Thanks for the test! Here’s my 2 cents as a experienced Fujifilm X user. You need to work with the camera, lens and settings to get the most out of it. In case of the XF 33mm f/1.4 I only get (very) sharp results in the smallest single point AF placed manually on the iris. Sadly I’ve given up on eye af on this lens, it’s just not working as it should like you’ve experienced here. If you get the chance to test sharpness and resolution again, either focus manually or use single point af (smallest point) right on the iris and compare again. If not, be advised this is more an eye AF performance test than a sharpness and resolution test IMO.” As a side note, eye af works better (in my experience) on other lenses like the XF 90mm f/2, XF 23mm f/1.4 LM and even the older and slower xf 56mm f/1.2.
Important addition. For the best focus accuracy avoid using continuous AF and definitely turn on focus priority in settings instead of release priority.
Really great to hear from an experienced Fujifilm X user. That is great to get a good explanation. Look for our video coming out next week where we got great sharp images using the X-H2!
@@TheSlantedLens Glad to be of help! I figured it’s a valuable addition for the viewers to an otherwise very thorough and clear test, so hats off to you and your team! I, as many others I’m sure, am excited to watch your upcoming video next week :-)
That is good to hear that you have had great success with the 33 1.4. Fuji sent us the lens so I would hope that it was a good lens. The autofocus test at time stamp 12:00 looks much better for the Fuji.
If you look at the results from the Fuji combo in a vacuum, of course it’s sharp. That’s until you test it side by side with a FF camera that you can see that FF is sharper. Not that APS-C cameras can’t deliver sharp results, but they won’t hold a candle to a FF sensor. The same holds true from FF to Medium Format. Medium Format will inevitably look sharper. Bigger sensors just capture more detail and clarity.
@@AbdonPhirathon you will notice that FF power or medium format when tou print large prints and stare them from 1 m distance. For the 99% of cases which are social media and web you will not notice anything. APSC sensors is quite sharp. Sharpness depends the most of the lens. Super35 format which the majority of movies and series shot is apsc sensor just saying.
@@TheSlantedLens One suggestion is to compare cameras at the fps rate of the slowest model as well as the top rating for each. Slower capture rates give the cpu more time to make decisions benefitting them unfairly over faster models. My guess is that the H2 and R6 would have near perfect hit rates at 10fps.
I have the Fuji XH2 and if you shot this with ibis on with the camera in a tripods that’s what you get for sharpness you have to turn off ibis on the tripod, it does not call that out in the manual I found this out the hard way.
Another thing worth noting is that the Fuji files don't look the best when edited in Lightroom. Maybe part of the reason why the image looked muddy is because of this. I'm very curious what the results would've looked like if the files were edited in Capture One instead.
I am really happy to see this review. It's confirmed an issue that I have had with my Fuji x-series cameras which is leading me away from the system. The eyes are never quite there. And, for me, it's more than just a pixel-peeping problem. If you're delivering client work or posting anything larger than instagram (even just posting to a website), it matters. Everything doesn't always have to be tack sharp, but I was getting worried that my experience with Fuji was unique. I got good results with single point focus and not using continuous focus, but when eye-tracking is an option on this camera and works much better on others... well... it makes it hard to justify still shooting with single point still. They're fun cameras, but in my experience shooting them for about 3-4 years professionally, they're lacking and I think I might change systems soon.
As a Fuji user since X-T1 the new X-H2/T5 doesn't impress as much. Some people in forums claimed AF is amazing on the level of A1/R5. Went testing H2s in-store against a A7IV and Sony had so much better eye AF tracking. The Fuji seems to lag behind with the subject moving. Seriously considering the A7RV, has all new features introduced in X-H2, but a generation better. Feels like a X-H3, but twice the price. Smarter AI AF, higher MP, 1stop better IBIS, 4axis tilt/flip lcd and pixelshift with motion compensation. Heard Sony also tweaked colors to be better for skin tones near/on the level of Canon. Also new fully touchable menu system to address the cluttered/messy ui.
Actually A7R5 is nor that much better as you trying to portray, actually I had that in mind but some youtubers tried and AF irs not that great as in this video. Thinking that some youtubers just favour one or another brand, also Sony cameras got lots of other problems which not shown here@Battlem0nk
Good job. Fuji has some issues in older models where spot focus on the eye gives sharper results than using auto eye focus. Fuji has improved, but perhaps it still needs to improve in this regard. I don't know if you're interested, but perhaps you can compare the two focusing methods for the still shot sharpness test. Also importantly, surely it would have been very pertinent to mention that the Sony and Canon lens costs 2.5x and 3.2x more than the Fuji lens. That's HUGE. (price comparison from a local favourite outlet.) Maybe that HUGE expense is for F1.2 sharpness, whereas the XF33mm is sharpest at F4. Maybe a different shooting style is required for the Fuji as it's a different system class. Maybe a different lens like the XF90mmF2 or the new 56mmF1.2 could have given a more insightful system comparisons. Those lenses just cost 1.08x and 1.37x to the XF33mm. But the 56mm may perform poorly on tracking!
Thanks for being one of the few channels that tests over and under exposure for dynamic range. Very interested to see the xh2 and xh2s compared in this regard.
If you are using Adobe for the demosaicing, it is the problem for the Fuji. Although Photoshop/Lightroom are good for editing, they aren't optimal for demosaicing - they take a generalist approach, using a bayer sensor algorithm to convert the X -Trans sensor, which isn't great. DXO does a far better job
Could you re-shoot some of the XH2 face shots using manual focus to determine if the reduced detail was a difference in lens and sensor - or actually, as was suggested by some Fujifilm users a focusing anomaly/ problem?
So glad I came across this video. I had the Fuji XH2s and the 33 1.4 for a time and thought either I just didn't understand focus or I had some setting wrong. Fuji needs a firmware update to get that focus on the eyeball.
I’ve tested the 26mp Fuji sensor with reputedly good Fuji lenses against a Sony A7III 24mp with average Samyang lenses but also the 24-105 f4G and the results were pretty close. A lot closer than this. I’m surprised at your results.
Please test ISO at the same resolution. Higher resolution sensors gets bigger noise to signal ratio because their pixels' physical sizes are smaller. But if you down sample them at the same resolution, a lot of that noise average out, and higher resolution sensors actually get cleaner images.
@@TheSlantedLens Did you have the same sharpness issue with other subjects such as a static object? Did you try shooting with other aperture values to make sure it wasn't the lens at 1.4 that was s a little soft?
There s really a big issue in that test, even on an older X Trans sensor with a lens wide open at 1.4 I get a much better sharpness that what is shown here. There is just no way the new 40 mpix sensor renders skin details so poorly ! Obvious bad focus that I think comes from the Fuji eye AF. I barely use it as I often get poor result just like here. No much more improvement in that regard as it seems. Manual single point AF on the iris is the way to go for maximum sharpness. Also it would have been nice to see the XF50 F1 stepped down at F1.2 in that comparison.
Yeah, something didn't seem quite right. We shot another video coming out next week where the X-H2 gave us super sharp images. You will have to check it out!
try to switch from Auto eye to choose Right eye or Left Eye ... it should hepl ... hope new fw upgade will come soon. BTW New 56mm f1.2 WR is the best cosmic lens from fuji ever ... I mean optically ... eye focus on XT3 is reliable (only the DC motor is little bit strange, but i works )
When you have the exposure compensation under zero I like canon color more but in any other situation in these pictures I really am liking the Fuji and Sony way more. I currently shoot with Sony I plan to either get the xt-5 or Sony a7 III but leaning more towards Fuji I like the Fuji color more than both Sony and Canon
The 33mm F1.4 will give identical results to a 50mm F2.1 full frame lens in terms of field of view and background separation. The Sigma 50mm F2 for Sony weights 345g, slightly less than the 360g for the Fuji. For the same result, you roughly have the same size lenses in APS-C or full frame.
It’s amazing how far cameras have come in recent years!! We are living in such amazing times. Fuji color rendition wins in my opinion! Would love a camera with fuji colors, sony AF-C and Canon ergonomics.
Great comparison. I agree the colors on the Fuji are better. I use an X-T5 and the only issue I have is autofocus on birds in flight. Other than that It's a great camera for almost anything. Thanks. Excellent video.
@@TheSlantedLens I get it but F1,4 on APSC is the equivalent of F2,1 on Full Frame…beside this, either you are using a bad lens copy or your setup is wrong, like Face Select vs Face/Eye Detection.
Thanks for your review, the best way to test cameras, using the skin tones, now l can make a purchase decision, l go with Fuji, you have to be blind to not notice that the Canon and Sony highlights in the cheeks on the closed up pics are blown out, dynamic range is more imp than a little noise, the must important thing for a wedding photographer who have to shoot white weeding cakes, white dresses and multiracial engagements, you really need that amazing dynamic range that Fuji film is offering for less.
I am an inexperienced hobbyist but I could follow along on all of your conclusions and I agree with them. In regards to the eye with the Fuji, I think the camera didn't focus on it. It is interesting to note that generally speaking, there is this mix or change of leadership depending on what you are looking at.
Fuji af has a problem - front focus (instead of the eye, the focus is on the eyelashes and the tip of the nose), and lens adjustment is required (don't know if fuji has that option).
Interesting test, going pretty much as expected, except for the sharpness test. The Fuji seemed far too soft compared to a lot of the samples I have seen.
The artistic softness of the Fuji film image serve on your favor when you takes pics of a weeding with different generations of people, grandmas don’t want all their wrinkles exposed, dynamic range is more important than harsh sharpness, l don’t want the harsh blown out sharpness in my pics highlights.
@@richrollin4867 Hard to see the dynamic range, texture of the materials and skin color rendition in a test chart , people are obsessive with sharpnesses.test chart reviews are very boring for someone who is not interested in scientific or forensic photography.
