What's the deal with the X-T5 autofocus?

Richard_WNY wrote:

I am happy to hear about the options. Please list a couple cameras in this price range that have no trouble with Continuous Autofocus tracking. Please don't include the A7. The Sony A7 body is $2495, and the Sony quality primes are $1395 each.

Thanks.

c0nfund0 wrote:

BeatX wrote:

jaberg wrote:

BeatX wrote:

When reading reviews about X-H2s vs X-H2, it's very clear that more precise AF in X-H2s in continuous tracking mode, works better and more reliable because more computing power in X-H2s compared to X-H2.

The XH2 and XH2S use the same processor. They have the same amount of computing power. Any advantage the “S” has in terms of tracking accuracy are due to the stacked sensor and having fewer pixels to process — not computing power.

Yes, You are right

Guess it can also depend how you define computing power.

Raw processor speed they are the same. However, if defined as frames per second calculated it isn't.

Wonder if Fuji tried to minimize costs by using a processor that is just barely enough and didn't leave much headroom. Might be the reason for choppy refresh rate of AF box tracking in the viewfinder. Distribute computing power for other functions. Gives a less sticky experience than Sony/Canon.

I believe the processor is exactly the same. But the X-H2 models have a bigger buffer than X-T5, and X-H2S can shoot highest FPS due to faster data read of the stacked sensor. Someone will correct me if I’m wrong…

Geekapoo wrote:

Richard_WNY wrote:

I am happy to hear about the options. Please list a couple cameras in this price range that have no trouble with Continuous Autofocus tracking. Please don't include the A7. The Sony A7 body is $2495, and the Sony quality primes are $1395 each.

Thanks.

Richard
https://www.flickr.com/photos/154538030@N02/albums

Well, if compare/contrast is with the XT3 or XT4, my Sony RX10IV bridge zoom camera easily had better AF-C tracking..which is why I dropped Fuji like a bad habit for Sony (now also have an A7RIV and a A9ll). Don't know how good the XH2 models are and don't care much. Got tired of (literally) buying into Fuji's AF-C improvements hype. Obviously YMMV but interesting to see people still complaining about Fuji AF-C, they are far from best in class.

Oh and a RX10IV can be bought for ~$950 used.

I love the AF-C on my RX10IV but the X-H2 with Tamron 150-500mm gives better reach and I get pretty good AF-C results from the combination.

But when I want a lightweight capable camera with long-range the RZ10M4 is the answer.

Night Pixel wrote:

Geekapoo wrote:

Richard_WNY wrote:

I am happy to hear about the options. Please list a couple cameras in this price range that have no trouble with Continuous Autofocus tracking. Please don't include the A7. The Sony A7 body is $2495, and the Sony quality primes are $1395 each.

Thanks.

Richard
https://www.flickr.com/photos/154538030@N02/albums

Well, if compare/contrast is with the XT3 or XT4, my Sony RX10IV bridge zoom camera easily had better AF-C tracking..which is why I dropped Fuji like a bad habit for Sony (now also have an A7RIV and a A9ll). Don't know how good the XH2 models are and don't care much. Got tired of (literally) buying into Fuji's AF-C improvements hype. Obviously YMMV but interesting to see people still complaining about Fuji AF-C, they are far from best in class.

Oh and a RX10IV can be bought for ~$950 used.

I love the AF-C on my RX10IV but the X-H2 with Tamron 150-500mm gives better reach and I get pretty good AF-C results from the combination.

But when I want a lightweight capable camera with long-range the RZ10M4 is the answer.

craigwell47 wrote:

Trying to figure who is right after this friendly debate. My Fuji X-T2 never knew it was so unloved; considered a relic in the world of autofocusing stuck with Fuji 16mm f1,4 for its sins. My X-T3 now considers itself superior to my X-T2 after these insults. Anyway prefer my X-T2. Birds to be avoided in future. Fuji may not be too worried as there is no such thing as bad publicity; so they say. TESLAS break down too; if not charged.

In the end, what matters is the pictures that you take with a camera.  Not someone else or if someone else has trouble using a camera.  What matters is that you can use the camera effectively.  Rent or borrow if you can to see

Morris

gdanmitchell wrote:

RobRoy22 wrote:

I believe the processor is exactly the same. But the X-H2 models have a bigger buffer than X-T5, and X-H2S can shoot highest FPS due to faster data read of the stacked sensor. Someone will correct me if I’m wrong…

My understanding mirrors yours on this.

What this means is that for photographers who require the very fastest burst-mode performance, the XH2 and (esp.) the XH2s will get them optimal performance.

Most photographers, however, will find that the XT5 has plenty of performance, enough so that if they prefer the XT5 for reasons of size, price, or the interface there is no reason to get the XH2 or XH2s.

As always, it isn't enough to just note that the specs are "better." It matters quite a bit whether the "better-ness" is going to have a meaningful effect on one's photography. There's no single right answer to that question.

Indeed. I’m delighted that Fujifilm launched 3 new cameras over a relatively [IMO] short period. I was tempted by the X-H2s, but waited knowing there would be a variant with a different sensor, and by the time I was mulling the differences between these two, the X-T5 was on the horizon. For me, this was the preferred option, based on my kind of photography, and loving the traditional controls of my X-T4.

The point is it’s great that Fuiji offers such a great choice of bodies depending on priorities, preferences and budget. Not forgetting the wide range of lenses. Sure, everyone has their favourites (and some they dislike for valid reasons) but the choice is there.