Can the Fujifilm XT-5 keep up with Full Frame? | XT-5 vs A7IV vs R6ii

[@jbivphotography]

Awesome video. This is a HUGE reason why I stick with Fujifilm even for Wedding Photography (which many people act like isn't possible with crop sensor). But with that price difference and the great image quality, I don't care if someone says it's not the "best" I'm trying to run my business efficiently by not spending too much money up front. Fujifilm is able to make amazing images and I've always been a fan. Great comparison. Thanks for sharing.

[@ABarrera]

100%! Keep up the great work, big fan of your channel.

[@denzelmotuba5336]

very well said John. This is why I am switching to the Fuji system from the Sony A7iii

[@errole]

I agree but it seems like Canon is killing it. And we def want to give our clients the best and not missed shots and grainny shots.

[@dimpap1370]

@@errole Lol

[@amateurphotographer1096]

It really comes down to one's definition of quality which can be very subjective. Some 'photographers' would prefer to scrutinise images under a microscope. Some wants to sit on their couch and chat about specs till the end of the world. There are others though who still prefee to shoot and deliver! I have been using full frame for many years then added m43 a decade ago then Fujifilm for the last five years. No matter how some would defend their system and say that sensor size is not important, i would still pull out the bigger sensor if want to deliver the best image and print. That said, fuji has come a long way however i personally think that their apsc ecosystem don't need to compete in megapixel war. I believe 26mp or 30 is a sweet spot for apsc. I'd rather see them improve the af system even more. In terms.of focus accuracy, i still would not trust their eye af even in the newer xt5 and xh2 hence the reason why i still shooy canon for weddings and sports. I always wanted to move out of canon ecosystem over to fuji for my commercial work due weight savings and cost but recent canon has better af system and high iso performance. Good thing is Fuji, i am sure will continue to imrpove their af system. I enjoy using their system though for less critical work.

[@vintu.bogdan]

I'm seeing this error over and over. If you want to check for sharpness differences you need to scale the picture to be exactly the same size. Not 100% on both because that doesn't tell you much. Think of it as if you were to print the photos on 2 papers of the same size, the subject should be the same size on both. So stop looking at 100%, zoom in on the face, make the face appear same size for both pictures and there you should see if a Cannon or Sony file upscaled to 40 MP has the same level of details or you can downscale the Fuji to the 100% of canon or sony. What you are doing now is like comparing a photo printed on A4 paper vs A3 paper and telling that A4 is a lot sharper ...

[@truebro77]

relax hun

[@mrmatt24]

EXACTLY. I have seen this all over the place too. How do all these "experts" not understand something so basic?

[@EdwardMartinsPhotography]

Exactly. It's comparing an 8x10 print to an 11x14 print.

[@USGrant21st]

This whole comparison is totally flawed. Yes, you need to scale to the same image size to compare the resolution and noise. You need to use the same image processing. You need to use equivalent settings as well. Would anybody compare Canon with 85/2 lens and with 85/1.2 lens wide open? Of course not, but this is what essentially happening here.

[@jensdanbolt6953]

Compression too. Quote from video "... between the different focal lenghts. That's gonna give you the difference compression and background blur." No. "Compression" is a result of perspective, which is only determined by where you take the picture from. If you take a picture with a wider angle lens from the same spot and crop to the same field of view, you will see the exact same compression. As for background blur, it comes from the aperture diameter and the relative distances between the camera, the focus point and the background. Let's assume the distances are the same for each photo: 85mm f/1.4 lens has an aperture diameter of 85mm/1.2 = *71mm*, while a 56mm f/1.2 lens has an aperture diameter of 56mm/1.2 = *47mm*. That is where the difference in background blur comes from. That physically larger aperture is also what gathers more total light, resulting in less noise. It's easy in both FF and APS-C systems to find 85mm lenses with aperture diameters around 40-50mm (f/1.8 on FF), and they will perform the same. If you want bigger than that, you won't find it in an APS-C system and FF is your choice. Personally I don't need such massive apertures very often, so for me it's not worth the higher price and losing access to the compact Fujinon f/2 series which I don't see any equivalents to in FF systems.

[@neilr7935]

Thanks for putting together this comparison. Just want to point out a couple things: 1. Lightroom is absolutely terrible at handling Fuji RAW files. You would get quite different results in Capture One. 2. A higher resolution image will generally look less sharp when viewed at 100% compared to a lower resolution image at 100%. A better comparison would be to have the subject's face equal size in the frame.

[@JET-Photo]

Why I hate these comparisons when they aren’t done right. Fuji never gets a fair shot. Also, missed focus is on him, not the camera.

[@andrepoon]

Totally correct. And I wouldn’t have compared f1.2 on crop with f1.2 on FF.

[@Mage_Noir]

Correct. I would say that that canon raw files are genuine better but you need to get your ass hours on lightroom. With fuji you could shoot very valuable jpegs without editing wich gives a more "natural" look to the photos. So somebody that do street photography or who like to play with colors and shadows may find canon lacks a lot. What's the point of pixel peeping if you only post online where aps-c suffers less ? But maybe you want to make big prints in wich case a full frame is the obvius choice.. Theses videos don't make much sense to me, cuz it's really very subjective what's better.

[@JET-Photo]

@@Mage_Noir except I have personally printed Fuji files as large as 24x36 and they look no different than full frame photos using the same subject and composition. Even printing bigger viewed at the correct difference, I'm willing to bet nobody could tell the difference. Pixel peeping is the only place FF has an advantage anymore, aside from the 1 stop better light gathering and depth of field. If spending triple the money is what makes you happy, then go for it. But I don't see the point in buying FF anymore.

