Jump to content
Andrew Reid

I WILL be getting a Fuji X-T3!

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

but this isn't a sensor size comparison test, he's just doing a quick real world comparison between several cameras. I didn't even look at dof when judging, I only looked at skin tones, and it was clear to me which looked better. It was very good in that regard.

If anything, it also highlights the fact that you need prohibitively expensive glass to get equivalent dof on m43.

But, they use different sensor sizes... : -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
2 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Glenn, give your tolerance a break : ) There's nothing wrong on constructive criticism. I only find that test is not the fairness itself ; ) It surely is a private test. I just think my observation is rather pertinent. That test sould also have its own thread BTW, not in this one here.

Tolerance aside, and fairness aside... I would have shot all of those cameras/lenses wide open and let the results speak for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DBounce said:

I slowed down the other lenses to f4... none were wide open, save for the M43 camera. 

Consider the following: 

GH5S = $2500 - body only + $1000 lens.

Fuji X-T3 = $1500 body only + $350 lens.

Tell me, how much should I cripple the much less costly Fuji so that the Panasonic can be competitive? At some point it becomes unfair to handicap the other cameras. By right handicapping should not even happen, as I know of no one that purposely slows down their lenses out of respect for those with m43 sensors.

 

So we can overboost the smaller ones, isn'it? Aside the fact, the smaller sensor size down to MFT the more competitive glass you"ll find at your pocket ; -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mercer said:

Tolerance aside, and fairness aside... I would have shot all of those cameras/lenses wide open and let the results speak for themselves.

LOL So you"d have a comparison between sensor sizes, not about cameras... ; -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry there is no valid criticism here. The biggest takeaway was color. DOF and sensor size doesn’t affect color. The DOF just made it easier to spot the odd duck of the bunch. If anyone wanted to mention fairness, anybody could have argued that C200 had the biggest advantage being that its Raw 12bit video and a $7500 camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

I don't understand why camera tests should be "fair". Its strange to me. Its like the popular "everything else equal". It never is :)

Mattias, fairness is a príncipe for accuracy to happen. We're not speaking about artistic 'moods' here, are we? ; -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Emanuel said:

LOL So you"d have a comparison between sensor sizes, not about cameras... ; -)

No, I’d have a comparison based on how I would use the setup. If I had a C200 or 1DXii with the 24-70mm f/2.8, I’d use it wide open. If I had an X-T3 and 23mm f/2, I’d use it wide open and if I had a GH5s with the 12-35mm f/2.8, I’d use it wide open. Sensor size fairness is for kindergartners, I only care about how I would use the camera/lens in a real world scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always valid to point out testing conditions that are not controlled. That said, most of us agree that equivalent dof is NOT important in this test, and are satisfied with the conclusions we can draw from watching it. Feel free to conduct your own, and focus on the comparison points you find most important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mercer said:

Sorry there is no valid criticism here. The biggest takeaway was color. DOF and sensor size doesn’t affect color. The DOF just made it easier to spot the odd duck of the bunch. If anyone wanted to mention fairness, anybody could have argued that C200 had the biggest advantage being that its Raw 12bit video and a $7500 camera.

Your in your own, mate. You're deadly wrong there, sorry to have to tell you. The title says it all: "Big Camera Shootout 2018". Apart to not take it literally, let's be fair here ; ) color comes in your mind.

A camera comparison is beyond personal takes, my good fellow of boards : )

11 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

It's always valid to point out testing conditions that are not controlled. That said, most of us agree that equivalent dof is NOT important in this test, and are satisfied with the conclusions we can draw from watching it. Feel free to conduct your own, and focus on the comparison points you find most important.

Most of you here can be wrong here and still think this should be a democracy... LOL : -)

Share this post


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

Your in your own, mate. You're deadly wrong there, sorry to have to tell you. The title says it all: "Big Camera Shootout 2018". Apart to not take it literally, let's be fair here ; ) color comes in your mind. A camera comparison is beyond personal takes, my good fellow of boards : -)

Well I think you’re on your own and I am losing interest. I guess the only fair thing to do in the future is not include the GH5s. I thought it was a fun and interesting test, especially considering the lighting set up. However, the results were somewhat predictable... my guesses fell in line with what I already knew and felt about the cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mercer said:

Well I think you’re on your own and I am losing interest. I guess the only fair thing to do in the future is not include the GH5s. I thought it was a fun and interesting test, especially considering the lighting set up. However, the results were somewhat predictable... my guesses fell in line with what I already knew and felt about the cameras.

Fun comparison? I concur. Not about to exclude that terrific tool, on the contrary (I think you're going much biased on here man, a pity : )

I like this guy (I guess he fairly : D knows it : ))

Not the point though.

I'd just rather have accuracy to avoid misleading perceptions right there. That's it : -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

I don't understand why camera tests should be "fair". Its strange to me. Its like the popular "everything else equal". It never is :)

I think in being fair to the smaller sensor cameras, we must by default be equally unfair to the larger sensor cameras. 

A truly even test let’s the cameras stand on their own merit. To be certain... manufacturers have been short changing us on DOF in M43. The numbers sound the same, and so we forget they are in fact not equal to their FF equivalents of the same F stop designation. 

