jpleong

I've shot a dozen video jobs of 60 min length or greater with the X-H2S at room temperature or cooler -no issues shooting 6.2K footage but I'm shooting "low" bitrate video with the fan attachment.

I mostly lurk here but I got the X-H2S about a month ago. Because I got it together with the Tascam XLR adapter, my order was delayed significantly so I missed the chance to use it on most of the gigs I had lined-up originally. The one time I've used it for video, it was the Wide of a three-camera interview setup (with R5Cs as the CUs) feeding an ATEM Mini ISO. Lens was the XF 23mm f/2 (set to f/4) with AF-C / Face Detect-on. The R5Cs were set to 4K/S35 mode and one had an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II (set to f/4) while the other had an RF 24-105mm f/4. The Good: Color: The X-H2S was set to Astia and the R5Cs were set to EOS Standard Profile and their footage was relatively interchangeable (this I already knew from my previous experience mixing Canon and Fujifilm cameras). Video autofocus: The X-H2S autofocus is significantly better than my previous X-T3 -I didn't notice any focus hunting during the multi-hour shoot which is something I can't say for my previous X-series bodies in similar setups. Keeps going: It records for longer than 29.99 minutes! That's all I want in my hybrid cameras since my main moneymaker is long form documentary. Formats: ProRes! h.265! h.264! I've always appreciated the level of control Fujifilm gives the operator over file output. Anyone who's used a BMPCC will know the frustration of being format-limited by resolution and vice-versa. CF-Express -as much as I hate that I'm back to cameras that have non-matched dual card slots, at least they're the same type as what I use in my R5Cs. And GB for GB, CF-Express is cheaper than SDXC UHS-II. But holy hell do they get hot. The Bad: The button and dial layout is significantly different from my other X-series cameras and it drives me nuts. One of the main reasons I skipped the X-T4 was specifically because they altered the layout and this has the same problem. I can re-map some of the functionality to standardize with my other X-series bodies but there are wholly deleted buttons and switches (the drive-mode and exposure-mode are two glaring examples) that is going to force me to change mindset whenever using the X-H2S with another of my X-series cameras. I might have to sell all my older bodies and just get another X-H2S (or the 40MP model) so that I don't get annoyed. The fan works and I'm glad I have it. The problem is, as I type this... I can't remember where I put it. It can only be attached when you're using the camera, as it prevents the screen from closing/cannot remain attached permanently. It also has two sets of rubber covers that are easily lost if you're frequently attaching/detaching it. It's a very dumb implementation and is probably going to get lost and re-purchased. I wish they had just gone the route that Canon did and elegantly integrated into the body. No anamorphic view. I have three Sirui anamorphics for XF-mount and I still have to use my Atomos Ninja Inferno. No Waveform - I come from a "traditional" video production background so I was so excited to get these back into my workflow on my R5Cs when I don't want to attach a larger monitor. At least the Zebras on the X-H2S are still well implemented... HDMI frame stuttering -this is something that happens on my X-T3 frequently, and I haven't had a chance to really figure out why it happens (is it thermal? is it a framerate mismatch? etc...). I noticed it happening to the feed coming from X-H2S but, again, I've only used it once so I can't rule out user error here, either. The Jury is still out: Photos: My other money maker is photography. One of my main clients is a symphony and so I'm constantly shooting in fast-moving, high contrast scenarios using electronic shutter. The X-series cameras I own (T2, H1, T3) have been as-good-as the R5C in all aspects except resolution, autofocus and extreme high-ISO. Previously, choosing a body has been a trade-off between auto-focus performance vs rolling shutter artifacts. I'm hoping that the X-H2S solves both those issues but I know there's a shadow recovery penalty with the new stacked sensor. The new season starts in about a month so only time will tell if it's actually going to be problematic. Video autofocus: I haven't had a real-world opportunity to test the X-H2S's video autofocus against the R5C's. Hopefully, it'll be as good as the R5C -which is a low standard :-). Honestly, I was surprised by how inferior the Canon cinema implementation of DPAF is compared to the non-cinema version. Tracking moves I could do with robotic automation on the 70D/80D/5D4 I wasn't able to do with the R5C. It's made food documentary and product video capture more... annoying than it should be. Conclusion: I'm still stuck in the value-conscious mindset I was in a few years ago -when it would definitely have been an either/or situation- so, I'm kind of torn on whether I wasted $3000 USD on the X-H2S or $5000 USD on the R5C. If only one or the other existed, I'd probably be happy but since they both exist and they both have respective strengths and weaknesses... it's weirdly still a toss-up. I am happy that I have enough work to justify owning both. After re-reading what I wrote above (and how non-committal I still am), I will say this: the X-H2S is what I wished the BMPCC 6K Pro would have been. It is definitely more expensive when kitted-out equivalently but it does almost everything better. If $5000 USD is within your budget and rolling-shutter isn't a big deal, the Canon R5C is the better tool versus the X-H2. But at $3000 USD (base+TASCAM audio unit) the X-H2S is the only hybrid camera that does all the things it does, and does them well. JP

