Fuji lists lenses that "take full advantage" of the XT5's new 40 MP sensor. What does less than full advantage mean? In my case, will I have issues with either... Fuji XF 16-80 or... Viltrox 75 MM? if so, what issues... Thanks, P
Dec. 15, 2024
10
-
-
It reads like usual marketing talk :)
Technically such statements may be used for lens, having resolving power (sharpness) in excess what sensor can resolve. About specific lenses I have no knowledge - but as nowadys lenses are usually optimised for sharpness then I don't think you have any issues.
-
The 40MP has a pixel pitch of 3.04 um, making the Nyquist frequency 165 lp/mm. Let's say that MTF50 for the sensor is about 100 lp/mm ... then a lens with an MTF50 of less than that could be said to be taking "less than full advantage" of the sensor. I know nothing about Fuji lenses.
Or, per Arvo above, Any lens that can resolve165 lp/mm or more can "take full advantage" of the XT5 sensor, depending on the meaning of "resolve". If we follow Rayleigh's criterion, an MTF of more than 9% can be considered as "resolved" (barely) but the popular figure for camera reviews is 50% MTF and for lenses is 40% MTF.
-
It marketing talk. Just like those ads where "who said electric cars can't..." Well, it doesn't matter if nobody actually said that, the idea is to get you to believe they are different by suggestion. Same with the lenses, by saying that the lenses take full advantage then you allow the public to suggest that there are a group of lenses that don't and that somehow you limit the performance by not owning them. If you up the MP's of your sensor you will see an improvement even with the same lenses. If you have an issue it will be visible. But in real situations with practical DoF considerations does it really mean anything other than some lenses are sharper than others?
Like that other ad that always made me chuckle, the tire manufacturer with their "revolutionary design". But then all tires are designed to revolve.
-
They're catering to the idea that lenses serve sensors, and the idea that 100% pixel views are "IQ", which are both bad ways of looking at things, IMO.
A more useful way of looking at things is that every lens projects an analog image independent of sensor pixels, and the pixels just sample that analog image; the more pixels you have, the more analog-like the capture is, and the less you have, the more potential you have for pixelation and aliasing.
Duller lenses may require less MPs to avoid aliasing and pixelation, but greater pixel counts are not harmful to IQ, just overkill if you want maximum apparent detail-bang-per-pixel. You won't benefit much from 40MP vs 24MP with a lens that is soft wide open at f/1.4, or stopped down to f/45, or if you're using a pinhole, but the 40MP doesn't do any harm, either; you just have a larger file, which happens to be superior for resampling. Let's say you have soft optics that don't alias with at least 5MP and you use a 5MP sensor. You have a sharp 5MP image, which either gets softer or more micro-distorted if you need to resample it for a display, say 7MP on a 4K monitor. Had you a 40MP version to begin with, resampling to 7MP from a pixel-soft 40MP would have less artifacts than a sharp 5MP resampled to 7MP.
-
Welcome peterspace
Finally, the Fujifilm X-T5 can take full advantage of all the lenses 😇
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720303977975/
Fujifilm X-T5 / TTArtisan 28/5.6 by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr
Fujifilm X by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr
X-T5 / Laowa 65mm f/2.8 by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr
Fujifilm X-T5 / Sigma 600mm mirror f8 by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr
Fujifilm X-T5 and XF 56mm f/1.2 R WR by Marc Aubry, sur FlickrHave fun without fear with your X-T5
-
This one has been done to death in other forums. Using 'non-optimal' lenses will have no detremental effect on your pictures compared to older cameras.
Alan
-
That is it.
I dug out my old Sigma 12-24, that I bought in the days when I owned a Nikon D70. I have been told it is not suitable for my D850, but the pictures I came home with were more than sharp enough.
-
Your images (with the appropriate processing) will never look worse at 40MP than at 24/26MP. Even if some of your lenses don't take full advantage of those 40MP (rendering detail that can't be fully resolved at 24/26MP). Whatever detail is resolved will be rendered more faithfully at 40MP than at 24/26 (far fewer "worms" and other rendering artifacts). The Viltrox 75 (as well as the 13 and 27) would absolutely be on the list if it included non-Fuji lenses. The list is misleading and best ignored IMO, there is no universe where the Fuji 16 f/2.8 (on the list) is better than the 16 f/1.4 (not on the list).
-
What list? Where?
-
