Fuji X-H1. IBIS, Phase Detect 4K beast?

[Attila Bakos]

On 2018. 03. 14. at 1:59 PM, Attila Bakos said:

@frontfocus Can you please check if 1080p60 has more moiré/aliasing on the X-H1 than on the X-T2? I'd like to know if you can confirm this.

 

On 2018. 03. 14. at 2:02 PM, frontfocus said:

@Attila Bakos I will do. Don‘t know if I find enough spare time today or tomorrow, since I first have to get my X-T2, but weekend at the lastest I will do

@frontfocus Hi, did you have time to check this?

[wa666ou]

A nice video, don't see much moire here.

 

[brianwahl]

Here's a bit of a review after using the X-H1 for about two weeks, both in a hobbyist/family setting and in my more professional workflow (video production is part of what I do for a living). As a caveat, I wouldn't consider myself a pro video guy, though. I'm a hobbyist who turned video into part of my full-time income. I started a company called 'Worship Tutorials', and a youtube channel is a big part of it - I do a lot of video work (probably 3-6 uploads a week to YouTube), so while I'm not doing work for clients, and I don't have a pro background, video quality is important to me. I also realize that the limitations I encounter are almost purely coming from me, not the gear.

Background

I've been using Sony bodies for about the past 2 years. Before that, I used Blackmagic stuff - Studio 4k bodies, and then an Ursa Mini 4.6k. That was overkill. My church used to use those, and I loved what they could do, but the workflow for me (working on my own pushing out that many videos) just wasn't good. So I sold all of it and jumped to Sony. First with an a7S ii, then the a7R ii (as a 2nd body), then I sold both of those and went with an a9 + a6500. The colors on the a9 are far, far better than the previous gen. a7 stuff.

My frustration with Sony is color. And it's a huge deal to me - I believe color is one of the primary emotional pieces of video. And I hate the way Sony handles color. I do realize, though, that the IQ is there - plenty of people create beautiful work with Sony a7-series bodies, and I finally got good enough in post to make stuff that I thought looked great. But it's always a struggle for me - I feel like I'm always fighting for the colors I want. Then I started reading about the X-T2.

So I rented (and then purchased) an X-T2, and honestly I loved it. I loved the handling, the physical controls, and especially the colors. Even still images in Lightroom were easier to get what I wanted (with the Sony raw images, I still felt like I was forever fiddling to get the colors I wanted). In video the image was just more pleasing to me. But it lacked things I really wanted - 120p slow motion, IBIS, smooth gradients from different light sources when ISO was set to auto, better auto-focus, etc. The Sony system was just better spec'd. Plus by this time I had invested in the 24-70 G-Master and the 70-200 G-Master lenses from Sony. These lenses are incredibly good. I returned the Fuji, but I've missed it.

So another year of fighting with Sony footage, and then X-H1 is released. Again I rented one, and now I've purchased one (along with the 16-55 f/2.8). Several of the key features I wanted have been implemented - IBIS, high frame rate, etc. But to me, again, the killer feature is color, and with the introduction of Eterna, Fuji's color superiority is even better.

Pros/Cons - Fuji vs Sony

Over the past two weeks, I've shot a lot of video and stills side-by-side with my a9. Here are a list of thoughts...

• Auto-focus: The a9 (and presumably the a7 iii) is better with AF. Much better. But honestly the Fuji isn't bad, and it's good enough for what I do. This may be a make/break feature for some, though.
• High frame rate recording: Sony is better here again - the 120 and 60p footage is cleaner. But I've shot a lot of it with the X-H1, and it's certainly not bad. If you avoid things that you know are going to give you aliasing and moire problems, you'll be fine. For me, it will work.
• Dynamic range: Again, the nod goes to Sony, but it's very close. Especially if you use the 200 and 400% settings on the X-H1.
• Low Light: Sony wins here. Full frame, plus their magic with high ISO is hard to beat - honestly does anybody beat them? The X-H1 is acceptable, though. Honestly at 10,000 ISO it's a pretty useable image. We are spoiled with ISO performance. Five years ago (and especially 10 years ago), ISO 3200 was the top you could go, and many cameras looked like crap there.
• IBIS: Fuji is better in my opinion.
• Handling/ergonomics: I like the Fuji better - a lot. One thing I do like about the Sony cameras is the ability to set up custom presets for 4k 24p, 60p, and 120p (that's how I set mine up, anyway), and be able to instantly recall shutter speed, frame rate, and aperture in one move. On the X-H1, it's a 3 step process, although it's very fast after some practice.
• Lenses: Tie (but not if you consider how much they cost). The G-Master lenses I have are awesome. But they are very expensive, and big/heavy. Fuji lenses are very good and very affordable.

