Are “Creative Styles” and high megapixel really needed or desirable?

badshot · Jun 17, 2025

Fiji has come out with a new camera, the X-E5. Being a camera junky, I have had several Fuji cameras as well as other major makes, all but one used. Supposedly, one of the big drawing points of Fuji cameras is film simulations. The X-E5 has an innovative cute dial for them. Film simulations are for jpegs out of the camera. Of all the cameras I have had, I have never seen a jpeg out of camera look as good as a raw. Not only is the dynamic range of a raw better than the outputted jpeg but the gradation, a word not used since digital overtook film, of the image is better.

As for jpeg being inferior to raw in all cameras, Fuji is the worst I have experienced. DP Review use to include a real dynamic range test in its reviews. When the X-trans sensor first came out the test of its jpeg dynamic range yielded the worst results of any major camera. A DP Review comment exclusive to Fuji X-trans came along with the test that the raw should be better. Not using jpeg owing to the inferior quality to raw in every camera I have had, I would never use film simulation and the dial for it would be useless. I no longer have a Fuji X-trans camera. Maybe jpeg has been improved. I believe film simulation can be applied to raw in editing software. But Fuji editing software needs to have the camera connected to the computer, which I find cumbersome. Even if Fuji had decent computer software to edit raw for film simulation why do I need film simulation out of camera for jpeg?

I don’t have any software to edit X-E5 raw images. I do have such software for the X-T50 which has the same sensor. I downloaded several images from DP Review samples. In no case could I edit an out of camera jpeg to come out as good as a raw for the same image. The image of the man feeding the birds is an extreme example.

I have had several Fuji cameras. I buy them used. The only new one I have had is an XF1 that I still have like new in its box as it was sent to me. I have had an X-E1, X-E3 and an X-T20. I prefer the rangefinder style which is what drew me to Fuji. As I said I am a camera junky. I have also found that I prefer less megapixels than one finds in newer cameras.

The X-E5 has a 40 megapixel sensor as with the X-T50. I feel something strange that I am not sure I understand about the X-T50 images I looked at. They appear to me to be too clear and too sharp and have a strange polished look to them that distracts from the subject. My Panasonic GF5 I keep in my car for emergency picture taking has 12 megapixels and is fine. My Panasonic GX85 has 16 megapixels and is great. My other camera is a Sony A7S mark 1 with 12 megapixels and it is fantastic. I wish Sony made an A7CS with 12 megapixels.

Are “Creative Styles” and high megapixel really needed or desirable?

Morris0 · Jun 17, 2025

I shoot in the RAW yet some like the instantaneous experience of JPEG. That's a creative decision.

As for 40-MP, some feel they get more detail and can crop more. I'm not using a 40-PM camera so I can't say.

Morris

Eduard · Jun 17, 2025

Morris0 said:
I shoot in the RAW yet some like the instantaneous experience of JPEG. That's a creative decision.

As for 40-MP, some feel they get more detail and can crop more. I'm not using a 40-PM camera so I can't say.

Morris

I shoot RAW+Jpeg because it is easy with the X-App to transfer an image to my phone to share while I travel. I ultimately download to LrC, but do take advantage of the "styled" jpegs when I share before uploading to LrC.

The X-T5 and the 40 MP files have been some of my favorite all time Fuji captured images. That was a significant factor in my decision to preorder the X-E5 as my second body.

biza43 · Jun 17, 2025

badshot said:
Are “Creative Styles” and high megapixel really needed or desirable?

Some of us need it. Some do not. It depends. No need to fuss about it. The good thing is, there are plenty of choices.

gsz · Jun 17, 2025

High megapixel - yes, at 40mpix it is not “extreme”, only about 25% more resolution than 26 mpix. (Currently I have X-T5, previously T3, noticed no drawback of the higher resolution.)

Creative styles: no, I always shoot raw, however the film sim setting in Capture One are useful.

Jeff Biscuits · Jun 17, 2025

biza43 said:
badshot said:

Are “Creative Styles” and high megapixel really needed or desirable?

Click to expand...

