wait, you read that twice??? me thinks you got wayyy too much time on yer hands!
After years and years of gear churn, I find myself in the unusual situation of… happiness with my gear. (Fuji and Ricoh gear from 2016/2018/2019)
I read the news about the Fuji X-T5, but there really isn’t anything interesting in it for me. More Megapixels just mean slower processing. I don’t need or want subject tracking autofocus.
I still follow the developments of newer gear, but it’s not something I see a need for any longer. Which is, frankly, new to me. But very welcome.
1 Like
I actually do crave the X-T5 (I have a X-T20 now), but the reasons are weather sealing and IBIS. Those features would let me shoot in more conditions and take more shots handheld. An X-T4 would do fine but, at least here, they completely disappeared from the market before the X-T5 arrived. The prices for used X-T4 are not low enough.
4 Likes
I’ve never been a real gear-head, but mostly because I just can’t internally justify the expenditures based on what and how much I shoot. I have a Canon T8i / 850D I bought in 2020. I was actually looking at the 80D but the T8i has the same sensor and for what I shoot I couldn’t justify another ~700 USD for little to no change in IQ. I like many things about the camera but as is all too often the case, my timing was impeccable (impeccably poor).
The T8i was kind of a step-child for Canon, methinks. It was (AFAIK) the last consumer level DSLR and they basically just ignored it after release. No battery grip, etc. and third party manufacturers make almost nothing specifically for it. For example I was unable to find a T8i-specific L bracket. Not the end of the world, but irritating at times.
What would I like in a new body?
- Weather sealing
- Live over-exposure indicators (“zebras”)
- Full frame (however, more MPs affect processing, so…)
- Battery grip
- Better high-ish ISO performance
- IBIS
- A physically larger body (my hands aren’t small)
And not the body, but just as importantly – Better glass.
Am I willing to pay for that? So far, no. Maybe if I lived somewhere photogenic it would be easier to justify but so far it’s not.
1 Like
-
eye auto focus. One single item that would push me to a new gear (if I can afford it)
-
IBIS is on the must list for me. I shoot tons of images for the family and every time somebody blinks. Adding to this the out of focus shots not good at all
-
Better glass. The 70D can take beautiful shots. With the 50mm 1.4 (when on focus) they can be very nice. But the 18-135 is much softer than the 50mm. If I can’t buy accompanying glass - I’d just stay where I am. And this is why the fact that Canon do not allow 3rd party lenses is so irritating. I just can’t afford to buy their lenses. They are out of reach. As good as the cameras may be - the quality of the glass do affect the pictures. I agree that in some pictures it is not a huge deal but it does matter to me.
-
smaller lighter body for me. I would like to carry it more and with bigger body it is often left at home.
1 Like
Hi, just about the video, I commented it on youtube a few days ago, his explaination is quite incomplete according to me as he mention generation gap and sensor size as the only criteria for DR and totally ignores the pixel surface area … generally I found his video suer clean and well produced but lacking technical information and more about opinion. but that’s my opinion ! 
plus on this subject (DR, prices and SNR Iso performance) I posted a link about my main sources of information in the following post:
Unfortunately, it is the same in Sweden.
They are still asking almost the same for an X-T4 as
what they want for an X-T5.
I have an X-T4, and I am very happy with it.
I was tempted to get an X-T5 when it appeared,
but came to the conclusion that no… the X-T5
was not that much better than an X-T4.
Presumably I will have to wait for an X-T6, or X-T7…
Have fun!
Claes in Lund, Sweden
1 Like
I just went from a Nikon D610 → D850 (used, shutter count only 10.200).
I need/want the better AF tracking in low light when shooting at dog exhibitions, I enjoy the lower noise levels at 3200/6400 and last and certainly not least - I just wanted it 
I saw the the video, it is indeed quite good, thanks for sharing.
/Per
1 Like
Note that image DR is independent of pixel size. Only pixel DR is affected. (Why do you care about pixel DR?)
Hum, I’m not sure I’m understanding the concept right after your remark but, Even though I do not contest the general point made in the video the explanation made me twitch …
Just to be sure and straight about the vocabulary, to me, and I might be wrong :
- A scene have a DR not an image file (except if HDR compatible format when specific brightness can be specified)
- Sensor job is to capture incoming light coming to different photosites (not exactly pixels) without crushing raw datas (not rendering intensity variation by saturating or not being sensitive enough)
Thus a missed interesting point would have been to put to the test if silicon from same gen would have the same capabilities in this regard all things equal (not across different sensor size and resolution but across same photosite [surface-area per photosite/technological generation] couple). So that’s why my understanding made me think giving the sensor size / resolution info was a miss step compared to giving relative photosite size comparison.