@@joseconde8927 that isn’t intentional artistic sharpness, the lens is sharper than what was showm here when the camera nails focus. And they have another video coming out soon where the Xh2 gave shaper results than what was seen here. You can have a sharp image without it being overly digital like the sony, but what was seen in this video is just unusable for commercial work. That’s not a softness that can be worked with. Again, I think that sony/canon sharpness is too much but at the same time that fuji one here is too soft. Unusually soft
I can’t tell you how relieved I am to have found this review. I am experiencing the exact same “muddy” look to all of my X-H2 images using their newest LM motor lenses and can’t for the life of my workout why it’s happening. At least I know it’s not just me who has experienced it.
FUJI has a list of it's lenses that are recommended for the X H2's 40 mp sensor for max performance. Is the XF 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR lens on that list?? Try your comparison test with the new XF 56mm f 1.2 MK2 for a more fair comparison and you may be surprised! The results are stunningly sharp. Also, the XF 33mm R LM WR lens is a f 1.4, where as the Canon and Sony lenses you used are f 1.2, giving them a slight bokeh edge! FUJI colour science is magic and next level, as is that of Leica and Hasselblad.
With the sharpness test. Did you just shoot at f/1.4, or did you try stopping down to between f/5.6 to f/8, where lens sharpness will becomes much less of an issue? Otherwise, the test is more about the lens wide open than the sensor.
@@TheSlantedLens This is a problem! You make stop down on C and S, but not on F - its a fail. Everyone know " STOP DOWN make your image SHARPER! Other thing is - Why you don't take 85mm? Company's have perfect C 85, Sony and Amazing Fuji 50mm F1.0? This is where a key. Probably better solution was to take this Fuji 50 F1.0 compare to 50mm what you got for other cameras. Yes its APC but X 50 1.0 much more com to Premium GM lenses on Sony. Fuji 35 1.4 cost around 500$ where a GM almost 2k. 85mm compare will be way fair. Because now its just say Nothing at all!
I shoot FF, MF and APS-C. Currently really enjoying the results of the XT4+XF90/2. I don't have that poor eye IQ issue that you're seeing here. I have seen examples of the XH2 doing wonderful for IQ, but I have also seen it do poor (especially eye AF). I think there is a gremlin here that needs addressed by Fuji. Other than that, the review is spot on. Fuji colour game is strong, AF is weaker, dynamic range is ok but ISO is the enemy (you have to shoot competently and question your shutter speeds constantly, throw nothing away more than needed in a bid to keep 1600 or under). I do not mind the slightly shallow DoF look either, if I must I crack out the Kipon 40/.85. Fair review.
I can't believe the difference in quality between the Fuji and the other two. Maybe it's missed focus or something else because 40mp even on a smaller sensor shouldn't look this much worse.
Thanks for this Indepth review. Four years ago, I switched from Canon DSLR system (5DIII+ L lenses) to mirrorless Fuji APS-C system due to the weigh issue while the Sony A7 III was better in focus capability the GM-I lenses were expensive, heavy and poor IQ. As you have shown in the IQ comparison, the eyes are much less clear than the FF cameras and the older Fuji AF for moving subject was.... I waited for four years for the flagship X-H2/s and though they have improved the AF a lot; however, still behind Sony or Canon. Most people think Sony is more "tech" feel on its manual and physical layout; however, Fuji is the one that needs fine tweaks between individual lenses and the body (and third-party flash exposure is hit and miss) to get things right (no PnP). I ended up with the A7 IV and finally able to enjoy the sharp & clear eyes on the portraits again as well as the spot-on AF with moving subjects even only have Tamron (35-15mm/50-40mm) and Sigma (16-28mm) third-party lenses (all fits in a ThinkTank TurnStyle 20 sling bag with Godox V1 flash and Sony microphone) at much affordable price yet similar IQ. HEPIE tripod... Can't wait to receive mine!
Every aspect here it's simple physics. DOF would be less blurred due to the fact that focal distance changes by the crop factor and full frame has more background compression. Apsc has to have a f1 to match bokeh of FF F1.4 but the ammount of light its exactly the same. Noise of Xh2 could be worse even from xt4 cause they have squeezed 40mp on a apsc sized sensor which makes pixels much smaller and thus less light. Autofocus is ok not so good as Sony's but xh2s is faster though. But in cost benefit ratio Fuji is the best. You would need pixel peep resolution if you print above 1meter. Colours is another strong point of Fuji's. Thank you for your review!
It is a frequent error in online reviews. RAW images from Fuji lose a lot of quality if they are processed with Adobe software. The worm effect appears. For a fair comparison, use another editing software for Fuji files (Capture One). Only then will you have a fair comparison.
Awesome review. Just wanted to thank you for the time and effort it took you to make this video. My biggest and most immediate observation: wow Fuji really nails color!!! I consistently found myself noticing and appreciating the Fuji color in every comparison image slide you had. It’s making me seriously consider the XH2s even with the drawbacks to an APSC sensor and a definitely inferior autofocus system. I’ve been a photographer for 8 years now, but I never owned full frame because it was too expensive for me at the time. I own a A6000 and currently have been planning on upgrading to a A7IV. I’ve been saving up for a while. Like years. But now I feel like I have some thinking to do 🤔 The A6000 is no means a bad camera but the XH2S is impressing me in how its keeping up with the R6 and Sony IV with still having a crop sensor. Most of the “losses” the Fuji seemed to take in this video were pretty minimal and nitpicky and I just have to go back to the fact that I genuinely preferred the Fuji picture most of the time. It just had by far the best color and contrast ratio to my eyes. Yeah you can edit colors in post, but i’m really loving the fuji look I have to be honest. Although it will seem really wrong to save up all my money just to buy another apsc camera. I’ve been really set on finally owning full frame and all the benefits, but mainly better low light performance. If there’s one thing I care about a camera performance wise, it’s how good it can shoot in low light
Excellent review. I know it's not fair to compare an APS-C to a Full Frame but I like reviews like this as I also both Canon FF System and Fuji APS-C and I am recently contemplating of upgrading my X-T2 to X-T5. I have recently tried the X-T5 and was a bit disappointed with the ISO performance and eye AF focus accuracy. My observations are very consistent with your sharpness and ISO test. And like you said, I already really like the Fuji colours out of the box and I don't take this lightly as I have been shooting with canon for almost 20 years now. Great video! Bofore I even saw this video, I already made the decision not to get the X-T5.
interesting video, I wish someone does a similar comparison using the new fuji 56 1.2 wr, which is already considered one of the best lenses for the system against the best 85mm for each of the other systems, maybe the difference will be less clear-cut....
Other than the slightly missed focus on the Fuji, I’d say it held up really, really well for an APS-C sized sensor. The color and skin tone was really beautiful! The dynamic range held up good, too. The noise not so much, but it was pretty expected. Overall it was a good test.
I have owned the sony a7iii, nikon z6ii, and several fujifilm cameras. Unfortunatly I have never had a chance to spend more than a couple days with a Canon r6. I have had autofocus issues in the past with older fujufilm cameras but I have almost no issues with my xt5. I shoot steet photography and I also do professional portraits and I always go for the fujifilm because it's a blast to use. I am leaning towards a nikon z7ii in the future to go with my Fujifilm kit.
I know for sure something wrong with the Fuji’s test. My H2 is way sharper than that. It as good as others. Check your settings or lens. It’s misleading
I didn't expect such difference in sharpness in good lighting conditions, especially with that lens. Like others said, maybe it's not quite hitting the focus. In the second image, it looks like it focused on the tip of the nose instead of the eye. Not hitting the focus is a big disadvantage, but at least it's not the same as having a sharpness problem.
After using Sony canon and Fujifilm. I think you are missing the mark. I’ve found Fujifilm 33mm to be as tack sharp as canon or Sony. The main difference is low light noise and depth of field. I do t mind the noise and I don’t mind the extra depth of field. Looks more natural
Nice test, JP. Shows how these cameras perform out of the box. I thought all three were off in one way or another. Below, I argue that, in case of exposure differences between cameras becoming visible in our images, we have to blame the photographer and in case our images have noise when or where it is not too dark we need to blame our raw processing software. EXPOSURE DIFFERENCES One thing to note here, about "testing ISO" is that the ISO institute that defines the ISO norm does not actually define correct exposure. In the past we had the all dominant Kodak that had its ideas about correct exposure of their films relative to metering approaches in the market and sort-of everybody followed that - other film manufacturers, camera manufacturers with TTL metering, or manufacturers of lightmeters like Weston, Sekonic, or Gossen. Today with digital cameras, Kodak setting a worldwide reference is no more and digital camera manufacturers can do whatever they like. They give us a tool that also has a histogram and assume we make the best of it. As an example of a "new way of metering", my Nikon Z 7ii has a metering mode called "Highlight-weighted" and this simply takes the brightest measuring photosite in the sensor and treats its measured value as pure "white". The rest of the image then must fall inside the 14..15 EV of dynamic range. This works well if you do not want to loose detail in highlights, like white bridal dresses or contrasty white/blue skies. In less contrasty shots, a couple twinkles can drive exposure down, even when each of the twinkles is only one photosite - this easily makes a shot feel like it is 3 EV underexposed when you first open it. NOISE Another thing to note is that digital color photography starts with a raw image and people have no idea how ugly that would be when they could see raw images as is. Everybody would agree with me that raw images are 100% color noise and 100% luminance noise, if they could see them. That's important in the sense that we need software that can do "raw processing" in order to make a nice image from the raw file. Raw processing happens in camera when we shoot JPEG but also in order to constantly update a rear display in LiveView or to update an eVF. When we shoot raw, we need to raw process the files in, say, Lightroom Classic. This is important again because the extent to which we get "noise" rather that "details" or "noise" rather than "color", from that raw processing, really depends on how the raw processing is done. When we open a raw image in our favorite raw processing app and see color noise or luminance noise, we may blame the camera or the sensor. That seems justified because a raw image is 100% noise, right? No. Bluntly put, I would just call noise at this point "failed raw processing". Is that justified? Well, run you image through an app that does this better and you get my point. Here we have to distinguish four classes of noise: (1) inherent noise following from the Bayer sensor architecture, (2) noise caused by lack of precision in a photosite's measurement, (3) noise caused by raw processing as artefact following from the methodology used in the "wild-assed color guessing" that is raw processing, (4) noise caused by imprecision in raw processing or its limitations in dealing with (2). As to (3) - we recognize this easily in the case of Moiré where the artefact is very visible and it even is clear what pattern in the subject trails through the rendered image because of deBayerization. But when this happens at pixel level, we are inclined to classify noise as (1) or (2). The general theme here is though, that we see apps in the market that are specialized in dealing with these 4 classes, better than your generic raw processing software. Some approaches to dealing with these noise classes (some or all) do this in a way that modifies a raw file into a variant that can be processed by, say, Lightroom Classic (LrC, =Camera Raw), into a result that has no noise. I would say that LrC needing this outside help just means that it failed in doing what it should do.
