14 ms·
Fujifilm’s new X-H2 finally pushes its APS-C camera system to higher resolution
- dannyw 4y agoHope this makes its way to the X-T50. I love small camera bodies, and my 24MP (X-T20) is certainly not bad, but I love zooming in. Glad they're keeping the X-Trans. I love the film grain like look.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago> I love the film grain like look. Sounds interesting. Having dropped out of the pro-digital-camera loop many several years now, I am only guessing that perhaps the "X-Trans" has digital (compression?) artifacts have an analog "feel"? EDIT: did some Googling, sounds like it's the Bayer pattern the CCD uses that is unique — interesting: https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/x-trans-vs-bayer-sensors-fantastic-claims-test/ https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/x-trans-vs-bayer-sensors-fa...
- robin_reala 4y agoThat really confused me until I worked out that they’d reused the name of a defunct film cartridge for a sensor size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System
- neilv 4y agoFor many years, prosumer DSLRs have been said to have "APS-C" size sensors. Or "1.6x crop factor", or "1.8x". That's a a multiplier for effective focal length, relative to using the same lens on a 35mm film body. DSLRs with sensors the same size as 35mm film were called "full frame".
- bayindirh 4y agoAPS-C crop factor is around 1.5x - 1.6x. 1.8x is a bit too small for digital cameras and I never encountered one. Canon uses 1.6x, and everyone else is on 1.5x bandwagon.
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoMicro Four Thirds is a 2x crop factor and I absolutely love my Panasonic GH-5. I primarily use it for 4k video which it excels at, as the smaller sensor means it can record 4k at high bitrate continuously without overheating. That said I still find it extremely rewarding for still photography. I'm happy with the results event when printed up 13"x19" on my Canon Pro-100 printer. Some photo samples I am proud of, limited to 4k resolution by twitter but 20 megapixels originally. https://twitter.com/TLAlexander/status/1531837629938798592 https://twitter.com/TLAlexander/status/1531837629938798592
- hef19898 4y agoSmaller sensor are the best teleconverters one can get, aren't they? Nice pictures, really something to aim for!
- bayindirh 4y agoAh, sorry, I meant in APS-C world, sorry for the confusion. I love m43 systems, but their low light capabilities leave something to be desired. I shoot tango nights sometimes, and anything smaller than a FF system can’t keep up with the lack of photons, unfortunately. Other than that, they’re brilliant little systems. There is some stuff I shoot: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/
- eropple 4y agoFWIW, low-light performance has significantly improved in the last couple of m43 generations. My G9 (with a sufficiently wide-open prime) gets shots that my G7 and GH4 never had a chance for, and while the GH6 isn't great as a stills camera I expect to see even better for the photo-focused cameras using that sensor.
- bayindirh 4y agoThey reused it because the sensor size is equal to that film cartridge’s frame size. Same for full frame. That’s equal to 35mm film.
- nakedrobot2 4y agoUh, 20 years ago.
- hotpotamus 4y agoEver dialed a phone number?
- anovikov 4y agoWhat's the point of all those megapixels? Can lenses work at such a crazy sampling frequency? 40 mpix at APS-C means 2.9 micron pixels, or for Bayer array sensor, 86 lp/mm. By comparison, "resolution" line on the MTF chart is at 30 lp/mm sample rate, 2.9x more coarse. Contrast at such extreme frequency will be virtually zero for any real life lens. These pixels are a waste of photons, and storage space.
- bayindirh 4y agoActually no. Modern lenses coupled with stabilization systems get pretty sharp. I have a 24MP A7-III. The very lenses I use can resolve at 60MP siblings, too. Modern glass foundries of Nikon, Canon, Sony and Fuji can create pretty impressive glass nowadays.
- hef19898 4y agoEven with older lenses the question is whether you can see the "lacking" resolution on the final product or not.
- bayindirh 4y agoIt depends on the printing/display medium. At every case, downscaling a higher resolution image pays off. Especially, if it’s a nice monitor for wallpaper use or a big print for wall display.
