Having a tough time choosing XH2 vs. XH2S

[JohnJohn12]

I'm having a difficult time choosing between teh X-H2 or the X-H2S...

I'm an enthusiast who wants to shoot landscapes and my kids' baseball sports.

Resolution & Detail

I like the idea of the XH2 40 MP for landscapes, versus the XH2S 26 MP. I also like the idea that I can crop an image and enlarge it, and was thinking 40 MP would be better than 26 MP.

However, from the YT comparison reviews, and from jpeg sample photos I've found on the internet, I can't really see the difference between 40 MP vs 26 MP when zoom'd in. But those tests didn't offer me RAW files, and the tests were using older lenses. So I'm not sure there's a noticeable megapixel advantage when cropped and enlarged.

Frame Rate

The X-H2S has 40 fps, versus 15 fps on the X-H2. I like the idea that I might be able to capture a different facial expression, or the bat swing, or where the ball is at. The ball and bat are moving fast, so 40 fps might be an advantage...but very curious how much an advantage I'm going to get on 25 extra frames. I also don't need to capture every swing/pitch/throw or every game. I just need to capture a few for the season.

If I did my math correctly, an 80 MPH baseball would mean either a frame every 7.5 feet @ 15 fps or 2.8 feet @ 40 fps.

Being able to crop and enlarge, without noise, an emotional/effort expression is a priority over where the bat/ball is at. But I haven't seen any reviews or evidence there's a difference between 26 vs. 40 MP. So unless I can see a megapixel difference, frame rate would be more noticeable.

Please help me decide.

 

[Kaoticphoto]

honestly you are not going to shoot the Olympics games, are amateur photos of your kids.

any modern camera will be fine, just buy the one you like more if you are in GAS.

just saying , but in a lot of situations a fixed frame and focus can do the job. .

even the xh2s can't track well at 40 fps, personally i never go over 20.fps if i need af

 

[John Gellings]

I'm having a difficult time choosing between teh X-H2 or the X-H2S...

I'm an enthusiast who wants to shoot landscapes and my kids' baseball sports.

Well, kid´s baseball games you should be able to handle with any modern camera.

Resolution & Detail

I like the idea of the XH2 40 MP for landscapes, versus the XH2S 26 MP. I also like the idea that I can crop an image and enlarge it, and was thinking 40 MP would be better than 26 MP.

However, from the YT comparison reviews, and from jpeg sample photos I've found on the internet, I can't really see the difference between 40 MP vs 26 MP when zoom'd in. But those tests didn't offer me RAW files, and the tests were using older lenses. So I'm not sure there's a noticeable megapixel advantage when cropped and enlarged.

Well, do you want to print big? If not, then it really does not matter. 40mp is simply a few more inches of print size at 300dpi. It comes in handy for printing big. Cropping, well it depends...you can crop a little and be at 26mp...but it isn't like a super zoom. And what did you expect to see at 100%? They will both be sharp at that percentage. It is their native size output. In order to double the print size in MPs, you need to quadruple the MP number. So, in order to double the 26mp in print size, you'd need a 104mp sensor. With that in mind, you can see that a 14mp increase in MPs isn't exactly some huge difference.

Frame Rate

The X-H2S has 40 fps, versus 15 fps on the X-H2. I like the idea that I might be able to capture a different facial expression, or the bat swing, or where the ball is at. The ball and bat are moving fast, so 40 fps might be an advantage...but very curious how much an advantage I'm going to get on 25 extra frames. I also don't need to capture every swing/pitch/throw or every game. I just need to capture a few for the season.

40fps is faster than a typical video FPS. 15fps is ridiculously fast. If you cannot catch your kids with 15fps, it has nothing to do with the camera. I shot skateboarding sequences in the 90s on film with 3fps! haha.

If I did my math correctly, an 80 MPH baseball would mean either a frame every 7.5 feet @ 15 fps or 2.8 feet @ 40 fps.

Hmmm, when you say it like that... I see your point. However, there's still something to be said for pulling the trigger at the right time. This is hard, but I truly think 15fps will be fine.

