit for Nikon, and because there is no wide Z prime and 1.8 primes are effectively faster (and at least in the case of the 50 1.8 S better image quality than my Fuji counterpart), a Nikon kit for travel (when size matters) weighs in 958 grams heavier than my Fuji travel setup. When I spec comparable Fuji glass (which isn't actually what I would bring, but to be more apples to apples, the weight is basically the same), but it's not Fuji's fault that they also offer lenses better suited to my needs. I feel like at the end of a long day of walking my shoulder would notice an extra 2 pounds, though I may dummy up using a 2lb weight in my bag and see.
The other point in Fuji's favor, at least so far, is I've tried some jpeg recipes for the X-Pro3 that I'm quite happy with (but haven't shot enough to know how often they will be good enough) and poking around the net so far I don't see that with the zf (despite the zf ooc jpg colors being more true to life). I expect the X-T5 could do at least as well as the X-Pro3 in this regard given that it has all the same settings plus more film simulation starting points?
p.2 #11 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
marlinspike wrote:
In the X-Pro3 I can do jpeg+raw and still set the cards to be backups (so each card gets both raw and jpeg). Would you mind checking for me if the X-T5 can do both simultaneously? I would just go read the manual, but my X-Pro3 experience has been the manual leaves out a lot of quirks.
I no longer use that mode, so you you could be right. When I did the jpg backup thing I wrote the jpgs to the second card.
But if you can write both on the same card, a) that would negate the potential small disadvantage I mentioned and b) I stand corrected. ;-)
I speced out a travel kit for Nikon, and because there is no wide Z prime and 1.8 primes are effectively faster (and at least in the case of the 50 1.8 S better image quality than my Fuji counterpart), a Nikon kit for travel (when size matters) weighs in 958 grams heavier than my Fuji travel setup. When I spec comparable Fuji glass (which isn't actually what I would bring, but to be more apples to apples, the weight is basically the same), but it's not Fuji's fault that they also offer lenses better suited to my needs. I feel like at the end of a long day of walking my shoulder would notice an extra 2 pounds, though I may dummy up using a 2lb weight in my bag and see....Show more →
It is hard to say exactly what my “travel kit” is for my XT5 since It varies depending on the nature of the travel. But it sort of works like this:
The 27mm f/2.8 is my core travel (and street photography) lens. It is tiny but optically quite good. It is probably on the camera something like 90% of the time.
I usually also bring the lovely 14mm f/2.8. This is a really great lens that doesn’t get a lot of attention anymore from Fujifilm users. 14mm (21mm FF angle-of-view equivalent) is enough for interiors and tight spaces such as narrow streets.
I generally bring one longer lens. Recently I took my old 60mm f/2.4 macro for this purpose. If I did not own that, it would be a 50mm f/2. But that 60mm lens, aside from being a bit of an oddball, is optically quite good and also relatively small.
Sometimes, depending on the circumstances, I prefer to bring my 90mm f/2. This is another beautiful lens, though it is obviously larger than the 60mm or the 50mm f/2 alternatives.
I do a lot of night street photography in urban areas while traveling, so in the past I have brought along my 23mm and 35mm f/1.4 lenses. I would generally leave them behind (locked in the hotel safe) during the day, and then switch one or more of them in at night. I still do often bring the beautiful little 35mm f/1.4 “just in case,” but I’ve also realized that f/2.8 is usually plenty for urban night photography using the higher ISOs that work effectively with today’s cameras.
Sometimes I want a zoom. For example, last year we walked the Great Glen Way in Scotland and then spent additional weeks in more urban settings. I used the 16-55mm lens on the trail.
If you want a somewhat larger apertures you could also use the “Fujicron” f/2 lenses and some other small lenses at the 16mm and/or 18mm focal length.
I can typically get my entire kit into a PacSafe shoulder bag taht doesn’t look like a camera bag and which has some useful security features. I can still squeeze my iPad, documents, phone, and a few other important travel items into it.
The other point in Fuji's favor, at least so far, is I've tried some jpeg recipes for the X-Pro3 that I'm quite happy with (but haven't shot enough to know how often they will be good enough) and poking around the net so far I don't see that with the zf (despite the zf ooc jpg colors being more true to life). I expect the X-T5 could do at least as well as the X-Pro3 in this regard given that it has all the same settings plus more film simulation starting points?
