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!

X-H1, why oh why?

Pelorus

Member
Titanium is very alloy dependent. My son manufactures custom titanium bike frames and it certainly flexes. But there are a whole variety of different alloys with different properties so it's not reasonable to make judgements about the material in the X-Pro 3 until you know what alloy. But it's not reasonable either, as the video suggests, to claim that brass is superior. Every material has its pluses and minuses. I've seen brass rod snap like a carrot - brasses after all have zinc in them and in some cases it can be selectively corroded from the brass...I'm not a metallurgist but I think we need to have faith that Fuji made sensible decisions about the titanium top and bottom and the material they put into them. Interesting also that the video focused on the Duratec versions - if there was a problem with the material then one assumes that the coating - paint or vapour deposition - is not going to be the deciding factor in the material flexing...

There is more to be known here yet.


I really hope that what he shows is more an exception. Also pretty hard to believe for me that Titanium should be weaker than normal material

Anyway enjoy the camera and I am still tempted to get one. Just in the waiting phase as I want to see what comes from some other brands I am interested in before I decide. So no real hurry .... ;)
 
Last edited:

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Got one, and glad I did. The X-H1 feels much better in the hand than any other APSC I've picked up (or the small FF mirrorless. I wish I liked the Nikon Z, but it feels cramped. If I even touch a Sony, I break out in a rash.) I picked up the Zeiss 12/2.8 and the Fuji 56/1.2. The Zeiss is going back as it's decentered.

So help me spend money. The 12mm FoV is my favorite for landscape and architecture. I have a Voigtlander 10mm if I need wider. On the GF side, the zooms are prime sharp throughout their range. Are there similar quality XF lenses? Are they too heavy and I should go with the smaller, newer, OIS lenses? What about the long end? I rarely shoot in the medium wide to normal, but would a 16-80 be a good one lens gap filler? For the long end, the 50-140 looks great. And heavy. What is the equivalent of the GF 100-200/5.6 (which is an excellent reasonably priced light zoom)?

This is supposed to be my light-weight kit. I have GFX for the big stuff. What optics are a must? (and if there's an FAQ, I'll read it.)

TIA,

Matt
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-known member
Got one, and glad I did. The X-H1 feels much better in the hand than any other APSC I've picked up (or the small FF mirrorless. I wish I liked the Nikon Z, but it feels cramped. If I even touch a Sony, I break out in a rash.) I picked up the Zeiss 12/2.8 and the Fuji 56/1.2. The Zeiss is going back as it's decentered.

So help me spend money. The 12mm FoV is my favorite for landscape and architecture. I have a Voigtlander 10mm if I need wider. On the GF side, the zooms are prime sharp throughout their range. Are there similar quality XF lenses? Are they too heavy and I should go with the smaller, newer, OIS lenses? What about the long end? I rarely shoot in the medium wide to normal, but would a 16-80 be a good one lens gap filler? For the long end, the 50-140 looks great. And heavy. What is the equivalent of the GF 100-200/5.6 (which is an excellent reasonably priced light zoom)?

This is supposed to be my light-weight kit. I have GFX for the big stuff. What optics are a must? (and if there's an FAQ, I'll read it.)

TIA,

Matt
Congratulations Matt the XH-1 is great camera.

16/1.4 | 23/2 | 56/1.2 are my 3 lenses - for a light walk around kit. There is nothing wrong with the 35/2 either - I just haven't gotten around to getting one.
Others might favour the 1.4 versions of the 23 /35 lenses - however they are bigger and slower focusing.
Later this year Fuji is bringing out their 60 f1.0 lens.

I have no comment to make re zooms - but have had excellent results from the 100-400 + TC.

If I was seriously investing in this system the #1 lens on my list would be the magnificent 200/2 - absolutely stunning lens.

Pete
 

Pelorus

Member
As I said elsewhere Matt, congratulations!!

So here's my $0.02: I've just been this path, wanting a lightweight walk around. My other two systems are an Alpa STC and the GFX 50R with the two zooms. I did a 32 day walk around with the GFX kit in Japan, it was OK but I tended not to take it out at night because it was too big and bulky in the tiny little places I tend to eat and drink.

