X-T5 and sharp images

[Michel van Lint]

I always used to think that the X-T5 is not capable of producing sharp images and required sharpening by default. My old X-T2 seems to be sharper with the 18-55mm. At some point, I started to wonder if there was something wrong with my version of it.

Then I tried the Laowa 65 mm and it is crazy sharp.

This gave me hope that the X-T5 can create sharp images, but it really is about the lenses.

What lenses create the sharpest results in your opinion? What would be the sharpest lens covering the 24–75mm full-frame equivalent range?

 

[RobRoy22]

XF16-55mm f2.8 MkII. Several very sharp primes from Fujifim and Viltrox for example.

 

[Matthew39]

Perhaps you could post an unsharp image taken on your X-T5.

 

[Michel van Lint]

These are straight out of camera. I am not saying these are bad, but being an unwilling pixelpeeper, I often find myself add sharpening. I feel the 10-24mm produces better results, though. It could also be due technique of course (the high f-stops certainly don't help in these examples and I agree I should not have used those). Or maybe I have become too obsessed. There is a difference with the Laowa, though.

 

[Michel van Lint]

Thank you!

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Are we talking about SOOC jpegs or RAW (and with what software)? The X-T5 should never produce softer images than your X-T2 with any lenses. The 40MP sensor does however, due to the significantly denser pixel density. require different sharpening settings to better differentiate all those pixels.

Try -4 High ISO NR (which affects all ISOs), and +1 or +2 sharpening with SOOC jpegs with less than stellar lenses.


Even downscaled to match the resolution of the 26MP sensor, the result from the 40MP sensor still exhibits sharper and better fine detail,

 

[Michel van Lint]

Thank you, I will try therse settings. I am sure, it is me that needs to learn how to operate the camera better. The examples are SOOC, but the raw files are also just lacking that tad of sharpness when zoomed in. I use Adobe raw convertor along with Photoshop.

Also, when I use the macro lens, I use flash, which adds contrast and highlights any irregularity, which makes it feel sharper, but this is not a fair comparison, I realise now.

Moving the sharpening slider in the raw convertor does seem to help.

 

[Orsonneke1]

These are straight out of camera. I am not saying these are bad, but being an unwilling pixelpeeper, I often find myself add sharpening. I feel the 10-24mm produces better results, though. It could also be due technique of course (the high f-stops certainly don't help in these examples and I agree I should not have used those). Or maybe I have become too obsessed. There is a difference with the Laowa, though.

Hi Michel , don’t forget that closing down the lens too much creates diffraction softness which is more pronounced with sensors with higher pixel density; I would never close down my xf lenses further than F 8 on my XT5

 

[Michel van Lint]

Hi Michel , don’t forget that closing down the lens too much creates diffraction softness which is more pronounced with sensors with higher pixel density; I would never close down my xf lenses further than F 8 on my XT5

Yes, this is somehting that I tend to forget. Good advice, thank you.

 

[Poldersnapper]

Hi Michel , don’t forget that closing down the lens too much creates diffraction softness which is more pronounced with sensors with higher pixel density; I would never close down my xf lenses further than F 8 on my XT5

Indeed, look at the Lenstip graphs and see what's left of your resolution at f20
compared to f5.6 - f8.

André

 

[Rightsaidfred]

1) Let not diffraction be the limiting parameter, as others already said

If you want to go for max lens potential,

• As a rule of thumb, use APS-C lenses at f/4...5.6
• Really avoid f/16 and more closed apertures
• To have more precise information, look at the respective MTF

2) Care for good stabilization, absence of any shock, and good focus

To unlock the maximum lens potential,

• Use a good tripod
• Use ES
• Use a wireless remote release or the timer
• Turn stabilization off
• Use base ISO
• Take care to focus right. Also try MF.

That said, the XF 18-55 is certainly not the number one in sharpness. The XF 23/1.4 WR is very sharp. Also the Laowa 65/2.8, like you mentioned. Also the Viltrox 27/1.2. Also the XF 56/1.2 WR. And more.

Best,

Martin

--
SmugMug - https://martinlang.smugmug.com
500px - https://500px.com/martinlangphotography
Insta - https://www.instagram.com/martininframes
Co-author on https://frickelfarm.de/

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Thank you, I will try therse settings. I am sure, it is me that needs to learn how to operate the camera better. The examples are SOOC, but the raw files are also just lacking that tad of sharpness when zoomed in. I use Adobe raw convertor along with Photoshop.

