The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fuji X-H1

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I think Panasonic has a lot functionality integrated in additional custom ASICS, which supports the CPU(s).

Anyway I am a bit upset that the XH1 comes again with that 1.17 crop in 4k video, that seems to be a sensor limitation. The GH5, G9 and EM1.2 all have full sensor readout in 4k. Interesting also that this fact gets never mentioned in any of the Fuji videos or advertisements - just as if this fact would not matter. For me it matters indeed!
The crop is mentioned in every video I’ve seen on Fujifilm cameras and even still the sensor area with the crop is still larger than a 4/3 camera sensor. Fuji is also supersampling the image to get 4K video from 5.somethingK video. Also there’s no sensor limitation in using the entire sensor. It’s likely a conscious choice to reduce rolling shutter even further. The Sony A6xxx series uses the exact same sensor and reads off the full sensor to supersample 6k to 4k video. The XT2 (and probably by extension the XH1) have slightly better rolling shutter performance than the A6xxx series and with the total sensor crop the lens crop becomes something like 1.7x so a 24mm equivalent becomes approximately a 27mm equivalent lens. Not a huge deal for most as an 18mm Fuji lens becomes a 30mm equivalent one and so on. The range gets covered.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Actually WRT 4k sensor crop - made up my mind and this is no further an issue for me - the 2.8/16-55 /that would be my standard go to lens for this system and the new x-H1 becomes a 2.8/18.7-64.3 that equals a 2.8/28-96.5 which is not bad at all!

WRT small batteries - I have learned to live with 3 (or Nx3) batteries and meanwhile have lot of charging solutions for this - so also that issue is gone.

Becomes much more interesting now as with just 3 or 5 lenses I would have my perfect dream system (16-55, 56, 100-400, and maybe 1.4/35 and TC1.4)😊

Maybe my m43 Olympus has to go ?????
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Actually WRT 4k sensor crop - made up my mind and this is no further an issue for me - the 2.8/16-55 /that would be my standard go to lens for this system and the new x-H1 becomes a 2.8/18.7-64.3 that equals a 2.8/28-96.5 which is not bad at all!

WRT small batteries - I have learned to live with 3 (or Nx3) batteries and meanwhile have lot of charging solutions for this - so also that issue is gone.

Becomes much more interesting now as with just 3 or 5 lenses I would have my perfect dream system (16-55, 56, 100-400, and maybe 1.4/35 and TC1.4)��

Maybe my m43 Olympus has to go ?????
Yeah and that crop only applies to 4k video. For photography the standard 1.5x crop is maintained so it will still behave as a 24-85-ish/2.8 lens.

If you buy the battery grip kit then it comes with 3 batteries. I’ve had good look with Wasabi/Watson/Dot batteries personally for off brand options that are less expensive. You can also probably charge/power from a USB battery pack if in a remote location as a backup. So long as a camera has powering options battery life is the least of my worries in most cases.

Not saying you should switch from Micro 4/3 and I truly think it’s a case of it depends. Do you want a more compact camera or not, does medium format fit into your kit or not, and do you want native 4/3 aspect ratio or not. They’re different cameras with similar markets.

In any case I’ll have one in my hands on next Thursday to try out.
 
Last edited:

iiiNelson

Well-known member
It does matter. Again: There are many good reasons why m4/3 has become so popular among video shooters. The GH5s actually has a negative crop when shooting Cine 4K due to the oversized sensor.
Even with a smaller crop factor the sensor area is still smaller than going APS-C if that matters for you. The Panasonic has some features more important to dedicated video shooters and pros but the AF isn’t up to Canon Cinema Camera levels or up to the levels of most mass market cameras in its class. No this doesn’t matter as much when using manual focus lenses but it does matter for some types of shooting if the camera won’t reliably autofucos all the time for the price they’re charging for the camera. I’m generally photography centric though and while I could’ve gotten a XT2 for awhile there’s are significant ergonomic upgrades in the XH1 IMO. Also the improved EVF, larger grip, new submonitor, touchscreen, etc. is likely worth the extra $200 premium over the XT2.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
All the better. Still, it offers only half the bit rate of the GH5 and no 10 bit video. There must be som magic going on in the GH5.
I also think this may be an apples to oranges argument. Yes 10-bit is a higher color space and and the higher bit rate is nice. I wonder how much real world difference it will make... I mean no one was really complaining about A7SII video and what I’ve seen for the XH1 looks damn good. Most cameras are outputting 50mbit on the data rate side and a few are in the 80-100mbit range. Panasonic GH5 will do up to 400 and most true cinema cameras are in the 500-700+ range for something like an Arri.

