frontfocus

It‘s no surprise, that people in a videocentric forum don‘t really know a lot about the digital Fuji cameras. The first generations (X-Pro1) video was unusable. Second gen (X-T1) was bad.
That‘s why it was a big surprise, when Fuji had very nice quality video with the X-T2 and improved upon it, especially on the Handling with the X-H1.
 
Their firmware policy, often called Kaizen philosophy, developed more out of need. Their first cameras, X100 and X-Pro1 were missing quite some feature people were used to and had some bugs. So Fuji improved, and improved and kept improving. Just zake a look at the list of improvements for those cameras
http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/firmware/x/finepix_x100/history.html
http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/firmware/x/xpro1/history.html
 
With their new cameras they kept that philosophy and add most features from new models which. Very nice idea, but it needs a lot of ressources. And if you look at the comments of fujirumors, people are actually complaining, because they want more and more

I think Fuji was one of the first to roll out significant firmwareupdates. Only it was with stills until now, since their cameras weren't really made for video. All Fuji cameras have gotten many firmwareupdates, it's something one should think of when buying it.
The X-T2 was introduced at the beginning of July 2016. And it gets some very nice features like internal Log recording or slowmotion for free now. 
It won't match the X-H1, will still be missing features like 1/48s shutter speed, 200Mbit codec, Eterna film simulation, DR200% and Dr400% and other features and of course it won't get features similar to a GH5s, but I think X-T2 buyers never expected those to happen. 
Overall it's very nice to see those things added, for those owning both X-H1 and X-T2 this helps a lot. 

Do you take a Prescription??

Honestly that is nonsense.
Look at the raw digger data from Phase One IQ250

It very clearly shows a 16 bit file with 14 bit information - which is why 3 out of 4 channels are blank.
I am not sure if we are discussing whether it is possible to create 16 bit files from 14 bits of information (which is trivial) or whether you actually think it is a good idea on the basis that it fools you into thinking you have 16 bits of information.
 

It really isnt that simple. I can take an 8 bit jpeg into photoshop and convert it to 16 bit - it will be a 16 bit file with 8 bits of information.
The 50mp Sony medium format sensor only outputs 14 bit data, so any 16 bit file generated from the data has simply added 'padding'. For instance the Hasselblad X1D claims to be 16 bit while the Fuji GFX 50s is 14 bit. As you can see here the only difference is the padding in the Hasselblad. 
https://***URL removed***/forums/post/59002429
Sony (or anyone else) do not actually produce a FF sensor with more than 14 bit output. Now Nikon's image processor could quite easily convert that to 16 bit but it wouldnt actually achieve anything of any consequence. Apart from the fact that it might be a good marketing ploy if it happened to fool people.

Someone could have asked a while ago why would any one ever buy a phone from a computer company?!

