Jay60p

according to this interview (https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2020/09/04/fujifilm-interview-covid-gfx-strategy-shrinking-ibis-300K-cycle-shutter) X-H2 will come with "some sort of breakthrough", "something more revolutionary". Possibly global shutter? oversampled 6K60? AI boosted AF? Since they appear to be very ambitious for the X-H2, I am willing to wait. X-T3 is still all I need now.

There are two Fuji choices right now for $999 (B&H information): X-T3 : for Video: 4K60p 10bit internal, no IBIS. (reduced from $1500) X-S10: for video: 4K30p 8bit internal, with IBIS. I would recommend the X-T3. I am happy with the video stabilization in Final Cut Pro, very adjustable with less "wobble" than IBIS.

This hadn't occurred to me. I had to check this out. So do my Full Frame Nikkor zooms show the shallower FF DOF on my Fuji X-T3 after mounting on the Zhongyi Turbo II speed booster? I finally shot some tests and yes, they do. So, no need to switch from APS-C or MFT to a new Full Frame camera to get the same shallower depth of field from your FF lenses, if you need it. There are several good speed boosters (dumb or smart) that mount FF lenses with the added bonus of boosting light level by one stop, which you could use to reduce your ISO setting by half. Myself, I use the speedbooster for the wider angle view rather than DOF. Simply stopping down one stop brings your DOF back to the deeper APS-C equivalent. (As always my posts are for the newer users here like myself. I’ve used 35mm Kodachrome and Bolex 16mm starting forty years ago, but I only started playing with a digital mirrorless recently.)

Actually, no. It's smooth in the viewfinder until you start recording the shot, then the intermittent auto ISO returns in 4k60. The pauses come at about one stop adjustment at a time, so not a problem at small exposure changes. 2K60 and 4k24, 4k30 are fine, no more ISO stepping even over a 5 stop ISO adjustment. If you are shooting with manual SLR zooms that are not constant aperture, the auto ISO will adjust the exposure for you smoothly as you zoom, at medium to slow speeds. Auto ISO response will lag behind fast zooms.

Those quick tests were with the 10-24 zoom on continuous auto focus. I just noticed that auto focus affects the auto ISO smoothness at 60p. Switching to manual focus and viewing the auto ISO in viewfinder shows a smooth auto ISO exposure change at 4K DCI 200mbps HEVC 60p. Thank you Fuji.

That’s because zooms cause aperture stepping even on manual aperture, which is not smoothed in this firmware update. (Except for 18-55 which did not step when the aperture was wide open.) I installed the update and did a few pans from a window view to an indoor view which showed very smooth auto ISO at 30fps. Every frame shows a change in video scopes luma so there is no stepping. Fixed! However, at 60fps I get pauses during the auto ISO, it adjusts smoothly for about 30 frames, then pauses for about 35 frames, then adjusts some more for 30 frames and continues intermittently like that until the ISO is fully adjusted. Do you see the same? So 30p looks completely smooth, 60p improved but not completely smooth, in my X-T3.

I haven’t installed it yet, but- This is really REALLY excellent news. This new smooth auto exposure (ISO) solves my biggest problem with Fuji video. Auto ISO allows panning from sunlit areas to shadow, doing interior walk-throughs with changing available window light, and any uncontrolled situation where you don’t know how the light will shift during a shot. Which is often the case in run & gun video. Having to set a manual exposure is no longer necessary full time to avoid the flickering exposure stepping. You have a choice. Here is how it looks in the X-H1 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYyrEd4vhqi-01AIlmc3DKQ/videos (I have been waiting to see if there were any reports of firmware update problems, so far have not seen any. There had been a problem with an update for X-T3 last year which increased the auto focus hunting/pulsing when stopped down to f/8 or more. That was fixed in a later update, but it took half a year?) Auto aperture is still stepping, but I much prefer setting an aperture for depth of field, and let the ISO go on auto.