Hey thanks for the review. For me considering price and weight, fuji is a clear winner. I like the colours a lot more. And we are comparing sub 1000 euro lenses to more than 2000 euro lenses here. I don't think that clients would pay twice as much for the results from the Canon or Sony.
The Fuji has definitely front focused on the eye lashes not the eye ball, that’s the first issue and it’s quite obvious because the Fuji should have more DOF but it’s fall off is already starting at the brows, were the Sony & Canon eye brows are in focus. The Fuji is also wide open where FF are both half stop closed that would also make a slight advantage to FF, interesting to see if F2 was tested? Why F1.4? I compared the 33f1.4 with Sigmas F1.4 art and both wide open and after doing side by side tests zooming in 200% I couldn’t see any noticeable difference. Unfortunately I couldn’t afford Canon R 50mm f1.2 but you would expect the Canon to blow the Fuji away especially it costing 2.5 times more then Fuji, but it definitely didn’t blow it away it was just a bit better. Not bad at all for Fuji.
As you've already said to a lot of other people, something was definitely wrong. No 40 megapixel camera would lose that much quality when zoomed in compared to a 20 megapixel camera. Full frame or not. Since light wasn't an issue, size of the sensor will be less important in preserving sharpness on what was in focus. A new iPhone would have done better than that. As far as everything else you tested, it seems right on par with what I found. The H2 is a very noisy camera with subpar autofocus. I prefer the H2S for any moving shots. H2 only for portraits and landscape.
A 40MP APS-C sensor has about the same amount of relative detail per unit area as a 90MP full frame camera. Focus was *definitely* off on those close up eye shots of the model using the X-H2. The X-H2 also lacks an aliasing filter - its results should have been sharper, hands down.
I have been using a Nikon full-frame d800E and also a d850. I have also been using a Fuji system since 2014. XT-1, XT-2, and the XH-1. I have made side-by-side tests numerous times. On a practical level, I have made scads of 20 x 30-inch prints off of the Fuji. Your sharpness results are way off. In my tests comparing the d800E vs the Fuji XT-2 although the Nikon has more information and no lacking of sharpness but the Fuji always appears sharper. Fuji has a better edge definition algorithm. Plus the fineness of detail is recorded on the Fuji sensor a bit better than the Nikon. I suspect that whatever you did with the Fuji in terms of focusing, it was not what the Fuji can deliver. I will be getting the XT-5 soon and I will be testing it with all of my lenses vs the Nikon d850. I am a retired commercial photographer, an educator, and an exhibiting artist. As for the ISO test, these must be JPEGs. I shoot at 25000 ISO regularly on the Fuji. It cleans up perfectly. I am less interested in what the raw file looks like but I am much more interested in how well it cleans up. This was not a fair nor accurate test,
I checked photos I took with the H-S2 with a 16-55 lens after updating the firmware and the sharpness is very high. In digital zoom, the image starts to become pixelated before it loses sharpness. In my opinion it is a very successful camera in this respect, only that its operation is so cumbersome and requires a lot of patience that I prefer Canon or Nikon
I would like to see another comparison using the 26 megapixel Fuji XH2s.The high pixel density of the 40 megapixel XH2 gives it a distinct disadvantage with high iso noise.
It's not true to say they are all shot at 1.4 because 1.4 APSC is not the same as 1.4 Full Frame. That would be like putting a 50mm lens on the APSC camera and saying they're all shot at 50mm.
Good point. Yet you can see the difference in the depth of field and I mentioned that in the video in case you missed it. And yet APS-C lenses don't go to enough of a shallow depth of field to compare to full frame. Thanks for watching.
With the Fuji, you need to pay way more attention to shutter speeds and tripods etc, due to the very high pixel density. You can get the sharpness though.
Nice test, but you should try another sample of the Fuji 33mm. As an owner of that lens-camera combination I know for sure the 33 is much better than that. For all the rest, one of the best test I've seen in this regard
I got all 3 systems,and the xt5 40mp is very sharp, it seems you missed af. I also agree the af on fuji is not very good in continuous mode ,that's why i shoot in single mode. In my comparison the only difference i can see is the depth of field, the full frame will give you better Bokeh. But if you don't care about Bokeh, no system beats Fuji's colors.
I would like to state that you only name the price difference rence of the bodies (about $500) but forget the price difference of the lenses (about $1.300!!) so you compare the apsc camera with ff camera with lenses with a price diffrence of $1.800 !! You should mention that. On another note, but is already mentioned, with an xt4 and xf 35 1.4 I get sharper eye images than what you did with the fuji. Software update needed for eye af?
That could possibly be the issue, perhaps a software update was needed. And good point about the price of the lenses. The Fuji is much more affordable!
Great video. As a newbie, I've been trying to really understand the difference between full frame and crop sensor. In terms of DOF (Bokeh) isn't the difference between the Fuji and the full frame due to the lense being 33mm instead of 50mm at the same distance? So it's not directly the sensor that causes the DOF delta but rather the shorter focal length that needs to be used by the crop sensor (indirectly the sensor size) to fit the same field of view at the same distance. This is the part I'm trying to wrap my mind around. If true, then you could get similar DOF on a crop sensor compared to FF if with the shorter lense you have a one stop faster aperture. So, could you get the same full frame look if you had 50mm F2.8 on FF vs 33mm F1.8 at the same distance to the subject? If so, then you can still get the FF look on a crop sensor provided the crop sensor lense can go one stop faster than the FF lense at /1.5 focal length. Am I in the ballpark?
This is my understanding after owning various full frame and crop sensor cameras. The Fuji 33mm f1.4 would roughly give the same DoF as a 50mm f2.1 on a full frame camera. On Fuji you can put the new 56mm f1.2 or 50mm f1 and get equivalent DoF to an 85mm f1.8 or 75mm f1.5 on a full frame camera, which means pretty shallow DoF..
@@anthonystonehouse yup listen to stone house. This guy is dead on. You’re one of the few who truly get this topic. Full frame gives you options. The best you can get on Fujifilm in terms of matching “speed” on full frame is the 50 F1 which is roughly a 75mm 1.4 equivalent. Best you’re going to get with AF.
@@spanishprisoner This is incorrect, it would not be a 33mm look - it would look like a 50mm. This is trivial to confirm by taking two photos with the same focal length side by side on different size sensors or (even more definitively) shooting the same lens on a FF camera in FF and APSC crop modes. I have three size sensors sitting in the room with me, and this is quite apparent if you play around with swapping lenses and such. 24mm APSC will never be as wide as 24mm FF; FF 600mm doesn't reach as far as APSC 600mm; etc.
@@spanishprisoner That is another excellent point, that the 33mm look is different than the 50mm look even if the Bokeh is similar. Semantics but the scientific difference is the difference in look of the lense and not the sensor itself (except for perhaps ISO performance). I understand though that it's the sensor size that is dictating the difference in lense and therrfore we say full frame vs crop sensor look. I need to tame my OCD on semantics. :-) thanks for the insight, it is indeed a trade off and there is no choice but accept it for what it is. One thing I do appreciate about the crop sensor for shooting home videos is that deeper DOF and added reach that really helps bring me closer and capture more of the court with a faster aperture when shooting basketball games. Appreciate the differences for what they are indeed!
You basically have it. A 50mm 1.8 lens will have the same depth of field look at the same distance regardless of sensor size, it's just cropped in on a crop sensor. If you take the APSC camera and back up enough to make the image have the same framing as a FF sensor you've changed the depth of field because the distance to the subject changed. The DOF increases and bokeh becomes smaller (cause farther from the lens).
A thought - apart from many other variables associated with lenses etc - if you processed the Fuji files in Lightroom they will have less detail than if processed in Capture 1
@@TheSlantedLens aka light room. I'd love to see all of these processed in C1. For fuji detail rendering, noise handling and highlight/shadow recovery are incomparably better than LR. Which is a shame because I much prefer using LR. Thanks for the review though, very informative
For a correct comparison between full frame and a APS-C you should use a 50mm in ff and 33mm in APS-C as you did but using a f/1.2 in ff and in APS-C a f/1.8 but to compensate an ISO 225 or 200 in ff and 100 in APS-C.
Thanks for doing this. Great review... but, oh dear... something was VERY off with your settings on the Fuji. That rig should be getting tack-sharp results like the other two.
R6 at 20mp more than held its own in this test. Imo R6 was sharpest and Sony 99% of where R6 was at. All fantastic camera but I'm shocked at how obvious Fuji loses in the sharpness test.
even though the Fuji has the biggest resolution (in relationship with its smaller sensor size) - it looks like the most unsharpest by far all the time. I have the Fuji here for testing, overall it is an amazing camera, but I always was wondering why it is not that sharp - now I saw the effect also at your direct comparison. That is sad, it is a great camera
With the prices, might be worth calling out the cost of the lenses used as that would push the difference between the three even further? In summary, it seems the Fuji marginally falls short in sharpness, shallow DoF, AF, and high iso and shadow noise but pulls ahead in color and highlight recovery, and of course entry price and size. So I guess it depends what is more important as to which camera is better suited. I wonder where a Nikon z6ii would fit in?
