Jump to content

Puma Cat

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Puma Cat last won the day on October 3 2016

Puma Cat had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Puma Cat

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. I usually use Matrix mode, but sometimes center-weighted, occasionally spot. I always refer to the histogram in the display as a check.
  2. Just in the name of accuracy here, folks, none of the cameras under discussion are specified by their manufacturers to be "weather sealed". They are specified to be "weather resistant". I see folks using the term "weather-sealed", and it's inaccurate terminology. Weather-sealed and "weather-resistant are not the same terms or specifications, at all. This difference in terminology and, more to the point, engineering specification is important, and the reason its that none of these cameras are warranteed for repair for any ingress of water, water vapor, or moisture. Adzman808's comments that the cause of failure modes resulting from moisture ingress is usually corrosion is also accurate, and can take take weeks or months to develop. Since the spread of corrosion in electronics is insidious, there's no way to repair the camera; and it generally has to be scrapped. This is another reason that manufacturers will not warranty the camera to be weather-sealed or against the ingress of moisture.
  3. Of course, I had to take it to the race track to try it out. It performed very well and is very responsive. In particular, the back button for autofocus is much improved over the X-T2's. The silky shutter makes it easy to take multiple frames without the shutter breakover impacting panning or holding the lens by hand. Chevrons with Cosworth BDA 2-liter motors are always fast at this track. Fuji X-H1 and 50-140 with 1.4X extender Formula Atlantic with Cosworth twin-cam BDA are very fast at Sonoma Raceway. Big Aston Martin used as the pace car Porsches! So, here's my conclusions to date: a lot of folks are looking at the X-H1 as a line extension to the X-T-series. It's not; its a completely NEW line of camera bodies intended for what I would classify as "hard-core" professionals, specifically those that will be working in tough and demanding environments, and will need to frequently use long, fast, heavy prime telephotos or cinema lenses. This is why it has the number "1" after it. Its intended for sports, motorsports, combat photojournalists, wildlife photographers, studio photographers, and professional videographers, and in some use-cases, those end-users who need stabilize those lenses. If one was in the Canon system, this set of end-users would comprise the photographers that need a Canon 1D-class body; the X-H1 is the analog in the Fuji X system to a Canon 1D-series camera. My experience is that the majority of photographers will or do not need a 1D-series body, but some, like me, for my professional motorsports photojournalism work do: we need a tough, durable, strong and stiff camera body that can safely mount long, heavy, fast prime teles and not break. What I've found that has been a big added plus are the vastly improved shutter mech, the significantly better EVF, the improved continuous high-speed AF system using parallel processing, the increased matrix metering accuracy, and improvements in operational efficiency from the addition of the sub-monitor and touchscreen LCD.
  4. So, engineering requirements aside, what's the X-H1 like to use in the real world? Well, personally, I find it to be much like an X-T2, which is truly an excellent camera, but functionally better in every way. Some data regarding the size: The X-H1 is WHOPPING 5% larger than the X-T2 in 2 of 3 dimensions, and 10% thicker at its minimum depth dimension, the extra thickness necessary to incorporate the IBIS subsystem. Here is a top view photo showing my Graphite Silver next to my X-H1. So, while the size difference is "statistically significant", do I find it to be practically significant? No, with the exception that the grip is MUCH better than the X-T2's. Regarding weight: The X-T2 with a RRS L-plate mounted is actually 17 grams heavier (I did the data analysis) than X-H1. Do I ever think about how heavy the X-T2 is when I am using it in the real world with its L-plate mounted? Nope, and likewise do I think about the weight X-H1 when I am using it in the real world? No. The leaf-spring shutter button and 5-spring suspended shutter mech is an absolute joy, the smoothest, silkiest, quietest, best damped focal plane shutter I have ever used, hands down, bar none, from any manufacterer. There is absolutely no "breakover" in actuating the shutter, and it is designed so that no vibration or shock is transferred to the body to interfere with the IBIS system. Incredible and really, really nice. REALLY nice. The 3.7 million dot EVF is amazing, fast, clear, and gorgeous to look at but more importantly, the camera has exceptionally accurate matrix metering, on par with the GFX, which is exemplary. See the photo of Putah Creek Pond below to see how accurately the X-H1 meters to render both shadow detail and capture the highlights in the sky without blowing out. This metering accuracy makes it a snap to edit images by just needing to set black/white points. That's it. By contrast, I found my first X-T2 in matrix metering mode seemed to consistently read the scene as darker than it actually was, thereby overexposing by 1/3 or 1/2 a stop. The X-H1 metering system seems to be much more accurate, and the higher resolution and clearer EVR makes it easier to gauge the exposure preview of the scene. A lot of folks in the internet "specs geeks" forums have been griping about the removal of the exp comp dial for the submonitor, but in actual use, this has not been a problem for me in any way whatsoever. I have my rear command dial to be able to actuate the exposure comp functionality by a simple press, and then a turn of the dial sets comp quickly and effectively. And the EVF now displays a full ± 5 stops of compensation. And, I don't find that I am inadvertantly bumping the exp comp dial as I often find happens on my X-T2 when I am running around from place to place shooting at the race track. And, having the submonitor has proven to be much more useful than I originally anticipated. It's really nice to be able to glance down at it with lenses like the 18-55 or 10-24 to see what aperture the lens is set at, as well as a panoply of other useful information. When the camera is switched off, its great to be able to see how many frames are left on the card, the available battery capacity, and the exp. comp setting. Bottom line: the more I use the camera, the more I like it. The rear touch screen is nice also, and I really like being able to swipe to bring up the auto timer, the RGB histograms, or the roll/pitch gauge on the LCD. The fact that you can configure it to be only active on a specified part of the screen, as well as the increased eye relief of the new EVF, this lets you look through the viewfinder without getting grease from your nose on the LCD, as well as letting you use the LCD touch functions. The next post will show some real world use photographs, including high-speed continuous autofocus.
