A really useful comparison, especially the last few shots with the exposure uplift. I have a 50R and have been through mental backflips the past two months about whether to downsize to an X-T5. I have done my own comparison by borrowing an X-H2 for a couple of weeks from Fujifilm. I shoot a lot of night landscapes, so shadow detail recovery is important for me. Although the X-T5 package of size, weight and IBIS is compelling, in the final analysis I'm getting better results on the 50R. For landscapes I'm using it with a Canon-fit Samyang 24mm tilt-shift and for me it's a dream combination. The tilt means I can get front to back sharpness at f/8, the image circle more than covers the MF sensor and it's nice and sharp. I live in northern Scotland, which is already a world-class landscape photography destination, but it does mean that travelling further afield normally involves flying. I was attracted to the X-T5 as a lightweight and more versatile landscape/travel camera, and a compromise between the GFX and my current X-Pro2. I think I'll stick with what I've got for a while until the X-T5s start hitting the second hand market, then look to run two systems, making a choice depending on the needs of each particular trip.
Thanks for sharing Mark. Yeah the Fuji x mount cameras are definitely fantastic for travel or when wanting to carry a lighter kit. One of my favorite things about the Fuji APS-C system is being able to carry a telephoto lens (such as 55-200mm or 70-300mm) on longer hikes and not have the kit be too heavy. Full frame and medium format systems do tend to have better image quality in my opinion, but the smaller and lighter kit is hard to beat for travel or longer hiking trips
Try Capture One and they come closer. It blew my mind personally. Hoping Fuji drops the Xtrans design in the future but in the meantime processing keepers in Capture One is a small price to pay.
@@ZJMichaels Thought you'd find this interesting... I shot my X-T5 and GFX 50R side-by-side comparing in both Lightroom and Capture One. In LR the X-T5 is funky because of the dumb Xtrans sensor. But open it in Capture One and it gets so close. Enough for me to lean back into X series. Really amazing stuff.
Great video. As an XT5 owner I'm always curious what I am missing. One thing I've seen several TH-camrs like Dustin Abbott mention is diffraction on the 40mp sensor is already robbing sharpness by F8. I noticed several of your shots were f8 or smaller on the xt5. Perhaps if you shot the xt5 at 5.6 it may make a difference when pixel peeping those files .
Yeah best to shoot at an equivalent aperture for the same diffraction (mostly) so perhaps F4 vs F8 or whatever the conversion is. There's a reason many crop lenses only go to F11 and medium format up to f22. Same for old film full frame lenses F22 versus new digital lenses that stop at F16 because there's no point shooting with that much diffraction on higher resolution sensors. Film was maybe 12mp if it was good stuff.
Colors, color vibrance, color accuracy, tonality, highlight and shadow roll off, native picture format, less distortion, there’s a lot more to image quality than just megapixels or else you would say that a high megapixel cell phone file is just as good as a gfx file and that’s just not true. If you edit a lot of gfx files the differences become way more obvious, and it makes it hard to go back to full frame.
Hi, an excellent video. Yes this outcome was expected. Both cameras are excellent in their lineup of cameras. I own them both and besides the cost the main reason for choosing one of them for a project are size and weight. You just don’t want take a GFX camera on a long hike. And you can also bring more lenses with the X-T5. On the other hand, for maximum picture quality the GFX is king. And one specialty of the old sensor of the GFX50S II is low light low ISO pictures. For static scenes in the night it’s hard to beat the GFX50S II.
The Gfx sensor is 4 times larger than the X-T4 one. You can sharpen the X- file to closer ressemble to the Gfx file - question is: how big will you print? Will you then see the difference? I just tried out the 50S II and decided to give it back. The lenses are much larger, heavier, much (!) more expensive, and the body reaction and AF is slower on Gfx, zooms are only 2x on Gfx, no really long lenses available etc etc. Like all cameras it represents a compromise in favor of ultimate quality but against convenience and versatility.
no doubts, larger sensor offer better resolving power, but Lightroom is really bad at demosaicing X-trans. It would be possible to compare a preprocessed DNG in Pureraw3, with the "standard" GFX file? thanks
Exactly. Or just use the recently introduced enhance detail/noise option in LR that also works much better then the default crappy demosaicing from Adobe…
Microcontrast on every medium format camera I’ve seen is just incredible. Hasselblad, Fuji, etc. Just is super slow for anything outside of landscape/studio portraits. And not to mention the upkeep to buy new lenses/accessories is astronomical. Even when compared to full frame.