The XT5 has even more of those simulations built in than the XPro, and you also have access to Adobe versions (and more) if you use that software on RAW files in post. (I’m not a big fan of the sims, but that’s just me.)
p.2 #12 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
x2 for the 14mm in the travel kit. Don't know why this doesn't get more love. It's a great little lens and the colours that come out of it are very pleasing. For what it's going for used these days it's a no brainer.
For travel I've played around quite a bit. I used to bring the 18-55, 55-200 and the 35 1.4. This gave me 18 to 200 with IS and because I was shooting both photo and video it worked really well. The 35 would come out for low light indoor photos.
As I've switched more towards photo and let the action camera handle the video I've played with just the 16-55 and the 35...but now I'm settled on mainly primes and picking a couple and living with the limitations. Generally the 14 and the 35...then something else depending what I think the need will be...90, 56 ... sometimes throw in the 18-55. Half the fun is imagining what I'm going to be doing and then putting what I think will work in the bag...and finding out I totally wish I had something longer or wider.
p.2 #13 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
RoamingScott wrote:
The "there aren't any lenses for the ZF" trope needs to die, as you can adapt almost every FF lens ever made to it. Yes, Nikon has dropped the ball here, but many 3rd parties are filling the gaps on the native side.
Respectfully, disagree. Yes, it is a valid point that Z mount can adapt lenses from many other mounts, which includes Sony E mount, however, it is not ideal. Is it a deal breaker? Not for me, but for some it might be.
p.2 #14 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
Rod.smith7 wrote:
Respectfully, disagree. Yes, it is a valid point that Z mount can adapt lenses from many other mounts, which includes Sony E mount, however, it is not ideal. Is it a deal breaker? Not for me, but for some it might be.
Z's flexibility is literally not something you can disagree with. Z mount can accept the most lenses of any mount on the market. Now, will it work for any given person? Depends on the person, and fair enough.
Many reports of E to Z adapters on this very forum reporting that their E glass works as well on Z as E. If that is indeed true, I'm not sure how it would be less than ideal.
I personally don't like adapting AF glass, but even then, I'm adapting a number of other fun lenses to Z that I wouldn't otherwise.
p.2 #15 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
tgrantster wrote:
x2 for the 14mm in the travel kit. Don't know why this doesn't get more love. It's a great little lens and the colours that come out of it are very pleasing. For what it's going for used these days it's a no brainer.
For travel I've played around quite a bit. I used to bring the 18-55, 55-200 and the 35 1.4. This gave me 18 to 200 with IS and because I was shooting both photo and video it worked really well. The 35 would come out for low light indoor photos.
As I've switched more towards photo and let the action camera handle the video I've played with just the 16-55 and the 35...but now I'm settled on mainly primes and picking a couple and living with the limitations. Generally the 14 and the 35...then something else depending what I think the need will be...90, 56 ... sometimes throw in the 18-55. Half the fun is imagining what I'm going to be doing and then putting what I think will work in the bag...and finding out I totally wish I had something longer or wider....Show more →
That three-lens approach you mention in the third paragraph usually works for me, too. Something “normal,” something wide, something longer. I can see the combo of the 14mm, the 35mm, and maybe a 50mm or 90mm working for a lot of situations. (I like the 14mm, 27mm, 50mm or so idea is it comes close to a 2:1 ratio between focal lengths.)
A while ago I also carried that 55-200mm lens so that I’d have something long. Back then the trio was 14mm, 35mm, and this zoom. I think that’s a pretty viable option for some people who want to cover the longer focal lengths, but still want a lens that is relatively small and light. Mine eventually had some mechanical issues, and it also had some AF issues at long focal lengths in low and low-contrast light, though I have so acknowledge that this was with an earlier generation of Fujifilm’s cameras.
Some of this comes down to some combination of what subjects you tend to photograph (is one mostly a landscape sort of person or maybe more of a street photographer?) and how much stuff you are willing to cart around while traveling. We prefer to travel very* light, so I lean toward smaller and lighter gear for this.
