Castorp

Tbh I'm not following your post. Feels like you're putting words in my mouth? The point I was making is that when the PRO Oly lenses came out people where comparing to 200$ Canon/Nikon lenses saying it was expensive. I don't think it's expensive at all when you look at the quality of image those things produce. I don't own a m43 system. I comment on what I have seen and the images from those lenses are stellar. There are few 135 lenses at similar or less cost I have seen that compare. The closest one I can think of is the 58mm f1.4G Nikkor which makes beautiful images. It is also more expensive. The Oly is pin sharp at 1.2 and way nicer than the Oly 1.8 when both are at max aperture. The same can not be said for the Canon f1.2 compared to it's 1.8 sibling at max aperture. I couldn't care less about the Canon bokeh when the Oly lens is so much nicer in all other aspects of rendering. There's a few Nikon lenses that do it and those huge Zeiss lenses. All more expensive. That's what was trying to make a point about - in general, (perhaps with some exceptions,) lenses are more expensive the larger the format for similar quality I'm guessing we shall see bokeh be much less written about as soon as computational imaging makes amazing bokeh possible on smartphones et c. Software interpolation and digital image processing is a great thing. I don't see any problems with it whatsoever in digital photography. If I want an analogue image, with analogue corrections, I'd much rather shoot film. To argue for analogue corrections on a digital medium makes zero sense to me. I think some of the photo industry have one leg stuck in the old field. Like how the first cars where half horse carriages. I have a particular dislike to format snobbery. Perhaps it is rooted in old university times when large format was the only true format and nothing else counted. Breaks my heart to hear beginners think that they need this or that format to make good work. They're indeed all tools. The difference in image quality between todays digital formats is much smaller than it was between yesterdays film formats. The point with Andrew's original post was, as I understood it, to say that all formats are legit. They're all great for different reasons and they all have their specific advantages and disadvantages. I don't think I ever discussed Sony lenses. I have very limited experience with them and if you say it's nice I'm sure it's nice. Personally Sony cameras and lenses leave me stone cold. I'm aware that's entirely subjective and I'm sure they're great. It's just that I don't care at all. I guess I'm romantic like that - there has to be something in the image or tool that catches my imagination. Apologies.

Firstly, I don't care what kind of social games are happening here. I think it is a great video. He is wrong in the thread you link but so what? Perhaps he learned something from that thread? I know I am wrong all the time, and I often make mistakes. In the video I posted he comes to the same important point that you re-iterate - that perspective depends on camera position to subject, nothing else. The more important point is that people shouldn't worry so much about it (if they're not a DP or something highly unusual like that). The reason I posted the video is that even here, in a geeky forum (forgive me), some are confused about perspective. Why is that? Partly, I believe, there's an overly complicated, yet too simplistic, narrative around lenses and formats. I found the environment I learned way more pedagogic. "150 is normal on large format, 80 is normal on medium format and 50 is normal on small format". Of course there was plenty of elitist BS around format back then as there is now, but the whole "full frame" (what a ridiculous term) hype is pretty funny when you remember a couple of decades ago when small format was laughed at in some circles. That didn't stop artists from making amazing work with 135. Just as it wouldn't stop anyone now making amazing work with m43 (and the difference between 135 and, say, 6x7, was order of magnitude larger than the difference between popular digital formats which is truly negligible). Lenses and formats aren't that formulaic. The quality of a de-focused area in a picture isn't just about focal length and aperture. I understand most here are well aware of that. Yet we constantly plow through things like "that lens equals that f stop on this format, therefore that lens needs this f stop for that bokeh" blah blah . It's a shallow spec sheet oriented discussion. I encounter many who are worried and confused about this when there is no need to be confused at all. With experience you see that some lenses look way nicer than other lenses, no matter what the f-stop is. Some f2.8 lenses have way nicer de-focus than some f1.8 lenses. Again, I know you all know this but I think it's important to remember that image quality can't be summed up in some formula. There's more than that to it.

Worth noting that Mattias Burling made a great video about this.