The truth is, to get the same performance, build quality, optical quality and speed, it is far more costly to pull off in a smaller package. A 12-35mm f2.8 M43 lens would need to be closer to F1.4 to match its FF counterparts. I suspect such a lens would retail for well in excess of $2k and perhaps as high as $3k. To my knowledge, nothing like this is currently available at any price.

In all honesty, I did not conduct this test with DOF in mind. Rather, I merely wanted to understand how close the cameras could match up to one another. And also understand the overall image quality of the various models.

I think FCPX made the 1DXMK2 look badly in the solo scene. But the side by sides are acutely representing its image. 

AF: This played out as I thought. The 1DXMK2 nails auto focus. I was rocking back and forth to highlight this point. 

The Panasonic does not have AF in video... so I could not test it.

At least that’s what the manual should say. Suggesting it’s not great would be kind. Once locked you just have to try to stay very still.

AF has tricks in the C200. It can hold focus until it Re-acquires you. It’s very good, though the edge goes to the 1DXMK2.

Fuji X-T3: it’s good. I changed position and it found me with little delay. And once found, it sticks pretty darn good. With the lens I was using I did notice some focus breathing. It can be distracting depending on the scene. But that’s the lens... and it’s on you to work around.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As already written, this should have a thread by its own IMO. Always nice to discuss different cameras and even no less distinct approach on methodology to follow. I just think we should erase the stuff of our own as much as possible or dying to try at least : ) Not pleasant to see the penalty to overcome. There's place for a random end anytime, subjectivity can lock a door to accuracy outside though : -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strongly agree with @DBounce : Panasonic has shortchanged us for years when it comes to fast zoom lenses.

The thing is, nobody would buy them anyhow, because they'd be prohibitively priced - in full frame territory.

And they'd be rather heavy and bulky.

Just like nobody here's going to purchase the PanLeica 10-25mm f/1.7. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Strongly agree with @DBounce : Panasonic has shortchanged us for years when it comes to fast zoom lenses.

The thing is, nobody would buy them anyhow, because they'd be priced in full frame territory.

And they'd be rather heavy and bulky.

Just like nobody here's going to purchase the PanLeica 10-25mm f/1.7. 

In fact. Their upcoming FF offer seems to follow the new rule.

Eagering to see how much the price of that one will be, though. Didn't buy the 12-35mm f/2.8 anyway.

Relative fast f/1.7 primes as much it is possible to find at MFT end are affordable and no more no less lightweight, at least.

Talks a MFT lover BTW because of its versatility among other Goodies. I believe and hope the new Blackmagic toy will push the format. Take a look on the marvelous match seems to happen with that 12-35mm f/2.8 one from the initial sample tests to pop up. You can even use ludicrously cheap C-mount lenses there!

 

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

Mattias, fairness is a príncipe for accuracy to happen. We're not speaking about artistic 'moods' here, are we? ; -)

@Mattias Burling These native language correctors at Android side are ending too 'inaccurately artistic' for my taste haha and they're killing me... LOL

I obviously meant 'principle' instead!

: -D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really glad he did the test. It just proves that nearly everyone on here has a different concept of what is good color to Them, and that some of it is probably influenced on the device they are viewing it with. So no, nothing is ever going to be fair because everyone sees color output different with with their eyes, ergo color blind of sorts,  or using a un calibrated monitoring device.

I think he did a great job. Ir would have been nice to have included a new PK4 to see if a 1000 Dollar camera can hold up to the 7500 Dollar Canon C200. Hint, hint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don, I guess people are too much focused on color. I even find myself on much more love about great B&W BTW... LOL

Nothing about that on and from my observation.

Neither on his enthusiasm I am one of his early supporters and loyal reader of his helpful findings

You see how people can distort some point?

Damn you, Glenn! hehe : -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I am really glad he did the test. It just proves that nearly everyone on here has a different concept of what is good color to Them, and that some of it is probably influenced on the device they are viewing it with. So no, nothing is ever going to be fair because everyone sees color output different with with their eyes, ergo color blind of sorts,  or using a un calibrated monitoring device.

I think he did a great job. Ir would have been nice to have included a new PK4 to see if a 1000 Dollar camera can hold up to the 7500 Dollar Canon C200. Hint, hint.

I’m feeling rather unconvinced of the P4K. The image is not bad. Indeed it’s pretty good. But for my taste it just doesn’t wow me. I would be more excited if the picture didn’t feel as much like the GH cameras. If it felt more unique and less generic. With that said, I’m holding off from buying... pending other footage. 

If you do not already own a GH5/S the P4K is an interesting option. But it’s no hybrid. It simply lacks the chops to be taken seriously as a stills camera. For those duties I think the most competent choice within the sub $3000 price range is the Fuji. IMO it best the Panasonic, Sony, Nikon and Canon at this price point. It’s solely my opinion and tbh, I have not looked hard at the Nikon offerings. I just don’t care for the colors, so lost interest. Ymmv... when it comes to color science it’s very subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question is: you have both GH5S and now the X-T3. Why such a new one purchase?

Too many similar options.

GH5S will struggle to beat any of both competitors for new buyers anyway.

Best a new GH5/GH5S as GH6 all in one. Best to do. To end to complicate a bit more : D 

IBIS and decent AF would simplify that though.

Go figure now if those highlights would roll-off before clipping and be much smoother instead... ; -)

Share this post


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...