The point is that all of these cameras are highly capable options... but I do believe that going with 4K60 is a large oversight because these next cameras will likely start pushing 6K and 4K120 in the next 2 years or so.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
10 bit and higher bit rate are a must if one needs this professionally - BUT I don't and it would just fill up my storage much faster - which I do not want and do not need.

So yes, actually the X-H1 video capabilities seem to be more than sufficient for my purposes - and this is all what matters to me ;)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I also think this may be an apples to oranges argument. Yes 10-bit is a higher color space and and the higher bit rate is nice. I wonder how much real world difference it will make... I mean no one was really complaining about A7SII video and what I’ve seen for the XH1 looks damn good. Most cameras are outputting 50mbit on the data rate side and a few are in the 80-100mbit range. Panasonic GH5 will do up to 400 and most true cinema cameras are in the 500-700+ range for something like an Arri.

The point is that all of these cameras are highly capable options... but I do believe that going with 4K60 is a large oversight because these next cameras will likely start pushing 6K and 4K120 in the next 2 years or so.
I agree that the lack of 4K60 is a bigger problem, and at 4K30, the lower bitrate won't be a problem. If I've understood things correctly, 10-bit is mostly an advantage when shooting low ISO and with LOG profiles, which means heavy editing in post. The discussions around this topic tend to be very technical though, and I often give up understanding the arguments :)

The GH5 also offers 1080P180 (with a crop I think). I believe the G9 would be a more fair comparison to the X-H1 though, but that one also offers 4K60 and 1080p 180fps in VFR mode.

The video crop factor is problematic for two reasons:

- Wide angle lenses sometimes won't be wide enough.
- For those who shoot video and stills, there will be different angles of view for the two modes.

It's obviously possible to make excellent video with any of these cameras. I currently use the old, obsolete GX8 for video and the quality is mostly good enough for my needs, unfortunately except for the bitrate when I shoot complex industrial scenes where there tends to be lots of movement
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I agree that the lack of 4K60 is a bigger problem, and at 4K30, the lower bitrate won't be a problem. If I've understood things correctly, 10-bit is mostly an advantage when shooting low ISO and with LOG profiles, which means heavy editing in post. The discussions around this topic tend to be very technical though, and I often give up understanding the arguments :)

The GH5 also offers 1080P180 (with a crop I think). I believe the G9 would be a more fair comparison to the X-H1 though, but that one also offers 4K60 and 1080p 180fps in VFR mode.

The video crop factor is problematic for two reasons:

- Wide angle lenses sometimes won't be wide enough.
- For those who shoot video and stills, there will be different angles of view for the two modes.

It's obviously possible to make excellent video with any of these cameras. I currently use the old, obsolete GX8 for video and the quality is mostly good enough for my needs, unfortunately except for the bitrate when I shoot complex industrial scenes where there tends to be lots of movement
10 bit is referring to the color space and the amount of colors that can be displayed. 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 is referring to the compression algorithm that affects the amount of digital manipulation you’re able to perform before the image begins to break up. Bit rate is referring to the amount of data potentially captured. Log is just a flat color profile but in many cases noise is more visible prior to a LUT being utilized. That’s the simplified version.

