Trek of Joy

Canon just one-upped everyone with a 120mp sensor that shoots video. If 8k is 30-something mp, how many k's is a 120mp image? The math blows my mind.
chris
 

Thanks for the responses! The Sony stuff in the song videos certainly has a different look than the Fuji, but in my testing I've found I could pretty easily get the Fuji footage to look like the Sony footage if I wanted (I used a Kodak LUT to get most of that look). However, I can't really get the Sony footage to look as natural as the Fuji footage, if that makes sense.
Probably the biggest factor for me was more candid everyday type footage. In my studio setup (and with enough time in post), I feel like I can get either camera to give me what I want, but for my own personal stuff - taking video/photos of family and that kind of thing - the Fuji looks better with less work, which is important for me.
Regarding Tony's '2x better' video - I do appreciate how he starts it off by saying "None of this really matters". I just saw another video he posted - shot on the X-H1 even - where he again drives home the point that gear matters very little these days, especially since so many camera makers are putting out great stuff.
Yeah I've always thought their studio setup has strange/anaemic looking lighting, but that's all a personal preference thing. The stuff they do in natural lighting always looks great. I think they go for that high key fashion kind of look, which is a lot different than what we see these days from most talking head review channels. Their content is excellent in my opinion.

Everyone knows Sony goes up to 11!! Noone can beat that.
Certainly best marketing in business, doing a lot of stuff right and funnels capital at the right direction.

It reminded me of this
 

Thanks for that.
I agree with pretty much all you found. The Sony advantages are slight, aside from full frame. The Fuji advantages are large, and unique to Fuji.
I watched Northrup's follow up video last night. The clickbait headline was "2x better image quality" basically, and he knew full well what sensationalism that was, fresh from the Sony press junket, then tries to back peddle in a follow up video full of disclaimers, and that "2x = 1 stop" line, which should be infamous... should be on t-shirts... If I ever see him at a show or PR event, I'll shout "2x BETTER = ONE STOP!"

Huh? This statement is just silly and ignores actual facts.
I may be wrong, but wasn't Canon first with 1080p (5D2), first with 4k (1DC) and first with 4k60p (1DX2) in a stills/video hybrid? Plus they created arguably the best AF in the video realm with DPAF. And they have that Cinema line, which by all accounts is pretty successful.
Video is obviously not the driving factor in DSLR/mirrorless camera sales, since Canon's market share almost equals the rest of the camera industry combined. The "Canon is doomed because they can't compete with Sony/Panasonic in the specs/hardware" echo chamber on this site and others is silly. Jesus, how long have people been calling Canon the next Kodak? 
SMH.
Chris

here is video that made my mind about x-h1 ibis:
and a comparsion with a7r3 where's a difference pronounced even more: 
 
I have seen someone saying there's only 40mbit/s for 120fps.
please can someone who already own x-h1 at hand confirm this? I wonder if this is a case for in-camera slowed down footage ( and then its kinda make a sense: 40 * (120/24) = 200)

I think this Fringer EF>FX with AF adapter (when its ever available in stock again!) and the upcoming Kipon version with the focal reducer will make a big difference.
 
I have to say though that the IBIS on the X-H1 bothers me more every time I look at demos on YouTube and is making me sit it out for a while yet to see how it progresses. It concerns me more than the AF issues actually. With those you can always workaround it (by using your own eyes  ) but some of the coarse corrections I've seen on people's demos are terrible and, of course, permanent.
Of course, I'm basing this purely on watching other people's footage rather than personal experience so thats a big disclaimer right there and I'm hoping someone who actually owns one can contradict it.
There is a lot of curiosity about whether Fuji will do a firmware update for the X-T2 for internal F-Log and/or Eterna and I have to say if I was them I would steer clear of that for a good while as, for me at least and I'm sure a few others, if it has those then I can't see enough in the current IBIS performance to make me upgrade to the X-H1.

