I feel like for most, they were already getting severely diminishing returns after like 12-16MP. You're in overkill territory with 24 already if you're just posting things online. 40MP on APS-C seems to confer a benefit that is just much too minimal to justify an upgrade for the overwhelming majority of shooters. Better to just go to FF or Medium if you're really that in need, and in my experience, even most professionals are not because the prints they're paid for aren't that big (newspaper, so on). You also have AI tools today that upscale images quite effectively.
Agreed. If megapixels are your only reason for upgrading, it’s not worth it. But if you’re after the better APSC package (autofocus, screen resolution, IBIS, etc.) it’s still a worthwhile upgrade.
Big thanks for doing this. It confirms my expectations. The pixel shift mode on the H2 is even more unnecessary! I still love my H2 though,for things like the digital “zoom” and the insane fast electronic shutter speeds. Also love it’s video improvements.
I have wondered for a year or more now whether I should upgrade my X-T2 but honestly I am unconvinced that more MP is better image quality - I think you just proved that moving from 24 to 40 wont really make an appreciable difference for me - so thank you for saving me a bucket!
Your video brings to mind an old joke. Who looks at a 6 ft. by 4ft. Photograph from 6 inches away with a magnifying glass? The answer is a photographer. No one else in their right mind would. Very large prints are printed at lower dpi settings because they are made for viewing at a distance. High MPS cameras are created to make big bucks for the camera companies.
I've found that as long as the resolution is above 150ppi then you wont be able to tell. so extra resolution just enables you to print larger prints while still retaining that 150 ppi thresh hold. so you can argue that there's little advantage to high resolution but that's in most cases. in certain scenarios the difference is very important. those being if you want to crop in, and if you want to print large. on social media ive cropped in enough so that my 61mp file once cropped has been cut down to sub 8mp and on Instagram it still looks tac sharp
Great comparison...interesting results!! I traded my XT3 for the XT5 and the 40mp sensor along with IBIS and the new processor sold it for me. I like to crop in quite a bit in some photography so I was waiting for that extra resolution of 40mp. I still have the XS10 and X100V so I can do a bit of testing too!!!
The reason why i went and picked up both the xb2 and xt5 is that even though the sensors are the same, they are too different camera. The XH2 works so much better for wildlife when longer glass is required and the xt5 is an old school compact beast with a body the size of an Olympus OM 1mk3. The abilities to use many aspect ratios while shooting with out the loss of much resolution is awesome.
Hi Ian another interesting video comparing the old and new sensors. I've previously owned the 16-55 and it is a very nice piece of glass. Since your last episode on the X-H2 I've scored an X-T5 and to go with it the Tamron 17-70 f2.8. Which I chose over the Fuji 16-55 on weight and IBIS grounds, though IQ is within a hairs breadth either way. I'd previously questioned whether your 50-140 was delivering peak performance. And since getting the X-T5 I've confirmed to myself at least that quality of glass is imperative with the new sensor. Experimenting in very low light the X-T5 couldn't achieve a resolution or focus properly with the 18-55, which normally lives with my X-E4, at f2, whereas the Tamron hit autofocus every time and produced a useable image. (I good light the 18-55 is quite useable). I love my X-E4, my favourite camera. The X-T5 and my Sony A7R IV (I'm not rich, I got the Sony body used at a really great price) give one the opportunity to crop aggressively as you have illustrated. Most people won't need the extra resolution, however if the 40mp sensor is the new standard it is worth bearing in mind that if one gets a new camera budgeting for a refresh of lens collection is probably a wise move. Once again, great episode.
@@ian_worth Hi Ian. Just checked. Yes it has the latest firmware. I have to stress that when I say low light I was really pushing it. All pretty marginal.
I recently bought an X-T1 and am enjoying the Fuji ergo's and general feel quite a lot. If I stick with the system, I'd definitely go straight to the X-T5 . But the resolution is just a bonus - I'd be chasing the IBIS , the smaller body (than X-T4) , the rear screen, better evf etc .
I had an X-T4 and the smaller body was what won me over, plus the custom settings. I would have been happy if they had just sold it with the 26 MP sensor TBH.
Oddly enough this is exactly the kind of benefit I wanted from higher mega pixels. When I shoot small birds or animals I tend to crop excessively and print relatively small. The extra bit of detail when viewing close would be desirable. Thanks for the comparison.
It's not just the resolution of the sensor, but the glass that's in front of it is what really makes it count. I think you can get even more details from the X-H2 just by using a good prime lens. Don't get me wrong, 16-55 is a great lens, but I have a feeling it's starting to show it's age a bit with a 40MP sensor. Cheers! :)
These UA-camrs are beyond help. Too many people now have done these comparisons with insufficient lenses. The only lenses capable of 40+MP are the new 18, 23 and 33mm F1.4, the Viltrox 13mm and 75mm, the Fuji 90mm F2, the 8-16 F2.8 and the 200mm F2. And that's it. Period. The 16-55 only *almost* gets there at its most optimal focal length (usually 30-33mm) at F5.6. The Fuji 18, 90 and 200 and both Viltrox lenses are the only ones that can do it wide open.
While he's wrong on the lenses he stated, it's true that the red badge 16-55mm 1.4 is not optimal for resolving 40mpx. The list only shows the 16-55mm 2.8 as being able to do that
@@whitelion204 the so-called official recommended list by fujifilm is so BS. you can check w/ other fuji hardcore users, only a few latest released prime lens have the resolving power, others don't really work that well
It is a really small advantage but really hard to pass on it, I guess that's how human nature works. I keep telling myself " if you're to create a masterpiece then the resolution is not your concern, let printing services figure it out later!" and it helps! I bought few older cameras now with 16mp and photography stopped being a burden and I enjoy it back again.
I was seriously considering buying the X-T5, but I'll hold off. Picked up a like new X-T2 as a second body to go with my X-E3. I hear the dynamic range is better with the new sensors (X-H2S) and that interests me even more than larger size. Very useful comparison, thank you!
You sort of nailed it, with the crops.. that is the advantage. in certain circumstances when a lot of the image is sometimes cropped away (wildlife for example, you can never get close enough to those little birds) you can still produce a larger print from the new X-trans 5 HR sensor in the X-T5/X-H2 we use both X-T3s and an X-T5, for most photography we do where we fill the frame and print up to 19" x 13" (A3+) either camera is more than good enough. and from a normal viewing distance printing up to a1 from the 26MP file is fine (as you are not looking at it from 12" away) But for wildlife the X-T5 and X-H2 are just better, the 40MP that enables professional prints from crops that would be unprintable from the 26MP camera, adding to that the animal autofocus. makes life so much easier
Very interesting video Ian. Thanks for posting. I enjoyed your photos too. I was a Fuji owner having progressed over the years from X-T1, T2 and T3. I was going to skip over the T4 and wait for a T5. but in the end I decided to sell all my Fuji gear and bought a Nikon Z7 because I wanted a bigger camera for my big hands. I am content to stay within a range of 24-70mm so the cost wasn’t exorbitant. 10:45 The Z lenses are superb too. I bought a few Z lenses and a couple of Voightlander Leica mount which are fabulous fun with an adapter. The Nikon colours are even better than Fuji’s and not as ‘clean and clinical’ as Sony and Canon’s imho. They have something really special. But my point is that I love the 45 mpx for the ability to heavily crop when needed whilst keeping the full frame perspective. I also have bought a vintage lens which produces lovely bubble bokeh from specular highlights - just adorable and very satisfying. Any extra storage on my computer is minimal because I like to think about my photos before shooting so take only a few at a time and voraciously delete any that don’t quite make the grade. I don’t print my own photos because I find home printing has so many variables in the settings and I wasted so many I found it more economical to have them printed right first time. All the best,
This is very interesting. I traded in my XT3 to an xt5. But also decided to get the Nikon z6ii with a 50mm 1.8 z lens. I agree with you about the Nikon colors. To my surprise I love them and spend less time editing the Raw files than I have with Fuji. I haven't had much of a chance to use the xt5 yet.
