Looks like the Fuji X-T20 gets 4K!

[Mattias Burling]

http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-x-t20-will-shoot-4k-video/

If true its pretty major.

I had the X-T10 and its a sweet, compact but very solid camera with major mojo and plenty of bells and whistles to go around.

Ad better video and you have a winner!

 

The video in the x-t10 was similar to the xt-t1, so ok but nothing for serious stuff.

I did however shoot all the footage of the X100t with the X-t10 in this review.

So it should have potential to be just as good as the X-T2. Only alot cheaper.

[Viet Bach Bui]

Not sure why you like those Fuji(s) so much. They are great still cameras, but the ergonomic is not good for video shooting.

[Mattias Burling]

3 minutes ago, Viet Bach Bui said:

Not sure why you like those Fuji(s) so much. They are great still cameras, but the ergonomic is not good for video shooting.

Because I dont agree with you

For my hands they aren't any better or worse than other cameras.

[Simon Shasha]

I'm not interested in it for video, but definitely interested in it for photography.

If it has the same auto-focus system as the X-T2, then I'll sell my A6300, Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS, Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS, MC-11 and Metabones IV EF-E Mount Smart Adapter in a heartbeat.

The XF 23mm F2 WR, XF 35mm F2 WR, and (up and coming) XF 50mm F2 WR look like the holy trinity to me.

[Kisaha]

Everything is going to be 4K soon, even entry level cameras offer 4K these days. Fuji is up-ing its game in video, video sells, I was listening to Wlater Murch the other day, saying that video is going to be next to mathematics and reading and spelling in schools, and it is almost true already. Cheap and good video will be mandatory, and accessible (when we had the next technological boom in camera phones. There will be smartphones, and pro equipment, middle ground is going to be lost).

The other thing is, that the Fuji X100T in my country starts from 1190 euros(!!), 2 brand new NX500 kit with the 16-50mm kit (111gr), or one NX1 with the same lens.

FujiFilm X100T is 6% (7 mm) wider and 17% (10.8 mm) taller than Samsung NX500.

FujiFilm X100T is 23% (9.9 mm) thicker than Samsung NX500.

FujiFilm X100T [440 g] weights 19% (70 grams) more than Samsung NX500 [370 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card). If you add the 30mm 2f pancake lens it is 10gr more than the Fuji, and you pack a 4K capable, 28 BSI megapxls camera already. No view finder though for the NX.
 

FujiFilm X100T dimensions: 126.5x74.4x52.4 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
Samsung NX500 dimensions: 119.5x63.6x42.5 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)

[Emanuel]

This ergonomics argument as a 'must mantra' is pure BS, IMHO. Seems to my eyes the same excuse people are used to pop up when a new camera is launched for explaining their filmmaking inertia : ) Who is unable to set up and give to the world any piece of work with and from a G7 or a6300, as for instance, is unable to shoot with any other capture device. It won't matter 4:2:2 whatever the number of bits you have, nor form factor, for sure. No other acquisition tool will save the unfortunate shooter. Neither RED or Alexa.

E :-)

[Mattias Burling]

46 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

. No view finder though for the NX.

Or ND, Leaf Shutter, high sync speed, external controls, distance scale, and probably more stuff.

They are both great at what they do and I have had both. But I wouldn't be able to use the nx500 for stills in the way I enjoy to shoot.

An Olympus E-P5 on the other hand is cheaper than all of them and is quite the street shooter with one of two fast and wide lenses they make that has distance scales.

Video is a different ball game of course. Thats why a camera like the xt20 is interesting for me. I can use it for stills but also do a bit of video.

[Kisaha]

..I wanted to add the ND filter there, too, and leaf shutter! I love NX ergonomics, it is amazing what they did with such a small camera. 

Of course, Fuji cameras are great on their own, it is just the NX500 is a very capable, extremely small and light, 28megapixels, 4K capable (it is great as a 2nd or 3rd cam) that costs new, right now (it was cheaper before Samsung pulled out!) for the same money that https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1275467-REG/fujifilm_16531635_x_a3_digital_camera_w_xc16_50mm.html costs, with much better ergonomics in my opinion (and no view finder for the a3, too).

