It’s been historically slow for Fujifilm so far in 2026, which makes it more difficult for Fujifilm-related bloggers to come up with interesting content to share with their readers. On the bright side, this can be a good opportunity to find and highlight things that might otherwise slip through the cracks and go unnoticed. That’s what this article is attempting to do. Nothing here is headline news, but hopefully there’s something that you’ll find intriguing or even possibly helpful.
Specifically, we’re talking about the Fujifilm X-E5, showcasing articles that are either explicitly or just vaguely related to it. This is a camera that I own and love. It’s as close as Fujifilm has ever gotten to an interchangeable-lens X100-series model. My favorite aspect of it is that you can program three additional Film Simulation Recipes than other cameras. It’s the most compact and lightweight interchangeable-lens X-series camera with the 40mp sensor and IBIS. There’s plenty to love.
Before we dive in, here’s a little X-E5 tidbit that I bet you don’t know, which I learned while at Fujikina Copenhagen. It takes a massive team—sometimes more than 100 people—to create a camera, but each one has a lead designer. There are several designers at Fujifilm. For example, the lead designer of the X100-series and X-T (single digit), as well as many other models, is Masazumi Imai, who gave a wonderful presentation at Fujikina. Each lead designer likes to leave a little easter egg hidden somewhere in the camera (which mostly goes unnoticed by the users). I’m not sure who was the lead designer of the X-E5, but I learned that the designer of that camera leaves a specific easter egg: hexagon feet. If you turn the X-E5 upside down and look at the four tiny feet at the bottom, they’re six-sided and not round. Any Fujifilm camera with hexagon feet had the same lead designer as the X-E5. I’m not sure which models those are, but apparently there are a few.
Now let’s look at some recent articles across the web that relate to the Fujifilm X-E5. Some of these are explicitly about the X-E5, and some are only related if you squint your eyes a little.
Fujifilm X-E5 Teardown
Kolari Vision just published their teardown of the Fujifilm X-E5. Seeing the X-E5 being taken apart makes a tear fall down my cheek (get it? Tear down, teardown?). Jokes aside, it’s fascinating to see how Fujifilm squeezed so much camera into such a small body. This also illustrates just how intrusive an infrared conversion actually is. I would love to see Fujifilm sell a full-spectrum infrared camera to the public, like they did very briefly with the Fujifilm X-T4 Extended Spectrum, so that you wouldn’t have to take it apart. Thankfully, Kolari (as well as some other companies) know what they’re doing, and your camera is in good hands if you send yours in for a conversion. I don’t have firsthand experience with that, but I’ve talked with several people who do, and they only have positive things to say.
Good Image Quality
There’s an interesting article over at PetaPixel entitled Photographers Are Tired of Big Cameras. Essentially, Chris Niccolls wants a smaller camera than he normally uses, and he’s going for the Fujifilm X-E5. He is constantly using all sorts of gear from all sorts of brands as part of his job, but for his own personal photography, he wants something smaller than the Sony a7R V that he normally shoots with. After trying nearly everything under the sun, he really likes the X-E5 for its compact size and good image quality. The author of the article, Jaron Schneider, then makes an odd disclaimer: the X-E5 doesn’t necessarily have “excellent” image quality; instead the camera has “just good” image quality, which he notes is good enough for Chris. I understand that “good” and “excellent” are subjective, but it was a weird comment that seemed unnecessary for the message of the article. The image quality of the X-E5 is “just good” compared to what? I understand that the people at PetaPixel have experience with pretty much every single camera made within the last 25 years, and some models have better image quality than others, but what aspect of the X-E5’s image quality is subpar? I wish that more context had been provided, because it comes across as a put-down to both Fujifilm and Chris. I think the overall story—a growing trend towards smaller, lighter gear—is fascinating. That Fujifilm is at the forefront of the discussion is also intriguing. So much more could have been said; instead, I’m wondering what was meant by an offhand comment.
Learn
Last but not least, I saw in a Pal2Tech video yesterday that Chris Lee has launched a new project on his website called Learn. He has a ton of great resources, including a Fujifilm X-E5 setup guide (among many, many other things). You should definitely check it out, there’s so much information available. It seems like it isn’t complete, so I suspect that this will only grow into even a greater resource in the coming months.
Greets.
