DPReview TV: Fujifilm X-H1 Review

So so true....
Even more so if you actually own FF, APS-C and m4/3 gear and see the proof first hand....

Compare the Canon 5DS to the Canon 70D. Pretty much same generation of tech, pixel size is near identical. 5DS produces cleaner images.

HT:

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.

The 70D was the first released with the dual-pixel architecture. How does that have a history?

HT:

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.

The difference in read noise is negligible in terms of explaining the difference in performance.

Photography is all about light; more light=less noise. Bigger sensor means more light for a given exposure.

Please read this:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Emil%20Martinec/noise-p3.html#pixelsize

HumanT:

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.

FLruckas:

I'm sorry, what does owning a camera have to do with having raws from said camera? Answer: Nothing.

"They're most like just snaps someone took to say they have raws. "

Even were that the case, they'd still be perfectly valid raws. Do you not understand what a raw is? Answer from your posts: Apparently not.

"I wouldn't waste my time with someone who doesn't produce evidence."

I will not be sharing my raws. However, I'm real sure of my conclusions regards the T5i and the 5DSR here.

Your continued stalking of me suggests an envy of my gear trying.

If you cannot tell the difference between the T5i and 5DS R at high ISO, I suggest you get your eyes checked. Look:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos700d&attr13_1=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_2=apple_iphonex&attr13_3=apple_iphonex&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=32&attr16_3=32&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0&y=0

And in fact, the T5i has more read noise than the 5DS R, despite the latter's dual pixel architecture:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R_14,Canon%20EOS%20700D_14

Get your facts straight.

HT:

Laughable that you post just a link to DPR.

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:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Canon%20EOS%20700D_14,Canon%20EOS%2080D_14

HT
Howie needs to come clean about his raws....

HT:

I'm not interested in the 80D versus the T5i.

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.

FLruckas:

"come clean"?

As in I have hundreds of my own raws, and I make sure to try cameras under difficult lighting?

Not sharing my raws. But at least I understand what a raw is. Not sure you do.

A raw is not a chart, or a claim on a DXO webpage, nor are raws slices of jpegs (that came from raws) on a DPR webpage.

HT:

"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.

The more you post...

"You mean your links to charts?"

No, this:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Emil%20Martinec/noise-p3.html#pixelsize

"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.

HT:

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.

You need to look up "binning".

"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.

HT:

"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). "

HT:

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.

Look, it's clear you've not tried much gear.

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!

HT...
Someone suggested he has aspergers...
If that's the case...
You have your answer....

HT:

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.

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...

Thematic, I like that attituden - not, but good luck with it.

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.

Those are relevant points, but the problem remains, for me 24 fps does not look good on 60 Hz monitor.

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.

Exactly!

(For me when viewed on 60Hz monitor.)

It is not question if pan is crap at 24 fps, but if pan is crap at 24 fps when viewed on 60 Hz monitor. For me the later is, no question about it.

Let me put it other way. If you know the material is published 30 or 60 fps, would you shoot it 24 fps?

I like the look of 24p shot footage on regular 60hz monitors. I shoot it for that stuttery non "hyper realistic" look.

I haven't had the chance to watch proper screened 24p vs TV/Monitor 24p though. I always thought it'd be a minimal difference.

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?

"Wouldn't displaying a frame twice extend the video time X2?" No, because the monitor displays the frames twice as fast as source material.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

@greg7579 not your work, I haven’t seen it :)

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

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 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.

Priceless in comparison, especially these days.

Interesting! Thankyou all for the replies.

@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?

lakkot:

I'm sorry where did I say a thing about nomenclature? And "king of the world"?

Optical Porro Finder

'Mirrorless had the capability to be different'
Evolution 300
E300

...I keep saying this, yet, actually the E300 was a reflex mirror dSLR,

though an evolution at a very early stage in the Olympus involvement with digital photography, they could have taken it further.

I still use the E300, amazing idea the folded path 'penta mirror'.

Next best has been the E-PL1 with the optional tilt EVF. Not much else since.

The GFX 50S with tilt swivel EVF - that's where it's at.

Well it's big, but t be fair it's by far the biggest model in the range. Others which use the same lenses are much smaller.

@left eye

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?

@lakkot

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.

@Blue Swan Media:

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.

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.

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... 😃