Castorp

The worst quirk of IBIS is that directors/producers expect me to use it at 100% of the time, and when I ask time to set a tripod/monopod just look me weird and/or with disgust and hate!
A7s cameras destroyed the traditional lighting experience for a lot of young people, and sadly I see a lot of young people in the industry forget about tripods, which is my favorite kind of shot, and they loose completely a few letters that consist the cinematic language.
Tools are good, abuse of them is terrible.

Apples reasons for developing their own solutions for the entire chain has a lot to do with reliability. Their reliability comes from controlling all the bits and making sure they work together. 
The sum is a system that is greater than the sum of its parts because there is coherent intention throughout. 
I think it’s a bit cynical to presume it’s all about “locking in” it’s users. 

Apples reasons for developing their own solutions for the entire chain has a lot to do with reliability. Their reliability comes from controlling all the bits and making sure they work together. 
The sum is a system that is greater than the sum of its parts because there is coherent intention throughout. 
I think it’s a bit cynical to presume it’s all about “locking in” it’s users. 

Apples reasons for developing their own solutions for the entire chain has a lot to do with reliability. Their reliability comes from controlling all the bits and making sure they work together. 
The sum is a system that is greater than the sum of its parts because there is coherent intention throughout. 
I think it’s a bit cynical to presume it’s all about “locking in” it’s users. 

Oh, that I can answer no problem (pretty sure I did earlier.)
No - FCPX cannot work with DNG RAW files. Shooting RAW requires Resolve (for most of us) to debayer and utilize the purpose and power of shooting in RAW.
But do keep in mind that most producers (even shooting ARRI, BM etc.) don't shoot in RAW specifically because of the workflow requirements.
They DO shoot in ProRes specifically because of the ease of the workflow.
Because we now know (little sparrows...not formally because NDAs exist everywhere - sorry if that upsets you) that it will provide the power/post capabilities of true RAW - it is better than Cinema DNG because of everything I just wrote.
Relax a little. Stop shouting hype and zero content.
Life is complex and doesn't always happen the way you want it to. Just wait a few days and you'll know everything you need to.
 

When I first read the post title I figured it was a zombie thread from 2009.
The demise of Apple for professionals has been happening for 25 years now. I guess sooner or later they may get around to it. 

It could even be a conspiracy to steal young children but more than likely it's a new codec that bridges raw acquisition and editing in FCPX.
Why is everything always so tribal and conspiratorial? We've got enough of that crap in the political world.  
Apple has a shit load of FCPX seats around the world and most of them don't want to use Resolve in order to process raw footage and most production companies turning out most of the work don't deal with the raw workflow either.
So the logical conclusion is that Apple has developed a new codec for Their users to (potentially) utilize the strengths of raw in their current, preferred workflow.
The word "fool people" suggests people are so stupid that they'd use something they don't need or that Apple is working with Dr Evil to deceive the masses with their nefarious new codec.
I'm pretty sure it's just a new option aimed at serving their users (free update for us) and dear god don't let this be true - perhaps even increase their market share.

Correct this is more of a photo review. We did a video specific review that’s coming soon. 
We did a video specific review coming soon but we didn’t go into detail about the silent controls too much unfortunately 

Looks like Apple is spending a lot of time to creat a great pro system for the real pros. A whole new Mac Pro is coming in
2019
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/apples-2019-imac-pro-will-be-shaped-by-workflows/

Why wouldn't it be an x86 instruction set compatible chip?
Just because they are currently making ARM based processors doesn't mean to say Apple can't do an AMD type CPU in future.
Laptops and desktops don't really need RISC architecture... Whether pro or not.
Apple will stay in the pro market and everything else is just speculation for clicks

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

I'm not sure that conclusion is correct. 

A - Apple could maintain their pro lines for professional. 
B - Apple might even advance further that intel on CPU performance. Just looking at their progress on mobile chip, they basically beat everyone else. 
C - By "Professional Market" you probably mean anything that needs a GPU acceleration. They might still use any of the GPU makers that optimizes image/video processing while use their on CPU for most optimize way of managing the device. 

@Brian Williams That doesn't look good. I think a gimbal is the only solution if you want to be that casual.

Again, it's just another disclaimer. It's what a reviewer says when they don't have any conviction in their belief.

I didn't mean to say that nobody should care about what anyone else thinks. I think reading opinions about new functions and technologies are as interesting as the next guy. Idk, I' I have never and will never buy a camera I haven't held in my hands first. Happy to hear you don't need to. Looking forward to hearing your impressions on the X-H1. Looks like a great camera to me! 

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!"

It reminded me of this
 

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

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.
 

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. 

I haven't adressed him in a long time and even asked him to stop talking to me. Nothing seems to help. Its really starting to get weird when he even calls it "off topic" when someone answers something he wrote himself. He constantly attacks people. Lie about what people have said even though its there in black and white... sigh.. 
He even make up lies claiming he knows me and my personal life when everyone knows we live on opposite sides of the planet..
I think I will just stay away from the forum all together until there is a moderator that can deal with this endless toxic BS. 
Happy trails everyone, try to keep it positive and don't let the haters win.
Peace

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.

Isn’t the main advantage with the two different modes to have different settings? I understand if using physical controls; a lot of operations are necessary, but is it the case that if using the silent touch controls the camera remembers aperture, shutter speed and iso set for video? So it doesn’t matter what the shutter and aperture dials are set to? It overrides them? That would be good.
Then there is separate focus settings and AWB settings. Not to mention picture controls. I can’t use them on my X-Pro 2 but even if I could I would have to change a lot of things before I would press that record button.
I rather like the idea of having two “cameras”, two completely separated modes. And it’s different from custom settings which I don’t like because I never remember what does what. To simply have a ? and a ? makes sense to me.

I remember going to see them in packed smoke filled cinemas and the atmosphere was better than a hell of a lot of real title fights I've worked at.
Hard to recapture that sort of magic on Netflix in your own house irrespective of the convenience of it.

I would 100% agree with this statement. I haven’t used the GH5, but I have lots of experience with Sony, including full frame and APS-C bodies. Eterna alone is a massive factor in my opinion.