Do you want 40 MP?

There is one feature that I think the 40mp allows that could be quite awesome. Per the review here- https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-h2/fuji-x-h2A.HTM

"In addition to the standard 40MP still shooting mode, the X-H2 has a handy built-in "digital teleconverter" option thanks to its higher-resolution sensor. Users can enable a "1.4x" or "2.0x" teleconverter mode, which crops in on the sensor, but allows for some easy additional telephoto reach on your image without adding physical teleconverters to the end of your lens."

If there is no loss of light on the digital converter, does that mean you still get a 28mp image (40mp/1.4 converter = 28mp?) without a loss of light gathering since it's in camera? That makes every prime lens a dual threat and still with a resolution bump over the 26mp generation. I think I'm doing my math right? Haven't seen anything about losing light gathering ability with it. Does that make something like the 16-55 a 34-115mm lens? (1.5 crop of aps-c plus 1.4 digital teleconverter)?

Maybe I'm not interpreting that right- but a very intriguing feature.
All it does is crop from the full image, so there wouldn't be any loss of light. It's definitely a handy feature to have in camera (increased magnification etc.), but nothing you can't easily do in post with the same exact result.
There is a loss of light simply by virtue of the crop. You're using less of the sensor so you are capturing less light.

At 1.4x crop you lose half the light, or one stop. At 2x crop you lose half again, or a total of 75% of the original, or two stops.

The net result is exactly the same as using a smaller sensor, and all that implies.
 
Well if you’re losing resolution when cropping in, then it’s highly misleading to say you’re losing light too. Because it’s certainly not a double disadvantage. It’s one way or the other, and for all practical purposes it makes much more sense to just say that when cropping in, you’re losing resolution. It makes sense to talk about the light loss if you’re comparing two different sized sensors with equal resolution, e.g. a 40mp ff sensor and a 40mp aps-c sensor, because then you’re outputting the same resolution but the ff sensor will have a stop of sensitivity advantage.
 
Well if you’re losing resolution when cropping in, then it’s highly misleading to say you’re losing light too. Because it’s certainly not a double disadvantage. It’s one way or the other, and for all practical purposes it makes much more sense to just say that when cropping in, you’re losing resolution. It makes sense to talk about the light loss if you’re comparing two different sized sensors with equal resolution, e.g. a 40mp ff sensor and a 40mp aps-c sensor, because then you’re outputting the same resolution but the ff sensor will have a stop of sensitivity advantage.
Well, I don't agree with you here. Losing light is one thing, a change in pixel count is another.

And yes, it is a double disadvantage, if you want to put it that way. You have less pixels and you reap the rewards of a smaller sensor at the same time.
 
And yes, it is a double disadvantage, if you want to put it that way. You have less pixels and you reap the rewards of a smaller sensor at the same time.
Well you're wrong here, and I suspect you'll never agree. But please answer this question; when the pixel pitch remains the same, and you already lost the resolution, what exactly else are you losing by cropping in?
 
want: yes

need: of course no and if I'm honest I don't need 26MP either.
I compose in the viewfinder. I don't really crop much. With the large files I am trying to train myself to shoot looser and crop in post, but that is a hard go. Years of composing in the viewfinder makes it a hard habit to break.

Regards,

Sol
 
And yes, it is a double disadvantage, if you want to put it that way. You have less pixels and you reap the rewards of a smaller sensor at the same time.
Well you're wrong here, and I suspect you'll never agree. But please answer this question; when the pixel pitch remains the same, and you already lost the resolution, what exactly else are you losing by cropping in?
Dynamic range would be one thing, one stop or two stops for 1.4x and 2x respectively.

Loads more information if you want it here.

-

I'm not going to argue it with you, and yes you are correct, I won't be agreeing with you in a rush. I simply wanted to correct the mis-statement that there is no lost light in a crop. There are downsides to losing light, whether or not they are relevant in any given situation depends of course on the situation.
 
There is one feature that I think the 40mp allows that could be quite awesome. Per the review here- https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-h2/fuji-x-h2A.HTM

"In addition to the standard 40MP still shooting mode, the X-H2 has a handy built-in "digital teleconverter" option thanks to its higher-resolution sensor. Users can enable a "1.4x" or "2.0x" teleconverter mode, which crops in on the sensor, but allows for some easy additional telephoto reach on your image without adding physical teleconverters to the end of your lens."

If there is no loss of light on the digital converter, does that mean you still get a 28mp image (40mp/1.4 converter = 28mp?) without a loss of light gathering since it's in camera? That makes every prime lens a dual threat and still with a resolution bump over the 26mp generation. I think I'm doing my math right? Haven't seen anything about losing light gathering ability with it. Does that make something like the 16-55 a 34-115mm lens? (1.5 crop of aps-c plus 1.4 digital teleconverter)?