Very interesting Ian. Not overly surprised at the results but great to see a print comparison rather than a pixel peeping comparison. I have both the 16-55 and the 18-55. I also debated getting the 16-55 for a while but so glad I did. It’s a stellar lens and virtually glued onto my Xt3. The 18-55 has been placed on my xe3 and seems better suited as a walk around- hiking set up. Both great lenses non the less and I would appreciate your own opinion if you get a chance to compare. Cheers.
@David Tripp Why it's well known that the newer primes render better sharpness than the older primes and telephoto lenses according to Gordon Laing and Fuji. I want to see how the new Prime fair over the older lenses.
Interesting. From my point of view I wanted a camera with analog dials, ibis, and still photo centric screen as opposed to flip screen. So I skipped the XT4. The increased resolution is only a small part of what this new camera offers. That being said, I had hoped to stop using the GFX and its 110mm for portraits and replace it with the XT5 and the new 56mm. Although the 56mm on the XT5 is very very good, my granddaughter will never be two again so when I have a choice I use the 110mm. But I want to emphasize that the 56 f1.2 mk2 is truly exceptional and has many advantages in portability, weight and size. Sorry this is so long but my point of view is that the XT5 is the camera the XT3 hoped to be when it grew up…
Thanks for a great video, Ian, informative for both XH2 and XT5 owners. There are some other superb features on these cameras, but the high resolution seems to be most useful if you need to crop heavily, as in wildlife photography, for example.
Thanks for another interesting comparison Ian. As a long-term Fuji user (still got my XT1 and XT2) I debated long and hard before trading in my XT3 for the XT5 which, on balance, I did for the extra cropping facility. What perhaps is disappointing for me is that, with the exception of the 70-300 which I recently acquired, none of my regular zoom lenses ie 10-24, 18-55, 16-80, and 55-200 make it on to the Fuji approved list for the 40Mp sensor. Moreover, I think many of us Fuji users were seriously disappointed that the 10-24, a lens many of us felt to be sharp did not make the list. Accordingly, not only would it be good to see an 18-55/16-55 comparison, but I think many of us would be interested to see a comparison of the 10-24mm lens on the different sensors.
My copy of the 10-24 is not particularly sharp, on the XT30 or XT5. Am going to end up selling it because it gets so little use (also don't do any video shooting)
Hi there, i hope you can help me with my existential doubts xD I own an XT30 and i was thinking to upgrade but i really don't know in what. I mostly do music photography and videos, from music videos to random to share on instagram for companies or influencers. So basically i don't know if upgrade to a full frame, in this case lumix s5iiX or the XH2, cause i want a camera that would be versatile for both video and photo. Advantage point for the XH2 i already own some lenses for fuji of course. What do you think i should do< do you think you can suggest me something?
If you are doing lots of video and already own Fuji glass, the x-h2s might be your best option. That being said the x-h2 is also great or both video and stills 👍
I'd rather see a review of the 18 55mm. 16 55mm vs the new 56mm 1.2 wr. It's said that the newer primes take advantage of the new 40mp sensor, but you only show what older lenses render. Why not do some real analysis of old lenses vs new ones? It's great to show how older lenses render on the 40mp sensor. But I'd rather see how they compare to the newer primes, and if the new primes do in fact render sharper photos.
I watched right to the end as you had me from the first few seconds.. a lot of detail, deep dive, complex topic despite the simplicity of the issues.. but really enjoyed the way you broke it all down.. thank you.. keep putting out great content, we appreciate it ;-)
In some ways this seems a valid comparison and in some ways perhaps it is not. Your crops are shot with a subject possibly 800m away or more and at the coast. At this distance you will be shooting through a lot of air, dust, moisture and atmospheric turbulence which will lower the resolution by blurring a lot of the fine detail that the 40mp sensor might have picked up, which the 26mp sensor would not. So in this scenario I wouldn’t expect much difference. On the other hand a landscape where the subject is close and there is a lot of detail such as foliage might show a quite noticeable difference at large print sizes. But I think it is far to say there won’t be many situations where the extra 14mp makes much difference. I’ve just picked up the X-T5 (mainly for reasons other than the sensor). It will be interesting to see how it performs against my old 24mp Sony A7III. It will be a battle between quantity and quality.
I took some controlled studio shots of an A3 sized, high resolution, test chart with my XF 90mm lens (my sharpest fuji lens) with my XH2 and XH2s. Long story short, even though I needed a magnifying glass to discern the smallest details on the chart with my eyes, both cameras out-resolved the fine details and you could not tell the images apart whilst the test chart filled the frame. Pulling back so that the chart occupied a much smaller portion of the frame, the XH2 resolved more lines per inch than the XH2s and this could be very clearly seen in the images. Part of the confusion in assessing detail on screen comes from the fact that the screen image is a fixed pixel width. When you print the images (within limits) the printer can use more dots per inch for the more detailed (larger) image printed at the same size. And, in theory at least, this should be easier to discern.
Weird! On my monitor and with UA-cams compression, the final comparison had a clear winner: X-T looked much much better than X-H. X-H photo looked soft and had worse colours. Big difference. Did anyone else experience the same effect? 9:51-10:06, X-T looked better the whole the time. Weird...
Its really difficult showing prints on a video. Think of it this way. I've taken a photo then printed it, I've then taken a photo of the prints and uploaded it into premier pro. I've then edited my video and exported it, then uploaded it to UA-cam. Its likely that this process is not going to show the results as accurate as the eye will see the prints in real life. One of the big issues is the light bouncing of the paper which reduces the clarity . 👍
Thanks for the compare, very interesting. I wish your next would be XH2 or xt5 vs Gfx50 just for the rendering of tonality. After all it’s what’s making the mood with the composition.
Great video comparison, thank you. How do you feel about those image sharpening apps like Topaz to fix the sharpness on images taken with less resolution?
I traded mine for the XT5. Instant benefits for me were IBIS, more configurability with custom settings, and 3 more film sims. Resolution is a noticeable improvement, as well, with my sharper lenses and when cropping. The small downside.. is some my vintage lenses are reaching the limits of what they can resolve, even though they still look great at reasonable image sizes.
I would suggest that if you are looking for faster and more reliable autofocus, ibis and better video specs then a its well worth upgrading, if its just for the IQ, i would probably stay with the xt3 and invest in glass or a good photography trip somewhere nice 👍👍
Great video! Yes 16-55 vs 18-55 would be interesting. Also Lr noise reduction between xh2 and xh2s, is the worms issue worse for either sensor? Thanks!
I do love these big print comparison videos and cheap camera pro photographer challenge. And Ian Worth you should do. It goes goes to show that it’s the person behind the camera not the gear. And for anyone out there a used xh1 can be had for $600-ish usd.