Here's a bit of a review after using the X-H1 for about two weeks, both in a hobbyist/family setting and in my more professional workflow (video production is part of what I do for a living). As a caveat, I wouldn't consider myself a pro video guy, though. I'm a hobbyist who turned video into part of my full-time income. I started a company called 'Worship Tutorials', and a youtube channel is a big part of it - I do a lot of video work (probably 3-6 uploads a week to YouTube), so while I'm not doing work for clients, and I don't have a pro background, video quality is important to me. I also realize that the limitations I encounter are almost purely coming from me, not the gear.
Background
I've been using Sony bodies for about the past 2 years. Before that, I used Blackmagic stuff - Studio 4k bodies, and then an Ursa Mini 4.6k. That was overkill. My church used to use those, and I loved what they could do, but the workflow for me (working on my own pushing out that many videos) just wasn't good. So I sold all of it and jumped to Sony. First with an a7S ii, then the a7R ii (as a 2nd body), then I sold both of those and went with an a9 + a6500. The colors on the a9 are far, far better than the previous gen. a7 stuff.
My frustration with Sony is color. And it's a huge deal to me - I believe color is one of the primary emotional pieces of video. And I hate the way Sony handles color. I do realize, though, that the IQ is there - plenty of people create beautiful work with Sony a7-series bodies, and I finally got good enough in post to make stuff that I thought looked great. But it's always a struggle for me - I feel like I'm always fighting for the colors I want. Then I started reading about the X-T2.
So I rented (and then purchased) an X-T2, and honestly I loved it. I loved the handling, the physical controls, and especially the colors. Even still images in Lightroom were easier to get what I wanted (with the Sony raw images, I still felt like I was forever fiddling to get the colors I wanted). In video the image was just more pleasing to me. But it lacked things I really wanted - 120p slow motion, IBIS, smooth gradients from different light sources when ISO was set to auto, better auto-focus, etc. The Sony system was just better spec'd. Plus by this time I had invested in the 24-70 G-Master and the 70-200 G-Master lenses from Sony. These lenses are incredibly good. I returned the Fuji, but I've missed it.
So another year of fighting with Sony footage, and then X-H1 is released. Again I rented one, and now I've purchased one (along with the 16-55 f/2.8). Several of the key features I wanted have been implemented - IBIS, high frame rate, etc. But to me, again, the killer feature is color, and with the introduction of Eterna, Fuji's color superiority is even better.
Pros/Cons - Fuji vs Sony
Over the past two weeks, I've shot a lot of video and stills side-by-side with my a9. Here are a list of thoughts...
Auto-focus: The a9 (and presumably the a7 iii) is better with AF. Much better. But honestly the Fuji isn't bad, and it's good enough for what I do. This may be a make/break feature for some, though. High frame rate recording: Sony is better here again - the 120 and 60p footage is cleaner. But I've shot a lot of it with the X-H1, and it's certainly not bad. If you avoid things that you know are going to give you aliasing and moire problems, you'll be fine. For me, it will work. Dynamic range: Again, the nod goes to Sony, but it's very close. Especially if you use the 200 and 400% settings on the X-H1. Low Light: Sony wins here. Full frame, plus their magic with high ISO is hard to beat - honestly does anybody beat them? The X-H1 is acceptable, though. Honestly at 10,000 ISO it's a pretty useable image. We are spoiled with ISO performance. Five years ago (and especially 10 years ago), ISO 3200 was the top you could go, and many cameras looked like crap there. IBIS: Fuji is better in my opinion. Handling/ergonomics: I like the Fuji better - a lot. One thing I do like about the Sony cameras is the ability to set up custom presets for 4k 24p, 60p, and 120p (that's how I set mine up, anyway), and be able to instantly recall shutter speed, frame rate, and aperture in one move. On the X-H1, it's a 3 step process, although it's very fast after some practice. Lenses: Tie (but not if you consider how much they cost). The G-Master lenses I have are awesome. But they are very expensive, and big/heavy. Fuji lenses are very good and very affordable. And finally, the most important things - for me, personally...
Image Quality: Fuji, by a lot. Now I agree with Tony Northrup's assessment of the 2x IQ thing, regarding stops. I get that technically, the Sony sensor is able to resolve more light, etc. I get that I can shoot at lower ISO's with the Sony, so from a noise-perspective it's cleaner. But when I look at footage shot side-by-side from both cameras, I pick the Fuji every single time. Especially when shooting with Eterna. It's not even close. Workflow: Fuji wins. Because the image is so much better out of the camera - for my tastes - the workflow is much faster. And at the rate that I make videos for my business (as well as candid home videos of family, etc), it makes an enormous difference for me. Even things like render times are way faster, because I'm doing much less manipulation to the image. Emotional impact: Fuji wins. I love using the Fuji system more. Because of my experience with the X-T2, I think I can say it's not a honeymoon thing, too. Although the a9 is a ridiculously awesome camera to use. I really do love it. The other emotional impact thing is the image quality - and I think the fuji wins here, too - because of color. Final thoughts
The 'best camera' doesn't exist. Some are better technically than others, some produce a certain look that users may or may not want. Some lack features or have an abundance of features, but honestly the quality of work that is produced is going to lie with the person creating the work. These days cameras are so good that I don't think it matters what brand or model you use.
The Sony stuff (especially the current gen stuff like the a9, a7R iii, a7 iii) is better on paper than the X-H1. There's no question. Is it better in actual use? Depends on who's using it. Personally, I think I could create the same quality work with either system, but I'm convinced the X-H1 will get me to the end goal faster. For you, it may be the other way around.
Finally, I think the internet can be a toxic place for people who are looking to buy gear. People come into these discussion with biases, or they are far more concerned with spec's on paper than anything else. Personally, I'm actually kind of upset at myself for even considering switching from my Sony gear to Fuji - at some point I/we just need to ignore all the hype with new stuff and just make content - and get better at using the gear we have.
Having said that, I'm probably going to sell all my Sony stuff and invest in Fuji, although I still have about two weeks where I can return the Fuji and keep my Sony gear.
Sample Work
Here's a video I just produced using the X-H1. I did about 6 takes of this song from different angles (which is why I need at least two cameras for what I do - three would be better). Edited/graded in Resolve. I shot it in Eterna, and honestly I did very little to the image. Just a tweak with white balance and contrast/saturation to taste. With my Sony cameras, this would have required 4-5 nodes using a LUT, color manipulation to lows/mids/highs, skin tone isolation/correction, etc.
Another video I made with the X-H1, more heavily graded:
Here's a very similar project (to the first one) using the Sony a9 and the a6500 together: It's a bit different look, and I like it. But it took a lot to get there.
Here's a video I shot with the X-H1 - again using Eterna, and graded in Resolve:
And another with the a9, also graded in Resolve:
I know there are lots of people probably trying to decide between the X-H1 and the a7iii. I'm one of them, so hopefully my experience can help you make that decision.

