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

[Trek of Joy]

8 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

I dont think it is designed to compete with a GH5. I think it is a genuine 'hybrid' camera (for those that shoot 60%+ stills). By that I mean it is a no compromise stills camera (as good as the XT-2) that shoots excellent video. It competes with the a6500 or a7riii rather than an A7sii/iii in the Sony world. 

The GH5 isnt a true 'hybrid' camera in my world view (and the GH5s far less) on the basis that it is oversized compared to its sensor and overpriced compared to its sensor for stills - it is bigger and heavier than an A7riii that has a 4x larger sensor. Dont get me wrong. The GH5 is probably the best videocentric ILC on the market but it isnt really a 'hybrid'.

How does it stack up against the A6500?

I shot 30,000+ stills last year and many hours of video with the XT2 and the a7r2. The XT2 is a brilliant hybrid. I'm anticipating the XH1 to be even better now that my 16-55/2.8, 23/1,4 and 56/1.2 are going to be stabilized. Stills is where m43 falls short. Despite what some claim, the DR of the larger sensors is better. Its easy to see when you start lifting shadows when shooting sunsets and such. So I don't consider the GH5 to be a competitive hybrid because it fast short in comparison with stills and especially the AF.

The XH1 looks a lot a (spec-wise) like a a6500 in a proper chassis, with Fuji's colors. I tried to like the a6500 as a backup to my a7r2, but I just didn't jive with it, so I bought the XT2. Fuji has its quirks, but FW updates improved video shooting significantly and addressed some other issues. With a better spec EVF, touchscreen and face detect in 4k, I'm really looking forward to shooting with the XH1.

At some point I'm getting a speed booster for my Nikon 28-70/2.8 lens too, that's been my workhorse video lens on the a7s2.

[mkabi]

Just to be clear here guys.... And Im sure everyone agrees...that 10 bit 4:2:2 is definitely better than 8 bit 4:2:2, which in turn is better than 8 bit 4:2:0. That is without a question.

I think what most is arguing is that you can still work with 8 bit 4:2:0.... As we have before the GH5 came along.

 

[Kisaha]

As I said, between a Sony APS-C and this, Fuji is many times better, in more ways than one. When the price comes a little bit down (with the grip ofcourse), its not going to be even close.

8bit is not suddenly dead because just one camera offers it in low price. Most people do not even have 10bit workflows, or do not want to spend processing power and data storage for something they do not need.

I haven't even delivered, not one job in 4K, a spec that is here longer, and concerns more people (4K TVs from top manufacturers cost around 400euros these days), I wouldn't worry about 10bit and HDR now. But maybe I will next year, and that is why I am not spending empty money on this one. In most aspects, NX1 is clearly better, or at least equal for what I do.

[Emanuel]

51 minutes ago, mkabi said:

Just to be clear here guys.... And Im sure everyone agrees...that 10 bit 4:2:2 is definitely better than 8 bit 4:2:2, which in turn is better than 8 bit 4:2:0. That is without a question.

I think what most is arguing is that you can still work with 8 bit 4:2:0.... As we have before the GH5 came along.

 

LOL Sure, it is. Just nothing impedes you to have a better omelet with two eggs rather than strictly with the double... that's the whole point. As much as a millionaire is made after the 1st million, not nolens volens a couple of millions later as a few idiots want to always (or almost that) misshape ;-)

[Attila Bakos]

I use the Video Assist 4K to record F-Log from the X-T2, and I really hope Fuji upgraded the implementation in the X-H1. The red channel is a mess, even the slightest grade can create pinkish blotches. And this is something you can't remove with noise reduction. I've worked with 8bit C-Log and 8bit S-Log2, and to my eyes they are cleaner. So yeah, 8bit can be enough, but it's certainly not enough for F-Log, not with the current implementation. It also has a very obvious green tint, so you have to deal with that too.

