When the Fujifilm X-H1 was first released in February this year, I wrote an article about how it was a disappointment. I'm certain many Fuji shooters will disagree with me about this, however, I stand by my points and this latest video from Kinotika describes many of my sentiments.
Of course, as a camera for stills the Fujifilm X-H1 is still a fantastic camera and offers some great features, but, so does the Fuji X-T2. From a photographers point of view, the upgrade isn't significant. This camera leans more towards video shooters with its new features and Dave Altizer from Kinotika reviews the X-H1 specifically for video. There are several features the X-H1 has which are actually very good. The in-body stabilization for one is very good and genuinely useful in many circumstances. This is something many video shooters find useful in Sony cameras and to finally have it in a Fuji camera is fantastic. DCI 4K is also something I really enjoy and at an awesome 200 mb/s bit rate the footage is stunning. Unfortunately, this is where the primary positive points end for this camera, and Altizer describes how it's not a great option considering what else is available on the market. Although I am a big fan of Fujifilm and own several of their cameras I believe options like the Sony a7 III and the Panasonic GH5 make the X-H1 a bit of an odd choice for video shooters.
Check out the full review above.
Note : I had the chance to play a bit with the X-H1 and the 90mm (An amazingly sharp lens)
Now, I have a problem (actually if only I only had one...), Complaining about the sharpness (too sharp) of the video is for me something I have a lot of difficulty with.
The more the tech will advance, the more resolution we will have, the more people expect to get a sharp image. I mean what's the point of shooting in 4, 6 or 8K if the whole freaking picture is soft? Seriously? The whole section on the video when it is mentioned to add a mist filter is ridiculous, not only the output is dead ugly (taste is of course relative), but it goes against the whole concept of High resolution picture. My GH5 and GH5s are sharp and I love them for that, actually I even envy the video (when it comes to sharpness) coming out from a XT-2 and H-X1 with the 90mm and 56mm ABP...
If it is soft image you want? Then get a Canon 5DMKIII or even better, just hit the diffraction point of your lens and your image will be soft, not need to apply any freaking filter for that. Even better, do it in post and keep a clean source.
I know many will not agree with me, but we can't complain when the image of a camera is Sharp when we used to have shitty product in the past with soft image.
>> Complaining about the sharpness (too sharp) of the video is for me something I have a lot of difficulty with.
Aside from the point you made, it also indicates that the reviewer is too stupid to change the lens or put a filter on that one...
One of the reasons to use that filer is moire not that it’s too sharp. Also stopping down too much to hit diffraction changes the DOF so it gives you a different kind of shot. Not always practical to do that. People also use ND filter in video because they want to shoot at a specific aperture and shutter speed.
ND Filter is not only for specific aperture in video, it is used for BOTH specific aperture AND correct shutter speed (180 degrees).
Bust has said by David Mawson, the reviewer just had to get the correct lens for his need. There are plenty of lenses that are soft enough to match his needs.
I did say BOTH shutter speed and aperture.
Once again it’s more about moire as opposed to sharpness. Many new sensors don’t have an AA filter or the camera may utilise line skipping which can cause moire in video.
The X-H1 is poor for a video camera. It doesn't have any of the exposure aids needed for video, not even zebras. It's limited to 10 min or 30 with the grip. This is not a video camera, it's a stills camera with limited video capability. Fuji should have just brought out an X-T3 as a stop-gap until they were able to produce a camera to compete with the GH5. I have loads of Canon and Fuji lenses, but I see myself having to buy a GH5 as I move more into longer video recordings. It's very disappointing.
I find it very odd that DPReview described this as a "VERY capable video camera". It isn't, so I've lost faith in their reviews as well. Double disappointment.
>> The X-H1 is poor for a video camera. It doesn't have any of the exposure aids needed for video, not even zebras. It's limited to 10 min or 30 with the grip. This is not a video camera, it's a stills camera with limited video capability. Fuji should have just brought out an X-T3 as a stop-gap until they were able to produce a camera to compete with the GH5.
Not having zebras is crazy. But it's not a feature that requires new hardware - it could be added in a firmware update. Whether it will be, I don't know - launching a video-oriented camera without this facility is so crazy I have no idea what Fuji are playing at.
..I found an interview with a Fuji engineer saying that the XH1 cpu is running at the limit and real zebras can't be added. It ***does*** have a basic over-exposure blinkie or something.
Honestly, I'd rather they'd added zebras and eterna to the XT2. (I have no idea whether the CPU has the capacity - it might if it is the same one the XH1 has and it is running the calculations for the IBIS.)
Remember that a camera is a tool and that every camera match a specific job or style. I, for one, really like the videos that I shot with the X-H1 and the 90mm, the image and colors are really nice. For the kind of shooting I am doing, the X-H1 in its actual form and with its many limitation is matching my GH5s and GH5. I also shot some Corporate Job with with an X-Pro 2 and XT-2 alongside a GH5. When you control your environment, you place people correctly, you make sure that the AF will not be a problem, then these Fuji Camera were a delight to use, in this very specific setup.
Well written. Thank you for the article.
You made it very clear.