The reason people like at a minimum 4:2:2 is because it allows simple manipulation without breaking up. 4:4:4 is preferred but usually only offered in pro level cinema cameras. Essentially Fujifilm cameras allow one to apply any of their film simulations directly to the recording so it makes the 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 compression available a little more moot if it works with the intended final look you want. A lot of that depends on how the deliverables need to be output. 10 bit 4:4:4/4:2:2 is usually used for broadcast standards because of the amount of devices the video needs to go through before actually being output... again this is being simplified.

As for the crop factor they have native lenses available or on the roadmap that are as wide as 8mm which would be about a 14mm equivalent. If you can’t capture it with that then maybe you need to rethink the framing.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
All fine by me . . Except the. Big Lenses.
Just a short note on the big lenses- there are several primes now that are both good and not so big. I agree that if you go to the pro zooms, then size is big, though they are giving you effectively an F2.0 m43/rds zoom equiv. for DOF and light gather.

In my case I give more priority to size, so. Anyhow, looks like a great camera, and Fuji sure seems to continue relentlessly on the market.

- Ricardo
 

Shashin

Well-known member
...and I’m glad to see they’ve removed the unneccessary compensation dial and put a useful LCD there instead!
That dial is one of the best things, IMHO. I love it on my X pro2 and RX-1. Until I got one of those, I did not enjoy auto exposure modes.
 

Rand47

Active member
That dial is one of the best things, IMHO. I love it on my X pro2 and RX-1. Until I got one of those, I did not enjoy auto exposure modes.
Full range utilization of the EC dial requires “C” and thumb wheel anyway. The new implementation is somewhat clever in that the button can either be “on while pressing” or “toggle on/off.” There have been times that the EC dial has been upset by me or camera bag, etc. I’m with Jono on this one and will appreciate the change in the way EC is implemented.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
That dial is one of the best things, IMHO. I love it on my X pro2 and RX-1. Until I got one of those, I did not enjoy auto exposure modes.
I agree to this. It's one of those adjustments that sometimes has to be done within a fraction of a second. When it's on a separate wheel, I always know where it is. I would have given priority to that dial over ISO as well as exposure time.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I must say that I hated the exposure dial - did not work seamlessly at least for me (not right position and to stiff on the XT2) and I prefer definitely that this function can be put now on any other dial. I would leave it on front dial - as my EM1.2 and be just fine. This is the most intuitive way of shooting for me.

The X-H1 does this really right :clap::thumbs::toocool:
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
That dial is one of the best things, IMHO. I love it on my X pro2 and RX-1. Until I got one of those, I did not enjoy auto exposure modes.
Hi Will And Jorgen
I don’t mean I don’t need a dial for exposure compensation. I have one one every camera I have. I just don’t need an explicit dial (which has the added difficulty of not being able to set it in a user profile (and the further likelihood of being set by itself in my bag. ))
 
Last edited:

Frankly

New member
I wonder what the manufacturing and design costs of the X-H1 are compared to a XT-2? The profit margin has to be much higher on these luxury models like the Sony A9, Olympus whatever, etc.

Remember that the argument in favor of the mirrorless cameras was that they used far less complex parts and mechanisms, they could be assembled faster and easier and require less human aided calibration? Funny how you don't hear that much anymore and the mirrorless cameras cost more than their equivalent OVF DSLR counterparts like Canon Rebels, Nikon D5500s, etc.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I wonder what the manufacturing and design costs of the X-H1 are compared to a XT-2? The profit margin has to be much higher on these luxury models like the Sony A9, Olympus whatever, etc.

Remember that the argument in favor of the mirrorless cameras was that they used far less complex parts and mechanisms, they could be assembled faster and easier and require less human aided calibration? Funny how you don't hear that much anymore and the mirrorless cameras cost more than their equivalent OVF DSLR counterparts like Canon Rebels, Nikon D5500s, etc.
"DSLR counterparts like Canon Rebels, Nikon D5500s"? I haven't used a Canon Rebel lately, but I have used a Nikon D5500. The image quality is fantastic, and runs circles around many cameras that are much more expensive. Apart from that, it's a little plastic camera with mediocre ergonomics and a terrible viewfinder. I've considered it many times, but since the viewfinder is kind of important to actually see what I'm taking photos of, it was a no-go for me.

