X-T5 + XF 18 1.4 vs. Q2

[Rod McD]

Hi,

Thanks for posting.

To me, just looking at it in the DPR viewer, the differences are less than I thought they'd be given the hyperbole and given the usual claims about sensor size and the Q2's lens (not that the 18/1.4 is an average performer either). When people say, "blows it into the dirt", (along with 'wipes the floor with', etc) my objectivity and proportionality filters turn on. I don't think that's a fair description.

I can see incremental differences, and one could pixel peep at higher magnifications in a different viewer, but the real test would be what sized print one would have to make to discern the differences in prints of a size one actually makes. I doubt print paper has the resolution to see any differences until a print of this image was made very large.

Sheer pragmatism : I'll keep my Fuji because its IQ meets my actual print needs and because it's an ILC. I want flexibility in FOV. I don't need convincing that a larger sensor size has benefits for printing large, but I if I had a similar budget, I'd possibly go with a GFX to go larger and still keep FL flexibility.

Cheers, Rod

 

[Hoka Hey]

Hi,

Thanks for posting.

To me, just looking at it in the DPR viewer, the differences are less than I thought they'd be given the hyperbole and given the usual claims about sensor size and the Q2's lens (not that the 18/1.4 is an average performer either).

That really surprised me as well.

When people say, "blows it into the dirt", (along with 'wipes the floor with', etc) my objectivity and proportionality filters turn on. I don't think that's a fair description.

I can see incremental differences, and one could pixel peep at higher magnifications in a different viewer, but the real test would be what sized print one would have to make to discern the differences in prints of a size one actually makes. I doubt print paper has the resolution to see any differences until a print of this image was made very large.

Sheer pragmatism : I'll keep my Fuji because its IQ meets my actual print needs and because it's an ILC. I want flexibility in FOV. I don't need convincing that a larger sensor size has benefits for printing large, but I if I had a similar budget, I'd possibly go with a GFX to go larger and still keep FL flexibility.

Cheers, Rod

Thanks for your comments.

Good point about the print size being the driving factor.

I really was thinking about a GFX as well, but the weight rules it out for me.

Cheers,

 

[Rand 47]

Hi,

Thanks for posting.

To me, just looking at it in the DPR viewer, the differences are less than I thought they'd be given the hyperbole and given the usual claims about sensor size and the Q2's lens (not that the 18/1.4 is an average performer either). When people say, "blows it into the dirt", (along with 'wipes the floor with', etc) my objectivity and proportionality filters turn on. I don't think that's a fair description.

I can see incremental differences, and one could pixel peep at higher magnifications in a different viewer, but the real test would be what sized print one would have to make to discern the differences in prints of a size one actually makes. I doubt print paper has the resolution to see any differences until a print of this image was made very large.

Sheer pragmatism : I'll keep my Fuji because its IQ meets my actual print needs and because it's an ILC. I want flexibility in FOV. I don't need convincing that a larger sensor size has benefits for printing large, but I if I had a similar budget, I'd possibly go with a GFX to go larger and still keep FL flexibility.

Cheers, Rod

I certainly used "blows it into the dirt" in a hyperbolic sense here. But I'll argue that it is a fair description of the difference. I own and run a boutique fine art printing concern. I've printed files from most cameras available today, from Phase One to micro4/3. My eyes have become tuned to seeing differences in tonal gradation, detail rendering, etc. and what may seem like a nominal difference to you - but, I can assure you that with the latest in digital printing technology those differences are very obvious in print. VERY obvious in print. I personally shoot w/ an X-H2 for casual work and for prints up to 17x22" it's fine. Nice prints, decent tonality, "good enough" detail rendering at that size. But I also own and shoot a GFX 100 system and there's just no comparison. Period. End of sentence. The differences in a 17x22" print are very obvious, and it gets better/worse as you get larger.

None of this is to say that one cannot make beautiful images with either (or any, for that matter) camera / system. We can and we do. Some of my favorite images that I've captured in my 60+ years as a photographer / printer would get laughed off of this forum for lack of sharpness and detail. But when fine detail is what is called for to make the image a success (for the photographer) then it matters. By the way "paper" does not have resolution, it has more or less dot gain. The less the better for sharpness and detail rendering. The size, placement algorithm of the head, pigment encapsulation etc. of the pigment based inks, also contributes, along with the overall design of the printer head, the accuracy / repeatability of the head's alignment. These and a bunch of other factors combine to produce either more or less print clarity, color gamut, sharpness, tonal gradation, etc.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Fuj X system, and the new 40mp sensor is quite nice. I love my H2 and the great Fuji lenses (especially the new f/1.4 primes!). But I take exception when someone wants to equate it with something that is obviously superior even at first glance.

Rand

 

[Rod McD]

I really was thinking about a GFX as well, but the weight rules it out for me.

Cheers,

Hi,

I used to shoot medium and large format landscapes in film, but these days, at nearly 67, weight is my limitation too. I'm no longer making and selling very large prints and it's more important to me to keep hiking for the sake of enjoying the pastime than to carry a massive camera kit. The Fuji does what I need it to do and it's lighter than FF when you also use macro lenses or telephoto zooms like the 70-300.