[@tykeboy16]

@@JET-Photo missing focus is a big flaw in Fuji, not the shooter. That's literally its biggest flaw. Its autofocus is terrible in comparison with flagship full frame cameras

[@EdwardMartinsPhotography]

Ian Worth and myself have run tests with the 40mp Fuji sensor vs the canon R5 and Nikon Z7II. The key is to use DXO raw processing for the Fuji files. The results were it's hard for anyone to tell the difference in meter wide prints. The XTrans sensor really needs a proper processing software. Pure raw 3 makes a DNG file if you want to use Lightroom. Ian's video is brilliant and well worth a watch. 👍👍

[@chunhangtang]

Do you have a link to Ian's video

[@EdwardMartinsPhotography]

@@chunhangtang kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6aqiI17mMt6hbM

[@foodscience2]

Thanks for the great video. One idea to consider - when comparing images at 100%, it might be more fair of a comparison if you zoomed in to match the area size, and not the pixel count. Higher megapixel sensors will show more noise at 100% zoomed-in when all else is equal, e.g. Canon R5 will almost always look worse than R6 when both are zoomed to 100%. But in reality R5 images downsized to match R6's resolution will always outperform in terms of noise and sharpness. So for this video, it would make sense to zoom everything in to match either Fuji's 40mp or zoom out everything to match Canon's R6 20mp. Cheers.

[@SpiritLifeMinistriesInt]

You mean the R6II's 24mp sensor. Yes I agree though. Need them the same size

[@shanwen88]

I've been watching quite a few XH-2 comparison videos and all the "photographers" don't even take advantage of the extra megapixels to compare. You can simply downsize the 40mp picture to the 24mp picture size and compare them at 100%, the 40mp photo will look clearer and sharper. Although the difference is quite little, it is still quite obvious. That is the advantage of a higher MP camera. Or you can set the zoom level of the image software to match the corresponding increase in megapixels. i.e. if I am comparing with a 24mp photo, I set the zoom of the 40mp picture to 77.6%. You can see a slight difference.

[@rifz42]

something about the Fuji noise is more like film grain, so I don't mind it.

[@nnh1335]

Yes

[@Humungojerry]

i see a lot of youtubers doing this, it doesn’t make sense

[@javiercaselli]

Probably the X2Hs would be a more fair contender in the ISO department here. Still, just look at the huge amount of detail that XT-5 captures in that metal letter, a decently exposed shot, unless one's a serious pixel peeper or wants to print billboard size, should be perfectly OK for most people. Can't deny though that the FF sensor gets easily the upper hand here. Great video!

[@SlicedBread1001]

The colours of the Fuji on that shot were far more appealing to my eye. Just a shame about the noise.

[@stanobert3475]

I own the Nikon Z8 and Z9 as well as the Fuji XT-5 and the X-H2s cameras. My Fuji XT-5 produces stunning images at iso 1600 and below with its massive 40 megapixel sensor ( the full frame equivalent of 90 megapixels). My Fuji X-H2s has a similar pixel density to my Z8 and Z9, which gets pretty noisy at iso 4000 and above. This requires significant noise reduction in post. My next camera for lowlight photography will be the upcoming Nikon Z6III with its 24-33 megapixel full frame sensor, which should be pretty clean up to iso 6400 to 10,000.

[@KenKelly]

While the high ISO comparison isn't much of a surprise given sensor size, it was clear in the high ISO shots that the x-t5 was resolving alot more detail in the letter itself. The X-T5 was noisier for sure but the quality of the noise remains more "film like". I would have no problem with those files, it would literally take seconds to clean up in post if you felt the need to clean them up at all, I personally wouldn't do much to the Fuji files.

[@mongini1]

exactly what i thought... i got the X-T30, and i happily use ISO 6400 images with slight noise reduction and still looks awesome. Printed its even less of an issue.

[@amateurphotographer1096]

I own both Fuji and canon eco system and I love both. I personally don't think the Fuji APS-C needs to compete in the megapixel race. I'd say a 30mp sensor would be the sweet spot for APS-C. I understand that a lot of Fuji users would like to embrace the so called 'Film-like' noise but I'd still prefer to shoot with the latest canon Full Frame for serious shoot like weddings as I could comfortably shoot at ISO 8000 or even higher without having to worry about cleaning my images. With Fuji it's different - the noise bothers me at that level of ISO. Problem with Canon these days is they are closing their doors to 3rd party lens manufacturer and the fact that Fuji is allowing Sigma/tamron to build some alternative lenses is a big plus for many!

[@Mage_Noir]

​@@amateurphotographer1096i wouldn't say that cause tamron and sigma lense do not shine much on xf system. But at least it offers cheaper options. The real problem with fuji is that it's really personal artistic vibe and less professional for the casual people. I mean, people who don't care about art they want crispy photos, and that's the people who would pay you for it soo... But artists or more selfish people may enjoy what fuji has to offer in terms of creativity, ergonomics.

[@Dimezis]

I'm a fuji shooter myself, and there's nothing "film like" about its noise, unfortunately

[@ChacoOutdoorsman]

Awesome comparison. I like the the fuji colors more. You don't always need that extremely shallow dof. I use the x-t3 with the sigma 56mm f1.4 and it can create amazing portraits. I think one of the only areas where full frame still wins is with high iso noise... But i prefer the smaller and lighter footprint of the Fuji system, and the price is a bonus 👌

[@Battlem0nk]

Fuji doesn't underexpose or cheat ISO. But a 1600ISO on Fuji will be darker than 1600ISO of sony/canon. Why? Because they use different ISO standards. REI vs SOS. Canon, Sony and Nikon uses REI ISO standard Fujifilm, Pentax and Olympus use SOS standard Difference between the two generally between 1/3 to 2/3 stops.