I don't think I saw this mentioned in the thread, so far: The panel type is *critical*. Most LCD/LED monitors are TN or VA which have very high (good) contrast ratios. However, they have very narrow viewing angles which is very, very bad when you're evaluating colors. The ideal panel for editing photos and video are IPS (inline plane switching) which trade high color accuracy for lower contrast ratios. Almost all professional monitors are IPS. LED backlights are (theoretically) superior overall to the older CFL backlight method for LCDs. They *should* last longer, use less energy, and retain consistency of backlight color/accuracy longer. CFL backlights change with age and use. Which leads me to say that the age of a monitor only really matters if you're trying to match a pair -in which case you want to get the same exact monitor with as-closely-matching serial numbers as possible.

This is also my experience with my limited use of F-LOG and my Atomos Ninja Inferno. The Prores files I got from the last time I used F-LOG (I'm impatient, so I don't use LOG often) worked instantly with the LUTs I had handy, including the official Fujifilm Eterna LUT and Colorizer.net's Fuji-based LUTs. When I have previously used the in-camera files, the official LUT was a mess (that is, it took a lot of work to get the exposure and color to look even remotely "right"). And on the Ninja Inferno, I don't think I was even using Prores 422 -might have been LT (!). JP

This is veering a bit off-topic, so apologies OP. Experience is the best way to review something. I'm pretty done with YouTube/Influencer reviews unless they've got a body of work to show for it. I also don't trust the NKOTB: I got burned on investing in Oktava MC-012s when they first arrived in the West as the hot-new-thing twenty-some years ago (when I should have just bit the bullet and scoured for used KM84s) and it's taken me just as long to finally accept RODE as a legitimate contender in the pro audio world after they lost credibility in the broadcast space. As a result, I take people raving/recommending Deity or other new (to me) brands with a grain of salt. But I also think that's to my detriment, too, as I'm apparently missing out on some really good new affordable kit. To expand on my suggestion, all the ME 62/64/66s I've bought, used, or otherwise deployed are still working capturing good sounding audio over a decade after I got them. They're better sounding than the ME20/40s they replaced but nothing compared to an MKH 416 (nor do I expect them to be). They're workhorses and I recommend them with the same enthusiasm as I would an SM58 for stage vocals.

? (I've never used anything from Deity) what's the problem with the ME64 or 66?

What happens when you flip the phase of one of the mics? Situations like this with omni lavs: 1) Position the mics as far apart as possible. Usually on the shoulders/lapels farthest from the other speaker. 2) In post, mute automate (or cut) the non-speaker's audio. Gating sometimes works. It's tricky because they're almost completely facing each other so the omni lavs are acting like boundary mics. Do you have the budget for some booms? Like, ME64/66? JP

I have not experienced this. I recently shot some documentary A cam footage with it and the XF 50mm f/2, manual focus, internal and external recording simultaneously. JP

Ugh. I believe it. Their business model doesn't strike me as disposable -which is what most of the tech industry has leaned into to make shareholders happy.

