Fuji X-T3 and X-T4 discussion

[sanveer]

8 minutes ago, padam said:

It's 10-bit 4:2:0 internal

I also don't understand why. 10-bit in the GH5 will be a "game changer", they said.

And yet there are still people switching to older, bigger, way more expensive 1DX II cameras with out of date 8-bit codecs and no Log, because it has a more pleasing image.

Don't get me wrong, it is great to have, it is just not the only thing that matters.

It's not the only thing. And yet 10-bit is mentioned Many times, as one of the bigger selling points. Why do you think so? 

[padam]

1 minute ago, sanveer said:

It's not the only thing. And yet 10-bit is mentioned Many times, as one of the bigger selling points. Why do you think so? 

Because of exactly what I wrote before, that people might (possibly wrongly) assume that it is a game changer and matters above all else, like how it was with the GH5?

[sanveer]

2 minutes ago, padam said:

Because of exactly what I wrote before, that people might (possibly wrongly) assume that it is a game changer and matters above all else, like how it was with the GH5?

The codec holds up much better. Actually Panasonic handicapped it by pushing it under 12 Stops (And landing much lower), with other issues. Panasonic could have done a better job with it, but they had to protect the Varicam line. Plus some other issues I guess. 

[padam]

11 minutes ago, sanveer said:

The codec holds up much better. Actually Panasonic handicapped it by pushing it under 12 Stops (And landing much lower), with other issues. Panasonic could have done a better job with it, but they had to protect the Varicam line. Plus some other issues I guess. 

https://youtu.be/AekKwgvS5K0?t=6m57s

Of course it holds up better, but how much of that actually matters is another thing. The C200 has 8-bit 4:2:0 internal compression as well, and it looks totally fine.

Yes, those 'other issues' are there with this camera as well.

It's a good camera for the price (kind of a given if one needs 4k60p and does not want a GH5), I just don't feel like we will think that much of it, once the X-H2 comes out.

[Brian Williams]

7 minutes ago, padam said:

https://youtu.be/AekKwgvS5K0?t=6m57s

Of course it holds up better, but how much of that actually matters is another thing. The C200 has 8-bit 4:2:0 internal compression as well, and it looks totally fine.

Yes, those 'other issues' are there with this camera as well.

It's a good camera for the price (kind of a given if one needs 4k60p and does not want a GH5), I just don't feel like we will think that much of it, once the X-H2 comes out.

Or the X-T4 for that matter, right? Just a few more years for either.

[padam]

14 minutes ago, Brian Williams said:

Or the X-T4 for that matter, right? Just a few more years for either.

Of course, it is just a question of "am I in this system now" or "is the features that are in this camera good enough for me" or "do I like this system enough as-is to get this and upgrade to the X-H2 when it comes out"

I just felt that 10-bit is a bit 'over-mystified' in some people's eyes (the colour differences are more noticeable to me, and it's not because it's 10 bit) that's why I responded.

The GH5s was marked as a speciality camera, omitting IBIS, while this is basically just a 'stop gapper', where it makes the X-H1 already a bit obsolete, but not including all the features at the same time. Other manufacturers have a different lineup, so it would be weird to come up with new technology, but with the penalty of taking away others (although it happened to an extent for instance with the A9 no S-Log)

[Jimmy]

10bit could be huge for the xt3 though, as banding can be a real issue with the xt2/xh1.

Colour, even at 4:2:0 is already very strong... I'd much prefer no banding over (even) better 4:2:2 colour. Though hopefully they'll add both after the xh2 drops

[thebrothersthre3]

Canon has really pleasing color science, Panasonic doesn't have that. The 10 bit codec on the GH5 and S is definitely more robust. Most people aren't that good at color grading though. Having nice colors out of he box is easy. Fuji has nice colors though which is another reason I'm buying it. Banding is another issue for log profiles that 10 bit handles much better then 8 bit. Not everyone needs log but it definitely gives you more dynamic range. 

[crevice]

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Canon has really pleasing color science, Panasonic doesn't have that. The 10 bit codec on the GH5 and S is definitely more robust. Most people aren't that good at color grading though. Having nice colors out of he box is easy. Fuji has nice colors though which is another reason I'm buying it. Banding is another issue for log profiles that 10 bit handles much better then 8 bit. Not everyone needs log but it definitely gives you more dynamic range. 