Being able to crop and enlarge, without noise, an emotional/effort expression is a priority over where the bat/ball is at. But I haven't seen any reviews or evidence there's a difference between 26 vs. 40 MP. So unless I can see a megapixel difference, frame rate would be more noticeable.

Please help me decide.

The difference at 300dpi is a 14x21" print vs. a 17 x 25.5" print. It is that simple. So basically, once you start printing over 14x21", you will start seeing a difference between the two.

--
https://www.johngellings.com
Instagram = @johngellings0

 

[baobob]

even the xh2s can't track well at 40 fps, personally i never go over 20.fps if i need af

same here. Morris proposed to use 40 fps with the assumption that eventually you could get more keepers...

Never made the comparison..

 

[baobob]

Having both I can tell you that there is in the field very little difference in catching minute details berween the 2 sensors.

The key of the choice IMO is whether or not you need the stacked sensor tht allows quasi permanent use of ES, definitly an asset with quasi,silent shooting and no RS effect. (and the use of the flash !) plus of course the speed.

 

[Yannis1976]

I'm having a difficult time choosing between teh X-H2 or the X-H2S...

I'm an enthusiast who wants to shoot landscapes and my kids' baseball sports.

Resolution & Detail

I like the idea of the XH2 40 MP for landscapes, versus the XH2S 26 MP. I also like the idea that I can crop an image and enlarge it, and was thinking 40 MP would be better than 26 MP.

However, from the YT comparison reviews, and from jpeg sample photos I've found on the internet, I can't really see the difference between 40 MP vs 26 MP when zoom'd in. But those tests didn't offer me RAW files, and the tests were using older lenses. So I'm not sure there's a noticeable megapixel advantage when cropped and enlarged.

Frame Rate

The X-H2S has 40 fps, versus 15 fps on the X-H2. I like the idea that I might be able to capture a different facial expression, or the bat swing, or where the ball is at. The ball and bat are moving fast, so 40 fps might be an advantage...but very curious how much an advantage I'm going to get on 25 extra frames. I also don't need to capture every swing/pitch/throw or every game. I just need to capture a few for the season.

If I did my math correctly, an 80 MPH baseball would mean either a frame every 7.5 feet @ 15 fps or 2.8 feet @ 40 fps.

Being able to crop and enlarge, without noise, an emotional/effort expression is a priority over where the bat/ball is at. But I haven't seen any reviews or evidence there's a difference between 26 vs. 40 MP. So unless I can see a megapixel difference, frame rate would be more noticeable.

Please help me decide.

I think you overthink it a bit... Both cameras are good for your purpose.

Personally I went with the XT5 (XH2) because of the sensor and its higher cropping space. I have no regrets at all. I find the XH2S super high fps more suited to specific applications which neither landscape nor your kids playing baseball are.

I have taken many BIF shots with the XT5 and it works fine even with its reduced fps and smaller buffer than the XH2.

Check below:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66968083

https://flic.kr/p/2oo7Rx6

https://flic.kr/p/2okENNu

https://flic.kr/p/2ocAqsA

 

[yatesd]

If price was the exact same, then I would have went with the 2S.

That is not the case at all. The S is 25% more expensive with very little real world advantages unless you are a professional.

I upgraded from the XT-2, so the natural upgrade would have been the XT-5. I never really liked the dials versus my Nikon and missed the more flexible PASM settings.

IMHO the X-H2 is better than the XT-5 in every way but size. Larger buffer, butter EVF, better video, same robust build quality as the H2S, along with the flexibility of a CF Card.

I upgraded to the H2, but no way could I justify an additional $500 for the S version. Instead, I used those funds to upgrade the CF Card, Flash, and Mic.

Good luck, there is no bad decision!

 

[GMacF]

If price was the exact same, then I would have went with the 2S.

That is not the case at all. The S is 25% more expensive with very little real world advantages unless you are a professional.

