Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! In this week's episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan go to the zoo with the Fujifilm X-H1. Watch as they photograph lemurs, red pandas and maybe even a Tyrannosaur while putting this camera to the test.
Just one point to clarify. After experiencing the EVF from Leica SL, the GFX 50S feels decent, while the Hasselblad X-1D is weaker that the GFX. Talking numbers, 3.69, every way you're looking at it, is still less than 4.4. That means that, in EVF terms, this is a decent camera.
In my humble opinion the X_H1 is for people who need stabilization and most of those are videographers. Videographers who need stabilized cameras usually shoot hand held. When shooting hand held video you're never going to use long lenses like that.
For wildlife photogs I'd probably go with other brands.
Curious to see a review about this cam for video, a little deeper than Jordan goes here, that or define who and what the camera is for then.
Its for Fuji users who want IBIS and a slightly improved video shooting functionality but its so far behind the likes of A7iii in all respects that it is astonishing to me why Fuji released this with the pending release of the X-T3.
Yes...far behind the a7iii...it doesn't have the Sony features of striping and star eater. As to everything else...please explain how the Fuji is "so far behind."
Well, I think dpreview has made a really good decision when hiring you guys! Hopefully the video section can evolve into something much more than camera reviews. "Unsung cameras from yesteryear" was fun to watch, and "The great JPEG shootout" was probably more relevant than most photo related videos on youtube the last decade. I hope you get to cover some interesting events and making behind the scenes videos, would have loved a comprehensive video from the Nikon optical factory.
I usually call the full framed format "full framed". The reason I used "so called above" is to indicate there's a reference to film sizing.
"it doesn't influence the quality of an image because your words are not spells and do not influence reality."
Couple things, as a general rule bigger pixels produce lower noise, as in by way of example a 20MP full framed sensor will be less noisy than a 20MP APSC sensor, of the same generation.
Also generally, yes language used does influence outcomes, and outcomes are reality often.
You were/are grossly in error about my original comment, and now are trying to dress up your error as a protest about something I simply didn't do. Your words don't make reality. Ironical that.
It's the size of the sensor that matters, not so much the size of the pixels. A FF sensor will produce a cleaner image than an APS-C even if its pixels are no bigger.
While no, you have nearly no idea what gear I own or have used.
Laughable that you suppose that a bigger sensor (say full framed) just makes for better image quality even if the pixel sizes aren't any bigger than some sensor half the size (say APSC). Of course, it does go to prove you don't know much about stills photo gear, not a great surprise given your posts over the last 2 years or so.
Now regards differences in image quality from one camera to the next, besides things like pixel size, there are other factors like heat dispersion and processing firmware, and the processor (CPU) of the camera body. Then better optics (that's lenses) have a huge amount to do with better image quality.
But you're not interested in these things, you just wanna be a stalker and a pest who presumes to know of what he posts regards my gear, experience, and gear knowledge. All the while screaming "I'm such a 'stunningly brilliant' commentator".
No sure about the generation of sensor claim, since the 50MP sensor for the 5DSR is still a one off Canon sensor, while whatever the sensor is in the 70D has a history.
Okay, that dual pixel sensor tech makes the sensor design significantly different, even if it has the same density of pixels as the 50MP sensor in the 5DSR, which most certainly does NOT have dual pixels.
You made my point for me basically.
Now if you can find a 24MP APSC Canon sensor (non-dual pixel) that was new around the same time as the 5DSR that would be a better point of comparison. (No, not simply a camera from Canon that was new around the same time.)
Generally, yes, dual pixel AF adds noise, this is one of the reasons that the Canon 5DIV isn't an especially good higher ISO body.
I now have my own raws from both the Canon T5i and the 5DSR.
As I supposed, the T5i pretty much matches the higher ISO performance of the 5DSR. (Oh, and the lens on the 5DSR was optically much better than the kitzoom on the T5i.)
Both are useful to about ISO 10,000, which is good for cameras of that era and pixel count.
Please stop assuming I've never tried gear, or have no familiarity with using APSC and full framed sensored cameras.
Ironically, the following partly explains lower noise results when using better optics, but the sensor size really doesn't matter:
"Photography is all about light; more light=less noise. Bigger sensor means more light for a given exposure."
HT... You want to check the source of those raws. They're probably from a camera store like B&H. They're not from owning the camera. Or even renting it. They're most like just snaps someone took to say they have raws. Not because they did any meaningful test. I wouldn't waste my time with someone who doesn't produce evidence.
DPR's studio scene is well known to be a joke for judging higher ISO performance/noise. The fact that you use it tells me you know little of higher ISO performance metrics.
I'm quite confident in my conclusions about the 5DSR and the T5I having about the same higher ISO performance.
Addionally, the 5DSR DOES NOT have dual pixel AF, therefore it is highly unlikely that Canon built the sensor that way--despite what you claim. The 5DSR has a conventional SLR separate phase detect AF system. It's not an especially good one.
Right, get your facts straight. And don't post such laughable claims.
Also, your second link is about the 5DSR versus the 70D, the latter having dual pixel AF.
So another area in which you got basic facts wrong.
Look, it's pretty clear that you read charts and don't handle gear and/or find quantities of raws to extract.
You're right, the 5DS R does not have dual pixel AF. My bad. But the second link is NOT the 70D. It is the T5i (also known as the 700D).
And what's wrong with using RAW files to compare high ISO performance/noise? Did you even look at the link I sent regarding the source(s) of image noise? I'm not sure you know how to compare images.
And just to show you how little the dual pixel AF affects noise performance, here's the graph showing the 80D vs the T5i; notice the 80D has lower read noise:
The fact remains that you said full framed sensors are better than APSC sensors for image quality, even if the pixel density of the full frame sensor is basically the same as that of the APSC sensor.
Apparently you've totally forgotten your claim. Or possibly you suppose the D80 to be a full framed Canon body. It isn't.
Stop with the charts, get yourself raws shot under difficult lighting, and process those raws.
"And what's wrong with using RAW files to compare high ISO performance/noise? "
I didn't say anything about raws in general, I said the DPR studio scene raws are a joke for higher ISO performance indications.
"Did you even look at the link I sent regarding the source(s) of image noise? I'm not sure you know how to compare images."
You posted a bogus link that charted the wrong camera. It's also theory, not actual raws.
Again, for higher ISO performance the non-dual pixel Canon T5i equals the non-dual pixel 5DSR.
I was referring to the link regarding the sources of image noise (which I clearly stated above). Did you read that?
And pixel density does not really tell you anything about a sensor's performance, though sensor size will, as most of the noise in photos is photon shot noise, which is not dependent on pixel size.
Can you provide any evidence to the contrary, aside from just making wild claims? I can only presume you have no idea what you're doing (my guess would be comparing 100% crops?).
So I'd love to see any evidence at all that shows pixel size is more important than sensor size when it comes to low light.
"I was referring to the link regarding the sources of image noise (which I clearly stated above). Did you read that?"
You mean your links to charts?
"And pixel density does not really tell you anything about a sensor's performance, though sensor size will, as most of the noise in photos is photon shot noise, which is not dependent on pixel size."
That is simply untrue given generally the same era sensor development.
"Can you provide any evidence to the contrary, aside from just making wild claims? I can only presume you have no idea what you're doing (my guess would be comparing 100% crops?)."
All that says is you don't know what a raw file is yourself, and you wish I lived under the same ignorance.
"So I'd love to see any evidence at all that shows pixel size is more important than sensor size when it comes to low light."
Then you can look into the best higher ISO bodies in 2018, for APSC and full framed: The Nikon D500 and D5.
"That is simply untrue given generally the same era sensor development. " No, it's not. Please read the provided link.
"All that says is you don't know what raw file is yourself, and you wish I lived under the same ignorance." I know what a raw file is. I'm not sure you know how to compare them.
"Then you can look into the best higher ISO bodies in 2018, for APSC and full framed: The Nikon D500 and D5." Okay, I did. The D5 performs about twice as well, which is to be expected considering its sensor is twice as large.
So how do you arrive at a very different conclusion from those who study (and engineer) image sensors? What is your method for comparing cameras that leads to such ludicrous conclusions?
