How do you feel about the 40mp XTrans-5 sensor now that it's closing in on 4 years old?
I have never used it. I was always sort of mixed on XTrans. Straight out of camera it's always been wonderful to me. But it's never been a fun file output for heavier post-processing (cinema looks, etc) and for great color pop with minimal RAW tweaks I always liked my Leica and Nikon files better.
I've never been unhappy with Fuji's power to resolve though. Under normal lighting XTrans looks as sharp as any FF camera I have ever seen. But for those that push their files I am wondering if the 40mp just gives more pixels for people work with.
Thoughts?
Has the XTrans-5 been a success for you in particular?
I was pleasantly surprised by the sensor. It's nice and sharp, and actually has very nice contrast. It's the rest of Fuji's baggage wrapped around the sensor that put me off the system.
I think X-Trans RAF files are noticeably worse to work with than full frame RAW files. Every post program demosaics their files worse than using X RAW Studio or simply shooting JPEG.
You just don't buy X mount for ultimate IQ. I can get more out of a good 24mp FF RAW file than a 40mp X-Trans, and I have way more interesting lenses at my disposal.
I've been very happy with my X-T5 and expect to use a few more years. I use it for quicker composition shots in the field and find the balance of performance to size/weight is very good. I also have a Gfx setup that I use for slower paced, more intentional composition where I want more performance. I'm really more interested in what lenses Fuji has on the way or what third parties might offer both formats for my nearer term acquisitions.
Love it. I used to shoot with X-Pro3 and X-T5 side by side and I could easily see the difference in details between the 26mp and 40mp. I look back at my old photos taken with D700 (12 MP) and really wish they were more hi-res.
I'm relatively new to the sensor, with the X-E5 I got in August. I didn't want 40mp in an APS-C sensor and in theory didn't like it / didn't expect to like it. I tend to dislike an overly sharp and, to my eyes, "too digital" looking image, and have always liked the raws I get from my Fujifilm X cameras. Not as smooth to work with in LR but also closer to my preferred end result from the start, so in a way easier too.
But I've been swayed by it. Higher res but still with that look I want.
Jan 29, 2026 at 03:57 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I like the sensor more than I expected, and I find it more than good enough for almost everything I shoot. That said I answered with the second response because I think its advantage over the previous 26 MP Fuji sensor is primarily just a few more megapixels, but that does include more crop ability, which is part of the first answer.
Do I think it is as good as a 42 MP or 45 MP FF sensor? Not in my experience, but the sensor does not hold me back either for almost all my shooting. And while if I had a choice I would prefer a Bayer filter array, I don't think the X trans filter array makes hardly any difference any more as software at this point can handle the files just fine.
ottokbre wrote:
How do you feel about the 40mp XTrans-5 sensor now that it's closing in on 4 years old?
I have never used it. I was always sort of mixed on XTrans. Straight out of camera it's always been wonderful to me. But it's never been a fun file output for heavier post-processing (cinema looks, etc) and for great color pop with minimal RAW tweaks I always liked my Leica and Nikon files better.
I've never been unhappy with Fuji's power to resolve though. Under normal lighting XTrans looks as sharp as any FF camera I have ever seen. But for those that push their files I am wondering if the 40mp just gives more pixels for people work with.
Thoughts?
Has the XTrans-5 been a success for you in particular? ...Show more →
I’ve used x-trans 16MP, 24MP, 26MP (though less), and 40MP sensors on tiers APS-C cameras. My sense is that:
1. The primary plus of the higher MP sensors has been the increased resolution. Related: virtually all Fujifilm lenses (and all that I use) are up to the task of working with a 40MP sensor and can offer somewhat improved overall resolution with the higher MP sensors.)
2. In my (fairly substantial) experience, moving to higher sensor resolutions has never made other aspects of sensor/camera performance worse, so there is no penalty for using hte MP sensors. In fact, I feel that certain qualities such as noise performance have gone beyond remaining the same to improve to some extent.
Should everyone with a sub-40MP sensor Fujifilm camera rush out and replace it? Not necessarily. Unless you are pushing the boundaries of what you can do with a lower-MP sensor, and unless you need other features/improvements that have come with more recent camera models, your older sensor is likely still just fine. I have licensed images for fairly large reproductions and sold prints from files using all of those cameras.