[@ABarrera]

This is helpful! Thank you 🙏🏼

[@domTT]

which basically says that the comparison here is inaccurate, may be biased, and kinda unreliable. Plus refusing to try Capture One makes me lol.

[@memcrew1]

@@domTT agreed.

[@SeanWashPhoto]

Hey Alex. Great vid overall, but I think there are some technical miscues that I'm sure other commenters have pointed too, like pixel size in relation to sensor size, etc. But at the end of the day, you can only test what you have on hand and so I don't and can't blame you for that. However I do think you gloss over one important factor in your stress tests (ISO and DR) and that's noise quality. Now it's all subjective in the end, but I find that the noise quality on Fujifilm cameras to be really pleasing. Often you'll hear the word "filmic" as a descriptor which I think works, but more specifically, noise is 1> less uniform and 2> more luminance shift than color shift. Even if you don't prefer the noise out of the Fujifilm, you have to admit that it's different from the noise quality produced on it's competitors.

[@mePOPnow]

I’ve been shooting Fuji cameras for about 5 years in live music scenarios mostly shooting at 6400ISO… I’ll happily push 1.5 - 2 stops… if noise does get too bad Topaz Noise does a great job…. Most of my images end up on social media so no one can tell it was shot using an APS-C sensor

[@leimleim]

Thanks for the sample. I used them to make some comparisons in Capture One, and the X-T5 files are sharper than in your lightroom comparison. Cheers.

[@JHurrenPhotography]

That's the biggest flaw of this comparison. Adobe doesn't do the best with Fuji files.

[@StoicJason]

I have both the xt5 and the R6mkii and can verify that the xt5 is fantastic if you 1) don’t shoot RAW and just want great jpgs in Lightroom, 2) don’t mind the autofocus being 90% as accurate as Sony/Canon, 3) don’t need it to be a hybrid video camera like the Sony/Canon, 4) don’t mind mediocre low light performance, and 5) don’t mind all of the manual controls that make you take your hands off the lens to adjust (unless you reassign buttons). The Canon is a more pointed at pros that want a hybrid and it shows. Having said that, the xt5 form factor and price to features ratio are stellar. I just hate that it misses focus more, even with the new 2.0 firmware.

[@RalfMoeller-mu1ts]

Sorry, but this Video is full of flaws and a lack of understanding as to how sensor size and pixel quantity influence noise. That the Canon has the least noise is to be expected since it has far less pixels. The Sony actually has worse noise it taken in relation sensor size and pixel count than the Fuji in my opinion, but this is in RAW, and in RAW one should not actually compare noise, because RAW is not a printable format. At minute 15:15 you are comparing Fuji RAW ISO 6400 with a Sony RAW ISO 1600 and saying how much better the noise on the Sony is. I'm sure that is just a mistake on your part, but you should have noticed it and reworked your video. Comparing at 100% is also wrong, because of the different mpx count. You should always think about how they would look when printed the same size, because that is where you need to compare. It is like comparing 35mm Film with 120 Film. If I print 35mm with less than DIN A4 it will look good, if I print it as large as I can print 120 it will look horrible. For noise it would be better to compare SOOC JPG Files, because then you will actually see the quality of in Camera Noise Reduction while maintaining detail, or not. I know your intentions were good, but it is simply not a professional comparison. So, please do try again and do better, because the idea of comparing is valid, you just need to validate your method.

[@Malcolmqp]

Most of the comments about test methodology make absolute sense. I’ve had my X-T5 for less than a week and as yet haven’t fitted my 56R to it. What has become evident is that not all lenses on the recommended list have the same resolving power, as a portrait lens the 56mm was not designed to be razor sharp, it has other qualities, bokeh amount and quality is a very subjective subject, how much is enough especially in environmental portraiture? The 50 - 140mm is great but the star performer has to be the 90mm f2, the sharpness and detail is incredible. The Viltrox 75mm f1.2 is a close second. My testing has been against my X-T4 not a FF camera but every lens so far produces sharper results. The most noticeable improvement is with the 80mm Macro with the 1.4 TC. Does the X-T5 compete with FF cameras? Of course it does but it isn’t the same, just different and can produce results better than a FF camera in some situations and not as good in others. (And is a smaller, lighter and less expensive system - bang for your buck!)

[@danielfortune4283]

The two photos at 4:50 have the identical amount of compression. You don't get more compression in the 85mm than you do in the 56mm. Compression is not background blur.

[@ounkeo]

Given its smaller sensor, and its 40mp resolution, the noise was expected. That said, I still consider the noise usable up til iso 12,000 when considering the entire image. Also, if you look at the iso comparispns at 1600, you see the XT5 outputting some incredible details.

[@Mage_Noir]

I think there will always be two schools. Pixel peepers, landscape lovers, or photographs that like to make money, and actually masters of editing cause that sharpness often comes without tasty colors. Creative people who like to think they're special, don't like to edit photos "cheating", monochrome lovers and obviously shadows masters cause it hides the lack of sharpness.

[@MrGoodfried]

Thank you for the comparison. 👌 I think Canon and Sony files are better interpreted by Lightroom than the Fuji files. Did you also save the jpg files from the Fuji? Would be interesting to compare these with Canon and Sony, in terms of sharpness…

[@DavidRey10]

Could you compare XT-5 with Sony A7C s they have similar size and weight and prize. Thanks in advance!

[@WillHoffman_creative]

If considerer that at any given f-stop the Fuji has a stop more depth of field (f5.6 on Fuji is equivalent to f8 on full frame), you’re not really losing much iso because full frame has to stop down. F5.6 on Fuji at the same shutter speed as full frame would be shot at 1600 iso vs 3200 for full frame at f8.

