What Differences I See Between A Fujifilm 26mp X-H2S Image File And A Nikon Z7II Image File?

I photographed this scene with both a Nikon Z7II and a Fujifilm X-H2S mainly to see what actual
differences could be seen between a 45.7mp sensor and a 26mp sensor.  I would expect to see some
differences but are any differences worth the extra money for a full frame, high megapixel camera?
(click to enlarge)
Nikon Z7 II; Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 lens @ 50mm; 1/125th sec. @ f/11; ISO 64

As I do at times, I ponder unanswered questions about my gear.  In this case, just how much and what differences would I see in identical image files from the brand new, latest, stacked back-side illuminated 26mp X-Trans sensor in my Fujifilm X-H2S and the older 45.7mp BSI Nikon Z7II sensor.  I think I know but I’d rather know for sure.  Testing time!

The identical scene photographed with a Fujifilm X-H2S; 16-55mm f/2.8 lens @ 34.2mm;
1/350th sec. @ f/8; ISO 160.  The two cameras were tripod mounted and all settings were
set identically or as much as possible. The editing of the two images was performed to be as identical
as possible as well. (click to enlarge)

With some free time on my hands, I devised what I believe is a non-scientific but valid test* that I thought would give me a good approximation of the information I was seeking.  That test would be to make identical images from both my Nikon Z7II and my Fujifilm X-H2S and then visually compare both files at 100% on my computer monitor.  That would allow me to see for myself the visual differences between the two files.  I would use best photographic practices and ensure all things between the two cameras and lenses were equalized, as much as possible.  Of course, I would expect to see some differences between the two files.  But what would they be?  Would there be any surprises?

Test Setup

I found a location that provided me with a view of about a 1000 ft. (300m) away.  I hoped at that distance any lack of sharp focus due to depth of field limitations or curved field lens design would be eliminated.  Using Google Maps, I measured the actual distance between the position of my camera and my focus point as about 975 ft. (297m).  For both camera and lens combinations the calculated depth of field at that distance and my chosen apertures is about 24 ft. to infinity.  The scene, above, has a row of shops with plenty of architectural detail which proved useful for comparison as well as wetlands with various kinds of grasses and other plant life in the foreground.  Additionally, scattered throughout the scene are other items with texture and detail, including painted signs, roof shingles, railings, trees, telephone wires, construction equipment, etc.

Trying to equalize things as much as possible between the two cameras (but also knowing that some things couldn't be fully equalized), both cameras were mounted on my sturdy Gitzo carbon fiber tripod with the head leveled, both left/right and up/down.  I wanted to have exactly the same field of view.  I chose to use the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 S lens and the Red Badge Fujifilm 16-55mm f/2.8 lens.  Both lenses are generally deemed as excellent optics.  I set the Nikon lens for 50mm and equalized the Nikon’s 50mm field of view by setting the Fujifilm 16-55mm lens at 34.2mm. 

Both cameras were tightly mounted on a well made L-bracket.  Both cameras were set for aperture priority.  The 16-55mm lens was set at f/8 and the 24-120mm lens was set at f/11, so as to equalize the depth of field.  Both cameras were set for a 2 second exposure delay, IBIS turned off, AF-S, single point AF, electronic shutter so there was no shutter shake, and base ISO—the Nikon at ISO 64 and the Fujifilm at ISO 160.  The difference in base ISO is  potential slight advantage for the Nikon but it is what it is.  Fujifilm should use sensors with lower ISOs if they want even better image quality than they now achieve.

Two images were made with each camera.  One was made with the single point AF using AF-S and one was manually focused using the manual focus 10X magnification feature in each camera.  Focusing was done on the window details of the red building in the middle of the frame.  (Comment: During editing, I saw no difference in focus accuracy between the AF focused files and the manually focused files. With all of the AF variation issues I had with my X-T4, this is a big relief!  That said, the Nikon was so much easier to manually focus accurately although the Fujifilm has the better brand new higher resolution 5.76mp EVF and the Nikon has an older 3.68mp EVF.  I'm not sure why but the detail is much clearer and it is easier to nail exact manual focus with the Z7II.  That was unexpected.)