Some of us need it. Some do not. It depends. No need to fuss about it. The good thing is, there are plenty of choices.

This.

It’s not even just by person. For some images that I make, there is a lot of value in being able to process the raw file; whilst for others, there’s a lot of value in getting the image that I want right at the point of exposure with no additional work later.

Personally I find that both high resolution and the extensive (and aesthetically pleasing—unlike some cameras; I’m looking at you, Nikon Zf) image styles are very desirable features.

Weebsy · Jun 18, 2025

I like the film simulations. I also like the fact that for a lot of my pictures, I’m happy with the SOOC result with only minor editing.

i would however, rather the simulations stay hidden in an editable button like on the XT5. I can understand why a lot of people don’t want them on a labelled dial.

I’ve had the XT1, XT2, XE3 and now the XT5. Most of the time I don’t feel 40 mp is needed. But I depends on the subject.

in some ways I thing the earlier cameras produced more pleasing images, especially for portraits. But for things like landscape and bird photography, the new sensor definitely captures more detail.

a_c_skinner · Jun 18, 2025

I've never "got" film sims. I want verisimilitude so in film days I liked Ektachrome over Kodachrome and now my cameras are all set on Provia/Standard. On this the jpgs are excellent and raw superfluous providing the light was easy and the exposure right (so hardly ever in my hands!).

My Nikon D200 to D800 jump (10 to 36 Mpix) made the images visibily crisper using the same lenses. In my Fuji days 16 to 24 made less difference and frankly 24 to 40 now is not easy to see in finished images in normal viewing. I suspect that going above about 50Mpix, finished images in normal viewing any gains are really difficult to see but I've no images to examine about 40Mpix.

Technique is paramount and becomes more important as pixel count goes up. There are a lot of postings on DPR which strongly suggest there are a lot of people who need to address their technique and knowledge. Thom Hogan talks about upgrading the photographer.

Jeff Biscuits · Jun 18, 2025

To illustrate my point (posts with images are always better, right?

)

I make a lot of images like this. Layers of content from scenes on either side of one or more panes of glass. These thrive on detail: I have some 10MP cameras which are fine for plenty of things but they simply do not work well for this kind of image.

While I like that image, it would be nice if the figure was a little more prominent. But there’s a limit to how much it can be cropped with the 26MP sensor—and I couldn’t step forward because there was class in the way. A higher resolution sensor adds some leeway here.

I tend to process those images from raw because the shadows often need a bit of lifting. But the film sim nonetheless makes an extremely useful starting point: for these, I find that Classic Neg works really well. I’m happy working in B&W but I find colour can be challenging, and to have access to the sims durian processing gives me results that I want with a single click.

Back to resolution.

Taken further, a 100MP sensor allows a whole new level of this kind of image: a one-shot panorama pulls in a much wider scene with still the same detail that you’d get from two 26MP sensors side by side.

Sometimes, of course, you need neither resolution nor raw. Click and go.

However, sometimes you want a certain look and the out of camera JPEG with the film sim just does everything out of the box.

Sometimes you just get led by the film sim and the in-camera processing to a certain result, and you get a set of images which are guided by that.

Other times, you just don’t want to post-process. On one trip to the Lake District I shot pretty much the whole week with an intentionally high-key style and didn’t use any raws at all. Sometimes I just turn raw off and all I have is JPEGs. Being constrained can make you more creative and some days I like to just commit to a certain style.

My point really is, why not be able to do all of these things in one camera? There are so many ways to use these tools that it’s short-sighted to think that they can’t combine to provide something useful.

a_c_skinner · Jun 18, 2025

The ability to take single shot "panoramas" is the one thing that intrigues me about the 100Mpix cameras and I cannot understand the "digital X-Pan" chatter and rumours as the G-100 cameras seem just that.

This is from a 24Mpix and Topaz and should print 40" wide but more pixels will always help.

Lindisfarne Northumberland UK

--
Andrew Skinner

Jeff Biscuits · Jun 18, 2025

a_c_skinner said:
The ability to take single shot "panoramas" is the one thing that intrigues me about the 100Mpix cameras and I cannot understand the "digital X-Pan" chatter and rumours as the G-100 cameras seem just that.