I have shot tens of thousands of images with the Sony a7iii in low light and it’s always been damn near perfect at finding focus. I would assume the a7iv is even better.
Thanks for this good review. The Fuji had far better color than the canon and Sony with the Sony having the worst, as expected the Fuji's noise was the worst however I liked the contrast it rendered. I think the lens on the Fuji may be responsible for the focusing issues. Question: Were all the shots done in RAW?
Do you compare RAW's or Jpegs? Wich Software did you use? XTrans RAWs in Adobe SW are less sharper than RAW's from cameras with bayer sensors. Capture One ist does a better job with Fuji Xtrans files.
Fuji X lenses at f/1.4 is like a full-frame camera lens at f/2.1. Isn't that also why the background doesn't blow out as much and the sign in the foreground stay more in focus? I would think so, but maybe I am wrong. Also, I have set Fuji cameras to a lower ISO than 125, I've had it at 50 or 80. I am not sure if that's an X-H2 thing, though.
Yes, there is more depth of field on the APS-C sensor. It is about a one stop difference. And it is not a native ISO below 125. It is an extended range.
As someone who bought into the Fuji ecosystem I am really disappointed in the resolution test. Hopefully it’s either a bad lens or missed focus. But Fuji is not know for af. But as far as the detail in the skin a canon D3 3mp camera does better.
We were super impressed with the Fuji Color. As far as the focus, we shot another video that will be posting next week where the images came out super sharp!
It is good to see you used native glass for the focus test. The sharpness test, maybe testing the glass or the sensor/ low pass filter. Too many variables to know. Two things to add. The R7 sharpness with RF glass and with an adapted sigma art lens for all the cameras. I expect the R7 to fall apart in the DR test, but could win the autofocus test. Using adapted Sigma Art lenses will eliminate the lenses as a variable for sharpness testing.
03:08 'Detail and sharpness is not quite there' Because you are using a Fuji lens that is not made for 40 megapixel sensor. Use the new 56mm f1.2 and only then the competition will be fair.
3:08 this comparison is not entirely fair since the canon/sony lenses cost 3 times of the fujinon and they are even stopped down a bit where as the fuji is wide open. the x-mount unfortunately doesn't have a 50mm equivalent lens that is super high quality.
With the Fuji I feel it’s front focused. The resolution should be there. The comparison would have been even better with the new r6 mk2, or an r5. Color science doesn’t seem to be identical on the r5 and r6 in some tests.
XH2 could be a tad out of focus, I think since this video Fuji released firmware that improved AF, there were some issues where the eye tracking was showing but then for some reason you got a slightly out of focus image, seems i like the eye detect and subject detection were not working in tandem with the focus.
It's not F1.2 vs F1.4, though. It's F1.2 vs F2.1, if you care about background blur or ISO noise. Which is a perfectly reasonable trade-off to make for size, but just stating the lens aperture without equivalence is misleading. If you disagree, I would like to sell you a LX10 pocket camera for a mere $2,000 that is 24-72mm equivalent F1.4-F2.8 (wow!).
Hey y’all! I’m looking for some opinions. I’m new to mirrorless photography. I had previously been pretty sold on either an XH2 or XT-5 partially due to cost effectiveness with not only bodies but lenses as well. All the RUclips reviews have been positive other than a couple too! Unfortunately where I live I don’t have the ability to shoot them myself without driving 3 hours. I don’t shoot professionally, I shoot street and my family (including sports for family) and seeing all these AF concerns I’m now leaning toward saving up a little bit longer for the Sony A7IV. Worth the price difference and wait? I mostly do photography with about 25% video. Any recs appreciated!
People are surprised at the Fuji focus. I must admit I am shocked too because I haven't seen this before. All I will say is that when I bought my Sony A6400, out of the box it looked terrible. After changing A LOT of settings it now snaps to eyes very sharply. I would say the Fuji needs some set up, as out of the box I assume it is just as loose as my Sony was.
I think u may need to freshen up on setting up fhe xh2. I'm no fuji fan boy but own the xh1 and the xt2. I took my xh1 with the 16-55 f2.8 right away after looking at your presentation,to my wife and popped off some shots at her eyes hand held at 2.8 and got sharper and more detail than the ones you had on a tripod on a 40 mp camera. I wasn't even at base iso on the xh1. So why is the representation here so off? I didn't even use auto eye detect. My 24mp camera got sharper images. Please explain?
Without reading through the comments, what software was used to edit the RAW files? I use Canon R5 and found Lightroom didnt deliver the detail and was very disappointed (fine art reproduction photographs) and then learned that RAW conversions through Canon's DPP greatly enhanced the RAW, made the whole aystem lengthy as I had to convert to TIFF to then layer in Photoshop but for high end reproductions there is no option. The same with Fuji, going from Lightroom to CaptureOne is remarkable.
It would be worth using capture one. The only true method of evaluating the files is with the best converter for each. I know it's a bit of a task and I do think it's odd that Fuji is better with capture one, Canon R5 was better with DPP. Older Fujis I didn't notice as with older Canons. I use the XH2 and the files are much much sharper with capture one.
@@TheSlantedLens I was referring to a lens of same focal length that could use same f stop (set it for 1.4) Then one can examine the differences of bokeh objectively.
Thanks for the effort but to be honest I’m getting sharper images with my XT2 and 56mm. Your Fuji pictures dont seem to be properly in focus. Not that I’m a fan of high pixel count on APSC sensor.
Thanks for the test! Here’s my 2 cents as a experienced Fujifilm X user. You need to work with the camera, lens and settings to get the most out of it. In case of the XF 33mm f/1.4 I only get (very) sharp results in the smallest single point AF placed manually on the iris. Sadly I’ve given up on eye af on this lens, it’s just not working as it should like you’ve experienced here. If you get the chance to test sharpness and resolution again, either focus manually or use single point af (smallest point) right on the iris and compare again. If not, be advised this is more an eye AF performance test than a sharpness and resolution test IMO.”
As a side note, eye af works better (in my experience) on other lenses like the XF 90mm f/2, XF 23mm f/1.4 LM and even the older and slower xf 56mm f/1.2.
Important addition. For the best focus accuracy avoid using continuous AF and definitely turn on focus priority in settings instead of release priority.
I totally agree. I only use the eye AF when stepped down, at least F2.8, and only for casual photos. For precision work it's crap.
Really great to hear from an experienced Fujifilm X user. That is great to get a good explanation. Look for our video coming out next week where we got great sharp images using the X-H2!
@@TheSlantedLens Glad to be of help! I figured it’s a valuable addition for the viewers to an otherwise very thorough and clear test, so hats off to you and your team! I, as many others I’m sure, am excited to watch your upcoming video next week :-)
I shoot with that 33 f/1.4 and the old 35 f/1.4 and it’s never looked that bad…..
I've tested Fujifilm X-H2 , It's super sharp with 33 1.4 ..Probably you have a bad copy of 33 1.4
Same here
That is good to hear that you have had great success with the 33 1.4. Fuji sent us the lens so I would hope that it was a good lens. The autofocus test at time stamp 12:00 looks much better for the Fuji.
Same here: tack sharp.
If you look at the results from the Fuji combo in a vacuum, of course it’s sharp. That’s until you test it side by side with a FF camera that you can see that FF is sharper. Not that APS-C cameras can’t deliver sharp results, but they won’t hold a candle to a FF sensor.
The same holds true from FF to Medium Format. Medium Format will inevitably look sharper. Bigger sensors just capture more detail and clarity.
@@AbdonPhirathon you will notice that FF power or medium format when tou print large prints and stare them from 1 m distance. For the 99% of cases which are social media and web you will not notice anything. APSC sensors is quite sharp. Sharpness depends the most of the lens. Super35 format which the majority of movies and series shot is apsc sensor just saying.
Excellent review. You went straight to subject, not bull****. We need more content creators like this.
Thank you! I appreciate your compliment!
Honestly!!!
I tested fuji X H2 and X T5 just yesterday. I totally agree with your findings.
Maybe we must define maximum pixel density for a sensor.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I have the Xh2 and the 33 1.4 and the sharpness is just increíble. I can't belive this test. There's something wrong here
Good to hear. We were a bit disappointed when comparing. The autofocus test toward the end of the lesson did much better.
I have the H2S and the 33 and get far more detail than here. I feel like there may have been an AF issue here.
@@TheSlantedLens One suggestion is to compare cameras at the fps rate of the slowest model as well as the top rating for each. Slower capture rates give the cpu more time to make decisions benefitting them unfairly over faster models. My guess is that the H2 and R6 would have near perfect hit rates at 10fps.
I have the Fuji XH2 and if you shot this with ibis on with the camera in a tripods that’s what you get for sharpness you have to turn off ibis on the tripod, it does not call that out in the manual I found this out the hard way.
Another thing worth noting is that the Fuji files don't look the best when edited in Lightroom. Maybe part of the reason why the image looked muddy is because of this. I'm very curious what the results would've looked like if the files were edited in Capture One instead.
I am really happy to see this review. It's confirmed an issue that I have had with my Fuji x-series cameras which is leading me away from the system. The eyes are never quite there. And, for me, it's more than just a pixel-peeping problem. If you're delivering client work or posting anything larger than instagram (even just posting to a website), it matters. Everything doesn't always have to be tack sharp, but I was getting worried that my experience with Fuji was unique.
I got good results with single point focus and not using continuous focus, but when eye-tracking is an option on this camera and works much better on others... well... it makes it hard to justify still shooting with single point still.
They're fun cameras, but in my experience shooting them for about 3-4 years professionally, they're lacking and I think I might change systems soon.
Thanks for sharing your experience!
As a Fuji user since X-T1 the new X-H2/T5 doesn't impress as much. Some people in forums claimed AF is amazing on the level of A1/R5. Went testing H2s in-store against a A7IV and Sony had so much better eye AF tracking. The Fuji seems to lag behind with the subject moving.