- hef19898 4y agoAbsolutely! That is actually the only "issue" I have with my cameras, both are 12 MP. Don't het me wrong, they make great pictures, small file size has a bunch of advantages and I prefer to get composition right in camera anyway. But sometimes, usually for wildlife, you need to crop because even a 720mm equivalent lense only gets you that much of a bird in far distance inframe. And then low MPs only give you that much MPs and details to work with. But hey, I still get some nice shots, and most of the time I do landscapes and architecture anyway.
- type0 4y agoHow good is Fuji for videos these days? Few years ago they were very much behind competition probably because of their X-Trans filter array.
- CarVac 4y agoAs soon as they started doing full sensor readout they became competent.
- xyzzy_plugh 4y agoFuji is fine. But there's better IS, tracking, better AF, thermals, power, noise, audio in other cameras. I never really felt like X-Trans had much to do with it, once they got proper streaming.
- wyager 4y agoThat claim doesn't make sense. Their sensors are just sony sensors with a different bayer pattern. The only way that puts them behind is somewhat inferior support for their bayer pattern in RAW editing software. In any case, you're almost always capturing video in pre-processed 422, at which point the image processor has already debayered the image.
- okasaki 4y agoIt's weird how phones went to 100M with their tiny sensors, but APS-C cameras stayed at 20M. Anyway with used FF cameras now well under $1000, I have no idea why anybody would buy an APS-C camera. Even if you love some APS-C lens, you can just mount it on a FF camera and crop. Usually the camera will show you the cropped view in the viewfinder, but raw photos are taken at full resolution for you to manually crop later.
- nikita2206 4y agoBecause of the size, weight and mechanical dials people might prefer Fuji over FF Sony cameras.
- okasaki 4y agoTrue, the dials are nice. And I just noticed that the Fuji camera has a LCD on top, which is a big plus for me. I used to have a Pentax K20D and found that to be very useful. Although I tend to just shoot on auto-exposure and bracket 3 shots, 0EV, -2EV, +2EV. One of those will usually give me what I want, without any messing around with dials.
- stephencanon 4y agoIndeed. The Fuji APS-C cameras are a delight because of their small size and excellent handling (lenses too; you can fit a couple in a jacket pocket). FF cameras are great, but a totally different thing.
- decafninja 4y agoI test drove a variety of cameras renting them from Lensrental to find the perfect travel camera. I took a XT-3 with me to Tokyo. While it’s a nice camera, I still found it too bulky but without the benefits of FF. I ended up going with a A7R3 combined with a RX100. I leave the hotel room with the former gets taken when I know there’s something important I want to capture, if it’s at night, or when I know bulk isn’t an issue. The latter is taken when bulk is of concern.
- _visgean 4y agothe reverse is also true - with adaptor you can mount any old FF lens to aps-c, there is a slight advantage there that the old lenses tend to be shit in corners which might be visible on FF but not on APS-C...
- ekianjo 4y agoSuch resolution is completely useless since the optics are usually the real bottleneck for resolution above 20M. This is just marketing, folks.
- ihateolives 4y ago"640KB ought to be enough for anyone"
- abc_lisper 4y agoFortunately, Fujis newer lens, first released in last 5 years, are all up to the task https://www.fujirumors.com/list-of-fujinon-xf-lenses-that-get-maximum-benefit-from-fujifilm-x-h2-and-x-t5-with-40-megapixel-resolution/ https://www.fujirumors.com/list-of-fujinon-xf-lenses-that-ge...
- wyager 4y agoFuji has some nice lenses that can use it, and there are some secondary benefits like software low-pass filtering (which has superior falloff compared to extant optical low-pass filtering tech).
- smilekzs 4y agoBasically spatial oversampling at this point then.
- Synaesthesia 4y agoFuji have some nice lenses.