The 100s is 5 shot bursts. I have shot Basketball, and football with it. It all comes down to timing, and waiting for the moment. Yes, lots of missed shots, but man the ones you nail, you NAIL!
@@ReflexVEI wonder if that's related to lower maximum apertures or some other property of the lenses? Less air to glass elements needed for equivalent sharpness thanks to diffraction? I can say even old full frame cameras can blow me away with a really good lens, so I expect it's mostly lens related to the sensor size.
I love what you did here...my only ask (if you ever do this again) is to take some comparisons in different places (like indoors, street, nights in the city etc.) Don't get me wrong, I am very appreciative of this video...I just want more of it ;)
Interesting comparison. It's pretty impressive that the XT5, a sensor a fraction of the size, with way more features, has nearly the same resolution reducing the pixel pitch significantly STILL competes with a medium format sensor and lens. The 50s is definitely a superior image, but on desktop, mobile, even 4k screens, and small to medium size prints I think the vast majority of people would really struggle to tell the difference between the two images. Can you comment on what the color differences are between the images? It seems to me like the there is either a white balance difference or exposure/color shift difference between the cameras because the GFX has more pronounced blues in particular. Assuming the settings are basically equivalent, did you try shifting colors in post to match?
Hi Greg, I believe any color difference is mostly due to white balance not being exactly the same. The cameras were set to auto WB if I remember correctly, so the cameras were probably not using the exact same WB settings. Next time I need to make sure to set WB manually to the same kelvin temp. There could also be differences due to the way the lenses and sensors render color, but I'm guess the majority of any color difference is due to WB. I haven't specifically tried to match colors in post, but I have edited files from both cameras and they are both very malleable in terms of color, so I don't think it would be too hard to match them.
@@ZJMichaels thanks! Do you think there is any real difference in handling color given that both cameras have 14 bit color depth. My understanding is that there would be no advantage to tonality or color and really the sensor advantages now are strictly around sharpness, clarity, detail/resolution and high ISO performance.
@reuptakeinhibitor Good point, and I certainly agree that it is difficult if not impossible, to tell the difference in MF v. FF or APS-C in a small print or certainly in a compressed TH-cam video. My interest in MF (Fuji GFX 100 ll or Hasselblad X2D) lies in seeing the difference in sharpness and detailed when printing very large. I'm guessing that the difference in fine detail rendition would be evident in a 30" x 40" print! Thank you.
The unprocessed GFX Raw files have an advantage over the X-T5 unprocessed Raw files not only due to increased sensor size and higher number of pixels, but also due to the fact that the GFX uses a traditional Bayer Sensor whereas the X-T5 uses the Fujifilm X-Trans Sensor, which many people find may not render as well without some processing in Lightroom. It would be interesting to see a similar comparison of both cameras files with optimized processing, in lightroom or other raw software that (arguably) handles both types of sensor more equally?
Hello @weldonthomson. I was unaware that the GFX system uses the Bayer sensor. I'm considering going MF (using a FF Nikon Z System now) for landscape, product and macro photography, and was wondering if you had an opinion on whether the Fujinon GF lenses are as sharp or sharper than the equivalent Hasselblad XC lenses, particularly the 120 Macro? (Currently I use an IRIX 150 f/2.8 Macro lens on a Nikon Z8, which does yield ultra-sharp images, but since I'm printing rather large, hence my reason for considering a MF System.) Thank you!