I know of no better digital image former for use with a stack pair, tube lens plus reversed enlarger type lens.
Such configurations produce incredible images, say 2:1 up to 6:1.
As a drawback these rigs vignette at full frame.
Best choice, a C sized sensor. This means Fuji or Canon. I have chosen the T5.
Rgds.
Thanks for the input!
Ritchie, I’m curious. In the X-E5 compared to the X-E4, is there a difference in the viewfinders? Does the X-E5 get close to or rival the X-100VI? By appearances the X-E5s viewfinder looks bigger than the X-E4. I tried to solve this in person at a shop, but they were sold out.
The X-E4 and X-E5 have the same EVF (other than the classic display option on the X-E5). The X100VI has a better EVF within its hybrid viewfinder.
Got it the day it was released. One year later and still can’t warm to it (several infuriating things make it hard to enjoy the camera). Would rather have my lost X30 back any day. Am still grieving the loss. Don’t want to sell/trade it (they offer much less than the stupid amount paid for it). But I think when the X-Pro comes out I will get it of it.
What are some of the infuriating things? I have a list of complaints myself, but nothing that would infuriate me. Probably my biggest gripe is the lack of Classic Negative on the Film Dial (aside from FS1-3).
With more meaningful weather resistance, the X-E5 would be a pretty much perfect Fuji landscape camera. That said… it’s not like the X-T5 is all that much bulkier. Mostly just the EVF, and only 100g heavier. Maybe this is just paranoia, and the X-E5 has as good a chance of surviving some light rain and snow as anything else… and yet, I can’t overcome that fear.
As to image quality being only “good enough”… I mean, compared to what? For static scenes and landscape, Nikon Z7ii with the crazy dynamic range? Fuji GFX100ii or Hasselblad 100mp medium format cameras? A Leica M11 for street photography? Yeah, I believe that in comparison X-E5 is only “good enough.” You can do better, but what it takes to do better is absolutely completely ridiculous.
For speed, there’s a bunch of options from OM-1ii or Z6iii or R6iii on up. I can imagine that the X-E5 isn’t necessarily the best camera for fast action, and one of those might be a better fit for someone who loves shooting birds or their kids doing sports.
I’ve taken the X-E5 in light rain, no problems. I accidentally got caught in a downpour and got completely drenched with an X-T50 (there was no chance of keeping the camera dry), and surprisingly it was just fine, no damage. I think the cameras have some level of weather sealing or weather resistance but not enough to advertise it.
Even comparing the X-E5 IQ to the GFX100S II, there’s definitely a difference, but it’s not night-and-day. The gap between the two is much smaller than one would guess. If the GFX is excellent (and I’ve never heard anyone say otherwise) than the X-E5 would be best described as great (and not “just good”). I’m not sure why the author felt the need to qualify it in the first place, but the qualifier used seems like a stretch to me, like he believes anything smaller than full-frame can never possibly be considered anything better than “just good” so he needs to make that disclaimer. To me it’s weird.
I think it’s just the way folks speak today. Anything that isn’t “The Best” is “Unusable” and “Utterly Garbage.”
Case in point: how a lot of folks talk about Fuji AF. If something isn’t equally good with the latest Sony, it doesn’t matter if it’s better than almost any AF camera from five years ago, the AF is “unusable.”
If something can be bested, no matter how much work it takes to get there, it can’t still be “great” too.
The fifth-gen Fujifilm cameras are probably in the top 2% of best performing autofocus cameras of all time. Now all of the latest Canon, Sony, and Nikon (but especially the first two) are in the top 1% (maybe even top 0.5%), so they’re clearly ahead, but if you can’t get it done with the top 2%, either you have extremely unusual use-cases that require the most impressive AF ever made or (much more likely) you’d be completely hopeless as a photographer if you were doing so when AF from every brand was worse than it is today, which wasn’t all that long ago. Just like we all did back then, you just have to learn some skills and strategies to get the job done with what you have; however, nowadays, it’s as if nobody wants to hear that—it’s always the gear’s fault and nothing can be done until the gear improves. A lot of people just seem to lack the perspective of how good they have it and how fortunate they truly are. All of the great photographers and cinematographers of the distant past would be extraordinarily envious of the incredible gear that’s easily available to everyone, the gear that people can’t seem to stop complaining about in the comments of various websites and such. I just don’t get it.