Seriously considering the A7RV, has all new features introduced in X-H2, but a generation better. Feels like a X-H3, but twice the price. Smarter AI AF, higher MP, 1stop better IBIS, 4axis tilt/flip lcd and pixelshift with motion compensation. Heard Sony also tweaked colors to be better for skin tones near/on the level of Canon. Also new fully touchable menu system to address the cluttered/messy ui.
the problem with the AF in fuji is that just Tracking is not good ! otherwise the pictures are really sharp with single point autofocus
Actually A7R5 is nor that much better as you trying to portray, actually I had that in mind but some youtubers tried and AF irs not that great as in this video.
Thinking that some youtubers just favour one or another brand, also Sony cameras got lots of other problems which not shown here@Battlem0nk
Good job. Fuji has some issues in older models where spot focus on the eye gives sharper results than using auto eye focus. Fuji has improved, but perhaps it still needs to improve in this regard. I don't know if you're interested, but perhaps you can compare the two focusing methods for the still shot sharpness test. Also importantly, surely it would have been very pertinent to mention that the Sony and Canon lens costs 2.5x and 3.2x more than the Fuji lens. That's HUGE. (price comparison from a local favourite outlet.) Maybe that HUGE expense is for F1.2 sharpness, whereas the XF33mm is sharpest at F4. Maybe a different shooting style is required for the Fuji as it's a different system class. Maybe a different lens like the XF90mmF2 or the new 56mmF1.2 could have given a more insightful system comparisons. Those lenses just cost 1.08x and 1.37x to the XF33mm. But the 56mm may perform poorly on tracking!
Lots of good things to consider. We will try to address those thoughts in our next video.
the problem will persist ...their tracking is just not good
9:50 The model looks so much better in the Fuji at that ISO test. It really shows how color and tonality are key
Yes, that Fujifilm camera has great color!
Thanks for being one of the few channels that tests over and under exposure for dynamic range. Very interested to see the xh2 and xh2s compared in this regard.
That would be an interesting comparison. We will see what we can do.
@@TheSlantedLens Second the Xh2 vs Xh2s dynamic range request.
If you are using Adobe for the demosaicing, it is the problem for the Fuji. Although Photoshop/Lightroom are good for editing, they aren't optimal for demosaicing - they take a generalist approach, using a bayer sensor algorithm to convert the X -Trans sensor, which isn't great. DXO does a far better job
Thanks for sharing your advice!
Could you re-shoot some of the XH2 face shots using manual focus to determine if the reduced detail was a difference in lens and sensor - or actually, as was suggested by some Fujifilm users a focusing anomaly/ problem?
We no longer have the camera but we have a call into Fujifilm to see if they can check out that lens that we had.
The sharpness difference is huge, more than I expected. Maybe a Fuji lens problem?
I agree with you.
It would be great to get that lens back and test it against another 33mm to see if it has a problem. Something to talk to Fujifilm about.
So glad I came across this video. I had the Fuji XH2s and the 33 1.4 for a time and thought either I just didn't understand focus or I had some setting wrong. Fuji needs a firmware update to get that focus on the eyeball.
The Fuji really does have beautiful color, but not as up to date on auto focus.
I’ve tested the 26mp Fuji sensor with reputedly good Fuji lenses against a Sony A7III 24mp with average Samyang lenses but also the 24-105 f4G and the results were pretty close. A lot closer than this. I’m surprised at your results.
Thanks for sharing your experience!
Please test ISO at the same resolution. Higher resolution sensors gets bigger noise to signal ratio because their pixels' physical sizes are smaller. But if you down sample them at the same resolution, a lot of that noise average out, and higher resolution sensors actually get cleaner images.
Good point. Thanks for your comment!
The Fuji surely missed focus every time on the iris. Another RUclipsr mentioned the same, as the 33 1.4 can definitely resolve the 40MP sensor.
The Fujifilm did do better with focus in the autofocus test toward the end of the video.
@@TheSlantedLens Did you have the same sharpness issue with other subjects such as a static object? Did you try shooting with other aperture values to make sure it wasn't the lens at 1.4 that was s a little soft?
There s really a big issue in that test, even on an older X Trans sensor with a lens wide open at 1.4 I get a much better sharpness that what is shown here. There is just no way the new 40 mpix sensor renders skin details so poorly !
Obvious bad focus that I think comes from the Fuji eye AF. I barely use it as I often get poor result just like here. No much more improvement in that regard as it seems. Manual single point AF on the iris is the way to go for maximum sharpness.
Also it would have been nice to see the XF50 F1 stepped down at F1.2 in that comparison.
Bad copy of lens or camera, that's for sure.
Yeah, something didn't seem quite right. We shot another video coming out next week where the X-H2 gave us super sharp images. You will have to check it out!
@@TheSlantedLens Great to hear that !
All sponsored :-)
try to switch from Auto eye to choose Right eye or Left Eye ... it should hepl ... hope new fw upgade will come soon. BTW New 56mm f1.2 WR is the best cosmic lens from fuji ever ... I mean optically ... eye focus on XT3 is reliable (only the DC motor is little bit strange, but i works )
When you have the exposure compensation under zero I like canon color more but in any other situation in these pictures I really am liking the Fuji and Sony way more. I currently shoot with Sony I plan to either get the xt-5 or Sony a7 III but leaning more towards Fuji I like the Fuji color more than both Sony and Canon
Yes, those Fuji colors are really nice. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
The 33mm F1.4 will give identical results to a 50mm F2.1 full frame lens in terms of field of view and background separation. The Sigma 50mm F2 for Sony weights 345g, slightly less than the 360g for the Fuji. For the same result, you roughly have the same size lenses in APS-C or full frame.
Thanks for sharing that tip!
It’s amazing how far cameras have come in recent years!! We are living in such amazing times. Fuji color rendition wins in my opinion! Would love a camera with fuji colors, sony AF-C and Canon ergonomics.
Totally agree. Thanks for watching!
thats almost the lumix s5ii :)
I love these comparisons truly unique! Great content thank you 👍🏼😊
You are very welcome! Thanks for watching!
Great comparison. I agree the colors on the Fuji are better. I use an X-T5 and the only issue I have is autofocus on birds in flight. Other than that It's a great camera for almost anything. Thanks. Excellent video.
Good to hear. Thanks for sharing your experience with the X-T5!
I am using the X-H2 for birds/wildlife and the AF tracking is excellent. You do need to adjust the AF tracking settings
Why even bothering to compare a £2.200 Canon and Sony lens with a merely cheap £650 Fuji one?? Are you guys serious?
The xf 33 is the best lens actually for Fuji so what would you want he use the price of the Fuji lens is lower because it's an apc lens
There was not another option for a native lens that is comparable to a 50mm full frame lens.
It's a faulty copy of the lens, the 33 is a stellar performer
@@TheSlantedLens I get it but F1,4 on APSC is the equivalent of F2,1 on Full Frame…beside this, either you are using a bad lens copy or your setup is wrong, like Face Select vs Face/Eye Detection.
She smiles less when she’s photographed with the Sony
LOL. She must be biased! Thanks for watching!
Thanks for your review, the best way to test cameras, using the skin tones, now l can make a purchase decision, l go with Fuji, you have to be blind to not notice that the Canon and Sony highlights in the cheeks on the closed up pics are blown out, dynamic range is more imp than a little noise, the must important thing for a wedding photographer who have to shoot white weeding cakes, white dresses and multiracial engagements, you really need that amazing dynamic range that Fuji film is offering for less.
Well said. That dynamic range really is important!
I am an inexperienced hobbyist but I could follow along on all of your conclusions and I agree with them. In regards to the eye with the Fuji, I think the camera didn't focus on it. It is interesting to note that generally speaking, there is this mix or change of leadership depending on what you are looking at.
Thanks for watching and I appreciate your comment!
Very useful video, it would be nice to see this comparison between Sony a7iv , Canon r6 ii, and Fujifilm X.h2s for video work... Big hug!
That does sound like a good comparison. We will see what we can do.
Fuji af has a problem - front focus (instead of the eye, the focus is on the eyelashes and the tip of the nose), and lens adjustment is required (don't know if fuji has that option).
That could have been the issue. Something to check into.
Interesting test, going pretty much as expected, except for the sharpness test. The Fuji seemed far too soft compared to a lot of the samples I have seen.
I agree with you
Those are out thoughts as well. Not sure why is came out the way it did. The autofocus test at timestamp 12:00 is much better with the Fuji.
The artistic softness of the Fuji film image serve on your favor when you takes pics of a weeding with different generations of people, grandmas don’t want all their wrinkles exposed, dynamic range is more important than harsh sharpness, l don’t want the harsh blown out sharpness in my pics highlights.
@@richrollin4867 Hard to see the dynamic range, texture of the materials and skin color rendition in a test chart , people are obsessive with sharpnesses.test chart reviews are very boring for someone who is not interested in scientific or forensic photography.
@@joseconde8927 that isn’t intentional artistic sharpness, the lens is sharper than what was showm here when the camera nails focus. And they have another video coming out soon where the Xh2 gave shaper results than what was seen here.
You can have a sharp image without it being overly digital like the sony, but what was seen in this video is just unusable for commercial work. That’s not a softness that can be worked with. Again, I think that sony/canon sharpness is too much but at the same time that fuji one here is too soft. Unusually soft
I can’t tell you how relieved I am to have found this review. I am experiencing the exact same “muddy” look to all of my X-H2 images using their newest LM motor lenses and can’t for the life of my workout why it’s happening. At least I know it’s not just me who has experienced it.
Glad you found it helpful. Thanks for watching!
Turn all of your noise reduction related settings to -4 or whatever the lowest selectable value is
How did you solve the muddy look? Did you?
FUJI has a list of it's lenses that are recommended for the X H2's 40 mp sensor for max performance. Is the XF 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR lens on that list?? Try your comparison test with the new XF 56mm f 1.2 MK2 for a more fair comparison and you may be surprised! The results are stunningly sharp. Also, the XF 33mm R LM WR lens is a f 1.4, where as the Canon and Sony lenses you used are f 1.2, giving them a slight bokeh edge! FUJI colour science is magic and next level, as is that of Leica and Hasselblad.