[Yurolov]

10 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

@Yurolov does the footage I sent you look like a consumer camera ? And yes that is exactly what  im saying. The cinema camera SLOG will intercut with the consumer SLOG. You ever see an A - B side by side test in a theatre ? No. Plenty of movies have even thrown in Gopro footage for certain shots and the audience will not notice. And I find it funny that people like you talk real loud on these forums with no footage and real world experience to support any of your claims. I have plenty real world experience and probably graded more footage than you have shot. I am currently shooting in 14bit with a Canon 5D mark iii and im telling you your 8 bit gripes really aint that serious

The audience will not notice and we are playing ourselves if we think we do. The movie Tangerine was shot on an iPhone and became a hit on Netflix. 8 bit,10bit, 12 & 14 bit at the end of the day the consumer only cares about the aesthetic and for those that have actually been in a high end theatre for a screening knows that most modern day footage looks good on it. Wasn’t it Philip Bloom who DP’d Red Tails which was shot with a stock canon 5d mark iii / mark ii ? It looked amazing on the big screen so it blows  me away when I hear how these 8 bit cameras and this format that has been widely used for years is suddenly this dinosaur people are making it out to be. I am tired of talking about these things on forums because it is now becoming useless to my personal education and development of my own work.

anyway that Fuji color science has been sought after and emulated by so many. I just payed $100 for some Mastin Labs presets that claim its modelled after real Fuji 400h film. Filmconvert has a bunch of LUTs for Fuji as does visioncolor. So I ask myself why not just buy a fuji camera and then here comes the x-h1 in all its glory giving us real Fuji color from a 14bit sensor. Idk how people aren’t seeing how great this can be ?

 

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Your statement might have been true hell even 5, 6 years ago. There were huge differences between Cine and consumer cameras. Today other than Raw on the top end stuff, and now we can do that with a 4 year old Canon DSLR, the output in 1080p, even 4k is to the average person that watches is pretty minimal. It is because the Codec's have gotten Way better on them.

Yeah I will admit 8 bit is a little week, but that is all the Canon C500, C300, 1DC shot internal.  I would call those cameras Cine cameras. Big thing is they had great Codecs. Guess what a Panny GH5 has a great Codec and 10 bit internal. So I guess it is a Cine camera for hell, 1650 bucks brand new open box. A Sony a7s in Slog 2 I would argue can look like a Cine camera. Plenty of indie stuff done with them.

I would bet good money any of these good DP's of this era could make a feature movie with a lot of these cameras out today other than what Arikhan said, "heavy keying, VFX, extreme grading etc." Yeah we aren't doing green screen with a A6300 or a Transformers movie VFX, but for a lot of it I bet it could be done and parts of it is.

You don't really think they are putting Arri Alexa's in those cars that crash, or buildings that blow up. So they are intermixing what you call shit cameras in with "Cine" cameras and you probably can't tell the difference unless you edited it. Times have changed in the "consumer" industry and damn fast. If I was making these high end cameras I would be worried as hell from them. They are Not that far off now let along 3 years from now. I realize most are made by the same company but thy are not going to be able to get 60,000 dollars from them when you can buy a Sony A7s mk V for 3,200 dollars maybe 3 years from now. IF they put Raw in these cameras, game over. Now I know they are not putting Raw in a camera as thin as a Sony a7 series, but they are allowed to make them a little bigger.

I think there is a bit of confusion here. I am arguing for the xh-1 over other consumer cameras like the gh5 and the a6500 on the basis that people who are purchasing these products will experience no discernible difference between the 8 bit and 10 bit codec, which is something you appear to be confirming. 

I didn't say 8 bit is not enough, but if you are going to produce a movie and if you have a decent amount of financial backing, then there is no discernible reason to choose an 8 bit camera, short of aesthetics, and certainly none for high-paying client work, which is more exacting.

