Rand47

Interesting that you cared so little that you felt compelled to tell us how much you don’t care. The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

I’ve had my X-H1 for a day or so now. All configured they way I like it. I’m very much enjoying this camera. Much better high ISO than my X-T2 (figure a firmware update will make them even again at some point). Grip is MUCH better than X-T2 - that was the only “take down” for me from going from dSLR to Fuji when I bought my X-T1 (large hands). EVF is very detailed and bright. With grip and boost mode there is zero lag/drag in the EVF.
 
And the IBIS is nothing short of excellent. Hand-holding the 16-55 @ 55mm down to 1/8th second is easily doable/repeatable with good camera holding technique.
 
The body feels more rigid/rugged. The grip fitment is more organic, following the lines of the camera much better than the “attached square brick” with the funny vertical “add on” of the X-T2 grip.
 
Shutter button improvement is very nice, indeed. Some complain that it is too soft... but I find it just about perfect. After about one minute using it, finding the half-press, vs the “shoot” press is quite easily dialed in, and makes for very accurate shutter trip w/o inducing camera movement. Shutter is very quiet.
 
I love the e-ink top sub lcd that retains frames remaining, EC settings (or not), and battery status even with the camera off. VERY nice.
 
Some have lamented the loss of the dedicated EC dial. I sure don’t. Setting the EC button to “toggle on and off” (which is remembered even with camera off) makes for very easy EC adjustment with rear command wheel. Since EC setting is visible in EVF, LCD and on sub lcd panel, there’s still obvious indication of EC settings. I like it better and am much less apt to accidentally adjust EC with this set up.
 
The Eterna Film Simulation is really nice, even for stills photos. I’ve not yet ventured into video.
 
I’m very pleased with this machine, it is a worthwhile upgrade to X-T2 based on my own preferences in ergos, the IBIS, the EC implementation, robustness of the body construction, and a lot of other small refinements like the push button (rather than fiddle slide button) for releasing the LCD for vertical tip-out, etc.
 
Rand

I’d go for the lens.   The final IQ of the X-T3 won’t be a significant upgrade from your T-2.  So, unless you really need one or more of the new features, e.g. the enhanced Eye-AF, or the 30 FPS frame rate, then you’ll “much more” expand your capability overall with another good lens in your kit.
Rand

Interesting that you cared so little that you felt compelled to tell us how much you don’t care. The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

Interesting that you cared so little that you felt compelled to tell us how much you don’t care. The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

Interesting that you cared so little that you felt compelled to tell us how much you don’t care. The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

There’s way more to the H than just video. In fact “Billy” of the Fuji Guys (he’s Fuji manager in Canada) went to some length to explain H as High Performance rather than hybrid as many pundits are saying.

More robust body - 25% thicker magnesium alloy and stronger structure.
8H powder coat finish for much better durability.
Higher resolution EVF.
Larger buttons on back. Relocated rear AF button.
Electronic first curtain shutter. (Zero blackout at 7 FPS.)
More robust (strengthened) lens mount w/ improved weather sealing.
Better low light AF capability. -1 EV
Improved AF and AFC performance.
Dual processors.
Improved grip depth.
Improved weather sealing.
.... and the IBIS.

My take is that this is the rumored high-end, more bullet-proof professional body that was rumored quite a while back and then went silent.  I like the new implementation of the EC (it was too often bumped with the dial location).  You can set the EC button to either be "on while pressing" or to "toggle off and on."  I think this will work out really well in practice and with "toggle off and on" and the front command wheel as the default, it seems it will be a very natural way to implement with the camera to the eye, rather than the awkward thumb movements required to move the EC dial while the camera is at my eye on the T-2.
 
And I like the fully customizable top LCD.  It is "sticky" (don't know the proper terminology) so that it is visible when the camera is off.  So, rather than a take-down, I see it as an increase.  Battery charge, what auto ISO mode I'm in, how many frames remaining, etc., before I even turn the camera on.

My pre-order for body w/ grip is in!

Rand

If you have a lens with OIS, then you turn the lens OIS AND body IBIS on and off with the switch on the lens.
When a lens without OIS is mounted, then the camera’s IS menu will have the option for “OFF.” In the video above, he has an OIS lens mounted.
 