Also, when I use the macro lens, I use flash, which adds contrast and highlights any irregularity, which makes it feel sharper, but this is not a fair comparison, I realise now.

Moving the sharpening slider in the raw convertor does seem to help

Moving the Detail slider (to around 80) and then moving the Sharpening slider will help a lot more. The 40MP files can handle far more aggressive sharpening than the 24/26MP files.

 

[orlovsn]

If you want per pixel sharpness without sharpening your best bet is 18-23-33 lm primes combo stopped down to 2.8..5.6 - they are very sharp

If you are ok with basic technique “lower noise reduction, lower sharpening threshold, adjust sharpening level” than both versions of 16-55 produce per pixel sharp results in capture one (and in camera jpeg)

certainly, you will want to keep iso at base (125) to get most details, especially when keeping noise reduction to minimum (it is key to get perfect fine details)

 

[William the X-T5 guy]

I've found all my Fuji lenses are good with the X-T5. I have the older versions of the 14/2.8, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2 and they are all very good, even though they aren't on the Fuji Lenses for Gods list.

The Red Badge zooms are very good. I have the 16-55.2.8 version 1 and it is fine, enough so that going to the version 2 lens doesn't seem worth it to me. The 8-16/2.8 is really good, though it isn't everyone's cuppa and from what I've seen coming off my camera the 50-140/2.8 is fabulous.

I wanted something in the 70mm range and couldn't get it from Fuji, but the good people here put me onto the Viltrox 75/1.2. It's a bit longer than I like, but that is the only thing remotely bad I can say about it. It's maybe a little more prone to flare than the Fuji lenses, but I can live with that as I only use it in the studio where I can control the light.

If you want stunning sharpness the 80/2.8 macro is definitely going to be your friend.

Things I have found though with the XT-5, and I'm sure it's been mentioned in previous posts, I do find the files need more aggressive sharpening than I'm used to and the camera, due to it's high MP count in a smaller sensor really requires good shooting technique to get the most out of it.

If you want the best from your X-T5, at least in my experience, don't stop down excessively, try and limit yourself to f/8 and focus stack if you need to and the situation allows, and use a tripod as much as you can.

To show you how much the aperture mnatters, the shot below was done at f8, the one below it was at f22, using the 80/2.8 macro.

--
Bill.
Proud user of Pentax and Fuji camera gear.

 

[FujiJon]

I always used to think that the X-T5 is not capable of producing sharp images and required sharpening by default. My old X-T2 seems to be sharper with the 18-55mm. At some point, I started to wonder if there was something wrong with my version of it.

Then I tried the Laowa 65 mm and it is crazy sharp.

This gave me hope that the X-T5 can create sharp images, but it really is about the lenses.

What lenses create the sharpest results in your opinion? What would be the sharpest lens covering the 24–75mm full-frame equivalent range?

As others have said, you just don't (normally) need to use such narrow apertures. Find an app or website that calculates depth of field and play with it. At 10mm focal length and F8 on an APS-C camera, focussing on something about 6 feet away, you should be able to get everything from maybe 3 feet away to the edge of the observable universe in "acceptable" focus. What's acceptable? That depends on how particular you are

Focus peaking is very useful for quickly visualising what's in focus.

 

[biza43]

For a couple of years, I have been using XT5 cameras, with various lenses. Never had a problem with sharpness. A shoot Raf and recently upgraded to LrC (after many years of using LR 6.7). I concur with others that mention that the 40 mp sensor requires a different unsharp mask recipe compared to previous ones.

 

[Michel van Lint]

Thank you all for your advice and suggestions!

Enough things to try and pay attention to.

 

[Claes]

Start with the aperture, that is over 98% of your issue, I think. The rest is diminishing returns deep down, or high up, I dig holes, others have pies in the skies

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Thank you all for your advice and suggestions!

Enough things to try and pay attention to.

After looking at your examples, and as others have mentioned, the unnecessarily extreme apertures are likely the primary issue here. Most APS-C lenses are sharpest around f/5.6, and you really didn't need to go much beyond f/5.6 or f/8 for any of these shots. Softness due to diffraction often responds well to sharpening, but at f/20 here with the jpeg compression and probably too much NR, everything is really too mushy to get much fine detail out of it, but with a few tweaks It looks OK if you don’t look too closely (you could probably do a lot better with the RAW).


A few little tweaks and sharpening in Lightroom

 

[Michel van Lint]

Thank you, I am going to pay particular attention to the aperture and see how that works. Indeed, when editing the RAW file it looks better. I just shared unedited examples to be "fair".