For the purposes these cameras will be used, which does not mean they are not good enough for cinema, the 8 bit or 10 bit is really irrelevant. In fact, if I have great Fuji color SOC then why would I need 10 bit to get it to the same end point, except for some unique situations where I have missed exposure. More important is autofocus and good color. That's partly why canon outsells anyone.  

8 bit cameras can be used in cinema but in practicality they won't be. Tangerine was shot on an iphone. But the director has just followed it up with Florida Project, which had a bigger production value and was shot on an Arri. 

Last year, the winner of the Golden Lion at Venice, the woman who left, was shot on a as7ii and in 2012 the winner pieta was shot on a 5d mark ii. It is possible in indie narrative work, but given the choice people will pick the raw cinema camera, because there are distinct advantages and it does look better. There is no question about it, and it isn't just that one is raw and the other is 8 bit - there are many more factors as you know.

So I am saying at this level the xh-1 is the most appealing, and will be more appealing to a wider audience than the gh5 or a6500 if the color and the autofocus are as good as the rumours are saying. Face detect autofocus coupled with ibis - it's the only camera on market that would do that. Think about the possibilities with that combo and with the fuji colors. 10 bit on a small m4/3 camera pales in comparison. 

If I am using my cinema camera I don't need this, but for these types of cameras and for their intended use, the fuji wins hands down, and I think this will be reflected in the sales numbers if they can market it properly.      

[Robert Collins]

4 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

I shot 30,000+ stills last year and many hours of video with the XT2 and the a7r2. The XT2 is a brilliant hybrid. I'm anticipating the XH1 to be even better now that my 16-55/2.8, 23/1,4 and 56/1.2 are going to be stabilized. Stills is where m43 falls short. Despite what some claim, the DR of the larger sensors is better. Its easy to see when you start lifting shadows when shooting sunsets and such. So I don't consider the GH5 to be a competitive hybrid because it fast short in comparison with stills and especially the AF.

The XH1 looks a lot a (spec-wise) like a a6500 in a proper chassis, with Fuji's colors. I tried to like the a6500 as a backup to my a7r2, but I just didn't jive with it, so I bought the XT2. Fuji has its quirks, but FW updates improved video shooting significantly and addressed some other issues. With a better spec EVF, touchscreen and face detect in 4k, I'm really looking forward to shooting with the XH1.

At some point I'm getting a speed booster for my Nikon 28-70/2.8 lens too, that's been my workhorse video lens on the a7s2.

Agree about the a6500 - a strange body. And in any case the lens selection just isnt there with Sony apsc (nothing like the Fuji 56 1.2 for instance). My feeling is that Sony is trying to move its customers over to FF and is losing interest in apsc. 

I think all these arguments over 8 bit v 10 bit are rather moot when you are talking about DSLR/ILCs. It is fine for Panasonic to be able to introduce 10 bit because they have a sensor a quarter the size of FF in a massive body (relatively). We know that Sony have had overheating problems with 4k 8 bit in the past (both apsc and FF). We can probably see that Fuji is struggling heatwise with 4k - by the 20 minute time limit and the bigger, thicker heat sink body size. The same argument goes for 4k 60p.

[jonpais]

Slashcam did a test of F-log but I couldn’t understand a word even with Google translate.

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, Yurolov said:

 

I think there is a bit of confusion here. I am arguing for the xh-1 over other consumer cameras like the gh5 and the a6500 on the basis that people who are purchasing these products will experience no discernible difference between the 8 bit and 10 bit codec, which is something you appear to be confirming. 

I didn't say 8 bit is not enough, but if you are going to produce a movie and if you have a decent amount of financial backing, then there is no discernible reason to choose an 8 bit camera, short of aesthetics, and certainly none for high-paying client work, which is more exacting.

For the purposes these cameras will be used, which does not mean they are not good enough for cinema, the 8 bit or 10 bit is really irrelevant. In fact, if I have great Fuji color SOC then why would I need 10 bit to get it to the same end point, except for some unique situations where I have missed exposure. More important is autofocus and good color. That's partly why canon outsells anyone.  