Also, https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1307717-REG/fujifilm_16536556_x_pro2_mirrorless_digital_camera.html 2299$, and no 4K!!

We have to see the specs and price, is it going to be around 800$? If yes, then why spend 1000 more for the flagships?

The most important thing is that Fuji is all in with video it seems, and that's a good thing, as together with Panasonic, are the companies that listen to their customers most.

 

@Emanuel One can buy a bike without a saddle, but after a few Khm it can be dangerous for one's dignity!

Ergonomics are very important in our job, except it is not a job, but a hobby, which ergonomics aren't everything.

[Emanuel]

Our job?? It depends on the job you have in the filmmaking business, at least. Come from shooting on 35mm film, pointedly before digital, and you'll never complain against the ergonomics of any of these little cameras.

To me, all this talk is nonsense. Sorry me, but seems so odd all this babble on ergonomics... Without mention the whole set of accessories to customize (y)our camera as you wish.

Maybe a cup of "our favorite chocolate" might come in-camera but such evil manufacturers have decided to put it outside there... ;-)

[Kisaha]

The most convenient camera I am using the last few years, for run n gun TV documentaries (they are calling them just documentaries here, but in reality, they are run and gun) is the C100(I and II), most of our budget short films, we are using C300 with Canon cine lenses. My mirrorless system is Samsung NX which I found terrific ergonomically, unlike Sony cameras that I am using from time to time, but I wouldn't buy them, and ergonomics are playing a part for NOT buying them.

I am in the industry since the film-film years (i was a boom op and lightning technician those days, so not having to do with cameras, I have shoot film though but in smaller productions, and taught film in film school), and the camera crew were 3-5 people, now they are two, and most lower budget jobs just a camera man. I am not even mentioning the new trend of "one man band" that I detaste, but unfortunately I have to do it from time to time (I am going with 2 or 3 NX cameras), and size/weight/ergonomics count a lot then, as the rest of the equipment I use.

It is not nonsense at all when you do not have the budget, and/or you do not have the people, and all these cameras we are mentioning (Fuji, Pana, Sony a6xxx, NX) are for the ones with neither, so ergonomics are really relevant! Actually, I am surprised that anyone is against ergonomics, ever, with anything! Even your car's handle has to be ergonomic, or your drawer, or your basement's closet, ergonomics are something I give a lot of importance in my life.

@Mattias Burling sorry for the off topic. I stop now! But Fujis DO have great ergonomics!

[Emanuel]

I am not against ergonomics in general at all! (don't wanna be a fool... LOL : )

I am just criticizing the weight some people give to the topic here or in any other cameras forum. There are much other aspects to consider when we choose a camera IMHO. Aside the fact, this issue can also stand in a subjective approach, as Mattias pointed out.

It hasn't impacted the task to not buy a camera IMO. I differently agree that buying/using a camera for form factor is a whole other matter, though. Two different perspectives.

C100/300 are indeed a fine example. Samsung owners praise their devices as we all know here, too. Nothing against on their/your/our likings on the subject matter.

[jonpais]

Fuji cameras are unusable for video.  

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

[Viet Bach Bui]

5 hours ago, Emanuel said:

This ergonomics argument as a 'must mantra' is pure BS, IMHO. Seems to my eyes the same excuse people are used to pop up when a new camera is launched for explaining their filmmaking inertia : ) Who is unable to set up and give to the world any piece of work with and from a G7 or a6300, as for instance, is unable to shoot with any other capture device. It won't matter 4:2:2 whatever the number of bits you have, nor form factor, for sure. No other acquisition tool will save the unfortunate shooter. Neither RED or Alexa.

E :-)

I'm sure everyone here knows that a good film is 90% talent and 10% equipment. We, being in these forums, are discussing within that 10%. So there is no need to downplay the technical aspects of a camera. Ergonomics isn't any less of must have than all the other stuff we regularly mention here like resolution, DR, color, bit rate, bit depth, RS because none of those have stopped great films from being made.