Great points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
With the sharpness test. Did you just shoot at f/1.4, or did you try stopping down to between f/5.6 to f/8, where lens sharpness will becomes much less of an issue? Otherwise, the test is more about the lens wide open than the sensor.
We shot at F/1.4 on all of the cameras.
@@TheSlantedLens This is a problem! You make stop down on C and S, but not on F - its a fail. Everyone know " STOP DOWN make your image SHARPER! Other thing is - Why you don't take 85mm? Company's have perfect C 85, Sony and Amazing Fuji 50mm F1.0? This is where a key. Probably better solution was to take this Fuji 50 F1.0 compare to 50mm what you got for other cameras. Yes its APC but X 50 1.0 much more com to Premium GM lenses on Sony. Fuji 35 1.4 cost around 500$ where a GM almost 2k. 85mm compare will be way fair. Because now its just say Nothing at all!
Unfortunately, that really negates the sharpness test.
I shoot FF, MF and APS-C. Currently really enjoying the results of the XT4+XF90/2. I don't have that poor eye IQ issue that you're seeing here. I have seen examples of the XH2 doing wonderful for IQ, but I have also seen it do poor (especially eye AF). I think there is a gremlin here that needs addressed by Fuji.
Other than that, the review is spot on. Fuji colour game is strong, AF is weaker, dynamic range is ok but ISO is the enemy (you have to shoot competently and question your shutter speeds constantly, throw nothing away more than needed in a bid to keep 1600 or under). I do not mind the slightly shallow DoF look either, if I must I crack out the Kipon 40/.85.
Fair review.
Thanks for sharing your experience!
I can't believe the difference in quality between the Fuji and the other two. Maybe it's missed focus or something else because 40mp even on a smaller sensor shouldn't look this much worse.
I agree with you.
We had the same thoughts. We will have to test it again perhaps using the 56mm.
Thanks for this Indepth review. Four years ago, I switched from Canon DSLR system (5DIII+ L lenses) to mirrorless Fuji APS-C system due to the weigh issue while the Sony A7 III was better in focus capability the GM-I lenses were expensive, heavy and poor IQ. As you have shown in the IQ comparison, the eyes are much less clear than the FF cameras and the older Fuji AF for moving subject was.... I waited for four years for the flagship X-H2/s and though they have improved the AF a lot; however, still behind Sony or Canon. Most people think Sony is more "tech" feel on its manual and physical layout; however, Fuji is the one that needs fine tweaks between individual lenses and the body (and third-party flash exposure is hit and miss) to get things right (no PnP). I ended up with the A7 IV and finally able to enjoy the sharp & clear eyes on the portraits again as well as the spot-on AF with moving subjects even only have Tamron (35-15mm/50-40mm) and Sigma (16-28mm) third-party lenses (all fits in a ThinkTank TurnStyle 20 sling bag with Godox V1 flash and Sony microphone) at much affordable price yet similar IQ.
HEPIE tripod... Can't wait to receive mine!
Sounds like you have a lot of experience. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Every aspect here it's simple physics. DOF would be less blurred due to the fact that focal distance changes by the crop factor and full frame has more background compression. Apsc has to have a f1 to match bokeh of FF F1.4 but the ammount of light its exactly the same. Noise of Xh2 could be worse even from xt4 cause they have squeezed 40mp on a apsc sized sensor which makes pixels much smaller and thus less light. Autofocus is ok not so good as Sony's but xh2s is faster though.
But in cost benefit ratio Fuji is the best. You would need pixel peep resolution if you print above 1meter. Colours is another strong point of Fuji's. Thank you for your review!
I agree with the cost and color point!
It is a frequent error in online reviews. RAW images from Fuji lose a lot of quality if they are processed with Adobe software. The worm effect appears. For a fair comparison, use another editing software for Fuji files (Capture One). Only then will you have a fair comparison.
Awesome review. Just wanted to thank you for the time and effort it took you to make this video.
My biggest and most immediate observation:
wow Fuji really nails color!!! I consistently found myself noticing and appreciating the Fuji color in every comparison image slide you had. It’s making me seriously consider the XH2s even with the drawbacks to an APSC sensor and a definitely inferior autofocus system. I’ve been a photographer for 8 years now, but I never owned full frame because it was too expensive for me at the time. I own a A6000 and currently have been planning on upgrading to a A7IV. I’ve been saving up for a while. Like years. But now I feel like I have some thinking to do 🤔
The A6000 is no means a bad camera but the XH2S is impressing me in how its keeping up with the R6 and Sony IV with still having a crop sensor. Most of the “losses” the Fuji seemed to take in this video were pretty minimal and nitpicky and I just have to go back to the fact that I genuinely preferred the Fuji picture most of the time. It just had by far the best color and contrast ratio to my eyes. Yeah you can edit colors in post, but i’m really loving the fuji look I have to be honest. Although it will seem really wrong to save up all my money just to buy another apsc camera. I’ve been really set on finally owning full frame and all the benefits, but mainly better low light performance. If there’s one thing I care about a camera performance wise, it’s how good it can shoot in low light
Some tough decisions to make. Good luck with your next purchase!
Excellent review. I know it's not fair to compare an APS-C to a Full Frame but I like reviews like this as I also both Canon FF System and Fuji APS-C and I am recently contemplating of upgrading my X-T2 to X-T5. I have recently tried the X-T5 and was a bit disappointed with the ISO performance and eye AF focus accuracy. My observations are very consistent with your sharpness and ISO test. And like you said, I already really like the Fuji colours out of the box and I don't take this lightly as I have been shooting with canon for almost 20 years now. Great video! Bofore I even saw this video, I already made the decision not to get the X-T5.
Glad it helped in solidifying your choice. Thanks for your comment!
On the XH2, did you cut the Inbody stabilization off to shoot? Much sharper with it off. The XT3 and xt4 do better with high iso.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
interesting video, I wish someone does a similar comparison using the new fuji 56 1.2 wr, which is already considered one of the best lenses for the system against the best 85mm for each of the other systems, maybe the difference will be less clear-cut....
That is a great suggestion. We will see what we can do.
I’ve done it. Go check my channel about 6 videos ago
Other than the slightly missed focus on the Fuji, I’d say it held up really, really well for an APS-C sized sensor.
The color and skin tone was really beautiful! The dynamic range held up good, too. The noise not so much, but it was pretty expected.
Overall it was a good test.
Thanks for your feedback. Agree 100%!
I have owned the sony a7iii, nikon z6ii, and several fujifilm cameras. Unfortunatly I have never had a chance to spend more than a couple days with a Canon r6. I have had autofocus issues in the past with older fujufilm cameras but I have almost no issues with my xt5. I shoot steet photography and I also do professional portraits and I always go for the fujifilm because it's a blast to use. I am leaning towards a nikon z7ii in the future to go with my Fujifilm kit.
Sounds like a great plan. You will love our next comparison coming out!
I know for sure something wrong with the Fuji’s test. My H2 is way sharper than that. It as good as others. Check your settings or lens. It’s misleading
Yeah, we think something was up. Having Fujifilm check the lens that they sent us.
I didn't expect such difference in sharpness in good lighting conditions, especially with that lens. Like others said, maybe it's not quite hitting the focus. In the second image, it looks like it focused on the tip of the nose instead of the eye.
Not hitting the focus is a big disadvantage, but at least it's not the same as having a sharpness problem.
Good point. You might be interested in our video coming out next week where we have some super sharp images of an owl using the X-H2!
After using Sony canon and Fujifilm. I think you are missing the mark. I’ve found Fujifilm 33mm to be as tack sharp as canon or Sony. The main difference is low light noise and depth of field. I do t mind the noise and I don’t mind the extra depth of field. Looks more natural
Fuji does make great cameras.
Nice test, JP. Shows how these cameras perform out of the box. I thought all three were off in one way or another.
Below, I argue that, in case of exposure differences between cameras becoming visible in our images, we have to blame the photographer and in case our images have noise when or where it is not too dark we need to blame our raw processing software.
EXPOSURE DIFFERENCES
One thing to note here, about "testing ISO" is that the ISO institute that defines the ISO norm does not actually define correct exposure. In the past we had the all dominant Kodak that had its ideas about correct exposure of their films relative to metering approaches in the market and sort-of everybody followed that - other film manufacturers, camera manufacturers with TTL metering, or manufacturers of lightmeters like Weston, Sekonic, or Gossen.
Today with digital cameras, Kodak setting a worldwide reference is no more and digital camera manufacturers can do whatever they like.
They give us a tool that also has a histogram and assume we make the best of it.
As an example of a "new way of metering", my Nikon Z 7ii has a metering mode called "Highlight-weighted" and this simply takes the brightest measuring photosite in the sensor and treats its measured value as pure "white". The rest of the image then must fall inside the 14..15 EV of dynamic range. This works well if you do not want to loose detail in highlights, like white bridal dresses or contrasty white/blue skies. In less contrasty shots, a couple twinkles can drive exposure down, even when each of the twinkles is only one photosite - this easily makes a shot feel like it is 3 EV underexposed when you first open it.
NOISE
Another thing to note is that digital color photography starts with a raw image and people have no idea how ugly that would be when they could see raw images as is. Everybody would agree with me that raw images are 100% color noise and 100% luminance noise, if they could see them.
That's important in the sense that we need software that can do "raw processing" in order to make a nice image from the raw file.
Raw processing happens in camera when we shoot JPEG but also in order to constantly update a rear display in LiveView or to update an eVF.
When we shoot raw, we need to raw process the files in, say, Lightroom Classic.
This is important again because the extent to which we get "noise" rather that "details" or "noise" rather than "color", from that raw processing, really depends on how the raw processing is done.
When we open a raw image in our favorite raw processing app and see color noise or luminance noise, we may blame the camera or the sensor. That seems justified because a raw image is 100% noise, right?
