frontfocus

Let‘s hope for that. And let‘s hope that goes for price too. Competition is good for the consumer!

i know. But what technology does DJI bring into this relationship? They don't have IBIS, no experience with phase detection. They may contribute to save a few bucks with their processors or a few parts. But all in all I think Hasselblads main interest was to get a name they can print onto their drones and sell at a premium. I don't see much, they can add to the way Hasselblad work at the moment. I may be wrong and we see a X1D II made in China soon?

I haven't followed what Hasselblad does as closely, is there a X2D/X1D 100c announcement around the corner? Thinking about hardware, I don't see Hasselblad compete. I don't think they will manage to get their own IBIS (but maybe they will licence it from Sony or Nikon since they already went with Nikons lighting hotshoe) or get anywere close in focus performance. But I expect the Hasselblad to be as well built as the X1D, one of the nicest cameras besides a Leica M one can probably buy. If I had anything to say at Fujifilm, I'd put in an anamorphic mode into that beast. 😄

Sony sensor

the app is great. as long as you don‘t need to use it. it drops resolution to 720p or 1080p depending on your camera and bitrate as well. It deactivates certain settings as well. It‘s fine for photography or updates but it sucks for video

I love how he claims it's the iPads and everything else fault. So, if you can't watch it on an iPad, with factory calibrated screen, covering DCI P3, working with variable frame rate to match the content, offering over 500 nit brightness and extremely good contrast what should we get? 4000$ HDR Oled Screens? In the end it was just too dark and HBO made it even worse with their crappy compression. Get your content delivery sorted and then start blaming customers!

it doesn't make it parfocal, since that is, by definition, that the focus doesn't change when you zoom. But the focus does change and it is corrected by the focus. Sony got an interesting solution with the 18-110mm f/4.0 too, where the focus element is moved to correct. The problem with such electronic solutions is, that fast zoom movements can be too fast to correct and that you can't use those lenses on another non supported mount via adapter

androidlad already explained it: it's exposed at ISO160 (or higher ISO) for the highlights and shadows and midtones are pushed. And this is reflected with a higher ISO value. It's actually one of the easier, very reproducible dynamic range extension functions.

I have photographed many weddings and the 35mm f/1.4 has been there since the Fuji beginnings. The only one who would notice the focusing sound is the photographer himself. If my second shooter used the lens, I never picked up on any sound. For video though, external sound recording is absolutely necessary

if you use the internal mic to record then yes. But if you do, you probably shouldn't shoot weddings 😄 As soon as you move the mic away, it won't pick up the sound.

I think what he wanted to say is, that older lenses got a bigger boost in performance compared to newer lenses. The new f/2.0 primes and f/2.8 zooms are still faster, but the improvement from X-T2/X-H1 to X-T3 was by far not as big as with the older lenses. And I absolutely agree with that.

I own all of the f/1.4 /1.2 lenses. They got a significant boost in autofocus performance with the X-T3. They aren't silent and the 35mm f/1.4 is the loudest. Overall I like their rendering and think they offer good image quality for the money. But it shows, that Fuji wasn't thinking about video back when those lenses were designed Do you think that's really necessary? At the moment we get 6.3K downsampled to 4K. And there are some, that already claim 4K is too sharp. The other point is, why stop at 8K? Why not future proof for 16K?

With the G9 only 200€/$ more expansive, I don‘t see much that makes this camera interesting Or am I missing something big here?

I know, but the video data comes from raw data, so we get an idea. But with video we have to deal with different amounts of noise reduction. Even with NR off, there is still some. Take the X-T3, there is 18 different settings for noise reduction. Not as many with Sony, but there are some too (and I often felt, like it depended on the picture profile too). That's a lot of comparison one has to do and many variables to take into consideration. And as I said, the A73 crops in 30p, so it depends on the frame rate you compare too.

I don't see that difference you are talking about: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xt3&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=fujifilm_xt2&attr13_3=sony_a7ii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0&y=0 ISO3200 on the T3 looks better than ISO6400 on the A73 imo. And in video, the A73 has a 1.2x crop with 30p, wo the difference gets even smaller and that's not considering options like All-I noise reduction. Back when I had the A73 I thought it was a great cam. Might be one of the best allrounders out there. But the T3 isn't missing out on much when it comes to image quality, while offering a lot more options when it comes to video. It's lacking IBIS though.