- jherskovic 4y agoI love Fujifilm cameras. I moved from Canon full frame to Fuji, because of the physical controls on the X-T line. The ergonomics are superb. The X-H handles nice, but as a still (amateur) photographer, the X-Ts are where it's at. Having separate, physical controls for exposure compensation, speed, ISO, and aperture is a delight. The tilting screen on the X-T line is also a better fit for still photography than the articulated one on the X-H lines. Here's hoping they keep it. I have an X-T3 now, I'm waiting for the X-T5. It should come out in a few months, and cost a bit less than the X-H. The main advantages should be the 40 MP sensor (vs 26) and sensor-based image stabilization (introduced in the X-T4). They also offer a pixel-combining mode now that shifts the sensor very small, precise amounts and then combines images to increase resolution up to 4x in the final result. You need a tripod and some time, but I'm looking forward to playing with it. It's hard to explain exactly how, but the color rendition straight out of the camera on Fuji kit is also second to none. Other posters commenting on RAW files are right, though - they're a pain because of the non-standard sensor. Only Fuji's terrible software and commercial offerings like Lightroom do a decent job. Darktable, for example, doesn't. I stopped shooting RAW partly for this reason, but also because the JPG engine on Fuji kit is outstanding. It makes the best JPGs straight out of the camera I've ever seen. The APS-C sensor size across the entire line also means that high-quality glass is a bit more affordable, smaller, and lighter than some of the competition. I guess I became a huge Fuji fanboy along the way.
- herrherrmann 4y agoThanks for sharing your journey and opinions! I’ve also switched from a Canon EOS 7D to the X-T3 and was pleasantly surprised about all the neat extra features (e.g. the good color filters, GPS metadata via Bluetooth, customizable controls) and how nicely it can be handled despite the tiny body.
- jherskovic 4y agoThe other thing I like is that Fuji will deliver new features via software updates if the hardware can handle them. With Canon, at least, the feature set is set (sorry) in stone the moment you buy the camera.
- openbankerX 4y agoFuji is putting out some awesome stuff. I’m still shooting my XT-1 and have no complaints. I’ve been wanting to make the large jump to the GFX line, specifically the GFX100, I’m seeing used bodies pop up on eBay for ~7K, I’m torn between the GFX100 and 100S. I’ve always had a vertical grip. Also, the GFX100 has a higher resolution viewfinder and the optional swivel and tilt viewfinder. I’d like to find a GFX100 and 3 lenses for <10k.
- Someone 4y agoFTA: “This pro-oriented camera looks just like the recent X-H2S it’s based on, matching it with the same processor, in-body image stabilization system, dual card slots, electronic viewfinder, and more. It’s nearly the same camera with a different sensor for those who value megapixels most” So, why does it have the same processor? Is this camera fast enough for the kind of photos you’d make with that sensor? Is the market for these things not large enough for them to design the larger body that would be needed to house the larger battery needed to power that? Or does such a processor not exist, and is the market too small to create it? Or something else?
- saltcod 4y agoI moved from an original Canon 5d to the X100F a few years back. The immediate improvement in AF was jarring. So was the output straight from the camera. Then there was the incredible size- I could just slip it into my jacket pocket. I moved up the the X100V when that came out to try and get even better AF performance (most pictures are of my busy kids) and it has been a worthy upgrade. Since then I’ve tried an X-T3 and an XPro2. I fairly quickly sold both. The XT3 is just too big for me to want to take out. The XPro2 is smaller but still much bigger than the X100. As hard as I tried to justify spending more money, the X100v is basically perfect for my needs. A Leica Q2 is on my wishlist but I wonder if it too would feel too big to take with me most of the time. It’s true that the best camera is the one you have with you and because of the size of the X100, you can basically have it with you all the time.
- kylehotchkiss 4y agoI have an xpro3 myself and love it. It’s a beautiful little titanium box that takes really lovely photos. It was my entry into the fujifilm ecosystem and I’m looking forward to diving deeper.
- saltcod 4y agoDid you have an xpro2? Wondering if the difference is significant. Betting it is.
- kylehotchkiss 4y agoI didn't! That said I keep expecting an XPro4 to come out one of these days