X-T5 - beaten by the Nikon Z5?

[Kaoticphoto]

That's true, while any dng conversion (with iridient or Pureraw2) generate a new dng file, they generally take about 2x the original raf, LR enhance run closer to 4x original size. And that's a lot.

That's why i am asking adobe to let me choose "Enhance" as live/default rendering engine. I would préfère to wait 2 second more opening the raf and having this level of quality than waste disk space, at least when inside the "develop" module

Anyway my post is to show that comparing sensor need some technical background and some post-production knowledge and research.

 

[Kaoticphoto]

The larger the sensor, the more potential you have.

Bigger sensor collect more light and that's can translate in better DR/lower noise.

But a lot of factors are involved in final quality.

The camera itself/the sensor technology/ lenses and a lot is on post-production .

In standard situation half stop/one stop of DR differences are barely noticeable and often can be extracted only with a good post-production.

The op is trying to choose between low mp FF and high mp apsc, that's alone show some confusion here better to decide where and what you will shoot, and expected final result, if he will post-processing or not, etc to take a decision .

 

[bolt2014]

Owning a Fuji camera is not about all those things you mentioned. If that's what is important to you, I would suggest you buy the Nikon. :-D

--
Shoot photos not camera brands!
Fujifilm X-T3, Nikon F3HP, Nikon N60, Sony A3000 (Converted to infrared)

 

[michaeladawson]

The opposite - the Z5 seems like the better purchase.

For right now sure. What happens in 6-12 months when you feel like 24mp isn't enough resolution?

What happens to those X-H2S shooters in 6-12 months when 26 MP isn't enough resolution???

 

[stevesayskanpai]

I post process and shoot travel photography (see my link below). What would you suggest based on this?

 

[Kaoticphoto]

I would suggest to try having your own style, starting choosing the right (for you) lenses.

You don't need to cover every focal length in the world!

Looking at some images on your website, it seem you like nocturnal street/travel situations.

So if you decide to go with fuji, buy fixes lenses, are the real plus of this system that make X system great .

I shoot and professionally work with fuji since the beginning, with a xpro1, own almost all the fuji cameras, and coming from canon ff and still shooting MF with Pentax 645z, i can tell you that fuji and few fast primes (i personally love the oldy 35 1.4, 23mm 1.4, and you can take a viltrox 13mm 1.4) are a pleasure to use, not intrusive and great iq.

Remember that an f/1.4 lens on apsc collect more light than a f/2.8 lens on ff

I use a lot the 14mm 2.8 and even the 18mm f2 even if not great optically can be really good for travel.

You can buy all these lenses used , with 1500 euro you can have a viltrox 13mm 1.4 or a 14mm 2.8 a 23mm1.4.(v1) and a 35mm 1.4 .

Quality wise, IQ is about the same since xt2 (but speed and af are much better with h2 models).

So if you don't need a fast af, fuji X-h1 with ibis (i just sold mine for an h2s) it's a great camera, really solid and good wr, an xt3 is probably the best you can buy now for the money with really good af (but no ibis) and video.

Xh1 and the 3 lenses must be 2k euro, used as new, and you got a great kit keeping some money for traveling.

And learn how to extract the max in post-production. Pureraw2 works great with x-trans file (and if you dont need to stay with LR, as i have to, Photolab 6 or C1 are a great sw to work with fuji)

Later you can buy, if needed, a tele lens or zoom,ike 55/200 or 70/300

 

[Kaoticphoto]

They sell th xh2s and buy a cheaper 40mp xh2

 

[DarnGoodPhotos]

Small convenient lenses

For Fuji this would probably be the 23mm F2 at £415. Nikon has three cheaper options, all of which would serve this purpose well. Nikon win.

Fuji has a lot of small convenient lenses beyond the XF23f2 (XF16f2.8, XC35f2, XF35f2, XF27f2.8, XF50f2, XC16-50, XC15-45).

For telephoto the XC50-230 in addition to the XF55-200

--
www.darngoodphotos.com

 

[Lettermanian]

I post process and shoot travel photography (see my link below). What would you suggest based on this?

You have some wonderful images there You have quite a few low light images though, and I can tell you from my own experience with the Z5, low light AF is not its strength. You'd be better off with the Z6ii, which is more comparable in features/performance to the X-T5.