Great video, the conclusion on the iso is very clear, on the sharpness I would live to see a comparaison with higher end prime lens on the xt5, like the new 23mm f/1.4 or so, also the xf 70-300 is not one of the best lenses
I'm thinking of getting this camera because I do have the XT5 and I absolutely love it and I take really sharp photos. It's a little bit to do with technique as well when lenses and using good light and not under exposing as well, but I think I've reached my limit with what I can get out of this camera and I'm really looking to get this camera at some stage because I think it can take my Photography to the next level. And yes I do sell images and very large prints. I'm talking 2 m x 1 m
Hi ZJ. Nice video. I have one suggestion: when you are comparing two camera in fairly detailed way, I’d suggest proving a few summary comments at the end
Thank you so much for the informative video! Nothing surprising there since the sensor is about 4 times the size of APSC. I was wondering, we clearly see a difference in every aspect between both files each time at 100% but what about when viewed lets say at 25% or on an iPhone? can you still see / feel the difference in quality and detail? put in other words, is the GFX only worth if you print large or view on a 5-8k monitor? thanks again :)
Hi Reza, so when viewed on a small screen like a phone there's not going to be much of a perceptible difference at all. On my 5K monitor I can't really see too much difference when viewed at 25%, but the difference definitely becomes more noticeable the more I zoom in. If the final image output is just online, I think the GFX is overkill (one could argue the X-T5 is overkill too)... however, whether or not the GFX is worth getting really depends on the use case, budget, individual wants/needs, etc.
@@ZJMichaels I totally agree. It becomes very personal. and the idea of opening the file in Lightroom / photoshop and having super clean files is bliss vs a mushy file (I keep feeling when using the XT20) I come from FF digital and MF film (6x7) thanks again @ZJ Michaels
Seems to me that the 40MP APS-C sensor in the X-T5 has large pixel apertures, while the 50MP 44x33mm sensor in the GFX50 is famous/infamous (depending on one's perspective) for its very small pixel apertures, which gives greater detail, but also greater false detail.
You're talking about the micro lenses? Never thought about their aperture. It acts like a very mild antialiasing filter of sorts as well as increasing quantum efficacy by being an intermediate impedance, no?
I don't see that much a difference in sharpness - where the GFX really outperforms the XT5 is in dynamic range - the colour rendition is much richer in both the highlights and the shadows - I would definitely purchase a GFX system if money was not an object but I just can't justify dropping 5K on a body alone and then another 5K for a couple of GFX lenses - that's 10K which is an awful lot of money especially as my client base is shrinking due to the performance of smartphones - I have lost so many Interior designers and real estate clients who have decided they can shoot their own projects with their new megapixel smartphones. Smartphones really are killing the industry -
@@ZJMichaels Hands down my favorite lens is the GF 100-200 F5.6 zoom lens. I own the 30mm, 45mm, 50mm, 32-64 and the 100-200. This past summer I spent 53 days in the Yukon and Alaska and after checking the metadata on my 9000+ raw images the 100-200 was used about 75% of the time. Close behind it was the 30mm, then the 45mm 2.8 which is amazing! I was hesitant on buying the 100-200 but I find it partners perfectly on the 50r since the lens has OIS. And on the 100s which also has the IBIS it's a phenomenal combo - never mind the high-ISO performance of the 50r and moreso the 100s! It's my most used lens.
Check the video description for gear discounts, my gear list, and more. Thanks for watching!
A really useful comparison, especially the last few shots with the exposure uplift. I have a 50R and have been through mental backflips the past two months about whether to downsize to an X-T5. I have done my own comparison by borrowing an X-H2 for a couple of weeks from Fujifilm. I shoot a lot of night landscapes, so shadow detail recovery is important for me. Although the X-T5 package of size, weight and IBIS is compelling, in the final analysis I'm getting better results on the 50R. For landscapes I'm using it with a Canon-fit Samyang 24mm tilt-shift and for me it's a dream combination. The tilt means I can get front to back sharpness at f/8, the image circle more than covers the MF sensor and it's nice and sharp.
I live in northern Scotland, which is already a world-class landscape photography destination, but it does mean that travelling further afield normally involves flying. I was attracted to the X-T5 as a lightweight and more versatile landscape/travel camera, and a compromise between the GFX and my current X-Pro2. I think I'll stick with what I've got for a while until the X-T5s start hitting the second hand market, then look to run two systems, making a choice depending on the needs of each particular trip.