Seriously, please describe your method for comparing cameras. Otherwise all your talk is meaningless.
And the D5's pixels are also almost twice as large as those in the D500.
"So how do you arrive at a very different conclusion from those who study (and engineer) image sensors? What is your method for comparing cameras that leads to such ludicrous conclusions?"
Trying gear, and shooting photos, and extracting raws.
All your posts say is you're not real familiar with digital photo gear.
"Seriously, please describe your method for comparing cameras. Otherwise all your talk is meaningless."
Still confused by the phrasing "I have hundreds of raws" I see.
"No, this:"
Yes, I did read that link when you originally posted it. And it doesn't say anything like what you claim.
"And the D5's pixels are also almost twice as large as those in the D500."
Irrelevant. It's the sensor size that matters, not pixel size. I defy you to find a reliable source that confirms otherwise.
"Trying gear, and shooting photos, and extracting raws. All your posts say is you're not real familiar with digital photo gear."
In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever. I can just as easily say that I've tried gear and shot photos and extracted raws (which I have) and have come to the opposite conclusion. Your words are meaningless without a way to back them up. And you have no way to back them up, because your claims are untrue.
"Still confused by the phrasing "I have hundreds of raws" I see."
No, I'm confused by how you compare images. You apparently don't know how you do it, either.
"Yes, I did read that link when you originally posted it. And it doesn't say anything like what you claim. You need to look up "binning"."
Re-read it and try to get what it means this time.
"It's the sensor size that matters, not pixel size."
Ya gotta stop with this bogus claim. You've posted nothing to back it up.
"In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever."
Having actually tried and used gear is hardly "no evidence". You don't get to redefine basic English to mean the result you want.
"I can just as easily say that I've tried gear and shot photos and extracted raws (which I have) and have come to the opposite conclusion. Your words are meaningless without a way to back them up."
But given your posting history, you clearly haven't.
"No, I'm confused by how you compare images. You apparently don't know how you do it, either."
Why would you assume I can't run extraction software?
"Re-read it and try to get what it means this time."
You really need to look up "binning" before further embarrassing yourself with that link.
"Ya gotta stop with this bogus claim. You've posted nothing to back it up." I've posted plenty to back it up, all of which you dismiss as nonsense. You, however, have posted nothing more than what boils down to "I say so."
"Having actually tried and used gear is hardly "no evidence"."
Saying you've used gear is not evidence, particularly because I don't think you know what you're doing with it.
"Why would you assume I can't run extraction software? " I'm assuming you don't know how to compare images from different cameras, and you've done/said nothing to convince me otherwise.
"You really need to look up "binning" before further embarrassing yourself with that link."
Do you know what binning is? Did you read to the end of the link? The part where it concludes "Rather than having strong dependence on the pixel size, the noise performance instead depends quite strongly on sensor size -- bigger sensors yield higher quality images, by capturing more signal (photons). "
No, you've posted distractions, and confusion regards binning.
"Saying you've used gear is not evidence, particularly because I don't think you know what you're doing with it."
Sure it's evidence. You can think what you like. But that's only gonna make you more comfortable with your low information. You mean something along the lines of "you've not shared your raws".
"Do you know what binning is? "
Yes.
""'ather than having strong dependence on the pixel size, the noise performance instead depends quite strongly on sensor size -- bigger sensors yield higher quality images, by capturing more signal (photons). '"
In the context of a binned image, raw, sure. But that's immaterial to the point of mine that you're ignoring.
Please post more "facts". They so help show you as so informed. /s
You're akin to those people who think downsampling after capture reduces noise as an overall fraction of the data set. It doesn't.
Clearly you're not interested in facts and you refuse to offer any evidence at all to back up your ridiculous claims, so I'm done here. Happy shooting!
No, I'm not sharing my raws. I was clear about that from the start.
But the fact remains that I have significant gear knowledge and raw extraction experience that you just don't. While you rely in charts and misreadings of essays.
I think you'd be best to avoid seeking to label others, especially when you stalk those others, (me in this instance) and when you repeatedly revert to the use of anti-Semitic imagery to denigrate another.
Love Fuji for colors, stopped mostly working with RAW due to excellent OOC jpegs, body handling and lenses. Fuji has a unique setup for me (I'm a prime user), I can have large primes (56mm, 80mm) or small primes (23/2) - and I have both for different situations.
Using currently a XT2, the H1 would be a little bit too expensive for me.
Great well balanced review guys... I’m a Fujifilm Ambassador over here in the UK, and shot with the XH1 Prototype.... a nice system to sit beside the current XT2 for those that want the additional features and ergonomics. :)
Just one note, inknkwnJordan wasn’t overly impressed with the touch screen menu in ‘silent movie mode’, additionally for ease of use you can also still use the D pad or joystick in ‘silent movie mode’- handy for hose with bigger fingers where touch screen may not be the best option. So no need to go back to using too dials and messing with you video/stills settings. Win win! ;)
Keep up the fun stuff with humour guys. ;) Keep up the fun stuff guys
I'm kinda surprised how well this second video from Chris and Jordan went. Seamless transition- didn't skip a beat from CTSTV. Exactly what DPreview needed IMO. Some humor and added personality.
Canadians have a long history of top notch entertainment in the USA...you all would be surprised if you knew that the snowbirds made a huge impact on the scene in Hollywood...now that these two experts are are here on DPREVIEW I would say welcome and here to stay...non plus ultra...
Chris and Jordan, your review on Fuji make me want to buy a Fuji and everything else doesn't matter! Not even A7iii! The colour science, profile of video etc...
The cinematic looks was a compromise long time a go between movie quality and film cost and 24 fps was chosen, and now people think that is how cinema shuould look. :) , funny yes, but ok, I can accept that, though I see nothing cinematic on that other than that is how it has always been (during my lifetime anyway).
Now we have computer monitors that are mostly 60 Hz. That is they are showign 60 fps. 24 fps just does not fit that evenly, meaning some frames are shown 2 times some 3 times, resulting uneven image flow.
Now please, explain to me how that uneven imageflow is cinematic?
It seems that most people are not sensitive for this uneven image flow, but for me it is very iritating when there is any fast movement or paning on the video. Not much on this review, but still very notisable on some parts.
The question also is why a review like this should be cinematic?
Indeed I see this blind love for the "cinematic" look when like you said it was only chosen as cost saving measure. There was nothing technically better about it. I love HFR movies and use either SVP to 48fps or my projector interpolation. 24fps looks like a slideshow to me.
''Cinematic look'' : N o b o d y can accurately what's special in it! Nobody. It can be everything and nothing,profoundly the latter. Better stick to 60p as a reference...
I do not really have anything against 24 fps, when it is viewed on a display that is capable showing it without the problems 60 Hz monitor has with 24 fps.. 120 Hz monitor would be perfect, displaying 24, 30, 60 fps perfectly.
On currenty situation, as most of us have 60 Hz monitors, I really would hope reviws like this would be shot 30 fps.
Another reason 24fps was chosen for film was a result of the introduction of 'talkies'. 24fps was the minimum FPS that could achieve acceptable audio quality from an optical sound track with 1920s technology. Prior to the introduction of sound, typical frame rates were around 16-18fps, which is why silent films of that era look speeded up when displayed at 24fps.
I'm well aware of the 24fps argument. That doesn't change the fact that it looks like hammered crap on pans. The jitter drives me nuts. It doesn't look cinematic, it looks like a technical error.
that stuttery non "hyper realistic" look, caused by 60 Hz monitor is not the cinematic look. Excatly my point, people are statting to think that that is the cinematic look.
What happens when we get in few years 120 Hz* monitors? People use them in 60 Hz, not to ruin the cinematic look :)
But seriously, not everyone is aparently seeing the 24 fps /60 Hz problem.
To be clear, I have no problems with 24 fps when viewed with a device that is cabale displaying it correctly.
* on 120Hz monitor at 24 fps every frame is dispalyed 5 times, resulting smooth image flow. Also 30 fps results smooth image flow, every frame is displayed 4 times.
on 60 Hz monitos at 24 fps, some images are displayed 2 times and some 3 times resulting the problems. 30 fps has no problems with 60 Hz monitor, every frame is displayed 2 times.
i know it IS: but is it too much to ask for the simplest most dumb explanation of hz, knowning that frame rate means the pictures is SHOWN every second. Then what could be an add on, aren't they simply pictures flying by, at the speed I chose?