[@fbonneau03]

Nothing about noise, It is about what kind style you provide for your client, Nobody care as client. Fujifilm is awesome.Came from full frame to APSC.

[@seymourecarnage]

The results here aren't surprising to me. One of the things to consider is the pixel density. Dustin Abbott has pointed this out on several reviews with Fuji 40MP sensors. If you compare the sensor of the A7R4 to the X-T5, the relative pixel density to sensor size on the Fuji is about 91MP vs the 61MP on the A7R4. Fuji may have pushed the pixel wars a bit too far. Trying to cram that much resolution into a crop sensor leaves things looking muddy when pixel peeping vs the 26mp fuji sensors. Another factor is Lightroom's default handling of X-Trans files. The default sharpening and luminance noise settings do Fuji RAWs dirty compared to Sony/Canon/Nikon. If you were to tweak the settings, or run all the files through Lightroom's Denoise protocol at base settings the Fuji files would improve dramatically in comparison to the Canon and Sony.

[@domlabr]

Thanks for this. I appreciate this well controlled, real world, side by side test and really appreciate you including the files for download to compare in my own workflow (Capture One). In Capture One I saw some differences that seemed to narrow the gap between all the systems. This said, the Canon files seem to look the best in all cases. I'm mainly a Fuji shooter who was a Nikon guy in the past would have been interesting to compare the Nikon Z6II/Z7II with these others. I am currently considering finally letting go of my Nikon D610 in favour of the X-T5. For me the cost of the Nikon equipment compared to the Fuji equivalents and the ease of use of the Fujis compared to the Nikons make a very compelling argument.

[@tambokpatikan3700]

Without the captions I don't think I would be able to tell the difference between crop and full frame. I'm no expert but from what I noticed Canon is sharper zoomed in, Sony has better dynamic range and Fuji just has better colors. Good stuff my dude!

[@dlg521]

Great video. I haven't read a lot of comments yet but has anyone noticed, or mentioned Fuji had better color in most cases. The Canon tends to consistently look on the blue or cool side. Same with Sony, in some instances.

[@memcrew1]

Yes, I noticed that too.

[@jebeq2007]

I believe the problem with the Fuji is that it missed focus and not that it's not sharp enough. I have the same problem with my X-T5 specially when using eye AF. The camera confirms that it has focus but when looking at the file it has totally missed focus. I get better reults using single point focus for sharper images. I know Fuji released a new firmware for the X-H2S that fixes alot of thise focus problems and hopefully the firmware will be availble for the X-T5 in the near future.

[@picklerick7731]

The fujifilm colors are so beautiful

[@stevew7779]

Very interesting video. Don't forget, though, that Fuji measures its ISO differently than the others, using a more absolute scale while the others use their own relative scales. This means that comparing ISO 1600 on Fuji vs other cameras isn't really comparing like for like as the other manufacturers are probably calling something 1600 that would get a different number on the Fuji system.

[@adambaileyshow361]

Excellent! Been waiting for a comparison video like this.

[@darmaher4481]

I use the Sony A9 and Fuji xt4 on wedding days and my back up camera is the Sony a9. All I can say is I kept going back to Fuji. Sony images are cleaner, tracking is way better so I use them together now. Fuji does all my morning prep, family photos, the ceremony is done with both depending on the light. If dark I’d go with the Sonys, if the light is good I’m using Fuji with the old 35f1.4 and the 24mm gm on the Sony. During the afters im using the same but I use the 18mm 1.4 on the Fuji and then the 55mm on the Sony. Over all I use the Fuji as much as I can and when I need fast tracking or the low light I use Sony. Best of both :)

[@maylonrojer130]

I don't think the is a completely fair approach. The fuji 56 1.2 is more like an f1.8 in terms of DOF equivalence, and it isn't weather sealed. So you could have easily done the canon R6II paired with the RF 85 f2 macro. That would make the canon kit just 100 grams heavier, and the price would be way down by 2k. This would out perform the fuji still (I think, but comparable in terms of weight and lot closer in price). Similarly the batis 85 f1.8 or the FE f1.8 could have been used on the Sony with cost and weight savings. And I still think it would have out performed the fuji. With the slightly narrower apertures than the 56 f1.2 the gap would have been smaller of course, but still more affordable for regular users.

[@clickadoc]

To be fair, the Canon RF 85mm 1.2L outperform almost every 85 on the market. Basically, it is comparable to a Zeiss Otus with autofocus if not slightly better at some point. This lens could easily resolve a 50 or 60 Megapixels sensor.

[@Danrobertson89]

Absolutely no issue at all with the film-like noise at ISO 3200 or 6400 on the Fuji. Lightroom/Adobe is also crap for Fuji RAWs.

[@gamingwithstand6886]

The best noise reduction is. DXO PhotoLab or DXO PureRaw give the demo a try.

[@danieltomanovic1940]

I always love the rendering of Fuji...Sony can produce a more detail and light of course...This new 56mm 1.2 looks magical more interesting than FF 85...Fuji for me is always a winner when compare JPEG colours...

[@denis5850]

I have both a7iv and x-t5 and my a7iv produce much more noise you know why ? Because the noise is a colored noise and it's really hard to get ride of it. The x-t5 don't have color noise it's look like grains added to the picture

[@memcrew1]

Colored noise is call chroma noise.

[@jerzypoznar]

Which camera do you like better?

[@denis5850]

@@jerzypoznar I got the x-t5 3 weeks ago and I never picked up my a7iv since so ...

[@JAM_Lee]

Try looking at Fuji RAW through Capture One Express for Fuji (free), you may see much improved sharpness and details.