The newer Fuji cams should be better in low-light AF than the Z5, though my own low light shooting is usually limited to sunrise/sunset landscapes or astro with my X-T3. I don't normally have an issue with it, even in tricky lighting. I purchased the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 zoom and have found it to perform quite well in such conditions. You'd probably be fine with the Z6ii and the f4 zooms or 1.8 primes, but the price jump to 2.8 zooms is huge in the Z system. Again though, the Z5 really isn't the camera you want for low-light AF.

 

[pifilos]

Since many members have already made some great points I only want to mention something based on my experience from using a friend's Nikon 14-30mm and 24-70mm f4 lenses. While their image output is fantastic I just cannot stand the collapsible mechanism. That alone is a reason for me to not pick these lenses. Just saying in case you haven't considered that.

 

[Barbarus]

I post process and shoot travel photography (see my link below). What would you suggest based on this?

 

[ZapperVT]

Future Zoom for Z5:

Nikon AF-P NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR: requires FTZ adapter but very sharp, fast focus, good stabilization, light, inexpensive. $597 USD

Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD Lens for Nikon Z: native Z mount, good optics, smaller and lighter than the Nikon 70-300+FTZ, but no stabilization. $699 USD

Either of these compare well with the Fuji 55-200.

 

[Eugene A]

You won't get any objective opinions here (as you've probably realised by now), but let me try to counterbalance all the fanboys.

Let's just start with the fact that terms like "fanboys" are simply triggers and something we Mods generally regard as a form of trolling. I have no problem with the points you're making, but in the future, let me suggest to you -- and to others reading this -- that using this term is not regarded as acceptable here. You (and others) are free to disagree with this stance, but most often it will either get edited out of posts, or other action may be taken if it's used repeatedly.

I'll also add, that I don't want to see a debate on this here. Just recognize that this can result in posts being edited or further action, including a ban if it's done repeatedly.

.

 

[bluevellet]

If you want maximal image quality at the lowest price, Z5 wins. Hands down. Lower resolution, sure, but tonality and colors are better. High ISO probably holds up better too.

From my perspective, the XT5 looks more like the "fun" camera in terms of features. Z5 is more barebones.

AF is also a bit iffy with all those Z cameras before the Z9. I know, I own one myself. I expect the latest generation of Fuji cameras and the flagship no less (XT5) to run rounds against the Z5 (FF but entry-level).


Lenses is also another issue where things are blurry. Fuji just has more. Z system is still fairly new and the company is on a roll lately releasing big, super expensive telephoto glass. But if if you set your sight on a few key glass on Z system, affordable, sharp and smallish (24-70 F4, 14-30 F4, 24-200, 24-120 -f4, 40 F2, 28 F2.8...), you will get more bang for the buck.

 

[a_c_skinner]

"Z5 wins. Hands down. Lower resolution, sure, but tonality and colors are better"

Do we know that? Or is it more subjective and personal opinion? I don't know the answer but few people will have used both for comparison.

 

[brian711]

I sold my Nikon Z5 and 50 1.8 for the X-T5 with the 18.1.4. Although the Nikon was good, it didn’t knock me out. Many of the shots lacked a real clarity. The form factor and new sensor of the X-T5 is the way I’m going.

 

[Jerry-astro]

"Z5 wins. Hands down. Lower resolution, sure, but tonality and colors are better"

Do we know that? Or is it more subjective and personal opinion? I don't know the answer but few people will have used both for comparison.

That was exactly my reaction. I'd want to see a direct comparison before giving any credibility to a statement like this. I have no direct experience with the Z5, so I have no opinion here, pro or con, but Fuji's reputation for "tonality and colors" is pretty solid with respect to its competition. So... absent a direct "apples to apples" comparison of both, I'd basically accept this as yet just another opinion on the internet.

Perhaps the OP can back his statement with a direct comparison that supports this opinion? I suspect there would be a lot of interest in that here.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fuji Forum co-Mod

 

[a_c_skinner]

I was being polite...

 

[Jerry-astro]

I was being polite...

Yes you were, and 10 bonus Mod points for that. Just don't spend them all in the same place.

 

[JayPhizzt]

I sold my Nikon Z5 and 50 1.8 for the X-T5 with the 18.1.4. Although the Nikon was good, it didn’t knock me out. Many of the shots lacked a real clarity. The form factor and new sensor of the X-T5 is the way I’m going.

Sounds odd. Shouldn't really be much difference in clarity between the Z 50 1.8 and the Fuji 18/1.4, both are superb lenses.