I had a photo album printed on A4 by a prograde album printing company on excellent paper. The first pictures were made on a 6Mp camera some 20 years ago. Even those pictures were really sharp and detailed
Great Job. Well done. I'm surprised. It's not worth the extra MP's. More in camera processing. Fuji should have went to 32 max. Like canon did. They really should just refine a 24 mp sensor and go back to a Bayer with the EXR processor . In my opinion. My only 24mp camera is a ricoh griiix my Fuji camera's only have 12(x100) & 16(x-e1) These 2 sensors have excellent detail. the original x-trans was great. After that its a no go for me.
Could you please upload the matching RAW image files from both cameras somewhere? That would be super helpful because it would allow us to print and compare them ourselves. I really appreciate the work you put into this video but unfortunately any differences in the prints is lost in the UA-cam compression and whatnot.
I have my GFX 50S. That's enough for brilliant pics. The single point for me to purchase a X-H2 would be the s-Version of the camera due its high speed qualities, but do I really need it? I don't take pictures of eyes of flying birds far away or scratches on speeding cars. Nobody, who doesn't publish photographs for professional reasons, doesn't need to have such professional stuff, if their pictures are of poor quality of composition etc.
I did a somewhat unscientific comparison between a Canon L lens at 200 on a 18mp EOS7D and a Fuji 55-200 at 200 on a XS10 and found the Fuji gave a sharper image on small print I had hanging on a wall. I can only assume is due to the 26mp sensor on the Fuji. I have been told that cameras have a much higher colour definition than printers and printers would need far more than say 12 colour cartridges to come close to printing the full colour definition from a camera. If there was a printer that had 50 different colour cartridges I would imagine the price of prints would be substantial.
Another very interesting comparison Ian. I'm looking to upgrade my XT2 (I already own the XT3) and have a shortlist of the XT5, XH2 and XH2s. I assumed it would end up between the XT5 and XH2 but I'm not so sure anymore. I also shoot wildlife so was leaning towards the XH2s but thinking I'd be better getting the larger sensor. For what I print for my camera club 15"x10" I really don't think the 40mp sensor is going to give me much more (apart from more noise possible at higher ISO's. I also shoot Astro and I don't think the 40mp sensor will do me any favours. I've just bought the fantastic 150-600mm lens so won't be getting the new body for a while ☺
Excellent video helpful in assessing the choice between the two xh2 cameras. If printing, say, 60 inches or less, without a crop, and selling to someone other than a picture editor fixated on reproduction values, other questions come into line. Price is one. But also the potential to develop the ai of the stacked sensor, etc. Really good work. Thanks.
Thank you for your effort. I recently decided against the XT5 because I didn’t fancy processing lots of 40pm files. I honestly think that the majority of enthusiast/serious amateur photographers get unnecessarily hung up on pixel peeping. How many ever get their images printed in sizes in excess of about 800x600mm? I have canvas prints of that size taken with a Fuji XE1 16mp, and I struggle to tell any difference with similar size canvas prints taken with my current X-H2s. Clearly, IBIS is a big plus at times, but Fuji cameras all produce brilliant JPEGS straight out of camera, so think carefully before upgrading.
Thank you for your reference to the X-E1. It was my first foray into the Fuji system and I like it so well for its ergonomics and IQ I use it to this day for static images alongside an X-T30 and X-T3.
You are right. If you are looking at IQ, there isn't anything really special about the 40mp sensor over the 24mp sensor. It's technically a 30% improvement in picture size only. My XE1 and XT2 have the exact same IQ as my XH2, noise and all. But the functionality and AF is a huge improvement.
Excellent work Ian. It all makes complete sense. I, like most would benefit hugely from putting even half my effort in gear geekery into taking photos 😏
Great review again Ian. Keep them coming mate. Would love to see how the 18-55 stacks up as a 'non' approved lens for the 40mp sensor. Having started with the X-E3 with that as a kit lens I recently picked up the X-H2. Loving it so far. As that range is key for landscape/day to day it would be interesting to see if it is good enough on the 40mp. Not sure what you can compare it to as the 16-55 is red badge so should be higher quality anyway. Maybe see the difference on 26mp vs 40mp to see if it renders more detail. Anyway Im sure you know how best to test it out. Thanks again.
Thanks for the time and expense you put into making this video. It really does clarify things to those who have been making claims of easily noticeable difference in detail with the new sensor. I upgraded from the dinosaur but still amazing XT2 and was struggling to see anymore detail. The new sensor really shows off the corner softness with some of my older lenses. I have been debating returning the new camera because I really dont want to have to invest in all new lenses but there are a lot of other features that justify the upgrade. I do still wish fuji just stuck with the 26mp sensor and worked at improving dynamic range and high iso performance. My computer is noticeably slower loading and processing the 40mp files. If Fuji did not have such great straight out of camera colors I would probably just part ways and go all in on full frame.
Hi Ian, I'm curious if when you were comparing the blown up images beyond their native print size if you resized the image files in PS or Gigapixel or similar software prior to printing. If not, I wonder what the final visual difference would be. Also just curious, how do you like your BenQ monitor? Can't tell which one it is but I am considering the BenQ line and wonder what your experience may be. Thanks and keep up the great work.
Thank you for doing this Ian. I am sure it will be very helpful to many of us. I bought an X-H2. So in the final analysis, the main benefits of the 40MP files are to be able to print huge (not many of us). Or crop heavily avoiding any significant loss of image/print detail/quality. PS the comparison between the 2 lenses would also be very interesting.
Yes, that comparison between the 2 lenses would be great. I've sometimes thought of the 2.8 lens but hesitate as it is larger and heavier. The price is not an issue since it is a sturdier build.
I wonder if we are looking at this about face - How is it that a 40MP is so good? heard lots of doom about too small pixels etc and yet it stacks up really well. I also think noise is easier to handle with the greater MP files so a low light comparison may be more testing. I would love to see a similar comparison done with C1 which I still think is much better at handling Fuji raw files. Maybe its as simple as if you are a photo shooter - why upgrade, if you are a hybrid shooter then there are good reasons to move.
You saw a small difference close up. Either picture in ISOLATION, no difference. I'm still getting fantasic large prints from my X-T1. Interesting video.
Only photographers are going to look at a wall sized print close enough to see the detail difference. Everyone will be far enough back to view the whole image. The human eye can resolve 300dpi at 12”. The largest print one can see in its whole at 12” is roughly an 11x17. If you want to print larger, the viewer will be further away. So I would fully expect your findings. When you came in closer, then the extra resolution helps, but you’re no longer viewing the whole, you did a lot of cropping, which is the main benefit of more pixels.
I did a comparison between 24 MP (X-T20), 40 MP (X-H2) and 160 MP (X-H2) using a EUro bill (congrats to UK for leaving that sinking ship of fools) as a subject. There's a vital quality difference between each different mode, the 160 MP mode really working out finest details. By the way: Did anyone succeed in taking flash photos using the electronic shutter of the H2? Manual suggests it should work. I failed. :D
Pigment printers are not that great in representing details. Dye-ink printers like the Pro-100 do significantly better in this regard. The color rendition is better too. Some time ago I printed on my Pro-100 a 15x21 size image from a film scan. Right away I noticed some stripes in the corner. At first, I supposed it was the printer's failure but theb checked the scan on my 4k monitor. Even at 100% manification I could barely see the stripes. Only at 200% I began to notice something but on that small print I could crearly see them without a problem!