And finally, the most important things - for me, personally...

• Image Quality: Fuji, by a lot. Now I agree with Tony Northrup's assessment of the 2x IQ thing, regarding stops. I get that technically, the Sony sensor is able to resolve more light, etc. I get that I can shoot at lower ISO's with the Sony, so from a noise-perspective it's cleaner. But when I look at footage shot side-by-side from both cameras, I pick the Fuji every single time. Especially when shooting with Eterna. It's not even close.
• Workflow: Fuji wins. Because the image is so much better out of the camera - for my tastes - the workflow is much faster. And at the rate that I make videos for my business (as well as candid home videos of family, etc), it makes an enormous difference for me. Even things like render times are way faster, because I'm doing much less manipulation to the image.
• Emotional impact: Fuji wins. I love using the Fuji system more. Because of my experience with the X-T2, I think I can say it's not a honeymoon thing, too. Although the a9 is a ridiculously awesome camera to use. I really do love it. The other emotional impact thing is the image quality - and I think the fuji wins here, too - because of color.

Final thoughts

The 'best camera' doesn't exist. Some are better technically than others, some produce a certain look that users may or may not want. Some lack features or have an abundance of features, but honestly the quality of work that is produced is going to lie with the person creating the work. These days cameras are so good that I don't think it matters what brand or model you use.

The Sony stuff (especially the current gen stuff like the a9, a7R iii, a7 iii) is better on paper than the X-H1. There's no question. Is it better in actual use? Depends on who's using it. Personally, I think I could create the same quality work with either system, but I'm convinced the X-H1 will get me to the end goal faster. For you, it may be the other way around.

Finally, I think the internet can be a toxic place for people who are looking to buy gear. People come into these discussion with biases, or they are far more concerned with spec's on paper than anything else. Personally, I'm actually kind of upset at myself for even considering switching from my Sony gear to Fuji - at some point I/we just need to ignore all the hype with new stuff and just make content - and get better at using the gear we have.

Having said that, I'm probably going to sell all my Sony stuff and invest in Fuji.

Sample Work

Here's a video I just produced using the X-H1. I did about 6 takes of this song from different angles (which is why I need at least two cameras for what I do - three would be better). Edited/graded in Resolve. I shot it in Eterna, and honestly I did very little to the image. Just a tweak with white balance and contrast/saturation to taste. With my Sony cameras, this would have required 4-5 nodes using a LUT, color manipulation to lows/mids/highs, skin tone isolation/correction, etc.

Here's a very similar project using the Sony a9 and the a6500 together: It's a bit different look, and I like it. But it took a lot to get there.

Here's a video I shot with the X-H1 - again using Eterna, and graded in Resolve:

And another with the a9, also graded in Resolve:

Sorry for the massively long post. I know there are lots of people reading here probably trying to decide between the X-H1 and the a7iii. I'm one of them, so hopefully my experience can help you make that decision.

 

[Robin Billingham]

44 minutes ago, brianwahl said:

 

 

Thanks for the detailed post

I watched the first 2 videos that are very similar. I think the Fuji one looked quite a lot better.

I am still waiting on my Xh1 as im away in Egypt for the next few weeks and cant get one here. 

Ill admit the new sony caught my eye with its great low light and i do like full frame, however when it comes to looking at footage the Fuji pulls me back everytime regardless of spec. 

Im currently using a gh5 for both video and stills and will switch over to Fuji when im back in the uk. I think although i will lose some nice spec... 10 bit the image just looks so good to me for both video and stills that im going for it.

I like the idea of using a wide dynamic rage setting ie eterna with 400% to have nice colours out the box at the same time as extended dynamic range. Its actually a very unique feature for this camera

Ill add i can see why people would pick sony over the Xh1 and i see lots of talk about auto focus etc. However i move the same canon fd lenses from camera to camera (sometimes with a new speedbooster) and only use manuel focus for all my stills and video. I forget at times that people use auto as im so used to manuel. 