8 bit cameras can be used in cinema but in practicality they won't be. Tangerine was shot on an iphone. But the director has just followed it up with Florida Project, which had a bigger production value and was shot on an Arri. 

Last year, the winner of the Golden Lion at Venice, the woman who left, was shot on a as7ii and in 2012 the winner pieta was shot on a 5d mark ii. It is possible in indie narrative work, but given the choice people will pick the raw cinema camera, because there are distinct advantages and it does look better. There is no question about it, and it isn't just that one is raw and the other is 8 bit - there are many more factors as you know.

So I am saying at this level the xh-1 is the most appealing, and will be more appealing to a wider audience than the gh5 or a6500 if the color and the autofocus are as good as the rumours are saying. Face detect autofocus coupled with ibis - it's the only camera on market that would do that. Think about the possibilities with that combo and with the fuji colors. 10 bit on a small m4/3 camera pales in comparison. 

If I am using my cinema camera I don't need this, but for these types of cameras and for their intended use, the fuji wins hands down, and I think this will be reflected in the sales numbers if they can market it properly.      

Only a bit?! Nah, where have you gotten such idea??

Nowadays, it is the user who makes the cinema camera (specs are the most irrelevant), not the opposite... actually, never was! LOL ; )

That part where you mention "more important is autofocus" mixed-up with the meaning of a cinema camera is also fairly funny... OK, got it, you mean from 2018 on. :X

Let alone your negative considerations on a small format factor (towards the 4/3" size, go figure!) in the same line or paragraph(s) along the usual AF mantra these days, oh yeah!

Cassavetes, among many others, must find out now the meaning for his actor career in his case study, poor guy ; ))

Jonas (Mekas) -- if one of these days, you'll read these lines, let me tell you straight away:

"YOU ARE AN IMPOSTOR !!"

(Finally, we got it all clear! hehe)

 

(Internet is a comedy at times!! :D)

 

Again @Yurolov you meant accurate focus, right? ;-) 

[Yurolov]

Not sure what your post is meant to mean but just to clarify the autofocus section - I am not saying cinema cameras should have autofocus. In consumer cameras, it is more important to have autofocus than 10 bit because of their intended use. Just like Casey Nesitat left the GH5 for the Canon 6d Mark II (which is much worse than the XH-1), so too will others for the XH-1 because it will give you the things you need at this level - not at the cinema level. If I am doing cinema, I will not choose the 10 bit GH5, and indeed nobody seriously has.  

That's why the XH-1 is better placed in the market to dominate than the other cameras out there. I sued to own a a6500 and I have heard so many people who owned it complain about the things that Fuji has an answer to. It is really a no brainer. 

[Dave Maze]

Doesn’t Fuji have really bad auto aperture clicking and banding from LEDs? I hope they resolved this. Vloggers tend to shoot in either full program auto or in my case, shutter priority. If when the aperture changes you see clicky steps then I won’t be very happy. Also I saw in the spec sheet that it has an “anti flicker” mode. I assume that may address the banding from LEDs. 

[Emanuel]

22 minutes ago, Yurolov said:

Not sure what your post is meant to mean but just to clarify the autofocus section - I am not saying cinema cameras should have autofocus. In consumer cameras, it is more important to have autofocus than 10 bit because of their intended use. Just like Casey Nesitat left the GH5 for the Canon 6d Mark II (which is much worse than the XH-1), so too will others for the XH-1 because it will give you the things you need at this level - not at the cinema level. If I am doing cinema, I will not choose the 10 bit GH5, and indeed nobody seriously has.  

That's why the XH-1 is better placed in the market to dominate than the other cameras out there. I sued to own a a6500 and I have heard so many people who owned it complain about the things that Fuji has an answer to. It is really a no brainer. 