I put together an X-Pro 3 with a 35/2, 50/2 and just in the last week a 16/1.4. I have rigidly avoided the zooms because this is the lightweight kit. I think the two Fujicrons are stunning lenses for their size and price. I'd recommend both of them. Note however that both have residual aberrations of some sort which are admirably fixed in software - I use C1. Effectively you don't notice but various testers have highlighted the remaining aberrations.

The 16/1.4 is on another level altogether and it's my one fast lens. I tossed up with it and the 2.8 but after reading reviews I ended up breaking the lightweight rule and going with the 1.4. It's roughly double the weight and size of either of the 'crons. The pics from it are I think more contrasty than the 'crons and the colours are top notch.

I was also considering the 90/2 which others rave about. I decided that the 50/2 does 90% of the job I'd use the 90 for so I've left it at the moment.

If you really want a lightweight kit then I chose to force myself to stick with the primes and I'm pleased I did. Even the 16/1.4 presents a new set of walk around challenges vs the two other lenses.

The body, 2 'crons and a spare battery all fit in an F-Stop Micro Tiny ICU. It's great. The 3 lenses and body won't. I'm planning on a Micro nano to hold the two 'crons.

This site, really helped me think through the decisions. I'm not sure of the scientific merits of their testing but it's consistent so it allows comparison between lenses.

Got one, and glad I did. The X-H1 feels much better in the hand than any other APSC I've picked up (or the small FF mirrorless. I wish I liked the Nikon Z, but it feels cramped. If I even touch a Sony, I break out in a rash.) I picked up the Zeiss 12/2.8 and the Fuji 56/1.2. The Zeiss is going back as it's decentered.

So help me spend money. The 12mm FoV is my favorite for landscape and architecture. I have a Voigtlander 10mm if I need wider. On the GF side, the zooms are prime sharp throughout their range. Are there similar quality XF lenses? Are they too heavy and I should go with the smaller, newer, OIS lenses? What about the long end? I rarely shoot in the medium wide to normal, but would a 16-80 be a good one lens gap filler? For the long end, the 50-140 looks great. And heavy. What is the equivalent of the GF 100-200/5.6 (which is an excellent reasonably priced light zoom)?

This is supposed to be my light-weight kit. I have GFX for the big stuff. What optics are a must? (and if there's an FAQ, I'll read it.)

TIA,

Matt
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Pete and Pelorus,

Interesting.

I ended up with an odd assortment of glass. Perhaps because the X-H1 has IBIS, I chose all non-OIS primes. And not the usual primes - I figured that technical excellence is so prevalent that I would go for "character". Anyway, here's my current list:

10mm f/5.6 - Voigtlander with adapter. I used to use it on the TL2, so only needed the M to X adapter. Sharp at f/8

14mm/2.8 - Well, there isn't a wider AF prime. The Zeiss 12/2.8 I got was decentered and went back. I'll see if I can live with the 10 to 14 gap. This guy is plenty good, once I get around the manual clutch. Same FoV as the legendary Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon - the lens that got me into landscapes.

18mm/2 - I lived with the 28 Cron on my M9, so I probably like this FoV. Have been shooting wider lately, but this guy is tiny and weighs nothing.

35/1.4 - Gorgeous rendering at 1.4, sharp enough for anything stopped down a bit.

56/1.2 - Love this lens. Full stop.

The 10-24/4 was tempting, but seemed part of a different aesthetic. Ditto the 55-200/3.5-4.8 I considered for longer range. But everything else is reasonably light, and I don't need to carry it all every time I walk out the door.

Thank you for all your help. Pictures to follow!

Best,

Matt
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Pete and Pelorus,


The 10-24/4 was tempting, but seemed part of a different aesthetic. Ditto the 55-200/3.5-4.8 I considered for longer range. But everything else is reasonably light, and I don't need to carry it all every time I walk out the door.

Thank you for all your help. Pictures to follow!

Best,

Matt
Matt

Great lens selection and congrats and good luck with the camera. My X-T3 is getting less use except for wildlife. My most used lens to date is the 23/2. I got a really cheap knocked about copy second hand but the glass is perfect and the image quality is superb.

I would suggest you seriously consider the 55-200 at some point. It consistently performs at a higher quality than the price might suggest.

Here are a few samples today from the Waterloo area of London taken with the X-H1 and the 55-200.

