New Fujifilm X-H1 in da house!

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by mtroo

Stephen,
What are your thoughts regarding the XH1 vs the XT2? I do not, and have not ever, shot video which seems to be one of the areas that the XH1 excels. The IBIS is maybe a game changer. I am going on a trek to Peru next month and currently have an XT1. I wanted to upgrade the sensor to the 24MP and it would be nice to have access to the Acros film simulation. I am doing mental gymnastics about which way to go. It appears you have both and I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Thanks

Tim, if you don't need a Canon 1D-series/level of camera body, you don't need an X-H1. The X-H1 is built for hard-core pro use, specifically with long, fast prime telephotos or cine lenses, or larger, heavier non-OIS lenses like the 16-55 f/2.8 pro zoom. The X-H1 is a lot like the X-T2 but on steroids. For your trip, I would recommend the new Fuji X-E3.

[Puma Cat]

Demonstration of the X-H1s IBIS system: 1/6th of a second handheld.

Living Room 1_6th sec by Stephen Scharf, on Flickr

[mtroo]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Tim, if you don't need a Canon 1D-series/level of camera body, you don't need an X-H1. The X-H1 is built for hard-core pro use, specifically with long, fast prime telephotos or cine lenses, or larger, heavier non-OIS lenses like the 16-55 f/2.8 pro zoom. The X-H1 is a lot like the X-T2 but on steroids. For your trip, I would recommend the new Fuji X-E3.

I have the 16-55 f2.8 lens. Great travel lens. Need to give this some thought. Maybe I will just stick with the XT-1. I generally do not print a whole lot. 16MP might be just fine.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by mtroo

I have the 16-55 f2.8 lens. Great travel lens. Need to give this some thought. Maybe I will just stick with the XT-1. I generally do not print a whole lot. 16MP might be just fine.

Its important to remember that an APS-C sensor is approx 1/2 the area of a full-frame sensor, and that resolution is not based on the total number of pixels on a sensor, but the number of pixels in a given unit area; this is called pixel pitch.

Given that, your 16 megapixel X-T1 has the resolution of a full-frame camera with 32 megapixels. Basically, a Nikon D810. Which means you can easily make a 3 foot x 5 foot print with your X-T1 if you want to.

FWIW, I have 12 x 16" MotoGP prints on my wall made from my 4 megapixel Canon 1D, where you can see every stitch, ventilation hole, texture of the rider's racing leathers, etc. If you can make a 12 X 16" print from a 4 megapixel camera dating from 2002, you can easily make a 48" X 64" print from a 16 megapixel camera, no problem at all.

So, take your X-T1.

[mtroo]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Its important to remember that an APS-C sensor is approx 1/2 the area of a full-frame sensor, and that resolution is not based on the total number of pixels on a sensor, but the number of pixels in a given unit area; this is called pixel pitch.

Given that, your 16 megapixel X-T1 has the resolution of a full-frame camera with 32 megapixels. Basically, a Nikon D810. Which means you can easily make a 3 foot x 5 foot print with your X-T1 if you want to.

FWIW, I have 12 x 16" MotoGP prints on my wall made from my 4 megapixel Canon 1D, where you can see every stitch, ventilation hole, texture of the rider's racing leathers, etc. If you can make a 12 X 16" print from a 4 megapixel camera dating from 2002, you can easily make a 48" X 64" print from a 16 megapixel camera, no problem at all.

So, take your X-T1.

Stephen,
Thanks for taking the time to explain that so succinctly. Sometimes things that seem so basic to the experienced are a little more challenging for the noob. Your explanation simplifies things for me. I really do appreciate it.
As long as I am picking your brain, I have several lenses and was thinking about including the 10-24mm OIS, but it is not weather sealed. I think I will keep with the 16-55mm WR. I also have the 16mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4 and the 56mm f1.2. I certainly don’t want to bring that much kit. Your thoughts? I would be interested in some street but mostly landscape photography. We are going with National Geographic on an inn to inn hike to Machu Picchu.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by mtroo

Stephen,
Thanks for taking the time to explain that so succinctly. Sometimes things that seem so basic to the experienced are a little more challenging for the noob. Your explanation simplifies things for me. I really do appreciate it.
As long as I am picking your brain, I have several lenses and was thinking about including the 10-24mm OIS, but it is not weather sealed. I think I will keep with the 16-55mm WR. I also have the 16mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4 and the 56mm f1.2. I certainly don’t want to bring that much kit. Your thoughts? I would be interested in some street but mostly landscape photography. We are going with National Geographic on an inn to inn hike to Machu Picchu.

Tim,
I would take the 10-24 and the 16-55 and leave the others at home. The 10-24 is just too useful for this type of photography not to have it along. Yes, it is not weather-resistant (virtually no manufacturer makes a weather-sealed camera or lens, nor will they warranty damage from ingress of water or moisture under any circumstances, whether equipment is weather-resistant or not).

My solution for you is a simple one: if its raining when you need to shoot with the 10-24, use an umbrella. If you get one with a u-shaped handle, you can clamp it under your arm and torso, or have someone hold it for you.

[Puma Cat]

I thought folks would like to see some examples of the X-H1's IBIS. These are 100% crops of JPEGs.*Virtually no editing, sharpening, clarity, dehaze, etc. performed on the photographs other than the crop to 100%. Images rendered at 144 ppi.**Both are*photographed at f/9, ISO 800, Fuji 18-55 at 55mm (83 mm 35-e) at 1/10th of a second, handheld.

This is my EAR 324 phono stage.



Michell Gyro SE MkiI turntable



I should point out that these photos look even sharper when viewed on my 15" Macbook Pro Retina at 220 ppi resolution.*