Yes, this camera is a no brainer. But, this doesn't mean you are accurate when you infer no one will choose the Panasonic model you mention. Only if because there is a GH5S instead ; ) Never mind... Please take a look now in those links in my signature and tell me I am not a serious player ;-)

GH5 is my favorite cinema camera today if I would have the need to choose only one camera FYI. GH5S is a better cinema camera but for some reason I'd pick the standard GH5 at first rate.

[Andrew Benton]

On 2018/2/11 at 2:15 AM, mkabi said:

Canon 5D mark 2 - had only 12 min recording limit.... remember that?

It only had 1080p at 8 bit 4:2:0 too

Recently I was reviewing some old footage to be used in a project, and there were these shots filmed with the 5DII that were absolutely gorgeous!
Compared to all the features, codecs and capabilities of modern cameras the 5DII is terribly limited, but there's just something about that camera's image that feels so great, reminds me how big of a deal DSLR video was when this camera came out.

[IronFilm]

On 2/11/2018 at 3:59 AM, Mattias Burling said:

Spec and features wise its way ahead of the GH5 for stills and close enough in video. At least for my needs. But time will tell, wont know anything until I have tried it.

 

A person could just as easily say the GH5 is way ahead in specs and features for video, and close enough for stills ;-)

[mkabi]

22 minutes ago, Andrew Benton said:

Recently I was reviewing some old footage to be used in a project, and there were these shots filmed with the 5DII that were absolutely gorgeous!
Compared to all the features, codecs and capabilities of modern cameras the 5DII is terribly limited, but there's just something about that camera's image that feels so great, reminds me how big of a deal DSLR video was when this camera came out.

Yeah for sure... It was leagues ahead of its time. At least, in my point of view. Don't get me wrong..... There was the high end cinema market and the low end consumer market. You can clearly see the difference in the IQ too.... You had a choice between a shit image and greatness and in my opinion there was no in between either....

That's the dividing line for me.... All movies before 2008 and after, and you have to think the camera might have been released in 2008, but you need to shoot, edit and may be reshoot... So you can say anything before and after 2008/2009. You will automatically see some quality boosts.... Even the high end cinema cameras needed to step it up, cause you don't want a $3K DSLR to outshine a $50K+ camera, right?

Remember when editing systems, flags and Arri lights were expensive and out of reach? Now look at where we are.... A decade later.... 

[Mattias Burling]

52 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

A person could just as easily say the GH5 is way ahead in specs and features for video, and close enough for stills ;-)

Of course. A person could say lots of things. We are all just going by subjective personal feelings here. There is no objectively "better" camera compared to another.

For me the GH5 isn't even an option for stills. I mean I could use it and get great shots. But why would I when there are options more suited for my personal way of working. Others should buy what suites them

[IronFilm]

My general feeling is we long ago got to the "good enough point" for stills but still have work to do to get film quality in DSLRs/mirrorless to that similar point. 

[Mattias Burling]

1 hour ago, Andrew Benton said:

Recently I was reviewing some old footage to be used in a project, and there were these shots filmed with the 5DII that were absolutely gorgeous!
Compared to all the features, codecs and capabilities of modern cameras the 5DII is terribly limited, but there's just something about that camera's image that feels so great, reminds me how big of a deal DSLR video was when this camera came out.

This happens a lot to me. Reviewing some old clip and thinking "wow, what camera was this?". Its so often something like a GH3 or T3i.
They have mojo.

This week I was shooting stills on a midrange DSLR which has been universally damed as a one of the "worst" video cameras out there.
My expectations was so low that I didn't even try it for days. Now I have uploaded a youtube video shot on it. It looks great and no one has said anything. 

I firmly believe that when we don't "look" for flaws or know what gear was used, we would very often be surprised at what they still can achieve.

2 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

My general feeling is we long ago got to the "good enough point" for stills but still have work to do to get film quality in DSLRs/mirrorless to that similar point. 