Yes, it is a very good thing in the Fuji lenses. That's why I was asking about third party lenses, if they don't get corrections that puts them at a disadvantage. And I wonder where a particular lens's correction information is stored, in the lens firmware or the camera firmware? Just curious.

A few thoughts on this topic: 1) I would have expected this equivalency theory would have been tested more reliably by still photographers at the numerous photography forums long ago. They use a much wider range of format sizes than the video people here at EOSHD. If not, it could be there is just too many variables to control, or no consensus on the methods to use. 2) I would suggest using a 4x5 sheet film camera (8x10 is at $15 a shot!) and limit the test to manual lenses. Mount all lenses on a 4x5 lens board and take a 4x5 shot for each, to be scanned for viewing. This way the camera does not change, the sensor does not change, no digital transformations are done in camera. The different lenses would have different size image circles in the 4x5s, so would be of different resolutions, but that should not effect the depth of field comparisons much. I did look at the SLR primes with the Turbo II speedbooster. It shrinks the first fringing seen, but it includes more of the edges of the image circle, with more CA, so overall the fringing looked the same. It really is not a big problem, in video it will never be noticed unless you look for it, it's more of a problem in still photos. I use these SLR primes for stop-motion and time lapse, where you don't want any communication with the camera that changes the lens settings. Here is a review of my favorite Fuji lens that includes comments on the in-camera corrections (CA, vignetting, distortion) for anyone unfamiliar with this: https://opticallimits.com/fuji_x/887-fuji1024f4ois?start=1 My question is, what about the third party lenses? Do the mirrorless cameras generally apply in-camera corrections to Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, that come in their lens mounts?

There is another factor with the new digital cameras which will complicate DOF/format test results. My Fuji X-T3 recognizes specific Fuji lenses and automatically corrects aberrations for those lenses in camera. I have FF Canon, Takumar, Minolta 35mm prime lenses with dumb adapters, and none of them are as sharp and clean as the two APS-C Fuji zoom lenses I use. The Fuji zooms don't show color fringing. My FF 35mm primes and Nikon F zooms do (on very close examination).

For all us older fellows who spent years shooting Kodachrome 135 slides, full frame is what we used. Anything smaller was grainier and softer. So I think FF has an immediate attraction due to so much of our personal photo history from the 1960’s to the 2000’s. But now the smaller digital formats have higher performance in video, years sooner than the larger formats, since smaller sensors are faster. And cheaper. Fuji will be coming with a new generation of APS-C (XH-2?) which may once again jump way ahead of the new FF, since Fuji does not need to hold back on specs to protect a FF line. Hopefully Panasonic will do the same with GH6 and not skimp on high video performance due to S5. Note: I just saw a post elsewhere that had pie chart showing FF was about 10% of market vs. APS-C being about 90%, 2018-2019. FF may be growing but it looks like it's not about to dominate the market for quite a while yet, if ever.

Speak of the Devil... X-T3 Firmware update Version: 3.30 https://fujifilm-x.com/global/support/download/firmware/cameras/x-t3/ "Very dangerous... you go first."

Yeah, I put off installing new firmware for a month or two, sometimes it breaks more than it fixes. Good to hear a happy ending!

To test this you could use: standard 16mm, Bolex (Kern Paillard 10mm at f/1.8 4/3rds, 17mm at f/3.2 APS-C (Nikon DX), 22mm at f/4 Full Frame, 34mm at f/6.3 8x10, 256mm at f/45 The 16mm would have to be wide open and the 8x10 would have to be completely stopped down (my 8x10 270mm is f/4.4 - 45) This is according to this calculator: https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{"c":[{"f":13,"av":"8","fl":50,"d":3048,"cm":"0"}],"m":0} Damn it you’ve got me doing it now! Like Oliver Hardy and his taxi driver getting involved in Stan Laurel’s jigsaw puzzle, and they miss his wedding ceremony…

I don't recall having that happen, tried changing some things but those settings haven't greyed out. Is this a new camera?

