Trek of Joy

I've had single pixels that needed to be remapped on the a6300, a7r2 and a7s2, but I've never experienced anything like what the a73 is showing - nor have I seen any reports from previous cameras that come close to that mess. Brutal. Hopefully it gets addressed soon. Chris

We're still talking about an entry level camera. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of people buying entry level cameras don't factor any of what you listed into the buying decision. The market research likely shows that as well. Outside of the GH5 twins (not entry level at $2000/$2500) - virtually every non-cinema camera from the a9/d5/1dx on down are more heavily focused on the process of shooting photos, not video. And that's especially true for the legacy DSLR companies like Canon, Nikon and Pentax. Video grabs headlines here and elsewhere, but its not the driving force behind most ILC's - even Sony's. Just check the product page for the a7III, its mostly about the stills shooting experience and you have to scroll to the bottom of the features page before it talks about video. Canon and Sony still want you to buy their respective cinema cameras for full featured video and that doesn't look like its going to change any time soon. Cheers Chris

How is this any different from what every other camera company does? All this hand wringing over an entry level model not having the specs of a higher end body. Its laughable how others get a pass and Canon gets ripped for actually saying what everyone is doing. I don't have a stake in this at all as I don't own anything Canon anymore. Why is this so shocking or offensive? Everyone does it. Sony still can't be bothered to put a simple intervalometer on its cameras and prior ones required us to pay for the app. A $500 Olympus from 2013 has one. I'm sure weather sealing will be equally bad as previous models and I believe part of the chassis is plastic. But I'll wait for a camera in hand to test before passing final judgement. The sensor and its AF is impressive, but Sony hasn't added anything outside HLG to its video spec in years. And its still a $2000 body, not a $700 entry level model like the Canon, apples and oranges. chris You don't get 45% market share from brand loyalty, there are plenty of new users buying Canon cameras. The interview clearly spelled out how Canon is marketing the lower end cameras, usability, AF and image quality. Seems to be resonating with buyers if Amazon's sales ranking are to be believed, since the top is littered with entry Canon's.

The biggest players - Canon, Nikon and Sony all sell many more APS-c cameras compared to FF. The volume is at the bottom of the market, not at the top. This comes down to personal tastes, I don't see the point of smaller bodies so cramped they're a pain to shoot. I had to shoot the a6300 with my pinky and ring fingers below the body - that's a major pain when shooting all day with anything more than the pancake PZ. Speedboosters open up more lens options, but Fuji and m43 have plenty of fast options. If the XH1 is too big, the XT2 is smaller and the XT20 is smaller still. Personally the XT2's size is as small as I want to go body-wise. As far as the point of larger bodies? A camera is far more than just a sensor, and more importantly you're buying to a system, so you have to look at the entire range you want in terms of lenses and such, not just a body. Yes Sony has a few small FE primes - outside of the 85/1.8 they all have major flaws. Plus you have big gaps in Sony's offerings being filled by the overpriced Batis', the upcoming supersize Sigma Arts, the so-so Samyang's and the Toking Firn's that look pretty good. There are more going, but most will be large to cover the larger sensor. The fast FE's are large and the zooms are all really big - they're pricey, and they all almost completely lack weather sealing. I have issues with the $2500 GM zoom having so little weather sealing - and its size. Combined with Sony's iffy QC (check Fred Miranda's Sony board and Lens Rentals optical bench tests, Sony's have some of the widest variances of all their tests) and its a non-starter for me. I paid $1600 total for my 16-55 and 50-140/2.8 - and they're both amazing lenses. Sony's 24-105 is $1300 by itself. If you're trying to build a system, Fuji will likely be smaller and cheaper. Same for m43 I don't buy new lenses and with Fuji's regular sales, the used market has lots of great deals. Chris