I have used a lot of standard lenses too. I'm not bashing standard lenses. I'm sure the Sony standards are nice. What I am saying is that people forget that the 135 format lenses of the same class as for example the Olympus Pro are often more expensive. The Nikon 58mm 1.4 or Zeiss Otus comes to mind. These are no compromise lenses, much like the mentioned Olympus lens. (no holds barred, heavy, large and costly). To get this kind of no compromise lens is typically cheaper the smaller the format. As it should be. See my previous reply. The Nikon 58mm 1.4G is 1600$. The top quality Sony primes are around 1500$. The top end lenses for smaller sensors are typically less costly. Nothing weird with this. I worked with 120 for many years and those lenses are more expensive. Then we have large format lenses and so on. Step up in film size and costs, weight, et c increases. There is more to cameras and lenses than "equivalence". I may be old school but to me how a system feels to work with is the most important.

Thank you for a good article Andrew. I am surprised to see in this thread how many seem to be focus on getting as shallow a depth of field as possible. Part of my reasons for switching from a 135 format Nikon to super35 Fujifilm was that it was easier to have more things sharp in the image. I can use f8 instead of f11 and so on. Another good argument for a smaller sensor is that I think you get more for your money with lenses. Look at the Olympus Pro lenses or the nicest Fujifilm lenses. To get similar quality (and then I'm talking about all aspects of quality) you have to spend far more on a 135 format system. Also optically I think for example that the Fujifilm 56 1.2 is superior to any 135 format 85mm f1.8. With Nikon you have to get into the best lenses, typically the 1.4 lenses, to have a similar quality in build. And those are more expensive. I don't see any 135 format 50mm 1.8 compare at all with for example the Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro in terms of quality. Same goes for bodies by the way. The A7iii is getting a lot of praise but I don't see it comparing well to an EM1ii or XH1 when it comes to the quality of the viewfinder, sealing, general build et c. You have to get up to D850/A7riii level to match, and then we're in another price bracket. If you work with long telephoto lenses there are huge cost and weight advantages to using M43. There seems to be some sort of boom around 135 happening lately that I haven't seen since the D3 and 5D. Funny how trends bounce back and forwards.

Apples reasons for developing their own solutions for the entire chain has a lot to do with reliability. Their reliability comes from controlling all the bits and making sure they work together. The sum is a system that is greater than the sum of its parts because there is coherent intention throughout. I think it’s a bit cynical to presume it’s all about “locking in” it’s users.

My 16-55 2.8 has the same resistance throughout the Zoom range. AF is very silent. Quieter than the small f2 primes. The 23 f2 is equally fast but not as accurate as the 16-55. Regarding @DaveAltizer review. Pretty nice but think more attention could have been given to how workflow is affected by having the separate silent controls for video that overrides the physical controls and thereby stores all the settings. Made a video yesterday and frustrated how I have to go through all the picture settings on my X-Pro before hitting record. If only I could just flick one dial and have everything set up. Further, I doubt vloggers make up “10-20%” of the market for high end cameras. A fully articulating screen is much slower and more frustrating to use for everyone, the vast majority, who is not taking pictures of themselves. One flick vs flick turn fiddle. And I very much dislike looking at a screen that’s off the camera’s center axis. All these reviewers of course benefit from a vlogger optimised camera, and they have loud voices through YouTube. It’s annoying how most of them review based mostly on their own needs. We get comments like “I don’t understand why one wouldn’t have an articulated screen”. It’s the difference between the new breed of reviewers and the old school professional reviewers. And it rubs me the wrong way equating physical controls with “retro”. It’s no more retro than an analog watch face vs a digital watch face. I prefer an analog watch face because it shows me a sort of diagram of the day which makes it easier for me to plan and think ahead. Same with analog exposure controls. I also like to be able to see my settings at a glance when the camera is off. If one shoots in any sort of auto mode it doesn’t matter (you’d miss the exp comp dial) but if one shoots manual those dials are gold.

This came to my mind.

