Omar Gonzalez experiences "muddy/blurry" images from X-T5

gdanmitchell said:

If you make two photographs of a subject with the same lens, aperture, and shutter speed on two cameras that are identical except for sensor resolution... and then print the two images at the same size... there will be precisely the same amount of blur.

Click to expand...

Your explanation is sound in most respects and is helpful. However, this paragraph challenges my long help view that for handheld shooting, as resolution increases technique must also improve otherwise any blur caused by poor standing, holding, breathing or shutter rolling will be more obvious with a high resolution sensor than a lower one.

I would value you view in this aspect.

Here are 2 disappointing SOOC pics taken with the X-T5 with the XF100-400 with the 1.4xTC on. You can see the EXIF info on the pic. If you expand the pic, you will not be able to see any feather details on these birds. It's like a smudged water-colour painting. Not sure if it was the lens or the attached TC or other camera settings, but it's defintely not up to my own expectation.





For near objects taken with prime lens, I think the pics will look great on the X-T5, but for objects that are 50-100 metres away, above are the results I get. It does not matter whether I have object-bird detection on.

Examples of some near objects (within 2 metres) with bird tracking on:





--
Life is like a CAMERA. FOCUS on what's important; CAPTURE the good times; DEVELOP from the NEGATIVES and if things don't work out, TAKE ANOTHER SHOT!

fcracer said:

astonehouse said:

I’m finding a number of people shots on the xh2 are out of focus even though the camera seems to lock on to the right focus point. This has only happened with face detection on. I’m trying to figure out what I’m doing wrong, or whether these cameras just need a firmware update. The AF is definitely detecting eyes properly it’s just like the AF motor isn’t being told to adjust for it.. or maybe it’s just an attribute of the high mega pixel sensor.

Click to expand...

Anthony, I’m working on my X-T5 review and facing the same issue. Green box is clearly tracking my dog’s eye but the final image focus is on backgrounds or other odd choices. It’s like the camera knows what to do but can’t execute it at the lens level.

Click to expand...

Hi, I wonder if the AF-C issue is the difference between what one might describe as the traditional single green box approach versus the newer face/animal/etc approach.

Last weekend with my XT5 set to AF-C focus propriety, 7fps, single AF Mode, Custom Setting set to 6 (0, 1, Front) photographing our daughter's dog running towards me every image was sharp (used a 50/f2). Ok, hardily a challenge as the dog is small so his speed was not that fast.

Is it that these more complex algorithms are not quite there yet in Fuji-land, but which could be with more research and firmware updates or is that I do not understand the technology?

Anyway, with my limited one day testing (but I came from a XT3/XT4 photographing sports) I am content with AF (but improvements are always welcome).

For me the key XT5 issue is buffer size, but that is for another thread...

I’ve only had a limited time with my X-T5. So far the only disappointment has been mild and somewhat expected. Not impressed with the C-AF subject recognition tracking.



Aside from that it’s a pleasure. Only tried the 35 1.4 and 50-140 so far.



The GFX50R taught me that my handholding technique needed improving - I definitely needed to up my shutter speeds or use a tripod with that body.

Hi,

Beautiful birds and images, but as you've said, they have relatively little detail. My thoughts

• I think part of the problem is that the birds both form a tiny component of the images - especially the two kingfishers. There's a fair bit more detail in images #3 and #4 with the brown/green bird.
• Were they really taken 50m away? If so, air movement and temperature may be a culprit - especially over water
• The shutter speed should have been high enough for perching birds.
• The ISO is high at 6400. I've never used ISO 6400 and can't comment on expectations with the XT5 and its 40mpx sensor - it's a very high density sensor.

Morris' view might be helpful here as one of the forum's birding experts. I wonder if it might pay to re-post these images in a post with a bird related title and you may get the birder photographers to respond. For these existing images, I would suggest running them through Topaz AI Sharpen - it might well give some good results.

Given that Gonzales' unanswered questions are around AF tracking and moving targets shot with a standard lens, I suspect that questions around soft long lens images of static subjects would probably add complexity to the debate. They might have other causes.