That's the funniest thing I've read all day! I never get the endless Canon bashing here, as if they're the only one that segments its lineup. Olympus doesn't put the focus stacking and pixel shift in all its bodies - or PDAF for that matter on anything below the EM1. Panasonic doesn't put 10-bit in anything other than the GH5(s) or a competent AF system in anything. Sony doesn't put anything beyond 8-bit 4:2:0 with the same 100mbps bitrate we've seen for years in anything below the FS5 and so on - yet people here are shitting themselves with excitement over the a7III and its non-existent weather sealing, partial plastic body, cheap spec LCD/EVF and so on because of oversampled 4k and what looks like a great AF system for a mere $2000. Fuji, geez, just check the XH1 thread. Where are the threads bitching about the G9 being crippled for not getting 10-bit? Or the a7r3 with its cheap ass single UHS-II card slot and no 10-bit or even a higher bitrate at $3200? The a9 is even more offensive at $4500. Everyone segments its cameras. Its a shitty reality we're forced to deal with. As to Canon, they're clearly waiting to release the mirrorless 5d4 without cannibalizing 5d4 sales. Chris

With harsh backlighting and a black subject in the foreground? Many cameras would struggle with that in video mode. My XT2 and a7r2 hunt when shooting backlit portraits - sometimes it takes a few tries to get focus lock - and video AF is a step backwards from stills. Torture tests are good to see the limits, but I'd be willing to bet a rack between two people would produce better results. I see when mine arrives. Now I just need a black leather chair... Chris Looks good IMO. Thanks for posting.

Did you try it with something that has a little contrast and detail, like a human face, instead of a black leather chair with a set of black headphones draped over it? That looks bad, but your foreground subject with a blown white background gives the AF system little to lock on to as there's virtually no contrast. Chris

Lifting shadows and pulling down highlights is the digital version of burn/dodge, I'm not talking HDR. When shooting a sunset for example, I expose for the sun and bring up exposure in the rest of the image in order to have something visible, otherwise I'd have the sun and a mostly black frame. The sunset from Easter Island posted below is an example. I'm not a fan of blown clouds that are blobs of white with no detail. Another example is from Borobudur, it was a gray morning but the sun was up and not clipping the clouds left the stone structure very dark, raw allowed me to recover more detail in the stones. Jpegs just can't capture everything a 14-bit raw image can - which is closer to what my eyes see and what I want to convey in an image. A simple 2-shot bracket can accomplish the same thing, but I'm doing a lot of traveling - 55 countries and counting - so for me carrying a tripod isn't always practical. Plus I prefer to be small/light and just go run-and-gun with a small bag with me when exploring. I shot a lot of raw + jpeg when with my XT2's and even DR400 wasn't enough, processed raws look better to me. And the ones below are just quick edits on a 12" MacBook, I'll clean them up when I'm back home on my iMac. Everyone has different methods, whatever works for you is cool. Cheers Chris

The new Fuji processing software that uses the camera to process raw files is a great way to get the 100% authentic Fuji look if Adobe or whatever you're using isn't cutting it. The caveat is its slow/clunky and the number of supported cameras is limited. Though I think Adobe has gotten a lot better since the "Fuji Rethink Raw" video above was posted back in 2016. Personally I shoot a lot of high contrast scenes outdoors, jpeg's just can't capture the DR like a raw - I hate blown clouds/sun/skies and I mostly shoot handheld so bracketing is usually not something I can do. For me even the jpegs still need tweaks. For portraits the jpegs looks great, especially with Astia as shown above. Arcos is awesome for B&W SOOC and I really like Chrome for cityscape or street stuff. The new Eterna is going to be my go-to profile for video, and it looks like it'll be good with landscape stills as well. I'm in the "hates grading" camp Mattias mentioned, so I really dig Chrome, Pro Neg and now Eterna. Chris

For small/light without a gimbal I like what Uncle Bob did above, only I'd have the option for a chest pad or something for another point of contact when you want added stability. I also like the twin offset handle config pictured below, though the a6300's rolling shutter, that could be tough without a stabilized lens. You don't have to spend Redrock cash either, but they have lots of rig sample photos to get ideas from. The other option is a gimbal. Chris

Agreed. I'm very much a hybrid shooter as well, which is what makes Fuji's so appealing. They're great stills cameras that shoot really nice 4k video - that's why I bought into the system. IBIS is the main reason I'm still using Sony. Though after watching a few recent videos posted here, I really like what I'm seeing from the XH1. Couldn't watch it past the 2nd spin around without losing my breakfast, but AF held onto him pretty well. Looks good. Chris

