The Fujifilm X-T5, X-T50 and X-H2 boast the highest resolution you can currently get in an APS-C camera, and you have to pay 2-3 times more to get the same resolution in a full frame model. These cameras give you more megapixels for your buck than any other, with the bonus that they are also really good cameras in their own right.
But does there come a point when lens optics can no longer keep up with sensor resolution, and has Fujifilm’s 40MP sensor reached that point? Fujifilm has made some outstanding cameras but its lenses, in my opinion, don’t always reach the same heights. It’s come a long way since the 16MP sensor in the original Fujifilm X-T1, but higher resolution on its own won’t get you very far if the lenses become a limiting factor.
Optical properties are not as scalable as you might imagine. You might be able to miniaturize sensors apparently ad infinitum, but lenses have very definite limits to their resolving power and their resistance to diffraction.
The performance of lenses that were once quite good enough on Fujifilm’s 26MP, 24MP and 6MP sensors is thrown into sharp relief (or not so sharp!) on the latest models. This hit home for me when I used my X-T5 with two really useful Fujinon lenses – the XF 16-80mm F4 and the 10-24mm F4. To be fair, these were never great lenses. The biggest issue with both is edge softness – the 16-80mm has soft edges at 16mm and is soft all over at 80mm, while the 10-24mm has unforgivably soft edges at 24mm. On the X-T5 with its 40MP resolution, it just became so painful to look at that I had to sell both lenses.
I don’t think Fujifilm’s 40MP sensor is necessarily a mistake, but I do think there are few affordable consumer lenses out there which can do it justice.
It’s actually not the sensor…
So my question is not whether a 40MP sensor can perform well. This is an excellent sensor, which does not appear to show significantly more noise at high ISOs than its predecessor, despite its higher pixel density. The dynamic range is superb, especially if you use Fujifilm’s extended dynamic range modes. This is just about the best sensor I’ve seen and used in any camera, in any format. You will definitely get your 40MP worth of resolution if your lenses can achieve it.
But I’m not sure they can. The kindest thing I can say about Fujifilm’s lenses is that they are of variable quality – the zooms, at least. I’ve also tried Sigma’s latest X-mount 10-18mm f/2.8 and 18-50mm f/2.8 lenses on the X-T5, and they are certainly better than the Fujinon zooms I sold, but still not perfect.
I don’t think Fujifilm’s 40MP sensor is necessarily a mistake, but I do think there are few affordable consumer lenses out there which can do it justice. In fact, for anyone who does genuinely need 40MP of resolution, I would advise seeking it in a full frame camera. It’s not the most responsive camera in the world, but I felt my Sony A7R II delivered more effective resolution from its 42.4MP sensor, simply because the lenses don’t have to deliver the same level of magnification.
I’d be surprised if a 40MP full frame sensor could seriously out-perform the sensor in the X-T5, but it will be a lot easier to find lenses that can deliver 40MP of optical resolution with decent levels of edge to edge sharpness across the frame. This is one of the strengths of the smaller Micro Four Thirds format, in my opinion – it’s a lot easier to find really good professional lenses for cameras like the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III.
So I think the problem for Fujifilm is not that 40MP sensor, but the lack of affordable, portable zooms that can do it justice. In many ways, users were better off with the older cameras where the limitations of the available lenses were far less obvious.
People might choose the X-T5, X-T50 or X-S2 for resolution and ultimate image quality, and then find they can’t get it. It has left me wondering, quite seriously, whether I should trade in my X-T5 for an older, less demanding model like the X-T4.