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

Frankly

New member
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...
Mainly Thom Hogan but what does he know?
 

jonoslack

Active member
Mainly Thom Hogan but what does he know?
Well, certainly less than someone who worked for Konica Minolta in Japan! I really like Thom, but he is a punter, like many others, and he has an agenda and a living to learn as well as knowledge.

Fuji are making truck loads of money - but a little close examination shows that over 80% of it is coming from the Instax range.

I quite agree with Jorgen - the current top of the range µ43 cameras seem to me to be set straight against the D500 (nothing lower) - I’ve owned an Olympus OMD E-M1 mk2, a Fuji X-T2, a Nikon D500 and a Panasonic G9 in the last few months and each has it’s advantages (and disadvantages).
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Well, certainly less than someone who worked for Konica Minolta in Japan! I really like Thom, but he is a punter, like many others, and he has an agenda and a living to learn as well as knowledge.

Fuji are making truck loads of money - but a little close examination shows that over 80% of it is coming from the Instax range.

I quite agree with Jorgen - the current top of the range µ43 cameras seem to me to be set straight against the D500 (nothing lower) - I’ve owned an Olympus OMD E-M1 mk2, a Fuji X-T2, a Nikon D500 and a Panasonic G9 in the last few months and each has it’s advantages (and disadvantages).
The X-H1 for me tops all the cameras you mentioned because of several reasons - and I would switch if I could decide without any system I already own. But switching to the X-H1 - not sure because then all these reasons and features topping the other cameras are not quite enough for me.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
When comparing the price of technologies, it's important to consider the real costs, not only what seems to be more expensive. Although a mirror/viewfinder is certainly more mechanically complex than an LCD and a few cables, the SLR technology is very mature, and there's little innovation needed. Most or all of the parts can be manufactured without human intervention and assembled by low or unskilled labour, often in low cost countries like Nikon does in Thailand. The big difference compared to electronics is that the price won't go much down with increasing production figures because of the manual labour part, but since mirrorless cameras are produced in relatively small numbers, both as a total and not least because there are many suppliers and even more models per supplier involved, they don't really harvest the electronics advantage. DSLR manufacturers have the great advantage of being only two and a half (that would be Canon, Nikon and Pntx), with camera models that are manufactured without much change year after year.

For some reason, this reminds me of a conversation I had with an engineer at Xerox when I worked there back in the day. I was impressed with the speed of the top model, which at the time was the Xerox 9500 that could copy 120 A4 sheets per minute, so I asked this slightly naive question: how is that even possible.

The answer was still interesting: You design and optimise every little part in the mechanical paper path using very small tolerances until there's little resistance, neither mechanically nor aerodynamically. The next and obvious question from me was then: Why aerodynamically? The answer to that is that the next challenge, and the one that ultimately decides the maximum number of copies that can be produced per minute, is the aerodynamics of a single, 80g sheet of A4 paper. So the limit for single sheet paper is absolute, and the only way to get around it is using paper on roll, which is what IBM did with the 3800 laser printer.

Here's also one clear parallell to DSLR vs. mirrorless cameras. There's a physical limit as to how fast it's realistic to move the mirror and a mechanical shutter (unless one uses rotating shutters like in cine cameras). By using electronics, there are no such limits, at least none that we need to worry about. The question then is how useful these high shutter speeds and frame rates are for "ordinary" people, which is probably one of the reasons why DSLR cameras still survive and sell in higher numbers than the mirrorless alternatives.
 

jonoslack

Active member
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.
For DOF - but surely not for light gathering?

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
Hi there Ricardo
The only prime I have much experience of is the 50 f2, which performed well enough but had rather sluggish AF.

Whatever - I’ve no real interest in primes for Fuji or µ43 as I’d rather shoot a Leica prime on an M10. It’s the zooms which interest me primarily.