Maybe I'm not interpreting that right- but a very intriguing feature.
As far as I know, the Sony cameras allow shooting in RAW only in Optical Zoom but it does not allow for RAW shooting in ClearImageZoom nor Digital Zoom. I hope that is not the case for the new Fuji 40mp camera in the enhanced "1.4x" or "2.0x" teleconverter mode. Does anyone know if one can shoot RAW in all those extra modes?
 
And yes, it is a double disadvantage, if you want to put it that way. You have less pixels and you reap the rewards of a smaller sensor at the same time.
Well you're wrong here, and I suspect you'll never agree. But please answer this question; when the pixel pitch remains the same, and you already lost the resolution, what exactly else are you losing by cropping in?
Dynamic range would be one thing, one stop or two stops for 1.4x and 2x respectively.
The 1.4*tc is interesting but if it doesn't support the raw file at the same time I doubt Id ever use it.

You are getting similar crop in the e-shutter 1.29* too which is 24mp, very cool and that will help a lot with scan time and rolling shutter so Im expecting that to be a great bonus.

If the 1.4* is just a crop and supporting tge raf file too I'm in as basically its a m43 size sensor size and same resolution, what's not to like?
Loads more information if you want it here.

-

I'm not going to argue it with you, and yes you are correct, I won't be agreeing with you in a rush. I simply wanted to correct the mis-statement that there is no lost light in a crop. There are downsides to losing light, whether or not they are relevant in any given situation depends of course on the situation.
 
Not that I "want" it or don't.

I am trying to conduct some weighted comparison between 26 Mpx and 40 Mpx and I can't find any decisive advantage of 40 Mpx compared to 26 Mpx even for still photography.

For video, stacked sensor with fast readout is a decisive advantage definitely.

And 26 Mpx is completely enough for video already.

UPD: in the other sub-thread here, I tried to summarize my thoughts on what the actual benefits from 40 Mpx sensor may be. Or may not. Each to its own.

--
All I post is my own, humble, personal, subjective and highly biased opinion. It may change in time upon new facts and convincing arguments arrival.
 
Last edited:
What is your take on the new sensors? Will you be able to make use of the increased resolution?
I do not stress it at all. It isn't a huge resolution increase and I am used to processing my GFX-50R already. I already have to use big external hard drives.

My words of advice are... if increase in MPs bothers you, just keep using what you have forever because it is not going to change, it will only get worse.
 
My words of advice are... if increase in MPs bothers you, just keep using what you have forever because it is not going to change, it will only get worse.
I agree. We already have plenty of testimonies that increased pixel density sets much stricter requirements for optics. So at a pixel level (think 100% crop) you may either see some benefits to your present owned lenses... or not... or quite to the opposite you will observe imperfections that weren't observable before. Here is the reference source: The 8K Conundrum – When Bad Lenses Mount Good Sensors by Brandon Dube, published October 19, 2017.

At a whole-frame level, you may either observe some minor benefits, or see no perceived difference at all.

Maybe for hard-copy photo printing at sizes like 36" by 24" or 24" by 18" this will make a difference, or maybe not. There isn't enough information on it yet.
 
Thanks for throwing a link at me, but obviously I asked because I wanted to see if you could answer the question based on your own logic.

DR, given the same sensor technology, is a function of pixel pitch, so cropping in doesn’t hurt DR at all. Of course if you blow up the picture enough then cropping out half the pixels (at 1.4x) is going to hurt perceived image quality, but that’s the loss of resolution you already accepted when you chose to crop. Still no double disadvantage.

And this is all rather theoretical, a lot of other factors influence technical IQ, such as sensor technology, lens quality, editing software and so on. But when making the decision to invest in a camera system, it’s important, in my opinion, to realize that the theoretical DR and noise penalty of crop format systems is only valid when you decrease the pixel pitch, i.e. in order to maintain a high resolution. You could instead of course opt for a larger pixel pitch at a lower resolution, all the same, you’ll see a quality difference when you blow up the picture enough, but with modern system cameras you’d have to make a pretty huge print and really push the image in order to actually notice it.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Storage and processing power are cheap.
But, huge files are extremely slow when try transfer to PC/Mac/phone (especially mighty Fuji smartphone app).
I have had zero issues with import speed and even transferring the JPG image to my iPhone from the camera. With modern computing power and the fast ports we now have, transferring really isn’t an issue as well as processing the images won’t be a taxing endeavor for any modern computer.
 
No, I just bought an XT30ii. I was fine with 16mp. Now that I have 26mp it’s more than enough.
 
It seems fuji's new sensors are quite good. I'm eagerly awaiting the X-T5 and X-Pro4. Rumors say that both will use the X-H2's less expensive 40 MP sensor instead of the X-H2s' 26 MP sensor.