Thanks for sharing Mark. Yeah the Fuji x mount cameras are definitely fantastic for travel or when wanting to carry a lighter kit. One of my favorite things about the Fuji APS-C system is being able to carry a telephoto lens (such as 55-200mm or 70-300mm) on longer hikes and not have the kit be too heavy. Full frame and medium format systems do tend to have better image quality in my opinion, but the smaller and lighter kit is hard to beat for travel or longer hiking trips
Try Capture One and they come closer. It blew my mind personally. Hoping Fuji drops the Xtrans design in the future but in the meantime processing keepers in Capture One is a small price to pay.
Exactly the comparison I’ve been searching for. Thanks for this video!
Awesome!
@@ZJMichaels Thought you'd find this interesting... I shot my X-T5 and GFX 50R side-by-side comparing in both Lightroom and Capture One. In LR the X-T5 is funky because of the dumb Xtrans sensor. But open it in Capture One and it gets so close. Enough for me to lean back into X series. Really amazing stuff.
That is interesting! Maybe I should give Capture One a try as well… at least for X series shots
@@ZJMichaels if you’re willing to share a couple RAW samples from this video I’d love to compare!
Great video. As an XT5 owner I'm always curious what I am missing. One thing I've seen several TH-camrs like Dustin Abbott mention is diffraction on the 40mp sensor is already robbing sharpness by F8. I noticed several of your shots were f8 or smaller on the xt5. Perhaps if you shot the xt5 at 5.6 it may make a difference when pixel peeping those files .
Yeah best to shoot at an equivalent aperture for the same diffraction (mostly) so perhaps F4 vs F8 or whatever the conversion is. There's a reason many crop lenses only go to F11 and medium format up to f22. Same for old film full frame lenses F22 versus new digital lenses that stop at F16 because there's no point shooting with that much diffraction on higher resolution sensors. Film was maybe 12mp if it was good stuff.
Just remember one thing - it only matters for cropping or printing large prints, new camera won't make your pictures better.
Colors, color vibrance, color accuracy, tonality, highlight and shadow roll off, native picture format, less distortion, there’s a lot more to image quality than just megapixels or else you would say that a high megapixel cell phone file is just as good as a gfx file and that’s just not true. If you edit a lot of gfx files the differences become way more obvious, and it makes it hard to go back to full frame.
That statement is about as accurate as Fujifilms af...
@@RewDownsI’m curious if you have even more play with the 100S and the 16bits images
Hi, an excellent video. Yes this outcome was expected. Both cameras are excellent in their lineup of cameras. I own them both and besides the cost the main reason for choosing one of them for a project are size and weight. You just don’t want take a GFX camera on a long hike.
And you can also bring more lenses with the X-T5. On the other hand, for maximum picture quality the GFX is king. And one specialty of the old sensor of the GFX50S II is low light low ISO pictures. For static scenes in the night it’s hard to beat the GFX50S II.
The Gfx sensor is 4 times larger than the X-T4 one. You can sharpen the X- file to closer ressemble to the Gfx file - question is: how big will you print? Will you then see the difference? I just tried out the 50S II and decided to give it back. The lenses are much larger, heavier, much (!) more expensive, and the body reaction and AF is slower on Gfx, zooms are only 2x on Gfx, no really long lenses available etc etc. Like all cameras it represents a compromise in favor of ultimate quality but against convenience and versatility.
Yep so true… all cameras have compromises / pros & cons. Though I will say it is nice that we have so many great options nowadays
Pretty similar to the film days when shooting 35mm and medium format cameras.
no doubts, larger sensor offer better resolving power, but Lightroom is really bad at demosaicing X-trans. It would be possible to compare a preprocessed DNG in Pureraw3, with the "standard" GFX file? thanks
I’ve never used Pureraw3 before. Is it good?
@@ZJMichaels yes. convert the raw to dng using Deepprime, and open the DNG to LR, as usual.
Exactly. Or just use the recently introduced enhance detail/noise option in LR that also works much better then the default crappy demosaicing from Adobe…
thanks for doing this! could you try upscaling with topaz? and some print enlargement comparison?