I upgraded from the XT-2, so the natural upgrade would have been the XT-5. I never really liked the dials versus my Nikon and missed the more flexible PASM settings.

IMHO the X-H2 is better than the XT-5 in every way but size. Larger buffer, butter EVF, better video, same robust build quality as the H2S, along with the flexibility of a CF Card.

I actually viewed the CF card as more of a hindrance than anything - it was the one thing that initially put me off purchasing the X-H2s. In the end I got a deal where card was included for free. For my own needs, dual SD slots were perfectly adequate (and cheaper).

I upgraded to the H2, but no way could I justify an additional $500 for the S version. Instead, I used those funds to upgrade the CF Card, Flash, and Mic.

Good luck, there is no bad decision!

 

[s200]

The S is 25% more expensive with very little real world advantages unless you are a professional.

If it’s the case that the S gets a greater proportion of shots in perfect focus, that has to be worth something. And I don’t just mean burst shots.

 

[Jerry-astro]

If price was the exact same, then I would have went with the 2S.

That is not the case at all. The S is 25% more expensive with very little real world advantages unless you are a professional.

I don't think any of this has to do with a photographer's amateur vs. professional status. What's more relevant in such a decision is the value of the additional performance you get with the H2S when tracking motion. If your primary genre is landscape photography, the X-H2 is sort of a no-brainer. However, if you plan to photograph wildlife (e.g. birds) -- particularly in motion -- then the additional speed and performance of the H2S would be a far better choice. It seems pretty simple... the H2 prioritizes detail and resolution where the H2S prioritizes performance. IMHO, that should be the primary criteria for deciding between the two cameras, cost notwithstanding.

I upgraded from the XT-2, so the natural upgrade would have been the XT-5. I never really liked the dials versus my Nikon and missed the more flexible PASM settings.

IMHO the X-H2 is better than the XT-5 in every way but size. Larger buffer, butter EVF, better video, same robust build quality as the H2S, along with the flexibility of a CF Card.

I upgraded to the H2, but no way could I justify an additional $500 for the S version. Instead, I used those funds to upgrade the CF Card, Flash, and Mic.

Good luck, there is no bad decision!

 

[yatesd]

If price was the exact same, then I would have went with the 2S.

That is not the case at all. The S is 25% more expensive with very little real world advantages unless you are a professional.

I don't think any of this has to do with a photographer's amateur vs. professional status. What's more relevant in such a decision is the value of the additional performance you get with the H2S when tracking motion. If your primary genre is landscape photography, the X-H2 is sort of a no-brainer. However, if you plan to photograph wildlife (e.g. birds) -- particularly in motion -- then the additional speed and performance of the H2S would be a far better choice. It seems pretty simple... the H2 prioritizes detail and resolution where the H2S prioritizes performance. IMHO, that should be the primary criteria for deciding between the two cameras, cost notwithstanding.

I upgraded from the XT-2, so the natural upgrade would have been the XT-5. I never really liked the dials versus my Nikon and missed the more flexible PASM settings.

IMHO the X-H2 is better than the XT-5 in every way but size. Larger buffer, butter EVF, better video, same robust build quality as the H2S, along with the flexibility of a CF Card.

I upgraded to the H2, but no way could I justify an additional $500 for the S version. Instead, I used those funds to upgrade the CF Card, Flash, and Mic.

Good luck, there is no bad decision!

It’s not that simple…we tend to live in a world where the same neighbor owns a Tesla and an SUV and couldn’t imagine the reasonable compromise of something in between.

With your analogy, anyone who likes to take pictures of moving objects or video shouldn’t consider an X-T5 which is ridiculous, and even more ridiculous to suggest the same for the model that has a few additional advantages in these areas.

Taking this further; nothing to do with amateur or professional, then a person should simply choose a top of the line full frame Sony or Canon if tracking is important. Again, everyone makes compromises, and an amateur like me often makes a decision to not spend $5K or $500 unnecessarily.

Keep in mind anyone buying an X-T5, X-H2, or XH2S is still spending considerably more than the average consumer to meet their goals.