..and welcome to ETTR class today folks in the Fuji X-H1 thread!  

I don‘t have a way to meassure it, but I can directly compare it to the X-T2. I‘ll probably do it tomorrow and report back
it records in 200Mbit/s. Depending on what recording frame rate as well as playbackframerate you choose, it reports back differently.
120fps shooting to 24fps (5 times slowmo) shows 40mbit/s (200/5)
if you record 120fps to 60fps it will show 100mbit/s and so on

I have heard of it and I do know, that ISO has absolutely nothing to do with exposure. It's just gain. If you increase ISO for ETTR you are not exposing to the right, you are increasing gain to get brightness. Different things. And it's the other way round, what you loose in the highlight you can't get back, in the shadows you can get back a lot. That's just the way digital sensors work. Film was different and that's why many still talk about highlight roll off of film
Actually I did. It took me a while to find a subject which shows moire, but when I found it I did compare the X-T2 and X-H1. I didn't use a tripod, which brought me to the conclusion, that moire is more noticeable with the X-H1, because handheld the image is moire stable and you notice it more.
If you just compare sensor output, I'd guess the X-H1 has the exact same 3000px to 1920px downscale and with that the same amount of moire. 
just some quick cropped screencaps, but moire shows on both cameras and I'd say it's the same amount if you would do the exact same shot. 
X-T2:

X-H1:

 
edit: in this comparison the X-H1 seems to have less moire, but when looking through the footage, I have seen the exact same amount as the X-T2 produces.

