Jump to content
Andrew Reid

I WILL be getting a Fuji X-T3!

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, DBounce said:

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.

I agree, The big trouble is with the new Canon, Nikon, even the Fuji is you have to pretty buy into their lens line to take advantage of what they are offering. And Adopted lenses are ok, but not ideal. And especially with the new Canon, you Have to trust they will Someday come out with a body that is not gimped to hell, that doen't cost 6000 dollars.

I am really beginning to believe they are not doing it just to protect the Cine line, I think they just can't come up with the processing power to make all this stuff work. I am not too sure  they will Ever be able to keep up. They have not put enough money into great sensor tech production like Sony has. They have nobody buying their sensors to help fund the research like Sony has. Plus Sony Always has an edge because they know what most of the competition is coming out with because they are making their sensors for them!

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
38 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

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 much smoother... ; -)

I got the X-T3 as a hybrid. I don’t consider the GH5S a hybrid. It’s too video centric while having inadequate resolution for stills.

Share this post


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

I am really beginning to believe thaey are not doing it just to protect the Cine line

Really?! LOL ; -)

9 minutes ago, DBounce said:

I got the X-T3 as a hybrid. I don’t consider the GH5S a hybrid. It’s too video centric while having inadequate resolution for stills.

Indeed. To me, takes the previous one outdated and expensive. I am waiting for their IBIS add-on into X-H2 version.

Share this post


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

They have nobody buying their sensors to help fund the research like Sony.

Perhaps, but if Canon really wants to boost their revenue all they need to do is start producing smartphone sensors. They will sell them like hot cakes.

Share this post


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

Perhaps, but if Canon really wants to boost their revenue all they need to do is start producing smartphone sensors. They will sell them like hot cakes.

I am glad they have no clue what this means : -D

Share this post


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

Really? LOL ; -)

Most all their top end stuff has Bombed now and in the past. Even this new C700 is being killed by the Sony Venice camera. There is just too much competition now for Canon on Cine cameras. The C200 is about the only camera they have that is doing pretty well. And it is just a one trick pony with the Raw in it. Now with BMD B Raw that might be in trouble. I see Canon and Pentax as the weakest of All the camera manufacturers when it Really comes to trying to give the amateur, prosumer customers the best they can. And I think both company's have just trusted growth from past stuff to carry them along. I really believe they can not match Sony toe to toe no matter how hard they try. Now Fuji is biting at their ass. They have F ed around too long I think. And if they had not lucked out and invented DPAF they would be in a terrible position now. That is about all they have going for them other than a shit pot of somewhat outdated lenses on the video side. Hell for photos you can still use a 10 year old camera and get the job done. Hell a 50 year old View camera for 200 bucks is still better than almost any Digital camera. They don't have the Horsepower to make all the stuff they need to do work processing wise. That crop is there because they can't do a full sensor scan. Ain't happening. Old school tech in a faster as hell changing environment.  And how the hell they going to catch up. I don't think they can afford too, let alone have the time to do it. They are sucking ass and it shows.

Share this post


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

Still loving Canon outcome, no matter what ; ) Last BMD and Fuji releases will bring some trouble not only to them ; -)

Oh don't get me wrong I have always been a big Canon buyer. But not in this Video age other than this C100 I am trying to get. I am not buying Anything new they got. DPAF and Magic Lantern is pretty much all that has kept them going to me on the video side on any affordable camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to have the Canon C200. It is a bit better in low light then the XT3 and there are more lens options( some great OIS options). 

That said the XT3 is way way cheaper, which is why I am getting it. Of course it also does amazing stills. 

Fuji has promised to add HLG to the XT3 at some point. This could be an interesting update, could mean a stop or more increase in dynamic range in HLG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I'd love to have the Canon C200. It is a bit better in low light then the XT3 and there are more lens options( some great OIS options). 

That said the XT3 is way way cheaper, which is why I am getting it. Of course it also does amazing stills. 

Oh hell the C200 has a beautiful output in the Raw. @DBounce has proved that on here. But no broadcast middle codec, still a weak standard one.7500 bucks. You have to have a real Need for it, or being doing damn well money wise. Sure who wouldn't want it. But it is just not as rounded as it Could have been. Shame.

Share this post


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

Oh hell the C200 has a beautiful output in the Raw. @DBounce has proved that on here. But no broadcast middle codec, still a weak standard one.7500 bucks. You have to have a real Need for it, or being doing damn well money wise. Sure who wouldn't want it. But it is just not as rounded as it Could have been. Shame.

True, though I quite like the 8 bit codec even though it is way behind the times. 

I only wish the Fuji had a H264 10 bit option for quicker editing. Very small complaints though, at this point things are looking really good.

Share this post


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

@webrunner5 I can't imagine that the Canon execs are sitting around sweating bullets about anything that BMD is releasing. However, Fuji may have gotten their attention as they certainly seemed to have gotten Sony's.

