Crops do not have ISOs equivalent to FF ISO 100 or ISO 64.Your theories really are fairy tales. You have to buy them separately :). However, Canon and Nikon employed is diffractive optics that reduce the size and weight, but at the expense of cost! If it's not a value proposition for you at that price, there are lots of other $2000 options available to you, including a M4/3 camera that costs $100 more. "Dynamic range is also good: a little behind the very best of its APS-C peers.". It should be F2.5. People seem to think f/4 doesn't create enough background separation but I know for a fact they'd be shocked to see it's basically the same. Why is that a full stop faster lens deserves the higher price tag and respect for the extra image quality that comes with double the amount light it gathers. As Ansel Adams said, the best format is the largest you can carry with you. Well, it's better because of RAW, just like having better parts in $5000 Mac, than $1000 PC. Still the same game.. An obtuse argument if there ever was one. But then aside from the A7III body, I then considered the lenses I have over the last few years as a fuji user ---XF 10-24 f4XF 16-55 f2.8XF 23 f1.4XF 35 f1.4XF 56 f1.2XF 50-140 f2.8--- and the thousands additional on top of the A7III I'd have to pay to replace them with FE equivalents. You can control the amount of light and the DoF changes accordingly. @ecka84 : of course I was expecting the tripod vs IBIS comment. Then there's also the possible abandonment of the X-T line, but then again, I don't expect any camera line will last more than a decade these days :-(. A. So, if we assume you're not always going to print/view images from APS-C cameras 58% smaller than you print and view a full frame image, this information doesn't tell you much. Whatever our 'equipment allegiances', warm congratulations to the D P reviewers for having the fortitude to 'tell it as they see it'. I am sure soon we will start to see interesting bundles for the xh1. Or you can match the DR and get faster shutter speed on Fuji. Yes, that camera costs a lot, but it makes up for not having to buy the whole bunch of small, slow, overpriced crop toy lenses. Depending on which system you're in and what your needs are, they might just be the compact, well-priced and impressively sharp little primes you've been looking for. No shame, no honor, no respect, just greed. You seem to be indicating Fuji is cheating...which shows a bit of a lack of undertsanding on your part. Facts and comparisons never stand a chance in front of ecka84. No, but we're more likely to devote a page to it on a higher-end camera. All of the Fuji filters can be applied to any raw file from any brand. Yes...all brands depreciate but in my experience Fuji more so then Canon/Nikon/Leica. At relatively little more than an APS-C body, the A7III offers great value for money, and Sonyâs introduction of fast and affordable 28mm, 50mm and. The X-H1 is the latest high-end crop sensor camera to offer both stills and video shooting but each one provides a different set of features: 14 fps with e-shutter, 8 fps mechanical (11 with grip). It is a good thing. COMP. The vast majority of us simply donât treat cameras that way. If you switch to Single or Continuous AF, toggling the “DISP” button will not show this mode. Did you even read what I wrote? As you say, the BSI 1" chips did a good job of catching up with some of the sensors a size bigger. I bet this is a more diverse experience than you ever had. As a result, the IBIS feature on the X-H1 has become extremely effective – I would honestly say it is one of the best IBIS implementations on the market today! The 24mm F3.5, 35mm F2 and 65mm F2 DG DN share similar designs and have weather-sealed metal bodies. The answer is - just as big and heavy as these F2.8 FF zooms, but even more expensive.3s ... 5s ... now that's a real blind faith. Professional shooters who do a lot of video might snap it up. Look at the histogram. Considering that in both cases no light is lost because the lens is made for the sensor behind it, I only see two differences: DoF and sensor performance in terms of sensitivity, dynamic range maybe. Speaking as a former Fuji owner (X-Pro1, 23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4. Looks like another great addion for Fuji users. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xpro1&attr13_1=nikon_d7000&attr13_2=nikon_d7200&attr13_3=sony_a6500&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr171_1=1&attr171_3=2&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.21328226114045915&y=-0.6817278180953323. you were happy with A7 but the adapted Canon lenses are not working well? The app includes automatic image transfer, gallery creation, editing tools and more. 1:1? Depends what you're shooting. That hole has different f-numbers on each lens, so the light per sq mm will differ, but the same element in the scene will be made up from the same amount of light (projected over a larger region of the larger sensor). I'm not going to relaunch that whole debate but maybe what one could also consider is that smaller/lighter/cheaper lenses on FF are sometimes also worse in quality than their GM or 'pro' versions. The X-H1 will be its own flagship, and I respect that. In this week's episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan go to the zoo with the Fujifilm X-H1. I have it in all my cameras. When APS first came out in digital I waited for FF, but it was only because of wide angle lens. I know that Canon color science has changed but white balance is only an issue in JPEG and video. AU $176.39 postage. I doubt anyone will buy the X-H1 now. XH1 did not earn gold award is because of its higher selling price and steep competition (thanks to Sony A7iii). Didn't say there was an issue with the sharpness on FF shot, I just noticed the dust on the red collar that is in focus was more visible on the APS-C side, for instance. Why do you think that A. A7s has only 12mpix ? But what does it tell us? Just admit it, this is not a solution.If you think that it is impossible to shoot a 2s exposure of a static scene on a FF with IBIS and stuff, then you are wrong. Fuji's own RAW converter to this day shows exactly that. The bottom line is that Fujifilm will sell a boat-load of X-H1s. i agree , i found the tone and conclusions of the written review dismissive and a bit off the mark .... this camera is a pro camera without compromise for those who earn their living with a camera ... it is the most capable , stills and video camera fuji has ever produced , there is no stills centric fuji camera that outdoes it, i find it large , but for many the handling will be improved in a pro setting. Canon tried selling 6D2 at $2000, but it didn't go well, for obvious reasons. @DarnGoodPhotosYes, Fuji's largest lenses can be larger than their FF equivalents AND even more expensive. Even if it's a 3-axis stabilization, or up to 2-3 stops as compared with 5.5, it's still more than good enough for most of us. Same F-numbers don't make them equal. 85mm lenses illustrates the future of photography. Too many people these days seem incapable of evaluating things on their own, relying far too much on the thoughts and opinions of others. I also agree on f/2.8 zoom lenses, they are just a defacto standard for anyone in the business yet a massive number would MUCH benefit from more reach and smaller size and lower cost of F/4 zooms. You're probably right. I think itâs worth noting that, given the present pricing of $999(US) including the battery grip, the camera is worthy of a Platinum Award relative to the time it was released and the then Gold of the X-T2. so Pana has the rights to make bigger m43 sensor based camera but Fuji don't have the rights to do so. Want to jump on board but my camera hasn't been manufactured yet. Those who prefer the non blown out rendering will like it. Why would I ever pick the $1300 MFT 40-150F2.8 over $500-$1000 FF 70-300F3.5-5.6? It's a win-win situation. Also, the intent of the X-H1 isn't to be a general, carry-around, and travel camera. Other additions include the movie style 'Eterna' Film Simulation and an anti-flicker option for shooting under artificial lights. Most modern sensors perform fairly similarly (with the latest small sensors usually getting the newest technology, so performing slightly better per sq mm). Trolling.Leica especially brings out the economic experts. This uses the existing DR modes in combination with the camera's ability to adjust the Highlight and Shadow aspects of its tone curves. -Even when resolution isn't constant: meaning a larger number on FF that scales to the sensor size (7DII 20MP VS 5DS 50MP), the FF one does better in lowlight due to simple oversampling/NR cabapility. Thinks the comment is clever, especially if it relates to Leica or, to a lesser degree, anything related to medium format. Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm X-Pro3 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +10 more. Seems we've been having to get a grip on the rest of the camera's performance. Keep in mind that the dual-mode only works when you are in manual focus mode. That new A7III is very attractive and there are some reasonably priced Sony primes ready to replace my Canon ones. However I don't see that much of a difference between pictures taken by my A7 II and my X-T20 for the use I have, which is mainly landscape photography. Now that’s an insanely useful feature that sets these mirrorless cameras apart from DSLRs – using manual focus is now extremely handy, as you no longer have to think about focus errors. Sony's new Visual Story app for iOS promises event and wedding photographers a variety of useful tools, designed to simplify their workflow and enhance their business. The Sony A7/9 series obviously have excellent sensors