I think WD owns SanDisk, too, right?

Forgot to mention that I also use Seagate Backups Plus Hub drives to backup and archive work. The internals are worth more than what you can find them individually (the internal drives are some of Seagate's best enterprise-grade server drives) with a big cache and a built-in two-port USB hub. JP

The tech industry moves fast so, please take my experience with a grain of salt: Fifteen years ago I used La Cie desktop drives without issue. I bought these despite a spotty reputation, at the time, for their bus-powered drives. Ten years ago I started using Glyph drives because they were rackmountable. I've had two issues with cooling-fans beginning to fail (same model, close serial numbers). The company sent me replacement fans with 48-hour shipping, free of charge. They also offer some basic data recovery as part of their 3-year warranty. I continue to use their platter drives as my primary working storage. All their bus-powered drives have either sufficient USB cabling to ensure full power or come with an external power supply. I have also purchased a couple of their SSDs. I am happy to report that these have not suffered any typical SSD degredation (as I have experienced with MULTIPLE SanDisk Extreme external SSDs). They are HELLA expensive, though, so I only spec them for mission-critical work and make sure their cost is included in any scope of work I send to a client. Seven years ago I started using G-Tech drives because they were significantly cheaper than Glyph and marketed to the same Audio/Video industry. All the bus-powered models I purchased suffered read or write failures which I could only attribute to the fact that their hardware required more stable juice than the typical USB spec available on production laptops. They didn't come with external PSUs or double-voltage cables and I actually ended up using cables/powersupplies from my Glyph drives to mitigate this issue. I believe this is the result of poor engineering (drives intended for portable/laptop usage should, indeed, work on laptops). Their desktop drives, on the whole, are fine. I have had a serious incident with one (my last G-Tech desktop drive I purchased) where the PSU started smoking at the connector and partially melted the strain relief. I was not pleased with their support's reaction (pretty much a check-for-warranty and a shrug). This is the only problem I've had with G-Tech desktop hard drives and I have, maybe, a dozen of them. Five years ago I jumped on the SSD bandwagon and began using SanDisk Extreme portable SSDs -first the black squares and then the blue rectangles. Six of the ten I've bought have degraded read/write performance over time. Though SanDisk has replaced the first few that I reported, it was such a hassle and wait for replacement that I've given up on them and gone back to Glyph-only for portable SSDs. I DO still use their SSD Ultra 3D SSD drives in enclosures and with my Atomos Fires. JP

Thanks! That's helpful. Yeah, I was super thrilled to see that Canon finally made a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS but bummed it was RF-mount, only, as I've switched primarily to Fujifilm but still shoot EF bodies. It's unfortunate that each successive product only inches closer to what "we" wanted years ago (so many of us were asking Canon for stabilized f/2.8L standard zooms when the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS came out). It seems like each manufacturer making a top-quality, "fast", standard-range zoom with OIS would be a no-brainer for sales?

Can you help me understand your experience a bit when you say "awkward focal lengths on Super35"? Like, under what conditions are you shooting? The filmmakers I studied under using Super 35, its equivalent sensor size, or a 4/3rds sensor always used focal lengths that were readily compatible with common "full frame" lenses. For doc interviews, I was taught 50mm/35mm (Super 35 and 4/3rds, respectively) for A Cam, 35mm/24mm for B Cam with wider-than ~50º field of view kind-of a niche thing because of perspective distortion. Because of that experience, I've always been happy shooting APS-C with 16-35mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200/300mm L zooms in my bag (I also have a 10-18mm STM but I never use it for doc work).

The recent stepping fix worked across my Fujifilm cameras (X-T2, X-T3, and X-H1). It DOES NOT solve the fixed-aperture stepping-artifact (I say artifact because it's not actually stepping) whilst zooming. I tested with both the XF 18-55mm and XF 55-200mm. And... having just recently re-watched several episodes of the Office, I will point out that Zooms are used a LOT in that show as a story-telling tool. I was in the "who the heck uses zoom moves in final footage?" camp until that point.