I haven't used topaz... do you find it is worth it? I may do a print comparison at some point. Thanks for the idea!
Microcontrast on every medium format camera I’ve seen is just incredible. Hasselblad, Fuji, etc.
Just is super slow for anything outside of landscape/studio portraits. And not to mention the upkeep to buy new lenses/accessories is astronomical. Even when compared to full frame.
...also known more commonly as just....contrast.
The 100s is 5 shot bursts. I have shot Basketball, and football with it. It all comes down to timing, and waiting for the moment. Yes, lots of missed shots, but man the ones you nail, you NAIL!
@@ReflexVE gets it LOL
@@strawzinthewind It's like audiophiles inventing terms that sound real and technical but really just let them win debates against non audiophiles.
@@ReflexVEI wonder if that's related to lower maximum apertures or some other property of the lenses? Less air to glass elements needed for equivalent sharpness thanks to diffraction? I can say even old full frame cameras can blow me away with a really good lens, so I expect it's mostly lens related to the sensor size.
I love what you did here...my only ask (if you ever do this again) is to take some comparisons in different places (like indoors, street, nights in the city etc.) Don't get me wrong, I am very appreciative of this video...I just want more of it ;)
Interesting comparison.
It's pretty impressive that the XT5, a sensor a fraction of the size, with way more features, has nearly the same resolution reducing the pixel pitch significantly STILL competes with a medium format sensor and lens. The 50s is definitely a superior image, but on desktop, mobile, even 4k screens, and small to medium size prints I think the vast majority of people would really struggle to tell the difference between the two images.
Can you comment on what the color differences are between the images? It seems to me like the there is either a white balance difference or exposure/color shift difference between the cameras because the GFX has more pronounced blues in particular. Assuming the settings are basically equivalent, did you try shifting colors in post to match?
Hi Greg, I believe any color difference is mostly due to white balance not being exactly the same. The cameras were set to auto WB if I remember correctly, so the cameras were probably not using the exact same WB settings. Next time I need to make sure to set WB manually to the same kelvin temp. There could also be differences due to the way the lenses and sensors render color, but I'm guess the majority of any color difference is due to WB. I haven't specifically tried to match colors in post, but I have edited files from both cameras and they are both very malleable in terms of color, so I don't think it would be too hard to match them.
@@ZJMichaels thanks! Do you think there is any real difference in handling color given that both cameras have 14 bit color depth. My understanding is that there would be no advantage to tonality or color and really the sensor advantages now are strictly around sharpness, clarity, detail/resolution and high ISO performance.
@reuptakeinhibitor Good point, and I certainly agree that it is difficult if not impossible, to tell the difference in MF v. FF or APS-C in a small print or certainly in a compressed TH-cam video. My interest in MF (Fuji GFX 100 ll or Hasselblad X2D) lies in seeing the difference in sharpness and detailed when printing very large. I'm guessing that the difference in fine detail rendition would be evident in a 30" x 40" print! Thank you.
The unprocessed GFX Raw files have an advantage over the X-T5 unprocessed Raw files not only due to increased sensor size and higher number of pixels, but also due to the fact that the GFX uses a traditional Bayer Sensor whereas the X-T5 uses the Fujifilm X-Trans Sensor, which many people find may not render as well without some processing in Lightroom. It would be interesting to see a similar comparison of both cameras files with optimized processing, in lightroom or other raw software that (arguably) handles both types of sensor more equally?
Hello @weldonthomson. I was unaware that the GFX system uses the Bayer sensor. I'm considering going MF (using a FF Nikon Z System now) for landscape, product and macro photography, and was wondering if you had an opinion on whether the Fujinon GF lenses are as sharp or sharper than the equivalent Hasselblad XC lenses, particularly the 120 Macro? (Currently I use an IRIX 150 f/2.8 Macro lens on a Nikon Z8, which does yield ultra-sharp images, but since I'm printing rather large, hence my reason for considering a MF System.) Thank you!