The only reason to have a high-megapixel sensor is when you need to crop a lot. Personally, I would like it if my 42mp sensor have a 30ish MP Raw mode without crop that I could use most of the time and then pull out more megapixels when I need them based on what I am shooting... but hey ho. For most people, high MP cameras are not worth it. They require you to have more storage, higher spec'd laptops, and sharper, heavier glass. They also tend to cost more.
thanks for the comparison mate! im actualy not sure that this 16-50 is the right lense for this test, i belive the new prime lenses are much more capeble of resolving these sensors. maybe for the next test?
Thank for this comparison. Very interesting! And thanks for switching to metric at the end of the video. Imperial should be banned (in my humble opinion.... 🙂 )
The processing and storage of 40mp files made me pass on the XT5. My XT4 has the ibis and features I need. It doesn’t make sense to me, having that many megapixels in an aps-c sensor.
Great video and very interesting comparison, this is the best I have seen on UA-cam comparing these two generation sensors. I always felt anything above 20megapixels is enough resolution for any size enlargement because the bigger you go the viewing distance gets bigger also. Yes if u walk up to an enlarged image and pixel peep on a small part of the image then ofcourse the finer detail will resolve better but when viewing the whole image at its appropriate distance, nobody can tell.
I think if you are comparing you need to include the 16-80 the 16-55 and the 18-55 and if you have the time the new updated xc15-45 and perhaps the new video lens that people are saying is not great.
Great Real World comparision. Prints are once again the great equalizer. Blowing up an image to more than 60 inches wide is something few people will do - certainly not me. Therefore, not worth spending the extra money for the newer sensor.
@@ian_worth definitely worth picking up. I just sold my 16-55 2.8 as it was collecting dust since I picked up the sigma. Not as wide or as long but its so light that is makes up for a few missing mm imo. What shocked me is how well the sigma retains contrast under tough lighting conditions, it was so good I did side by sides with the 16-55 and the sigma did better every time.
Hi Ian, I use an X-H1 and upscale my photos using Gigapixle AI so when printing at 16" x 20" ensure DPI is about 300-325. It would be interesting to run this analysis on your raw files to see if any difference.
Do you use gigapixel for images above 16x20 with xh1? I print 16x24 easily with great detail. Even larger sometimes. Is there much of an advantage with the AI?
@@northgael1 I use Gigapixle to upscale any image below 300 dpi/ppi to circa 300 to ensure optimal print resolution. Usually upscaled from 150+ achieve very good results. Hence why would be worth doing comparison with Ian's images as side by side comparison.
Hello Ian. Congratulations for you channel from Spain. In my opinon and experience, we do not need to print at 300dpi., since the human eyes is not able to differentiate from 180 dpi. All my prints for 15 years have been like this, both in the professional laboratory and with my Canon Pixma Pro 1000 printer for A2. We gained print siza with no apparent perceptual loss in viewing the print. Thank you for sharing with the community.
Good video mate. Thanks for the comparison - I shoot with an xt3 and love it but considering a second body. Can’t decide between xh2, xht2s or s20 or sxhs20sx too many letters?
Very good time for me to see this video because I was wondering to by x100v or wait for new version with 40mp. So do you think if the new x100 will be with higher mp sensor, for street photography, traveling, adventure, and daily usage, as my second backup camera to GFX100S, would be too much different with higher resolution advantage or current 26mp on 100v is quite sufficient? Thank you
Very nice video and very much to the point. I have a 100cm by 70cm print on my wall made with a 10mp Nikon D80, it looks amazing, if I go really close I can of course see that it's not super high resolution but viewed from 50cm or greater there is no evidence of "low resolution". People have gotten too hung up on high MP sensors. If it doesn't show in print it doesn't really matter but most people don't print that often anymore, sadly. Thanks for the video.
Thank you. IMHO, there are two FUJI owners that upgraded to the XH2 or XT5. These are the XH1 and XT3-4 users. The XT3 and XT4 both use the 26 mp sensor which also has the more improved processor. The XH1 however is the 24 mp with the oldest and least eficient processor of the group, namely the processor of the XT2. Being an XH1 user, I would be interested in comparing the 40 MP sensors to the XH1 (or XT2)
Thoughts from a recent convert to the XH-2 My experience in printing dozens of 40x50, 40x60, 24x60, and 24x72 inch prints is that you can print at 180dpi for the viewing distance needed to actually take in the print. The only people who will ever notice the loss are pixel-peeping photographers like me. (note all these were either shot on 4x5 film, a PhaseOne P45+ medium format 40mp back or stitched from multiple images done with either the P45+ or a Nikon D2Xs (12mp) 24mp is more than enough for almost anyone. More can be better, but it isn't always. In Fuji's case, you gain very little from the increase in MP, but the new bodies are sure nice.
I feel like for most, they were already getting severely diminishing returns after like 12-16MP. You're in overkill territory with 24 already if you're just posting things online. 40MP on APS-C seems to confer a benefit that is just much too minimal to justify an upgrade for the overwhelming majority of shooters. Better to just go to FF or Medium if you're really that in need, and in my experience, even most professionals are not because the prints they're paid for aren't that big (newspaper, so on). You also have AI tools today that upscale images quite effectively.
I'm with you all the way my friend 👍👍
Agreed. If megapixels are your only reason for upgrading, it’s not worth it. But if you’re after the better APSC package (autofocus, screen resolution, IBIS, etc.) it’s still a worthwhile upgrade.
@@awake780 AF and IBIS
I went with the X-T5 because I shoot birds and wildlife. The additional cropping ability of the 40mp sensor is a welcome benefit for me!
Great video
Big thanks for doing this. It confirms my expectations. The pixel shift mode on the H2 is even more unnecessary! I still love my H2 though,for things like the digital “zoom” and the insane fast electronic shutter speeds. Also love it’s video improvements.
Why use aperture of f7.1. Diffraction starts to have a significant effect beyond f5.6 on a 40mp sensor.
I have wondered for a year or more now whether I should upgrade my X-T2 but honestly I am unconvinced that more MP is better image quality - I think you just proved that moving from 24 to 40 wont really make an appreciable difference for me - so thank you for saving me a bucket!
Your video brings to mind an old joke. Who looks at a 6 ft. by 4ft. Photograph from 6 inches away with a magnifying glass? The answer is a photographer. No one else in their right mind would. Very large prints are printed at lower dpi settings because they are made for viewing at a distance. High MPS cameras are created to make big bucks for the camera companies.
Please stop increasing megapixels. Please. X100v with 12 megapixels would be my dream.
I've found that as long as the resolution is above 150ppi then you wont be able to tell. so extra resolution just enables you to print larger prints while still retaining that 150 ppi thresh hold. so you can argue that there's little advantage to high resolution but that's in most cases. in certain scenarios the difference is very important. those being if you want to crop in, and if you want to print large. on social media ive cropped in enough so that my 61mp file once cropped has been cut down to sub 8mp and on Instagram it still looks tac sharp
I have 40x30 inch posters from myX-T1 and people who see them think they look fantastic.
Great comparison...interesting results!! I traded my XT3 for the XT5 and the 40mp sensor along with IBIS and the new processor sold it for me. I like to crop in quite a bit in some photography so I was waiting for that extra resolution of 40mp. I still have the XS10 and X100V so I can do a bit of testing too!!!
Thanks buddy, let me know how you get on 👍👍
I wish someone would do a Pixelshift comparison 160MP on the X-T5 vs Fujifilm's own GFX100s . Want to see the picture comparison and quality etc.