All the best
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Here's also one clear parallell to DSLR vs. mirrorless cameras. There's a physical limit as to how fast it's realistic to move the mirror and a mechanical shutter (unless one uses rotating shutters like in cine cameras). By using electronics, there are no such limits, at least none that we need to worry about. The question then is how useful these high shutter speeds and frame rates are for "ordinary" people, which is probably one of the reasons why DSLR cameras still survive and sell in higher numbers than the mirrorless alternatives.
I am particularly fond of a DSLR with Live View and an electronic shutter. I wonder how hard it would be to have a secondary mirror in the viewfinder that allowed either an optical path or a view of an EVF screen so one could really have both in the same body.

--Matt
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Is anyone buying this camera?
That's a relevant question :)

I'm not, since I'm too deeply dug into m4/3 and can't afford a system change now. However, I see this as probably the most attractive camera for stills at the moment, if size isn't a problem. The body isn't larger than a G9, but the lenses certainly are and I trust Panasonic ergonomics more. The great prize is Fuji's excellent stills quality. If I did photography for a living, two of these bodies would be very tempting.

Ask me again in 10 months. If I do, it will be a replacement for Nikon FX, not for m4/3. m4/3 is unbeatable when it comes to smallness :)
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Is anyone buying this camera?
Not decided yet. I am currently only invested in m43 (Olympus EM1.2 and Pro lenses) and I do know from my long term use of different Fuji gear (latest X-T2 with 100-400 and 18-55) how extremely gorgeous this X-system is. This makes me think of getting back into again and then I would definitely go with the X-H1.

For me it is rather the question if I should keep all my "old" Leica M gear (bodies and lenses) as I tried hard over the past 9 years to get back into shooting Leica - and the M10 or the SL would be the 2 models that could make that happen for me, but I am hesitating since this means a huge investment and I am not sure if the results will make up for this effort - at least for me.

On the other side I see Fuji doing many things right - especially now with the introduction of IBIS, that feature I missed with the X-T2 and I really wanted that for more efficiently using prime lenses. Not to forget the vastly improved AF system of the X-H1 and also the much better EVF than the really miserable old world EVF from the EM1.2 (shame on Olympus that they did not integrate such an EVF in this camera some 18 months ago, because technology was very well there).

So here you have it - I am kind of sitting between chairs - or call it sitting on the fence to get an X-H1 ;)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Is anyone buying this camera?
Not I
But I certainly would have done in September when I bought the X-T2, whether I would have liked it better is a moot point (I was infuriated by the ‘flicker’ of the EVF on the X-T2) - certainly from my point of view the LCD is attractive.

However, Currently I’m really enjoying the G9 with the little 100-400 - works well and handles nicely. I can’t see that the Fuji would offer very much obvious benefit.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Is anyone buying this camera?
There’s a good possibility that I may invest into the Fuji X (and G) system (and particularly this exact X body) but it really comes down to how much I like it when it’s actually in my hands. I will try one out on Thursday when the Fuji reps come here for their demonstration. If it blows my mind and is good enough to make me want to walk away from Sony for event and the occasional editorial photo job that falls in my lap then I’ll preorder on the spot. If it’s a a real compromise in some key functionality areas (Autofocus, lens quality, operation, etc.) then I will likely have to think about it for a bit longer before pulling any triggers.

Looking at the menu system - it seems very much like a Sony menu system (which isn’t a bad thing) but I would guess after I setup the quick and the custom menus there wouldn’t be much digging around (like with Sony’s) so I’m not too concerned about that aspect. My bigger concern is how much of an IQ hit can I live with after taking images with both side by side with the Fuji X compared to an A7RII. I have tried some of the Fuji Zooms once before and I liked them well enough. I could probably get by with the 16-55 and the 50-140 to start with and add selected primes as I go. The 16/1.4, 35/2, 56/1.2, and 90/2 come to mind off the top of my head but hen the 80 macro interests me as well.
 