Upside with using manuel for stills too and using the same lenses for years (GH1 onwards) is that im a focus ninja with them

[brianwahl]

39 minutes ago, Robin Billingham said:

Ill add i can see why people would pick sony over the Xh1 and i see lots of talk about auto focus etc. However i move the same canon fd lenses from camera to camera (sometimes with a new speedbooster) and only use manuel focus for all my stills and video. I forget at times that people use auto as im so used to manuel. 

Upside with using manuel for stills too and using the same lenses for years (GH1 onwards) is that im a focus ninja with them

If you're using manual focus, I think you'll prefer the Fuji over the Sony. The Fuji lets you change the focus system on their lenses to 'linear', which I've found makes a big difference when focussing manually. Plus the peaking on the Fuji is better and more reliable in my experience.

The Sony G-Master lenses are actually really nice to use for manual focus - at least the 24-70 and the 70-200 that I have, but again, you pay big-time for them.

[Inazuma]

Nice review and footage. Great to hear from someone who has used both systems.

Earlier, webrunner commented that Fuji is "too pretty" and that its stupid to pick a camera just based on image. But I will say its much easier to make a pretty image look grungy than it is to make a grungy image look pretty. That's why the SOOC fuji image is such a draw. 

 

[brianwahl]

2 minutes ago, Inazuma said:

Nice review and footage. Great to hear from someone who has used both systems.

Earlier, webrunner commented that Fuji is "too pretty" and that its stupid to pick a camera just based on image. But I will say its much easier to make a pretty image look grungy than it is to make a grungy image look pretty. That's why the SOOC fuji image is such a draw. 

 

Thanks!

I must have missed that comment, but for most people, I'd think 'image' (whatever that means - it's different to different people) is the main factor in choosing a camera. Personally I've used workflows where I shot log almost all the time (Blackmagic at first, and then Sony), but I grew to hate that workflow, and in the work I did, I rarely saw it make a difference. I'd prefer an image straight from the camera that looks close to what my final delivery will be. I will say this, though - Blackmagic's log (they call it 'film') is so much easier to work with than S-log, but in my case that comes down to me not knowing how to work with S-log very well.

But different people have different needs/wants from a camera system, so they should pick the system that suits their needs the best.

[Trek of Joy]

5 hours ago, brianwahl said:

Sorry for the massively long post. I know there are lots of people reading here probably trying to decide between the X-H1 and the a7iii. I'm one of them, so hopefully my experience can help you make that decision.

Awesome post with some great samples. Color is subjective, but I've always liked the color out of Fuji much better than Sony. Red always seems to be super hot or more orange on the a7r2 and a7s2 I shoot with. Plus there's the issue with blue highlights that pops up from time to time. I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to fix colors, I like to get them as close to the end product SOOC. The post calling Fuji pretty but not cinematic is just silly as its just an opinion. Eterna is a shining example of cinematic color. Classic Chrome and Pro Neg have been my go-to looks and Eterna looks much better. Looking forward to adding a XH1 to my kit.

Cheers

Chris

[Yurolov]

5 hours ago, brianwahl said:

Here's a very similar project using the Sony a9 and the a6500 together: It's a bit different look, and I like it. But it took a lot to get there.

I am a canon guy and if you look above you will see that I have bashed both the fuji and the sony for various reasons. So I have no brand loyalty between these two manufacturers. But I have to say that the fuji footage looks 2x better IMO. I can see two things at play here:

1. Color science is much better in the fuji. The skin tones are a dead give away. Look at the very first scene with the sony and see how blotchy and unappealing his skin looks. Then compare that with the fuji. I feel like I can see every pore on his skin with the Sony. There are oil blotches everywhere. Funnily enough, this is related to color.   

Despite your grading, the color still looks off with the sony. Particularly look at his skin at 0:19 secs in to the sony material. That is very hard to fix.

Another thing people often fail to mention is color separation. If the skin tone is pronounced the subject is isolated from the background.

Go to 1:32 on the fuji and 2:24 on the sony material, pause it and look how much more he pops on the fuji material. The sony material looks flat as pancakes. 

2. I can see the codec is more robust. The image looks a lot smoother and sturdy. There is less of that digital sharpness that you get with the sony, which makes it look very videoy.  