If someone lends me a gfx i will make a video 😁😁👍
The reason why i went and picked up both the xb2 and xt5 is that even though the sensors are the same, they are too different camera. The XH2 works so much better for wildlife when longer glass is required and the xt5 is an old school compact beast with a body the size of an Olympus OM 1mk3. The abilities to use many aspect ratios while shooting with out the loss of much resolution is awesome.
Awesome James 👍
Hi Ian another interesting video comparing the old and new sensors. I've previously owned the 16-55 and it is a very nice piece of glass. Since your last episode on the X-H2 I've scored an X-T5 and to go with it the Tamron 17-70 f2.8. Which I chose over the Fuji 16-55 on weight and IBIS grounds, though IQ is within a hairs breadth either way.
I'd previously questioned whether your 50-140 was delivering peak performance. And since getting the X-T5 I've confirmed to myself at least that quality of glass is imperative with the new sensor. Experimenting in very low light the X-T5 couldn't achieve a resolution or focus properly with the 18-55, which normally lives with my X-E4, at f2, whereas the Tamron hit autofocus every time and produced a useable image. (I good light the 18-55 is quite useable).
I love my X-E4, my favourite camera. The X-T5 and my Sony A7R IV (I'm not rich, I got the Sony body used at a really great price) give one the opportunity to crop aggressively as you have illustrated.
Most people won't need the extra resolution, however if the 40mp sensor is the new standard it is worth bearing in mind that if one gets a new camera budgeting for a refresh of lens collection is probably a wise move.
Once again, great episode.
Thanks Kane, have you put the latest firmware on your 18-55. It came out October last year i think 👍
@@ian_worth Hi Ian. Just checked. Yes it has the latest firmware. I have to stress that when I say low light I was really pushing it. All pretty marginal.
I recently bought an X-T1 and am enjoying the Fuji ergo's and general feel quite a lot. If I stick with the system, I'd definitely go straight to the X-T5 . But the resolution is just a bonus - I'd be chasing the IBIS , the smaller body (than X-T4) , the rear screen, better evf etc .
I had an X-T4 and the smaller body was what won me over, plus the custom settings. I would have been happy if they had just sold it with the 26 MP sensor TBH.
Oddly enough this is exactly the kind of benefit I wanted from higher mega pixels. When I shoot small birds or animals I tend to crop excessively and print relatively small. The extra bit of detail when viewing close would be desirable. Thanks for the comparison.
It's not just the resolution of the sensor, but the glass that's in front of it is what really makes it count. I think you can get even more details from the X-H2 just by using a good prime lens. Don't get me wrong, 16-55 is a great lens, but I have a feeling it's starting to show it's age a bit with a 40MP sensor. Cheers! :)
These UA-camrs are beyond help. Too many people now have done these comparisons with insufficient lenses. The only lenses capable of 40+MP are the new 18, 23 and 33mm F1.4, the Viltrox 13mm and 75mm, the Fuji 90mm F2, the 8-16 F2.8 and the 200mm F2. And that's it. Period. The 16-55 only *almost* gets there at its most optimal focal length (usually 30-33mm) at F5.6. The Fuji 18, 90 and 200 and both Viltrox lenses are the only ones that can do it wide open.
@@Vinterloft Wrong. There are 20+ Fuji lens that can take advantages of the 40MP sensor, and I'm sure xf16-55 is in that list.
@@Vinterloft bruh where is the 56mm f1.2?
While he's wrong on the lenses he stated, it's true that the red badge 16-55mm 1.4 is not optimal for resolving 40mpx. The list only shows the 16-55mm 2.8 as being able to do that
@@whitelion204 the so-called official recommended list by fujifilm is so BS. you can check w/ other fuji hardcore users, only a few latest released prime lens have the resolving power, others don't really work that well
It is a really small advantage but really hard to pass on it, I guess that's how human nature works. I keep telling myself " if you're to create a masterpiece then the resolution is not your concern, let printing services figure it out later!" and it helps! I bought few older cameras now with 16mp and photography stopped being a burden and I enjoy it back again.
I was seriously considering buying the X-T5, but I'll hold off. Picked up a like new X-T2 as a second body to go with my X-E3. I hear the dynamic range is better with the new sensors (X-H2S) and that interests me even more than larger size. Very useful comparison, thank you!
Thanks for watching buddy! 👍👍
You sort of nailed it, with the crops.. that is the advantage. in certain circumstances when a lot of the image is sometimes cropped away (wildlife for example, you can never get close enough to those little birds) you can still produce a larger print from the new X-trans 5 HR sensor in the X-T5/X-H2
we use both X-T3s and an X-T5, for most photography we do where we fill the frame and print up to 19" x 13" (A3+) either camera is more than good enough. and from a normal viewing distance printing up to a1 from the 26MP file is fine (as you are not looking at it from 12" away)
But for wildlife the X-T5 and X-H2 are just better, the 40MP that enables professional prints from crops that would be unprintable from the 26MP camera, adding to that the animal autofocus. makes life so much easier
Thanks for watching buddy 👍👍😊
I don't know if I missed it, but how/where are you finding a sensor's "native print resolution"?
Very interesting video Ian. Thanks for posting. I enjoyed your photos too. I was a Fuji owner having progressed over the years from X-T1, T2 and T3. I was going to skip over the T4 and wait for a T5. but in the end I decided to sell all my Fuji gear and bought a Nikon Z7 because I wanted a bigger camera for my big hands. I am content to stay within a range of 24-70mm so the cost wasn’t exorbitant. 10:45 The Z lenses are superb too. I bought a few Z lenses and a couple of Voightlander Leica mount which are fabulous fun with an adapter. The Nikon colours are even better than Fuji’s and not as ‘clean and clinical’ as Sony and Canon’s imho. They have something really special. But my point is that I love the 45 mpx for the ability to heavily crop when needed whilst keeping the full frame perspective. I also have bought a vintage lens which produces lovely bubble bokeh from specular highlights - just adorable and very satisfying. Any extra storage on my computer is minimal because I like to think about my photos before shooting so take only a few at a time and voraciously delete any that don’t quite make the grade. I don’t print my own photos because I find home printing has so many variables in the settings and I wasted so many I found it more economical to have them printed right first time.
All the best,
This is very interesting. I traded in my XT3 to an xt5. But also decided to get the Nikon z6ii with a 50mm 1.8 z lens. I agree with you about the Nikon colors. To my surprise I love them and spend less time editing the Raw files than I have with Fuji. I haven't had much of a chance to use the xt5 yet.
Very interesting Ian. Not overly surprised at the results but great to see a print comparison rather than a pixel peeping comparison.
I have both the 16-55 and the 18-55. I also debated getting the 16-55 for a while but so glad I did. It’s a stellar lens and virtually glued onto my Xt3. The 18-55 has been placed on my xe3 and seems better suited as a walk around- hiking set up. Both great lenses non the less and I would appreciate your own opinion if you get a chance to compare. Cheers.
Interesting video I enjoyed it. I would definitely be interested in a video comparing the 18-55 & the 16-55 on the 40 megapixel sensor.
Nice video! I'm also interested to see the image result of these lenses on the 40 megapixel sensor.
Awesome, I will be sure to make that video soon 👍👍
@David Tripp Why it's well known that the newer primes render better sharpness than the older primes and telephoto lenses according to Gordon Laing and Fuji. I want to see how the new Prime fair over the older lenses.
