Why the X-H2S is not popular

[JNR]

If I was heavily into action stills or action video shooting, there is no question I would want to have the X-H2S body. I think Fujifilm did the right thing to try to attract those shooters to the brand by offering this specialized body. It is a very good specialized tool and it earned the same 90 rating here as the X-T5. Both got their legit ratings.

However, the existing X-body users tend to: 1) Primarily shoot other types of situations, 2) Prefer traditional rather than PASM, 3) Want the highest IQ for the majority of (non-action) situations, and/or 4) As APSc shooters, prefer a smaller, lighter body, if possible.

Both Photons to Photos charting, and the actual testing by DPreview indicate that the 26s sensor falls a bit short when it comes to dynamic range and noise in the shadows. In fact, the real world images and test charts indicate that the old 26mp sensor is clearly better, and even the 40mp sensor is slightly better both natively and when pushed to high ISO. In reality, the old 24mp sensor pretty much matches the 26s. (Keep in mind that the larger sensor is down-sampled here - which puts it at a bit of a disadvantage.)





I think this part of the review really had an impact for existing Fuji users:

If we look at a base ISO image, raised up to the level of an ISO 3200 shot with the same exposure, you can see there's a distinct increase in noise. It's more than the X-T4 and the difference widens in the darker tones... It's a similar story if we look at base ISO images underexposed and then brightened (as you might when shooting a high-contrast scene). You can see that the X-H2S is noticeably noisier than the X-T4 in the very deepest shadows...

These aren't huge differences, but for those of us who are primarily stills shooters and don't shoot action or video for clients, there is good reason to opt for the alternatives regardless of price.

I appreciate that Fujifilm has tailored different offerings based on what various-type shooters actually most need.

--
JNR

 

[jhorse]

Interesting take. What evidence is there that it is not popular? How is popular defined?

If it is selling at a higher rate that the sales planning assumption inside Fuji, then by one metric it is sufficiently popular to make a profit.

When I bought my XT5, I looked seriously at the XH2s for sport and if that was my main photo genre, then I would have opted for it (there are some fantastic XH2s photo examples on this forum). However, sport is but one of several genres for me so I opted the XT5. It would be interesting to see the annual sales figures for each and then we could judge popularity by one objective metric.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

According to photonstophotos





The for DR and noise performance the XHS2 is on par with the previous generation 26 MP BSI sensor (XT4) and a little better then the high resolution sensor.

There seems to be little downside to the XH2S - especially after the second gain point where it outperforms both the XT5 and XT4.

--
"The winds of heaven is that which blows between a horse's ears," Bedouin Proverb
__
Truman
DPR Co-MOD - Fuji X
www.tprevattimages.com

 

[MrAndreas]

I think this is a long-known, inevitable tradeoff of a stacked sensor - you get 1/180 readout speed and zero RS, but you also get a bit more shadow noise in exchange. Good that we have enough information now (test, reviews) to back the conscious, informed purchase decisions, whatever they be.

 

[Tom in AR]

Would love to have that stacked sensor (and I may still buy one) but with the weight, size (and cost) you can see why other cameras are selected unless you need that speed or are concentrating mainly on video.

 

[JNR]

I'm fairly sure that the sales align with Fuji's projections, but significantly trail the X-T5 based on the explanation I had given. The X-T5 has done well in the DP rankings over time. Fuji is trying to make inroads into the action market - and that is predicably challenging. Keep in mind I'm trying to temper some questionable observations from the now-closed earlier thread on this topic.

 

[JDR1429]

I own an XT5, not an XH2s. It is tempting because I do quite a bit of sports. I think for me, there is a gap in lenses from Fuji in the areas where an XH2s is warranted. That area is sideline, courtside sports. You have the 50-140 then the 200F2, but nothing really in between. You really need a 70-200, 70-300 or 100-300 F4 or 2.8 to match. Plus the 50-140 and 200F2 are older lenses. Maybe great lenses but in people's mind, its a harder sell to buy a new fast focusing camera and then putting a 6-10 year old lens on it.

As for birding, there are some good choices, the 150-600 (although F8) and the new 500mm F5.6 are good choices. Good choices from Sigma and Tamron also.

 

[Mencius]

According to photonstophotos



The for DR and noise performance the XHS2 is on par with the previous generation 26 MP BSI sensor (XT4) and a little better then the high resolution sensor.