Not a mistake in terms of the camera itself, which looks great. Like I said, I'm waiting for used copies to get one. Mistakes in terms of marketing and generating interest, this camera has come and gone with little attention. Its a niche release at best. Hopefully its a success and not a one-off model. But from reading the interviews it looks like a passion project. You may not care about AF or IBIS, but its something that clearly resonates with the buying public. Canon is crushing it with the EOS-m's, outside of DPAF they really offer nothing compared to the competition. GH5 crappy AF videos generate a lot of attention, it was so bad Panasonic rushed an update. With focus by wire lenses, native AF performance needs to be improved - and this is true for most mirrorless cameras. Given its extremely limited stills capabilities and lack of IBIS, I wouldn't have used the GH5 moniker either, its a completely different camera and its clear GH5 users strongly associate the GH line with IBIS. I don't think they did the proper research by calling it the GH5s. Call it the GS1 or GC1 or something like that. A new cinema line without IBIS. Or maybe the EVM-1, for a mini companion to the EVA. The lukewarm reaction clearly shows a few blunders in Panasonic's decisions. Fuji is just as bad, IMO too much is done internally when it comes to marketing. Personal opinion - they could have further differentiated it by moving the EVF to the left corner, relocate some of the controls and spec'd it with a larger/higher rez LCD - like the 1440 x 2560 displays we've had on phones for awhile, and did the internal ND thing and so on - things to make it more video friendly - but this was a smaller volume project so there likely wasn't the resources to go beyond tweaks to a GH5 with a different sensor. Maybe we see this sensor in a smaller EVA style body as the long awaited AF100 successor. Chris

+1 No IBIS was mistake #1. The $500 price hike over the GH5 was #2. Releasing them a year or so apart was #3. The flimsy excuse for no IBIS was #4, just dumb - who cares what The Grand Tour and its $100m budget does with a $2500 crash-cam. Sticking with CDAF was #5. That said, I really like the image, what Neumann said about highlight rolloff looks legit. I'd like to pick up one as a video only body with a speedbooster once they turn up on the used market. I have a doc I want to shoot in Japan and this would be a perfect camera. Chris

Perhaps because the XH1 (and most other high end bodies) are far superior stills cameras? @AaronChicago That screen cap looks good. @DaveAltizer Love your reviews. And the CY28, one of my all-time favorite lenses. Chris

Now this has me interested. Chris

I don't buy the zebra argument Fuji has put forth, just like I don't buy the BS Panasonic tried to use to save face for lack IBIS in the GH5s. I agree we should hold their feet to the fire about these things. But Fuji - like Olympus - is not a video centric company with its cameras. Compare the Xt1 to the XH1 and they've come pretty far in a relatively short time. Plus we have the MK Cine zooms. Fuji is moving in the right direction IMO. And rumors point to a new processor and sensor in the XT3 this fall, I'm expecting another leap forward. Many are shitting themselves with excitement over the a73 while ignoring some of the cheap-spec aspects of the body and the same low bitrate Sony has been rolling on its cameras for years. Fuji brings a well rounded hybrid with beautiful color science and IBIS that looks to be significantly better than Sony's and it gets decimated because of AF bugs. Yet there are countless threads littered with comments from people bashing anyone using AF while shooting video. Sometimes I just don't get the spec-schizophrenia on this board. I'm putting my money where my mouth is though, I'm selling one of my XT2's and my a7r2/s2's to get a XH1 and a a7r3 to see which direction I want to go with my kit. I should have both in the next couple weeks. Cheers Chris That's always such a numbnut argument from the anti-video crowd. Improvements on the video side have a significant impact on stills shooting as well. I really don't understand how the stills-only farts can't see that. And more users benefits everyone in the system.