I think it’s a bit like a monochrome sensor in that if you buy a camera that’s committed to a certain creative route, you really settle into that way of working to a degree that doesn’t quite happen with a “do it all” camera.

There are some other considerations as well: GFX cameras and lenses are big (with the exception of the 100RF), largely as a result of the 55mm image circle required for the sensor. The X-Pan crop, however, only requires something like 45mm, just a whisker more than a 35mm format frame, so it’s possible to make smaller lenses—maybe even a custom sensor as well—to give a more compact package.

Mentioning the 100RF reminds me that there was a point I’d forgotten to add to my previous post: the X-E5 with the 40MP sensor convinced me to sell my 100RF. The increase in resolution ver 26MP is, while not as dramatic as 100MP, enough to provide enough real benefit for me in a much less expensive package. I lost money on my 100RF but by replacing it with an X-E5 I still clawed back well over £2000. I’ll lose a bit of the level of detail in those panoramas (as well as, frustratingly, the ability to apply that crop during composition) but little else, and I’ll gain other things like the ability to use faster and more characterful lenses.

So that combination of high resolution and Fuji’s film simulations is a big deal for me.

ahaslett · Jun 18, 2025

I only shoot RAW. It's faster and easier for me than using jpeg settings across different bodies. I just have to maximise exposure and DR within my photographic aims. Capture One can be used in a mostly camera neutral way.

I shoot or have shot 16Mpix, 20Mpix, 36Mpix, 42Mpix and 61Mpix bodies. Lenses are pretty important. Some images work fine with only 16Mpix but others benefit from >40Mpix. I can even see a small difference between 42Mpix and 61Mpix for complex landscapes.

If your aim to to make very large landscapes, composing at 61Mpix is challenging. You get boxed in between diffraction and depth of field. Like UWA landscapes, it's a stimulating challenge, at least for me. I'm not a fan of cropping as the main reason for high resolution, but it is a useful option.

I think what you shoot, how large you plan to view, what your viewing medium is, and how you like to work are all relevant.

There are people in the MFT forum refreshed and stimulated by the new OM3 jpeg capability, and they are using it in creative ways. I have no interest. On the other hand, my new Viltrox 35/1.2 has opened up possibilities in mildly isolating subjects 15m away in landscapes that are motivating me to carry a big lump in my bag to see where it takes me.

TL

R Whatever floats your boat!

Andrew

Morris0 · Jun 18, 2025

Some people seem to think that shooting RAW eliminates film sims. This is simply not the case with many RAW editors that support film sims and possibly other profiles. When I want a different look and there is a sim or profile that provides it I use it. In ACR and some other RAW processors, one can hover over the various sims and immediately see the image change. It's a superb way of making creative choices. If none of the simes provide the look I want, then I go in and produce what's in my head. This is why I see no need for JPEG.

Morris

Mountaingrapher · Jun 18, 2025

Jeff Biscuits said:
To illustrate my point (posts with images are always better, right? )

I just want to know what were the film simulation settings for this... I would really like to try this style...

Jeff Biscuits · Jun 18, 2025

Mountaingrapher said:
Jeff Biscuits said:

To illustrate my point (posts with images are always better, right? )

Click to expand...

I just want to know what were the film simulation settings for this... I would really like to try this style...

That would have been Acros, probably with the red filter, highlights and shadows both +4, NR -4, sharpness 0. Not sure about WB (it does affect Monochrome/Atmos, especially with the red filter) but almost certainly just Daylight. Then manual exposure (or a heavy dose of + on the exposure comp) and judged by eye in the EVF. Exposure ends up on a knife edge where a third of a stop completely changes it.

The level of exposure to get that result out of camera means your raw files will be blown out, so if you don’t want to commit to it then you’ll have to expose more conventionally and sort it out in post, but there’s no joy in that

ZilverHaylide · Jun 18, 2025

badshot said:
Fiji has come out with a new camera, the X-E5. Being a camera junky, I have had several Fuji cameras as well as other major makes, all but one used. Supposedly, one of the big drawing points of Fuji cameras is film simulations. The X-E5 has an innovative cute dial for them. Film simulations are for jpegs out of the camera. Of all the cameras I have had, I have never seen a jpeg out of camera look as good as a raw. Not only is the dynamic range of a raw better than the outputted jpeg but the gradation, a word not used since digital overtook film, of the image is better.