There seems to be little downside to the XH2S - especially after the second gain point where it outperforms both the XT5 and XT4.

The one to compare it to purely to see the performance of the 40MP sensor is the X-H2, which for some reason is about 1/3 stop better than the X-T5.

This really puzzles me by the way, why would the X-T5 be worse? I would say measurement error but I saw a post from Bill Claff here somewhere where he said that's not the case for X-T5 vs X-H2.

 

[JNR]

Truman, as moderator you need to hold yourself to a higher standard in presenting the evidence. You cherry pick the dynamic range graphic but then talk about the read noise. You should have posted a different chart.

So let's talk about the base sensor read noise here from P-to-P charts... X-T5 - 1.693, X-T4 - 2.071, X-H2S - 2.532. So, the problem is that the X-T5 is better able to cope with filling the well and goes down to ISO 125 - and provides a cleaner output for several EV stops down as evidenced in the DPReview images (trust your eyes not the charts). You can rightly argue that the X-T5 range is shifted unfairly to the left, but most of us are interested in the actual usable dynamic range - not charts pegged to an artificial ISO designation.

We can get into what's not right about P-to-P methodology (testing images produced from sensors, not the actual sensors that can be measured for incorrect ISO designation), but that isn't the point. How about just going with the eye test? In your case, you lose the argument. You are also denying the actual hard work that was put into the referenced review - right here - where you are a forum moderator.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

The one to compare it to purely to see the performance of the 40MP sensor is the X-H2, which for some reason is about 1/3 stop better than the X-T5.

This really puzzles me by the way, why would the X-T5 be worse? I would say measurement error but I saw a post from Bill Claff here somewhere where he said that's not the case for X-T5 vs X-H2.

The majority of noise today is shot or photon noise which has little to do with the DR or noise performance of the sensor. The charts above related to the limiting factor of the camera, the read noise or electronic noise. Today the read noise is quite low. The read noise is no just the sensor it is the entire camera. Small differences in electronics between different cameras could result from differences in electronics components other than the sensor or maybe even the heat sink. Since photonstophots does not provide error bars on his graphs (probably because he doesn't have enough samples to develop error bars) it is hard to say if the difference between cameras is significant or not.

--
"The winds of heaven is that which blows between a horse's ears," Bedouin Proverb
__
Truman
DPR Co-MOD - Fuji X
www.tprevattimages.com

 

[JNR]

The one to compare it to purely to see the performance of the 40MP sensor is the X-H2, which for some reason is about 1/3 stop better than the X-T5.

This really puzzles me by the way, why would the X-T5 be worse? I would say measurement error but I saw a post from Bill Claff here somewhere where he said that's not the case for X-T5 vs X-H2.

The majority of noise today is shot or photon noise which has little to do with the DR or noise performance of the sensor. The charts above related to the limiting factor of the camera, the read noise or electronic noise. Today the read noise is quite low. The read noise is no just the sensor it is the entire camera. Small differences in electronics between different cameras could result from differences in electronics components other than the sensor or maybe even the heat sink. Since photonstophots does not provide error bars on his graphs (probably because he doesn't have enough samples to develop error bars) it is hard to say if the difference between cameras is significant or not.

I totally agree that read noise is pretty low no matter what, but that base level becomes important in the shadows at EV-6 and beyond. We can talk about it theoretically and in the way P-to-P measures it, or you can look at the results - and trust reliable review analysis. I am much more inclined to accept those real-life results.

As for differences between cameras... I have extensively used both the X-T2 and the X-T20 (individual instances of each) and have found not one nit of difference in the stills images - yet the P-to-P testing gives the X-T20 a fairly significant better rating. To his credit, Mr. Claff has always acknowledged there is margin for error in his process. We need not take these relatively minor grains of salt differences seriously.

Back to the X-H2S question. There is no doubt at all that the AF is superior on the stacked CMOS sensor when using AFC, and the video has essentially no rolling shutter issues. It is a superior device for those reasons (not to mention great build)... And that's all hard to quantify. I hope none of the avid H2S supporters think I'm trying to trash it. My use simply requires me to look for a better fit for my needs. (Not to mention the bad back that was at least partially caused by hauling around a Bronica rig around for years.)