Here's a bit of a review after using the X-H1 for about two weeks, both in a hobbyist/family setting and in my more professional workflow (video production is part of what I do for a living). As a caveat, I wouldn't consider myself a pro video guy, though. I'm a hobbyist who turned video into part of my full-time income. I started a company called 'Worship Tutorials', and a youtube channel is a big part of it - I do a lot of video work (probably 3-6 uploads a week to YouTube), so while I'm not doing work for clients, and I don't have a pro background, video quality is important to me. I also realize that the limitations I encounter are almost purely coming from me, not the gear.
Background
I've been using Sony bodies for about the past 2 years. Before that, I used Blackmagic stuff - Studio 4k bodies, and then an Ursa Mini 4.6k. That was overkill. My church used to use those, and I loved what they could do, but the workflow for me (working on my own pushing out that many videos) just wasn't good. So I sold all of it and jumped to Sony. First with an a7S ii, then the a7R ii (as a 2nd body), then I sold both of those and went with an a9 + a6500. The colors on the a9 are far, far better than the previous gen. a7 stuff.
My frustration with Sony is color. And it's a huge deal to me - I believe color is one of the primary emotional pieces of video. And I hate the way Sony handles color. I do realize, though, that the IQ is there - plenty of people create beautiful work with Sony a7-series bodies, and I finally got good enough in post to make stuff that I thought looked great. But it's always a struggle for me - I feel like I'm always fighting for the colors I want. Then I started reading about the X-T2.
So I rented (and then purchased) an X-T2, and honestly I loved it. I loved the handling, the physical controls, and especially the colors. Even still images in Lightroom were easier to get what I wanted (with the Sony raw images, I still felt like I was forever fiddling to get the colors I wanted). In video the image was just more pleasing to me. But it lacked things I really wanted - 120p slow motion, IBIS, smooth gradients from different light sources when ISO was set to auto, better auto-focus, etc. The Sony system was just better spec'd. Plus by this time I had invested in the 24-70 G-Master and the 70-200 G-Master lenses from Sony. These lenses are incredibly good. I returned the Fuji, but I've missed it.
So another year of fighting with Sony footage, and then X-H1 is released. Again I rented one, and now I've purchased one (along with the 16-55 f/2.8). Several of the key features I wanted have been implemented - IBIS, high frame rate, etc. But to me, again, the killer feature is color, and with the introduction of Eterna, Fuji's color superiority is even better.
Pros/Cons - Fuji vs Sony
Over the past two weeks, I've shot a lot of video and stills side-by-side with my a9. Here are a list of thoughts...
Auto-focus: The a9 (and presumably the a7 iii) is better with AF. Much better. But honestly the Fuji isn't bad, and it's good enough for what I do. This may be a make/break feature for some, though. High frame rate recording: Sony is better here again - the 120 and 60p footage is cleaner. But I've shot a lot of it with the X-H1, and it's certainly not bad. If you avoid things that you know are going to give you aliasing and moire problems, you'll be fine. For me, it will work. Dynamic range: Again, the nod goes to Sony, but it's very close. Especially if you use the 200 and 400% settings on the X-H1. Low Light: Sony wins here. Full frame, plus their magic with high ISO is hard to beat - honestly does anybody beat them? The X-H1 is acceptable, though. Honestly at 10,000 ISO it's a pretty useable image. We are spoiled with ISO performance. Five years ago (and especially 10 years ago), ISO 3200 was the top you could go, and many cameras looked like crap there. IBIS: Fuji is better in my opinion. Handling/ergonomics: I like the Fuji better - a lot. One thing I do like about the Sony cameras is the ability to set up custom presets for 4k 24p, 60p, and 120p (that's how I set mine up, anyway), and be able to instantly recall shutter speed, frame rate, and aperture in one move. On the X-H1, it's a 3 step process, although it's very fast after some practice. Lenses: Tie (but not if you consider how much they cost). The G-Master lenses I have are awesome. But they are very expensive, and big/heavy. Fuji lenses are very good and very affordable. And finally, the most important things - for me, personally...
Image Quality: Fuji, by a lot. Now I agree with Tony Northrup's assessment of the 2x IQ thing, regarding stops. I get that technically, the Sony sensor is able to resolve more light, etc. I get that I can shoot at lower ISO's with the Sony, so from a noise-perspective it's cleaner. But when I look at footage shot side-by-side from both cameras, I pick the Fuji every single time. Especially when shooting with Eterna. It's not even close. Workflow: Fuji wins. Because the image is so much better out of the camera - for my tastes - the workflow is much faster. And at the rate that I make videos for my business (as well as candid home videos of family, etc), it makes an enormous difference for me. Even things like render times are way faster, because I'm doing much less manipulation to the image. Emotional impact: Fuji wins. I love using the Fuji system more. Because of my experience with the X-T2, I think I can say it's not a honeymoon thing, too. Although the a9 is a ridiculously awesome camera to use. I really do love it. The other emotional impact thing is the image quality - and I think the fuji wins here, too - because of color. Final thoughts
The 'best camera' doesn't exist. Some are better technically than others, some produce a certain look that users may or may not want. Some lack features or have an abundance of features, but honestly the quality of work that is produced is going to lie with the person creating the work. These days cameras are so good that I don't think it matters what brand or model you use.
The Sony stuff (especially the current gen stuff like the a9, a7R iii, a7 iii) is better on paper than the X-H1. There's no question. Is it better in actual use? Depends on who's using it. Personally, I think I could create the same quality work with either system, but I'm convinced the X-H1 will get me to the end goal faster. For you, it may be the other way around.
Finally, I think the internet can be a toxic place for people who are looking to buy gear. People come into these discussion with biases, or they are far more concerned with spec's on paper than anything else. Personally, I'm actually kind of upset at myself for even considering switching from my Sony gear to Fuji - at some point I/we just need to ignore all the hype with new stuff and just make content - and get better at using the gear we have.
Having said that, I'm probably going to sell all my Sony stuff and invest in Fuji.
Sample Work
Here's a video I just produced using the X-H1. I did about 6 takes of this song from different angles (which is why I need at least two cameras for what I do - three would be better). Edited/graded in Resolve. I shot it in Eterna, and honestly I did very little to the image. Just a tweak with white balance and contrast/saturation to taste. With my Sony cameras, this would have required 4-5 nodes using a LUT, color manipulation to lows/mids/highs, skin tone isolation/correction, etc.
Here's a very similar project using the Sony a9 and the a6500 together: It's a bit different look, and I like it. But it took a lot to get there.
Here's a video I shot with the X-H1 - again using Eterna, and graded in Resolve:
And another with the a9, also graded in Resolve:
Sorry for the massively long post. I know there are lots of people reading here probably trying to decide between the X-H1 and the a7iii. I'm one of them, so hopefully my experience can help you make that decision.
 