The middle image is typical of the value of this lens as it is for a guide book that requires a close-up of the famous clock (used as a meeting point) in Waterloo Station. It might seem overkill but at least I know the image is beyond what is typically required for reproduction so I can rely on it.





 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Matt

Great lens selection and congrats and good luck with the camera. My X-T3 is getting less use except for wildlife. My most used lens to date is the 23/2. I got a really cheap knocked about copy second hand but the glass is perfect and the image quality is superb.

I would suggest you seriously consider the 55-200 at some point. It consistently performs at a higher quality than the price might suggest.

Here are a few samples today from the Waterloo area of London taken with the X-H1 and the 55-200.

The middle image is typical of the value of this lens as it is for a guide book that requires a close-up of the famous clock (used as a meeting point) in Waterloo Station. It might seem overkill but at least I know the image is beyond what is typically required for reproduction so I can rely on it.
Wow! You convinced me. Those photos do NOT look like they're from an inexpensive zoom - more what I would have expected from the 50-140 or 100-400.

It's funny about the 23mm (35mm in FF) FoV. I have NEVER used that focal length when I've owned it. A 35 Cron came with my first Leica film camera, and I got a 28/2 and a 50/2 right away. Leica S 45? Never use it. Didn't even bother with the GFX. I know everyone loves the 23/2 - maybe it will change my opinion. These primes are just gems!

Thanks,

Matt
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Matt : I'll be interested to see how your wider Voigtlander goes on the Fuji - are you going to get a replacement flange and code the thing?
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
First, a closeup with the 14/2.8. So easy - set the focus manually to the close limit, then move the camera in until the yellow peaking lights up the eyes.



As for the 10mm Voigtlander, I just told the camera that it was 10mm, and use the Metabones M->X adapter.
This is shot from close to the end of the piano at f/8. The music is crisp under magnification.



Matt
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Thansk Matt - look forward to some 'outside ' shots as well, I think I need one of these :ROTFL:

Here is my latest Fuji system acquisition -I'll be using this as my 'shed' computer so I can do some work if I want to when I am out of house and in my man cave warehouse - cost less than a new mac mini...:thumbup:

 

Pelorus

Member
What a great selection Matt. I reckon the 35/1.4 will render like its 16mm cousin which will make anyone happy. I was put off by its reputation for being a bit slow and noisy to focus.

Have fun!!
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Thansk Matt - look forward to some 'outside ' shots as well, I think I need one of these :ROTFL:

Here is my latest Fuji system acquisition -I'll be using this as my 'shed' computer so I can do some work if I want to when I am out of house and in my man cave warehouse - cost less than a new mac mini...:thumbup:

I always liked that design...

This is from a Leica APS-C with the Voigtlander 10mm, so the same FoV as the Fuji X. The goal of the thread was to match the Hasselblad SWC FoV....


I'll add some Fuji samples ASAP :salute:

Matt
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Wow! You convinced me. Those photos do NOT look like they're from an inexpensive zoom - more what I would have expected from the 50-140 or 100-400.

It's funny about the 23mm (35mm in FF) FoV. I have NEVER used that focal length when I've owned it. A 35 Cron came with my first Leica film camera, and I got a 28/2 and a 50/2 right away. Leica S 45? Never use it. Didn't even bother with the GFX. I know everyone loves the 23/2 - maybe it will change my opinion. These primes are just gems!

Thanks,

Matt
What do we do when we get a new lens? Immediately photograph the cat :)

I agree about 28mm lenses. I wish there was a high quality one for the XF or GF mount. Having said that, the GF45/2.8 is a fantastic lens and I use it as an all purpose lens on the GFX50R. The rendering is very 'cron. As is the XF 23/2. This is my cat, today - the crop is from the centre but is still amazing for its sharpness. Not bad for a camera with what is considered to be an ageing sensor and a lens which is also a few years old now.

XF23/2 iso200 f2 1/160


Centre crop


BTW, here is a crop from the GFX50R+45/2.8. Even the cropped size is still 13mpx which is more than enough for most publication purposes.



And here is a similar view, taken today with the X-H1+55-200

XF55-200, iso200 55mm f7.1 1/400
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Biglouis,

At this rate, I'll just get the whole set. MAYBE not the 200/2 :loco:. (Actually, it doesn't look expensive compared with Leica glass, and I still have a lot of that lying around.) I'm close to every GF lens, and have loved every XF lens so far.

