Jump to content

The 4K Fuji X-T2 is here


Recommended Posts

I'm not sure if this was mentioned before: Fuji records in data levels (0-255), but apparently some kind of flag is missing in the files. I grade in Resolve and by default it handles Fuji files as if they were shot with video levels. You can fix that by going to the clip attributes and choose data levels. This might fix clipping in your source files.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 996
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My first video review, shot on the X-T2  

Wow... two thousand grand is... TWO MILLION BUCKS!!! That is a lot of scratch for a camera and grip - I'd at least want a lens, and 5 Ferraris...

I take back what I said in my last post. I just did some side by sides with my Nikon D5500 on the Flat profile (which i've previously described as having as much DR as the C100 II) and the Fuji is act

Posted Images

Just now, Taranis said:

How does the 55-200 compare to the 50-140 when it comes to 4K video?

Honestly I didn't shoot any video before leaving on my trip, just a few test stills to see if the lens was centered as I sold all my Sony gear a couple weeks before leaving and kind of built my kit on the fly. Bad idea to embark on something like this without knowing your gear, but time was tight and I really like the XT2 after renting one to compare to my a7rII and a6300. That's why I wound up with a 16-55 and 50-140 that are sitting at home (too heavy to carry everyday) while I'm on the road all year. It doesn't help that until I hit Australia/Asia, I'd never actually seen a Fuji camera in a shop so I couldn't tinker with lenses before buying - now I see them everywhere as there are tons of camera shops in the countries I've visited so far - Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Anyway, I think the 55-200 is pretty sharp, and a really good variable aperture zoom. If you need the focusing speed or light gathering/DOF of f/2.8, then the 50-140 is a no brainer. For a travel lens with more reach and half the weight, the 55-200 has been a gem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dean sorry if you have answered that before, but can you say a few cons and pros of the Fuji vs the NX1? 

What about the 16-50S vs a similar Fuji?

For a lot of NX users, Fuji is closer to our needs than other mirrorless offerings, so I would like to hear a few words for someone that have done the "Pass-over"!

Also, my impression is that there isn't any native Fuji fish eye lens, am I right?

What other fish eye offerings exist?

Are there any active adapters (Canon/Nikon)?

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6.2.2017 at 9:17 PM, Taranis said:

I shot some high contrast scenes to test out what's the maximum dynamic range you can achieve without F-Log.

 

Is this shot with sharpening turned down /off completely?
Still see some hints of slight halos. 

BUT that looks way better in terms of detail reproduction than anything the GH5 seems to provide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, deezid said:

Is this shot with sharpening turned down /off completely?
Still see some hints of slight halos. 

BUT that looks way better in terms of detail reproduction than anything the GH5 seems to provide.

All technical info is in the description. I shot the clips with -3 sharpening. The minimum is -4 but I think I read somewhere that -4 does not remove any more sharpening but adds blur. Haven't tested though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Taranis said:

All technical info is in the description. I shot the clips with -3 sharpening. The minimum is -4 but I think I read somewhere that -4 does not remove any more sharpening but adds blur. Haven't tested though.

I shoot with sharpening set at -4. Absolutely does not add any blur whatsoever. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2017 at 7:32 PM, Kisaha said:

@Dean sorry if you have answered that before, but can you say a few cons and pros of the Fuji vs the NX1? 

What about the 16-50S vs a similar Fuji?

For a lot of NX users, Fuji is closer to our needs than other mirrorless offerings, so I would like to hear a few words for someone that have done the "Pass-over"!

Also, my impression is that there isn't any native Fuji fish eye lens, am I right?

What other fish eye offerings exist?

Are there any active adapters (Canon/Nikon)?

Cheers.

I can't answer that as I don't have the X-T2. I'm having a hard time deciding which camera to get :)  The NX1 & 16-50S was outstanding I thought though for video. Never liked the stills it produced though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dean sorry, I thought that you moved on! 