 

 

Oh they Have to be concerned. Hell even Nikon came out with a better around product, hell 2 of them better. They had no real competition 4 years ago to amount to much. They sure as hell have it in spades today. They have shit around too long I think. This no IBIS is just inexcusable in today's market. And the crop, well what can I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DBounce said:

Here is the lens breakdown:

Canon C200 - 24-70mm F2.8 ii @ 35mm F4

Canon 1DXMk2 - 16-35 F4 @ 35mm F4

Fjifilm X-T3 - 23mm F2 @ F2.6 (35mm FF equivalent)

Panasonic GH5S - 12-35mm F2.8 @ 18mm F2.8 (36mm FF equivalent)

About: I tried to get everything as close to the M43 configuration as possible as I figured it would be at a disadvantage given the smaller sensor. DOF looks different on the GH5S, because... DOF is different on the M43. I was running a $1000 lens on the GH5S that was rated at F2.8. To get shallower I would have needed to use the Leica 42.5mm, but did not have enough equivalent lenses to this focal length to accommodate all the other cameras. So 35mm was choosen.

Setup: In some cases physical proximity to the cameras was different. Because there's was only so much space to set everything up. 

Honestly, I was surprised when comparing these cameras side by side how much less shallow the M43 image appeared. With the S35 sensor the Fuji looked pretty similar to the Canons.

Colors: Color wise the C200 was easiest to work with. It requires next to nothing to look good. Shoot at base ISO for the log profile you intend to add and you are done. It looks great all day long.

The Fuji was shoot in Eterna... reflecting back perhaps Flog would have been easier to tweak? 

The 1DXMk2 was shoot in neutral picture profile.

The GH5S was shot in VLogL. The standard Panasonic LUT was then applied. 

FCPX: The project was set to wide color gamut. I had read that this is desirable when editing Raw footage. But doing this seemed to cause issues with the 1DXMK2 image. It looked fine in the editor,  but rendered with blown highlights. I believe FCPX did not know how to handle its 8 bit image with the WCG project setting. The other cameras were all shot at 10 bit or higher. I tried several approaches to try to regain the highlight detail of the 1DXMk2, but nothing seemed to work. It continually looked great in the editor,  only to render blown out and harsh. I believe davinci is the better editor when dealing with a mix of 8 bit and higher. Unfortunately, my free version of resolve does not output 4k DCI... so that was out of the picture. 

Fruity chocolate: I don't think it's Apple's to (insert here) as they say. I used the lenses I own. This is a real world test. Question: Does Panasonic make a M43 equivalent to the Canon 24-70mm? Well,  Panasonic would tell you, "yes... it's the 12-35mm". So that is what I used.  And frankly I'm not alone in this thinking. While anything can be jerryrigged together, that leaves you compensating for something the cameras lacks.

This of course applies to all M43 cameras,  not just the GH5S. You are at a disadvantage regarding DOF. It's a limitation you get used to... or choose to find workarounds for. While I have a MSB, I seldom use it.  My Canon glass runs better natively... so why use it on an M43 body? Also doing so negates any size advantage.

 

I wanted to get the lenses close to each other. So everything was set to match the smallest sensor. The full frame cameras running at F4 while the X-T3 was at F2.6 IIRC.

Thanks for that.

Your test, you do it how you want to suit yourself.

It is definitely EASIER to get shallower DOF with larger sensors.

Had this been a test for DOF and not YOUR test (no criticism of yours), it would be easier to match the sensors by stopping the larger sensors down rather than the other way.

The distance to subject also matters a lot more too for instance, at 18mm M43, even a difference of 1 metre can make a huge difference in DOF so all the cameras would also need to be matched for distance as well as F stop and focal length.     It seem the M43 camera might have been a little further back than some of the others.

It also explains why the FF camera is different to the C200 given different sensor sizes at the same lens settings.

Regards skin tones, I didn't really notice a huge difference and it was more the background and overall colour that looks very different to me with the Fuji compared to all the others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're funny @noone you just second my comment. Anyway. People tend to see criticism necessarily in a negative way. There is good and bad. Like work, you need good criticism to improve your results or it will (in)variably end a shitty one (just sayin' just my 0.2 : -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Oh don't get me wrong I have always been a big Canon buyer. But not in this Video age other than this C100 I am trying to get. I am not buying Anything new they got. DPAF and Magic Lantern is pretty much all that has kept them going to me on the video side on any affordable camera.

It's interesting because Magic Lantern is able to get so much out of these canon cameras that we can't really say what the full capabilities of the sensor are. I mean they already have the sensor tech in the c200 - it exists (albeit in at a different size and form factor). They chose to give us an old sensor in the eos r. Let's see what the full capabilities of that sensor are once magic lantern does its thing with the 5d iv. 

For me the fuji looks the best out of the remaining crop of mirroless cameras and unfortunately this means there is no clear advantage that the gh5s has, apart from its pro video features, to recommend it. I have talked to panasonic people in the past and got the impression that the color deficiencies in the gh models are intentional. That is, the same people that did the color for the varicams also did the Eva. I don't think, but could be wrong, that the expertise was passed down. 

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...