And the A7III is not just better in sensor size, even if it was APS-C it would be a hell of a strong competitor to the XH1, but no, it has the best 24mp 35mm sensor ever made. About equivalence I suggest you read the article made by DPR on the topic. The full frame sensor sees the world through a 4.5mm diameter aperture. Also, Fuji has a significant dominance in jpeg quality. If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. 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's about 5% wider and higher than the X-T3, and the extended hand grip makes it 30% deeper, so the X … Link to post Share on other sites. If you want it to be as same as it gets you must use equivalence. Interestingly, although rated at 5EV, Fujifilm says the stabilization can hit 5.5EV of effectiveness if paired with non-IS lenses. I mean, it's good enough for your needs, fine, why should I keep my needs below the capabilities of your favorite camera? Also telephoto for kids sports. "I can use the benefits of lighter gear" - Not necessarily and not much lighter. NO boom. Yes expensive, but when I count in that in each and every shot with Sony I have to "optimize" the ok-ish, but not great color and yet struggle to get near the stunning color a Fuji outputs (in Jpeg and Raw) effortlessly in each and every shot, it is not expensive. No, I would not buy a XF 16-50 f1.8 because obviously I could find a better option on the A7 II. OK. Fuji's own RAW converter to this day shows exactly that. These days I'm testing the Fuji 16mm 1.4 against D800+Sigma 24mm 1.4 and that's where I had less keepers on the FF while using the same shutter speed and all. Image quality. As with all 'toys' fun is part of the experience... "You think that nobody needs better cameras than you do." 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. I'm still shaking my head at all of the negative feedback on the X-H1 and by many who have yet to handle the X-H1. The way I see it, crops are not really smaller or lighter, or cheaper, or better ... so why bother? I use Capture One. Fuji is seemingly trying to compete with the likes of Sony on their turf which isn't Fuji's strength. However, for typical portraiture, landscape and travel photography that I do, I realized that the new autofocus features and other improvements on the X-T3 do not outweigh the amazing IBIS capability of the X-H1. "it is not worse all the time" - Actually, it is. Using what is now dated tech, itâs neither here nor there, hence that silver rating. All that "smaller size" mythology is ridiculous. Unfortunately for the nay-sayers, both Apple and Sony have tremendous technologic firepower. Inadequate pricing - wrong. Thank you Richard. It's your viewing method that's lacking. Been there (overheating MBP Pro 2011) done that. !The picture of that guy, it is trying to tell us just that. But at the same time, most casual users aren't doing serious video work, so heat isn't as much of a problem as shakiness, which is why some form of IBIS would help them. And smaller sensors are called "CROP" sensors BECAUSE they are cropping the image. I have based buying decisions based on one camera being half a stop better than another. This results in reduction of back focus distance, achieving high resolution extending to the image edge areas, and reducing vignetting and colour shading. But to me it makes less sense to buy only into FF considering the size, weight and price when alternatives are available and good enough for what I'm intending to do with it. What Sony did isn't necessarily applicable since it is a mechanically different IBIS system. I've never heard Dpreview speaking of a "significant disadvantage" of APS-C versus FF. I have no fetish for using toys, but I can see all the reasons for not using them in the sample images. Does "good enough" include "good" and "fine"? Finally, I agree with some comments above: Fuji has cheap primes that are sharp wide open. When looking at Nikon or Sony we see there is a place for different types of FF cameras, and in the end the goal is to sell cameras and keep customers.I just sold my EF-E adapter, I only had one Canon lens left, the 70-200mm f4 non-IS, which I'm also selling now. It's obviously an extremely competent stills camera, and one that produces high-quality B roll video, cinematic footage with great colour and 120fps HD at an affordable price. Switching these modes is as easy as moving the selector next to your lens. Also sure how to heat sink it. For now, we’ll focus on the automatic features of the camera. Thinks the comment is clever, especially if it relates to Leica or, to a lesser degree, anything related to medium format. At 23.7 ounces (673g), the X-H1 is getting up into DSLR territory (it slots between a Nikon D7500 and D500, for example). However, as with the X-T2, there's an optional battery grip that lets the camera cycle between drawing power from each of three batteries. However, that only says that each sq mm of both sensors will receive the same amount of light. These are facts, not fairy tales, facts. As for IBIS tests on the E-M1 II:- 1s SS is easy at 24mm (FF eq.) The 65mm T2 completes Vazen's set of anamorphic lenses for the Micro Four Thirds system. The FUJIFILM X-T3 came out in … Believe it or not, my 6D fits in a men's purse (with the 