For instance, I tried the 55-200 today. Not too heavy, perfect balance, solid feel, and sharp wide open at 55, 100, and 200.

My standard test-building. It's 1/2 mile away. You can clearly see the shelves in some of the offices. Very nice rendering of the foreground treetops. Wide open @ 200mm:



For a silly comparison, here's the Voigtlander 10mm on a Leica SL, so the FoV is thirty times as wide :grin:. The test building is the second from the left:



Matt
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
The advantages of a really inexpensive lens:

It's not easy to determine correct infinity (or any other) focus on a very wide lens. I picked up the Samyang 12mm/2 to fill the gap between the 10mm Voigtlander* and the 14mm Fuji lenses. I had the feeling, though, that I could never focus it out to infinity. Stopping down to f/4 would get infinity sharp, but it still didn't seem right. I did some testing with a big Siemens Star and the hard infinity stop turned out to be at about 15 feet. Not good.

Well, it was cheap as XF lenses go, so I took the back off and, lo and behold, shims! Two brass (thin) and three silver (very thin). Taking out the silver ones wasn't enough. Taking out the silver and a brass one was too much (infinity focus was achieved when the barrel read 1 meter). Taking out one brass one and leaving 2 of the three silver ones in was ... just right. :clap:

Do you think this is deliberate and they expect everyone to calibrate infinity for their own camera and lens copy? I never read the instructions! :chug:

Oh, the 14mm has distance markings, but they're accurate.

Fun I wasn't expecting to have! :toocool:

Matt

* Voigtlander names their FF 15mm Super Wide, their 12mm Ultra Wide, and their 10mm Hyper Wide. I suppose that makes the 10 mm on the X-H1 merely Super. :loco:
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-known member
Matt - thanks for reminding why I jumped with joy when I dumped all my Alpa/Sinar tech camera gear and digital back(s) and copal shutters and all the packets of shims lying around - actually I kept the shims they come in useful for calibrating fixtures in my machining hobby. Stuff like that isn''t photography it is some sort of living hell AFIC
Pete
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Matt - thanks for reminding why I jumped with joy when I dumped all my Alpa/Sinar tech camera gear and digital back(s) and copal shutters and all the packets of shims lying around - actually I kept the shims they come in useful for calibrating fixtures in my machining hobby. Stuff like that isn''t photography it is some sort of living hell AFIC
Pete
Pete,

OTOH, I bought a $234 lens at my favorite focal length and, with a little work, turned it into something razor sharp wide open. It feels like a win. I sincerely hope I never have to do it again! :grin:

Matt
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I seem to be taking over this thread - the enthusiasm of a recent convert, I suppose.

So you've all, no doubt, been asking "Why do I need a GFX100 if I have an X-H1?" Well, how large do you want to print? I tried to take these pictures close together, but the sun changed. So here are crops of the images scaled to 20" (300 dpi on the X-H1), 39" (300 dpi on the GFX100) and 60" (200 dpi and 100 dpi, respectively) widths. The X-H1 with Samyang 12/2 is on top and the GFX100 with 23/4 on the bottom. I am, of course, ignoring the quality of the sensors and their color. All RAWs processed in C1 and resized in PS.

First, the whole scene with the X-H1 and the Samyang 12/2 at f/4


Now a crop of 20" wide images. All crops would be 8" wide.


39" wide prints. May be a slight visible difference.


And 60" wide prints. Clear visible difference.


Ok. I really AM going to go out and use this thing. It rained all day yesterday, and I've been inside all day today preparing for a large gathering tomorrow.

Best,

Matt
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
So you've all, no doubt, been asking "Why do I need a GFX100 if I have an X-H1?" Well, how large do you want to print?
Actually, I think the question is how much do you want to spend on a chiropractor?

Welcome to the X photographer's club. I did my own tests when I moved to my X Pro2--I made 40" prints and then judged if I could live with the quality. (I figured if I can get to 40", then the rest is icing.) No, the X Pro2 is no competition to the higher frequency detail I can get from my Pentax 645D, but I carry my X Pro with me more often and it is more spontaneous.

My lens line up is the XF14, XF 23/2, and XF50. I also have an adapted 90mm f/4. For the 18mm, I just got an XF10 as a second camera. I have no complaints with any of that.
 
Top