As for jpeg being inferior to raw in all cameras, Fuji is the worst I have experienced. DP Review use to include a real dynamic range test in its reviews. When the X-trans sensor first came out the test of its jpeg dynamic range yielded the worst results of any major camera. A DP Review comment exclusive to Fuji X-trans came along with the test that the raw should be better. Not using jpeg owing to the inferior quality to raw in every camera I have had, I would never use film simulation and the dial for it would be useless. I no longer have a Fuji X-trans camera. Maybe jpeg has been improved. I believe film simulation can be applied to raw in editing software. But Fuji editing software needs to have the camera connected to the computer, which I find cumbersome. Even if Fuji had decent computer software to edit raw for film simulation why do I need film simulation out of camera for jpeg?

I don’t have any software to edit X-E5 raw images. I do have such software for the X-T50 which has the same sensor. I downloaded several images from DP Review samples. In no case could I edit an out of camera jpeg to come out as good as a raw for the same image. The image of the man feeding the birds is an extreme example.

I have had several Fuji cameras. I buy them used. The only new one I have had is an XF1 that I still have like new in its box as it was sent to me. I have had an X-E1, X-E3 and an X-T20. I prefer the rangefinder style which is what drew me to Fuji. As I said I am a camera junky. I have also found that I prefer less megapixels than one finds in newer cameras.

The X-E5 has a 40 megapixel sensor as with the X-T50. I feel something strange that I am not sure I understand about the X-T50 images I looked at. They appear to me to be too clear and too sharp and have a strange polished look to them that distracts from the subject. My Panasonic GF5 I keep in my car for emergency picture taking has 12 megapixels and is fine. My Panasonic GX85 has 16 megapixels and is great. My other camera is a Sony A7S mark 1 with 12 megapixels and it is fantastic. I wish Sony made an A7CS with 12 megapixels.

Are “Creative Styles” and high megapixel really needed or desirable?

High megapixels are desirable for several reasons, including:

1) gives you much potential to crop, whether for content or aspect ratio (i.e. panoramic), and potential to print really big. You might never need those capabilities, but better to have them available, than have to buy a whole new camera should you want to explore them. And omitting them wouldn't save all that much cost, as any sensor has inherent manufacturing costs independent of its pixel count, and the sensor is now a relatively small portion of the total cost of the camera. So a current 12MP sensor will not save you half the cost of a current 24MP sensor, and a current 12MP camera relative to a current 24MP camera will save you even less. Same principle applies at higher MP counts, until you reach the point where you are pushing technology so much that manufacturing yields start to drastically decline.

2) fewer artifacts after significant post-processing. Even if your own post-processing won't be substantial, lensmakers are increasingly relying on digital correction of barrel and pincushion distortion, and higher resolution is obviously better for fewer artifacts after shape transformations.

3) instant upgrade of the resolution from all of your lenses, because system MTF is the product of both lens and sensor MTF.

As to "creative styles", even if you won't use them, still beneficial if they help attract more new users, without which camera manufacturing might enter a death spiral of fewer users leading to higher costs (to amortize R&D), therefore leading to even fewer users, and even higher costs, etc.

Jaxsun · Jun 20, 2025

Nice picture!!

a_c_skinner · Jun 20, 2025

Thanks, if I could analyse why I'd take more like it!

Jaxsun · Jun 20, 2025

I like the subject matter, the composition, and the overall color with the touch of blue.

RaysJ · Jun 22, 2025

I never use creative styles but you can get them on free software like Nik Efex Pro. Not keen on making my digital images look like film but whatever floats your boat.

High megapixels can be useful but not really necessary, unless doing heavy cropping or large prints.

Are “Creative Styles” and high megapixel really needed or desirable?

New member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts