Taylor Jackson X-H2s coverage (tested against R6 and Z9)

Stuart VC wrote:

Alan Hewitt Photo wrote:

I’m 100% convinced I would be able to get fantastic images from this camera and lens combo… Chris and Jordan have had a stinker in their review, plain and simple. And all it’s doing is fuelling the Fuji troll train.

I’ve read elsewhere that they admit to not having it set up correctly, is that true?

Yeah possibly Alan, maybe in the video... the sample gallery of the 150-600 is woeful, loads of weird settings by the looks of it too, lowish shutter speeds like 1/200 (which I personally would avoid using at long focal lengths even for still subjects) and narrow apertures when it should have been wide open.

Its fuelling all sorts of misinformation about the AF, the lens, Fuji in general... this is what annoys me about many of these 'reviews', nobody ever wants to account for the fact the photographer just got it wrong, and to be honest thats not limited to reviews, its seen often when people are reporting supposed issues with gear.

Lol that’s pretty bad since I’ve found I need to be at least 1/400 to make sure a walking person is sharp with the 50-140.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

yayatosorus wrote:

To be fair, we don't know for how long DPR TV had access to the camera in comparison to Mr Jackson and Mr Hewitt. Similarly, we don't know what sort of deadlines Chris and Jordan had - which may be of importance considering the amount of content they have been producing over the last few weeks.

I'm sure once the camera starts shipping and they get more hands on time with the camera running on final firmware, they'll be able to give us a good assessment of its capabilities, as is the case with most of their reviews.

Either you do a proper review or you don't. It's not just this camera. Go back and look at the review for the XH1 and D800. There were pages and pages of measurements - so there was quantitive data - now rambling opinion you get in any video. Compare these to the written reviews of the XS10 for example. The S10 has little detail and a low of rambling.

Also what is the hurry. Five years ago a camera was not given a detailed review a month before it shipped with F/W that will still being debugged and finalized. The reviews meant something in. There is no way today I would buy a camera based on DPR reviews.

When I picked up my XPro2 and D800E - DPR reviews played a role because of the through and well through out reviews. Today, as far as I can see at least for me - their credibility has taken a big hit since the Amazonization of DPR. If you can't do the job right - don't do it at all. We'll see if their final written review on the production camera is any more professional.

Or as Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. said, “If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.”

Truman, there is a reason why the video is titled “First Impressions Review”.

Tim C.

Richard Butler wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Alan Hewitt Photo wrote:

I’m 100% convinced I would be able to get fantastic images from this camera and lens combo… Chris and Jordan have had a stinker in their review, plain and simple. And all it’s doing is fuelling the Fuji troll train.

I’ve read elsewhere that they admit to not having it set up correctly, is that true?

Yeah possibly Alan, maybe in the video... the sample gallery of the 150-600 is woeful, loads of weird settings by the looks of it too, lowish shutter speeds like 1/200 (which I personally would avoid using at long focal lengths even for still subjects) and narrow apertures when it should have been wide open.

The 150-600mm gallery wasn't shot by Chris and Jordan, or with an X-H2S, so wasn't in any way factored into what they said in their video.

Richard - DPReview.com

That’s fair enough Richard, and honestly I don’t normally like to criticise anyones photos, in fact generally I despise that kind of thing… but my massive issue here is the feeding frenzy this gallery has induced, and it’s not just on this site either, there are people now all over the rumour site and YouTube etc quoting that article as the status quo for this lens. All because of these early impression images.

It would almost be better if DPreview just didn’t bother posting anything to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Stuart VC wrote:

Richard Butler wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Alan Hewitt Photo wrote:

I’m 100% convinced I would be able to get fantastic images from this camera and lens combo… Chris and Jordan have had a stinker in their review, plain and simple. And all it’s doing is fuelling the Fuji troll train.

I’ve read elsewhere that they admit to not having it set up correctly, is that true?

Yeah possibly Alan, maybe in the video... the sample gallery of the 150-600 is woeful, loads of weird settings by the looks of it too, lowish shutter speeds like 1/200 (which I personally would avoid using at long focal lengths even for still subjects) and narrow apertures when it should have been wide open.

The 150-600mm gallery wasn't shot by Chris and Jordan, or with an X-H2S, so wasn't in any way factored into what they said in their video.

Richard - DPReview.com

That’s fair enough Richard, and honestly I don’t normally like to criticise anyones photos, in fact generally I despise that kind of thing… but my massive issue here is the feeding frenzy this gallery has induced, and it’s not just on this site either, there are people now all over the rumour site and YouTube etc quoting that article as the status quo for this lens. All because of these early impression images.

It would almost be better if DPreview just didn’t bother posting anything to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Don't assume everyone else agrees with you telling DPreview what they should or shouldn't be publishing. The situation is clearly explained by Richard & anyone reading it will take it on board. If other outlets are going nuts so what? Honestly, SO WHAT?

Plenty of contributors here (and elsewhere) are discussing the pros & cons of the new products & how they relate to their own buying / shooting preferences without getting hysterical. Yet I find a growing number of otherwise interesting threads are ending up with bogus accusations being thrown around when all people are trying to do is have a discussion. (Hint: not EVERYONE thinks that the sun shines out of Fuji's X mount ALL of the time).

I simply don't understand the mania of defending an inanimate object to the point absurdity.

M.

mr_marlo wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Richard Butler wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Alan Hewitt Photo wrote:

I’m 100% convinced I would be able to get fantastic images from this camera and lens combo… Chris and Jordan have had a stinker in their review, plain and simple. And all it’s doing is fuelling the Fuji troll train.

I’ve read elsewhere that they admit to not having it set up correctly, is that true?

Yeah possibly Alan, maybe in the video... the sample gallery of the 150-600 is woeful, loads of weird settings by the looks of it too, lowish shutter speeds like 1/200 (which I personally would avoid using at long focal lengths even for still subjects) and narrow apertures when it should have been wide open.

The 150-600mm gallery wasn't shot by Chris and Jordan, or with an X-H2S, so wasn't in any way factored into what they said in their video.

Richard - DPReview.com

That’s fair enough Richard, and honestly I don’t normally like to criticise anyones photos, in fact generally I despise that kind of thing… but my massive issue here is the feeding frenzy this gallery has induced, and it’s not just on this site either, there are people now all over the rumour site and YouTube etc quoting that article as the status quo for this lens. All because of these early impression images.

It would almost be better if DPreview just didn’t bother posting anything to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Don't assume everyone else agrees with you telling DPreview what they should or shouldn't be publishing. The situation is clearly explained by Richard & anyone reading it will take it on board. If other outlets are going nuts so what? Honestly, SO WHAT?

Plenty of contributors here (and elsewhere) are discussing the pros & cons of the new products & how they relate to their own buying / shooting preferences without getting hysterical. Yet I find a growing number of otherwise interesting threads are ending up with bogus accusations being thrown around when all people are trying to do is have a discussion. (Hint: not EVERYONE thinks that the sun shines out of Fuji's X mount ALL of the time).

I simply don't understand the mania of defending an inanimate object to the point absurdity.

M.

Firstly, lets address the nonsense that is your first sentence, where the hell did I ever say that I assume everybody agrees with me?

Is this the same sample gallery article that has been deleted?

As for the rest of your comment, im not even addressing it... if you are too immature to understand the point of this discussion I can't help you.

Stuart VC wrote:

mr_marlo wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Richard Butler wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Alan Hewitt Photo wrote:

I’m 100% convinced I would be able to get fantastic images from this camera and lens combo… Chris and Jordan have had a stinker in their review, plain and simple. And all it’s doing is fuelling the Fuji troll train.

I’ve read elsewhere that they admit to not having it set up correctly, is that true?

Yeah possibly Alan, maybe in the video... the sample gallery of the 150-600 is woeful, loads of weird settings by the looks of it too, lowish shutter speeds like 1/200 (which I personally would avoid using at long focal lengths even for still subjects) and narrow apertures when it should have been wide open.

The 150-600mm gallery wasn't shot by Chris and Jordan, or with an X-H2S, so wasn't in any way factored into what they said in their video.

Richard - DPReview.com

That’s fair enough Richard, and honestly I don’t normally like to criticise anyones photos, in fact generally I despise that kind of thing… but my massive issue here is the feeding frenzy this gallery has induced, and it’s not just on this site either, there are people now all over the rumour site and YouTube etc quoting that article as the status quo for this lens. All because of these early impression images.

It would almost be better if DPreview just didn’t bother posting anything to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Don't assume everyone else agrees with you telling DPreview what they should or shouldn't be publishing. The situation is clearly explained by Richard & anyone reading it will take it on board. If other outlets are going nuts so what? Honestly, SO WHAT?

Plenty of contributors here (and elsewhere) are discussing the pros & cons of the new products & how they relate to their own buying / shooting preferences without getting hysterical. Yet I find a growing number of otherwise interesting threads are ending up with bogus accusations being thrown around when all people are trying to do is have a discussion. (Hint: not EVERYONE thinks that the sun shines out of Fuji's X mount ALL of the time).

I simply don't understand the mania of defending an inanimate object to the point absurdity.

M.

Firstly, lets address the nonsense that is your first sentence, where the hell did I ever say that I assume everybody agrees with me?

Is this the same sample gallery article that has been deleted?

As for the rest of your comment, im not even addressing it... if you are too immature to understand the point of this discussion I can't help you.

'It would almost be better if DPreview just didn’t bother posting anything to avoid this kind of nonsense.'

Sorry, but if you think a blanket statement like this isn't all about YOUR opinion then I simply can't help you. Do not assume you speak for others just because you're shouting the loudest.

M.

mr_marlo wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

mr_marlo wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Richard Butler wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Alan Hewitt Photo wrote:

I’m 100% convinced I would be able to get fantastic images from this camera and lens combo… Chris and Jordan have had a stinker in their review, plain and simple. And all it’s doing is fuelling the Fuji troll train.

I’ve read elsewhere that they admit to not having it set up correctly, is that true?

Yeah possibly Alan, maybe in the video... the sample gallery of the 150-600 is woeful, loads of weird settings by the looks of it too, lowish shutter speeds like 1/200 (which I personally would avoid using at long focal lengths even for still subjects) and narrow apertures when it should have been wide open.

The 150-600mm gallery wasn't shot by Chris and Jordan, or with an X-H2S, so wasn't in any way factored into what they said in their video.

Richard - DPReview.com

That’s fair enough Richard, and honestly I don’t normally like to criticise anyones photos, in fact generally I despise that kind of thing… but my massive issue here is the feeding frenzy this gallery has induced, and it’s not just on this site either, there are people now all over the rumour site and YouTube etc quoting that article as the status quo for this lens. All because of these early impression images.

It would almost be better if DPreview just didn’t bother posting anything to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Don't assume everyone else agrees with you telling DPreview what they should or shouldn't be publishing. The situation is clearly explained by Richard & anyone reading it will take it on board. If other outlets are going nuts so what? Honestly, SO WHAT?

Plenty of contributors here (and elsewhere) are discussing the pros & cons of the new products & how they relate to their own buying / shooting preferences without getting hysterical. Yet I find a growing number of otherwise interesting threads are ending up with bogus accusations being thrown around when all people are trying to do is have a discussion. (Hint: not EVERYONE thinks that the sun shines out of Fuji's X mount ALL of the time).

I simply don't understand the mania of defending an inanimate object to the point absurdity.

M.

Firstly, lets address the nonsense that is your first sentence, where the hell did I ever say that I assume everybody agrees with me?

Is this the same sample gallery article that has been deleted?

As for the rest of your comment, im not even addressing it... if you are too immature to understand the point of this discussion I can't help you.

'It would almost be better if DPreview just didn’t bother posting anything to avoid this kind of nonsense.'

Sorry, but if you think a blanket statement like this isn't all about YOUR opinion then I simply can't help you. Do not assume you speak for others just because your shouting the loudest.

M.

That’s exactly my opinion, I haven’t asked for agreement from anyone, I was simply giving my opinion so stop getting your knickers in a twist. 
The comments on the now removed article were toxic, some of the resulting comments in here were toxic, the comments on Fujirumors were extremely toxic, and the comments on the various YouTube videos were also toxic, and all of them pointed to this sample gallery as the source. 
When a company (any company) develops and releases a product, you don’t think it’s good practise to present that product in true light? Especially since this site holds so much sway amongst consumers.