In my screen shot below, I have a non-OIS lens mounted. I put IS mode in the “MY MENU” so that I can quickly turn it off when tripod mounted with a non-OIS lens mounted.
 
The reason the menu is IS and not IBIS is because it is applicable to both OIS and IBIS and so is only labeled IS as a generic reference to “image stabilization.” It is even such w/ the X-T2 . . . The menu is just IS and not OIS (which is the only “applicable” kind of IS on that camera body). As mentioned above, I don’t think there is any mention of “IBIS” in the user manual at all. In fact, I just did a text search of the PDF manual and IBIS does not come up in the search.
 
Rand

I'm going to add my initial impressions article rather than starting a new thread. Apologies in advance to Mike G and Rand whom have seen these posts in other fora. 
  I should preface my comments below that I bought my X-H1 specifically for my professional motorsports photojournalism work, so my comments should be considered from that context firmly in mind, specifically with respect to my discussion of the engineering requirements and design embodiment of the X-H1, so lets get down to reasons why Fuji built this camera:    One of the things I've been posting about on various photo-fora is how much more robust the body on the X-H1 has been engineered to accomodate long, heavy, prime telephotos and the new MK-X Cine lenses. Fujifilm did considerable engineering to strengthen and, most importantly, stiffen the frame and lens mount to be able to mount long, heavy, prime telephotos and the new Cine MK zooms. These "devices", as Fuji refers to them, put a considerable tension load on the lens mount, and thus the lens mount needs to be designly sufficiently robustly to support these loads.   Here's an example: note how much thicker and "beefier" the "support/stiffening ring" around the lens mount is on the X-H1 compared to the X-T2.     The other thing I noted today is that Fuji moved the button for releasing the lens from the lens mount to further away to make it easier to disconnect larger (and wider in diameter) lenses. This little change is a big win for me, as it was difficult at times to actuate the lens release button on the 50-140 and 100-400.   Why was this done? Back in early 2017, when Fujifilm engineers were asked if they were going to develop a 200 mm f/2.0 or f/2.8, replied, "A 200 mm f/2.0 would require an entirely new camera body". The engineering work documented in the white paper from Fujifilm on the development of the frame  fully supports that statement. From the Fujifilm X-H1 development white paper:   "Let's examine the X-H1. The product planner requested the developers to make the body more robust so that new devices could be installed and the expected camera performance could be realized. In order to make the body more robust, the frame, which is made of magnesium alloys, needed to be strengthened by adding extra thickness. The frame is 125% thicker for X-H1, meaning that the frame has almost doubled in volume (1.25 x 1.25 x 1.25 = 1.95). The strength of the frame is almost twice as strong.   Portability and lightweight are the charm of the X Series. This should always be taken into account even when considering an exterior design that is more robust. The designer examined the frame closely and learned where the stress is most/least applied and where the extra strength is most/least needed. With the study, the following structure with pillars jointing the exterior part has been realized, which helped minimize the effect on body size."     "The development continued. There are certain parts of camera body that needed extra consideration. For example, front body important in terms of ergonomics and operability, but the impact on weight is huge if the entire front body were simply 125% thicker. Another extra consideration was given to the mount. In near future there will be lenses that weigh more than 2kg."(that's 4.4 pounds, guys, that a big-assed, heavy lens)     Continuing from the Fujifilm development white paper: "Considerable load would be applied to the mount. The mount needs to withstand the weight of the lens. Photographers move around when they are at work, so additional stress would be applied on top of the lens weight. To withstand the stress, the mount part is reinforced ribs as shown below. The mount itself is thickened (note: per my photograph above) and the ribs gives additional support."   The diagram below from the Fujifilm development white paper depicts the reinforcement rib in the camera frame. The bright white lines are steel (not magnesium) reinforcement ribs and pins to provide the requisite stiffness for supporting these tension loads while still maintaining the optical tolerances (which are at the micron level). These are not insignificant engineering challenges and accomplishments.      More on my practical experience follows  in the subsequents posts.  