I think the biggest drawback for larger sensors is they have always been a few years behind the smaller sensors in performance, at least in mirrorless hybrids. My most important spec is 4k60p. Fuji had it in 10 bit HEVC two years ago. The FF Sony & Canon 10bit took two years to catch up & match it. And they are still nowhere near the $1500 the X-T3 was. Panasonic's GH5 4K60p also looks great from two years ago, I still have MP4 samples I downloaded late 2018 that look indistinguishable from FF 4k60p. It used to be in the old film days that a doubled increase in format size gave a doubled increase in resolution. So when I first heard DSLRs were about to go full frame I thought, Great! But, in digital it's not that simple. Video UHD is still 3840 x 2160 no matter the sensor size. The other major drawback is price - this from Wikipedia... "Production costs for a full-frame sensor can exceed twenty times the costs for an APS-C sensor. Only 20 full-frame sensors will fit on an 8-inch (200 mm) silicon wafer, and yield is comparatively low because the sensor's large area makes it very vulnerable to contaminants—20 evenly distributed defects could theoretically ruin an entire wafer."

OK, I was not familiar with the Equivalency Debates so I found this all quite confusing. I found Wikipedia to be even more confusing. But then I found this excellent article: https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso that begins - "I know, I know. After the 2012-2017 Great Equivalence War, photographers everywhere agreed never to utter that word again. Nasim’s famous quote, “Everyone is right, everyone is wrong,” has been etched both into the peace treaty and into the hearts of millions. However..." So "aperture equivalence" is about matching depth-of-field between formats, not brightness or exposure. And about the FF F/2 and aps-c f/1.4 : that is also about matching depth of field (to the shallow side). So FF has an advantage if you are generally trying to throw the background out of focus, which is the current fashion no doubt about it. (Which seems to be about getting a "Hollywood" cinematic look?) But if you want as much of your field of view and the people in it in sharp focus (like I do), then shorter focal lengths on smaller sensors have an advantage. Which is why I for one don't need FF.

1) Depth of Field: I think you are saying in full frame at 28mm the depth of field is shallower than at 18mm in APS-C, with fields of view about the same. Which you prefer is a personal preference. I want the deepest depth of field possible, for me less depth of field is major downside to FF. Nowadays I shoot family video and I want everyone in the room to be in focus as much as possible. I don't shoot narrative (did years ago), but now I want less trouble keeping moving & unpredictable subjects in focus. I know that the FF shallow focus was the big thing in recent years for a lot of people, but that would be a major PITA for me. I don't like seeing auto focus working in my shots (for me it's distracting & often picks the wrong person), I prefocus as much as possible in manual. I like using old FF SLR manual zooms with or without a speedbooster, on a tripod. For better depth of field I use at least f/5.6, fast f/2 lenses have no appeal for me. Speaking of deep focus, that is the technique I really admire the most in the older B&W Hollywood films, I love some of those wide angle shots showing a room - with a ceiling! - as in Citizen Kane. I admit, I prefer wide angle shots over telephotos. I have the Fuji 10-24 zoom. All my telephotos are vintage SLR. 2) ISO performance: I think you mean full frame has less noise at high ISO compared to smaller sensors, I agree there. If I was doing street photography at night I would be concerned with this, but I rarely hit ISO 10,000 with what I shoot. (Indoors I have 5000K LED bulbs in all my lamps which allows mixing window light with the lamplights without white balance problems.)

Just curious as to the theory that an f/2 in FF would require an f/1.4 in APS-C? I just checked several lenses on my X-T3, pointing to my computer screen with this post. Using manual exposure, 1/60th at ISO 1000: APS-C Fuji zoom 18-55 required f/8 at 24mm. My Nikon full frame 24-85 on a dumb adapter also required f/8 on it's manual aperture ring at 24mm. A 16mm C mount 25mm prime lens at f8 measured 1/3rd stop lower, due to some black vignetting. Why would aperture brightness change one stop between FF & APS-C, assuming no other glass added?