I just see the Fuji as a downgrade on a lot 

Of things (touch screen, DIS, I prefer a few lenses of NX, 73minutes continous video with no overheating and no extra battery grip, H265, I do not have to spend any money, as I own everything I need on the NX system) and the 16-50 2-2.8f lens is keeping me tighter to the NX system, plus the brilliant 10mm 3.5f fish eye, that I use with NX3000/NX500 instead of a gopro camera for various shoots.

If anyone can answer my previous questions would be really helpful.

Maybe the X-T3 will finally be there, but if you manage to use one, let us know.

I have only one friend owning the camera, but I won't see him until this summer..

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

@Dean sorry, I thought that you moved on! 

I just see the Fuji as a downgrade on a lot 

Of things (touch screen, DIS, I prefer a few lenses of NX, 73minutes continous video with no overheating and no extra battery grip, H265, I do not have to spend any money, as I own everything I need on the NX system) and the 16-50 2-2.8f lens is keeping me tighter to the NX system, plus the brilliant 10mm 3.5f fish eye, that I use with NX3000/NX500 instead of a gopro camera for various shoots.

If anyone can answer my previous questions would be really helpful.

Maybe the X-T3 will finally be there, but if you manage to use one, let us know.

I have only one friend owning the camera, but I won't see him until this summer..

I don't think the X-T2 would give you anything over the NX1 for video. Maybe better OOC colours but that's debatable. Fuji has a much more complete set of lenses which will continue to grow as well ... unlike the NX1. As mentioned, I never liked the stills it produced though ... found them very flat and bland. Much prefer what I see from Fuji. NX1 was definitely ahead of it's time. Would have been interesting to see where they would have gone next if they hadn't pulled the pin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tokhee said:

a short doc shot with the X-T2. looks great.

More interesting to me than the doc itself is the rig he used. :) 

Screen Shot 2017-02-11 at 8.05.46 PM.png

5 minutes ago, Dean said:

 Fuji has a much more complete set of lenses which will continue to grow as well ... unlike the NX1.

The lens lineup is incredible. Hopefully, the X-T3 will have a touch screen, a new sensor and IBIS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dean and @Kisaha

A week ago I shot a small fashion show (filming) of a fashion store with a friend of mine. I used my NX1, he shot with his X-T2 from different angles. It was his paid job, so I was lucky to gather some more experience into shooting show events like this.
After shooting, I was very pleased, when seeing the X-T2 footage (colors, texture, outlines, etc.). But the NX1 is a complete different horse...and ironically, my friend's client was much more pleased by the NX1...In his eyes, the X-T2 footage was too "subjective", too warm. He liked the much detailed images and "neutral" color science (I shot with DR, Andrew Reid settings) of the NX1 more than the footage of the X-T2. He told us, the footage of the NX1 "matches much more the current requirements of the fashion industry than the X-T2".

OK, it's only one opinion of one client, but you can see, the NX1 has still many fans on client's and enthusiasts side. For video - because of the very good 1080p and 120fps, addtionally to the outstanding detailed footage in 4K - I wouldn't sell it at the moment. For stills, it's very good (in good light) in IQ, but the images are too sterile in my eyes - same "sterile sharpness" as in video, but much more worse, when speaking of stills. It produces tack sharp images with great Canon EF lenses, with by far better photographical (from technical POV) IQ than the 5D m3. BUT...there is no feeling, no "special emotion" in these stills, they are like "sterile robotics photography". It's quite hard to explain and it's a personal point of view...

Yes, you could tweak some profiles and add some texture and some kind of flair in post, but other manufacturers offer this much better. Curiously, I like the NX1 look in video (and many other people and friends of mine do it too), but not that much in stills...Just my two cents...

BTW: When taking a quick look to the stills and videos out of the X-T2, I was very pleased. It has a completely different flair than other cameras on the market and it is (speaking of a short shooting experience) a great camera to shoot video and stills. Easy and very intuitive to use, with a very good AF in video - better than the NX1, but the X-T2 is the newer camera...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...