Even if you get Bluetooth connection, it really doesn't do anything other than send GPS data to the camera.  You cannot use Bluetooth independent of Wifi for camera control via the app, and you cannot transfer images via Bluetooth (you only mark them for transfer - the actual transfer happens via Wifi).  Auto transfer of images is not conveniently implemented, you actually lose control of the camera in some scenarios. I've played with it for quite a while and never had much success or see any value in it.  So I just turned Bluetooth off and left it off.
 
In the manual you'll find this at the top of the section on Bluetooth and Wireless connections:   "For more information on wireless connections, visit: http://fujifilm-dsc.com/wifi/"   When you go there you'll see that Bluetooth implementation is still dependent on working in conjunction with Wifi connection.
 
I will say that all my Fuji cameras (X-T1, T2, and now H-1) have worked flawlessly with the app and Wifi.   No problem at all and very reliable.  It makes me wonder why they even bothered with Bluetooth, unless the big deal was GPS info (which I don't care about).
 
Rand

I’ve had my X-H1 for a day or so now. All configured they way I like it. I’m very much enjoying this camera. Much better high ISO than my X-T2 (figure a firmware update will make them even again at some point). Grip is MUCH better than X-T2 - that was the only “take down” for me from going from dSLR to Fuji when I bought my X-T1 (large hands). EVF is very detailed and bright. With grip and boost mode there is zero lag/drag in the EVF.
 
And the IBIS is nothing short of excellent. Hand-holding the 16-55 @ 55mm down to 1/8th second is easily doable/repeatable with good camera holding technique.
 
The body feels more rigid/rugged. The grip fitment is more organic, following the lines of the camera much better than the “attached square brick” with the funny vertical “add on” of the X-T2 grip.
 
Shutter button improvement is very nice, indeed. Some complain that it is too soft... but I find it just about perfect. After about one minute using it, finding the half-press, vs the “shoot” press is quite easily dialed in, and makes for very accurate shutter trip w/o inducing camera movement. Shutter is very quiet.
 
I love the e-ink top sub lcd that retains frames remaining, EC settings (or not), and battery status even with the camera off. VERY nice.
 
Some have lamented the loss of the dedicated EC dial. I sure don’t. Setting the EC button to “toggle on and off” (which is remembered even with camera off) makes for very easy EC adjustment with rear command wheel. Since EC setting is visible in EVF, LCD and on sub lcd panel, there’s still obvious indication of EC settings. I like it better and am much less apt to accidentally adjust EC with this set up.
 
The Eterna Film Simulation is really nice, even for stills photos. I’ve not yet ventured into video.
 
I’m very pleased with this machine, it is a worthwhile upgrade to X-T2 based on my own preferences in ergos, the IBIS, the EC implementation, robustness of the body construction, and a lot of other small refinements like the push button (rather than fiddle slide button) for releasing the LCD for vertical tip-out, etc.
 
Rand

I’ve had my X-H1 for a day or so now. All configured they way I like it. I’m very much enjoying this camera. Much better high ISO than my X-T2 (figure a firmware update will make them even again at some point). Grip is MUCH better than X-T2 - that was the only “take down” for me from going from dSLR to Fuji when I bought my X-T1 (large hands). EVF is very detailed and bright. With grip and boost mode there is zero lag/drag in the EVF.
 
And the IBIS is nothing short of excellent. Hand-holding the 16-55 @ 55mm down to 1/8th second is easily doable/repeatable with good camera holding technique.
 
The body feels more rigid/rugged. The grip fitment is more organic, following the lines of the camera much better than the “attached square brick” with the funny vertical “add on” of the X-T2 grip.
 
Shutter button improvement is very nice, indeed. Some complain that it is too soft... but I find it just about perfect. After about one minute using it, finding the half-press, vs the “shoot” press is quite easily dialed in, and makes for very accurate shutter trip w/o inducing camera movement. Shutter is very quiet.
 
I love the e-ink top sub lcd that retains frames remaining, EC settings (or not), and battery status even with the camera off. VERY nice.
 
Some have lamented the loss of the dedicated EC dial. I sure don’t. Setting the EC button to “toggle on and off” (which is remembered even with camera off) makes for very easy EC adjustment with rear command wheel. Since EC setting is visible in EVF, LCD and on sub lcd panel, there’s still obvious indication of EC settings. I like it better and am much less apt to accidentally adjust EC with this set up.
 
The Eterna Film Simulation is really nice, even for stills photos. I’ve not yet ventured into video.
 
I’m very pleased with this machine, it is a worthwhile upgrade to X-T2 based on my own preferences in ergos, the IBIS, the EC implementation, robustness of the body construction, and a lot of other small refinements like the push button (rather than fiddle slide button) for releasing the LCD for vertical tip-out, etc.
 
Rand

I shoot long exposure. I'd suggest that that is exactly what the long exposure noise reduction is for. LOL
 
This one was 3 minutes 15 seconds:
 

 
Rand

My initial problem with the ISO dial wasn't "the dial" - it was seeing where I was going through the little window. THEN, it dawned on me to just look at the LCD ISO indicator while lifting and turning the dial. Doh! No problem at all, now.
 
Rand

Low is supposedly "lower sensitivity" ergo, "tighter" focus indication. High will show "more stuff" in red, but is less precise.
I agree with you that focus peaking on High doesn't seem to make much sense. I've yet to find a use-case for it.
 
As for DOF, once you have you focus selected via peaking, use the DOF preview (I have mine mapped to the front button) to check the depth things in acceptable focus. This's actually works pretty well.
 
Rand

I can remember how bummed out I was after retiring in 1998 and buying a nice complete medium format film system.  Not long after that (a year or two?) I was introduced to digital photography with a little Olympus "something or other model" that had 4 megapixel "small" sensor.  I bought one for kicks, and took a class in Photoshop at the local art institute.  I bought an Epson 1280 dye-ink printer and made some 8x10 prints from the little Olympus digital point and shoot.  DANG... the digital prints were sharper and more detailed than the lab prints I was getting from 645 film.  I kept my mouth shut because it seemed ridiculous to say something like this.
 
Later on, Michael Reichmann on the Luminous-Landscape published an article declaring one of the early Canon Dxx cameras ( I don't precisely remember which one, but one of the early ones ) "better than 35 mm film."  I remember feeling a little "justified" in my own conclusions.  I sold all my film gear.  Since then things have improved markedly.  In 2009 or thereabouts, I remember reading and article with sample photos Illustrating how the Sony a900 FF DSLR was superior to 6x9 film.  It wasn't marginally superior, it was stunningly superior. 
 
With the advent of really high quality pigment ink printers, excellent post processing software like Lightroom and Capture One, and the ongoing increase in both resolution and dynamic range of digital sensors, it really isn't worth discussing anymore.  Film is fun, the process of shooting it and developing it, and printing in a wet darkroom is satisfying.  I'd done that since the 50's and remember it fondly.  Watching an image appear on paper in the developing tray was truly a magical experience, and the physical / visceral process of manipulating physical chemistry and paper and film was something special that not everyone could do well.  But that aside, digital is superior in every measure of image quality.  Discussions of "film like"-ness are fine and things like Fuji's Classic Chrome are expressions of that.
 
Even though I'm hugely nostalgic about my old Leica M4 and my Olympus OM-3Ti, and my Leitz and Bessler enlargers, etc., I don't kid myself into thinking they were somehow better than what I have in my hands today with my Fuji X-Pro2 and X-T2 cameras and lenses and my Epson SC P800 printer.
 
Rand

I can remember how bummed out I was after retiring in 1998 and buying a nice complete medium format film system.  Not long after that (a year or two?) I was introduced to digital photography with a little Olympus "something or other model" that had 4 megapixel "small" sensor.  I bought one for kicks, and took a class in Photoshop at the local art institute.  I bought an Epson 1280 dye-ink printer and made some 8x10 prints from the little Olympus digital point and shoot.  DANG... the digital prints were sharper and more detailed than the lab prints I was getting from 645 film.  I kept my mouth shut because it seemed ridiculous to say something like this.
 
Later on, Michael Reichmann on the Luminous-Landscape published an article declaring one of the early Canon Dxx cameras ( I don't precisely remember which one, but one of the early ones ) "better than 35 mm film."  I remember feeling a little "justified" in my own conclusions.  I sold all my film gear.  Since then things have improved markedly.  In 2009 or thereabouts, I remember reading and article with sample photos Illustrating how the Sony a900 FF DSLR was superior to 6x9 film.  It wasn't marginally superior, it was stunningly superior. 
 
