Causio

Given these advantages, I hope for Fujifilm that they'll fix the jaggy movement when panning left-right. That looks pretty bad on the X-H1, it's like the camera sticks to a finite number of angles...

@G G On-sensor AF in video and stills are two different worlds: in video, you don't care about speed, accuracy is more important and in fact you don't even WANT the AF to be snappy.
And anyway,...

@G G about size factor: all the mirrorless bodies are smaller than equivalent dslrs. Shorter flange distance implies the possibility (not respected by sony, though) of making smaller lenses. Canon...

To whoever sees higher noise level in X-T3 compared to X-T2: yes, that happens in the shots with full light, that is at speeds like 1/1250s and up. Now, how often do you need to bump up the iso in...

@G G, nope. Size factor, flange distance. And it'd be pointless to add state of the art on-sensor AF to a dslr; no manufacturer would produce such a double-system camera.

Holy crap, it's detailed. The only competitor's 4K image as detailed as X-T3 is the sony A6500.

So instead of having a mirrorless, they should have a SLR camera which can optionally work like a mirrorless? Ahem...

@thorgal: Sony with the A7 was in a way different situation than Nikon now. They didn't have competitors to compare with. Unlike now, there was plenty of room to justify not-so-great AF and lack of...

To me, it seems something went wrong. Maybe they've released an "unpolished" product in the hurry for photokina and Canon/Panasonic competition. Over all, it's half-assed, and there's Sony who's...

But one problem is that the Z cameras performance is subpar compared to their own D850/D750 as well. So, not sure of what they're trying to achieve. These cameras aren't better than anything.

So, for the moment, they're basically relying on existing Nikon users, rather than stealing Sony's market share (makes sense, as for Canon). That's an interesting take indeed.

It looks a tad worse in the bright light comparison shots. We're talking shooting 1/2500s at iso 6400, which is pretty much unlikely in real world. In the low light comparison, the X-T3 looks ...

With a FF camera and a 70-200 f2.8 you can achieve shallower DOF, better subject isolation than with the Fuji and its 50-140 f2.8. That's BS for you? That's fact for the rest of reality you're ...

Hello Fujifilm users (I'm a canon shooter - wannabe Fuji), while investigating the "infamous" 35mm f1.4 "aperture chattering" sound while composing, I came to know that it's caused by the way the ...

I'm talking from the OP point if view. I said "not too low light" and that makes my statement correct from a use case perspective. If you want to go full academic feel free, but that's not where ...

I haven't written "same f-stop" I just wrote light - meaning same light per surface unit when both are f2.8. And Same ISO on APS-C vs FF, as I've written in not too low light (i.e. iso reasonably ...

@LiOm Photography dpreview bright light shots are shot at 1/5000s which would make sense only if you're shooting bullets (with the camera, that is :) ) Low light shots are instead at 1/40s which is...

Perhaps the "more dramatic" look in m4/3 is because of the aspect ratio, if you shoot at 17mm you get top and bottom portions of the frame that have no equivalent in FF and indeed show a more...

@KInfikity nope, check your facts:
https://www.ilexinstant.com/focal-length-and-perspective/
The perspective changes with DISTANCE from the objects in the frame, not focal length. If you take a...

Am I wrong or you can actually shoot raw at 3:2 with those m43 cameras?