 

[noorhe]

What Jerry is saying that you got to use the right tool for the job.. if your main goal is shooting birds, or motors sports then pick the XH2S. No one said you can't use XT5 or XH2 for not shooting fast paced action. Heck, you could take a fast action pic with GFX too, if it came down to it, but again, pick the right tool for the job. That's all Jerry is saying.

 

[Jerry-astro]

What Jerry is saying that you got to use the right tool for the job.. if your main goal is shooting birds, or motors sports then pick the XH2S. No one said you can't use XT5 or XH2 for not shooting fast paced action. Heck, you could take a fast action pic with GFX too, if it came down to it, but again, pick the right tool for the job. That's all Jerry is saying.

Yup, spot on. Each of these cameras are optimized for different usages, with the H2S designed for optimal speed and the H2 for optimal detail and resolution. That’s not to say the either camera could not be used for other usages as well. However, if you’re pushing the envelope and looking for the best performance in situations where you’re trying to keep up with fast moving subjects, for example, the X-H2S will deliver better performance. The X-H2 will offer the highest resolution and detail for printing large and rendering very fine detail. As with any camera, that does not restrict photographers from using the camera for other types of photography… it’s simply a matter of the types of photography that each camera is optimized for and does the best. Clearly, if you wish to use an X-H2S for a fashion shoot, there’s nothing holding you back… but it may not be the very best tool available for that job.

 

[Jon555]

I'm having a difficult time choosing between the X-H2 or the X-H2S...

I'm an enthusiast who wants to shoot landscapes and my kids' baseball sports.

Resolution & Detail

I like the idea of the XH2 40 MP for landscapes, versus the XH2S 26 MP. I also like the idea that I can crop an image and enlarge it, and was thinking 40 MP would be better than 26 MP.

However, from the YT comparison reviews, and from jpeg sample photos I've found on the internet, I can't really see the difference between 40 MP vs 26 MP when zoom'd in. But those tests didn't offer me RAW files, and the tests were using older lenses. So I'm not sure there's a noticeable megapixel advantage when cropped and enlarged.

Frame Rate

The X-H2S has 40 fps, versus 15 fps on the X-H2. I like the idea that I might be able to capture a different facial expression, or the bat swing, or where the ball is at. The ball and bat are moving fast, so 40 fps might be an advantage...but very curious how much an advantage I'm going to get on 25 extra frames. I also don't need to capture every swing/pitch/throw or every game. I just need to capture a few for the season.

If I did my math correctly, an 80 MPH baseball would mean either a frame every 7.5 feet @ 15 fps or 2.8 feet @ 40 fps.

Being able to crop and enlarge, without noise, an emotional/effort expression is a priority over where the bat/ball is at. But I haven't seen any reviews or evidence there's a difference between 26 vs. 40 MP. So unless I can see a megapixel difference, frame rate would be more noticeable.

Please help me decide.

It's tricky, and partly depends on what you'd use the price difference for (and if it matters). I'd be tempted to see if you can play with both somewhere and see what you think of the AF differences, as the faster readout speed of the S allegedly helps there. I had issues with both of them and the new 56/1.2 BTW.

The S would be better for video. But with a sharp lens lots of pixels can be fun... and save money on having to buy expensive long lenses to get reach.

Also while usually if you only shoot really fast fps rarely (e.g. for ball A hitting object B) then you can just shoot hi-res video with still-photo settings and extract a frame, provided the exposure is good, BUT rolling shutter would mean that was problematic on the XH2 and you don't care on the XH2S.

A couple of shots (sorry, I don't have Raws, was just playing, oh and the date wasn't set on the cameras)...

 

[MichaelFrederickPhoto]

I just got the H2 a couple weeks ago as I wanted the higher MP resolution for street/landscape shooting. I was tired of lugging a FF based rig as the lenses are heavy.

I have the R6 for my speed needs and paid portrait work. The H2 is for personal artsy shoots and landscapes. I have the Viltrox 13-33-75 lenses now and getting the Sigma 18-50 next weekend. Watching for the 27mm 1.2 that is coming. Also with the H2, I have more cropping room that the 75mm is my longest lens I pan on owning.