So you never buy a camera when first released? Because they are all flawed at release. I haven't seen one camera in the last few years that didn't have bugs out of the gate. The XT2 was a great camera at release, despite its flaws. The GH5's AF was also dumb at release. Go back and watch some of the videos to see how bad it was. Then they fixed it with an update. This was something none of the shills with the early test bodies bothered to point out. If you know of a camera that was perfect out of the gate, please enlighten me. As to Fuji, don't you think a team of engineers and programmers can improve on initial designs over the course of time? Instead of putting that work into new bodies like Sony, Fuji puts that know-how into making current models better. Olympus has done the same thing as well, years after a camera gets released in the case of the Em1. Like I said, its a different philosophy. I guess the alternative is to wait 5-years for a new generation like Nikon with the d850, but even then there were issues. You can take the glass is half empty approach and call them incompetent, but after shooting with the XT2 for the last year and a half that's just not the case. It was brilliant at release, and it keeps getting better. I shot 30k stills last year too, so I'm not evaluating any camera strictly on its video. YMMV. From what I've seen, the XH1's AF issues stem from using DR200 or 400 in video, AF looks good at DR100. And it's AF looks really good when shooting stills. Canon is head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to video AF, Sony is great - but better with stills than video, and everyone else is playing catch up right now. Then there's the fantastic colors from Eterna... Chris What happens when some of this is discovered after large numbers have already bought the camera - like the GH5's F-ed up AF when it was released?

This is just patently false. I own the a7r2 and a7s2 in addition to two XT2's, so I can speak from extensive shooting with all of them over the last couple years. I don't want to get into a Sony vs Fuji vs. the world debate, but here's just a few warts off the top of my head. Sony can't figure out lossless compression with its raw files, while literally every other camera manufacturer has. The star eater algrothim still hasn't been addressed. Simple features like a "My Menu" and a toggle between FF/APS-c mode only came with new cameras. The FF/APS-c toggle should have been added to the a7r2, every review pointed out how stupid it was to have to menu dive for a function used so often thanks to the better video on the a7r2, yet nothing. None of the new cameras from the a9 on even have a simple intervalometer, something a cheap, 5-year-old Olympus has. I'm pretty sure the new hardware can support such a simple function in an entry level cam from 2013 can do it. And the app can't do it either, so you're forced to use a kludgy piece of plug-in hardware. Have you used Sony's version of a touchscreen next to the GH5 or even the much hated (on this site) 5dmk4? Its awful. Lets not forget the brilliant cost cutting decision to skimp on hardware and give the a7r2 a UHS-I card slot, giving us glacial write times with supersize files - when competitors at much lower price points have at least one UHS-II slot. And there's the annoying NTSC/PAL warning. Got a NTSC camera and you travel to another country? The camera does nothing until you bypass the message - every single time you turn it on. How hard would it be to not have that piece of stupidity show up? Sony doesn't seem to want to weather seal its cameras or lenses like others in the same price bracket - and various teardowns clearly show that. And the a7III looks like its showing its PDAF array in images with a strong light source - something not fixable in a FW update. Neither is the plastic construction, down spec LCD and EVF in the a7III, cameras at similar price points have better panels and magnesium bodies. I could go on, but calling any camera released in 2018 fully realized is simply being blind to the facts. They all - including Fuji - have issues that don't show up with the limited number of beta testers compared to when it hits the masses and thousands more shooting scenarios. I have no doubt Sony could squeeze more AF performance and make software improvements if they wanted to, but they clearly have a different way of doing things - push a camera out and then focus on its replacement. The a7's have seen little else outside of minor bug fixes, major issues get fixed in the next gen model. And before the a7r3 a few months ago, battery life was common in any Sony bashing thread, its not like they've used amazing batteries for years in E-mount bodies, despite years of complaints. Tinker with any Sony body and a XT2, one is clearly built much better than the other, and its not the Sony. Since this is an XH1 thread, can anyone check the EVF refresh with the camera set to boost mode and tracking subject at the highest stills burst rate of 14fps? The release said it was faster than the XT2 - which is already really fast and close to blackout free. Thanks. Chris

That must have been a cool experience. Kenya is an awesome place. Last year I spent a week touring around with a Maasai guide they're are a really cool people. Nice job. Chris