Seems to me that a bit of 'camera bashing' is a necessary evil in every camera thread.
And it seems that the X-H1 has come through 63 pages of BS pretty much unscathed, so that Fuji is really onto something here, and that this camera is really growing on people.

54 pages on this freaking camera. (Or any) Why is this particular camera so controversial here? I feel bad for the people that actually bought and like this camera, I'm sure they came to this thread to enjoy talking about it with others that like it too. I wonder if Andrew can close this one and start a new one for those that actually care about it? For those that don't, simply disregard it, it's really not that hard. 
I have to say, it's been a long time for me where I've seen people so vehemently debate each other's opinion and preference, as if that were even debatable. It felt like I was reading an Android vs iOS or Windows vs. OSX comment section. 
I'm officially checking out of this one fellas. Seen you on the flip side of the moon. 

Your aggression and unpleasantness is starting to seriously impact the enjoyment that others derive from this forum. You derail thread after thread with your deeply insulting scattergun imprecations. We get that you don't like what Fuji have done with their new camera and we get that you don't like Mattias. So why don't you do the adult thing and leave both this thread and his posts well alone.
Edit: for the avoidance of doubt, I'll be using the ignore feature from now on. I shouldn't have to do that, in a generally respectful forum.

I am new, so please forgive my ignorance, but are there moderators? Why is the same individual allowed to repeatedly derail this thread? 

@Attila Bakos I will do. Don‘t know if I find enough spare time today or tomorrow, since I first have to get my X-T2, but weekend at the lastest I will do

@jonpais did  you have some time to finally try the X-H1 for some time now and try different settings?

I know, you have been doing it a long time now. But I think you are a bit hard on yourself. You shouldn't go as far as calling yourself scum. Imo troll is the proper term.

So you never buy a camera when first released? Because they are all flawed at release. I haven't seen one camera in the last few years that didn't have bugs out of the gate. The XT2 was a great camera at release, despite its flaws. The GH5's AF was also dumb at release. Go back and watch some of the videos to see how bad it was. Then they fixed it with an update. This was something none of the shills with the early test bodies bothered to point out. If you know of a camera that was perfect out of the gate, please enlighten me. 
As to Fuji, don't you think a team of engineers and programmers can improve on initial designs over the course of time? Instead of putting that work into new bodies like Sony, Fuji puts that know-how into making current models better. Olympus has done the same thing as well, years after a camera gets released in the case of the Em1. Like I said, its a different philosophy. I guess the alternative is to wait 5-years for a new generation like Nikon with the d850, but even then there were issues. You can take the glass is half empty approach and call them incompetent, but after shooting with the XT2 for the last year and a half that's just not the case. It was brilliant at release, and it keeps getting better. I shot 30k stills last year too, so I'm not evaluating any camera strictly on its video. YMMV.
From what I've seen, the XH1's AF issues stem from using DR200 or 400 in video, AF looks good at DR100. And it's AF looks really good when shooting stills. Canon is head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to video AF, Sony is great - but better with stills than video, and everyone else is playing catch up right now. Then there's the fantastic colors from Eterna...
Chris
What happens when some of this is discovered after large numbers have already bought the camera - like the GH5's F-ed up AF when it was released? 