Regards, Rod

More sample pics from the x-t5, lightly processed;











object is about 50-100 metres away...

--
Life is like a CAMERA. FOCUS on what's important; CAPTURE the good times; DEVELOP from the NEGATIVES and if things don't work out, TAKE ANOTHER SHOT!

Rod McD said:

Hi,

Beautiful birds and images, but as you've said, they have relatively little detail. My thoughts

• I think part of the problem is that the birds both form a tiny component of the images - especially the two kingfishers. There's a fair bit more detail in images #3 and #4 with the brown/green bird.
• Were they really taken 50m away? If so, air movement and temperature may be a culprit - especially over water
• The shutter speed should have been high enough for perching birds.
• The ISO is high at 6400. I've never used ISO 6400 and can't comment on expectations with the XT5 and its 40mpx sensor - it's a very high density sensor.

Morris' view might be helpful here as one of the forum's birding experts. I wonder if it might pay to re-post these images in a post with a bird related title and you may get the birder photographers to respond. For these existing images, I would suggest running them through Topaz AI Sharpen - it might well give some good results.

Given that Gonzales' unanswered questions are around AF tracking and moving targets shot with a standard lens, I suspect that questions around soft long lens images of static subjects would probably add complexity to the debate. They might have other causes.

Regards, Rod

Click to expand...

Thanks so much for your kind comments. Maybe I'll try a lower ISO setting to see how the 40MP sensor handle the images. Yes, the 2 kingfishers were about 30m away and the green bird is about 2 metres away. I saw some of Morris' pictures on this forum too. I have configured my custom AFC to 4,1, centre for BIF as per his recommended settings and will test it out if I go on a birding trip again.

With respect to the first two photos, the subject doesn't fill enough of the frame to make it worth your while to press the shutter release in most situations. It may be a photo worth making to document having seen the species. If there's an interesting environmental element that sustains the composition, the subject can be very small in the frame.

However, when developing one's skills and technique as a bird & wildlife photograher, one of the first things we learn is when not to press the shutter release. If the goal is to make a quality image in which the subject fills much of the frame, we learn to develop the patience to wait for those rare moments when the subject does fill the frame.

Moments like those captured in the first two photos are great learning opportunities. They're when we develop that essential patience. Good luck with your new camera and enjoy the journey.

Sometimes if the bird is too small and far away, i won't bother to take also. My photography course trainer told us it's okay to take a bigger picture and crop it to frame the composition later, but i guess the subject on my first two pictures are really too small for such purpose. Anyway, thanks for your comments too. I'll continue to practice my skills and hope I'll put the camera to good use.

making the following comments. Bill made some points and I will add some observations that have already been mentioned but can be seen more easily here. Am I an expert on this? absolutely not. However some time in photography has given me some potential insight.



First..... You are using an APS-C camera with 40mp of resolution. When I bought my Nikon D800 back in the day it had 36mp.... unheard of but intriguing. I found blurry image after blurry image. I needed to up my game because motion blur became the biggest issue. Use of a tripod and/or raising the shutter speed became the correct approach and the images became what a 36mp cam can produce. This Fuji (I own the XH2) has 40mp! One cannot trust IBIS to save us from being conscious of our shooting style.

Second. The above image has a Focal length of 560mm which in full frame terms is 840mm. Conventional wisdom says the shutter speed should be 1/fl in FF terms. I usually try for 1/2x the focal length to be a little safer. The above image is 1/500. Even with IBIS there is very little room for error so I would expect, without a doubt, there is motion blur to a greater or lesser extent.

Third. ISO 6400. When I got the D800 I soon discovered to get the best imagery for static objects I needed to keep the ISO close to base or as close as possible. The noise increase with the newer packed sensor was substantial and there weren't the nicer noiseware programs we have today. I have experimented with my XH2 at higher ISO. The noise, as expected, is substantial in RAW. Therefore I will only use it for subjects that fill most of the frame. Then some moderate noise reduction with what I use, Topaz, along with strategic sharpening and down-sampling will give me the desired result.