No.
Bluntly put, I would just call noise at this point "failed raw processing".
Is that justified?
Well, run you image through an app that does this better and you get my point.
Here we have to distinguish four classes of noise: (1) inherent noise following from the Bayer sensor architecture, (2) noise caused by lack of precision in a photosite's measurement, (3) noise caused by raw processing as artefact following from the methodology used in the "wild-assed color guessing" that is raw processing, (4) noise caused by imprecision in raw processing or its limitations in dealing with (2).
As to (3) - we recognize this easily in the case of Moiré where the artefact is very visible and it even is clear what pattern in the subject trails through the rendered image because of deBayerization. But when this happens at pixel level, we are inclined to classify noise as (1) or (2).
The general theme here is though, that we see apps in the market that are specialized in dealing with these 4 classes, better than your generic raw processing software.
Some approaches to dealing with these noise classes (some or all) do this in a way that modifies a raw file into a variant that can be processed by, say, Lightroom Classic (LrC, =Camera Raw), into a result that has no noise.
I would say that LrC needing this outside help just means that it failed in doing what it should do.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
Hey thanks for the review. For me considering price and weight, fuji is a clear winner. I like the colours a lot more. And we are comparing sub 1000 euro lenses to more than 2000 euro lenses here. I don't think that clients would pay twice as much for the results from the Canon or Sony.
Good point. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
The Fuji has definitely front focused on the eye lashes not the eye ball, that’s the first issue and it’s quite obvious because the Fuji should have more DOF but it’s fall off is already starting at the brows, were the Sony & Canon eye brows are in focus. The Fuji is also wide open where FF are both half stop closed that would also make a slight advantage to FF, interesting to see if F2 was tested? Why F1.4? I compared the 33f1.4 with Sigmas F1.4 art and both wide open and after doing side by side tests zooming in 200% I couldn’t see any noticeable difference. Unfortunately I couldn’t afford Canon R 50mm f1.2 but you would expect the Canon to blow the Fuji away especially it costing 2.5 times more then Fuji, but it definitely didn’t blow it away it was just a bit better. Not bad at all for Fuji.
Great explanation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Great work. Was waiting for it
Good to hear. Glad you found what you were looking for.
Thank you I’m been waiting for this
Glad you found it helpful!
As you've already said to a lot of other people, something was definitely wrong. No 40 megapixel camera would lose that much quality when zoomed in compared to a 20 megapixel camera. Full frame or not. Since light wasn't an issue, size of the sensor will be less important in preserving sharpness on what was in focus. A new iPhone would have done better than that.
As far as everything else you tested, it seems right on par with what I found. The H2 is a very noisy camera with subpar autofocus. I prefer the H2S for any moving shots. H2 only for portraits and landscape.
A 40MP APS-C sensor has about the same amount of relative detail per unit area as a 90MP full frame camera. Focus was *definitely* off on those close up eye shots of the model using the X-H2. The X-H2 also lacks an aliasing filter - its results should have been sharper, hands down.
Good points. Agreed. We will test it again. We believe the lens may have been a bad one.
I have been using a Nikon full-frame d800E and also a d850. I have also been using a Fuji system since 2014. XT-1, XT-2, and the XH-1. I have made side-by-side tests numerous times. On a practical level, I have made scads of 20 x 30-inch prints off of the Fuji. Your sharpness results are way off. In my tests comparing the d800E vs the Fuji XT-2 although the Nikon has more information and no lacking of sharpness but the Fuji always appears sharper. Fuji has a better edge definition algorithm. Plus the fineness of detail is recorded on the Fuji sensor a bit better than the Nikon. I suspect that whatever you did with the Fuji in terms of focusing, it was not what the Fuji can deliver. I will be getting the XT-5 soon and I will be testing it with all of my lenses vs the Nikon d850. I am a retired commercial photographer, an educator, and an exhibiting artist. As for the ISO test, these must be JPEGs. I shoot at 25000 ISO regularly on the Fuji. It cleans up perfectly. I am less interested in what the raw file looks like but I am much more interested in how well it cleans up. This was not a fair nor accurate test,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Keep on clickin!
In Lightroom Fuji is never sharp, but it's a very different thing with Capture One
Maybe that could be the issue
We were looking at the images in Adobe Bridge.
I checked photos I took with the H-S2 with a 16-55 lens after updating the firmware and the sharpness is very high. In digital zoom, the image starts to become pixelated before it loses sharpness. In my opinion it is a very successful camera in this respect, only that its operation is so cumbersome and requires a lot of patience that I prefer Canon or Nikon
Thanks for sharing your experience with the X-H2!
I would like to see another comparison using the 26 megapixel Fuji XH2s.The high pixel density of the 40 megapixel XH2 gives it a distinct disadvantage with high iso noise.
great reviews, can I ask is it possible to save simultaneously to both cards, video and photos
No, you can record simultaneously to both cards for back up but not photos to one and video to the other.
It's not true to say they are all shot at 1.4 because 1.4 APSC is not the same as 1.4 Full Frame. That would be like putting a 50mm lens on the APSC camera and saying they're all shot at 50mm.
Good point. Yet you can see the difference in the depth of field and I mentioned that in the video in case you missed it. And yet APS-C lenses don't go to enough of a shallow depth of field to compare to full frame. Thanks for watching.
Excellent, unbiased analysis. Thank you.
My pleasure! Glad you enjoyed the comparison!
With the Fuji, you need to pay way more attention to shutter speeds and tripods etc, due to the very high pixel density. You can get the sharpness though.
Any camera you need to pay attention to those things if you want a really sharp image. Thanks for watching!
Nice test, but you should try another sample of the Fuji 33mm. As an owner of that lens-camera combination I know for sure the 33 is much better than that. For all the rest, one of the best test I've seen in this regard
Yes, we think the Fuji lens may be a bad copy.
I got all 3 systems,and the xt5 40mp is very sharp, it seems you missed af. I also agree the af on fuji is not very good in continuous mode ,that's why i shoot in single mode. In my comparison the only difference i can see is the depth of field, the full frame will give you better Bokeh. But if you don't care about Bokeh, no system beats Fuji's colors.
Great points. Thanks for sharing your experience!
I would like to state that you only name the price difference rence of the bodies (about $500) but forget the price difference of the lenses (about $1.300!!) so you compare the apsc camera with ff camera with lenses with a price diffrence of $1.800 !! You should mention that. On another note, but is already mentioned, with an xt4 and xf 35 1.4 I get sharper eye images than what you did with the fuji. Software update needed for eye af?
That could possibly be the issue, perhaps a software update was needed. And good point about the price of the lenses. The Fuji is much more affordable!
Great video. As a newbie, I've been trying to really understand the difference between full frame and crop sensor. In terms of DOF (Bokeh) isn't the difference between the Fuji and the full frame due to the lense being 33mm instead of 50mm at the same distance? So it's not directly the sensor that causes the DOF delta but rather the shorter focal length that needs to be used by the crop sensor (indirectly the sensor size) to fit the same field of view at the same distance. This is the part I'm trying to wrap my mind around. If true, then you could get similar DOF on a crop sensor compared to FF if with the shorter lense you have a one stop faster aperture. So, could you get the same full frame look if you had 50mm F2.8 on FF vs 33mm F1.8 at the same distance to the subject? If so, then you can still get the FF look on a crop sensor provided the crop sensor lense can go one stop faster than the FF lense at /1.5 focal length. Am I in the ballpark?
This is my understanding after owning various full frame and crop sensor cameras. The Fuji 33mm f1.4 would roughly give the same DoF as a 50mm f2.1 on a full frame camera. On Fuji you can put the new 56mm f1.2 or 50mm f1 and get equivalent DoF to an 85mm f1.8 or 75mm f1.5 on a full frame camera, which means pretty shallow DoF..
@@anthonystonehouse yup listen to stone house. This guy is dead on. You’re one of the few who truly get this topic. Full frame gives you options. The best you can get on Fujifilm in terms of matching “speed” on full frame is the 50 F1 which is roughly a 75mm 1.4 equivalent. Best you’re going to get with AF.
@@spanishprisoner This is incorrect, it would not be a 33mm look - it would look like a 50mm. This is trivial to confirm by taking two photos with the same focal length side by side on different size sensors or (even more definitively) shooting the same lens on a FF camera in FF and APSC crop modes. I have three size sensors sitting in the room with me, and this is quite apparent if you play around with swapping lenses and such. 24mm APSC will never be as wide as 24mm FF; FF 600mm doesn't reach as far as APSC 600mm; etc.
@@spanishprisoner That is another excellent point, that the 33mm look is different than the 50mm look even if the Bokeh is similar. Semantics but the scientific difference is the difference in look of the lense and not the sensor itself (except for perhaps ISO performance). I understand though that it's the sensor size that is dictating the difference in lense and therrfore we say full frame vs crop sensor look. I need to tame my OCD on semantics. :-) thanks for the insight, it is indeed a trade off and there is no choice but accept it for what it is. One thing I do appreciate about the crop sensor for shooting home videos is that deeper DOF and added reach that really helps bring me closer and capture more of the court with a faster aperture when shooting basketball games. Appreciate the differences for what they are indeed!
You basically have it. A 50mm 1.8 lens will have the same depth of field look at the same distance regardless of sensor size, it's just cropped in on a crop sensor. If you take the APSC camera and back up enough to make the image have the same framing as a FF sensor you've changed the depth of field because the distance to the subject changed. The DOF increases and bokeh becomes smaller (cause farther from the lens).
A thought - apart from many other variables associated with lenses etc - if you processed the Fuji files in Lightroom they will have less detail than if processed in Capture 1
We processed the images in camera raw.
@@TheSlantedLens aka light room. I'd love to see all of these processed in C1. For fuji detail rendering, noise handling and highlight/shadow recovery are incomparably better than LR. Which is a shame because I much prefer using LR. Thanks for the review though, very informative
For a correct comparison between full frame and a APS-C you should use a 50mm in ff and 33mm in APS-C as you did but using a f/1.2 in ff and in APS-C a f/1.8 but to compensate an ISO 225 or 200 in ff and 100 in APS-C.
