Fujifilm X-H2 vs Canon EOS R5: Which Is Best for Portrait Photographers?

When Fujifilm announced the new X-H2, I was immediately interested to test it out against my current camera, the Canon R5. Featuring a 40-megapixel sensor, much improved autofocus, and other advancements, on paper, it hits all the marks for my type of work.

To be clear, I have found very little to complain about regarding the Canon R5. The image quality is superb, the autofocus is fast and accurate, and the ergonomics and build quality are top-notch. But, there are some drawbacks to the Canon system in my opinion, mainly relating to the limited number of lenses available in the RF mount as well as their high cost. Part of the reason why I wanted to test the Fuji X-H2 is because of the large amount of excellent native and third-party lenses available at a much lower price point than Canon glass. I was also hopeful that the X-H2 would show a marked improvement in the autofocus system over the X-T4. I reasoned that the higher resolution paired with excellent autofocus and Fujifilm's already stellar image quality and film simulations could make the X-H2 an appealing alternative to my current Canon setup.

I was able to test an X-H2 for about a week, and my goal was to see how it compared to shooting with the R5 in my studio. In the video, I discuss autofocus, image quality, ergonomics, handling, and overall value. Although I am usually not a "pixel peeper," I do zoom in quite closely on a few samples and compare the resolution. I hope that you find my video to be informative and entertaining. As always, please let me know what you think in the comments below.

Log in or register to post comments
Ed Mathis's picture

Here are a few personal, non-scientific observations from an ex-Canon R5 owner (me) who recently went to the new Fuji X-T5.

First, sharpness. The pixel-peeping segments clearly showed a significant difference in local contrast between the Canon and Fuji pictures that made the higher contrast [Canon] pictures look sharper than the Fuji's in every case. The contrast differences probably have much more to do with the lens than with the sensor, so if the intention is to compare sensors I think one should at least tune out the differences in lens contrast in post before judging. The difference in lens sharpness will still be there but at least one irrelevant variable will be eliminated.

It's true that the Canon pictures are generally a little sharper than pictures from the Fujis, partly because of the higher resolution sensor but more because of better lenses. Canon's R lenses (just like the Nikon Z's and the Sonys) are very modern and uniformly excellent, where most of Fuji's offerings are unfortunately very much older and obsolete by today's performance standards!

Next, colors. I had a Canon R5 for a year and a half, and the longer I had it the more I became dissatisfied with its color rendering. In bright daylight or color-balanced artificial light the pictures from it were very good; but in dim or mixed light the pictures could be very difficult to get "right." In comparison, Fuji pictures were better to my eye in any kind of light, and a lot easier to deal with in "bad" light. I have no idea what kind of magic Fuji puts into their sensor tuning but it works for me.

I wish the X-T5 had the Canon's incredible focusing system and better lenses. For me, though, Fuji color science is the hook that will keep me captive for the foreseeable future.

David Blacker's picture

On the only objective measurement, image quality, he seemed to have to lean over backwards to pretend the Fuji was anywhere close to the Canon. The far sharper and more detailed Canon images were obvious (at least in his video). As for his comments about Fuji lenses being lighter and cheaper, they’re crop-sensor lenses, they’re definitely going to be that in comparison to FF glass. They’re also old.