Contrary to some in this thread, I generally don’t have any issues with the 40M files in post, and I’ve made prints as large as 40” on the long side that were of decent qualty. (I would typically use my FF system for prints of that size, since the differences become more apparent under close inspection.) A lot of my Fujifilm photographs from the 40MP and earlier systems are travel and street photography, including a lot of urban night photography done at somewhat elevated ISOs — a task for which the 40MP sensor performs admirably.
Of course, a 40MP APS-C sensor will not “match” a 50-60MP FF sensor image, but the differences are smaller than many might assume. You could (and I have) hang 20” x 30” prints from high MP FF and APS-C x-trans files side-by-side and no one who knew which was which could tell. At least if you shoot skillfully and know what you are doing in the post-processing and printing phases.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I like the sensor more than I expected, and I find it more than good enough for almost everything I shoot. That said I answered with the second response because I think its advantage over the previous 26 MP Fuji sensor is primarily just a few more megapixels, but that does include more crop ability, which is part of the first answer.
Do I think it is as good as a 42 MP or 45 MP FF sensor? Not in my experience, but the sensor does not hold me back either for almost all my shooting. And while if I had a choice I would prefer a Bayer filter array, I don't think the X trans filter array makes hardly any difference any more as software at this point can handle the files just fine....Show more →
Like you, I chose the second response option. Basically, the main plus of the new sensor is its higher resolution. There are no losses in other areas and any gains are small enough to not call for an update.
I strongly agree with your points in the second paragraph regarding the comparison to FF and the x-trans sensor. I’ve felt for a long time that any pluses and minuses of x-trans by comparison to Bayer sensor cameras are meaningless. I wish (and have wished for some years) that Fujifilm would ditch the x-trans sensor filter and just use Bayer like everyone else.
There’s been some thinking that they hold onto it because it would be a sort of admission of error to now say that it isn’t particularl helpful, or because they think it gives them a marketing lever that other brands don’t have. But unlike when these cameras were first introduced (back when we all worried a lot about moire on sensors without AA filtering), today no one really cares. What Fujifilm ought to do is move to Bayer and market it along the lines of “we are not bringing the same advanced Bayer sensor technology to our APS-C cameras that we have perfected in our market leading professional GFX series bodies.” ;-)
It's really good (I have an X-T5). My other comparison Fuji body is an X-E3 which I love.
Images are nicely malleable in Lightroom and Photoshop.
Noise is well controlled and unobtrusive and responds well to LR AI noise reduction when needed.
It produced great files with detail and sharpness and the greater pixel dimensions allow easy cropping.
I shot birds for about 9 months last year, the extra detail produced was welcome.
I would have no hestiation in buying a body with the 40mp sensor, it's a beauty.
I'm contemplating selling both the X-T5 and X-E3 and getting an X-E5 to use in the future (I'll also sell the big/long lenses, since I've finished with birds for the time being).
I got a X-E5 at launch and it's my first camera with the 40MP sensor.
I like it more than expected, especially with the crop-in feature assigned to the front lever.
The colours are to my liking too – I didn't like the color output of the previous-gen 26mp sensors, they differed quite a bit from the older 24mp sensors having a cooler and slight magenta tone that I always have to correct, on the new 40MP sensor it seems like Fuji "fixed" that.
What I think could be better is the readout speed. The 26mp sensor was excellent in that regard, this one is a step back, slightly worse than the old 24mp sensors (still usable for me with e-shutter with proper care though).
I know there's a low chance to happen, but I really wish Fuji could leave the X-Trans BS behind, it's just annoying at this point with no real advantages. Just makes the demosaicing heavier and adds extra processing steps to get the same detail as normal bayer sensors.
Sr.Cordeiro wrote:
I know there's a low chance to happen, but I really wish Fuji could leave the X-Trans BS behind, it's just annoying at this point with no real advantages. Just makes the demosaicing heavier and adds extra processing steps to get the same detail as normal bayer sensors.
Only problem I had was that converting an XT5 to IR I suffered a lot of banding from the PDAF sensors. That was an expensive mistake.
Otherwise it has all been roses. I’ve always had a knee-jerk “it’s so noisy!” reaction when getting a new higher-resolution body, until I remember to not compare 1:1 crops between low and high resolution bodies. Normalizing for output size, the new sensor is great all around.