[@rogerhuston8287]

Subject, XT5 held its own, background blur and compression, the Sony stood out to me. Now, I do have the Sony 85 and I am familiar with it's performance.

[@edwarddiaz5973]

Thanks for video. I'm a Fuji user and the I can confirm Fujifilm lack sharpness, not matter how hard you try. That's one of their big flaws still present in their newest cameras.

[@danielbogos263]

Here is an experiment that I did a while ago. I've compared the older a7 iii with old sigma 24-70 against the xs-10 with its newer and very appreciated aps-c sensor that has 26 mp paired with the new sigma 18-50. These kits are very balanced and fair. From my results, the sharpness is the same despite the 2 mp difference. In fact, some areas of the photos appear sharper on a7 iii despite having an older lens. My point is the a7 iv might have only 33mp while xt-5 has 40, at the end of the day, the sharpness will be roughly the same hence the sony sensor is bigger and the every pixel gathers more information. So yeah, the number of mp is irrelevant comparing these kits. Good points thought throughout the video

[@Kim_Alexander]

back in the day I worked with digital backs from sinar around 2005. The way they made the large sensors was by putting two full frame sensors next to each other. Logically the same kind of sensor yielded the same result. The other being being larger is not going to make it perform differently just because it's large. An other thing is that a small megapixle file in many situations looks sharper than a high mp file. If you down scale them to the same size, things change.. But large megapixle files often needs some sharpening added in post since they often tend to have an high amount of details yet feel soft. what I like with medium format is generally the huge amount of details that have a softness in a way where they are less sticky to the eye, this effekt makes. skin looks really good! We also have to consider the different lenses, much of what you see is the character if the lens, a test between different cameras should preferebly be done with the same lens if the purpose is to compare the cameras. Been working professionally with canon, Sony and Fuji I most often prefer Fuji because of the color output that makes my post work more effective. Canon have nice colors as well, Sony have foot tech but I struggle more often with Sony files than other files. Great video! Surprisingly the x-trans 5 sensor have a simular vibe to medium format. Fuji also use a different iso standard than Sony and Canon making the file slightly darker at same value. www.fujirumors.com/dont-worry-why-fujifilm-x-h2-with-iso-125-cant-be-compared-with-iso-125-on-sony-canon-and-nikon/

[@jamesamoh7340]

Without indicating the camera, most of us would guess incorrectly, that’s how good these cameras are these days. Pixel peepers will argue otherwise lol. Personally, Sony files win ( biased of course) haha

[@jbivphotography]

Exactly. Pixel peeping and comparing tends to be pointless now a days because most all cameras are amazing. It comes down to the photographer and if they're taking great shots. All the systems work well as long as you know their quirks and how to work with them efficiently.

[@TCinSoCal]

One ‘secret’ for the higher MP Fuji is to play with detail slider & add more NR than you may normally. Detail from that sensor may be able to ‘overpower’ the NR to the extent that it comes out better than expected. I’ve shot Fuji for a long time. Recently switched from A7IV to the Canon R6ii…& the Canon is a low-light-high ISO beast. All 3 are amazing and can be used to make $. I will say in the early backlit comparisons it’s hard to truly know the difference as being off just a tad on that strong backlight can seriously impact the image.. but I get that it’s a ‘real world’ .. not clinical comparison. Thank you for making and sharing.

[@lsagidullin]

hey, why did you change A7IV to R6 ii if it's not a secret? I'm on r6 now and thinking to switch to a7 IV. I'm tired to use adapted heavy dslr lenses and not ready to pay a crazy amount of money for top canon rd optics. I was at sony system with a7 II and the biggest advantage here is the lenses market. Tamron, Sigma and even Sony 1.8 lenses, which are way better Canon's 1.8 rf plastic shit :/

[@TCinSoCal]

@@lsagidullin the ‘secret’ I’m referring to .. not really a secret is to that higher MP new sensors often hold up well to NR.. so you don’t ‘lose’ (loss being tons of noise) when going higher MP. I personally think the A7IV at 33MP is my ceiling. The A7IV & X-H2S are my 2 favorite bodies but I went back to X-H2S for colors and overall Fuji preference. The R6ii is an absolute beast.. AMAZING high ISO noise performance & AMAZING AF.. but lenses bigger & heavier than I want to deal with. I can now fit an X-H2S/33 1.4, X-Pro2/27mm & 14mm in a Peak 6L sling and I’m happy.

[@lsagidullin]

@@TCinSoCal thanks for sharing your opinion 🙏🏻 probably will switch from r6 to a7 iv. Tired from that lenses , their weights and prices

[@TCinSoCal]

@@lsagidullin if you go Sony.. Check out the GM 24-70 2.8 II .. updated version close to 24-105 in weight and stunning performance.

[@lsagidullin]

@@TCinSoCal thanks, will do that for sure. I also would like to check 17-28 and 75-180 Tamron and 35 1.8 Sony or 35mm 1.4 zeiss

[@ourhouseuk]

Good video thank you. A few points. - recovery of shadows is not dynamic range. The way you measured that was incorrect and should be done with a properly exposed photo. - I had to laugh a bit (not in a mean way) at 1600 iso max on the Fuji. What did you used to do with things like the 5d2, exposure stack everything ? The Sony, I can say from experience, is good for a decent size print to the highest available iso. Up to and including 12800 it requires very little noise reduction. So I get it for video I suppose but photography expand your horizons mate!

[@901pics]

If your plans are to get a medium format...then it makes more sense to have smaller system as your everyday camera to save weight and cost.

[@Gekkoo_o-0]

Someone does not like comparison among big cameras like these one but to people like me who feel incredibly like just to afford a fuji xt5 this video was super useful. Thanks Alex.