Editing

Lightroom still does not do the best job in converting Fujifilm X-Trans RAW files.  If you over sharpen at all, you will start to see clumpy foliage with indistinguishable detail.  Also, it doesn't bring out the most general detail or texture in a file.  To equalize the editing and RAW conversion process, I tried converting the Fujifilm RAW files using both Iridient X-Transformer and DXO PhotoLab 5 as they do a much better job of bringing out details and texture than does Lightroom.  After examining both conversions closely, I thought the DXO product brought out just a bit more fine detail than did the Iridient product.  Therefore, I ended up converting both the Fujifilm files and the Nikon files in DXO PhotoLab 5, again, to equalize the process as much as possible.  Both images had DXO’s camera/lens correction modules applied.  Both images were also edited to appear as identical as possible.

Findings  

Spoiler Alert:  Frankly, I'm surprised I couldn't see more differences between the two images than I found.

1.  Below are some highly cropped comparisons for you to examine.  I don't know how much you can see after Blogger compresses the image files, but I will describe some of the differences in the captions.

2.  Yes, you can see more detail in the 45.7mp file than you can in the 26mp file.  That was expected.  You have to look very closely to see the additional detail.  I know, scold me now.  I’ve railed again and again about pixel peeping and have advised you to look at a photograph the way the photographer wants you to view it—in its entirety, not hunt for the tiniest detail within.  But…I admit I get personal satisfaction from looking deeply into a image and seeing things I couldn’t (or didn't) see while I made the image.  On occasion, drilling deeply into an image on my monitor, for me, still brings about the ‘wow’ factor.  Sorry.  The bottom line in this test is that you can see more minute detail in the 45.7mp file but we would all expect that.  If we couldn't, we would wonder what is wrong with the Nikon camera or lens.  However, you have to very, very closely examine the image to see it, which is not how we should look at photographs.

3.  The color science between the two cameras is a bit different, especially the rendering of the reds as well as the sky.  Editing the RAW files, I had the Nikon set for its “Standard” profile and the Fujifilm set for Pro Neg Std., which are both relatively neutral profiles.  The two profiles are very similar in color, contrast and saturation.  But some colors differed.  That said, when it comes to color, the bottom line is that you can pretty much manipulate and change color any way you want in any particular file in editing software so color science is a non-issue unless you shoot JPEGs and send out your images with no editing.  In that case, I would choose the options given with the Fujifilm film simulations.

4.  Both lenses are very sharp all across the frame, right out to the edges.  They both are excellent lenses.  If I had to pick one over the other, I think the Nikon lens is a tad better, but that might be due to the higher resolution of the sensor and not better optics.  You would be happy with either lens, I would bet.  I certainly am.

5.  When looking at the telephone pole and lines to the far left, both camera/lens combinations did a nice job keeping them sharp and not smearing the details.  The Nikon can resolve a bit more of the horizontal siding of the large building on the right, with the cupola.  Also, the roof shingles can be easily seen in the Nikon file but not so much in the Fujifilm file.  Again, you have to practice pixel peeping to see the differences.

5.  Even though I used DXO PhotoLab 5 to convert the Fujifilm files, the rendering of fine detail in the grass and leaves was a little lacking, probably because of the difference between the two sensors.  The individual blades and detail in the grass are nicely rendered until you move toward the rear of the frame, then much of it merges.  However, you can discern some detail in the cattails closer to the buildings in both files.  But the Nikon file has more detail.

I don't know how much of the fine detail Blogger will allow you to see so below each image I have added a bit of captioning as to what I saw when looking at these 100% crops on my 27" BenQ calibrated monitor.  In short, I judge the sharpness to be pretty equal but, as I have written, there is more detail to be seen in the Nikon file than in the Fujifilm file, whether in the building detail, roof shingles, the construction gear or the grasses in the wetlands.