Cheers, Rod

 

[Hoka Hey]

Hi,

Thanks for posting.

To me, just looking at it in the DPR viewer, the differences are less than I thought they'd be given the hyperbole and given the usual claims about sensor size and the Q2's lens (not that the 18/1.4 is an average performer either). When people say, "blows it into the dirt", (along with 'wipes the floor with', etc) my objectivity and proportionality filters turn on. I don't think that's a fair description.

I can see incremental differences, and one could pixel peep at higher magnifications in a different viewer, but the real test would be what sized print one would have to make to discern the differences in prints of a size one actually makes. I doubt print paper has the resolution to see any differences until a print of this image was made very large.

Sheer pragmatism : I'll keep my Fuji because its IQ meets my actual print needs and because it's an ILC. I want flexibility in FOV. I don't need convincing that a larger sensor size has benefits for printing large, but I if I had a similar budget, I'd possibly go with a GFX to go larger and still keep FL flexibility.

Cheers, Rod

I certainly used "blows it into the dirt" in a hyperbolic sense here. But I'll argue that it is a fair description of the difference. I own and run a boutique fine art printing concern. I've printed files from most cameras available today, from Phase One to micro4/3. My eyes have become tuned to seeing differences in tonal gradation, detail rendering, etc. and what may seem like a nominal difference to you - but, I can assure you that with the latest in digital printing technology those differences are very obvious in print. VERY obvious in print. I personally shoot w/ an X-H2 for casual work and for prints up to 17x22" it's fine. Nice prints, decent tonality, "good enough" detail rendering at that size. But I also own and shoot a GFX 100 system and there's just no comparison. Period. End of sentence. The differences in a 17x22" print are very obvious, and it gets better/worse as you get larger.

None of this is to say that one cannot make beautiful images with either (or any, for that matter) camera / system. We can and we do. Some of my favorite images that I've captured in my 60+ years as a photographer / printer would get laughed off of this forum for lack of sharpness and detail. But when fine detail is what is called for to make the image a success (for the photographer) then it matters. By the way "paper" does not have resolution, it has more or less dot gain. The less the better for sharpness and detail rendering. The size, placement algorithm of the head, pigment encapsulation etc. of the pigment based inks, also contributes, along with the overall design of the printer head, the accuracy / repeatability of the head's alignment. These and a bunch of other factors combine to produce either more or less print clarity, color gamut, sharpness, tonal gradation, etc.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Fuj X system, and the new 40mp sensor is quite nice. I love my H2 and the great Fuji lenses (especially the new f/1.4 primes!). But I take exception when someone wants to equate it with something that is obviously superior even at first glance.

Rand

Thanks for your explanation Rand.

"Good enough" is good enough for me at this point. My printer maxes out at 17" x 22".

I envy you the GFX 100 system. I rented one for a week and really enjoyed the results.

Is your gallery on line? I'd enjoy seeing what you are doing. Feel free to PM me if you don't want to share the link on the Forum.

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

Thanks for posting.

To me, just looking at it in the DPR viewer, the differences are less than I thought they'd be given the hyperbole and given the usual claims about sensor size and the Q2's lens (not that the 18/1.4 is an average performer either). When people say, "blows it into the dirt", (along with 'wipes the floor with', etc) my objectivity and proportionality filters turn on. I don't think that's a fair description.

I can see incremental differences, and one could pixel peep at higher magnifications in a different viewer, but the real test would be what sized print one would have to make to discern the differences in prints of a size one actually makes. I doubt print paper has the resolution to see any differences until a print of this image was made very large.

Sheer pragmatism : I'll keep my Fuji because its IQ meets my actual print needs and because it's an ILC. I want flexibility in FOV. I don't need convincing that a larger sensor size has benefits for printing large, but I if I had a similar budget, I'd possibly go with a GFX to go larger and still keep FL flexibility.

Cheers, Rod

I certainly used "blows it into the dirt" in a hyperbolic sense here. But I'll argue that it is a fair description of the difference. I own and run a boutique fine art printing concern. I've printed files from most cameras available today, from Phase One to micro4/3. My eyes have become tuned to seeing differences in tonal gradation, detail rendering, etc. and what may seem like a nominal difference to you - but, I can assure you that with the latest in digital printing technology those differences are very obvious in print. VERY obvious in print. I personally shoot w/ an X-H2 for casual work and for prints up to 17x22" it's fine. Nice prints, decent tonality, "good enough" detail rendering at that size. But I also own and shoot a GFX 100 system and there's just no comparison. Period. End of sentence. The differences in a 17x22" print are very obvious, and it gets better/worse as you get larger.