You need the opposite: f/1.8 in FF and f/1.2 in APS-C to have the same depth of field.
@@Jot_Pe jajaja my mistake I reversed the numbers, thanks!
Thanks for doing this. Great review... but, oh dear... something was VERY off with your settings on the Fuji. That rig should be getting tack-sharp results like the other two.
Quite a few people have said that. May have been a bad lens.
Wild, you are the first channel I have seen say that the Fuji has less detail than the Sony a7iv
Thanks for watching and keep on clickin!
R6 at 20mp more than held its own in this test. Imo R6 was sharpest and Sony 99% of where R6 was at. All fantastic camera but I'm shocked at how obvious Fuji loses in the sharpness test.
You might want to look at the autofocus test at time stamp 12:00. Fuji did much better there with focus.
even though the Fuji has the biggest resolution (in relationship with its smaller sensor size) - it looks like the most unsharpest by far all the time. I have the Fuji here for testing, overall it is an amazing camera, but I always was wondering why it is not that sharp - now I saw the effect also at your direct comparison. That is sad, it is a great camera
With the prices, might be worth calling out the cost of the lenses used as that would push the difference between the three even further?
In summary, it seems the Fuji marginally falls short in sharpness, shallow DoF, AF, and high iso and shadow noise but pulls ahead in color and highlight recovery, and of course entry price and size. So I guess it depends what is more important as to which camera is better suited. I wonder where a Nikon z6ii would fit in?
Great points. And good question about the Nikon!
In future comparisons, you need to try out low-light AF. I have heard from other reviewers that Sony struggles in this area.
I have shot tens of thousands of images with the Sony a7iii in low light and it’s always been damn near perfect at finding focus. I would assume the a7iv is even better.
I’ve seen a comparison of these exact models of Sony and Canon and they demonstrated that point you make
Our experience is that Sony performs better than Canon in low light.
@@TheSlantedLens The fact there are content creators who say otherwise means you should do a low-light test to dispel this notion.
As a note, f1.4 on the Fuji is probably closer to an f2 or so on the full frame, so the bokeh will be a lot different
Good point. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for the great video
Which one do you think is better Xt5 or A7c? Especially in video autofocus and low light performance
We haven't tested those cameras so we can't comment on that. That is a great idea for a future video. Thanks!
Very nice test. The orange jacket definitely pops the most on the Fuji!
Yeah, that Fuji color is great!
Thanks for this good review. The Fuji had far better color than the canon and Sony with the Sony having the worst, as expected the Fuji's noise was the worst however I liked the contrast it rendered. I think the lens on the Fuji may be responsible for the focusing issues. Question: Were all the shots done in RAW?
Yes, we shot all the shots in raw. Thanks for your comment!
Do you compare RAW's or Jpegs? Wich Software did you use? XTrans RAWs in Adobe SW are less sharper than RAW's from cameras with bayer sensors. Capture One ist does a better job with Fuji Xtrans files.
Other people have mentioned that. We processed all of the raw images in Adobe Camera Raw for all three cameras.
Fuji X lenses at f/1.4 is like a full-frame camera lens at f/2.1. Isn't that also why the background doesn't blow out as much and the sign in the foreground stay more in focus? I would think so, but maybe I am wrong.
Also, I have set Fuji cameras to a lower ISO than 125, I've had it at 50 or 80. I am not sure if that's an X-H2 thing, though.
Yes, there is more depth of field on the APS-C sensor. It is about a one stop difference. And it is not a native ISO below 125. It is an extended range.
As someone who bought into the Fuji ecosystem I am really disappointed in the resolution test. Hopefully it’s either a bad lens or missed focus. But Fuji is not know for af. But as far as the detail in the skin a canon D3 3mp camera does better.
We were super impressed with the Fuji Color. As far as the focus, we shot another video that will be posting next week where the images came out super sharp!
It is good to see you used native glass for the focus test. The sharpness test, maybe testing the glass or the sensor/ low pass filter. Too many variables to know. Two things to add. The R7 sharpness with RF glass and with an adapted sigma art lens for all the cameras. I expect the R7 to fall apart in the DR test, but could win the autofocus test. Using adapted Sigma Art lenses will eliminate the lenses as a variable for sharpness testing.
Those are great suggestions. We will look into that.
Nice comparison ! Wich filmsimulation did you use ?
We did not use film simulation. We used standard.
I own the X-H2 and the 33mm, that is strange because I can get pretty sharp eyes, sometimes too much sharp.
That is good to hear. We are wondering if we were sent a faulty lens.
03:08 'Detail and sharpness is not quite there'
Because you are using a Fuji lens that is not made for 40 megapixel sensor. Use the new 56mm f1.2 and only then the competition will be fair.
Several people have mentioned that the 56mm is a better lens. We will check that out next time.
3:08 this comparison is not entirely fair since the canon/sony lenses cost 3 times of the fujinon and they are even stopped down a bit where as the fuji is wide open. the x-mount unfortunately doesn't have a 50mm equivalent lens that is super high quality.
Yeah, that is the issue. We would have used a higher end lens if Fujifilm had one.
Thank you for this comparison
You are welcome! Thanks for watching!!
I counted 4 focus misses on the Sony. Just an observation. Interesting review.
You have good eyes! Thanks for your feedback!
R6 is better than r6ii in dynamic range for highlights ? I saw the video of r6ii vs s5ii and both were very green.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
As a Fuji user (X-T3), I can confirm that I have the same issues nailing focus... I'm thinking about switching to the new Lumix S5IIX.
There are a lot of comments that the 33mm is not a great lens.
@@TheSlantedLens And there are a lot of comments that say the opposite.
With the Fuji I feel it’s front focused. The resolution should be there. The comparison would have been even better with the new r6 mk2, or an r5. Color science doesn’t seem to be identical on the r5 and r6 in some tests.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
XH2 could be a tad out of focus, I think since this video Fuji released firmware that improved AF, there were some issues where the eye tracking was showing but then for some reason you got a slightly out of focus image, seems i like the eye detect and subject detection were not working in tandem with the focus.
Could be. Thanks for your comment!
It's not F1.2 vs F1.4, though. It's F1.2 vs F2.1, if you care about background blur or ISO noise. Which is a perfectly reasonable trade-off to make for size, but just stating the lens aperture without equivalence is misleading.
If you disagree, I would like to sell you a LX10 pocket camera for a mere $2,000 that is 24-72mm equivalent F1.4-F2.8 (wow!).
Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
Hey y’all! I’m looking for some opinions. I’m new to mirrorless photography. I had previously been pretty sold on either an XH2 or XT-5 partially due to cost effectiveness with not only bodies but lenses as well. All the RUclips reviews have been positive other than a couple too! Unfortunately where I live I don’t have the ability to shoot them myself without driving 3 hours. I don’t shoot professionally, I shoot street and my family (including sports for family) and seeing all these AF concerns I’m now leaning toward saving up a little bit longer for the Sony A7IV. Worth the price difference and wait? I mostly do photography with about 25% video. Any recs appreciated!
The Fujifilm is a great camera and it has great color. But it is pretty hard to beat the Sony autofocus.
When will You Do any comparison wit Sony FX 30 🙂? And some filming Lens two ? F1.4 or brighter
We will put that on our list. Thanks for the idea.
People are surprised at the Fuji focus. I must admit I am shocked too because I haven't seen this before.
All I will say is that when I bought my Sony A6400, out of the box it looked terrible. After changing A LOT of settings it now snaps to eyes very sharply.
I would say the Fuji needs some set up, as out of the box I assume it is just as loose as my Sony was.
That could be the issue. We haven't been able to figure out if it was the lens or what.
I feel sometimes Fujifilm has more details, and sometimes Sony has more intrinsic details.
Please say, if I am wrong.
These cameras are all very close. Just choose the one you like to work with.
I think u may need to freshen up on setting up fhe xh2. I'm no fuji fan boy but own the xh1 and the xt2. I took my xh1 with the 16-55 f2.8 right away after looking at your presentation,to my wife and popped off some shots at her eyes hand held at 2.8 and got sharper and more detail than the ones you had on a tripod on a 40 mp camera. I wasn't even at base iso on the xh1. So why is the representation here so off? I didn't even use auto eye detect. My 24mp camera got sharper images. Please explain?
It is a mystery to us and something we are looking into with Fuji and the lens.
Without reading through the comments, what software was used to edit the RAW files? I use Canon R5 and found Lightroom didnt deliver the detail and was very disappointed (fine art reproduction photographs) and then learned that RAW conversions through Canon's DPP greatly enhanced the RAW, made the whole aystem lengthy as I had to convert to TIFF to then layer in Photoshop but for high end reproductions there is no option. The same with Fuji, going from Lightroom to CaptureOne is remarkable.
We used Adobe Camera RAW to process the RAW files
It would be worth using capture one. The only true method of evaluating the files is with the best converter for each. I know it's a bit of a task and I do think it's odd that Fuji is better with capture one, Canon R5 was better with DPP. Older Fujis I didn't notice as with older Canons. I use the XH2 and the files are much much sharper with capture one.
For bokeh you need to use equivalent focal lengths, not image size. Throw on Fuji’s sharpest 50mm (F1.0), and you would see the difference.
True, at F/1.0 you will definitely see a difference in the bokeh!
@@TheSlantedLens I was referring to a lens of same focal length that could use same f stop (set it for 1.4) Then one can examine the differences of bokeh objectively.
Thanks for the effort but to be honest I’m getting sharper images with my XT2 and 56mm. Your Fuji pictures dont seem to be properly in focus. Not that I’m a fan of high pixel count on APSC sensor.
Other viewers have mentioned that they have better success with focus using the 56mm.
The R6, for the price and quality.
Is underrated on reviews.
Is a great camera for most of the people, and proffesionals.
It is great for video and stills if you don't need a high megapixel.