Nikon Z7II.  This is a 100% crop from extreme left side of frame from the image file
above.  It is larger than the Fujifilm file below because of the difference in sensor sizes.
The image stayed sharp right to the edge and the telephone lines can easily be seen.  The sign in front
of the blue building is easy to read.  (click to enlarge)

Same 100% crop from the Fujifilm X-H2S. Compare this crop to the one above and, hopefully, you
can see differences in spite of Blogger's compression algorithms.  The image also is sharp right out to
the edge. (click to enlarge)

100% crop from the Nikon Z7II image file above. It is easy to see the individual roof shingles
as well as the 'restaurant' sign under the porch roof as well as the horizontal lines of the siding.
(click to enlarge)

100% crop from the Fujifilm X-H2S image file above.  Compare to the Nikon file and, hopefully,
you can see some of the differences. (click to enlarge)

100% crop from the Nikon Z7II image file above.  This is where I see the most differences in the
original file.  The grasses in the Nikon file, overall, have more detail and as you look from front
to back, most of the detail stays visible.  In the Fujifilm file, as you move to the back, you lose
that same detail.  Is it the difference in sensor sizes or does it also have to do with the 
notorious mushy foliage problems of the X-Tan's sensor's past. (click to enlarge)

100% crop from the Fujifilm X-H2S.  You might not be able to see the differences that I can on 
my monitor, but most are expected. (click to enlarge)

Based on my past experience and enjoyment using Fujifilm gear (since February 2014), as well as the results of my initial use and informal testing of the performance of the new 26mp Fujifilm X-H2S versus the Nikon Z7II 46mp sensor, I now have some interest in potentially buying either the 40mp X-H2 or the upcoming 40mp X-T5. 

From the many YouTube videos and Internet reviews I've seen and read about the X-H2, I think it (as well as the upcoming X-T5) is a terrific camera which, based upon what I see with its 'little brother,' I'll predict should perform 'almost' as well as the Nikon in most circumstances.  In the case of the X-H2 or X-T5, I think the resolution of fine detail and textures will almost be indistinguishable from the Nikon's.  Where the differences may lie is in dynamic range (generally the larger the sensor the better the dynamic range), low light luminance noise (again, larger sensors have a bit of an advantage but that is quickly disappearing due to the advanced noise reduction and sharpening programs now available).  Where the Fujifilm has the advantage is speed, focus accuracy and subject detection as well as cost.

I used to try to buy only the best when it came to my photographic gear.  I didn’t do that for other possessions, oddly enough, only for cameras and lenses.  I always wanted the best image quality, whether shooting film or digital.  Sometimes I could buy the best but sometimes the cost was prohibitive and I had to settle for something less.  I now no longer feel that way.  The differences in the image quality, in my opinion, between full frame and Fujifilm's APS-C sensor cameras as well as lens performance is so close to being equal, that, unless I drill deeply into an image and look for the most minute differences, I won't be able to tell.  Buying and using Fujifilm gear over Nikon gear is not settling for less.  Not by any means.

Wrap-Up 

Now, if you are not a pixel peeper, then none of this applies to you.  You are one of the smart ones who look at photographs in their entirety, admire the content before you and try to understand what the photographer was trying to say by making the image.

One last thing.  As with most of these kinds of comparisons, if I didn’t have the Nikon for comparison, I would be perfectly happy with the 26mp Fujifilm X-H2S!  It is a fine camera capable of excellent image quality and it handles wonderfully.  But I do have the Nikon and I did the comparison which now gets me interested in one of the new 40mp cameas.  So there’s that.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Anything I’ve missed or any mistakes I’ve made?  I look forward to your comments or questions.

*This test only compared the two camera and lens combinations in one specific circumstance. There was no low light/high ISO or high contrast scene testing.  In other words, you really can’t make a comprehensive conclusion on a sample of one.  I conduct these tests because I want to better understand everything I can about my gear so I am not surprised nor disappointed with my cameras and/or lenses.  You need to make your own tests in the conditions in which you mostly photograph and with the types of subjects you mostly photograph.  Then look at your original files and judge for yourself.

Join me over at my website, https://www.dennismook.com.  

Thanks for looking. Enjoy!  

Dennis A. Mook  

All content on this blog is © 2013-2022 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.