Great video, the conclusion on the iso is very clear, on the sharpness I would live to see a comparaison with higher end prime lens on the xt5, like the new 23mm f/1.4 or so, also the xf 70-300 is not one of the best lenses
Yeah I think doing a comparison with some nice primes is a great idea
I'm thinking of getting this camera because I do have the XT5 and I absolutely love it and I take really sharp photos. It's a little bit to do with technique as well when lenses and using good light and not under exposing as well, but I think I've reached my limit with what I can get out of this camera and I'm really looking to get this camera at some stage because I think it can take my Photography to the next level. And yes I do sell images and very large prints. I'm talking 2 m x 1 m
Hi ZJ. Nice video. I have one suggestion: when you are comparing two camera in fairly detailed way, I’d suggest proving a few summary comments at the end
Good suggestion, thanks!
Thank you so much for the informative video! Nothing surprising there since the sensor is about 4 times the size of APSC. I was wondering, we clearly see a difference in every aspect between both files each time at 100% but what about when viewed lets say at 25% or on an iPhone? can you still see / feel the difference in quality and detail? put in other words, is the GFX only worth if you print large or view on a 5-8k monitor? thanks again :)
Hi Reza, so when viewed on a small screen like a phone there's not going to be much of a perceptible difference at all. On my 5K monitor I can't really see too much difference when viewed at 25%, but the difference definitely becomes more noticeable the more I zoom in. If the final image output is just online, I think the GFX is overkill (one could argue the X-T5 is overkill too)... however, whether or not the GFX is worth getting really depends on the use case, budget, individual wants/needs, etc.
@@ZJMichaels I totally agree. It becomes very personal. and the idea of opening the file in Lightroom / photoshop and having super clean files is bliss vs a mushy file (I keep feeling when using the XT20) I come from FF digital and MF film (6x7) thanks again @ZJ Michaels
Seems to me that the 40MP APS-C sensor in the X-T5 has large pixel apertures, while the 50MP 44x33mm sensor in the GFX50 is famous/infamous (depending on one's perspective) for its very small pixel apertures, which gives greater detail, but also greater false detail.
You're talking about the micro lenses? Never thought about their aperture. It acts like a very mild antialiasing filter of sorts as well as increasing quantum efficacy by being an intermediate impedance, no?
I don't see that much a difference in sharpness - where the GFX really outperforms the XT5 is in dynamic range - the colour rendition is much richer in both the highlights and the shadows - I would definitely purchase a GFX system if money was not an object but I just can't justify dropping 5K on a body alone and then another 5K for a couple of GFX lenses - that's 10K which is an awful lot of money especially as my client base is shrinking due to the performance of smartphones - I have lost so many Interior designers and real estate clients who have decided they can shoot their own projects with their new megapixel smartphones. Smartphones really are killing the industry -
No big difference
congratulation
For quite some time I'm negotiating the sale of one of my kidneys to be able to afford that GFX camera...
Not sure that would be worth it :)
I simply don't understand why Fuji crammed 40 megapixels into a cropped sensor camera, They had an excellent 26 megapixel sensor with much better iso.
more resolution on low iso when same iso performance if downscale the file
damn this makes me want a medium format camera
The image quality is definitely really really good!
Comparing Rotten Apples (XT5) to sweet, ripe, organic oranges (50r and 100s).... Why? I shoot XT, plus 50r and 100s and there is no comparison.
Nice! What do you mostly shoot with the GFX gear? Got a favorite lens?
@@ZJMichaels Hands down my favorite lens is the GF 100-200 F5.6 zoom lens. I own the 30mm, 45mm, 50mm, 32-64 and the 100-200. This past summer I spent 53 days in the Yukon and Alaska and after checking the metadata on my 9000+ raw images the 100-200 was used about 75% of the time. Close behind it was the 30mm, then the 45mm 2.8 which is amazing! I was hesitant on buying the 100-200 but I find it partners perfectly on the 50r since the lens has OIS. And on the 100s which also has the IBIS it's a phenomenal combo - never mind the high-ISO performance of the 50r and moreso the 100s!
It's my most used lens.
@@thelazyphotographer4761 Which do you prefer for image quality - the 50r or the 100s?
Really no surprise. I used the Gfx50r for a couple of years. No way the small sensor could equal it
😊😊😊