CKrueger wrote:
I’ve always had a knee-jerk “it’s so noisy!” reaction when getting a new higher-resolution body, until I remember to not compare 1:1 crops between low and high resolution bodies. Normalizing for output size, the new sensor is great all around.
Good that you figured this out!
I’m surprised by how many people fail to understand the problems when comparing 100% crops from systems with different photo site density.
As you point out, misleading understandings of the effect of noise can be one result. Even assuming the the noise is the same (most likely), better (also likely), or a bit worse (almost never), folks forget that with a higher MP system the “grain size” (to use old-school film concepts) is smaller, and any noise is thus a bit less apparent.
The other error that people make when comparing 100% crops is they fail to account for the fact that hey are looking “more closely” and a smaller area of the image on the higher resolution sample. A 300 x 300 pixel crop from a 40M sensor shows a much smaller area than a 300 x 300 pixel crop from a 16MP or 24mp sensor. The erroneous conclusion they come to is that the higher MP system is less sharp! What they need to do is compare images comprising the same portion of the whole frame, sized to be identical. Comparing same-sized prints is ideal, though comparing same-size jpgs on a screen can work, too.
I like the 40mp sensor. I like the output from all Fuji cameras, and the 40mp sensor is the best of them all if you want detail. While FF and GFX sensors can perform better, it's mostly not in a meaningfull way.
GFX’s advantage is more that you can mount a lens like a garden-variety 85/1.4 and get a look like a 50/1.0 on full frame, or a 35/0.7 on APS-C.
It’s a situational advantage, but useful at times.
Geoff D F wrote:
I like the 40mp sensor. I like the output from all Fuji cameras, and the 40mp sensor is the best of them all if you want detail. While FF and GFX sensors can perform better, it's mostly not in a meaningfull way.
Geoff D F wrote:
While FF and GFX sensors can perform better, it's mostly not in a meaningfull way.
That statement, for the GFX sensor, would need a whole lot more explanation, because it is much easier to tell the difference between them and a X-trans 40mp image than many other comparisons, like an X trans 26mmp vs 40mp image.
But for the sake of the thread, this is comparisons between the X trans sensors, not others. And to that, SLIGHT pros and cons to each when compared to the other.
Sr.Cordeiro wrote:
The colours are to my liking too – I didn't like the color output of the previous-gen 26mp sensors, they differed quite a bit from the older 24mp sensors having a cooler and slight magenta tone that I always have to correct, on the new 40MP sensor it seems like Fuji "fixed" that.
.
I noticed that too. I went from the 16mp sensor to the BSI 26mp when the XT3 came out. Obviously that was a significant difference but have since had the XT3, XH1 and X100F and all of them had a color palette I preferred to the 26mp cameras I had (Xpro3, XT3, XE4). It's pretty minor but it's there.
RWNPhoto wrote:
That statement, for the GFX sensor, would need a whole lot more explanation, because it is much easier to tell the difference between them and a X-trans 40mp image than many other comparisons, like an X trans 26mmp vs 40mp image.
But for the sake of the thread, this is comparisons between the X trans sensors, not others. And to that, SLIGHT pros and cons to each when compared to the other.
I suppose i was thinking if your objective is prints, you may not notice until you get to 30 inches or above. If you view photos on a 5k screen it will be hard to see much difference in detail. The GFX is probably a good two to three stops better in noise performance but that doesn't matter until the light gets quite dim. And you can get shallower depth of field but you can already get good subject isolation with APS-c. Don't get me wrong, GFX is better in every way, but for many uses you won't see much difference.
I should add that the difference between the 40mp sensor and 26mp sensor are small and agree with others who like the colours on the 40mp sensor more.
The "cool" choice of X camera is still the X-Pro3, which still uses the 26 Megapixel sensor. So thats what I'd get if I would get the X system as an additional system. I dont think the X system is a good option for me to use as a primary system.
I wasn't driven by the 40mp sensor, it's just what came in the Fuji camera I wanted. I was surprised and delighted. I had none of the processing issues I had in my two previous Fuji cameras--and one of them had a Bayer sensor.
The files aren't stressed as much for large prints, and it's my first Fuji that I can process in ACR and Denoise. Very pleasing results