I’ll address the fan boy part, I have made the same statement about people being toxic about many products, from brands I’ll never use, because the point here is about not feeding trolls with ammo to fuel their crusade.

Stuart VC wrote:

mr_marlo wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

mr_marlo wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Richard Butler wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Alan Hewitt Photo wrote:

I’m 100% convinced I would be able to get fantastic images from this camera and lens combo… Chris and Jordan have had a stinker in their review, plain and simple. And all it’s doing is fuelling the Fuji troll train.

I’ve read elsewhere that they admit to not having it set up correctly, is that true?

Yeah possibly Alan, maybe in the video... the sample gallery of the 150-600 is woeful, loads of weird settings by the looks of it too, lowish shutter speeds like 1/200 (which I personally would avoid using at long focal lengths even for still subjects) and narrow apertures when it should have been wide open.

The 150-600mm gallery wasn't shot by Chris and Jordan, or with an X-H2S, so wasn't in any way factored into what they said in their video.

Richard - DPReview.com

That’s fair enough Richard, and honestly I don’t normally like to criticise anyones photos, in fact generally I despise that kind of thing… but my massive issue here is the feeding frenzy this gallery has induced, and it’s not just on this site either, there are people now all over the rumour site and YouTube etc quoting that article as the status quo for this lens. All because of these early impression images.

It would almost be better if DPreview just didn’t bother posting anything to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Don't assume everyone else agrees with you telling DPreview what they should or shouldn't be publishing. The situation is clearly explained by Richard & anyone reading it will take it on board. If other outlets are going nuts so what? Honestly, SO WHAT?

Plenty of contributors here (and elsewhere) are discussing the pros & cons of the new products & how they relate to their own buying / shooting preferences without getting hysterical. Yet I find a growing number of otherwise interesting threads are ending up with bogus accusations being thrown around when all people are trying to do is have a discussion. (Hint: not EVERYONE thinks that the sun shines out of Fuji's X mount ALL of the time).

I simply don't understand the mania of defending an inanimate object to the point absurdity.

M.

Firstly, lets address the nonsense that is your first sentence, where the hell did I ever say that I assume everybody agrees with me?

Is this the same sample gallery article that has been deleted?

As for the rest of your comment, im not even addressing it... if you are too immature to understand the point of this discussion I can't help you.

'It would almost be better if DPreview just didn’t bother posting anything to avoid this kind of nonsense.'

Sorry, but if you think a blanket statement like this isn't all about YOUR opinion then I simply can't help you. Do not assume you speak for others just because your shouting the loudest.

M.

That’s exactly my opinion, I haven’t asked for agreement from anyone, I was simply giving my opinion so stop getting your knickers in a twist.
The comments on the now removed article were toxic, some of the resulting comments in here were toxic, the comments on Fujirumors were extremely toxic, and the comments on the various YouTube videos were also toxic, and all of them pointed to this sample gallery as the source.
When a company (any company) develops and releases a product, you don’t think it’s good practise to present that product in true light? Especially since this site holds so much sway amongst consumers.

I’ll address the fan boy part, I have made the same statement about people being toxic about many products, from brands I’ll never use, because the point here is about not feeding trolls with ammo to fuel their crusade.

But why do I get the impression that you're being overzealous? That you're contributing in some way to the toxicity in some of the threads I've been reading?

You do not need to put yourself out to DEFEND Fuji, it's just bloody tiresome. You have some valid points in some of these threads but the defensiveness towards the brand is just silly. Fuji are big boys (relatively) and can defend themselves.

We don't need a World Police, we've had enough of that crap these last 2 years.

M.

mr_marlo wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

mr_marlo wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

mr_marlo wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Richard Butler wrote:

Stuart VC wrote:

Alan Hewitt Photo wrote:

I’m 100% convinced I would be able to get fantastic images from this camera and lens combo… Chris and Jordan have had a stinker in their review, plain and simple. And all it’s doing is fuelling the Fuji troll train.

I’ve read elsewhere that they admit to not having it set up correctly, is that true?

Yeah possibly Alan, maybe in the video... the sample gallery of the 150-600 is woeful, loads of weird settings by the looks of it too, lowish shutter speeds like 1/200 (which I personally would avoid using at long focal lengths even for still subjects) and narrow apertures when it should have been wide open.

The 150-600mm gallery wasn't shot by Chris and Jordan, or with an X-H2S, so wasn't in any way factored into what they said in their video.

Richard - DPReview.com

That’s fair enough Richard, and honestly I don’t normally like to criticise anyones photos, in fact generally I despise that kind of thing… but my massive issue here is the feeding frenzy this gallery has induced, and it’s not just on this site either, there are people now all over the rumour site and YouTube etc quoting that article as the status quo for this lens. All because of these early impression images.

It would almost be better if DPreview just didn’t bother posting anything to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Don't assume everyone else agrees with you telling DPreview what they should or shouldn't be publishing. The situation is clearly explained by Richard & anyone reading it will take it on board. If other outlets are going nuts so what? Honestly, SO WHAT?

Plenty of contributors here (and elsewhere) are discussing the pros & cons of the new products & how they relate to their own buying / shooting preferences without getting hysterical. Yet I find a growing number of otherwise interesting threads are ending up with bogus accusations being thrown around when all people are trying to do is have a discussion. (Hint: not EVERYONE thinks that the sun shines out of Fuji's X mount ALL of the time).

I simply don't understand the mania of defending an inanimate object to the point absurdity.

M.

Firstly, lets address the nonsense that is your first sentence, where the hell did I ever say that I assume everybody agrees with me?

Is this the same sample gallery article that has been deleted?

As for the rest of your comment, im not even addressing it... if you are too immature to understand the point of this discussion I can't help you.

'It would almost be better if DPreview just didn’t bother posting anything to avoid this kind of nonsense.'

Sorry, but if you think a blanket statement like this isn't all about YOUR opinion then I simply can't help you. Do not assume you speak for others just because your shouting the loudest.

M.

That’s exactly my opinion, I haven’t asked for agreement from anyone, I was simply giving my opinion so stop getting your knickers in a twist.
The comments on the now removed article were toxic, some of the resulting comments in here were toxic, the comments on Fujirumors were extremely toxic, and the comments on the various YouTube videos were also toxic, and all of them pointed to this sample gallery as the source.
When a company (any company) develops and releases a product, you don’t think it’s good practise to present that product in true light? Especially since this site holds so much sway amongst consumers.

I’ll address the fan boy part, I have made the same statement about people being toxic about many products, from brands I’ll never use, because the point here is about not feeding trolls with ammo to fuel their crusade.

But why do I get the impression that you're being overzealous? That you're contributing in some way to the toxicity in some of the threads I've been reading?

You do not need to put yourself out to DEFEND Fuji, it's just bloody tiresome. You have some valid points in some of these threads but the defensiveness towards the brand is just silly. Fuji are big boys (relatively) and can defend themselves.

We don't need a World Police, we've had enough of that crap these last 2 years.

M.

It’s not about Fuji, i couldn’t care less about Fuji. It’s about misinformation and the damage it can do, especially in this age of internet. It’s also not about world police, you’re being over dramatic there, the very thing you’re attempting to accuse me of.

The fact is, Alan put out a blog with his thoughts and images he has taken with this new camera and lens, they are clearly of a high quality. You then head to the now removed DPreview sample gallery and the image quality difference is stark, there is clearly some issue here outside of the product itself, yet to a man every single person who wants to interpret those images in a certain way, have. 
If you can’t see the importance of ensuring you have provided bulletproof factual information for people view in these times of ‘fake news’ then you need to wake up to what is happening in the world. People are latching onto anything they can get hold of in order to suit an agenda, as long as they feel they can present it as absolute fact.

Fun fact from me, I don’t get involved in being negative about ANY brand, I never visit other brands rumour sites, or their forums, and rarely comment on their articles…. So your assertion that I’m defending Fuji is off the mark, you might as well say that about all the other brands too, becasue I would do the same on there.

All I’m interested in is being open and honest, I share my photos, I use my real name, I use my real geographical location and my gear list is honest… the only thing I don’t share is my surname, and that is purely because the internet is littered with exactly the type of people who don’t need to be knowing it.