Putting all these issues together for the above image one has very little hope for the kind of image the photographer is hoping for. A jam-packed sensor at relatively high ISO, too slow a shutter speed, a long focal length, and a subject that occupies a small section of the frame even with f/8 will not result in a great image.

This is probably a good example of why Fuji came out with the H2S along with the H2 and T5. Serious birders benefit from a smaller sensor, faster readout, lower noise, etc.

That's it from me....... but I will acknowledge that enough anecdotal reports have arisen that seem to indicate Fuji needs to improve its AF for the H2 and T5.

--
Bob aka BobsYourUncle
DPR Co-MOD - Fuji X Forum

sid4iwpa said:

Here are 2 disappointing SOOC pics taken with the X-T5 with the XF100-400 with the 1.4xTC on. You can see the EXIF info on the pic. If you expand the pic, you will not be able to see any feather details on these birds. It's like a smudged water-colour painting. Not sure if it was the lens or the attached TC or other camera settings, but it's defintely not up to my own expectation.





For near objects taken with prime lens, I think the pics will look great on the X-T5, but for objects that are 50-100 metres away, above are the results I get. It does not matter whether I have object-bird detection on.

Examples of some near objects (within 2 metres) with bird tracking on:

Click to expand...

I also have the 100-400 with the 1.4x TC and find it very soft. I rarely use this combo. It always disappoints. I mainly use the TC with the 80mm macro and 50-140mm. I remember seeing a large thread regarding the softness and if I remember correctly, the consensus was the 1.4x TC with the 100-400 is very slightly better than cropping in.

Well, I think that is some of the best advice I have seen for a while. Lots of great technique points for us to work in.

a_c_skinner said:

I've not heard this from the numerous other reviews of the T-5.

Click to expand...

Coz most reviewers always sugar coat things.

jhorse said:

gdanmitchell said:

If you make two photographs of a subject with the same lens, aperture, and shutter speed on two cameras that are identical except for sensor resolution... and then print the two images at the same size... there will be precisely the same amount of blur.

Click to expand...

Your explanation is sound in most respects and is helpful. However, this paragraph challenges my long help view that for handheld shooting, as resolution increases technique must also improve otherwise any blur caused by poor standing, holding, breathing or shutter rolling will be more obvious with a high resolution sensor than a lower one.

Click to expand...

It will only be more obvious if you are pixel peeping. It will only be more obvious if you zoom to 100% and look for details that you know SHOULD have been captured by the higher resolution sensor.

He is absolutely right about the photos looking the same if you print them out at the same size. The higher sensor photo will never, ever look worse than a photo taken with a lower resolution sensor. You might question why you don't see more detail in the high resolution photo if you aren't using good technique. But the high resolution photo will always look as good or better than the low resolution one.

jhorse said:

Well, I think that is some of the best advice I have seen for a while. Lots of great technique points for us to work in.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Maybe its only me thinking in that way, but i have kind a feeling that we lost Omar Gonzales to Nikon system )

He is great guy, i loved his videos about fujifilm cameras, lenses. He made me decide many times how i should use camera, which lens is better for any situation. He was really excited about his videos for fujifilm but recently i didnt feel that much like before. Especially after he got nikon z6ii Maybe thats why he thought that images from x-t5 are muddy. Maybe he just didnt give attention same as before to fujifilm system.

I love his works and his character, way of doing videos for fujifilm system. As i said, maybe its just me, but i wanna see his passion that he had before

as much as i heard from a friend ( i didnt have a chance to test x-t5 by myself), x-t5 is great camera and has better specs almost in every way except tilt screen which i like better than x-t4 as a photographer.

jhorse said:

gdanmitchell said:

If you make two photographs of a subject with the same lens, aperture, and shutter speed on two cameras that are identical except for sensor resolution... and then print the two images at the same size... there will be precisely the same amount of blur.

Click to expand...

Your explanation is sound in most respects and is helpful. However, this paragraph challenges my long help view that for handheld shooting, as resolution increases technique must also improve otherwise any blur caused by poor standing, holding, breathing or shutter rolling will be more obvious with a high resolution sensor than a lower one.

I would value you view in this aspect.

Click to expand...