None of this is to say that one cannot make beautiful images with either (or any, for that matter) camera / system. We can and we do. Some of my favorite images that I've captured in my 60+ years as a photographer / printer would get laughed off of this forum for lack of sharpness and detail. But when fine detail is what is called for to make the image a success (for the photographer) then it matters. By the way "paper" does not have resolution, it has more or less dot gain. The less the better for sharpness and detail rendering. The size, placement algorithm of the head, pigment encapsulation etc. of the pigment based inks, also contributes, along with the overall design of the printer head, the accuracy / repeatability of the head's alignment. These and a bunch of other factors combine to produce either more or less print clarity, color gamut, sharpness, tonal gradation, etc.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Fuj X system, and the new 40mp sensor is quite nice. I love my H2 and the great Fuji lenses (especially the new f/1.4 primes!). But I take exception when someone wants to equate it with something that is obviously superior even at first glance.

Rand

Hi Rand,

No offence intended. If your expertise is in running a fine art printing business your expertise in printing will certainly be higher than mine. I did actually acknowledge the benefits of the Q2 - not equate it - but said it was less than I expected it to be. It's far subtler than the differences I experienced moving format size from 35mm to 6x7cm to 4x5". Different medium, I know, but it was certainly much more profound in film.

Regards, Rod

 

[Rand 47]

Hi,

Thanks for posting.

To me, just looking at it in the DPR viewer, the differences are less than I thought they'd be given the hyperbole and given the usual claims about sensor size and the Q2's lens (not that the 18/1.4 is an average performer either). When people say, "blows it into the dirt", (along with 'wipes the floor with', etc) my objectivity and proportionality filters turn on. I don't think that's a fair description.

I can see incremental differences, and one could pixel peep at higher magnifications in a different viewer, but the real test would be what sized print one would have to make to discern the differences in prints of a size one actually makes. I doubt print paper has the resolution to see any differences until a print of this image was made very large.

Sheer pragmatism : I'll keep my Fuji because its IQ meets my actual print needs and because it's an ILC. I want flexibility in FOV. I don't need convincing that a larger sensor size has benefits for printing large, but I if I had a similar budget, I'd possibly go with a GFX to go larger and still keep FL flexibility.

Cheers, Rod

I certainly used "blows it into the dirt" in a hyperbolic sense here. But I'll argue that it is a fair description of the difference. I own and run a boutique fine art printing concern. I've printed files from most cameras available today, from Phase One to micro4/3. My eyes have become tuned to seeing differences in tonal gradation, detail rendering, etc. and what may seem like a nominal difference to you - but, I can assure you that with the latest in digital printing technology those differences are very obvious in print. VERY obvious in print. I personally shoot w/ an X-H2 for casual work and for prints up to 17x22" it's fine. Nice prints, decent tonality, "good enough" detail rendering at that size. But I also own and shoot a GFX 100 system and there's just no comparison. Period. End of sentence. The differences in a 17x22" print are very obvious, and it gets better/worse as you get larger.

None of this is to say that one cannot make beautiful images with either (or any, for that matter) camera / system. We can and we do. Some of my favorite images that I've captured in my 60+ years as a photographer / printer would get laughed off of this forum for lack of sharpness and detail. But when fine detail is what is called for to make the image a success (for the photographer) then it matters. By the way "paper" does not have resolution, it has more or less dot gain. The less the better for sharpness and detail rendering. The size, placement algorithm of the head, pigment encapsulation etc. of the pigment based inks, also contributes, along with the overall design of the printer head, the accuracy / repeatability of the head's alignment. These and a bunch of other factors combine to produce either more or less print clarity, color gamut, sharpness, tonal gradation, etc.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Fuj X system, and the new 40mp sensor is quite nice. I love my H2 and the great Fuji lenses (especially the new f/1.4 primes!). But I take exception when someone wants to equate it with something that is obviously superior even at first glance.

Rand

Hi Rand,

No offence intended. If your expertise is in running a fine art printing business your expertise in printing will certainly be higher than mine. I did actually acknowledge the benefits of the Q2 - not equate it - but said it was less than I expected it to be. It's far subtler than the differences I experienced moving format size from 35mm to 6x7cm to 4x5". Different medium, I know, but it was certainly much more profound in film.

Regards, Rod

None taken!!!

I completely agree re the more profound differences in film!

Rand

 

[John Gellings]

Hi,

Thanks for posting.

To me, just looking at it in the DPR viewer, the differences are less than I thought they'd be given the hyperbole and given the usual claims about sensor size and the Q2's lens (not that the 18/1.4 is an average performer either). When people say, "blows it into the dirt", (along with 'wipes the floor with', etc) my objectivity and proportionality filters turn on. I don't think that's a fair description.

I can see incremental differences, and one could pixel peep at higher magnifications in a different viewer, but the real test would be what sized print one would have to make to discern the differences in prints of a size one actually makes. I doubt print paper has the resolution to see any differences until a print of this image was made very large.

Sheer pragmatism : I'll keep my Fuji because its IQ meets my actual print needs and because it's an ILC. I want flexibility in FOV. I don't need convincing that a larger sensor size has benefits for printing large, but I if I had a similar budget, I'd possibly go with a GFX to go larger and still keep FL flexibility.

Cheers, Rod

Not to mention pure sharpness and clarity is just one technical aspect. Might be important to some and not to others. That said, I’d probably be interested in a Leica Q with a 50mm just because I like rf shaped cameras with shutter speed dials and aperture rings.