Why not just give a score? I'm a very happy Fuji XT-2 user, and over time (it's too early yet) I will definitely upgrade to the X-H1. The APS-C sensor sees through a 3mm dia aperture. Yeah before preordering the X-H1, I considered this. Of course, this is very personal and hard to express in cold "86%" figures. The Fujifilm X-H1 is the camera that Fujifilm has made specifically for this kind of user, with a big, meaty body, in-body stabilisation and a top-mounted status display. How many pro bought the A9? is that alright because I'm pretty sure, when they do so, people will criticise them for not including these. :) Canon doesn't give a damn about enthusiast class of cameras. I give you a challenge. A single Fuji battery pack provides about 300 shots, whereas DSLRs provide more than 1,000 with the optical viewfinders. Besides, Richard established above that the light per sq mm received is the same, so there shouldn't be any loss. . Shop online at DCW. Nevertheless, I think mirrorless is the future. There are those who do Presidential media conferences, concerts, golf tournaments and weddings with strict noise requirements who fully appreciate the silent shooting and great eye focus. Of course, ask questions and research, but if I read one more plaintive post saying "Which camera should I get to take photos of my cat - help me" I shall probably explode. Fujis underexpose by 1/3 to 2/3 stop to protect highlights. No, that is why I said 'for the use I have'. What makes Fuji different is that they have really focused on making a quality crop sensor camera that is both portable and easy to use and produces 'trendy' looking images with their 'filters'. Yet Microsoft is even more aggressive...Seems to me that they're applying the basic rule: if you have no serious competition, take as much money as possible. Canon 24mm IS worked well with the adapter too, if I remember right. As of September 2019, oddly you can get the X-H1 with the VPB-XH1 Vertical Power Gripas a kit (camera & grip weigh 34.3 oz./972g with card and one battery) at a deep package discount … https://camerasize.com/compact/#772.513,711.703,ha,t. It's not the only factor, nor the ultimate factor. Same light per unit area but more light, more light by all means of more light. Seems we've been having to get a grip on the rest of the camera's performance. Pro chose ergonomics, reliability, service, lens selection. That’s 100 more autofocus points than both the X-T2 and the X-H1. Sony's GM glass has been oversized, overpriced and generally underwhelming. Ergonomy, AF, dependability, real weather sealing, good touch screen, smaller and lighter lenses, better IS may be more important for many people. Their F2 primes are sharp and error-free (partly due to in-camera processing) but lack character and can only produce a DoF equivalent to F2.8. Get over it. You need to re-learn the whole thing from the beginning. If the Fuji was priced $300 less, it would have been much more wanted camera. The viewfinder looks very smooth with its 100Hz refresh … It should be F2.5. Especially the part about UWA prime vs. zoom. I'm afraid that the notion of "good enough" and the notion of "I don't care" both are one and the same notion. I have a D750 so I was wonder, because is one of the most use cameras for weddings were the most IQ is needed. As for IBIS tests on the E-M1 II:- 1s SS is easy at 24mm (FF eq.) 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. But the full-frame sensors got so much better. Can't decide if I shouldn't "burn the bridge", keep my cheap EF lenses and get an EF-to-E adapter (and switch back, if something), or ditch Canon entirely and put my money on Sony. As such, both are looking at the same view of the scene through the same sized hole. Ironically, one of the absolute best ideas I've seen in the last decade was Sony's implementation of the LCD on the R1. For instance I don't see the point in dragging the FF on a city break where I'll be walking all day with my camera. Just compare A7 II and A7 III, it seems that with higher ISO one stop can be gained.I did a quick test yesterday and I'll give you one thing : if I shoot with the same ISO into a light, there seems to be more light (or less DR?) Oh, and it's a lot of fun too. The electronic shutter makes it perfectly possible. There are plenty of issues with Macbooks, specially if you try to make it do some actual work for you (which most people don't). The Fujifilm X-H1 uses the same 24.3 megapixel APS-C X-Trans CMOS III sensor and X-Processor Pro image processor as already used in the Fujifilm X-Pro2 and X-T2. When you zoom in and out images on your monitor, the image brightness doesn't change, but in reality it is impossible to crop into (disperse) a beam of light without losing any light intensity. 