With the advent of really high quality pigment ink printers, excellent post processing software like Lightroom and Capture One, and the ongoing increase in both resolution and dynamic range of digital sensors, it really isn't worth discussing anymore.  Film is fun, the process of shooting it and developing it, and printing in a wet darkroom is satisfying.  I'd done that since the 50's and remember it fondly.  Watching an image appear on paper in the developing tray was truly a magical experience, and the physical / visceral process of manipulating physical chemistry and paper and film was something special that not everyone could do well.  But that aside, digital is superior in every measure of image quality.  Discussions of "film like"-ness are fine and things like Fuji's Classic Chrome are expressions of that.
 
Even though I'm hugely nostalgic about my old Leica M4 and my Olympus OM-3Ti, and my Leitz and Bessler enlargers, etc., I don't kid myself into thinking they were somehow better than what I have in my hands today with my Fuji X-Pro2 and X-T2 cameras and lenses and my Epson SC P800 printer.
 
Rand

I can remember how bummed out I was after retiring in 1998 and buying a nice complete medium format film system.  Not long after that (a year or two?) I was introduced to digital photography with a little Olympus "something or other model" that had 4 megapixel "small" sensor.  I bought one for kicks, and took a class in Photoshop at the local art institute.  I bought an Epson 1280 dye-ink printer and made some 8x10 prints from the little Olympus digital point and shoot.  DANG... the digital prints were sharper and more detailed than the lab prints I was getting from 645 film.  I kept my mouth shut because it seemed ridiculous to say something like this.
 
Later on, Michael Reichmann on the Luminous-Landscape published an article declaring one of the early Canon Dxx cameras ( I don't precisely remember which one, but one of the early ones ) "better than 35 mm film."  I remember feeling a little "justified" in my own conclusions.  I sold all my film gear.  Since then things have improved markedly.  In 2009 or thereabouts, I remember reading and article with sample photos Illustrating how the Sony a900 FF DSLR was superior to 6x9 film.  It wasn't marginally superior, it was stunningly superior. 
 
With the advent of really high quality pigment ink printers, excellent post processing software like Lightroom and Capture One, and the ongoing increase in both resolution and dynamic range of digital sensors, it really isn't worth discussing anymore.  Film is fun, the process of shooting it and developing it, and printing in a wet darkroom is satisfying.  I'd done that since the 50's and remember it fondly.  Watching an image appear on paper in the developing tray was truly a magical experience, and the physical / visceral process of manipulating physical chemistry and paper and film was something special that not everyone could do well.  But that aside, digital is superior in every measure of image quality.  Discussions of "film like"-ness are fine and things like Fuji's Classic Chrome are expressions of that.
 
Even though I'm hugely nostalgic about my old Leica M4 and my Olympus OM-3Ti, and my Leitz and Bessler enlargers, etc., I don't kid myself into thinking they were somehow better than what I have in my hands today with my Fuji X-Pro2 and X-T2 cameras and lenses and my Epson SC P800 printer.
 
Rand

In prints! I'm one of those people who believes a photograph isn't a photograph unless it is printed. Otherwise it is a graphic representation of 1's and 0's. :-)
 
I do fine art printing for clients, and my own work. I print files from many different brands and models of cameras. The 24mp Fuji sensor has really impressed me more than I thought it would in comparing it with some of the heavy-hitter sensors out there today. I won't even mention some of the files I think it is "better than" because you either wouldn't believe me, and/or write me off as a Fuji fan-boy, which I'm very much "not so much." :-)
 
Rand

In prints! I'm one of those people who believes a photograph isn't a photograph unless it is printed. Otherwise it is a graphic representation of 1's and 0's. :-)
 
I do fine art printing for clients, and my own work. I print files from many different brands and models of cameras. The 24mp Fuji sensor has really impressed me more than I thought it would in comparing it with some of the heavy-hitter sensors out there today. I won't even mention some of the files I think it is "better than" because you either wouldn't believe me, and/or write me off as a Fuji fan-boy, which I'm very much "not so much." :-)
 
Rand