Yes - colors and how the image looks are so much more important than specs. I used a canon c200 which used an 8 bit codec when recording mp4 and the 8 bit codec looked better than most cameras. In deciding which camera I want, the thing I kept going back to was color and feel and so far all the footage I have seen with the xt-3 looks better than the pocket 4k, GH5/s, or any Sony series camera. Add the fact that it takes great stills as well and THAT is the reason why I am contemplating selling my Sony gear. Specs are specs, but how does the footage look, is whats important to me. 

[thebrothersthre3]

3 hours ago, crevice said:

Yes - colors and how the image looks are so much more important than specs. I used a canon c200 which used an 8 bit codec when recording mp4 and the 8 bit codec looked better than most cameras. In deciding which camera I want, the thing I kept going back to was color and feel and so far all the footage I have seen with the xt-3 looks better than the pocket 4k, GH5/s, or any Sony series camera. Add the fact that it takes great stills as well and THAT is the reason why I am contemplating selling my Sony gear. Specs are specs, but how does the footage look, is whats important to me. 

I'm with you. I was really considering Canon until I looked into Fuji, and they have better video specs generally. I mean a Canon C200 would probably be ideal for me buts its very pricey haha. 

[bsalisbury]

I am seriously considering moving from a GH5 to the XT-3. Can anyone with experience of both cameras talk about the general responsiveness of the XT-3 touchscreen in comparison to the GH5 which I use a lot for touch focus and menu navigation. I have always found the GH5 touchscreen to work great. Thanks for any help on this. 

[jonpais]

Using the touch screen to focus will be a bit laggy according to reviews I’ve seen. 

 

[Brian Williams]

14 minutes ago, bsalisbury said:

I am seriously considering moving from a GH5 to the XT-3. Can anyone with experience of both cameras talk about the general responsiveness of the XT-3 touchscreen in comparison to the GH5 which I use a lot for touch focus and menu navigation. I have always found the GH5 touchscreen to work great. Thanks for any help on this. 

I went from the GH5 to the X-T3 (with a brief fling with an RX1Rm2 in between) and I think the GH5's touch screen is way more responsive than the Fuji. The Fuji is fine, but there have been times where I try to use the screen to change the focus point while looking through the VF and it doesn't always respond, which isn't something I ever experienced with the GH5.

[bsalisbury]

Thanks for your quick reply.  Are you satisfied with the general video quality of the XT-3 in comparison to the GH5?

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, Brian Williams said:

(...) but there have been times where I try to use the screen to change the focus point while looking through the VF and it doesn't always respond, which isn't something I ever experienced with the GH5.

To my book, this can be a deal breaker (in favour of Panny instead as better alternative) if not fixed...

On that one I am absolutely with @jonpais where you're used to be, Jon, because certain things count even more than IQ, being reliability one of them.

[thebrothersthre3]

29 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

To my book, this can be a deal breaker (in favour of Panny instead as better alternative) if not fixed...

On that one I am fully with @jonpais where you're used to be: certain things count even more than IQ, being reliability one of them.

Definitely, the issue with Panasonic is the focus isn't very accurate, so the touch to focus can be useless at times for video. 

[Emanuel]

31 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Definitely, the issue with Panasonic is the focus isn't very accurate, so the touch to focus can be useless at times for video. 

What focus? Tracking focus or some other AF offer?

Because tap to focus can perform some other outcome of a different kind, as much as that sorta auto follow focus mode feature GH5 has.

[bsalisbury]

12 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Definitely, the issue with Panasonic is the focus isn't very accurate, so the touch to focus can be useless at times for video. 

Maybe I am missing something here . . . but . . . I find the touch to focus on my GH5 works extremely well. The other AF options can be a hit and miss. What I was looking for were comments on the XT-3 touchscreen touch to focus.

[jonpais]

I’ve found GH5 tap to focus to be just about 100% accurate in video in AF-S. Just talking static subjects here, not tracking or anything. It’s important to make the focus area as small as possible for the best accuracy though. Tap to focus also works swell with the remote app in 4K, something neither Fuji nor Sony can do. 

[thebrothersthre3]

5 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I’ve found GH5 tap to focus to be just about 100% accurate in video in AF-S. Just talking static subjects here, not tracking or anything. It’s important to make the focus area as small as possible for the best accuracy though. Tap to focus also works swell with the remote app in 4K, something neither Fuji nor Sony can do. 

Yeah I was talking more moving objects.