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. Not better, but different and much more expensive, just because there's always plenty of simpleminded folks who buy stuff they don't need. I'll do another test, just for sake of arguing... in the meantime, I'd say I compared some time ago a FF + f2.8 lens and the Sony RX10 with the same ISO, same shutter speed, at f2.8. The ability to print larger comes from the larger amount of data in the image. We can change the requirements forever, and obviously on each sides of the discussion, to match the point we're trying to make... Anyways it seems we're just different users with different needs. Now, three months later, the company has confirmed in a statement that the personal information of past and current employees was taken from its servers. Natural History Museum's Wildlife Photographer of the Year has selected 25 photos for its People's Choice Award. on the FF side. Cheating on ISO - wrong. So DoF and FoV were not perfectly matched, there was no trick intended. Ebrahim, do you think the price of the camera is only based on sensor size? The capabilities of this camera in that area are behind Sony and Panasonic. BS? And the new mount lens system would make a lot more sense, than just a FF remake. the xh1 is even more well suited for this particular application. As far as their colors, they are just filters and only work with jpegs. APS-C and FF difference is bigger than F2.8 vs F4. Different instead of better - wrong. Not because of the ISO performance alone (it really isn't two stops better, more like one stop), but because of the better bit of everything - ISO, optics (better sharpness, contrast, lower aberrations), crop-ability, hand-hold-ability (perhaps due to larger pixels). That's the reason the XH line is created.There will be a XT3, wait for it... XH line is not for you. Sigma's new primes promise very good performance and light weight, when paired with L-mount and Sony E-mount mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. The obvious things that can't be set independently for stills and movie shooting are the exposure settings, since these are primarily defined by dedicated control dials. There are people happy with RX10 IV, m43, and even Nikon 1 system. FF sensor is nice but usually comes with heavy and expensive zoom lenses. It was also amazing at picking the right exposure, sometimes I would get away with slower speeds than expected... still it wasn't making enough of a difference with my Panasonic 15mm 1.7. For the record I only talked about DLSR because you brought up the Canon 40mm. The problem is that nobody is buying $5000 PCs to begin with. It is truly compact, not MFT kind of BS. I admit my first encounter with MFT was difficult. Similar to D850 case. I guess I'll just let whoever is reading the thread find out on their own by looking at the comparisons. But the full frame of 2017/8 will outperform the Fuji of 2017/8 for image quality. 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. The Olympus Em1 series are beautiful cameras but way too small for me. And my point is that you don't have to buy the largest, the heaviest and the most expensive optics compatible with your camera. OK. you're not to only one, there are many whom see the XH1 as a good option.GH5/S is alright to be big because it's video capability is huge and it's the best as DPR and others say. You cannot magnify the projection by using smaller sensor without sacrificing quality. .. For many, theses features are more important als 1 stop better noise control. it doesn't say anything really. While with FF I could push it almost two stops farther. So perhaps 12 was just close enough, with an acceptable amount of cropping.B. Sheer genius. That said, I also shoot on the streets and the size of the X-H1 is too intrusive for stealthy situations--you might as well go full-frame DSLR. Those who prefer the non blown out rendering will like it. And yes it's a huge bargain against the 5DIV (the 1DX/D5 are too different to be mentioned). We all know that these x series cameras are absolutely professional grade, as do our clients. For now, as a 6'5" dude with big hands, I deeply appreciate having this option in size. Or maybe they are both crop...Apple nonsense is that they are preaching lies about their products being better or perfect, while for the price they are not. The bottom line is that Fujifilm will sell a boat-load of X-H1s. it's a proven in use architecture. The Sony 100-400 is somewhat more expensive than the Fuji 100-400. maybe I’m wrong but FF EV advantage does not seem that relevant outdoors in normal light? Strong is only available from ISO 800 or higher. I may not need the best glass (well, I don't own any), but at