[@krisciesielski4338]

Hi all. X-t5 owner, previously sony a7iv and a7r3 and x-t4 I wanted newer camera with faster memory cards, got only f1.2 lenses as I know Fuji is not the best in poor light. So I like the body and dials, speed of the camera etc, no issues here. Auto focus is WORSE than sony a7r3, which I didn't expect, as of April 2024 eye AF has about 50% hit rate, images are very often back focused. Pure IQ is very good in Studio with good clarity and sharp eye lashes when exposed to the right at base ISO. Out in the real world without flash images are unfortunately on the muddy side, I am guessing due to small pixel size you need perfect exposue at base iso every time. Overall sony a7r3 seems like a medium format in comparision, I didn't expect it would be this much better to the point where I am considering selling fuji. Also as said you need to expose to the right to get the best of the camera, but again it's very easy to clip the highlights and there is NO highlight based metering as on Sony and Nikons. Lastly I would like to add the xt5 has very good electronic shutter performance, it can be used daily, so much much better than any other non stucked sensor camera. I am honestly not sure what to do, I like to use electronic shutter indoors and can't afford Sony A1, but as said IQ on Sony a7r3 was the best, better than newer a7iv

[@Azdak]

Having played around with the RAW files, my mind is blown at how great the R6ii is, suppose alot of that could be down to the lens but I found the Canon colours were far better to work with than the Sony. I'm invested in both Canon and Fuji gear and I'm trying to decide if I should go all in with an upgrade to the R6ii or X-T5. The X-T5 is also so impressive compared to the files from my old X-T2. Tough decisions ahead

[@unknowndon2115]

I’m on the same exact page as you, currently own an xt-30 and deciding wether I should get a xt-5 or an r6ii

[@JHurrenPhotography]

Whoa dudes! I understand this dilemma. I have most of the Fujifilm lenses, an XT3 and my faithful old XT1. I'm attending photography college and just returned my yearly Canon body rental. This year was a 6D, but in September I'll be getting an R6ii to shoot with for 8 months. My professors repeat the praises of full frame, while also mentioning film simulations. They're all craving a GFX 100. I'll probably get an XH2s if this new to me big city can provide client work over the summer. I'll have to weigh things out and shoot the R6ii long and hard in many situations. It would be hard to part with my 90mm and 50-140mm. I'm highly tempted by the newer primes on the wide end. I did sell my old versions when new ones were announced. They sold easy....

[@grandpascuba]

On several of your comparisons you mentioned that the full frame had more Bokah than the Fujifilm APS-C. The reason is that on full frame the depth of field at 1.2 is equal to What would be expected from 1.2. But on the Fujifilm APS-C camera with it’s 1.5 crop factor, is the depth of field you would expect at 1.8. Crop factor also effects the amount of light. If you really want the exposure the same, you need to set the full frame cameras to f/1.8.

[@jasperjohnclaro2663]

Try opening the Fuji Raw files in Capture One. ;)

[@martinreport]

I'm surprised that the new Fuji 56mm f/1.2 is as sharp as it is! I have a copy of the old 56mm f/1.2 and it is not nearly as sharp as other Fuji lenses because it is a portrait lens and a lot of people find that ultra sharp lenses aren't flattering given skin and such... I agree that ISO 1600 is probably a good max for XT-5... unless you are going for some artistic Fuji noise grain. In rare situations, it looks great.

[@jaegerschtulmann]

FYI. Even if a full frame sensor has less mp than the highest mp apse body it will still produce more detailed images due to pixel pitch and size, there's simply more info in larger pixels than the tiny ones on apsc.

[@memcrew1]

Lens

[@acciaremy]

Great video BUT you should have converted the Fuji files with Iridient/DxO/other BEFORE the comparison. All the fuji photographers know that the X-Trans sensors need a "special treatment" 🙂 Unfortunately Lightroom is not the answer in this case

[@j5daniel182]

used a fujifilm setup for weddings for 3 years and it does seem that fuji "cheats" on ISO values to make it look like they could complete FF with ISO noise. In reality, the Fuji images are darker for the exact same settings when compared side by side with fullframe.

[@memcrew1]

That’s the lens issue.

[@Azdak]

Thanks for the RAW files Alex. Been looking at these three cameras to was great to play with the files to see how they fit with my workflow.

[@JMatic-xk9vq]

Just got mine Fuji XT5 and its a beast!

[@mytravellinfo]

No wonder Canon r6ii has lesser noise because canon baked a noise filter in their raw output by default and there is no way you can remove that, it's baked in. So, to compare you have to use the In camera Noise Reduction option for both X-T5 and A7iv to compare with R6ii

[@matthewchute5514]

great video, really clean comparison set up! Thanks!

[@ghas4151]

It’s going to be harder for a lens to resolve 40MP APSC sensor due to the smaller individual pixels. Considering this, the XF 56mm is performing really well.

[@thesestillmoments]

I think it’s cool to see that you have to really pixel peep to see the major differences Cameras are so good now, as long as you know your camera you can get amazing results with any camera! Enjoyed this video comparison!

[@iSchneggs]

Insightful! Thank you! No doubt: too many folks get caught up in specs and pix peeping when they should be focusing on customer expectations and needs, composition, and frankly light exposure, including strategic and useful flash exposure when needed. Great job!!

[@chinuonchaitanya8340]

I don't know if my eyes are wrong but at 7:19 , I downloaded the 2 images and compared them. Fuji does look sharper than sony. Check out the teeth area. I zoom both the pictures exactly.

[@MrBlubb80]

Interesting, but I would argue that a resolution comparison between Cameras should not be performed at f1.2. That said the underexposure and shots against the sun really allow for some interesting insights beyond resolution. Who needs more then 24 MP anyways? What size do you print / display your photos? The Canon performance is impressive especially in terms of color. But a lens at almost 3k has to have some impact here.