Let's step back and think about this a moment. What causes motion blur to be present in a photo? It's caused by movement in the frame during the shutter actuation. Given enough movement in the frame and a long enough exposure time, the movement will be visible as blur in the resulting photo.

Suppose two cameras of a given format are setup, side-by-side. They use the same model lens at the same focal length and f-stop. They have identical framing and are focused on the same point in the frame. They use the same shutter speed and ISO when making photos of something moving through the frame. The only difference between the cameras is that one is built around a 26MP sensor and the other is built around a 40MP sensor.

Does changing the pixel density change the area of the frame, sensor or of the resulting photo that contains blur? No.

Based on the exposure time and the rate of movement through the frame, we could calculate what percentage of the total width of the frame that movement would have covered during the shutter actuation. For the sake of discussion, let's say the movement covered 5% of the width of the frame.

It's the amount of movement relative to the total size of the frame that determines whether or not the movement is visible to the eye in the photo. If there's movement in the frame that only covers a tiny fraction of the scene, we won't see that movement. It won't be visibly burry.

Suppose we used 600mm lenses with 2x TCs attached to make the photos with the two cameras. Imagine we had a third camera in the mix. This third camera would be built around the same format sensor, using the same shutter speed, but using a 20mm focal length lens.

The angle of view would be 60x wider with the 20mm lens than the angles of view captured with the 1200mm focal lengths on the other two cameras. The shutter speed used by the camera fitted with the 20mm lens is the same so it captures the same amount of movement. However, due to the substantial increase in the angle of view and also to the moving subject appearing 1/60th the size in that wide-angle photo, the movement captured would cover less than 1/10th of 1% of the width of frame. The same movement wouldn't be visible in the wide angle photo. the moving subject would not look blurred.

The differences in appearance are due to the differences in angle of view, magnification of the subject and the area within the frame covered by the movement. Pixel count doesn't play a role. The blur would cover more pixels in the photo made with the higher megapixel sensor but, when comparing two prints of the same size made with the first two cameras, the motion blur would look the same. It wouldn't matter that the blur covers more pixels in one photo versus another. The blur would have the same scale and cover the same area of the whole frame.

We could make the blur in either photo more prominent to the eye by zooming in and magnifying the images. But as long as we're viewing both photos at the same scale, the amount of motion blur will look the same.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com

Samuraidog said:

a_c_skinner said:

Why on earth are we (am I?) wasting time on this? This is someone who has had a first trip out in pretty flat light with a complicated camera who has banged out a video saying he hasn't got it working properly despite pretty much all systematic reviewers getting good results.

Click to expand...

To be fair, there were other youtubers complaining about AF issues with the X-T5. I'm sure it will eventually get ironed out, but I don't think we can just dismiss it as user error.

Click to expand...

Agree and the problem is when people say "I have no such issues", they have no pictures to share.

Thanks Bob for your comments. I've learnt the 1/focal length rule before, but often, i forgot to apply it at field. I took this pic in a shady area using shutter mode pirority and set iso to auto, capped at 6400. Apprently the camera must have picked the highest iso due to the lighting conditions and the high shutter speed. Nevertheless, there's still some learning points from your summary. I hope other x-t5/h2(s) users benefit from your comments too. I also agree that fuji's auto focusing need further improvement. I think Sony's AF is still the best but I'm sticking to Fuji because of its colors. Let's hope future firmware upgrade for these fuji cameras will improve AF and make it more reliable.

MrKazador31 said:

I also have the 100-400 with the 1.4x TC and find it very soft. I rarely use this combo. It always disappoints. I mainly use the TC with the 80mm macro and 50-140mm. I remember seeing a large thread regarding the softness and if I remember correctly, the consensus was the 1.4x TC with the 100-400 is very slightly better than cropping in.

Click to expand...

xf100-400 itself is a little soft at the long end, so inevitably with the 1.4x TC the sharpness will deterioriate a little bit more when it is fully extended. i noticed that too because when i compared the pics taken with my sigma 150-600 on fringer, i dun see the crisp clear sharpness. So yes, the type/make of lens used is one of the factors that will affect final image quality.