Sorry for the noise even more if it makes no sense at all !
More on the topic, I like to try to understand what I’m buying but I’m not a compulsive buyer at all my A7 being my 3rd camera in more than 15Y of practice… I used mainly the 2 same lenses for most of those years (vintage, through adapter rings) and to me practice is more important than the gear
1 Like
I’m assuming your comment was referring to the (common!) misconception that larger pixels are “better” in low light as they show less noise. The 12 MP Sony A7S is commonly used as an example, particularly in comparison to the high-resolution A7R. Let’s pretend for simplicity that our A7R has four times as many pixels (really sensor-elements, sensels) and uses a sensor of the same generation.
Then the assumption is true on a pixel level: pixels with four times the surface area have four times the full-well capacity and only twice the noise floor, therefore a larger signal-to-noise ratio. However, the same is true if you sum over each four pixels of the high-resolution sensor.
Thus, at the same image magnification, there will be no significant difference in noise or signal-to-noise ratio in the two images. The “difference” at 100% is merely an artifact because 100% is a tighter crop at 48 MP than it is at 12 MP.
DPReview did a reasonable video on this a while ago: Why lower resolution sensors ARE NOT better in low light - YouTube
As an additional fun fact, the 12 MP A7S3 is technically actually using a quad-bayer 48 MP sensor, probably the same platform as the A7R3, just with a different color matrix. (Sony a7S III has a 2×2 pixel binning IMX510 BSI sensor | The Landingfield)
5 Likes
And the associated overlooked fact that on a same noise level, bigger noise (lower mpx count on the same represented scene) is detrimental to the image quality ! but as you stated the dpreview video to debunk these facts is quite informative ^^
This is only partially true for Darktable.
During editing, the size of the image area is responsible for performance. And this size is the same for a 40Mix or a 20Mix camera. Only loading the file make it a little bit slower.
You only need more performance when exporting 40MPixel as a jpg. But you also can export 20 MPix.
The main advantage of 40MPixel for me is that more potential is available for crops.
But I don’t want to have an X-T5 for the price and size either. My X-T20 is much more compact and does everything I need. And there are other (used) models with 40 megapixels that are cheap (e.g. A7R2)
Huhu, true enough more storage and machine time wasted if you do not rely heavily on crop in your photography … I want believe that the Mpx race and marketing craze will die the same way the Ghz marketing scheme died when it comes to computers.
That said many more innovations already stated above are still valid reason to pick a camera in the sense that it will enable the photographer to shoot in a broader variety of situation and have a more consistent success rate !
My top example being :
- Image stabilisation (especially in body for those of us using misc lenses)
- More accurate metering (yeah autofocus but lighting as well)
- Assist tools (zebra for over exposed zones and edge colouring style focus assist have been a blast for me )
- small and rugged form factor, to always have your gear with you !
1 Like
Auto focus? What’s that? 
I hear you loud and clear on that one; I have an X-T10, and these features would certainly be a big plus. When my camera finally breaks, I might get one — and when I can afford it, that is; though the XT-50 will likely be out by the time that happens!
2 Likes
I like being able to print a 16x20" at 300dpi from my camera’s native resolution. Thr resulting print is so nice looking a d detailed.
2 Likes
I believe you on that, I print some time but not that much … I tend to believe the general idea that in most cases big prints are often design to being seen from a little bit further then mitigating the need for high dpi/ppi …
but then again you may have a different opinion or have special use for large prints design to be seen up-close (giant where’s waldo ? called “Chaly” in french)
PS : 24mpx is close to 16"x20" @ 300dpi
not so high on today’s standard
I like to look at my own prints closely. That’s it.
2 Likes
And I can understand that and you know what you want ! And anyone wanting the same thing should choose it’s mpx count accordingly.
I was maybe too quick in my response and gave the impression to totally dismiss the idea of any high mpx sensor use case as in fact I just wanted to highlight the 2 widespread phenomenons that are :
- mpx marketing
- what in my opinion is a misconception that printing large automatically in any case means higher pixel count as in fact viewing distance should affect dpi evaluation.
In anyway I want to dismiss other members opinions
I have printed 1x1.5 meters with 16 MP. Upsample the image, add a little bit of noise, and it looks totally fine. Not even any fancy AI upscaling needed. You don’t notice any egregious softness, and there’s enough detail to satisfy close inspection.
Nowadays, I enjoy my 24 MP cameras to allow for a bit of crop. But beyond that, I really don’t have a need for more pixels.
Do you have a real use case for more pixels? I’d honestly be interested in that!