Update: The Mitakon Zhongyi Lens Turbo II for Nikon to Fuji X also needs back focus adjustment on my X-T3. It has the aperture ring in the center, so you can remove the back flange with four screws the same way as shown above with the Fotodiox NIK(G)-FX dumb adapter. It needed the black masking tape plus an extra layer of thinner tape (about 11 thousandths of an inch total) to keep my Nikon AF 28-85 in focus, as well as my newer Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4.

I think you meant to reply to my post: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/46429-oversampling-high-iso-noise-test/ ...and started a “new topic” instead of a “reply to this topic” ?

One large format, coming right up... 8x10 is only available in anamorphic cinemascope sir, there's no demand for any others.

Most of mine are too. I have X-T3. For the FF telephoto lenses it increases their effective focal length, big advantage there. For my two manual Nikon SLR zooms I just got in the Turbo II speedbooster today. Mainly for my Nikon AF 28-85, I now have access to the full coverage of the lens, plus it cuts my ISO requirements in half (so less advantage of a full frame camera in the ISO department, on top of the the cleaner 6K to 4K oversampling!) Besides the Fuji 18-55 kit zoom the only new lens I needed was a wide angle, the Fuji 10-24 is amazing.

I found an earlier post about this exposure stepping workaround (auto aperture & AE-L lock), so I'm not the first! https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/24941-fuji-exposure-shift-during-video-recording/?do=findComment&comment=341693 Wish I hadn't missed this one six months ago. I have become amazed at how different Fuji users are. I remember watching a well-respected youtube review of the X-T3 for video and the reviewer's methods and settings were completely different than what I would use, and his complaints were about things that did not bother me at all, and he never mentioned any of the things I have problems with. So to each his own. I am doing mostly family video (birthdays, barbecues, my kid's new activities) and use zoom lenses all the time, trying to cover what is going on in a group and zooming in on who is speaking or going crazy at the time. I also do backyard nature, and a bird feeder about 20 feet from my window allows for great telephoto views of food fights, including squirrels who come for the seed droppings and are always chasing away the chipmunks. If I didn't have a telephoto zoom mounted I couldn't have kept a deer in frame who wandered in the yard and headed straight for my window. So I've been playing with the 10-24 in "auto aperture/exposure lock" mode and it is the closest thing to a camcorder mode that I've got with the X-T3, without exposure stepping. The auto focus is improved from the last firmware update. I've only got a few inexplicable focus jumps in about 7 minutes of shooting with 10-24 & 18-55 zooms. Still, the gold standard for me is a tripod and a manual zoom.

This is what's been working for me for a year and a half, and it's cheap. I have the i5 Mac Mini 2018 for $1000. I have both OSX Mojave (for some older apps) and OSX Catalina (for FCPX and editing Fuji files) installed on the internal SSD on two separate volumes, selectable from the keyboard on startup. I can also boot up from OSX on my external drives. I also have Windows installed with Parallels for some unique utilities (for processing 3d stereo pairs, unusual audio conversions, etc). So far I have only needed the 8GB memory it came with, FCPX edits the 4K60 10bit HEVC from my X-T3 smoothly with no problems in OSX Catalina. I haven't tried Resolve, that requires 16GB. I have never needed to use an intermediary so far, doing mostly single track editing without any heavy special effects. I believe the reason I can do this is due to the T2 chip in the Mini, which does HEVC acceleration (besides the Security features). I can play 4K60 10bit HEVC LongGOP at full resolution at full speed from Quicktime Player. Inside FCPX the same files always play smoothly in the viewer's "better performance" mode. I edit straight from my camera files, render a master to ProRes, then compress to MP4 HEVC in Handbrake. I usually display the final Handbrake 10bit 4K HEVC files with a 256GB flashdrive that my 2017 Sony TV can play smoothly with its own internal android software. Computers that have the Apple T2 Security Chip These Mac computers have the Apple T2 Security Chip: iMac introduced in 2020 iMac Pro Mac Pro introduced in 2019 Mac mini introduced in 2018 MacBook Air introduced in 2018 or later MacBook Pro introduced in 2018 or later (from https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT208862)