  5. 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.
  6. Forto Porsche in pit lane. GFX... X-T2 pics... Will Power... Joseph Newgarden Graham Rahal Ryan Hunter-Reay Scott Dixon Helio Castroneves
  7. Reflections of Joseph Newgaren.... Fuji GFX...
  8. Another point for consideration. I shot with my X-T2 for my last pro race for the year, and 11FPS was WAY more than enough frame rate to my meet needs. In point of fact, I shot about 3x more frames that I usually do with my Canon; and had to discard 2/3 of the images, not because they were soft, but because I don't need 10 shots of a car apexing a corner. Even with the 10+ FPS that current pro DSLR bodies provide, the fact of the matter is, most sports pros don't shoot that way at all; they shoot like a Navy Seal for the most part, 2-3 frames per subject/per shot, not 8 or 10 or 14. In the vast majority of situations, they only need one shot of an athlete, a racehorse, a race car doing something at any given instant, not 20. Their photo editor only needs one, too. They don't have to, and don't want to, shoot "spray and pray" style. I can see how amateurs need this approach to get a "keeper" but all they are doing is ending up with way more frames needed that have to culled and stored, and a lot more shutter actuations necessary to get the shot. On the whole, it all adds up to a LOT more images than necessary and a LOT more actuations on the shutter. This doesn't get talked about much, but the shutter durability is one of the top requirements for a professional using pro bodes.
  9. It won't be competing against the 1Dx and D5 unless it has big, fast glass: 300 and 400mm f/2.8, 500/f.4, 600/f5, etc *and* a level of support like Canon provides at major events. I was shooting at a MotoGP years ago at Philip Island, and the Canon support team there had a replacement battery closure latch....which they replaced for free, of course. They also let me check out a 500/f4 for an afternoon.
  10. I have both and like both very much. Regarding out and out performance, the X-T2 is a major step up over the X-T1 is many different areas, most notably AF performance, overall responsiveness of the camera, resolution, etc. Regarding image quality...that depends on what you specifically mean by image quality, and you haven't specified exactly what you mean. There is obviously more resolution. Regarding other more subjective attributes e.g. tonality, gradation, dimensionality, I would say that the X-T2 is comparable, but somewhat superior to the X-T1. A lot of this is subjective and depends on many different factors, e.g. the quality of light, the lens, the scene, the amount of light relative to shadow, the intention of the photographer, etc. etc. I will say that the X-T2 has notably more dynamic range than the X-T1 and as a consequence, much more editing headroom. Hope this helps.
  11. I would agree that the autoexposure algorithm has changed a bit on the X-T2 relative to the X-T1 and there is an emphasis when using the Pattern metering mode for "exposing to the right." If one is going to expose in one direction or the other, this is in fact the correct direction because there is more data in the image in the highlights than in the shadows. This has to do with how the camera bins the data when it converts the real image to a digital representation. I will say that the dynamic range on the X-T2 is considerable, and if highlights appear blown in the JPEG preview one obtains when using the camera in the Pattern mode, you can almost always fully recover highlight detail of the RAW image. If it is still an issue, though, try the "center-weighted exposure mode" on the X-T2, which meters more along the lines of the Pattern (Multi) mode of the X-T1.
  12. The X-T2 has resolution that is fully comparable or equivalent to the Sony A7RII. The difference in detail that a digital camera can resolve is a factor of pixel pitch (pixels per unit area), not the total number of megapixels on the sensor. If the X-T2 had a full-frame sensor, it would be an ~ 50 megapixel sensor. There are other aspects to what we perceive as sharpness, and a key factor is acutance. This is the ability for the eye to discern small differences in micro-contrast. This is more largely determined by the lenses than the sensor, and the image processor of the camera, as well, rather than the raw number of megapixels of the sensor.
  13. I agree, and also agree with you on the 100-400 lens. I was impressed with it's image quality. I was initially skeptical because I own the (original) Canon 100-400, and, it's an "okay" lens, but it goes soft zoomed out further than 350mm.
  14. James, if you wait a bit....you could get the X-T2 in Siver/Graphite! (if inclined). Apparently it will be announced in January. This makes me think Fuji may be getting on top of the demand for X-T2s.
  15. Really sorry to hear that, James. That's a real failure mode that can occur; if Fuji wanted it back, they likely will do a fault-tree analysis to figure it out and remedy the situation. Unfortunately, the facts are there are no defect-free manufacturing processes; from any company. This is a maxim in the area of quality, and is the basis for quality disciplines e.g. TGM, Six Sigma and/or LEAN. There is alway a (small, hopefully) proportion of products that could be, or are, defective, or can have failure modes in specific use situations. I know it may not be much solace to the folks that have to deal with the issues, but Fuji is a responsible company and takes resolving quality issues and continuous improvement very seriously, so the factors that affected your or others' cameras will be resolved.
  • Create New...