Ian, great video! 40Mpix are clearly not usefull for everybody. I really would like to see comparison between the XF16-55 and the XF18-55! Thank you!
Interesting. From my point of view I wanted a camera with analog dials, ibis, and still photo centric screen as opposed to flip screen. So I skipped the XT4. The increased resolution is only a small part of what this new camera offers. That being said, I had hoped to stop using the GFX and its 110mm for portraits and replace it with the XT5 and the new 56mm. Although the 56mm on the XT5 is very very good, my granddaughter will never be two again so when I have a choice I use the 110mm. But I want to emphasize that the 56 f1.2 mk2 is truly exceptional and has many advantages in portability, weight and size.
Sorry this is so long but my point of view is that the XT5 is the camera the XT3 hoped to be when it grew up…
I'm very happy with my decision to go with X2hs, you gain superior video, focusing, and burst modes losing essentially no detail for my work.
Great to hear! 👍👍
Thanks for a great video, Ian, informative for both XH2 and XT5 owners. There are some other superb features on these cameras, but the high resolution seems to be most useful if you need to crop heavily, as in wildlife photography, for example.
Thanks for another interesting comparison Ian. As a long-term Fuji user (still got my XT1 and XT2) I debated long and hard before trading in my XT3 for the XT5 which, on balance, I did for the extra cropping facility. What perhaps is disappointing for me is that, with the exception of the 70-300 which I recently acquired, none of my regular zoom lenses ie 10-24, 18-55, 16-80, and 55-200 make it on to the Fuji approved list for the 40Mp sensor. Moreover, I think many of us Fuji users were seriously disappointed that the 10-24, a lens many of us felt to be sharp did not make the list. Accordingly, not only would it be good to see an 18-55/16-55 comparison, but I think many of us would be interested to see a comparison of the 10-24mm lens on the different sensors.
My copy of the 10-24 is not particularly sharp, on the XT30 or XT5. Am going to end up selling it because it gets so little use (also don't do any video shooting)
I don’t post anything on line, I make big prints for homes and offices. Some photographs are quad frames stitched together to make 200 mp prints.
It’s worth getting the XT3, just so I’m not burdened with that damn side hinged flippy flappy rear LCD.
Hi there, i hope you can help me with my existential doubts xD
I own an XT30 and i was thinking to upgrade but i really don't know in what.
I mostly do music photography and videos, from music videos to random to share on instagram for companies or influencers.
So basically i don't know if upgrade to a full frame, in this case lumix s5iiX or the XH2, cause i want a camera that would be versatile for both video and photo.
Advantage point for the XH2 i already own some lenses for fuji of course. What do you think i should do< do you think you can suggest me something?
If you are doing lots of video and already own Fuji glass, the x-h2s might be your best option. That being said the x-h2 is also great or both video and stills 👍
I'd rather see a review of the 18 55mm. 16 55mm vs the new 56mm 1.2 wr. It's said that the newer primes take advantage of the new 40mp sensor, but you only show what older lenses render.
Why not do some real analysis of old lenses vs new ones? It's great to show how older lenses render on the 40mp sensor. But I'd rather see how they compare to the newer primes, and if the new primes do in fact render sharper photos.
XT-2. Best Fuji camera ever made.
At this size the comparison is meaningless
I think the 16-55 f2.8 vs the 16-80 f4 is the "battle of champions". Is one just a travel lens?
Good point, could make an interesting comparison video 👍👍
I watched right to the end as you had me from the first few seconds.. a lot of detail, deep dive, complex topic despite the simplicity of the issues.. but really enjoyed the way you broke it all down.. thank you.. keep putting out great content, we appreciate it ;-)
In some ways this seems a valid comparison and in some ways perhaps it is not. Your crops are shot with a subject possibly 800m away or more and at the coast. At this distance you will be shooting through a lot of air, dust, moisture and atmospheric turbulence which will lower the resolution by blurring a lot of the fine detail that the 40mp sensor might have picked up, which the 26mp sensor would not. So in this scenario I wouldn’t expect much difference. On the other hand a landscape where the subject is close and there is a lot of detail such as foliage might show a quite noticeable difference at large print sizes. But I think it is far to say there won’t be many situations where the extra 14mp makes much difference. I’ve just picked up the X-T5 (mainly for reasons other than the sensor). It will be interesting to see how it performs against my old 24mp Sony A7III. It will be a battle between quantity and quality.
I took some controlled studio shots of an A3 sized, high resolution, test chart with my XF 90mm lens (my sharpest fuji lens) with my XH2 and XH2s. Long story short, even though I needed a magnifying glass to discern the smallest details on the chart with my eyes, both cameras out-resolved the fine details and you could not tell the images apart whilst the test chart filled the frame. Pulling back so that the chart occupied a much smaller portion of the frame, the XH2 resolved more lines per inch than the XH2s and this could be very clearly seen in the images.
Part of the confusion in assessing detail on screen comes from the fact that the screen image is a fixed pixel width. When you print the images (within limits) the printer can use more dots per inch for the more detailed (larger) image printed at the same size. And, in theory at least, this should be easier to discern.
Weird! On my monitor and with UA-cams compression, the final comparison had a clear winner: X-T looked much much better than X-H. X-H photo looked soft and had worse colours. Big difference. Did anyone else experience the same effect? 9:51-10:06, X-T looked better the whole the time. Weird...
Its really difficult showing prints on a video. Think of it this way. I've taken a photo then printed it, I've then taken a photo of the prints and uploaded it into premier pro. I've then edited my video and exported it, then uploaded it to UA-cam. Its likely that this process is not going to show the results as accurate as the eye will see the prints in real life. One of the big issues is the light bouncing of the paper which reduces the clarity . 👍
Thanks for the compare, very interesting.
I wish your next would be XH2 or xt5 vs Gfx50 just for the rendering of tonality. After all it’s what’s making the mood with the composition.
Thank you Ian for this precious comparison, I really appreciate your videos and your point of view on photography, thanks for sharing!
Yes on the (16-55 vs 18-55) comparison! Ty
If the resolution is limited by the lens, then this would be the result.
*phew* I guess I can keep my X-Pro3 for another generation or two. Thanks for the video.
Cheers buddy, love the xpro 3 👍👍
did you noticed any difference in dynamic range between the 26 and 40mp sensor?
I will talk about that in a future video 👍😁
Great video comparison, thank you. How do you feel about those image sharpening apps like Topaz to fix the sharpness on images taken with less resolution?
I’m still not convinced that I should trade in my XT3 for XH2.
Unless you goal is very very very large prints, you are probably well served with the camera you own.
I traded mine for the XT5. Instant benefits for me were IBIS, more configurability with custom settings, and 3 more film sims. Resolution is a noticeable improvement, as well, with my sharper lenses and when cropping. The small downside.. is some my vintage lenses are reaching the limits of what they can resolve, even though they still look great at reasonable image sizes.
I would suggest that if you are looking for faster and more reliable autofocus, ibis and better video specs then a its well worth upgrading, if its just for the IQ, i would probably stay with the xt3 and invest in glass or a good photography trip somewhere nice 👍👍
@@ian_worth Glass it is.
Great video!
Yes 16-55 vs 18-55 would be interesting. Also Lr noise reduction between xh2 and xh2s, is the worms issue worse for either sensor? Thanks!