Speaking of second hand C100's i ended up doing just that and picked up a minty C100+DPAF+Ninja Star last week. Whole kit cost me far less than a XH1/A73/GH5 and I'm still more impressed by the 1080p IQ of this old 2012 sensor than any of these recent MILCs. Not to mention NDs, pro audio & handling..
That being said i'm still looking for a hybrid replacement of the XT2 i got stolen last month and of course XH1 is high on the list..
We do have the A73 + Batis lenses at work. It's undeniably a powerfull & compact system that can produce some excellent IQ (hot pixels & bugs aside).
But i feel zero emotional connection to the camera or the footage. it's just a tool. No excitement. Unlike shooting with the Fuji.
I fully agree with most the pros/cons listed by @brianwahl especially that Fuji produces excellent usable SOOC results both in stills/video.
However not sure i can agree when it comes to lenses & manual focus for video. Focus by wire sucks for video imo: it's steppy, innacurate and the fast f1.4 fuji primes do make a racket.
I haven't tried the new linear mode but nothing beats mechanical with a nice throw imo. Sony also has the advantage of having so many adapters available & vast vintage full frame lenses to choose from. If i were to go back to Fuji i'd probably cop some Samyang cine glass to pair with it.
The FF + S35 4K is imo the strongest advantage of the A73 vs the odd 1.7x crop of the XT2/XH1. And for stills FF > APS-C.
But the analog ergonomics, colors & film simulations are still a strong selling factor and is what keeps me coming back to these quirky Fuji cams.

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.

@brianwahl Great post, it should be tagged and stick in the top for everyone to see!
In the end, everyone buys what fits him/her.
If I compare my NX system to the Fuji, 18 out of 20 I prefer NX, but if you compare Fuji to Sony, then hands down Fuji is a more appealing proposition. The color science is not even close, and older Sony cameras had a lot of different issues. I also do not care for full frame, and Fuji ISO performance seems adequate for most things (and that stop extra performance, is the 1 out of the 2  things Fuji is better than my NX1s!).
Congratulations for your business too.
@Yurolov C100mkII all the way baby! The best, worst codec ever existed on this planet!

I am a canon guy and if you look above you will see that I have bashed both the fuji and the sony for various reasons. So I have no brand loyalty between these two manufacturers. But I have to say that the fuji footage looks 2x better IMO. I can see two things at play here:
1. Color science is much better in the fuji. The skin tones are a dead give away. Look at the very first scene with the sony and see how blotchy and unappealing his skin looks. Then compare that with the fuji. I feel like I can see every pore on his skin with the Sony. There are oil blotches everywhere. Funnily enough, this is related to color.   
Despite your grading, the color still looks off with the sony. Particularly look at his skin at 0:19 secs in to the sony material. That is very hard to fix.
Another thing people often fail to mention is color separation. If the skin tone is pronounced the subject is isolated from the background.
Go to 1:32 on the fuji and 2:24 on the sony material, pause it and look how much more he pops on the fuji material. The sony material looks flat as pancakes. 
2. I can see the codec is more robust. The image looks a lot smoother and sturdy. There is less of that digital sharpness that you get with the sony, which makes it look very videoy.  
Having said that, if someone is working purely as a videographer I would recommend a second hand c100 (mk I or II) any day of the week haha.
For hybrid,  the fuji wins for image alone. 

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.
 

Here is a VFX heavy short film I shot on the Samsung NX1 years ago, finally decided to finish it and get it online so here it is!  The last scene is the canon T3i 
all lenses used are the rokinon 24mm f1.4 and Canon 50mm f1.4  
Watching in 4k is strongly recommended as YouTube loves compressing things 
 
 
 
 

Not sure how they "fudged" the ISO? Care to elaborate?
One thing I do like is the exposure meter is accurate in both standard picture profile modes AND LOG mode, unlike on a Sony where you have to guesstimate 1.5 to 2 stops to the right for S-LOG.
F-LOG comes out perfectly exposed in aperture priority mode with exposure comp. bang in the middle at 0... Same with Eterna and Velvia, etc.
As for low light, actually X-trans sensors have been known consistently for their leading low light performance in their class.
It is on par with best Sony APS-C camera in low light (A6500).
Compared to my Leica SL the X-H1 looks a full 2 stops cleaner at ISO 1600 in the shadows when both are set to record LOG, 4K, Super 35.
I expect the Sony A7 III to be very good indeed, but not by 2 stops.
This is easily a ISO 12,800 camera in 4K and F-LOG... Which you cannot quite say about GH5... And with GH5S you lose the stabilisation.

Read this on the LR blog when it was posted. Impressive performance on m43 sensors - no surprise since that seems to be what they were designed for. They're still really good on APS-c, just not as good. Veydra did a nice job with them. Note the variance, no huge differences from copy to copy, unlike some that are shipping lenses with significant variances. Kudos to the small guys for doing a cracking job. These are companies I like to support.
@jonpais Looks really good. Nice.
Chris

Remember, you can use all Veydra lenses on the Terra 4K! And on Kinefinity's other cameras, such as the newly announced Kinefinity MAVO 6K S35
 
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/veydra-cine-mini-prime-mtf-optical-bench-tests/
 
 

Perhaps because the XH1 (and most other high end bodies) are far superior stills cameras?
@AaronChicago That screen cap looks good. 
@DaveAltizer Love your reviews. And the CY28, one of my all-time favorite lenses. 
Chris