(My guess it has something to do with the in-between frame to frame times but really what is it?)
Never understooz Hz on a monitor, FR is an easy concept but not this!
I do not thisnk it is any HW or setting related. It is just that 24 fps on 60 Hz monitor looks bat due some frames are showed 2 , some 3 times.
I have many computers with 60Hz display and they all have the same problem.
DVD is a hole different story. If it outputs 24 FPS there is good change the monitor can adjust to that and display that correctly. On computers I am pretty sure no-one wants to use the display set to 24 Hz, even if that would be possible. The mouse lag would be bad.
As for Hz vs. FPS, they are basically just the same. 60 Hz monitor shows 60 individual frames per second. When 30 fps material is displayed on it, it displays every frame twice. Now, try to fit 24 fps to that, some frames will be displayed 3 times, some 2 times...
To be clear, there is different degrees of this irritation. If there is not much movement on the image, it is not bothering me. If there is plenty of motion blur (long shutter time) and not too much movement, it can go unnoticed. The worst kind of situation is fast movement or panning on bright daylight with short shutter speed. This makes the 24 fps material on 60Hz monitor really iritating.
As for Hz vs. FPS, they are basically just the same. 60 Hz monitor shows 60 individual frames per second. When 30 fps material is displayed on it, it displays every frame twice. Now, try to fit 24 fps to that, some frames will be displayed 3 times, some 2 times...
Wouldn't displaying a frame twice extend the video time X2?
What I do not get, why to shoot this kind of reviews at 24 fps. I see no reason for it. they know it will be viewed on web browser without any spesial software and quite likely on 60 Hz monitor...
Waiting too to get a 120 Hz monitor, but would like it ot be 4k...
As an avid fan of the camera store tv (but not weekend talks), I must say this is definitely one of your best videos ever. Plus I really like all sample pictures, what never hapened before. In some of your previous reviews I flet you drifted too much and didn't cover all aspects of reviewed gear. Here I feel I was informed about what I need to know and what is worth knowing about the camera, all served in familiar style. Much appreciated, keep it going, extend duration when suitable. I can't wait for new episode!
First of all, I really want to congratulate DPR for this excellent addition to their team. These video reviews are a great and entertaining complement to their written reviews. As a side note, I think this is a fantastic camera and I agreed about the great Fuji colours, but it is really tiring to read all those comments about how this camera is better than the Sony A7iii based mainly on the colour science. Both cameras are great with different strengths and weaknesses, so saying that Sony is a bad option due to its Jpeg colour is just ridiculous. I get great colour from my A7iii, maybe not as pleasing as the Fuji ones, but great anyway, by using C1 or Adobe with the just released huelight colour profiles. These days most of the cameras have enough strengths on their own, so there's no need to try to make one look better by stressing the flaws of another one. I'm totally confident that my camera is great so I have no problem recognising the greatness of other cameras. Just my 2 cents
Yeh I don't get why people make the argument that Fuji is better than Sony because of the Fuji colours... I mean at this price bracket, surely anyone buying either of these cameras will be shooting RAW anyway?
I own (and love) an X-T2, but I always shoot RAW and never even look at the jpegs. The X-T2 is a magnificent camera because of it's ergonomics and aesthetics. I smile every time I take it out of my bag, and then enjoy using it.
I like the Sony's for their technical ability. They cram a lot of specs into a body that's not an unreasonable price. It's not as nice to look at, and it's not as nice to use, but as a tool for professional production the A7iii is currently the best bang for buck out there.
The X-H1 needed to be a little cheaper, maybe even only $200 cheaper, and I think it would have been a much bigger hit
JPEG shooting, even with expensive cameras, is a valid mode of working. Some people need to deliver their results in the next few minutes, if not in the very next minute.
Canon's red (skin) colour, Fuji film simulations, Zeiss "Pop" (no flare and no warmth) all exist, to the trained eye...
BTW: it's not just JPEGs where you take advantage of "Fuji Colours". Haven't you heard that colour science is baked to the RAW files? So is sometimes noise reduction, pixel masking, bit depth, there's actually no definition of RAW other than not de-bayered.
You can only bake color science into a RAW so much. It's delivered by the CFA. But deviate too much from neutral and you'll be hurting all colors, and the ability to reproduce realistic colors. At best, CFAs get thinner to improve high ISO, at the expense of color detail.
So when it comes to Fuji, they really don't bake anything into RAW beyond the X-Trans pattern, and maybe a slight green/magenta shift. Everything else is added in software, and can be reproduced on any decent camera.
BTW, I wish to echo the sentiments of many others and say how great Chris and Jordan are at making these videos. They prove the value of the human touch even in tech reviews.
Also, I still remember what I believe to be one of their all time bests, the Battle at F-Stop Ridge. Total classic.
Big thank you for mentioning that video!!! Hilarious, had to see the "part 2" and "the making of..." also, more laughs!! ;-) Having been in photo retail (up until a few years ago) for a few decades, we sure had fun as a colleague team, but this level shown in those videos was relly "it", haha.
I wish the future Xt3 will have the IBIS, and I don't mind to pay a bit more for that. I know A7III has great feature for her price point, but I prefer APSC for my travel camera. Keep up the good work Fuji.
This. I'm still loving my XT2 but I really wish it has IBIS. XH1's size is a huge turn of for me. If I want a big chunky camera, I'll buy a FF camera instead.
it's clear isn't it, if you want compact go for XT and if you want IBIS and better ergo go for XH. I had the XT and now i have the XH... ergo is like night and day. if you have invested on X lens, now you have a choice for a better ergo body. Fuji is just offering more choices. if you want to go for FF body, go for it but what about those great X lens?
And here I am wishing Sony made a non ibis NEW A7(x) body with all the improvements of the newer without the size/weight penalty. The A7iii made me forgive the body size due to the larger battery, if the XH1 had it I wouldn’t have sold all my Fuji gear for the Sony.
I picked APSC camera for travel due to the smaller size and weight for the entire system. It is always between sony A6xxx and fuji XT. Sony can squeeze IBIS to A6xxx and even A7 series, so i hope fuji can do the same without increase the size of the body. Now Sigma and Tarmon start release lens for sony so the lack of good sony apsc lens issue may improve down the road and give sony apsc an edge over fuji.
@TW14 The X-H1 is actually bigger/heavier than the A7iii also there are several lenses that are just as portable as the Fuji's while offering better overall IQ.
I continue to scratch my head at Fuji as they have gotten rid of the one main advantage that they had over other mirrorless competitors, their size.
So, all along, the only reason they were smaller is that they didn't offer the same functionality as the other brands. Now that they are trying to catch up their engineers are struggling to keep their bodies and lenses small.
I like Fuji, their X-T20 is possibly the best ILC out there for max portability/IQ but overall I find their gear to be quite overrated.
Why? The Sony loses when comparing most specs too. The Sony has a bigger sensor, but that means larger telephoto lenses and presents other issues too. I do believe APSC is too close to FF and so people want to compare. But they are very different.
I have learned that buying on specs is not a good way to go. We love specs because it seems to make the buying decision easy, but in reality there is so much more to consider.
I remember in the HiFi era: mid tier brands (like Sony,Technics) would have all the bells and whistles while the high tier brands would seem far more plain, with less features. But when you actually listened to the products you understood. The brands who sold on tech specs were not the best.
It's the same with cars, computers, and also cameras. In reality the Sony lacks. It feels more cheaply built, lacks proper weather sealing, and ergonomically is poorly designed. A camera like the Fuji will make you want to use it more, will be better to operate, and because of that you will grow more in your photography and get better pictures. Also, the Fuji will hold up better.
Sony is overhyped. We see how Fuji owners love their cameras but Sony fans just talk specs.
