Fuji X-H2 resolution?

I think that maybe I wasn't clear enough.

The point I was trying to make is that publishing tests that compare lenses (and cameras) using the same, so-called default settings does not reflect expected real world results.

As an example, I've had a series of Fujifilm x-trans cameras: 16MP, 24MP, and 40MP. In order to get the highest potential quality from the files I used different raw conversion and post-processing settings for all three of them, settings that are optimized for each cameras particular characteristics.

This is even a bigger issue when comparing brands and formats. For example, I handle raw files from my Canon 5DsR differently than I handle any of my Fujifilm files.

If we were to just compare files from among these sources using supposedly equalized default settings, what we would see would not reflect the actual capabilities of each system when used in the way that the photographer will use them — e.g. optimized to each camera.

I was trying to think of an analogy. Here's one — imperfect, but perhaps it will illustrate my point. Imagine that we want to compare typical acceleration among a group of vehicles. We decide that we'll specify that in each case the accelerator pedal will be pushed down by 50% of its travel for the test. This does equalize the results, in a sense, but it doesn't recognize that perhaps 50% isn't really the way experienced drivers would use the acceleration capabilities of their cars. (Yeah, far from perfect analogy, but perhaps it works as an illustration.)

What I'm really interested in when comparing camera equipment is not what the default SOOC raw file looks like. I'm never actually going to use that in real photography! What I want to see is what an image looks like when a skillful photographer/post-processor optimizes the output to the greatest extent... which is precisely what we actually do with the files in the real world.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

gdanmitchell wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

You can't go by the far from optimal default Lightroom import settings used for the DPR examples. With processing optimized for the 40 MP sensor, they look look just fine - The DPR and Imaging Resource test scenes from the X-T5 and X-H2, no lack of sharpness here...

I've long felt that using so-called default import settings is a mistake. No one actually does that — everyone uses settings for import and other states of normal post-processing that recognize the unique qualities of each camera's files and optimize of them.

I disagree here, I think a lot of people do that. Many folks seem to think that you are supposed to start with the application default settings, many not realizing that you can (and should) fine-tune the default import processing for your specific cameras and workflow. These are the same people that go “ Lightroom sucks, look how flat and dull everything is compared to Capture One”.

That's how photographers work, and comparing optimized files presents a better idea of the capabilities of a system.

Dan

I agree that that’s how photographers ought to work.

Erik