--
JNR

 

[Truman Prevatt]

The one to compare it to purely to see the performance of the 40MP sensor is the X-H2, which for some reason is about 1/3 stop better than the X-T5.

This really puzzles me by the way, why would the X-T5 be worse? I would say measurement error but I saw a post from Bill Claff here somewhere where he said that's not the case for X-T5 vs X-H2.

The majority of noise today is shot or photon noise which has little to do with the DR or noise performance of the sensor. The charts above related to the limiting factor of the camera, the read noise or electronic noise. Today the read noise is quite low. The read noise is no just the sensor it is the entire camera. Small differences in electronics between different cameras could result from differences in electronics components other than the sensor or maybe even the heat sink. Since photonstophots does not provide error bars on his graphs (probably because he doesn't have enough samples to develop error bars) it is hard to say if the difference between cameras is significant or not.

I totally agree that read noise is pretty low no matter what, but that base level becomes important in the shadows at EV-6 and beyond. We can talk about it theoretically and in the way P-to-P measures it, or you can look at the results - and trust reliable review analysis. I am much more inclined to accept those real-life results.

Both DPR and P2P base their results on small sample sizes - maybe even as small as one. DPR uses a consistent processing thread ACR with minimal noise reduction and sharpening for all cameras - independent if that is the optimal for a given camera architecture or not, think XTrans vs. Bayer. I expect Bill Claff does also.

Read noise is the key because it defines the lower limit of detectability for a camera system. Or to quote Jim Kasson, "In CMOS image sensors, read noise refers to the uncertainty or variation introduced when converting and extracting photo-generated charge from each pixel into a digital value. Unlike shot noise (which is signal-dependent), read noise is signal-independent and represents the floor of detectability for low-light imaging."

Sources of read noise in CMOS sensors - the last word

In another context, I’ve been asked about the sources of noise in CMOS image sensors. There are several kinds of noise involved: read noise, photon or shot noise, and pixel response nonuniformity (PRNU). This post attempts to give a non-quantitative listing of the sources of read noise. In CMOS...

blog.kasson.com

ISO-less is a term often used but more often not well understood in today's world of in camera raw noise reduction, dual gain, etc. To best understand.

A new way to look at ISOlessness - the last word

Note: this post has been revised and corrected based on input from DPRevived and the PS&T forum on DPR. Thanks to all involved. Recently, I wrote two articles for Lensrentals on raw exposure. Part 1 Part 2 One of the takeaways from the articles was, with modern cameras, by far the biggest win...

blog.kasson.com

If looking at charts no matter the origins it is clear that the difference between similar cameras of the same format is small maybe less than 1/3 stop in 10 stops. That small of difference could easily be attributed to small sample format, i.e., APSC, FF, MF, etc., or differences in test setup.

Personally if I am interested in comparing cameras, I will be look at P2P and DPR but my decision is based on downloading sample raws and doing the comparisons myself.

As for differences between cameras. I have extensively used both the X-T2 and the X-T20 (individual instances of each) and have found not one nit of difference in the stills images - yet the P-to-P testing gives the X-T20 a fairly significant better rating. To his credit, Mr. Claff has always acknowledged there is margin for error in his process. We need not take these relatively minor grains of salt differences seriously.

Yup.

Back to the X-H2S question. There is no doubt at all that the AF is superior on the stacked CMOS sensor when using AFC, and the video has essentially no rolling shutter issues. It is a superior device for those reasons (not to mention great build)... And that's all hard to quantify. I hope none of the avid H2S supporters think I'm trying to trash it. My use simply requires me to look for a better fit for my needs. (Not to mention the bad back that was at least partially caused by hauling around a Bronica rig around for years.)

I picked up a Z8 to supplement by Q2M a couple years ago. A 28 mm lens is not the best for wildlife or actions. The reason for the Z8 was the elimination of the mechanical shutter which totally eliminates shutter shock without any impact to the Bokeh. The stacked sensor not only mitigates any issues of rolling shutter from the ES and the faster readout enhances the AF performance. The is a very minor read noise cost associated with the stacked sensor and ES, but that is mostly mitigated with its low base ISO of 64 and the amount of light one can put on the sensor at base. There is also a nice bump in gain at ISO 500. But whatever loss because of the small amount of higher read noise is more than made up by the camera's performance in its use case. Because of its weight and weight of lenses, the Z8 is a special use camera.

The XH2S is a fine camera and we can see that by its representation on this forum. When I bought my wife her second XH2, we talked about an XH2S so she could devote it to her wildlife. But she opted to have two of the same models. She probably needs some practice in wildlife and birds before the XH2S would show its benefit. That is she needs practice tracking birds with her 150-600 - if you can't keep them in frame then the camera can't do much with them.

--
"The winds of heaven is that which blows between a horse's ears," Bedouin Proverb
__
Truman
DPR Co-MOD - Fuji X
www.tprevattimages.com

 

[nnowak]

If I was heavily into action stills or action video shooting, there is no question I would want to have the X-H2S body. I think Fujifilm did the right thing to try to attract those shooters to the brand by offering this specialized body. It is a very good specialized tool and it earned the same 90 rating here as the X-T5. Both got their legit ratings.

However, the existing X-body users tend to: 1) Primarily shoot other types of situations

That would be true across all brands.

, 2) Prefer traditional rather than PASM, 3) Want the highest IQ for the majority of (non-action) situations, and/or 4) As APSc shooters, prefer a smaller, lighter body, if possible.

This is also true across all brands and formats. For general purpose use, people generally prefer smaller and lighter gear (to a point). It is only when you get to more specialized niches like sports and wildlife where larger sizes are welcomed.

Both Photons to Photos charting, and the actual testing by DPreview indicate that the 26s sensor falls a bit short when it comes to dynamic range and noise in the shadows. In fact, the real world images and test charts indicate that the old 26mp sensor is clearly better, and even the 40mp sensor is slightly better both natively and when pushed to high ISO. In reality, the old 24mp sensor pretty much matches the 26s. (Keep in mind that the larger sensor is down-sampled here - which puts it at a bit of a disadvantage.)

This is true for all stacked sensors compared to the non-stacked alternatives from the same brand.

I think this part of the review really had an impact for existing Fuji users:

If we look at a base ISO image, raised up to the level of an ISO 3200 shot with the same exposure, you can see there's a distinct increase in noise. It's more than the X-T4 and the difference widens in the darker tones... It's a similar story if we look at base ISO images underexposed and then brightened (as you might when shooting a high-contrast scene). You can see that the X-H2S is noticeably noisier than the X-T4 in the very deepest shadows...

These aren't huge differences, but for those of us who are primarily stills shooters and don't shoot action or video for clients, there is good reason to opt for the alternatives regardless of price.

But, price is the main reason. The X-H2s is 50% more expensive than the X-T5. A Z6iii is also going to be more popular than a Z9.

 

[JNR]

The one to compare it to purely to see the performance of the 40MP sensor is the X-H2, which for some reason is about 1/3 stop better than the X-T5.

This really puzzles me by the way, why would the X-T5 be worse? I would say measurement error but I saw a post from Bill Claff here somewhere where he said that's not the case for X-T5 vs X-H2.

The majority of noise today is shot or photon noise which has little to do with the DR or noise performance of the sensor. The charts above related to the limiting factor of the camera, the read noise or electronic noise. Today the read noise is quite low. The read noise is no just the sensor it is the entire camera. Small differences in electronics between different cameras could result from differences in electronics components other than the sensor or maybe even the heat sink. Since photonstophots does not provide error bars on his graphs (probably because he doesn't have enough samples to develop error bars) it is hard to say if the difference between cameras is significant or not.

I totally agree that read noise is pretty low no matter what, but that base level becomes important in the shadows at EV-6 and beyond. We can talk about it theoretically and in the way P-to-P measures it, or you can look at the results - and trust reliable review analysis. I am much more inclined to accept those real-life results.

Both DPR and P2P base their results on small sample sizes - maybe even as small as one. DPR uses a consistent processing thread ACR with minimal noise reduction and sharpening for all cameras - independent if that is the optimal for a given camera architecture or not, think XTrans vs. Bayer. I expect Bill Claff does also.

Of course, but we are talking in this instance of all X-trans sensors. For sure, the 40mp sensor is hugely different and difficult to optimize compared to the earlier sensors. Showing the effects at minimal NR and sharpening makes sense - and it probably benefits the 40mp sensor because it is so difficult to get the most out of it - at least in Capture One. I suspect that LR can now process a bit easier with the NR advancements, but I've been away from it for a few years. Yeah, Kasson explains these two topics pretty well, I recall.

Read noise is the key because it defines the lower limit of detectability for a camera system. Or to quote Jim Kasson, "In CMOS image sensors, read noise refers to the uncertainty or variation introduced when converting and extracting photo-generated charge from each pixel into a digital value. Unlike shot noise (which is signal-dependent), read noise is signal-independent and represents the floor of detectability for low-light imaging."

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sources-of-read-noise-in-cmos-sensors/

ISO-less is a term often used but more often not well understood in today's world of in camera raw noise reduction, dual gain, etc. To best understand.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a-new-way-to-look-at-isolessness-2/

If looking at charts no matter the origins it is clear that the difference between similar cameras of the same format is small maybe less than 1/3 stop in 10 stops. That small of difference could easily be attributed to small sample format, i.e., APSC, FF, MF, etc., or differences in test setup.

Personally if I am interested in comparing cameras, I will be look at P2P and DPR but my decision is based on downloading sample raws and doing the comparisons myself.

As for differences between cameras. I have extensively used both the X-T2 and the X-T20 (individual instances of each) and have found not one nit of difference in the stills images - yet the P-to-P testing gives the X-T20 a fairly significant better rating. To his credit, Mr. Claff has always acknowledged there is margin for error in his process. We need not take these relatively minor grains of salt differences seriously.

Yup.

Back to the X-H2S question. There is no doubt at all that the AF is superior on the stacked CMOS sensor when using AFC, and the video has essentially no rolling shutter issues. It is a superior device for those reasons (not to mention great build)... And that's all hard to quantify. I hope none of the avid H2S supporters think I'm trying to trash it. My use simply requires me to look for a better fit for my needs. (Not to mention the bad back that was at least partially caused by hauling around a Bronica rig around for years.)

I picked up a Z8 to supplement by Q2M a couple years ago. A 28 mm lens is not the best for wildlife or actions. The reason for the Z8 was the elimination of the mechanical shutter which totally eliminates shutter shock without any impact to the Bokeh. The stacked sensor not only mitigates any issues of rolling shutter from the ES and the faster readout enhances the AF performance. The is a very minor read noise cost associated with the stacked sensor and ES, but that is mostly mitigated with its low base ISO of 64 and the amount of light one can put on the sensor at base. There is also a nice bump in gain at ISO 500. But whatever loss because of the small amount of higher read noise is more than made up by the camera's performance in its use case. Because of its weight and weight of lenses, the Z8 is a special use camera.

I think EFCS pretty much addresses most of the problem in non-stacked sensors. It is underrated because it is so poorly understood. Fuji has done a good job of implementation with the EF-M-E option.

The XH2S is a fine camera and we can see that by its representation on this forum. When I bought my wife her second XH2, we talked about an XH2S so she could devote it to her wildlife. But she opted to have two of the same models. She probably needs some practice in wildlife and birds before the XH2S would show its benefit. That is she needs practice tracking birds with her 150-600 - if you can't keep them in frame then the camera can't do much with them.

Yeah, but once she has it in frame she won't lose it with the stacked sensor. Where Fuji still falls down is overly complicated AF motion settings that are poorly explained, leaving the shooter to do a lot of testing. Fine for tinkering, but not an option for professionals who have to deliver to clients. Having to choose between pet/bird faces and human faces in two totally separate menu lines is just-plain foolishness.

--
JNR

 

[dccberry]

The X-T5 is a prosumer camera for hobbyists, and The X-H2 and X-H2s are more workhorse cameras. The sensor of the X-H2s has worked well for me in low-light dance photography as well as making 20-foot tall banner prints, so there is no real downside as far as I am concerned. I choose it over my X-H2 as the go-to camera for editorial work.

 

[dccberry]

While I agree that the 50-140 is getting a bit outdated, the 200 f/2 will be better than any camera it's attached too for the foreseeable future. They can't improve a perfect lens in my opinion.

I have adapted the Nikkor 70-200f/2.8 E as well as the Sigma ART 135 f/1.8 with Fringers, and they do the job for longer, fast lenses. The Sigma in particular is super accurate for focusing, and tack sharp even wide open, so you're getting a 200 f/1.8 equivalent,

 

[Truman Prevatt]

The one to compare it to purely to see the performance of the 40MP sensor is the X-H2, which for some reason is about 1/3 stop better than the X-T5.

This really puzzles me by the way, why would the X-T5 be worse? I would say measurement error but I saw a post from Bill Claff here somewhere where he said that's not the case for X-T5 vs X-H2.

The majority of noise today is shot or photon noise which has little to do with the DR or noise performance of the sensor. The charts above related to the limiting factor of the camera, the read noise or electronic noise. Today the read noise is quite low. The read noise is no just the sensor it is the entire camera. Small differences in electronics between different cameras could result from differences in electronics components other than the sensor or maybe even the heat sink. Since photonstophots does not provide error bars on his graphs (probably because he doesn't have enough samples to develop error bars) it is hard to say if the difference between cameras is significant or not.

I totally agree that read noise is pretty low no matter what, but that base level becomes important in the shadows at EV-6 and beyond. We can talk about it theoretically and in the way P-to-P measures it, or you can look at the results - and trust reliable review analysis. I am much more inclined to accept those real-life results.

Both DPR and P2P base their results on small sample sizes - maybe even as small as one. DPR uses a consistent processing thread ACR with minimal noise reduction and sharpening for all cameras - independent if that is the optimal for a given camera architecture or not, think XTrans vs. Bayer. I expect Bill Claff does also.

Of course, but we are talking in this instance of all X-trans sensors. For sure, the 40mp sensor is hugely different and difficult to optimize compared to the earlier sensors. Showing the effects at minimal NR and sharpening makes sense - and it probably benefits the 40mp sensor because it is so difficult to get the most out of it - at least in Capture One. I suspect that LR can now process a bit easier with the NR advancements, but I've been away from it for a few years. Yeah, Kasson explains these two topics pretty well, I recall.

Read noise is the key because it defines the lower limit of detectability for a camera system. Or to quote Jim Kasson, "In CMOS image sensors, read noise refers to the uncertainty or variation introduced when converting and extracting photo-generated charge from each pixel into a digital value. Unlike shot noise (which is signal-dependent), read noise is signal-independent and represents the floor of detectability for low-light imaging."

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sources-of-read-noise-in-cmos-sensors/

ISO-less is a term often used but more often not well understood in today's world of in camera raw noise reduction, dual gain, etc. To best understand.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a-new-way-to-look-at-isolessness-2/

If looking at charts no matter the origins it is clear that the difference between similar cameras of the same format is small maybe less than 1/3 stop in 10 stops. That small of difference could easily be attributed to small sample format, i.e., APSC, FF, MF, etc., or differences in test setup.

Personally if I am interested in comparing cameras, I will be look at P2P and DPR but my decision is based on downloading sample raws and doing the comparisons myself.

As for differences between cameras. I have extensively used both the X-T2 and the X-T20 (individual instances of each) and have found not one nit of difference in the stills images - yet the P-to-P testing gives the X-T20 a fairly significant better rating. To his credit, Mr. Claff has always acknowledged there is margin for error in his process. We need not take these relatively minor grains of salt differences seriously.

Yup.

Back to the X-H2S question. There is no doubt at all that the AF is superior on the stacked CMOS sensor when using AFC, and the video has essentially no rolling shutter issues. It is a superior device for those reasons (not to mention great build)... And that's all hard to quantify. I hope none of the avid H2S supporters think I'm trying to trash it. My use simply requires me to look for a better fit for my needs. (Not to mention the bad back that was at least partially caused by hauling around a Bronica rig around for years.)

I picked up a Z8 to supplement by Q2M a couple years ago. A 28 mm lens is not the best for wildlife or actions. The reason for the Z8 was the elimination of the mechanical shutter which totally eliminates shutter shock without any impact to the Bokeh. The stacked sensor not only mitigates any issues of rolling shutter from the ES and the faster readout enhances the AF performance. The is a very minor read noise cost associated with the stacked sensor and ES, but that is mostly mitigated with its low base ISO of 64 and the amount of light one can put on the sensor at base. There is also a nice bump in gain at ISO 500. But whatever loss because of the small amount of higher read noise is more than made up by the camera's performance in its use case. Because of its weight and weight of lenses, the Z8 is a special use camera.