I like your analogy to HiFi as I bought a Concept receiver in 1976 that was Pacific Stereo's in house brand and made with the best components from Sony, Pioneer, MacIntosh, etc. Still have the beast and the power is incredible. https://classicreceivers.com/concept-16-5
If you want to have a camera that you live using, then go for the Fuji. If you want the best sensor and no soul, go for the Sony, and if you don’t like the current model, wait 6 months, they’ll be a new one for sure.
I tested the Sony a7rii vs the XH1 fully expecting to prefer the ergonomics of the Fuji. Actually I found it too close to a DSLR in size weight and bulk. The Sony was smaller, more compact and felt lighter, with telephoto the grip is too tight, with small primes it is a nice size and weight.
The top screen on the XH1 is v nice and I wish the Sony had one. Otherwise v pleased with Sony, but I don't think it would be the right choice if you want to use big 2.8 zooms I think
elie: Yes, your point is valid. I notice if I read the comments of Fuji users, I see a very passionate group who love using their camera equipment.
Not so with Sony users. It seems their is little to no real connection to their equipment. It's as if people buy it because they think they should because that's what the reviewers told them, and then are underwhelmed by it all.
I bet if there were somehow a study made between Fuji and Sony users, that Fuji users on average use their equipment far more because they find it so much more enjoyable.
Errr. No. I have owned Sony A7R2. I switched the other way. Much prefer the Fuji. And if people really believe there is a FF advantage then they only shoot in the dark or print wall-sized. To all practical purpose, the Fuji prints compare well to the Sony A7R2 in spite of the smaller sensor and less megapickles. . Only pixel obsessed measurebating gearheads would think otherwise.
You've hit a solid point that will single-handedly sky-rocket Fujifilm's near future: Personal, objective love to the equipment. It's like what's leica relying on but on the lower-end level.
Fuji users LOVE their cameras, they like to LOOK at it. Sony, Canon, Nikon users, all just use their cameras, never think of it as an object worthy of admiring.
The X-H1 has one thing going for it that the Panasonic's and Sony's do not. Great colors straight out of the camera. If do not you want to spend a lot time color grading and you care about skin colors, this is one of the better cameras. Canon and Olympus (only the EM1.2) are other good options. Speaking of the EM1.2 if you've ever used the IBIS you know how insanely good it is for video. I hope the FujiFilm camera is near as good like the Panasonic, not jerky like Sony. But Canon who does not offer IBIS at all is the worst.
I almost forgot, I've always enjoyed Chris and Jordan's videos. Sorry to everyone else, but they are now my favorites at DPR. :)
@zw1975: seconded. I'm the go-to shooter for several large scale public events a year for my place of employment that I don't get paid for separately. As such, being a Fuji shooter has saved me innumerable hours of PP work and allowed me very quick turnaround times.
For the occasional wedding, I shoot RAW &JPG. But free stuff, no thank you.
I shoot high upscale events including weddings at times, using Canon's LOVELY Portrait Picture Style, using S1 Resolution, at Jpeg. That's 1920x1280. Never had a complaint about sharpness on their photography books.
Most people seem's to love these videos (and the two smart guys ;-) ). Congrats to dpreview for this enhancement.
I prefer the "old school" written reviews were you can come back, read a part, finish later reading the rest. The older reviews were perfect (i remember my first digital camera was bought after reading and re reading the Canon G5 review on this website :-) )
For non english people (like me) It is also A LOT easier to read text than to listen to people talking. Especially when they talk fast like in these videos.
Yes. I agree. What is the future of the written review with this recent development? Lovely as they are (and I can see the attraction with many viewers for vid reviews), if dpreview becomes the 'Chris and Jordan' show it will be a lesser place. I hope it does not replace the written word.
I'm not English and I have no issues with that video or manner of speech. Speak for yourself - and maybe treat it as opportunity to listen to live English, not its simplified version. Besides, hosts speak excellent high English with no accent. If you cant cope with that, dont ever go abroad.
@arbux I am English and I still enjoy reading and being able to skim, read and re-read without using a video playback head. It's a much easier, faster and accurate way of assimilating information.
@Tungsten We have no plans to stop publishing written camera reviews, so you can look forward to many more in the future. In fact, the videos from Chris and Jordan are not replacing any content we currently publish.
I also want to point out that there's another angle to consider. I lost my hearing as a kid from an illness and used hearing aids, and now in middle age I'm using cochlear implants because hearing aids just didn't work for me anymore to aid sufficiently in comprehension.
Even with this fantastic technology, I'm dependent on all content being closed captioned, which actually is federal law for all but very limited content. These videos are NOT professionally captioned, they are relying on YT automatic captions, and as such don't meet the standards of professional captioning. Try turning the volume off if you want to experience the dubious pleasure of autocaptioning.
One out of every five Americans over the age of 12 has a hearing loss significant enough to disrupt everyday communication. I didn't make that up, it is from John Hopkins Medical School in one of the largest studies of it's kind. You'd think that's a big enough market to get DPR and Amazon interested in retaining it.
It’s a really nice camera, I just feel it’s priced too close to the A7III. It’s weird how much my view of value has been altered by the A7III release. I’m sure I’m not alone in this.
I am sorry but I am a bit sick of people complaining about Sony color science, A. Sony A7III has great colors for me at least and B. there is no way any normal person will know the difference unless you put two images next to each other who does that anyway ?! get the camera you like and go shoot shoot shoot
I find the whole "out of camera jpeg colour" argument weird. If you care so much about the subtle shades of colour (most of which only you will notice, and the average person won't), then spend 5 minutes in post processing. It really isn't that much work to apply a preset (of your choice, or your own making) across multiple photos. That's all the fuji is doing anyway.
Vlad... do a print and compare don't use monitor unless they're properly calibrated. you'll know the difference. the A9 for me is the best Sony in terms of colors. I don't know about A7III, yet. in general, Sony doesn't do well with OOC results with the exception of A9
There is one other consideration here, that is the cost of lenses. The superb Fuji lenses are much more affordable than the equivalent quality in Sony glass. Having said that, I would love to have both cameras to complement my X-T2 but I just spent some serious coin on Fuji lenses so I can't afford either right now!
Nice video and review of the XH-1. I love this camera and have been shooting it all day every day for the past 6 weeks. Like you said, it turns the great non-OIS Fuji primes into monsters with this excellent IBIS. I loved the XT-2, but like the way this camera feels much better. The great Fuji ergo that we Fuji shooters left FF DSLR for is the same really, minus the EC dial (which I don't miss). It is bigger but still less than my Canon FF and L lenses by a good bit. Love the fabulous EVF. The quiet shutter is amazing -- maybe the best of any camera. Nice images, but I have posted a thousand full-size JPEGs taken in the past 6 weeks on this Andalucia shoot if anyone wants to look. The IBIS provides a lot of EV decision-making latitude, and really helps on these hand-held indoor church and museum shots. Good job. Good that Sony and Fuji have such great mirrorless cameras. Gives Canon and Nikon a good technical start-base as they switch from DSLR. Can't wait for the competition.
Ummmm... I don't know Man.... I carried FF DSLRs around a lot more than most guys have and my Fuji gear is much smaller and lighter. It's why I dumped Canon. Let's not forget the lenses either. Fuji makes some killer glass sized really well. But yes, the XH-1 is bigger than the XT-2. It feels better to me (especially with that awesome grip), but I can certainly understand the argument. It is going to be interesting to see how all the main players size their cameras as Canon and Nikon abandon DSLRs and go mirrorless.
A shoot-out between the different systems, with similar lenses, would be nice.
@Chris and Jordan: Will you still do an hour-long stream once in a while, with guests? You won't have the books behind you anymore but maybe you can find something that fits better. Oh, and where do you get the cameras from? From dpreview or the manufacturers or do you still have ties to The Camera Store?
Thanks for watching! We have some shootouts planned in the near future, stay tuned. As for the live streams, we'd love to do something similar, but more polished down the road. For now, we're focused on making the fully produced episodes the best we can.
All the camera manufacturers have been excellent about providing us with samples, we expect that to continue moving forward.