Having said that, if someone is working purely as a videographer I would recommend a second hand c100 (mk I or II) any day of the week haha.

For hybrid,  the fuji wins for image alone. 

[frontfocus]

On 26.3.2018 at 11:11 PM, webrunner5 said:

Ever heard of ETTR? I think your thought process is ass backwards. Underexposure is about the worse thing you can ever do. You can't get back what you never had.

I have heard of it and I do know, that ISO has absolutely nothing to do with exposure. It's just gain. If you increase ISO for ETTR you are not exposing to the right, you are increasing gain to get brightness. Different things. And it's the other way round, what you loose in the highlight you can't get back, in the shadows you can get back a lot. That's just the way digital sensors work. Film was different and that's why many still talk about highlight roll off of film

On 27.3.2018 at 12:44 PM, Attila Bakos said:

@frontfocus Hi, did you have time to check this?

Actually I did. It took me a while to find a subject which shows moire, but when I found it I did compare the X-T2 and X-H1. I didn't use a tripod, which brought me to the conclusion, that moire is more noticeable with the X-H1, because handheld the image is moire stable and you notice it more.

If you just compare sensor output, I'd guess the X-H1 has the exact same 3000px to 1920px downscale and with that the same amount of moire. 

just some quick cropped screencaps, but moire shows on both cameras and I'd say it's the same amount if you would do the exact same shot. 

X-T2:

X-H1:

 

edit: in this comparison the X-H1 seems to have less moire, but when looking through the footage, I have seen the exact same amount as the X-T2 produces.

[Attila Bakos]

@frontfocus Thanks for the test! I'm happy for the results but it's also confusing, that video earlier showed a massive difference in 1080p60 mode. I just checked it again, the movement is about the same, but the X-T2 looks noticably cleaner. There must be a difference in settings, or maybe his unit is flawed, I don't know. I don't really care about 120p, but as I'm switching from the X-T2, I want to be sure that I get at least the same 60p quality. Too bad I can't rent this camera where I live.

[frontfocus]

I can do some more testing. I'd have to probably get a better subject and use a tripod to really compare it, but looking at the video you linked, to me it looks like he messed up his settings or files and only looked at slow mo from the X-H1, which seems to be pixel binned and not downscaled

[Kisaha]

@brianwahl Great post, it should be tagged and stick in the top for everyone to see!

In the end, everyone buys what fits him/her.

If I compare my NX system to the Fuji, 18 out of 20 I prefer NX, but if you compare Fuji to Sony, then hands down Fuji is a more appealing proposition. The color science is not even close, and older Sony cameras had a lot of different issues. I also do not care for full frame, and Fuji ISO performance seems adequate for most things (and that stop extra performance, is the 1 out of the 2  things Fuji is better than my NX1s!).

Congratulations for your business too.

@Yurolov C100mkII all the way baby! The best, worst codec ever existed on this planet!

[Attila Bakos]

41 minutes ago, frontfocus said:

I can do some more testing. I'd have to probably get a better subject and use a tripod to really compare it, but looking at the video you linked, to me it looks like he messed up his settings or files and only looked at slow mo from the X-H1, which seems to be pixel binned and not downscaled

Thanks, that would be much appreciated!

@frontfocus I had the same feeling so asked the guy specificly about the high speed setting, and he said it was switched off at the first shot.

[Django]

Speaking of second hand C100's i ended up doing just that and picked up a minty C100+DPAF+Ninja Star last week. Whole kit cost me far less than a XH1/A73/GH5 and I'm still more impressed by the 1080p IQ of this old 2012 sensor than any of these recent MILCs. Not to mention NDs, pro audio & handling..

That being said i'm still looking for a hybrid replacement of the XT2 i got stolen last month and of course XH1 is high on the list..

We do have the A73 + Batis lenses at work. It's undeniably a powerfull & compact system that can produce some excellent IQ (hot pixels & bugs aside).

But i feel zero emotional connection to the camera or the footage. it's just a tool. No excitement. Unlike shooting with the Fuji.

I fully agree with most the pros/cons listed by @brianwahl especially that Fuji produces excellent usable SOOC results both in stills/video.