I’m not sure I understand why using Intels chips would be more professional? The whole thing with Apples frustration is Intel progressing so slowly. Very possible that Apples chips will be faster while at the same time being far more efficient. You still want to be on a slower computer? I don’t think they want to move everything to iOS. I would guess they’d like it to be much easier to make apps where it wouldn’t take too much work to deliver to both platforms (unlike now). The Mac would benefit massively from this. Ask any young programmer if they want to build for iOS or for the Mac. I read an article and apparently 99.9% are interested in developing for iOS rather than Mac OS. That’s where software innovation will be.

There are shots where the stabilisation looks amazing, particularly walking shots. Where there is room for improvement seems to be the lateral behaviour of the stabiliser in regards to video. Very possible that it’s more optimised for photo than for video and needs further tuning. From what I’ve read people are very positive about the stabilisation in photo mode.

@Brian Williams That doesn't look good. I think a gimbal is the only solution if you want to be that casual.

I didn't mean to say that nobody should care about what anyone else thinks. I think reading opinions about new functions and technologies are as interesting as the next guy. Idk, I' I have never and will never buy a camera I haven't held in my hands first. Happy to hear you don't need to. Looking forward to hearing your impressions on the X-H1. Looks like a great camera to me!

Why would you buy a new camera based on what somebody on the internet says? Even if that person is well known. It would necessitate that the advisor knew your practice intimately in order to give good advice and even then I’d say it’s hard. Internet advice often only leads to decisions made purely on paper specs which doesn’t make sense. Any camera can be the best for a specific context. There is no best camera.

Is it possible to charge via usb? If so use power bank.

They share controls but not exactly? The X-T2 doesn’t have the separate touch controls for video right? Would seem to me that this would store settings different from the physical controls. Perhaps somebody who has the camera can clarify? I didn’t get around to comment on your pictures. Thanks for sharing! You certainly need raw for that kind of look. Ultra wide angle, with raised shadows and lowered highlights is far from my cup of tea I’m afraid. I don’t like when the lens is strongly present in a photograph. Likewise I don’t like when I can see the editing. Here the deep shadow, the angle and the posture of the man makes for a different story than if the deep immeasurably heavy shadow wasn’t there. Unnerving, unsure, a bit uneasy. Enough to tell a different story from the usual CDF riff.

Isn’t the main advantage with the two different modes to have different settings? I understand if using physical controls; a lot of operations are necessary, but is it the case that if using the silent touch controls the camera remembers aperture, shutter speed and iso set for video? So it doesn’t matter what the shutter and aperture dials are set to? It overrides them? That would be good. Then there is separate focus settings and AWB settings. Not to mention picture controls. I can’t use them on my X-Pro 2 but even if I could I would have to change a lot of things before I would press that record button. I rather like the idea of having two “cameras”, two completely separated modes. And it’s different from custom settings which I don’t like because I never remember what does what. To simply have a ? and a ? makes sense to me.

Haha! Chefen! ? börja jobba!

Isn’t that because Leica uses DNG which is a universal format rather than a proprietary one? Makes sense. Fujifilm strikes me as quite different. Adobe renders ok nowadays but used to look pretty bad with Fuji files. I haven’t found their conversion as good as the proprietary one. Fujifilm repeatedly underlines their imaging chain, reminding people of jpeg, lenses, xtrans and so on. A bit Apple like. Of course if they want to do something really controversial with for example sensor they have to leave universal standards behind. @Trek of Joy I love the new Fujifilm conversion software. It’s slow and cumbersome but I still use it. I often do tiny tweaks to the jpegs too. Like Mattias is saying so much easier to start from somewhere. Just like it was with C-type printing with film and colour paper. You started out from a colour profile that was already good. Just needed burning/dodging usually. Personally I find jpegs mostly sufficient. To me HDR, pulled shadows, cranked up vibrancy and clarity looks way worse than any clipping. The people that configure jpegs really know what they’re doing. Same way the experts that configure colour film know that too. Jpegs used to look very bad. I’m happy that changed.