but ergonomically they're a bit of a pain to handle. Like the 28F2 and 85F1.8. Agree on that aspect. Can you tell the difference between the GFX and FF? This is not a compact mirrorless, more like a dslr type of body. Nonsensical propaganda - wrong (and an insult). Plus, Nikon and Canon DSLRs continue to perform exceptionally well when size and sound aren't an issue. Why the APS-C (in any form, even with top optics) being worse than FF doesn't bother you at all then? exactly, why should I care as long as the end result is the same, the picture is not underexposed? I give you a challenge. It's a hell of a lot more compact for the same range. So that it is all the same to you, for your level of tolerance. Firmware v2.0 in particular, improved IBIS significantly, allowing it to work together with Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) found on some Fujinon lenses, allowing all 5 axes to work together for stabilizing both stills and video footage. @ecka84: about the AF stuck in the fence, yes, it's probably asking too much but at least on the E-M1 II the AF locks on the animal, especially if it's moving. While you were focussing on the top right...I was looking at the light in the background....Fully rendered by the Fuji, and blown out by the Sony. Let's say it receives x photons per sq mm (eg you're pointing at a featureless grey sky). Both will see the same view of the scene, if shot from the same location. Because 44x33 sensor is a clear winner (even Fuji propagandists agree). And if you have bad vision, you can zoom into the focused area by up to 100% view! And (for example) the FF 24-105F4 is equivalent to APS-C 16-70F2.5, which can't be smaller or lighter or cheaper. As you can see, D500 is 2 years older than X-H1. For the record I only talked about DLSR because you brought up the Canon 40mm. Lighter than full frame and (slightly) better quality than 4/3. But I have however a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 on my D7200 that is a bit heavy but not really expensive. Of course there will be less noise on the bigger sensor depending again on technology and size of photosites. But yes, Fujifilm does have a better range of lenses than Sony, in general. The FUJIFILM X-H1 boasts autofocus performance with enhanced capability to track a moving subject. The X-T30 has the latest and greatest 26.1MP BSI X-Trans IV sensor and quadcore X-Processor IV, giving the top performance in areas like autofocus, face detect, on-sensor 100% coverage 425 point phase detect, top video features. But, what about making a FF setup to match the APS-C "look"? It's funny that people are saying, about Fujifilm's firmware upgrades, that they should have released a proper camera from the start but when Sony releases a camera with a frustrating AF (I've used at the zoo, it's tough to follow BiF or fast moving animals. Switching these modes is as easy as moving the selector next to your lens. The viewfinder looks very smooth with its 100Hz refresh … Fuji user here wondering if I should switch to Sony. No they're identical. Wait until Sony announces the a7000. Fuji X-H1, This DPR review officially concludes rather harshly and confusingly -- by the editors, that is --. You think that nobody needs better cameras than you do.The amount of light has little to do with image brightness. DPreview's own studio comparison adjust image brightness so the bodies are all in line of each other. However, that only says that each sq mm of both sensors will receive the same amount of light. It's unclear at this point whether this option will be available with adapted and third-party lenses identified this way. Wide open maybe not so much. Yup I agree image stabilization isn't exclusive for any format and will probably be all the same on every camera from a cellphone to MF backs in a few years. Sony managed to pull it off with their a6500, and even the full frame A7II is smaller and lighter than the X-H1. Silver. A7iii is an all-around tool like the xh1, but with better Image quality, DR, battery life and low light capability. on such a lens we wouldn't care about DoF... compensating for the worse high ISO performance would be the only reason... Well, it is better. I guess I'll just let whoever is reading the thread find out on their own by looking at the comparisons. "I can use the benefits of lighter gear" - Not necessarily and not much lighter. No, that is why I said 'for the use I have'. There's no limit for my imagination. No need to be a fanboy - I don't care for either brand. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Various combinations of EFC, mechanical and fully electronic shutter are available, to allow the use of each mode for the shutter speeds where it gives its greatest advantage. I like the darker one better. I was a little disappointed by the 84% Silver. If you can't see that, then please try using a larger UHD monitor before suggesting that sensor size doesn't matter.If some cameras have better sensor tech, it doesn't break the equivalence principle. In the key prime focal lengths, you actually have to buy 2 lenses to get the capabilities of 1 lens from other brands. There are differences in operation and marginally different performance parameters which people are becoming use to picking out which may or may not please them.I shoot weddings with Pentax and prefer crop camera's because the A1 prints are faultless ... i minimise my FF use due to massive file sizes and what really counts is how i compose and the emotion i bring not what brand i shoot.AF is another funny subject, because even in sports i generally shoot AF S not AF C therefore with standard photography skills i can get shots the user of a Nikon can get .... funny old game this nit picking. 1) and 3) are dictated by laws of physics and also by the advancements in sensor technologies, which have dragged MFT and APS-C sensors very close to FF sensors (as FF sensors have since D800 pretty much hit their physical limits, with BSI + dual gain giving a slight boost). It kills the need for a crop system for me. That's how it works. All strength to your corporate elbows! Why don't you download the studio RAW files and compare the actual image quality after you remove all the noise.You said "for the use I have" because you think that nobody needs better cameras than you do. No need for a DSLR here but maybe they improved it on RX10 m4, my comment was really for the m3 I own. Unfortunately for the nay-sayers, both Apple and Sony have tremendous technologic firepower. multiple ways of delivering ISO settings using different amounts of hardware amplification, https://m.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained, https://s20.postimg.cc/en6h3wvgd/P5181335.jpg, https://s20.postimg.cc/9oiypdzd9/P5181332.jpg, https://s20.postimg.cc/ijjszw8q5/P5181338.jpg, http://alturaphoto.com/altura-photor-neoprene-pouch-set.html, https://s20.postimg.cc/o3jgvs8q5/DSC06361.jpg, https://s20.postimg.cc/qxmm98im5/DSC07400.jpg, Fujifilm X-Pro3 review: living in the moment, not a screen in sight, Sony a7C review: Compact size, big sensor image quality, Compact and feature-packed: Our Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III review. Is there anything else? Obviously great colour out of the box and silent shooting are not that important to you (and no electronic silent mode does not compare, it results in rolling shutter in photos with movement). I find funny the price comparison between Sony and Fuji lenses based on aperture equivalence. ;). No. To take an example, FR 24-70mm f4 seems to be quite average, some are even recommending the kit lens over it, considering the price. Only if you are a fool who fails to even do the most basic post processing work this is an issue. They're made to be cheap yet Sony is charging almost twice the price of what N and C does. Maybe its DoF is nicer because you are trying to trick me :) by using wider equivalent aperture on a crop camera. I'm not asking for the level of stabilization of the X-H1 to be replicated across their existing lines. It's like, "ok, some crop camera can handle the noise as well as FF, with the same DR, but still any FF must be better because it's logic". Move further back with the APS-C camera (if you can) and you change the perspective. FF 50F1.8 on crop is getting only half the light, because it crops the projection. It's based around the same 24MP sensor as the X-T2 but adds in-body image stabilization as well as a more comprehensive set of video options. I used to hear Sony makes the best and most expensive TVs, then there was the VAIO, more expensive than anything else. am I to understand that a FF 50mm 1.8 on a crop body should be brighter because there is more light coming through? But can you imagine how much would it cost? Sample Images Intro Grip Specs Performance Compared User's Guide Recommendations More Fujifilm X-H1 (23.8 oz./674g with battery and card, $999 new or about $850 used if you know How to Win at eBay) and Fujifilm 16mm f/2.8. And speaking of exposure value, the other camera might just need to lower its ISO by half to get much less noise while still maintain the same ev as the Fuji, tests vbeasr out that fuji not only has a different iso structure and mandate , but alsao tends to.... compared to others...underexpose at 0 +_- by about 2\3 stop. BS! Finally, I agree with some comments above: Fuji has cheap primes that are sharp wide open. That's the reason the XH line is created.There will be a XT3, wait for it... XH line is not for you. I really don't need a third, though I know some people like it. While it feels like IBIS was more of an experiment for Fuji to see if there is real demand for this feature, after using the X-H1, I really hope Fuji will be implementing IBIS on all future generations of X-series cameras.
2020 fujifilm x h1 autofocus