[@francissosingindyrcworldga8936]

I think a better comparison would be the xh2s since it is the same price as the a7IV and R6II. Still a good video though sir.

[@huffsboson]

The separation between the subject and background on the canon really jumped out at me as being more stunning on the later photos. I say this as an owner of the x-t5.

[@brianw6645]

Agree

[@martinreport]

@Alex Berrera I wouldn't want you to have to buy a version of Capture One that works with all cameras, but Capture One works much, much better pixel-peeping with Fujifilm's X-Trans sensor and Lightroom performs better with the Bayer sensors that Sony and Canon are using. Zooming in on Lightroom is not fair to Fuji, but its better than it used to be. It used to create these odd worm artifacts!

[@scawhitwell]

Really nice comparison. Obviously there are limits to any comparison and comments are correct to point those out but none of that invalidates the basic point: more expense, bigger size (in body, glass, sensor) are an advantage but with skill and thought those differences, even to a connoisseur, can be made quite small. Some highly skilled professionals use all three cameras for fun and professional work (though an Xh2/s might be better for a professional) because they can work around the limitations. People under expose by 3 stops or use iso 3200 only in difficult situations and Fuji users will have a harder time in these conditions. But there are always choices and often work arounds. Your conclusion seems to me completely fair: all three cameras are excellent tools each with significant advantages if you include weight, packability, cost, lens choice, speed, colour science, in camera controls, ergonomics, company direction, inspiration-- and not just sharpness, dynamic range, and types of noise.

[@mignav464]

Do the same video for wide angle lenses please. And then realize that pretty much all crop wide angle primes are just as bulky and heavy than their full frame counterparts, many of them even heavier! Full frame is THE sweet spot for wide angle prime photography. If you're into that, there's no reason to go crop sensor. In anything longer like 50/85mm and so on, the difference is negligible. But I left crop sensors after my M9 with Summicron 35 was lighter than my X-E2 with 23/1.4 on it.

[@ccclcsr]

Fuji has noise reduction baked into the raw and smudges the images. Try shooting with -4 in-body NR see if helps

[@stebraig]

Wonderful video and conclusion!

[@NJM1948]

Great comparison. The X-T5 compared to the X-T3 shows better results with much more resolution. This is due to the new processor and sensor so a comparison between the 26mp and the new 40mp shows the exellent performance of the X-T5 There is also the difference in how Fuji and other cameras use the ISO scales....all are a bit different but Fuji seems to be a lot different for some reason....they always have been For me, moving from the X-T3 to the X-T5 is a significant improvement. I like to crop quite a bit in some images and the 40mp is great for that. The addition of IBIS, improved AF due to the new generation processor makes this a winner for me!! Most photographers don't shoot ISO much higher than 1600 so the X-T5 holds out there.....if I have to use a higher ISO then I will run the image through Topaz DeNoise AI for a perfect result

[@craigcarlson4022]

Alex, you did a ton of work on this and we appreciate that. Of value, IMHO, are the overall image ‘looks’ of your chosen camera and lens combinations, and how those compare. I’d agree with other commenters on your need to appropriately upscale/downscale images to make them comparable in scale. But more fundamentally, i am perplexed why so few reviewers consider the problem of lens diffraction with a 40mp apsc sensor. For wider use applications we’re not going to be able to always shoot at f1.2 or f2.0. Moving that Fuji up to probably 5.0 and above will result in noticeable diffraction softening of the image. That would seem to me to be a major limitation. I’d rather seen you test any of the current Fuji 26 mp sensors, older nonstacked or newer stacked versions.

[@janradtke8318]

When you compare cameras with different resolution, you would need to zoom in so that the faces have the same size and not simply to 100%.

[@hxwolt]

15:25 he compared fuji 6400 to sony 1600 😑

[@77dris]

Great video! I'm so glad I got the R6 Mark II. Seeing it beat both the XT5 and A7IV for dynamic range and ISO noise (and even detail/resolution) makes even happier with my purchase (as if I wasn't already super thrilled).

[@professionalpotato4764]

Kinda interesting. The R6ii seems to do better in stills than in video. In video it's actually worse than the X-T5/X-H2 by about 0.6stops, and worse than the X-H2S by about 1.2 stops.

[@spec-productions5733]

About the sharpness difference, most, if not all lenses wide-open will be soft vs. their sweet spot when stopping down 2 or 3 (or more) stops. Wide-open performance will vary a lot between lenses, so it's more likely that the Fuji lens wide-open is a tad softer than the Canon or Sigma. You can try the same comparison around f4 - f5.6 and see if you still notice a difference. With the high pixel density of the Fuji sensor, diffraction will come into play at lower f stops than with lower res sensors (particularly lower res and larger).

[@bowieknife]

I think you're comparing the wrong photo on the right @15:25. The left iso6400 and right is iso1600.

[@ronkelley5348]

hmmm... you're not comparing equivalent images: the image size/scale is different between the two formats and "100%" is not 'making them the same'. Fewer pixels over a larger area means greater well depth so noise is going to seem less on the full frame sensor as it can capture more photons on its larger photo sites making a better signal/noise ratio. (For reference I use Nikon full frame). A thought that should be kept in mind is: how large is it going to be printed and what's the typical viewing distance of the viewer going to be?

[@Wissperwind]

"I don't even shoot video" :D If you haven't noticed yet, you run a KZbin channel.

[@nanoulandia]

Echoing the other comments, this is a bit of apples to oranges. You can't compare two different sensors side by side like this. However, I also wanted to point out that the grain (or noise) in the Fuji is most likely due to the type of sensor, not the size. I have a GFX50R and I am having the same issues. It's also not a matter of just proper exposure, if your subject is in the shade and the background is very light (i.e. sunny day), then even when properly exposed you will get considerable noise in the shadows. It's the one reason that is making me want to switch from Fuji to another brand.

[@Heart0rHead]

I don't know if X-T5 is cheaper. You could get the same results with Canon R8 which is little cheaper than X-T5.

[@BlackZEddie]

Nice. But, I think AF tests would have been helpful. Like having subject walk/run left, right, front, back.

[@JungleCatImages]

In all the photos of the 'A' the Fuji looks much better, maybe not in a close up of the noise, which nobody would notice, but the overall image quality and especially colors.. very interesting video.. keep up the good work

[@shawnlabranche6852]

Thank you for the hard work on the video and also confirming I made the right choice for me. I guess I need to eat more Wheaties and my pocket will keep suffering 😆😆😆

[@CaptCanuck4444]

To my eye, the Fuji X-T5 have the most consistently pleasing images.

[@stanobert3475]

I own the full frame Nikon Z9 and Z8 cameras, and also the Fuji XT-5 and X-H2s. My Z9 and Z8 have 45 megapixel full frame sensors, while the X-T5 at 40 megapixels has the full frame equivalent of 90 megapixels. My X-H2s has a 26 megapixel sensor. My X-H2s has similar high iso noise to my Z8 and Z9. All three of these cameras get quite noisy at iso 5000 and above and require extensive noise reduction in post. I won't shoot my X-T5 past iso 3200. The best cameras for high iso noise are definitely full frame cameras with 33 megapixels and under. I will purchase the upcoming Nikon Z6III with its 24 to 33 megapixel sensor for lowlight photography. My compact Fuji X-T5 produces stunning images under iso 1600 and is my designated travel and everyday camera. I have been disappointed with the Z8 and Z9 cameras with higher isos. These high megapixel cameras are better suited for sports and wildlife than for lowlight dance photography.

[@moisesjimenez3468]

Sharpness with different lenses it's like trying to compare a Ferrari v8 vs v12 and see which one has the higher displacement. Each lens has their own sharpness.

[@rich4738]

Just getting back into photography and evaluating kit. Looking at the results, for my use, I would take Fuji due to size and weight advantages with minimal trade off in IQ

[@Devinw1213]

I actually like the pictures out of the Fuji more than the canon. The Fuji and Sony looks way better to me

[@Shot_Geek]

1:37 in and the video has hit a major snag. The closest comparable Len’s is not the 85mm f1.4, it is the 85mm f1.8 which goes for just under £400 in the uk or $450 in the US. The Sony is also around £2000 now meaning you can get the same for farrrrr cheaper than the numbers in this video. And the fuji would need to be an f0.8 to get the same look as the canon 85mm f1.2 Sorry to be a pain in the arse, but it’s just true 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@artistwithcameras]

This is great because I was conducting the same or similar test myself yesterday and came to the exact same conclusion. Your six has much better dynamic range and much cleaner, images and low level light but if you perfectly expose the XT five it’s fine it’s sad however that they can’t get it to good quality at the higher iSO because the images do fall apart in the XT five

[@Chemike21]

Coming from someone who knows nothing at all about photography, the R6ii, was objectively the most clear light and looked most professional. Others were not bad. Fuji seemed to be the darkest/coolest vintagy look. Sony was bland to me.

[@Chemike21]

would I pay double for the cannon? Not in a million years.

[@jovianr9498]

Don't use Lightroom with Fuji RAW files, if you use Capture One I suspect the X-T5 images would not have displayed the defects you emphasise in this video - both noise and sharpness.

[@meusy]

i saw this review and thought oh man... but i was a x-h2 user and now i have the a7r4 and when i look into the pictures i can't agree with this review... the fault is that for such a review a higher mp fullframe camera has to be taken... 40mp on a aps-c camera is like having about 80-90mp on a fullframe body but this amount of pixels isn't available so it should be an a7r4 which is more comparable to the x-trans 5 HR sensor that is used for such a comparison :)

[@JoseRuizV]

I don't think it has much sense comparing a full frame low resolution sensor to an ultra high resolution smaller sensor. At least the sensors resolution should be in the same order. I think you should have done this with the Canon R5 instead

[@MortenEmilFaber]

For some reason, the algorithm in lightroom for Fuji makes Fuji images less sharp when processing them. That's why many who shoot with Fuji cameras use Capture One instead. So to do an accurate comparison you have to use Capture One for the Fuji images.

[@mongini1]

yep, lightroom doesnt have the correct demosaicing algorythm thats needed for the X-Trans Sensor.

[@pedromacd]

@@mongini1 I wonder if they'll fix it. I'm about to purchase either an Xt5 or a Lumix S5ii set up and process my raw files in lightroom.

[@mongini1]

@@pedromacd there latest version of camera raw does a pretty good job with my X-H2 files. However, capture one is still a bit better.

[@Eyeofkamau]

@13:51 this is definitely true. Sony uses REI scale while fuji uses SOS. So to get the same brightness, 1600 on sony is 2500 on fuji, 3200 is 5000 on fuji, and 6400 on sony is 10,000 on fuji.

[@JMatic-xk9vq]

Make this same test today but with Fuji XT-5 vs Canon R8 with 50mm 1.8. There you get full frame with lower costs and better autofocus than the Fuji.

[@parmanduke]

They all look great!

[@kravec.miroslav]

As an opportunistic photographer, I like to carry my camera around "to be ready". Therefore I prioritize weight, and I don't care about FullFrame cameras, regardless of whether they are better or not.