X-T5 + XF 18 1.4 vs. Q2

Rod McD said:

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).

Click to expand...

Rod McD said:

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

Click to expand...

Rod McD said:

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

Click to expand...

Hoka Hey said:

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

Cheers,

Click to expand...

Rand 47 said:

Rod McD said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Rand 47 said:

Rod McD said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Rod McD said:

Rand 47 said:

Rod McD said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Rod McD said:

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

Click to expand...