least I want to exploit the potential of what I can afford. And since I can't seem to find the setting to cause it, auto rotation of images on playback. Whatever our 'equipment allegiances', warm congratulations to the D P reviewers for having the fortitude to 'tell it as they see it'. It was a thing because early RAW converters did not interpret the compensation needed encoded in the RAW tag 0x9650. If 9 people in a row say that milk is blue, then the #10 just repeats that same nonsense, because he starts to doubt his own judgement. Other than this, though, when you're light limited and working within the region where both can offer equivalent settings (ie having to stop the ff sensor down to get enough depth-of-field) there's not necessarily any advantage to one over the other in IQ terms. Equivalence makes them both the same. Unprecedentedly large for a system camera. Bad/retro ergonomics - wrong. Fuji Fujifilm X-H1 Mirrorless Body Only 4407 shuttercount . And cropping on the A73 won’t make up the difference when the A73 and XH-1 are both 24mp, right? I still think that it depends a lot on which cameras are used and/or compared, and even though there are physical rules camera manufacturers are doing their best to catch up with the bigger sensors. Also, make your own standard so that people buy only into your products. But can you imagine how much would it cost? It's like saying - "I tried FF and I didn't like it, but then I tried crop and started shooting RAW and it is much better now". It's all about what works for you personally, not what a faceless reviewer says or what Joe Bloggs in the pub says. As with all 'toys' fun is part of the experience... "You think that nobody needs better cameras than you do." I prefer some of the more modest lenses like the Pana 15mm f1.7 or the 45-175mm f4-5.6. They require a tripod or something to put your camera on or a flash, so you could shoot with 100% hit rate. Compare just the xt3 and xh1 with the Nikon D7200 the dynamic range and iso-invariance and then never write again how great is the Fuji sensor!!! It fully articulated to lay flat on the top of the camera top plate. Terrible choice of picture. Careless people just don't want to to learn anything. Granted, the X-H1 is a very capable pro grade camera, especially for video shooters, and it should be judged on its own merit. @larkhonI can't make you see the difference. Until Apple was popular again and people wouldn't put 2000€ in a PC anymore. "some crop camera can handle the noise as well as FF, with the same DR, but still any FF must be better because ..." because it has 2.35 times more of the same. I'm just saying people would really like some form of IBIS onto smaller bodies. Does this matter in the real world? Why would I want to deal with a company that doesn't respect its customers? But, what about making a FF setup to match the APS-C "look"? One needs to ask themselves what they are using the camera for, if they tend to shoot sports, landscapes or portrait? It's just a logical conclusion. Why not just get smaller FF lenses then? Only BS fairy tales. There is not more light per sq mm on FF than there is on APS-C, therefore FF sensors do not get better signal noise ratio because of the size of the sensor itself. Is it even possible to turn off Fuji's destructive noise reduction on RAW files?What early RAW converters? Hmmmm.... Kind've freaked out by the size of this thing, bigger and heavier than a Sony A7 III FF and substantially larger and heavier than Fuji X-T2. Want to jump on board but my camera hasn't been manufactured yet. But I can handhold the E-M1 II + 12-100mm for 3s at least (some say 5s) and get a sharp picture when the FF would produce a blurry picture to match the exposure... Also, is it worth spending $2000 to $3000 for the camera (Sony prices as a base), $2500 for the 16-35mm 2.8, $2000 for the 24-70mm 2.8 and $2500 for the 70-200mm 2.8 when you don't get paid from the 'superior' photos you're taking and you're never making any big prints? I really don't care about fancy F-numbers or "pro" designations on overpriced toys.A7III made progress, while (possibly) APS-C image quality may never fully surpass the original A7 or even the original 5D. 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. Let’s take a closer look at it! There are no separate equivalences for each and every button on your camera. I'm not sure I see the point of this camera body. It just doesn't fit the vintage aesthetics of Fuji. Or a landscape with 24mm equivalent FOV and DOF of infinity? 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. If I were a wildlife or sports photographer, and I needed the best AF system available from Fuji, the X-T3 would probably be a better choice. It's a beast really.