They share controls but not exactly? The X-T2 doesn’t have the separate touch controls for video right? Would seem to me that this would store settings different from the physical controls. Perhaps somebody who has the camera can clarify? 
I didn’t get around to comment on your pictures. Thanks for sharing! You certainly need raw for that kind of look. Ultra wide angle, with raised shadows and lowered highlights is far from my cup of tea  I’m afraid.  I don’t like when the lens is strongly present in a photograph. Likewise I don’t like when I can see the editing.
Here the deep shadow, the angle and the posture of the man makes for a different story than if the deep immeasurably heavy shadow wasn’t there. Unnerving, unsure, a bit uneasy. Enough to tell a different story from the usual CDF riff.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day!
I never get the endless Canon bashing here, as if they're the only one that segments its lineup. Olympus doesn't put the focus stacking and pixel shift in all its bodies - or PDAF for that matter on anything below the EM1. Panasonic doesn't put 10-bit in anything other than the GH5(s) or a competent AF system in anything. Sony doesn't put anything beyond 8-bit 4:2:0 with the same 100mbps bitrate we've seen for years in anything below the FS5 and so on - yet people here are shitting themselves with excitement over the a7III and its non-existent weather sealing, partial plastic body, cheap spec LCD/EVF and so on because of oversampled 4k and what looks like a great AF system for a mere $2000. Fuji, geez, just check the XH1 thread. Where are the threads bitching about the G9 being crippled for not getting 10-bit? Or the a7r3 with its cheap ass single UHS-II card slot and no 10-bit or even a higher bitrate at $3200? The a9 is even more offensive at $4500. Everyone segments its cameras. Its a shitty reality we're forced to deal with. As to Canon, they're clearly waiting to release the mirrorless 5d4 without cannibalizing 5d4 sales.
Chris

Probably more like this if they'd set the DR to 200 though...

 

I don't necessarily think its a bad way of working myself either. It has caught me out a couple of times on the X-T2 when I've left it in video mode, brought the camera up to my eye, pressed the shutter and not been greeted by the comforting sound of a shutter firing though that serves me right for arriving so late on jobs! 
If my suspicion/crackpot theory about it being the reason behind the 720p recording limitation when controlling it from the app is correct though, then its far more of a drawback in that scenario.
A way of controlling it over wifi when its in video mode (even at the expense of it streaming a lower frame rate or resolution to the app if needs be) but the actual camera being able to record in all of its formats should definitely be on their to do list.
Though not before they've fixed the AF on it and done some of their kaizen loveliness and given us Eterna and/or internal FLOG on the X-T2  

The biggest players - Canon, Nikon and Sony all sell many more APS-c cameras compared to FF. The volume is at the bottom of the market, not at the top. 
This comes down to personal tastes, I don't see the point of smaller bodies so cramped they're a pain to shoot. I had to shoot the a6300 with my pinky and ring fingers below the body - that's a major pain when shooting all day with anything more than the pancake PZ. Speedboosters open up more lens options, but Fuji and m43 have plenty of fast options. If the XH1 is too big, the XT2 is smaller and the XT20 is smaller still. Personally the XT2's size is as small as I want to go body-wise. As far as the point of larger bodies? A camera is far more than just a sensor, and more importantly you're buying to a system, so you have to look at the entire range you want in terms of lenses and such, not just a body.
Yes Sony has a few small FE primes - outside of the 85/1.8 they all have major flaws. Plus you have big gaps in Sony's offerings being filled by the overpriced Batis', the upcoming supersize Sigma Arts, the so-so Samyang's and the Toking Firn's that look pretty good. There are more going, but most will be large to cover the larger sensor. The fast FE's are large and the zooms are all really big - they're pricey, and they all almost completely lack weather sealing. I have issues with the $2500 GM zoom having so little weather sealing - and its size. Combined with Sony's iffy QC (check Fred Miranda's Sony board and Lens Rentals optical bench tests, Sony's have some of the widest variances of all their tests) and its a non-starter for me. I paid $1600 total for my 16-55 and 50-140/2.8 - and they're both amazing lenses. Sony's 24-105 is $1300 by itself. If you're trying to build a system, Fuji will likely be smaller and cheaper. Same for m43 I don't buy new lenses and with Fuji's regular sales, the used market has lots of great deals.
Chris

That's an interesting question. The original file definitely looks better than the 1080 version on youtube, and I have heard that if you upload a video in 4k, YouTube will show a much higher bitrate version, but I think that's only if you watch the 4k resolution on YT.
I did a 4k export and uploaded it - you can see it here: