Jump to content
Andrew Reid

I WILL be getting a Fuji X-T3!

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
1 hour ago, norliss said:

Shame it can't do 4:2:2 internally (as per the GH5/GH5s) but that aside, this looks an intriguing option. Hopefully we'll see the usual no-holds-barred, super-thorough Reid Review asap ūüôā

Will be interesting to compare 422 vs 420

NONE of the early reviews have done any pixel peeping :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about this cameras bashing... any one of the cameras mentioned is good enough to get the job done.  I had the GH5 and sold it... did not like the low ISO performance... ie: i was unwilling to carry a lighting kit. I own the GH5S, and while it's great,  the out of cameras colors are not too my liking so I find more often than not I am shooting VLogL. The auto focus is... well, honestly MIA.. keep in mind I have been spoiled by Canons DPAF. 

What attracted me to the XT3 is the image straight out of camera. Now, you can get technical all you want. But at the end of the day your audience will give not a single fCk. All they will notice is the image... and they will really only notice that in the most extreme cases... and if they do notice it immediately... it means your story is failing. 

Comparing the XT3 to the GH5/s... the image seems more organic. I can't say if one has more or less DR... the GH5S is more than usable. Both are great cameras.

Here is what cliches it for me... the XT3 has a 26MP sensor, serviceable autofocus, and a Super35 sensor. It's fairly compact... even more so than the GH5/S. The baked in colors and film simulations make for less work in post. 

The GH5S is on paper the more robust video camera... but it does so at the expense of being a capable stills camera. If you are looking for a true hybrid I feel the advantage goes to the Fuji. 

This is good news... competition is good.  This means Panasonic will step up their game. Maybe we'll see this "organic sensor" they have been working on for the last several years? Who knows? $h!t's about to get real!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jonpais said:

Thanks for the tests, Tom. Not gonna lie though, the bokeh in those zoo shots looks pretty darn busy - not very attractive.

Jon, I kind of like the bokeh--similar in some instances to some of the Russian lenses--they do look busy---I like to think of them as looking Baroque, but you'd be surprised how round and beautiful the bokeh balls are in certain sunset scenes using the 85mm and 100 mm. Maybe I need to control it better, but I like the look of some of it much, much better than the antiseptic clinical look I see in modern lenses---no character, nothing mystical or artistic, and everybody's stuff looks the same. Just my 2 uneducated ¬Ę.

Notice that the X-T3 did not hunt even once during the talking part. It performed on a par with Canon dual pixel. I tried some shots with my wife and daughter moving the AF focus/eye focus in and out and it worked better than my Canon 80D---it didn't fail in the least. The AF or the X-H1 is very good, but the AF of the X-T3 is off the charts excellent. Far better than Panasonic. 

Share this post


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

Jon, I kind of like the bokeh--similar in some instances to some of the Russian lenses--they do look busy---I like to think of them as looking Baroque, but you'd be surprised how round and beautiful the bokeh balls are in certain sunset scenes using the 85mm and 100 mm. Maybe I need to control it better, but I like the look of some of it much, much better than the antiseptic clinical look I see in modern lenses---no character, nothing mystical or artistic, and everybody's stuff looks the same. Just my 2 uneducated ¬Ę.

Notice that the X-T3 did not hunt even once during the talking part. It performed on a par with Canon dual pixel. I tried some shots with my wife and daughter moving the AF focus/eye focus in and out and it worked better than my Canon 80D---it didn't fail in the least. The AF or the X-H1 is very good, but the AF of the X-T3 is off the charts excellent. Far better than Panasonic. 

To be fair, a potato focuses better than Panasonic. ūüėä I‚Äôll have to stop by the shop and try one out. Thanks again for the test!

Share this post


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

Hi @tomsemiterrific or @Andrew Reid

could you please test whether they have a better AWB implementation for video?

The colour shift when it's constantly hunting for white balance in AWB mode is unusable on the XT2/XH1 (though it's meant i finally got around to learning to using kelvins).

Actually, I was not in AWB. I never shoot AWB. My kelvin was set on 5600. That day at the zoo the light was all over the place, with varying clouds, etc. There was no hunting for white balance. The camera was recording what was there in a given situation. If I had been doing something serious I would have white balanced almost every scene. Considering the situation I might have been better off. and gotten more uniform results using AWB.

Share this post


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

What attracted me to the XT3 is the image straight out of camera. Now you can get technical all you want. But at the end of the day your audience will give not a single fCk. All they will notice is the image... and they will really only notice that in the most extreme cases... and if they do notice it immediately... it means your story is failing. 

Comparing the XT3 to the GH5/s... the image seems more organic. I can't say if one has more or less DR... the GH5S is more than usable. Both are great cameras.

This is the reason I moved to Fujifilm.. It's just got an organic look that people seem to respond to without knowing exactly why it is different (even from fellow videographers). It has¬†something that can't be measured on a chart, something very human (and yea, I know that sounds fanboyish ūüėā).

Share this post


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

@Andrew Reid are you following this rumor that the sensor might actually be from Samsung? 

 

https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/korean-forums-going-nuts-on-rumors-samsung-partnership-with-fuji-and-ricoh-pentax/

Someone needs to do a tear-down and see if the X-T3 is indeed a Samsung sensor. Are we looking at an NX2?

Sony don't seem to have anything matching the 26MP chip, as far as I can see.

Share this post


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

@Andrew Reid are you following this rumor that the sensor might actually be from Samsung? 

 

https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/korean-forums-going-nuts-on-rumors-samsung-partnership-with-fuji-and-ricoh-pentax/

 

 

 

 

No obviously clue how real is. Interesting rumour though. Lacks to know how much accurate this information may fulfill the cup other than beyond mere fantasy or plain clickbait.

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Will be interesting to compare 422 vs 420

NONE of the early reviews have done any pixel peeping :)

Hope to see that from you into a worldwide release : -)

To my knowledge, bit rate should end to count more than the 4:2:2 spec. What do I know though?

Share this post


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

No obviously clue how real is. Interesting rumour though. Lacks to know how much accurate this information can be.

I'm inclined to believe this.  This sensor does not feel very Sony to me. And how else could Fuji have leapfrogged the competition so quickly? I'm blown away by how capable the AF appears. The organic feel and motion cadence do not match what I have seen thus far from Sony.

The Fuji XT3 NX2ūü§Ē¬†maybe... but the question then remains... what about battery life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rumors of a partnership between Samsung and other Japanese companies for FF and APS-C sensor development might be a HUGE leap toward breaking the Sony stranglehold on other manufacturers dependent upon Sony sensors. Samsung might end up being the sensor source for the Fuji X-T3, upcoming X-H2 or even the Panasonic FF. A tear down of the XT-3 would be quite revealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, toxotis70 said:

is there any comparison between 420 and 422 , with any other camera ?

I didn't find any so I decided to do my own test. I downloaded two freely available Fuji RAF files and exported a 3840x2160 area as 16bit TIFF. Then I used these files to create 1 sec movies using FFMPEG. I created 3 versions of each: 8bit 4:2:0, 8bit 4:2:2, 10bit 4:2:0. I used H.264 encoding, the files should be playable in the latest Resolve/Premiere. All are 200Mbps. You can check the files in MediaInfo to verify encoding parameters.

Download the test from here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SbeLZJTN7jWLC2XStb-EU4QWIsCQRDyD

For some reason the TIFF has slightly different colors, ignore that. What matters is the transition of colors. Try to pull keys in the first test, or break the sky gradient in the second test with a high contrast. Tell me if you see a huge difference, because I don't. Of course my test can be flawed, I'm no expert in encoding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A full frame Panasonic is interesting but that is just a rumor.

At this point Fuji gives me everything I want. Color, 10 bit, 4k 60p, APSC, auto focus, decent low light, dynamic range.

Sony never delivers on color, even if they do give us 10 bit (A7000 betting on)(probably not full frame 10 bit)

Canon just doesn't deliver anything competitive.

Panasonic refuses to give phase detect auto focus and is M43.

I see myself being happy with the XT3 for a long time. 422 and 420 won't be noticeably different like 8 bit to 10 bit is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Actually, I was not in AWB. I never shoot AWB. My kelvin was set on 5600. That day at the zoo the light was all over the place, with varying clouds, etc. There was no hunting for white balance. The camera was recording what was there in a given situation. If I had been doing something serious I would have white balanced almost every scene. Considering the situation I might have been better off. and gotten more uniform results using AWB.

Thanks for being honest. Mostly I read here and try to learn (when the discussion doesn't go way over my head). 

I'll make no major purchases until retirement.

That said, I noticed blown out highlights in both videos and was getting disappointed by it. Like, geez, I get that same result shooting with an older bridge camera with a one inch sensor.

So, okay, thanks for clarifying part of the blown out highlights issue. There are probably other factors involved with that ... so that's why I'm here to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toxotis70 said:

is there any comparison between 420 and 422 , with any other camera ?

 

Is there any technical reason not writing internally 10bit 422 ?

8 bit 4:2:2 can be better than 10 bit 4:2:0, but there are too many other variables to take into account, bit rate being just one, interframe or intraframe compression being another and so on.

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...