But I worry a bit about those 40 MP files. They will require almost twice the storage, and probably process about half as quickly. I don't look forward to that. Conversely, I don't see many scenarios where I'd actually need the added resolution.

If I remember correctly, some recent Leica camera had a feature that lowered resolution, but still saved raw files. That sounds appealing! But unlikely to happen in Fuji land.

What is your take on the new sensors? Will you be able to make use of the increased resolution?
I want this sensor for;

4:3, 5:4 ratios and 1.29* e-shutter!

These functions have been carefully considered and added.

For example, 4:3 ratio, same as gfx, provides a mini Gfx shooting experience for those who like 4:3 format, also those moving from m43 have a similar ratio option too but with far more resolution. Importantly an 18mm can be used as 30mm, 23mm can now be used as a 40mm lens etc due to the 1.125* effective crop.

The 5:4 is another new option I've never seen before except on some FF and of course on the Gfx. This is a handy 1.2* effective crop to the fov and you can restore the whole raw file in post if necessary.

The 1.29 e-shutter should allow the camera to scan the sensor quicker with a reduced area hence Im expecting fast scan times for pre-burst and similar performance in practice to the X-h2s if not quite as reliable.

The 1.4* tc is interesting but need to see how it works in practice, ie jpg only? The video implementation is similar to what was implemented years ago and looks really good.
I too will buy a XH2 for the 4:3, 5:4, 1.29 and the digital teleconverter.Thank You Fuji!
 
No thanks!
 
My words of advice are... if increase in MPs bothers you, just keep using what you have forever because it is not going to change, it will only get worse.
I agree. We already have plenty of testimonies that increased pixel density sets much stricter requirements for optics. So at a pixel level (think 100% crop) you may either see some benefits to your present owned lenses... or not... or quite to the opposite you will observe imperfections that weren't observable before. Here is the reference source: The 8K Conundrum – When Bad Lenses Mount Good Sensors by Brandon Dube, published October 19, 2017.

At a whole-frame level, you may either observe some minor benefits, or see no perceived difference at all.

Maybe for hard-copy photo printing at sizes like 36" by 24" or 24" by 18" this will make a difference, or maybe not. There isn't enough information on it yet.
Well, as someone who uses 24-26mp APSC, 24mp ff and 50mp medium format… I am not scared of 40mp. The lenses will all continue to work fine and will not ruin a great photo. This is so overblown.

--
https://www.johngellings.com
Instagram = @johngellings0
 
Last edited:
There is one feature that I think the 40mp allows that could be quite awesome. Per the review here- https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-h2/fuji-x-h2A.HTM

"In addition to the standard 40MP still shooting mode, the X-H2 has a handy built-in "digital teleconverter" option thanks to its higher-resolution sensor. Users can enable a "1.4x" or "2.0x" teleconverter mode, which crops in on the sensor, but allows for some easy additional telephoto reach on your image without adding physical teleconverters to the end of your lens."

If there is no loss of light on the digital converter, does that mean you still get a 28mp image (40mp/1.4 converter = 28mp?) without a loss of light gathering since it's in camera? That makes every prime lens a dual threat and still with a resolution bump over the 26mp generation. I think I'm doing my math right? Haven't seen anything about losing light gathering ability with it. Does that make something like the 16-55 a 34-115mm lens? (1.5 crop of aps-c plus 1.4 digital teleconverter)?

Maybe I'm not interpreting that right- but a very intriguing feature.
As far as I know, the Sony cameras allow shooting in RAW only in Optical Zoom but it does not allow for RAW shooting in ClearImageZoom nor Digital Zoom. I hope that is not the case for the new Fuji 40mp camera in the enhanced "1.4x" or "2.0x" teleconverter mode. Does anyone know if one can shoot RAW in all those extra modes?
Unlikely imo, wherever you see digital it implies in-camera, jpg/mov files only, maybe the Heif.

The best crop options are 4:3/5:4/1:1 these all effectively simulate a horizontal fov crop as follows,

4:3, 1.125* crop,

5:4, 1.2* crop

1:1, 1.5* crop

Plus, you can recover the whole raw file on post, only the in-camera jpg is cropped forever!

The 1.29* crop will also crop the raw file as per X-T4/X-S10 etc so you will have a 24mp raw file.
 
Well, as someone who uses 24-26mp APSC, 24mp ff and 50mp medium format… I am not scared of 40mp.
Why should anyone be scared? :-) it's just an interesting topic to discuss while thinking about future upgrades of your gear.

My own current gear list is limited to 24 Mpx Fujis and one 6x9 120 film ancient camera with bellows, so I don't worry at all :-)

And I am completely sure that for me 40 Mpx has no sense, but for video works 26 Mpx stacked fast sensor is so much welcome.
The lenses will all continue to work fine and will not ruin a great photo. This is so overblown.
Yep, agreed!
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top