40F2.8). (Well, unless GFX price goes down quite a bit :D)I wasn't trying to convince you about Apple. Is the X-T4 worth the upgrade from the X-H1, or is now the time to bag yourself a bargain? If only it was more affordable (around $2800 CAD with the grip) I would not have hesitated to buy it.... Back to my trusty X-T10 then. There is no size, weight and price advantage in crop systems. This means every tone will be cleaner, so your darkest tone that's distinguishable before being swamped with noise (so long as your sensor isn't contributing too much noise), will be a darker tone. which is sad. For now, as a 6'5" dude with big hands, I deeply appreciate having this option in size. OK, I know that's been debated...back to the X-H1. Iâm sure Fuji makes great cameras and lenses - theyâve been at it for decades, and their TV zoom lenses dominate broadcast TV globally. 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. They kick butt in that area. What will they do without lenses? The a5100 is fine, but it's nowhere near the A7II, it doesn't even have an EVF. This mode simulates cinematic film, creating understated colors and rich shadow tones, greatly enhancing creative freedom during post-processing. Both will see the same view of the scene, if shot from the same location. GR looks so much better. I have tried some 24-70F2.8, on both crop and FF. The Fujifilm X-H1 is the company's range-topping APS-C camera and its most video-capable camera to date. The amount of light | the light intensity | the exposure | the image brightness - they are all different things. They expected their computers to last for a century or something and were very upset about new chips getting much better too fast. While telling you stories like "money doesn't matter, it's not the most important factor, blah, blah, blah ...". I've heard plenty of stories like - "I tried some $1000 PCs and they were meh ... , but then I bought $5000 Mac and it's so much better". Assuming both go to the same base ISO, then there's scope for opening the ff camera up to f2.8 or giving it roughly 1.3EV longer exposure, before it clips). The capabilities of this camera in that area are behind Sony and Panasonic. Until Apple was popular again and people wouldn't put 2000â¬ in a PC anymore. [with added grip] for longer power. There are four settings: Weak, Strong, Auto and Off. Like the Pro 2, the X-H1 is too specialized for everyone. Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing. So, please, learn the equivalence principle and stop the BS. Of course there will be less noise on the bigger sensor depending again on technology and size of photosites. Sony is excellent, but if a user does have a complaint, it's usually around the cost of their lenses. 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". I wonder if the xt3 will get the new sensor. Fujifilm will be releasing firmware updates for six cameras in April in May. The x-H1 is also built like a tank. And the price difference between the two is only $100. That is totally illogical! Well, Leica is overpriced, for its image quality and performance. 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. "Too good" is "good enough" as well, just like "better then you might ever need" (where "you" is the keyword). For no reason would they ever switch to a crappy (A)PC(-S) ! But this is not a fair test. Also it's still smaller/lighter than an actual DSLR (like 7D series,) and (roughly) the same size/weight as the GH5/S. I really don't understand people demanding to stop the evolution of technology. Lens on RX10 m3 is the same as on m4, the latter having a better AF. When someone here says product XYZ is "overpriced," it means:1. on the FF side. You may use whatever cameras you prefer, but FF is just better. My cameras get used outside. Terry...Fuji, like Olympus, use the SOS standard for iso. You really pigeonhole/hamstring yourself by arbitrarily eliminating the best choices... Is the new procedure on camera reviewing like: If it has good dynamic range, give that its own page and measure it. The ability to print larger comes from the larger amount of data in the image. 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. I give you a challenge. "Not so good for": "Anyone looking for the perfect tool for one specific job". Sorry for the bad FoV equivalence. But then why bother with such expensive "bazooka" zoom, when I can have a twice smaller and 3 times cheaper 200F2.8L prime instead (I mean, if I didn't have my wonderful 150F2.8 Sigma, which is nearly as capable, plus it has extra Macro functionality). Mount a FF 50mm F1.8 on a FF camera and an APS-C camera and, from the same position, you get all the edges cropped off on the APS-C camera, which is useless. Equivalence can be made either on shallow DOF or on exposure. Then on A7r II for example they used back illumination to gain a little light and copper wiring to have less noise. Does this matter in the real world? Because it is all about the image after all.Crops cannot reproduce FF ISO100 16-35F4, because for that you would need APS-C ISO40 10-24F2.5. We compare the Canon EOS R6, Nikon Z6 II, Panasonic S5 and Sony a7 III. Because it is about the amount of light used to create an image. There are only compromises that can make things smaller, for any system.