Noted! 😁😁👍
I do love these big print comparison videos and cheap camera pro photographer challenge. And Ian Worth you should do. It goes goes to show that it’s the person behind the camera not the gear. And for anyone out there a used xh1 can be had for $600-ish usd.
I had a photo album printed on A4 by a prograde album printing company on excellent paper. The first pictures were made on a 6Mp camera some 20 years ago. Even those pictures were really sharp and detailed
Awesome 👍👍
Great Job. Well done. I'm surprised. It's not worth the extra MP's. More in camera processing. Fuji should have went to 32 max. Like canon did. They really should just refine a 24 mp sensor and go back to a Bayer with the EXR processor . In my opinion. My only 24mp camera is a ricoh griiix my Fuji camera's only have 12(x100) & 16(x-e1) These 2 sensors have excellent detail. the original x-trans was great. After that its a no go for me.
Still way happy with the X-Trans I/II 16 MP Sensors - what i get out of them. For APS-C, it's still plenty of MP.
And the Oscar goes to…
Could you please upload the matching RAW image files from both cameras somewhere? That would be super helpful because it would allow us to print and compare them ourselves.
I really appreciate the work you put into this video but unfortunately any differences in the prints is lost in the UA-cam compression and whatnot.
I have my GFX 50S. That's enough for brilliant pics. The single point for me to purchase a X-H2 would be the s-Version of the camera due its high speed qualities, but do I really need it? I don't take pictures of eyes of flying birds far away or scratches on speeding cars. Nobody, who doesn't publish photographs for professional reasons, doesn't need to have such professional stuff, if their pictures are of poor quality of composition etc.
Comparison with Fujinon 18-55 f2.8-4 & 16-55 f2.8 yes, please.
I did a somewhat unscientific comparison between a Canon L lens at 200 on a 18mp EOS7D and a Fuji 55-200 at 200 on a XS10 and found the Fuji gave a sharper image on small print I had hanging on a wall. I can only assume is due to the 26mp sensor on the Fuji. I have been told that cameras have a much higher colour definition than printers and printers would need far more than say 12 colour cartridges to come close to printing the full colour definition from a camera. If there was a printer that had 50 different colour cartridges I would imagine the price of prints would be substantial.
Another very interesting comparison Ian. I'm looking to upgrade my XT2 (I already own the XT3) and have a shortlist of the XT5, XH2 and XH2s. I assumed it would end up between the XT5 and XH2 but I'm not so sure anymore. I also shoot wildlife so was leaning towards the XH2s but thinking I'd be better getting the larger sensor. For what I print for my camera club 15"x10" I really don't think the 40mp sensor is going to give me much more (apart from more noise possible at higher ISO's. I also shoot Astro and I don't think the 40mp sensor will do me any favours. I've just bought the fantastic 150-600mm lens so won't be getting the new body for a while ☺
Would be very interested in an 18-55 vs 16-55 comparison.
Excellent video helpful in assessing the choice between the two xh2 cameras. If printing, say, 60 inches or less, without a crop, and selling to someone other than a picture editor fixated on reproduction values, other questions come into line. Price is one. But also the potential to develop the ai of the stacked sensor, etc. Really good work. Thanks.
Fuji or almost any consistent brand, this is an excellent demonstration of the results of various file sizes
on real-world output !
Thank you for your effort. I recently decided against the XT5 because I didn’t fancy processing lots of 40pm files. I honestly think that the majority of enthusiast/serious amateur photographers get unnecessarily hung up on pixel peeping. How many ever get their images printed in sizes in excess of about 800x600mm? I have canvas prints of that size taken with a Fuji XE1 16mp, and I struggle to tell any difference with similar size canvas prints taken with my current X-H2s. Clearly, IBIS is a big plus at times, but Fuji cameras all produce brilliant JPEGS straight out of camera, so think carefully before upgrading.
Thanks for watching buddy 👍👍😊
Thank you for your reference to the X-E1. It was my first foray into the Fuji system and I like it so well for its ergonomics and IQ I use it to this day for static images alongside an X-T30 and X-T3.
You are right. If you are looking at IQ, there isn't anything really special about the 40mp sensor over the 24mp sensor. It's technically a 30% improvement in picture size only. My XE1 and XT2 have the exact same IQ as my XH2, noise and all. But the functionality and AF is a huge improvement.
Excellent work Ian. It all makes complete sense. I, like most would benefit hugely from putting even half my effort in gear geekery into taking photos 😏
Great review again Ian. Keep them coming mate. Would love to see how the 18-55 stacks up as a 'non' approved lens for the 40mp sensor. Having started with the X-E3 with that as a kit lens I recently picked up the X-H2. Loving it so far. As that range is key for landscape/day to day it would be interesting to see if it is good enough on the 40mp. Not sure what you can compare it to as the 16-55 is red badge so should be higher quality anyway. Maybe see the difference on 26mp vs 40mp to see if it renders more detail. Anyway Im sure you know how best to test it out. Thanks again.
Yikes! This is hardcore stuff! Well done 👏👏👏👏
Thanks for the time and expense you put into making this video. It really does clarify things to those who have been making claims of easily noticeable difference in detail with the new sensor. I upgraded from the dinosaur but still amazing XT2 and was struggling to see anymore detail. The new sensor really shows off the corner softness with some of my older lenses. I have been debating returning the new camera because I really dont want to have to invest in all new lenses but there are a lot of other features that justify the upgrade. I do still wish fuji just stuck with the 26mp sensor and worked at improving dynamic range and high iso performance. My computer is noticeably slower loading and processing the 40mp files. If Fuji did not have such great straight out of camera colors I would probably just part ways and go all in on full frame.
They kinda did exactly that - they stuck with the 26Mp sensor in the (arguably all-around better) X-H2S version.
X-h1 😉
Did you find the Lightroom-Worms?
@@djstuc he zooms not enough to see the worms
@@djstuc it is called irony. Hard to recognize …. for you, how it seems 🤣, as the worms….
@@djstuc 👍🏻👍🏻🙋♂️
Hi Ian, I'm curious if when you were comparing the blown up images beyond their native print size if you resized the image files in PS or Gigapixel or similar software prior to printing. If not, I wonder what the final visual difference would be. Also just curious, how do you like your BenQ monitor? Can't tell which one it is but I am considering the BenQ line and wonder what your experience may be. Thanks and keep up the great work.
Thank you for doing this Ian. I am sure it will be very helpful to many of us. I bought an X-H2. So in the final analysis, the main benefits of the 40MP files are to be able to print huge (not many of us). Or crop heavily avoiding any significant loss of image/print detail/quality.
PS the comparison between the 2 lenses would also be very interesting.
They said the 16-55 can't resolve the 40 megapixel. I loved that lense whit my x-t4 before I sold it.
Any Camera with high dynamic range of 12-14. Megapixels up to 20, will be very pleasing.
Fuji are bit overpriced ?
@DJ STU-C which models purchased ?..
Yes, that comparison between the 2 lenses would be great. I've sometimes thought of the 2.8 lens but hesitate as it is larger and heavier. The price is not an issue since it is a sturdier build.
I wonder if we are looking at this about face - How is it that a 40MP is so good? heard lots of doom about too small pixels etc and yet it stacks up really well. I also think noise is easier to handle with the greater MP files so a low light comparison may be more testing. I would love to see a similar comparison done with C1 which I still think is much better at handling Fuji raw files. Maybe its as simple as if you are a photo shooter - why upgrade, if you are a hybrid shooter then there are good reasons to move.