All the options discussed are relatively expensive. I think when you’re a bit more experienced you’ll know exactly what you like and what you don’t like. This is of course very different with different people. Usually the most important thing is handling. That was always the advice I was given. I have found it to be true and it is the advice I now give: choose the camera which feels best, the one that’s the most intuitive, that puts a smile on your face. Everything else is secondary. You need to tell a story with whatever you use and so you need to use something that puts you at your best. If that’s an iPhone then the iPhone is the best camera, far better than any Hasselblad. Forums like these tend to be spec oriented. I see few discussions of how fun a camera is to use. Makes sense too if people are working in teams, with scripts et c. Then the “fun factor” matters less. If I am on a job the picture that needs making is usually known, and then the cameras feeling isn’t so important. I can use anything. Then technical parameters become more important as there often needs to be a certain quality. If I am working in my own practice then it’s paramount that I like the thing I’m working with. That has been many different things over the years. The most favourite camera ever is the Hasselblad 500CM so I’d say buy that if you want killer stills. You see? There really isn’t a camera that is best. On techy corners of the world like this we often get nerdy with specs. But doesn’t necessarily matter at all. I know so many absolutely amazing artists that exhibit all over the world that use a something like a Nikon D3300 or similar Canon. I used to use 135 format Nikon but lenses are so heavy and expensive I switched to APSC and Fujifilm. I make large prints and I found APSC sufficient. APSC feels like the new 135 to me as all 135 cameras and lenses have got way bigger than they used to be when they were film cameras. I can make bigger prints from an APSC sensor then I ever could from 135. I can’t advice you without knowing your practice.

This clip echoes my own experience as I switched from a raw-based workflow years ago. The most interesting part is at 06:17, the red car door, when he shows the complexity of what the jpeg engine is doing. Of course it is possible to echo the look with enough work in a raw developer, but that takes a lot of time and it is difficult to maintain consistency, especially if it’s a body of work spanning months or even years. I am not convinced that Adobe’s mimicking of the film simulation are as advanced as the in camera imaging chain. I always shoot raw+jpeg and save the raw files on an external drive as digital negatives of sorts. The jpegs straight from camera is what is used most of the time. The example with the girl in blue top is also interesting. I find that Provia, Velvia, Astia and pro neg hi work very well together and can be used interchangeably in a publication or for a series of prints. Acros is the best out of camera black and white I have seen except for the Leica monochrome.

I am new, so please forgive my ignorance, but are there moderators? Why is the same individual allowed to repeatedly derail this thread?

Seeing how this is the beginning for Fujifilms video endeavours I think it’s ok and it will get sorted. The X100 and X-Pro 1 has abysmal autofocus and plenty firmware problems in the beginning. Today I would argue that the X-Pro 1 represents amazing value second hand. It was updated into a really excellent camera over the years. My X-Pro 2 has had its AF system updated twice since it came out. The X-H1 again has a new system with far more detecting areas and, with optimisation, should be far more reliable and faster than the already good XT2/Xpro2. It is true that early adopters perhaps shouldn’t be beta testers but it’s tough competition. The excellent Hasselblad X1D had plenty of problems in the beginning but I think most has been fixed through updates. They could have released it a year later but the camera still worked, one could still make pictures with it. I think with this sort of cycle there is a choice. Im trouble by all the bloggers that shout for an articulated screen. Of course it’s good if you’re a vlogger. For me it would be a deal breaker, I can’t stand those screens.

He doesn’t know anything about making photographs either. He knows gear and buying gear. I’d argue that you should be a good picture maker if you’re claiming authority on picture making tools. Otherwise you’re a technician. You understand mechanics but you don’t understand how design and making process should mesh together. edit: Mattias beat me to it

Idk, I’ve seen videos from the XH1 that really impressed me. Especially that Nepal video by Palle Shultz. Which was shot handheld with the 18-55. Why would anyone want to generate views for that YouTube channel? It’s a joke.

Nice. The Nikon D3 is one of the best feeling cameras I ever held. Incredibly rugged. If the XH1 feels anything like that I’m very impressed. What’s the shutter release like? It’s supposed to be much more like a pro Canikon with a very light press. The shutter being suspended in springs, together with that shutter release should make for a very stable exposure. Even discounting the stabilisation.