This is just patently false. I own the a7r2 and a7s2 in addition to two XT2's, so I can speak from extensive shooting with all of them over the last couple years. I don't want to get into a Sony vs Fuji vs. the world debate, but here's just a few warts off the top of my head. Sony can't figure out lossless compression with its raw files, while literally every other camera manufacturer has. The star eater algrothim still hasn't been addressed. Simple features like a "My Menu" and a toggle between FF/APS-c mode only came with new cameras. The FF/APS-c toggle should have been added to the a7r2, every review pointed out how stupid it was to have to menu dive for a function used so often thanks to the better video on the a7r2, yet nothing. None of the new cameras from the a9 on even have a simple intervalometer, something a cheap, 5-year-old Olympus has. I'm pretty sure the new hardware can support such a simple function in an entry level cam from 2013 can do it. And the app can't do it either, so you're forced to use a kludgy piece of plug-in hardware. Have you used Sony's version of a touchscreen next to the GH5 or even the much hated (on this site) 5dmk4? Its awful. Lets not forget the brilliant cost cutting decision to skimp on hardware and give the a7r2 a UHS-I card slot, giving us glacial write times with supersize files - when competitors at much lower price points have at least one UHS-II slot. And there's the annoying NTSC/PAL warning. Got a NTSC camera and you travel to another country? The camera does nothing until you bypass the message - every single time you turn it on. How hard would it be to not have that piece of stupidity show up? Sony doesn't seem to want to weather seal its cameras or lenses like others in the same price bracket - and various teardowns clearly show that. And the a7III looks like its showing its PDAF array in images with a strong light source - something not fixable in a FW update. Neither is the plastic construction, down spec LCD and EVF in the a7III, cameras at similar price points have better panels and magnesium bodies. I could go on, but calling any camera released in 2018 fully realized is simply being blind to the facts. They all - including Fuji - have issues that don't show up with the limited number of beta testers compared to when it hits the masses and thousands more shooting scenarios. 
I have no doubt Sony could squeeze more AF performance and make software improvements if they wanted to, but they clearly have a different way of doing things - push a camera out and then focus on its replacement. The a7's have seen little else outside of minor bug fixes, major issues get fixed in the next gen model. And before the a7r3 a few months ago, battery life was common in any Sony bashing thread, its not like they've used amazing batteries for years in E-mount bodies, despite years of complaints. Tinker with any Sony body and a XT2, one is clearly built much better than the other, and its not the Sony.
Since this is an XH1 thread, can anyone check the EVF refresh with the camera set to boost mode and tracking subject at the highest stills burst rate of 14fps? The release said it was faster than the XT2 - which is already really fast and close to blackout free.  Thanks.
Chris

still trying to figure out, if @jonpais has a personal problem with Fujifilm or is just trolling.
Anyway, the thread got absolutely useless through input of people just repeating what they heard somewhere and not trying the camera. There is no gain for me visiting this thread, so if anyone has any questions about the camera (I own it for nearly 2 weeks now, so have a bit of experience) feel free to ask. But link me or pm me, because I don't think I will visit the thread anymore.  

still trying to figure out, if @jonpais has a personal problem with Fujifilm or is just trolling.
Anyway, the thread got absolutely useless through input of people just repeating what they heard somewhere and not trying the camera. There is no gain for me visiting this thread, so if anyone has any questions about the camera (I own it for nearly 2 weeks now, so have a bit of experience) feel free to ask. But link me or pm me, because I don't think I will visit the thread anymore.  

@Attila Bakos I will do. Don‘t know if I find enough spare time today or tomorrow, since I first have to get my X-T2, but weekend at the lastest I will do

still trying to figure out, if @jonpais has a personal problem with Fujifilm or is just trolling.
Anyway, the thread got absolutely useless through input of people just repeating what they heard somewhere and not trying the camera. There is no gain for me visiting this thread, so if anyone has any questions about the camera (I own it for nearly 2 weeks now, so have a bit of experience) feel free to ask. But link me or pm me, because I don't think I will visit the thread anymore.