However not sure i can agree when it comes to lenses & manual focus for video. Focus by wire sucks for video imo: it's steppy, innacurate and the fast f1.4 fuji primes do make a racket.

I haven't tried the new linear mode but nothing beats mechanical with a nice throw imo. Sony also has the advantage of having so many adapters available & vast vintage full frame lenses to choose from. If i were to go back to Fuji i'd probably cop some Samyang cine glass to pair with it.

The FF + S35 4K is imo the strongest advantage of the A73 vs the odd 1.7x crop of the XT2/XH1. And for stills FF > APS-C.

But the analog ergonomics, colors & film simulations are still a strong selling factor and is what keeps me coming back to these quirky Fuji cams.

[frontfocus]

47 minutes ago, Django said:

However not sure i can agree when it comes to lenses & manual focus for video. Focus by wire sucks for video imo: it's steppy, innacurate and the fast f1.4 fuji primes do make a racket.

I haven't tried the new linear mode but nothing beats mechanical with a nice throw imo.

no, nothing beats a mechanical manual focus lens, those are designed for it. But the new linear focus mode is really working great. Big plus for the Fuji, if you are also a photographer using autofocusing lenses. I will be using the Fujinon AF lenses a lot more now. Most of the fast once I own, are still loud though. 

[BTM_Pix]

I think this Fringer EF>FX with AF adapter (when its ever available in stock again!) and the upcoming Kipon version with the focal reducer will make a big difference.

 

I have to say though that the IBIS on the X-H1 bothers me more every time I look at demos on YouTube and is making me sit it out for a while yet to see how it progresses. It concerns me more than the AF issues actually. With those you can always workaround it (by using your own eyes  ) but some of the coarse corrections I've seen on people's demos are terrible and, of course, permanent.

Of course, I'm basing this purely on watching other people's footage rather than personal experience so thats a big disclaimer right there and I'm hoping someone who actually owns one can contradict it.

There is a lot of curiosity about whether Fuji will do a firmware update for the X-T2 for internal F-Log and/or Eterna and I have to say if I was them I would steer clear of that for a good while as, for me at least and I'm sure a few others, if it has those then I can't see enough in the current IBIS performance to make me upgrade to the X-H1.

[jonpais]

Not hating here or anything, but it would also sting a little having to buy a second battery grip if you already own the X-T2. Several reviewers have also regretted the missed opportunity to go with a greater capacity battery in the significantly larger body of the X-H1.

Concerning SOOC color, when the X-T2 was released, practically everyone was saying how the film emulations were great if you didn’t want to do a lot of post processing. Then Fuji releases the X-H1 with Eterna because of feedback from filmmakers who wanted a flatter profile. Eterna was developed in order to allow more flexibility in post, not to be distributed SOOC. I’m not knocking Eterna, or those who must absolutely have the quickest turnaround, but SOOC video will seldom be better than mediocre - the best results are almost always obtained by post processing. 

[Django]

@jonpais i think you are confusing Eterna with F-Log. Eterna, like all the other sims can be delivered SOOC and is actually meant to reduce work in post:

The FUJIFILM X-H1 features the "ETERNA" mode, a new Film Simulation mode suitable for video recording, simulating the output of cinematographic films. Characterized by subdued color presentations and rich shadow tones, this mode can be used at 400% Dynamic Range (equivalent to approximately 12 stops) to attain video recording with a high degree of perfection while substantially reducing color-grading workload in post processing.

my experience with it is that it indeed requires very little tweaking but since it's pretty flat does allow flexibility -should one need it- other sims tend to crush the blacks too much.

@BTM_Pix My short experience with the X-H1 IBIS was that it was really solid when holding still or doing pans, walking is when you might notice some micro-adjustments but imo all IBIS systems somewhat fail when you start walking. it's what gimbals are made for. XH1 IBIS is still miles ahead of Sony FF imo..

I'm more concerned with the rolling shutter on XH1. it seemed to me worst than XT2 (borderling A6xxx). But maybe i'm wrong. Perhaps @frontfocus or someone could compare/measure it and report back to us on that.

 

[jonpais]

Sorry, @Django, but while Eterna may certainly reduce the work involved in post (which BTW, I already said), Eterna was meant for greater creative flexibility when grading. It does not eliminate the need for grading. And unless you absolutely must have quick turnaround, a graded image will almost always be superior to an ungraded one.