Last edited:

Mark C

Well-known member
Is anyone buying this camera?
If I needed to replace my X-Pro2 (I don't yet) this would be my choice for 2 main reasons: IS and tilting screen. Walking around with the XF 90mm f2 on my X-Pro2, I've missed a couple of snap shots due to motion blur which, if I'd had the IS of the X-H1, I might have got. Also when I got the X-Pro2, the lack of a tilting screen wasn't an issue (you can't miss what you've never had) but since getting my GFX I find I'm using the tilting screen virtually every time out and miss it when using the X-Pro. The much discussed video features of the X-H1 are of zero interest to me.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
If I needed to replace my X-Pro2 (I don't yet) this would be my choice for 2 main reasons: IS and tilting screen. Walking around with the XF 90mm f2 on my X-Pro2, I've missed a couple of snap shots due to motion blur which, if I'd had the IS of the X-H1, I might have got. Also when I got the X-Pro2, the lack of a tilting screen wasn't an issue (you can't miss what you've never had) but since getting my GFX I find I'm using the tilting screen virtually every time out and miss it when using the X-Pro. The much discussed video features of the X-H1 are of zero interest to me.
Not having a tilting screen (and the marginal ergonomics for my hand size) were the main deal breakers for me regarding the X-Pro 2. Even still it’s a camera that still interests me in concept and a part of me hopes the rumors of a GFX 50R are true.
 

Mark C

Well-known member
Not having a tilting screen (and the marginal ergonomics for my hand size) were the main deal breakers for me regarding the X-Pro 2. Even still it’s a camera that still interests me in concept and a part of me hopes the rumors of a GFX 50R are true.
Well thinking back to when I was looking to buy the X-Pro2, the rangefinder viewscreen was something I thought I wanted. Although it works fine, I hardly ever use it, preferring the std electronic view. Not sure the GFX 50R would generate enough sales to make it worth Fuji putting it into production. I got the optional tilting eyepiece for mine which was expensive but well worth having.
 

retow

Member
Is anyone buying this camera?
Interesting times with a higher end market segment in which FF and equivalent lenses are almost the budget options as compared to top of the line mft and apsc offerings. A 24MP Sony A7III is expected to be introduced soon and likely be priced similarly as the EM1.2, G9 and the X-H1 are. Except for video or in the case of mft for the use with long teles/zooms I can't see a compelling case for these smallish sensor equipped jacks of all trade anymore. Weight and size advantages are gone anyway.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Except for video or in the case of mft for the use with long teles/zooms I can't see a compelling case for these smallish sensor equipped jacks of all trade anymore. Weight and size advantages are gone anyway.
Well, it seems like the 35mm folks are having a competition on who can make the biggest and heaviest lenses. The new Samsung 50mm weighs in at 1200g. So I am not sure the weight advantage is gone.

The other thing I like about my Fuji APS-C is I get more depth of field at similar apertures/exposures. That is really nice in low light. Bigger is not always better.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Except for video or in the case of mft for the use with long teles/zooms I can't see a compelling case for these smallish sensor equipped jacks of all trade anymore. Weight and size advantages are gone anyway.
This opinion is unfortunately what is repeated far too often all around the web again and again - I have a completely different view and actually that is not just my view because it is reality!

The telelenses and and actually all lenses are smaller the smaller the sensor format. Take a 2.8/40-150 from Olympus, that equals a 2.8/80-300 in FF and while such a FF equivalent does not exist, it would be 3-4 times the size and weight of that Olympus m43 lens. Same is true for APSC versus FF although the differences in size and weight are smaller. Or take for example the new Olympus Pro 1.2/45 that equals a 1.2/90 in FF - even the 1.4/85 from Nikon or Canon are substantially larger, etc., etc.

So size advantages exist and can be seen and felt very well.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Very good comparison between X-H1 and X-T2

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-x-h1-vs-fujifilm-x-t2-comparison-31956

It shows very impressively the differences between the 2 cameras - ergonomics as well as technical details - and for me the X-H1 is the clear winner in all areas. The X-H1 kind of begs to be held and shot whereas the X-T2 looks like one of these typical photographic toys invented throughout the last years since mirrorless became popular ..

I AM LOOKING AT YOU SONY
 
Top