My God these samples look bad. Any M43 camera beats them completely, they maybe have a change against a 1" RX100. But just maybe. Who in his right mind would pay the equivalent of Sony A7III for this junk?
lakkot, you are overstating your case quite a bit. No modern camera in that range is junk and certainly not the XH-1. I have posted 1000 full-size JPEGs from the XH-2 on this Andalucia Album here. Give them a look. Any modern sensor of MFT, APSC or FF can produce marvelous images. I'm a travel photographer and love this new XH-1. Sony and Fuji cameras are great. Why say one or the other is junk? Thx, https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
I'm confused. Are you guys saying my work is bad or are you saying each other's work is bad? Anyway, I've been a photographer for many decades and I know a lot of people don't like my work. I also know a lot of people do. I'm just having fun traveling and shooting my Fuji gear. I post it for all to see and some praise it while many say it is just postcard snapshots. On this trip -- of those 1100, probably only 35 will get used by professional media or published anywhere and they are free, so I don't care. Hey, my kids and Grandkids like them. My wife doesn't. She is too busy shooting with her Google Pixel 2. 😀 Anyway, all the Sony, Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, etc... all take great images (even Leica sometimes). Our problem is that we as photographers don't always take great images.
Believe it or not, it's not about you this time around, Greg. I think those two are taking a few potshots at each other. :-) Frankly, for me, some time in the distant future when I think my photography is worthy enough, I'll consider commenting on other people's work (other than the odd compliment here or there). Beyond that, I'd prefer not to judge.
Hey Jerry, of my many thousands of posts on DPR, I have never once criticised anyone's posted work, whether on Flickr or here. I almost always compliment it. It's what they write that I sometimes disagree with.
Yup. As soon as I start regarding myself as a half decent photographer, I *might* feel better about commenting here and there on other people's work. That's definitely not in the near future, so I tend to keep most of those opinions to myself. And yes, I don't recall ever seeing you do that either, Greg.
Guys point taken about criticism on people’s work, but your boy brought upon himself by commenting on how bad the camera and pictures are. When you allow yourself to criticize others’ pictures then you open the door for them to do the same about your own work. And when you think a camera is what makes a picture good then you open the door to think about what kind of camera could have produced the pictures he’s “selling” online.
@Greg7579 no, not your work. I am taking about @eliehbk who without any reason started going after people's galleries in a thread about cameras, so I wanted to give him a taste of his own medicine.
Lakkot it’s the language you started and you associate with. You criticized the pictures taken for the review and the camera since you’re under the illusion that using a phase one will make your pictures look better than ones taken with a Siemens.
@eliehbk Yeah, except I was talking about the camera and you went aftrer the photos. That is the difference. And yes, the same exact person will make better photos with Phase One than with Siemens, you are simply being consused in what is true for a user personally and what is true of the aggregate of users. So the true information that I need is not whether Elia Locardi can do nice photos with a Fuji, but rather what will happen if I spend this money on MY camera, ok? The photographer is the constant here, so stop spouting this nonsense about who gear doesn't matter. If I shoot one session with a Sony and images are good, an the I (the same person, I'll stress it because it somehow seems to miss you) make another session with Fuji and it is clear for all that images from the first session are better, you cannot simply say that the fault lays within the photographer. How is this too compliocated for you to fathom is really beyond me.
You called the camera and the PICTURES taken for this review as “junk”. So while you’re commenting on a camera review you still criticized the pictures taken. And while I know that a Siemens phone doesn’t take pictures as nice as a medium format one, I am sure nice pictures could be done with any camera. And I hate to admit, but I agree with your comment on giving a good photographer any tool and they can produce something nice. However, the opposite holds also true, some people would also be challenged with having at their disposal a Sony a9 or a7iii, especially if the intention is to take pictures of flowers for Facebook
@eliehbk The fact that you are trying to ignore difference between people's galleries and sample images from a review gives me alot of information about your integrity and cognitive skills. The second fact that you are trying to ask me to talk about cameras without talking about images they produce gives me even more information about your knowledge of gear. In short, you are completely ignorant or a terrible interlocutor.
Lakkot you’re rude and arrogant but that is to be expected. Thanks for educating me, you’re clearly superior. Now go out and find some shrubs so you can snap pictures with your Sony a7xxx to sell online. PS: don’t quit your day job (finance stuff)
@eliehbk it is good that you understood how incompetent you are in conversations with people. Plus you are still doing what you are accusing other people of doing, like in every post you drown yourself further. Really pathetic stuff, I only hope you don't have any dependants relying on your good will. It's like you don't even understand the words you are using. It is like you're trying, but you cannot stop yourself from being a a*hole for more than 1 sentence.
You’re so classy I’m getting goose bumps. Unlike you, I originally criticized your pictures and not you as a person but you attacked my persona and that’s because you’re rude, arrogant and at the bottom of human decency, plus you have big issues of low self esteem. You’ve done nothing but cry since I criticized your pictures. Unlike you I won’t call you names because you’re not worth it. I’m done with you buddy, do find a shrub and be happy with your Sony gear, too bad the a7 whatever won’t have a software update to be your shrink.
@eliehbk I didn't call you names, each invective I used is an appropriate reflection of your character. Just read our conversation, I deliberately flipped your previous post back at you so that you are only insulting yourself the whole time. Even the part about photographing shrubs. I mean just look at your gallery, your images are worth nothing. Man you are so incompetent at this it became just boring.
I gotta say guys... Come on. I'm not a moderator, but usually DPR does not allow two guys to go at it and insult each other back and forth on a thread about a camera review. I am currently serving a ban on the Fuji Forum for behavior way less extreme than this. If I said, "You are incompetent," or an "a...hole" on the Fuji forum, I would be instantly banned. I have been banned for far less than that. Now, I'm not saying you should be banned. I'm just saying to cool off. Come on, we are talking about two great camera companies here. This is a camera equipment forum. Friendly advice from a guy who is probably older than your Fathers.
Awww, Greg, darnit. I just went out and made up a nice, fresh batch of popcorn for this morning's "battle of the comments" and you had to dive in and spoil everything with a nice, logical, bit of advice. Geez. I guess this is what happens when comments are unmoderated. Amusing, but hardly productive.
@Greg7579 The guy is clearly roaming the net trying to find any sort of information about me, I find it very flattering and we had quite a good laugh at the office at his expense, but it became boring so I'm turning the notifications off
@lakkot will try to explain this to you simply, please do read it very slowly so you can understand it. Your information is on your profile here, your website link as well (that’s what happens when you include your information on your profile, got it :) pretty simple). The guys mentioned words like a*hole and incompetent, I think these came from you buddy. Thanks for sharing our conversation with you buddies at work (finance and stuff gmbh) it seems that I’m a big part of your life now.
Great video, thanks a lot for exploring all trade-offs and not just focusing on the positive points.
The X-H1's video output did not look that great. The samples looked fuzzy and sometimes featured heavy compression artefacts. It would be interesting to learn whether YouTube compression had anything to do with that.
yes it does :) ... i don't mean that the x-H1 video is great, i have no idea :) But evaluating the video capabilities of a camera other youtube is simply a big no (other than a general overview, a first impression, and focus).
YouTube adds its own compression, and it can be pretty aggressive. It tends to destroy details that often look good in the source material, which is why we often make the original source video available for download in camera reviews.
I did not mean to imply that YouTube works well as a video evaluation platform. However, the X-H1 quality seemed to be worse than that of the camera that was used for the rest of the video.
In particular, there were heavy motion artefacts in a X-H1 part that may or may not have been caused by the demanding scene. In short, I didn't notice any video issues with the other camera.
It would be good to have access to the source files to ascertain if they are problematic in any way.
You are. Not everyone needs or wants tiny cameras. And not all cameras need to be tiny. Pretty much no serious photographer I know ever said that DSLR's were "too big". Casual shooters do face that problem, but X-H1 isn't targeted at them.
I myself switched to mirrorless mostly because of: 1. EVF 2. Focus Peaking 3. No lens adjustment hassle 4. Silent shooting and fully electronic shutter
I have a separate small camera for when I need to travel light. My main working tool needs to have good ergonomics, comfortable grip, ruggedness and performance.
I bought a Fuji as a portable alternative to possibly replace my DSLR. In short: it can't and with the x-H1 the size benefit is gone as well. Sold everything except for an x-T1 with 2 small lenses. Nice combo for travel snaps. Would be great if Fuji manages to put IBIS in a compact travel body like Olympus, Sony and Panasonic do.
Nothing against the x-H1. More options are always good. But Fuji is missing something, too. That would be my money.
I didn’t watch this video, though I did watch the previous one out of curiosity. So my question to the DPR community is this: What do we learn from these videos that we don’t learn from the written reviews? Looking forward to the replies ;)
"Everyone knows books and newspapers are more popular than TV and video." Good to know, thanks. My question was about the written online reviews. This has always been an information site. How do these videos add value?
It's a fair question, I'd say it's just a different medium for different taste. I've always found Chris and Jordan informative, knowledgeable and entertaining. Glad DPR signed them and happy to watch a few ads to support their work.
I care about ergonomics and how a tool is used in practice. Seeing someone handle it and find quirks or interesting uses is the next best thing to me getting my own hands on it.
Videos like this or ones I produce try to bridge the gap by giving the viewer an idea of how a tool works outside of the specifications and technical tests.
My first DSLR was a Pentax *ist DS that I likely learned about from here or similar sites of the time. It wasn't around in my area to try out. It had more technical related qualities for the money than other cameras of the time (pentaprism vs pentamirror, etc), but I had a bit of a letdown moment once it was delivered due to the hardness and shape of the grip. Bridging that gap of really using the thing is helped, in my opinion, by videos like this. It can be pointed out in articles with text and photos, but it isn't the same.
In this case I also like the entertainment aspect a visual medium such as video provides.
There is a full written review with illustrative pictures for those that can read and prefer to do so.
By comparison to the huge number of low grade, boring, waffley, arrogant, self-opinionated, annoying, tedious and otherwise dire 'video reviews' on YouTube, this one is a very balanced and refreshing approach.
I think DPR along with Chris and Jordan have hit this about right. Well done.
That said, I do hope videos wont replace the written reviews. They are useful for reference.
It's been said a picture is worth a 1000 words. How many more words is a video worth?
You're an adult, Richard. As an adult, you can surely appreciate that there are multiple ways to learn about a thing. The very fact that you are looking at a computer screen or- heaven forfend- a new-fangled smartphone or tablet, should tell you we are no longer learning things by looking at pictures painted on the walls of a cave. I own books by the likes of Jeff Schewe, yet I still go to Phlearn on Youtube if I want to learn about something quickly about Photoshop or Lightroom. There's plenty of people out there who are dyslexic or just struggle learning from printed words. Or just prefer this format.
And this is why you should get behind these videos and support them and the people who prefer them. You still have your written reviews. Why would you or anyone deny someone else what you already take for granted? =)
Not many of us have the attention span to read a review. Just to look at a couple of pictures and then flick through to the summary. We don't even have to read the summary any more. There is a summary of the summary. And if that is too hard we can just read the number score. And if that is too hard, we can watch these two. What's not to like?
Haven’t watched it; I skip all videos. It’s all too slow, with guys (or girls) with predictable hand gestures explaining the obvious, and you have to move somewhere quiet to turn the sound on.
Give me something to read, which I actually can, and at a fast pace as well. Ever heard of ‘diagonal reading’?
It's a different medium with slightly different response times. No need to click on links, go backwards and forwards. The videographers themselves refer repeatedly to the written review. And if video is not your thing, no need to even bother watching. Personally, I think it's refreshing but I note comments above (or should that be below?) about pace of delivery for non-English speakers. Where's Attenborough when you need him?
@noyo – We have no plans to replace our written reviews with video reviews. Different people prefer to get their information in different ways, so we want to present both options.
It's a fair question. Well for one, as long as Chris and Jordan are free to give their honest opinions then you get duality of opinion, which is important because many aspects of camera functionality and design are highly subjective.
Mirrorless has the ability to be ........... who said if we are going to need new lenses, that it has to remain linked to some old movie film format ? Is 35mm full frame or could it become bigger, with less noise and better quality pixels at 100mp.
So lets have 2 systems 35mm fixed mirror to use old lenses and a new format , new entire design that starts all over again.
@HowaboutRAW Yeah, because who cares about commonly used naming nomenclature, when there's a crazy guy in DPreview comments section that begs to differ? Why are you not the king of the world already, huh?
you are trying to become a Wizard. Well guess what, whatever you call the Full Frame format, it doesn't influence the quality of an image because your words are not spells and do not influence reality.
I usually call the full framed format "full framed". The reason I used "so called above" is to indicate there's a reference to film sizing.
"it doesn't influence the quality of an image because your words are not spells and do not influence reality."
Couple things, as a general rule bigger pixels produce lower noise, as a 20MP full framed sensor will be less noisy than a 20MP APSC sensor, of the same generation.
Also generally, yes language used does influence outcomes, and outcomes are reality often.
You were/are grossly in error about my original comment, and now are trying to dress up your error as a protest about something I simply didn't do. Your words don't make reality.
Mirrorless had the capability to be different, but that opening shot for the video, this mirrorless and its lens looks exactly like a DSLR of 10 years ago.
That is nothing Olympus has some cameras that look like 50yr old models. I suppose in the end function determines design . DSLR's remain the most ergonomic option if nothing else
Have to disagree, SLRs à la Ricoh KR-10 etc. before the invention of those humongous and uncomfortable grips had good ergonomics and the rich size, as do the E-M5 / NX500 and all the other small / non-gripped bodies. The worst I tried was on of the Nikon one-digit square bodies.
Mirrorless already has the capability to be different. You can choose a small camera (a la X-T20) when using smaller lenses or a large camera (X-H1) when you've got the big zooms.
If you want ergonomics, then OM-D line is beating DSLR lines over... It ain't just the style, it is the industrial design and user interface that matters, and they did them already right decades ago before any "futuristic black block" that DSLR became because they went style before anything.
Yeah, the best camera ever invented was an 8mp Oly from 2008, just becasue it has a 1930's mirror flapping around. Dude, do you ever hear yourself talk?
IMO it was the best then and was experimenting with form factor, (no dSLR pentaprism), I took my hat off to Oly for designing it. Actually the mirror flipped sideways, not up/down, which resulted in less/no mirror slap. Was a good design for a dSLR, plus it had trailblazing 'super-sonic' dust removal, never had dust on the sensor, unlike most other dSLRs at the time,
& as I ended my last comment, currently (IMO)...
'The GFX 50S with tilt swivel EVF - that's where it's at'
of course you are entitled to think otherwise, just as I am entitled to offer my perhaps unexpected opinions here.
In other matters, nice video review, and I'll be looking forward to future ones. One thing I'd like to see on all future camera reviews: how easily one can change the aspect ratio for stills, and how both the eyelevel finder and external LCD show crop (frame lines, greyed-out, blacked-out?). Especially if done by frame or grey-out, an actual look sure beats the crappy drawings in most user manuals.
From the point of view of the photographer who wants to operate as compact and light as possible, is mostly stills-oriented but might want to occasionally record a high-quality video, the omission of the headphone jack is no small matter, doubly-so at this price point. A user ought to be able to pull earbuds out of camera case or pocket, plug them in, and be set to monitor audio in real time. I don't think there's any mirrorless APS-C camera that allows that. The Sonys have no headphone jack at all, the better Fujis require the grip. BOTH FAILS. If I have to add a grip, as with the Fuji, I might as well use a full-frame Sony instead, which has a jack on the camera body itself. I hope the upcoming mirrorless Nikons and Canons include a headphone jack.
'wants to operate as compact and light as possible, is mostly stills-oriented but might want to occasionally record a high-quality video'
And pull out headphones so you can listen to what, the internal mic? A shotgun you also just happened to stick in the bag? This seems like an odd use-case in no man's land. For most users, I imagine they're either doing work that's informal enough they can forego the mic (mostly because there's no external audio to monitor) or the production value is high enough that they're using a law, boom etc. and at that point the grip is no big deal.
Point noted. Instead of writing "occasionally record a high-quality video", maybe I should have written "... a better-quality video", "... a decent-quality video", or "... an acceptable-quality video"!
The point I was making was of wanting to walk around as discreetly as possible, without a lot of equipment on the carried camera, not looking overly professional or intimidating, but still getting the best results possible for the equipment used, and having real-time confirmation that the result was good enough. Sometimes, in really informal situations, the internal mike might just be good enough. Monitoring real-time with headphones, you'd know that, or know that you need to employ an external mike. And if you went external, well, not all shotgun mikes are equally large, and not all external mikes are shotguns (for instance, you might be using wireless, or a mic attached to yourself). Still would want to monitor, but perhaps still not want to attach the battery grip.
No, I disagree, ZilverHaylide - as per a different thread on the Digital Video Talk forum, I think that the ommission of a headphone jack on any camera that offers anything but the most basic video is unforgivable. Not talking about hauling out a big set of Sony pro headphones - but just the ability to check that something like a lavalier mic is hooked up correctly. My Fuji X-T20, which I use for media training, is sadly lacking in this regard.
Until more third party lenses come out the Sony option is still significantly more expensive. The full frame 'holy trinity' for Sony costs in the order of $2000 more than the equivalent for Nikon and Canon. Fuji lenses aren't cheap, but a well rounded Fuji package is still far cheaper than the equivalent for Sony. Assuming you don't intend to faff about with adapters.
The battery life is disconcerting like other mirrorless systems for long shooting sessions such as sport games, wildlife (especially in low temperatures), and wedding. If the battery grip is necessary, the weight saving advantage diminishes quickly.
It is difficult to judge the lens performance from this type of review. I would like to see more thorough testing from LenRental.
No argument about the weight advantage starting to disappear with a grip.
But for sports and wildlife shooting with longer and heavier lenses, I would think that you'd want the grip just for the improved ergonomics, and at that point you'll have quite a bit of battery capacity. Especially for sports where you constantly take pictures, you'll likely far exceed the CIPA rating -- that is true for any mirrorless system where much of the power consumption comes from always-on electronic components rather than the actually picture taking.
What many doesn't realize, is that mirrorless are NOT a frame based by battery lifetime like DSLR are. That is one of the pure technicality lies that DPR and others are constantly spreading.
Mirrorless battery lifetime is TIME based. You have camera turned On and taking any photos or not, it ain't really affecting the time one battery offers you to operate. You can take with a single battery a 10 000 frames or just 10 frames, it all depends what you do in the TIME period the battery gives the camera power.
A few years has already gone that typical good mirrorless battery gives 3-4 hours operation time. Now think about that. Continuous shooting all those hours. A wedding ceremony doesn't take that long usually (in India it can take a week) and sports events are over in few hours. A after party can take a 8-12 hours, but you are not there constantly photographing every second but you will keep turning camera off.
And if you can't swap a battery in 15min time when it gives warning...
One thing to note is that you can take significantly more than 300 shots if you are using burst over the course of say a 90 minute game. 300 shots is an estimate based on a day of walking around, likely spending a significant amount of time looking at the screen, composing shots with the viewfinder and reviewing your shots.
I would have thought my X-T1 could go way over 1000 shots if I were being sparing with screen/viewfinder use, and shooting burst at an event over the course of an hour or two.
Glad to see those two in action! Btw - I fully agree: It is important to have a bigger body option. I had both my X-T10 and X-T2 for some time and got the metal grip options to make them easier for my hands to hold. It also made them heavier and bulkier without providing any additional functionality. So do add ois for it.. tahts an idea. Btw: I still dislike the color rendition of the 24mp.. the 16mp had great colors. Please bring those back
I'll admit I was aware of Chris and Jordan before but was not a regular watcher of TCS. Caught some videos if I came across a link or something, but TCS was never a 'bookmark' per se. Always enjoyed your work, and I will definately be watching your new stuff on this site. I've enjoyed both videos thus far. Well done, entertaining and informative; gives you what you really need to know without sludging through the weeds.
Thanks for checking the two episodes out! We're still figuring out the best ways to take advantage of the new format, so stay tuned and don't forget to subscribe on YouTube!
If Fuji wants to develop the X-H1 line as their bird/wildlife/sports camera, they need to expand the zoom options and release a dedicated prime or two (the soon-to-be-released 200/2 is a great start) for these genres. In the meantime, improved AF acquisition and tracking in the next-gen X-H1 as well as improved battery life would make this body more attractive for fast action and subjects at distance.
I find that the X-H1 paired with either the 50-140 or 100-400 are great for my sports shooting needs...baseball and football. No doubt, a couple long and fast primes are in order from Fujifilm.
Bill, I do respect your views and the 200/2 may well be a boon for sports shooters (although I don't see too many professional Nikon 200/2s around the touchlines at soccer/rugby - can't comment on US football/baseball...) but for wildlife? I'm not suggesting that you said this would be a wonderful wildlife lens, but really, Fuji needs to do something beyond the 100-400. A 300/4 or 300/2.8? 400/2.8? To say nothing of the real 'long guns' of Canikon.
Hi Gibbosa - I mentioned the 200mm f/2 as it will capture an angle of view equivalent to a 300mm lens on a full frame body. The f/2 aperture will be a stop faster for exposure than a 300mm f/2.8 lens and will match that lens in depth of field.
A 270mm f/2.8 would nearly match the classic 400mm f/2.8 in angle of view, would match that lens in f-stop for exposure but would give up a bit in depth of field. A 330mm or 340mm, f/2.8 or f/4 would compete with the full-frame 500mm f/4. A 400mm, f/2.8 or f/4 would compare with the 600mm f/4.
I was astonished a little, how ugly the bokeh was in the peacock image (100-400 at 280mm). Very harsh onion rings.
But the bokeh performance near the focal plane is a typical weak spot of modern lens designs, optimized for sharpness at the focal plane.
The far-distance bokeh (near infinity) is fine again, but that's always fine with all lenses of all makers of all price ranges. Usualy the near bokeh (for portraits, the hair bokeh) is the one which distinguishes "good" from "bad" bokeh characteristics.
But portrait photography may be much pickier regarding bokeh esthetics, than animal photography.
It is probably an unusual situation in typical animal photography, that a bad bokeh gets a chance to shine through (such as it did for the peacock shot here).
I wouldn't want to use the 100-400 for any people photography though.
I see where your coming from. The staff at DPReview are very good at what they do when it comes to lab testing. I trust their results. However when it comes to the design of the camera, how it handles, whether I like it or not, and how I feel it delivers as a photographic tool? That's where they respect our opinions as well and want us to deliver how we feel ourselves. In fact on this very video I really found the shutter to be effective and usable, where as many of the dpr staff found it too sensitive and spongy. I think we will be able to express our opinions objectively.
Chris, I believe your post was intended to respond to another post, not mine :) My post was more a side note regarding the lens quality, but your post refers to camera handling, in particular its shutter. Doesn't seem to match ;)
Since you have been very active in the comments could you ask dpreview staff to fix the commenting system, pretty please? There's no indication whose post a reply is to and mobile version is mostly useless (it doesn't even point you to the right page of multi page discussions from notifications, no option to edit a post, etc).
(just in case this is an example of a wrong reply...) it's for @dpthoughts, following the comment about I wouldn't want to use the 100-400 for people photography - I have to say that I had a 100-400, which I tested with my X-T1 - compared it with my Nikon D500 + 200-500 and sent it back the same day. Chalk and cheese. I should also add that I now have an X-T20, which is a vast improvement for anything that moves over the X-T1. So who knows - maybe time to try once again a lens that is highly regarded by many others. Of course, that's not the subject of this post - apologies for that - I picked up an X-HT1 in the local camera store last week and, for me, it completely loses the size advantage of the Fuji over the Nikon.
Hmm. The X-H1 is 673g, a Nikon D500 is 860g. Yes, there's just a smartphone worth of difference between these. Not that much.
Another scenario: The Sony A7 III has about the same weight as the X-H1, 650g. Say, If one considers the new native Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 = 550g.
To become equivalent (bokeh, noise) with a Fuji X-H1 setup, you would require the four f/2.0 primes 18, 23, 35 and 50mm. I didn't bother to look up their respective weights, because it is obvious that the X-H1 setup would be heavier.
But this comparison is a bit odd. The primes setup would have a nicer rendering. Still, if you were a people photographer and just keen on convenience rather than being an ultimate bokeh conneusseur, it is odd that APSC can be undercut with full frame by know in weight and size.
So now that you're aligned with DPR how will that affect your objectivity? Well on a positive note... Since you guys moved over at least its stopped snowing... Best of luck to you both.
Unfortunately your points while valid do not address the essence of my mild concern... What if DPR finds A and they in their review find B... Nothing to do with the commercial points you are making... Perhaps thats why for example professors are tenured... To eliminate such unavoidable yet inherent bias... Not suggesting anything negative toward the presenters... Just pointing out a longstanding general issue in such circumstances.
It depends on what "A" and "B" are. If DPR says a camera weighs 2.25 lbs. and Chris/Jordan say the same camera weighs 3.25 lbs., then someone is incorrect. However, other than criteria that can be measured, such as camera specifications, all that remains is subjective and is based upon opinion. I have no problem with DPR and Chris/Jordan differing on opinion.
Indeed. And I don't think DPR has any problem with Chris & Jordan holding different opinions. Heck, Chris & Jordan often share different opinions. Even DPR is not some monolithic entity. Richard, Barney, Rishi, Dan, and all the others have different opinions, priorities, and past experiences that inform their specific preferences re: camera gear. As do we all.
People... Very respectfully... My point is not if their opinions differ to that of DPR... If they do all the better... Adds to the constructive discussion ... My point is that they are now in a position to disagree eith the hand which feeds them and will they be influenced by it... Holefully not as I very much value their objective input.
It is for this very same reason that persons contract to have artistic freddoms relative to their emoyers... A completely different concept which I noted with no animosity intended.
I see where your coming from. The staff at DPReview are very good at what they do when it comes to lab testing. I trust their results. However when it comes to the design of the camera, how it handles, whether I like it or not, and how I feel it delivers as a photographic tool? That's where they respect our opinions as well and want us to deliver how we feel ourselves. In fact on this very video I really found the shutter to be effective and usable, where as many of the dpr staff found it too sensitive and spongy. I think we will be able to express our opinions objectively.
Chris... Live long and prosper... My Bat Senses tell me you are a talented person with much to offer... I very much enjoy and value your work... I believe your primary niche to be the integrity with which you and Jordan deliver your insight... I was very lighly suggesting my hope that this will not change... Best of luck to you both... 👍
Silly if they did... Not saying they might or would... Or did... Just saying I hope thats not ever the case as their independent perspectives are most welcome as provided.
BTW... There's a fortune to be made litigating things which could never happen... 😃
Chris and Jordan are still out of the office, so we're taking a trip down memory lane to feature another classic episode of DPReview TV: our review of the Fujifilm X-H1. Believe it or not, this was only our second episode of DPRTV!
What does two years of progress look like, for Fujifilm's most video-centric models? Is the X-T4 worth the upgrade from the X-H1, or is now the time to bag yourself a bargain?
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! In this week's episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan go to the zoo with the Fujifilm X-H1. Watch as they photograph lemurs, red pandas and maybe even a Tyrannosaur while putting this camera to the test.
Fujifilm will be releasing firmware updates for six cameras in April in May. The cameras include the GFX 50S, X-H1, X-T2, X-Pro2, X-E3 and X100F, with the X-T2 gaining the most features, such as focus bracketing, high speed video recording and improved phase detect AF performance.
The Panasonic GH6 is the latest in the company's line of video-focused Micro Four Thirds cameras. It brings a new, 25MP sensor and 10-bit 4K capture at up to 120p. We've put it to the test, both in the studio and out in the field.
Is the MSI Creator Z17 the MacBook Pro competitor Windows users were hoping for? In our tests it delivers big performance and offers a few good reasons why you might choose a 12th-Gen Intel laptop over a Mac.
The Autel EVO Nano+ drone weighs less than 250g, includes advanced features, and gets extra points for privacy. But is it enough to outclass the competition? We dive deep to find out where it excels and what it's like to fly.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
OM System Ambassador Peter Baumgarten visits the wetlands of central Florida to photograph birds with the OM-1. Travel with Peter to see how he shoots, and view some of the spectacular photos he captures along the way. (Includes sample gallery)
We go hands-on with Sigma's latest 'Digital Native' wide-angle lenses for L-mount and Sony E-mount cameras to see what features they have and what sets them apart from the rather limited competition.
Sony has announced in-camera forgery-proof photo technology for its a7 IV mirrorless camera. The technology, aimed at corporate users, cryptographically signs images in-camera to detect future pixel modification and tampering.
CRDBAG's CRDWALL is a thin, space-efficient storage solution that you mount on your wall. It uses tracks, cords and hooks to store your gear flat against the wall without hiding it from view.
The new Sigma 24mm F1.4 DG DN Art has a brand new optical formula designed for mirrorless cameras. Check out our sample gallery to see how sharp it is, as well as how it handles flare, chromatic aberrations and sunstars.
Sigma’s new 24mm F1.4 DG DN lens for L-mount and E-mount features a physical aperture ring that can be de-clicked, stepping motors with full support for Sony MF assist modes, a rear filter holder and more.
Sigma's new 20mm F1.4 DG DN lens for L-mount and E-mount offers a unique set of features for Astro and landscape photographers, including a rear filter holder, a Manual Focus Lock switch and a Lens Heater Retainer.
This behemoth uses the same 8K full-frame Vista Vision CMOS sensor found inside the standard V-RAPTOR, but adds an impressive I/O array, integrated ND filter and more to make it a production-ready rig.
Alfie Cameras is launching its Alfie TYCH next month on Kickstarter, but before then it needs beta testers to see how its triple lens half-frame camera performs.
NASA is preparing for a simulated Mars mission that will house four crew members in a module on Earth. The crew will remotely control drones and rovers to collect rock samples on a simulated Mars. Skypersonic, a remote control drone company, is supplying mission-critical technology as part of the mission.
Scientists using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have observed a neutron star merger in millimeter-wavelength light for the first time. The explosion created one of the most energetic short-duration gamma-ray bursts ever observed.
The Panasonic GH6 is the latest in the company's line of video-focused Micro Four Thirds cameras. It brings a new, 25MP sensor and 10-bit 4K capture at up to 120p. We've put it to the test, both in the studio and out in the field.
The Tamron Lens Utility Mobile app is set to launch later this year. The app will let you use your compatible Android device to control, customize and update compatible Tamron lenses without the need for a computer.
NASA has released a new image from the James Webb Space Telescope, focusing on the Cartwheel Galaxy. The rare galaxy has been imaged using Webb's NIRCam and MIRI, with the composite showing incredible detail.
In a recent Q&A session with stakeholders, Canon said it believes 'the camera market has largely bottomed out at its current size' and noted it 'expect[s] the professional and advanced amateur segment to expand further.'
The Peter McKinnon camera tool features a patent-pending design that features integrated Phillips and flathead drivers, as well as extendable arms capable of holding four other bits that can be swapped out to fit your needs.
Nikon has updated the firmware for its Nikkor Z 50mm F1.2 S, Nikkor Z MC 105mm F2.8 VR S and Nikkor Z 24-70mm F2.8 S to add new linear focus ring modes and more.
The United States court of appeals has upheld the FAA's Remote ID rule for drones, declaring it constitutional. Is this good or bad for the industry, and what are the long-term implications?
Is the MSI Creator Z17 the MacBook Pro competitor Windows users were hoping for? In our tests it delivers big performance and offers a few good reasons why you might choose a 12th-Gen Intel laptop over a Mac.
The PGM0.5 card reader is designed for photographers on-the-go with its compact form factor and integrated USB-C connection, making it perfect for pairing with Android and iOS mobile devices with USB-C ports.
The Canon EOS R7 boasts a number of impressive features, but how does its 32 megapixel APS-C sensor perform? Check out some summer vacation photos from beautiful British Columbia to see for yourself.
Hardware data recovery is complex, requiring sophisticated, expensive equipment. A data recovery expert in Poland, Enter Serwis, has shown off how they use a Spider Board to recover data from a non-functioning memory card.
This second-generation lens is smaller than its predecessor and uses a stepping motor, compared to the linear ultrasonic motors used in Samyang's first-generation 85mm F1.4 AF lens.
Comments