The main advantage of the 40mp sensor imo, all things being equal on net gain of 26vs40 has to be the dynamic range,
I think it is improbable.
Well, I think Fuji did release their best 26mp sensor implementation around the X-T4/X-S10 period, with dr comparable at iso160 base to the X-T5 and X-H2 iso125 (which is according to PtoP(photons-to-photos) slightly better still. In any event, my observation with the X-H2s and X-S20 was that both clipped highlights very quickly and although PtoP doesn't have results for X-S20, it does show the X-H2s as significantly below the X-T5 at base. The X-H2s is not the best example due to the stacked sensor, also responsible for some loss of dr at base too.
The underlying tech under the photo sensors is the same; the sensor pixel pitch is higher (the pixel is smaller). I don't see any prerequisites for a higher dynamic range.
It doesn't really matter what pre-requisites you see, the test results from lenstip and PtoP all show dr has changed in the latest 26mp cameras, specifically the X-S20 and the in particular the X-H2s, due to its stacked architecture, and not for the better or even as good as the X-T4/X-S10.
Yes — both Fuji’s 26 MP non‑stacked BSI APS‑C sensors (e.g., X‑T4, X‑S20) and the 40 MP X‑Trans CMOS 5 HR sensor also feature dual-gain (dual native ISO) architectures, but there are slight distinctions in their implementation and switch points.
Dual gain has been around forever, we all know about dual gain!
Dual-gain ISO means the sensor has two different analog amplifier circuits (gain stages) engaged at different ISO settings. This switching improves dynamic range and noise performance in low-light or highlight-heavy scenes by shifting to a higher-gain circuit beyond a certain ISO threshold.
- Below the switch point: lower gain, more dynamic range
- Above the switch point: higher gain, lower noise in shadows
This architecture is sometimes called dual native ISO, although strictly speaking, it’s dual-gain, and not necessarily full native ISO performance on both stages.
Fuji’s 26 MP BSI sensor uses dual hardware gain: one mode optimum for highlight/dynamic range (base ISO 160, and up to < 800), and another extending shadow performance at higher ISOs (ISO 800 and above).
I haven't seen any official Fujifilm statement explicitly calling the X‑Trans CMOS 5 HR “dual-gain.” Still, user testing and behavior in DR modes suggest it retains the dual-gain design. The most probable is the combination of the base 125 up to < 400, and 400+ modes.
In practice, this means a pretty simple rule: "If you can't shoot at the low (first) base ISO, then switch ISO to AUTO with the second-stage base ISO as a low threshold, maybe setting a top ISO at 12800".
So I don't perceive your point. What did you want to tell me? For me, either 125 first base ISO or 200 makes no difference.
For you, for others base iso in landscape is important, the base iso of 100/125 is a good compromise, the base iso of 64 for Nikon Z7ii/8 and before that d850 is probably a bit less convenient but iso100/125 is good balance for landscape and sport. Iso200 is too fast basically, its why I moved away from m43 and although Panasonic base has moved closer to iso100 I believe, Olympus (OM) is still iso200 I think
and imo Fuji's improved functionality. The X-H2s at base iso has a low base dr compared to the alternatives
I don't use DR settings other than 100%. For still photos, it does not influence RAFs. For video... honestly, I am not sure.
Yes, ok, I don't use other than 100% either.
and although this improves "relative" to the other X-T cameras as the iso increases, nevertheless the X-H2s is not really a landscape, day to day camera where you want the best image quality possible imo, it's tuned for action/sport first.
Look at the Part 1 and Part 2 explanations above. No lens exists that is capable of exceeding 1200 LP/PH on the APC-C frame. 26MP is enough.
It doesn't really matter, if you don't like 40mp, it's ok, I think the convenience of having 40mp shot to shot is huge for Fuji, it really puts them on a par with 45mp FF sensors, I will share some comparisons if you need them and the 40mp sensor is really delivering on the X-T5 especially, if it delivers in the X-E5 as well it puts Fuji in a very strong position. Combined with their excellent object/people/fave/eye/animal detection it's a very strong offering. The X-H2s is big, X-T4 previous gen didn't have the capabilities of the X-T5 and just wasn't as reliable in eye detection and was larger too, the X-T5 is imo a far better camera than the X-T4 in so many ways. X-H2s is a big, FF body size like the X-H2 and despite the better evf, overall if I had to use a body of that size I'd go FF, and use my R5ii.
The base iso of 125 can also be useful for getting more light on the sensor for longer and the extra features like 4:3/5:4 ratio are also great for visualizing crop's in-camera.
Why? I see neither theoretical nor practical use of this wisdom of yours.
Being able to visualize different aspect ratios is very useful, Fuji agree too, they included it and they make a huge thing of it on their new RF camera too, so unless Fuji are badly informed they would not include it, or indeed the dedicated ratio dial on the RF.
Certainly the X-T5 rear tilt screen is more practical too than the fully-articulated screens as well.
I don't care. For stills, I use the viewfinder 100% of the time. For video, I simply don't care about whether it's tilted or full-articulated.
In certain situations, camera on a tripod etc, it can be very useful to see the rear screen for framing and in low level situations. Keeping the screen behind the camera rather than off to one side is very useful as its just so much more practical and logical to have it behind too.
I think the X-H2s has its place but Fuji has paved a new path with the 40mp sensor which some will embrace and others want to dismiss.
I will dismiss.
I have dismissed 26mp aps-c, 40mp is so much more useful.
I think the X-T5 in most practical cases proves the equal to my Canon R5ii in iq and dr most of the time, aside from af tracking and speed/buffer ruggedness, so that's pretty impressive for what is a very compact camera.
...except the weaknesses of the 40MP sensor, as mentioned above, ahha, Ok.
I haven't see many weaknesses of the 40mp sensor, probably video, which I don't do much any more, is the biggest issue with these cameras and the slow readout in e-shutter. In any event, 4k/50p with a tiny 1.14x crop has very low rs and is probably excellent for most users purposes imo. For static based footage you can go for 6k or oversampled 4k if you need it, even my R5ii doesn't have 6k video
just 8k.
If the 16-55ii had proven to be as good as I was expecting I would probably keep my Canon R5ii for purely wildlife/action.
I apologize, but I am neither familiar with the 16-55/2.8 Mk2 nor do I intend to purchase it.
Probably a good idea as I haven't been too impressed with either of the two lenses I've had so far, both have been returned.
www.optyczne.pl