So I tried its slightly larger brother, the D7500, when it was launched. That camera has a terrific sensor as well, and the ergonomics are actually pretty good. So is the viewfinder, except that the diopter adjustment maxes out at +1, and there's no optional add-on to change that, which mean that I would have to use glasses to see what I'm doing, something I really hate.

So what I would need to compare with the GX8 that I currently use is the D500, which is much bigger, as expensive as the mirrorless top models (except the full frame Sonys) and so on. I do have a D610 for when I need full frame and/or an optical viewfinder. Image quality is great, ergonomics so so and viewfinder had to be modified for my needs, but at least it doesn't drain my wallet. From a usability point of view though, the GX8 is a much better option, and it allows me to shoot very high quality video while looking through the viewfinder. Try that with a DSLR.

I think the price/simplicity argument for mirrorless cameras died with the Panasonic GH1, almost 10 years ago. There are of course simple, compact, cheap mirrorless cameras that are much smaller and p&s like than any DSLR, but advanced users mostly want exactly the same from a mirrorless as from a DSLR, and being tiny isn't always an advantage. And as for great viewfinders, they are expensive whatever way you make them, or so it seems.
 

Frankly

New member
"DSLR counterparts like Canon Rebels, Nikon D5500s"? I haven't used a Canon Rebel lately, but I have used a Nikon D5500. The image quality is fantastic, and runs circles around many cameras that are much more expensive. Apart from that, it's a little plastic camera with mediocre ergonomics and a terrible viewfinder. I've considered it many times, but since the viewfinder is kind of important to actually see what I'm taking photos of, it was a no-go for me.

So I tried its slightly larger brother, the D7500, when it was launched. That camera has a terrific sensor as well, and the ergonomics are actually pretty good. So is the viewfinder, except that the diopter adjustment maxes out at +1, and there's no optional add-on to change that, which mean that I would have to use glasses to see what I'm doing, something I really hate.

So what I would need to compare with the GX8 that I currently use is the D500, which is much bigger, as expensive as the mirrorless top models (except the full frame Sonys) and so on. I do have a D610 for when I need full frame and/or an optical viewfinder. Image quality is great, ergonomics so so and viewfinder had to be modified for my needs, but at least it doesn't drain my wallet. From a usability point of view though, the GX8 is a much better option, and it allows me to shoot very high quality video while looking through the viewfinder. Try that with a DSLR.

I think the price/simplicity argument for mirrorless cameras died with the Panasonic GH1, almost 10 years ago. There are of course simple, compact, cheap mirrorless cameras that are much smaller and p&s like than any DSLR, but advanced users mostly want exactly the same from a mirrorless as from a DSLR, and being tiny isn't always an advantage. And as for great viewfinders, they are expensive whatever way you make them, or so it seems.
Oh I am sympathetic, I even preferred my Panasonic G1 EVF to anything else in 2009 because you could review your photos. It worked very well in the dark with flash and even now the old 12mp files still hold up.

Every time I pick up a higher end Olympus or get suckered into buy the latest Fuji X100stx series I fall in love with the heft and tactile knobs, the overall first impressions are great. Of course I end up not buying or selling them because of UI, image quality, or simple ergonomics (buttons and grip too small for large hands). But I do wonder why Nikon and Canon can't do better?

But I clearly remember people going on about the cost savings of mirrorless and instead we got lower sales volume, higher margin cameras.

Here's an old Pany G1 shot for entertainment, maxed out ISO and noise:
 

Attachments

Shashin

Well-known member
But I clearly remember people going on about the cost savings of mirrorless and instead we got lower sales volume, higher margin cameras.
And these people were who? Sales volume for cameras in general are low. Margins, regardless of camera type, are low too. If you want to make a ton of cash, I would suggest another industry.

I was a former Konica Minolta employee that worked with camera product teams in Japan, just in case you wanted to know...
 
Top