I have been extremely impressed with the H2 resolution and colors. I even shot a paid shoot with a rented 16-55 XF 2.8 and client loved the pics. My plan is to get the EF adapter to use my 70-200 on the occasional shoots that need reach.

 

[Handiworks]

Being in the market for an X-H2, this thread was very helpful. Wanted to thank everyone for their experiences, photos, and thoughts.

I may have to look into the X-H2s a bit more closely . I'm fairly certain the H will meet my needs but fast accurate AF on my A7iv is one of my more needed features on it (active kids). 15fps will be fine for me though.

 

[Lidodido]

I recently watched one review between 40mp and 26mp and he said once you printed above about 2-3ft on the long side you only see a difference in detail if you looked closer than 1-1.5ft to image.

I think I saw the same YT video. What I don't remember discussed was cropping. For example, you can take the frame and print it for a 3 foot poster (which I have no plans), or you can crop a portion of that frame and enlarge that cropped area to the equivalent of a frame.

So my interest isn't enlarging a frame to a printed 3 foot poster. But cropping part of a frame, and enlarging the cropped area to something I'm going to see on a 77" TV screen. I might later do some prints too...but not 3 feet.

A 4K TV is like 8-9 mpixels. The 26 mpixel sensor is plenty to crop from. I'd say that catching the right moment with the right focus is more important, even if you'd have to crop to the point where the smaller resolution sensor is closer to its limit.

Do you want a high resolution picture of the wrong moment, or a lower resolution of the perfect moment?

Also, higher resolution means more storage required. Also, the higher frame rate isn't just for getting more pictures. It's about the stacked sensor providing more frames for autofocus, which means that even at the same 15fps it'll probably have an easier time focusing between shots (not that I've seen tests that prove this, but in theory).

 

[Jon555]

I recently watched one review between 40mp and 26mp and he said once you printed above about 2-3ft on the long side you only see a difference in detail if you looked closer than 1-1.5ft to image.

I think I saw the same YT video. What I don't remember discussed was cropping. For example, you can take the frame and print it for a 3 foot poster (which I have no plans), or you can crop a portion of that frame and enlarge that cropped area to the equivalent of a frame.

So my interest isn't enlarging a frame to a printed 3 foot poster. But cropping part of a frame, and enlarging the cropped area to something I'm going to see on a 77" TV screen. I might later do some prints too...but not 3 feet.

A 4K TV is like 8-9 mpixels. The 26 mpixel sensor is plenty to crop from. I'd say that catching the right moment with the right focus is more important, even if you'd have to crop to the point where the smaller resolution sensor is closer to its limit.

Do you want a high resolution picture of the wrong moment, or a lower resolution of the perfect moment?

Also, higher resolution means more storage required. Also, the higher frame rate isn't just for getting more pictures. It's about the stacked sensor providing more frames for autofocus, which means that even at the same 15fps it'll probably have an easier time focusing between shots (not that I've seen tests that prove this, but in theory).

UHS is 3840 wide, X-H2s is 6240 wide, so you can crop 1.6x (400mm->640mm FoV)
UHS is 3840 wide, X-H2 7728 wide, so you can crop 2x (400m->800mm FoV)
But the X-H2 image will be smaller so at risk of greater noise.

You'll need more storage shooting flat-out with the X-H2s tho...
26MP at 40fps is 1040MP/s
40MP at 20fps is 800MP/s
(I suspect you won't miss much at 20fps though.)

The point about the poor rolling shutter on the X-H2 is a good one.

I think the X-H2s does autofocus better, but they aren't either quite class leading. (I shot both with the new 56/1.2 and the hit rate was less that I was expecting, but others have said this too after playing with them for way longer than me, so go with other's opinions over mine. I'm not saying it's bad, needs some tweaking. Since they use the same image processors as everyone except Canon and Sony they should be able to be at least as good as everyone else in a firmware version or two.)