I think EFCS pretty much addresses most of the problem in non-stacked sensors. It is underrated because it is so poorly understood. Fuji has done a good job of implementation with the EF-M-E option.

The XH2S is a fine camera and we can see that by its representation on this forum. When I bought my wife her second XH2, we talked about an XH2S so she could devote it to her wildlife. But she opted to have two of the same models. She probably needs some practice in wildlife and birds before the XH2S would show its benefit. That is she needs practice tracking birds with her 150-600 - if you can't keep them in frame then the camera can't do much with them.

Yeah, but once she has it in frame she won't lose it with the stacked sensor.

Where she needs practice is physically tracking the bird in a small angle of view. That just takes time and practice.

Where Fuji still falls down is overly complicated AF motion settings that are poorly explained, leaving the shooter to do a lot of testing. Fine for tinkering, but not an option for professionals who have to deliver to clients. Having to choose between pet/bird faces and human faces in two totally separate menu lines is just-plain foolishness.

I agree that the Fuji implementation of subject detection is a bit kludgy. Fuji could use a little work on their UI and modernize it a bit. On the other hand with my Z8 I have to choose between, bird, animal and person. Yep there may be a combined setting but I tired that one day at the track and the Z8 kept jumping between horse's head and jock's head. In fact it had a difficult time with the jockey even in people setting when with the jockey in helmet and goggles. So at the track, I forget subject detection with the Z8 and put the 3D tracking box over the what I want tracked.

I as of yet have seen my Z8 be able to lock to the eye of a buffalo. It had a lot of opportunities on our recent trip, but head yes - eye no. However, I'm not surprised, dark brown coat, dark brown eyes - even the Z8 needs contrast to work. In fact my wife's XH2 seems to be able to lock to a buffalo eye better than the Z8.

--
"The winds of heaven is that which blows between a horse's ears," Bedouin Proverb
__
Truman
DPR Co-MOD - Fuji X
www.tprevattimages.com

 

[Bill Ferris]

It's not that cameras like the X-H2S aren't popular. They are; they're just popular with smaller audiences. That's true of all flagship cameras in any brand's lineup.

Flagships are typically designed and engineered to be tailored to meet the needs of the fast action photographer. Their also built to be more weather resistant and rugged.

As a result, they're larger, heavier, and more expensive than enthusiast and entry-level bodies. This and the fact that most enthusiasts don't need top-shelf autofocus, burst rate, and buffer mean they don't sell in large numbers; not in comparison with lower tier bodies on a brand's lineup.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Regarding noise performance, Shot noise is the predominant type of noise we see in photos and that is strictly determined by the total light energy used to make an image.

Read noise is secondary and a product of data processing done in-camera. While digital cameras have historically had greater read noise at low ISOs, cameras engineered to process a lot of data quickly (e.g. flagships) typically have even more read noise at ISOs below the dual-gain point.

So yes, the X-H2S takes a modest DR hit below 500. It doesn't make the camera unusable or even a poor performer for landscapes and portraiture at base ISO. It's actually quite good...but not optimized for those genres. And given the fact a Fujifilm shooter can get a higher res body with better DR at base ISO in a smaller package, it's only natural that the X-H2, X-T5, and X-T50 sell better to customers doing that kind of work.

 

[JNR]

Regarding noise performance, Shot noise is the predominant type of noise we see in photos and that is strictly determined by the total light energy used to make an image.

Read noise is secondary and a product of data processing done in-camera. While digital cameras have historically had greater read noise at low ISOs, cameras engineered to process a lot of data quickly (e.g. flagships) typically have even more read noise at ISOs below the dual-gain point.

So yes, the X-H2S takes a modest DR hit below 500. It doesn't make the camera unusable or even a poor performer for landscapes and portraiture at base ISO. It's actually quite good...but not optimized for those genres. And given the fact a Fujifilm shooter can get a higher res body with better DR at base ISO in a smaller package, it's only natural that the X-H2, X-T5, and X-T50 sell better to customers doing that kind of work.

Well said, and I agree with all but one thought. The Canon pro action shooter has had a leg up forever and their top body does take a large share relatively in that system; for Nikon and Sony less so; Fuji just hoped to gain entry with far-smaller share relative to their other X offerings. I think Fuji somewhat succeeded with its modest goals. Big climb to change perceptions and truly compete.

--
JNR