* How light? In 2023 we were on the road in Europe for 10 weeks. I limited myself to carryon luggage. I carried only a 46 (?) litre Osprey travel pack and that PacSafe shoulder bag. I know that probably sounds pretty close to impossible to a lot of people, but once you try it and work out the details it is pretty liberating. (We cheated at one point. We had tickets to three performances at the Bayreuth Festival, where you really do have to dress up, so we shipped the better attire there and back separately.) We recently did a 6-week fall/winter trip in Germany, France, and Spain using this light approach, too.
p.2 #16 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
The 55-200 was great for me when travel meant at least one or two days at the beach and was great for photos of my kids playing in the surf...or exploring a park...or tobogganing. It excelled as a nice compact zoom that could be thrown in the bag just in case and was great for making a quick video too. I really like the images it produced and again...another Fuji lens that often gets overlooked for the 70-300...but used it's cheap as chips and worth consideration. Mine took some of my favorite photos.
Now if we hit the beach we're out snorkeling ... so I'm out there with them using the action camera. I sold the 55-200 real cheap to a dad who was just beginning his "beach days" with the kids because I had the 90 and the 100-400 to fill my need for reach.
I could easily see myself getting a copy of the 27. I love the 35 but something a little more compact with weather sealing for walking around in the day with just the camera on a strap. That could work really well. Also a bit wider would help too.
p.2 #17 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
Don’t get me wrong, there is no question about the Z Mount providing the most options to adapt lenses, and there is even an AF adapter for Leica M, which does not get talked about enough. My only point was that adapting lenses is not for everyone, which does not diminish the flexibility of the Z mount.
I will need to give the ZF a go sometime soon.
RoamingScott wrote:
Z's flexibility is literally not something you can disagree with. Z mount can accept the most lenses of any mount on the market. Now, will it work for any given person? Depends on the person, and fair enough.
Many reports of E to Z adapters on this very forum reporting that their E glass works as well on Z as E. If that is indeed true, I'm not sure how it would be less than ideal.
I personally don't like adapting AF glass, but even then, I'm adapting a number of other fun lenses to Z that I wouldn't otherwise.
p.2 #18 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
Went from X-Pro3 to X-T5. The X-T5 files are better in just about every metric.
Mar 14, 2025 at 06:29 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #19 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
marlinspike wrote:
I've been wanting to replace my X-T2. I am trying out at X-Pro3, which is for me personally something I like a lot but the older AF and lack of screen is hindering in some ways that I would use it. I was looking at photonstophotos and it looks like the X-T5 took a big hit to dynamic range. Did it in fact or is this some aspect of the testing that makes it look this way? Do you notice the dynamic range impact in your real life use? As it is, I have been considering a Zf and closing out all my Fuji stuff (which is a pretty large selection of lenses after using it since the X-E2 came out), so I'm worried the X-T5 will be a big disappointment in that regard, even if the rear screen and better AF would be useful to me....Show more →
If you look at the table, the X-pro 3 and X-T5 are capable of the same max DR. X-T5 gets a 10.43 max, actually a little higher than the X-Pro3 at 10.42. Of course that's iso 64 vs 160, if you look at the graph, but the X-T5 still capable of imperceptibly higher DR. The Zf gets 11.12 max, better but that's a ff camera so not really a fair comparison and maybe not a huge difference anyway
But the X-T5 gets 10.42 at 125 vs 10.42 at 160 for the X-Pro 3, if you look at the graphs. That doesn't sound like much difference, though, 1/3 stop iso.
X-T5 is one of the highest DR Fujis, X-T4 only beats it by an imperceptible 2 hundreds of a stop, 10.45, on Bill Claff's site.
p.2 #20 · X-T5 for former owners of the 26MP X-Trans - do you notice the dynamic range reduction?
AmbientMike wrote:
If you look at the table, the X-pro 3 and X-T5 are capable of the same max DR. X-T5 gets a 10.43 max, actually a little higher than the X-Pro3 at 10.42. Of course that's iso 64 vs 160, if you look at the graph, but the X-T5 still capable of imperceptibly higher DR. The Zf gets 11.12 max, better but that's a ff camera so not really a fair comparison and maybe not a huge difference anyway
But the X-T5 gets 10.42 at 125 vs 10.42 at 160 for the X-Pro 3, if you look at the graphs. That doesn't sound like much difference, though, 1/3 stop iso.
X-T5 is one of the highest DR Fujis, X-T4 only beats it by an imperceptible 2 hundreds of a stop, 10.45, on Bill Claff's site. ...Show more →
If we take the figures for Xpro3 and Xt4 I suppose that the level of accuracy of those figures is at least + or - 0.02, and probably more. No reason surely those two should differ, unless IBIS affects it!!! And even the full frame "only' 24mpx Zf is so little better as to be irrelevant in normal use.