Yes, stills have looked great for 100 years. Its about the tool at hand. And for me the GH5 doesn't cut it. 
I sometimes say, "I rather have a picture of Elvis than of the door he walked through (after fiddling with a camera not to my liking)". 

Regarding video I also believe its more than good enough. I could shoot on a t3i for life. It looks just as good as anything, if one works within the limitations.
But just like with stills there can always be development to eliminate such limitations.

[Andrew Benton]

21 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

This happens a lot to me. Reviewing some old clip and thinking "wow, what camera was this?". Its so often something like a GH3 or T3i.
They have mojo.

This week I was shooting stills on a midrange DSLR which has been universally damed as a one of the "worst" video cameras out there.
My expectations was so low that I didn't even try it for days. Now I have uploaded a youtube video shot on it. It looks great and no one has said anything. 

I firmly believe that when we don't "look" for flaws or know what gear was used, we would very often be surprised at what they still can achieve.

Yes, stills have looked great for 100 years. Its about the tool at hand. And for me the GH5 doesn't cut it. 
I sometimes say, "I rather have a picture of Elvis than of the door he walked through (after fiddling with a camera not to my liking)". 

Regarding video I also believe its more than good enough. I could shoot on a t3i for life. It looks just as good as anything, if one works within the limitations.
But just like with stills there can always be development to eliminate such limitations.

I agree there, I often tell people who are interested in a "good camera" or who want a DSLR to just get a used one from several years ago, digital stills quality for me has been good enough since around 2009, and most improvements only matter to professionals or people really wanting to get the cutting edge. 
There are older videos I worked on that I sometimes look at after a while and be surprised at the kind of shots I got using older cameras that to today's standards "suck", while of course there are also just as many shots that I used to think looked great but now don't hold up at all....

But yes, beyond image quality and features it's usability and reliability, and turns out for me the GH5 isn't the right tool either, it is just not a capable stills camera. I shot a wedding a couple weeks ago with it because I needed to get video as well. I love the ergonomics, touch screen, joystick and custom buttons, the menus and viewfinder and options, but the number of missed shots, or how often under artificial lighting colors skin tones were ruined and unrecoverable, where as I could get more pleasing tones out of my 5DIII and my assistant's A7II. And the GH5's AF just couldn't keep up, the thing missed completely at the most inexplicable moments even with native lenses, in broad daylight on contrasty subjects it would hunt, eye focus "locks on" to the subject but turns out it went somewhere else completely when I review the shots. I ended up using my 5DIII more and so I ended up switching back and forth between the two cameras, something I wanted to avoid doing...

[anonim]

7 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Yes, this camera is a no brainer. But, this doesn't mean you are accurate when you infer no one will choose the Panasonic model you mention. Only if because there is a GH5S instead ; ) Never mind... Please take a look now in those links in my signature and tell me I am not a serious player ;-)

GH5 is my favorite cinema camera today if I would have the need to choose only one camera FYI. GH5S is a better cinema camera but for some reason I'd pick the standard GH5 at first rate.

Completely agree. But, please, leave apodictic tone behind - "Internet is a comedy at times!!" - I think it's quite enough to have one uber-patriarch here in EOSHD in the incarnation of Mr webrunner and his majestic knowledge/intonation...

I had indoor and outdoor shots needed to be put in sequence... because of hard difference between lights and wb they are too noticable and distractively different... with 10bit HLG footage of GH5 I had more room to get them closer in look... 8bit slow motion futage didn't afford it, colors are quickly destroyed.

Yes, we can shot in 8bit whole movie... but have to be extremely accurate... or to relay to argument that people don't notice imperfections.

And to add heresy thought - although highly pleasent and brilliantly mesmerizing, Fuji's color science for me looks as hyper realistic approach to pictures: excellent for photos, but calling too much attention to itself for the longer time, as in case of movies. Of course, just mine opinion and taste, which probably differ from the most other...