That's true to an extent, the smaller lenses aren't as good optically as say the Fuji 23/1.4 or 56/1.2 - which offset the light gathering advantage of the larger sensor. The Rokinon AF lenses aren't great lenses, certainly not something I'd use for paid work. The 28 has other issues as well, lots of CA being one in addition to being not very sharp wide open. Its cheaply made as well. I own the FE 28 and 85 (one of Sony's best lenses), along with the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f/4's. The 50/1.8 is a loud focusing piece of plastic junk with awful bokeh. The 24-70 is only so-so - the Fuji 16-55 is so much better and sucks in more light. And its weather sealed - something Sony doesn't seem to know is possible. The new 24-105 is better, larger and more expensive than the others - I haven't been able to test it against the Fuji 16-55 yet. I'll be dumping my Zony 24-70 soon. The 16-35/4 OTOH is a stellar lens, a fantastic UWA - its my favorite E-mount lens. The 70-200 is good, but its not 200mm on the long end and Fuji's 50-140 is better in every way, its sharper, it focuses faster and its OS is better than the 70-200+IBIS. I buy everything used, so new price comparisons are meaningless to me. There are tradeoffs in every system. I'm currently stuck between two because I can't settle on which one has the fewest warts I can live with. Sony dumping the play memories apps and not bothering with things like focus stacking or an intervalometer on the new bodies aren't doing themselves any favors for me. Plus the stop down focusing issue with many lenses is annoying if you shoot a lot of stills. And they still can't figure out lossless compression, so you're stuck with heavily compressed raws or enormous uncompressed files. Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Olympus and others can figure out uncompressed raws, but Sony ignores that and other usability issues with its bodies. Again, part of the tradeoffs. Cheers

This is true, but most of the announcements are fast primes. Moving from most m43 lenses to something like the SigArt 1.4's is a significant jump in size/weight. And they still won't be cheap. But for now the E-mount has a lot of momentum with the recent announcements from various 3rd party companies. To throw in my opinion of the OP's original question, IMO the best hybrid is the a7r3. Stills are unmatched by anything below the d850 and the video is still really good. Though if you're used to shooting with a GH4, might want to rent a Sony first or get something like a used a7r2 (around $1500 now) to see if it fits your workflow. Shooting with a Sony can be a headache at times. But it all depends on what you're shooting, if its lowlight events, I'd go for something with better stills ISO performance than m43. Chris

Agreed. Sony lags far behind Fuji in terms of updates and improvements. Improvmevents usually come by the way of new models. And in the case of the play memories apps, features disappear, never to be seen again. My XT2's are so much better since it was released, with AF improvements coming in two different updates. My a7r2/s2 saw an update that improved startup with the usual mystery "minor bugs and fixes." I still can't believe in 2018 they can't even include a intervalometer in any camera - not the $4500 a9, the $3200 a7r3 and now the a73 - something just about every other current mirrorless body has. Stuff like that makes it really hard to stick with Sony. I'm in their camp because their sensors are second to none, but I don't like shooting with them. So yes Fuji sucks for not including video exposure tools, Panasonic sucks because its still using 2009 AF tech in its $2500 bodies while pretending PDAF doesn't exist, Sony sucks for its lack of support across its lines and for fattening the spec sheet while leaving basic usability tools off its bodies and so on. Pick your poison. I am confident the XH1 issues will get sorted, Fuji has done major FW updates across all its models over the years. Even if its 8 months - which I don't think will be the case - its still better than what we see from others. Cheers Chris

Its not the issue you pointed out, your Dpreview link above talks about the E-shutter banding under certian light frequencies. The link I posted is for the PDAF grid on the a7III, its completely different. Cheers Chris

I'm not talking about banding with the silent shutter. Its a visible artifact from the PDAF array that surfaces with backlit images, or shooting into the sun. I usually delete offending photos. But here it is again on the a7III. I've seen the same thing on the XT2 and the a7r2. https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/details-sony-a7iii-stripe-issue/

I'm holding off on the XH1 because of some of the issues that have surfaced. If the AF is fine with DR100 (the only setting I've ever used since I rarely shoot jpeg), then its less of an issue for me. But Fuji does need to address it ASAP because the rage of the internet will paint an ugly picture of doom - much like the uncompressed raw issue with Sony, or the star eater issue with Sony, or the lack of PP's with the a9 and so on. Can any owners in this thread do some further testing to check this out? Chris The a7r2 does the same thing, and the XT2 does a well. Seems to be reflections with the PDAF array.