Thanks man, capture one comparison here ua-cam.com/video/7MWWq2RDEw0/v-deo.html
You saw a small difference close up. Either picture in ISOLATION, no difference. I'm still getting fantasic large prints from my X-T1. Interesting video.
Only photographers are going to look at a wall sized print close enough to see the detail difference. Everyone will be far enough back to view the whole image.
The human eye can resolve 300dpi at 12”. The largest print one can see in its whole at 12” is roughly an 11x17.
If you want to print larger, the viewer will be further away. So I would fully expect your findings.
When you came in closer, then the extra resolution helps, but you’re no longer viewing the whole, you did a lot of cropping, which is the main benefit of more pixels.
Great comment 👍👍
I did a comparison between 24 MP (X-T20), 40 MP (X-H2) and 160 MP (X-H2) using a EUro bill (congrats to UK for leaving that sinking ship of fools) as a subject.
There's a vital quality difference between each different mode, the 160 MP mode really working out finest details.
By the way: Did anyone succeed in taking flash photos using the electronic shutter of the H2? Manual suggests it should work. I failed. :D
Pigment printers are not that great in representing details. Dye-ink printers like the Pro-100 do significantly better in this regard. The color rendition is better too.
Some time ago I printed on my Pro-100 a 15x21 size image from a film scan. Right away I noticed some stripes in the corner. At first, I supposed it was the printer's failure but theb checked the scan on my 4k monitor. Even at 100% manification I could barely see the stripes. Only at 200% I began to notice something but on that small print I could crearly see them without a problem!
18-55 vs 16-55 💪💪
👍👍
The only reason to have a high-megapixel sensor is when you need to crop a lot. Personally, I would like it if my 42mp sensor have a 30ish MP Raw mode without crop that I could use most of the time and then pull out more megapixels when I need them based on what I am shooting... but hey ho. For most people, high MP cameras are not worth it. They require you to have more storage, higher spec'd laptops, and sharper, heavier glass. They also tend to cost more.
Yes 16-55 vs 18-55 is 18-55 good for the 40 mp?
Noted 👍👍
@@ian_worth i would also like to see a comparison of the 18-552.8-4 and the 16-55/2.8. thumbs up.
thanks for the comparison mate! im actualy not sure that this 16-50 is the right lense for this test, i belive the new prime lenses are much more capeble of resolving these sensors. maybe for the next test?
No worries, its on the recommended list and looks great on the new sensor👍
@@ian_worth is it the old version or a new one?
Thank you very much
Wonder if Capture 1 would have been better for this instead of the Adobe suite.
Further reason to not waste money on T5
Thank for this comparison. Very interesting!
And thanks for switching to metric at the end of the video. Imperial should be banned (in my humble opinion.... 🙂 )
Glad you liked it! 👍
The processing and storage of 40mp files made me pass on the XT5. My XT4 has the ibis and features I need. It doesn’t make sense to me, having that many megapixels in an aps-c sensor.
I have the xt3 and it's a fantastic camera, good video 💪💪
yeah i agree 👍👍
Great video and very interesting comparison, this is the best I have seen on UA-cam comparing these two generation sensors. I always felt anything above 20megapixels is enough resolution for any size enlargement because the bigger you go the viewing distance gets bigger also. Yes if u walk up to an enlarged image and pixel peep on a small part of the image then ofcourse the finer detail will resolve better but when viewing the whole image at its appropriate distance, nobody can tell.
Thanks for watching buddy 👍👍😊
I think if you are comparing you need to include the 16-80 the 16-55 and the 18-55 and if you have the time the new updated xc15-45 and perhaps the new video lens that people are saying is not great.
Great Real World comparision. Prints are once again the great equalizer. Blowing up an image to more than 60 inches wide is something few people will do - certainly not me. Therefore, not worth spending the extra money for the newer sensor.
I’m loving the 18-50 sigma 2.8 for the smaller bodies. Image quality is basically even and the sigma is basically the same size as the 18-55
That sigma does sound interesting 👍
@@ian_worth definitely worth picking up. I just sold my 16-55 2.8 as it was collecting dust since I picked up the sigma. Not as wide or as long but its so light that is makes up for a few missing mm imo. What shocked me is how well the sigma retains contrast under tough lighting conditions, it was so good I did side by sides with the 16-55 and the sigma did better every time.
That harbor is beautiful. Thanks for the video.
Can you link the printer and paper?
Hi Ian, I use an X-H1 and upscale my photos using Gigapixle AI so when printing at 16" x 20" ensure DPI is about 300-325. It would be interesting to run this analysis on your raw files to see if any difference.
Do you use gigapixel for images above 16x20 with xh1? I print 16x24 easily with great detail. Even larger sometimes. Is there much of an advantage with the AI?
@@northgael1 I use Gigapixle to upscale any image below 300 dpi/ppi to circa 300 to ensure optimal print resolution. Usually upscaled from 150+ achieve very good results. Hence why would be worth doing comparison with Ian's images as side by side comparison.
Hello Ian. Congratulations for you channel from Spain. In my opinon and experience, we do not need to print at 300dpi., since the human eyes is not able to differentiate from 180 dpi. All my prints for 15 years have been like this, both in the professional laboratory and with my Canon Pixma Pro 1000 printer for A2. We gained print siza with no apparent perceptual loss in viewing the print. Thank you for sharing with the community.
Good video mate. Thanks for the comparison - I shoot with an xt3 and love it but considering a second body. Can’t decide between xh2, xht2s or s20 or sxhs20sx too many letters?
Very good time for me to see this video because I was wondering to by x100v or wait for new version with 40mp. So do you think if the new x100 will be with higher mp sensor, for street photography, traveling, adventure, and daily usage, as my second backup camera to GFX100S, would be too much different with higher resolution advantage or current 26mp on 100v is quite sufficient? Thank you
Very nice video and very much to the point. I have a 100cm by 70cm print on my wall made with a 10mp Nikon D80, it looks amazing, if I go really close I can of course see that it's not super high resolution but viewed from 50cm or greater there is no evidence of "low resolution". People have gotten too hung up on high MP sensors. If it doesn't show in print it doesn't really matter but most people don't print that often anymore, sadly.
Thanks for the video.
Great comparison. Thanks for doing that. I’ll be keeping my xt4
Thank you. IMHO, there are two FUJI owners that upgraded to the XH2 or XT5. These are the XH1 and XT3-4 users. The XT3 and XT4 both use the 26 mp sensor which also has the more improved processor. The XH1 however is the 24 mp with the oldest and least eficient processor of the group, namely the processor of the XT2. Being an XH1 user, I would be interested in comparing the 40 MP sensors to the XH1 (or XT2)
I had a Sony A7Riv and 61 mp was overkill. Unless I did a huge crop or pixel peeped at 200% I couldn’t tell difference between R6 and X T4.
Thoughts from a recent convert to the XH-2
My experience in printing dozens of 40x50, 40x60, 24x60, and 24x72 inch prints is that you can print at 180dpi for the viewing distance needed to actually take in the print. The only people who will ever notice the loss are pixel-peeping photographers like me. (note all these were either shot on 4x5 film, a PhaseOne P45+ medium format 40mp back or stitched from multiple images done with either the P45+ or a Nikon D2Xs (12mp)
24mp is more than enough for almost anyone. More can be better, but it isn't always. In Fuji's case, you gain very little from the increase in MP, but the new bodies are sure nice.