And Jonpais, you are countering a point I did not make (assuming your reply was for me)

 

[Emanuel]

2 minutes ago, Viet Bach Bui said:

I'm sure everyone here knows that a good film is 90% talent and 10% equipment. We, being in these forums, are discussing within that 10%. So there is no need to downplay the technical aspects of a camera. Ergonomics isn't any less of must have than all the other stuff we regularly mention here like resolution, DR, color, bit rate, bit depth, RS because none of those have stopped great films from being made.

 

I just don't see ergonomics as a major technical one. It depends on the user. But from user to user, other technical aspects play a much more relevant role, not even close I'd say. 

[jonpais]

4 minutes ago, Viet Bach Bui said:

I'm sure everyone here knows that a good film is 90% talent and 10% equipment. We, being in these forums, are discussing within that 10%. So there is no need to downplay the technical aspects of a camera. Ergonomics isn't any less of must have than all the other stuff we regularly mention here like resolution, DR, color, bit rate, bit depth, RS because none of those have stopped great films from being made.

And Jonpais, you are countering a point I did not make (assuming your reply was for me)

 

My ideal camera would be a Panasonic body, X Trans sensor. ? 

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Fuji cameras are unusable for video.  

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Lovely camera hard to beat if ever : ) Fujifilm (maker) really rules.

 

PS -- Funny note: test to watch it @480p (or even @360p) and compare with other camera samples at same resolution... :X

Cinematic outcome is an ultimate combo this brand shows to know.

[Trek of Joy]

8 hours ago, Viet Bach Bui said:

Not sure why you like those Fuji(s) so much. They are great still cameras, but the ergonomic is not good for video shooting.

Been shooting with the XT2 for the last two months after shooting with Sony and the NX1 recently, not sure what good ergos are if you consider the XT2 bad, and it completely outclasses anything Sony has in the same class. How are manual control dials for ISO, SS, and aperture bad, along with a better EVF and LCD than most of the competition? Plus the menus are logically organized and you can group anything that can't be included in the Q menu or placed on a custom button in the "My Menu" menu. Custom WB's are much easier than Sony too. But Sony wrote the book on poor usability, so they're easy to pick on.

[jonpais]

8 hours ago, Viet Bach Bui said:

Not sure why you like those Fuji(s) so much. They are great still cameras, but the ergonomic is not good for video shooting.

Sorry, Bui, maybe my English is poor, but I understand this comment to mean that Fuji cameras are not good for video.

[rooney111]

44 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

Been shooting with the XT2 for the last two months after shooting with Sony and the NX1 recently, not sure what good ergos are if you consider the XT2 bad, and it completely outclasses anything Sony has in the same class. How are manual control dials for ISO, SS, and aperture bad, along with a better EVF and LCD than most of the competition? Plus the menus are logically organized and you can group anything that can't be included in the Q menu or placed on a custom button in the "My Menu" menu. Custom WB's are much easier than Sony too. But Sony wrote the book on poor usability, so they're easy to pick on.

Hello

Do you miss anything on the XT2 that you had with the NX1? Is there a 16-50S equivalent or there abouts for the Fuji? My new year resolution is to stop buying gear but but Fuji as a brand looks very appealing. 

[Trek of Joy]

36 minutes ago, rooney111 said:

Hello

Do you miss anything on the XT2 that you had with the NX1? Is there a 16-50S equivalent or there abouts for the Fuji? My new year resolution is to stop buying gear but but Fuji as a brand looks very appealing. 

I like the Fuji better in every way, especially the color and less rolling shutter. I have the 10-24, 16-55 and 18-55 that cover everything the 16-50s does and more, plus I have the 23/1.4, 56/1.2 and so on that cover FL's Samsung never made. The Samsung is a faster lens, but to me Fuji video is better at 6400, which is something I never shot with the NX1. I've been wanting to go Fuji for a couple years because of the lenses I always wanted Sony to make, the XT2 solved all my issues with a Fuji body including AF, 4k, 24mp sensor and so on.

Fuji isn't going anywhere either, that's a big plus. There's a dedicated NX1 user base here though, I don't want this thread to get derailed with a NX1 vs. XT2 discussion, please open another thread if that's the goal.