The Fuji X-H2S is GOOD 

Then definitely the cost will be way more..

You can get a hot shoe adapter for the fuji that will give you xlr input. It’s a nice option because you can rig it up or carry it as is. To me it’s a cinema camera with the atomos and the xlr.

Oh, integrated ND filters would be amazing!

@@MayurMahapatraFilms and then there will be sacrifices to X models to sell the cinema cameras. bad idea.

Maybe a boxed style camera with the xh2s sensor and more framerate paired with an SSD based media would be a good idea.

What did you appreciate the most using the X-H2S over the others?

the a7iv seems to have better dynamic range because sony uses intense noise reduction internally. Look at the test of Undone, with a noise reduction in post, the xh2s has a better DR. you add to this a better management of the rolling shutter, the internal prores, the dci format and open gate, the xh2s seems more interesting.

You can use a Schneider Hollywood blackmagic diffusion filter 1/4 to soften the image a bit, or you can soften the image in post by decreasing the mid tone detail slightly in devinci resolve. Don’t let that aspect prevent you from getting an otherwise great camera. Personally I don’t have a problem with the sharpness because it’s not digital sharpness and it’s easy to control. The A role in this video looks really great to me.

The GH6 is a killer camera at a killer price, especially if you're already invested in good MFT glass. It's easier to add artificial sharpness to taste that it is to convincingly tame artificial sharpness with diffusion or in post. That said, I keep my GH6's sharpness turned all the way down, use a Black Satin 1, and never add any sharpness in post, so you can imagine how uncomfortable this X-H2s footage made me haha If you're looking at getting into the S line: I wouldn't be surprised if Lumix announces the next generation of S1/S1H before too long, and considering that the S1H already beats the X-H2s on most fronts (especially image quality) except for AF, I can't imagine someone considering a Lumix would be happy with an X-H2s in the long term. The way I see it, this camera is for people who do care about AF but not as much as image quality, and Sony is the inverse. Then there's Lumix with the best image but the worst AF 😂

I would never go with a m4/3 sensor again. General science says that bigger the sensor, more light you can use. Not to mention that aps-c can still use full-frame lenses a lot more manageably (i.e. the crop factor is more manageable, the light you loose from the lens is more manageble, etc.). And you never have to constantly justify to other people why you're using a m4/3 sensor. Every friend of mine (myself included) that was/is sold on panasonic is ALWAYS bringing up unsolicited about how m4/3 sensor size is never an issue for them and that it's such a good deal and you can do this and that. Don't get me wrong GH6 is an awesome camera, and if you can get over the hurdles of deep crop factor calculations, less available lenses specifically built for m4/3, light loss when using non-m4/3 lenses, or needing to buy a speedbooster to make more lenses useable, then it's a great option. My personal opinion is that all the issues you have with the sharpening can be resolved for the Fujifilm much easier. From my personal experience having had and used m4/3, aps-c and full frame cameras, larger sensors come with more opportunities, more compatibility, easier use, less adapters, less instances of justifying your sensor size, less crop factor calculations, etc. etc. etc. I personally have landed on fujifilm even after having Sony full frame cameras because the maliability of the footage is sooo good. You can make it look however you want, it just takes some experimentation and learning to get the look you want, but once you figure it out you're set (the same can be said with every single camera). Something that I did think of just now is that if you want to also do photography, from my personal experience, this camera is the better choice. I hated doing photography on the gh5 I had. It was just so bothersome and I felt limited all the time (yes that's my own problem and feelings, but that's how I feel.) I even partially feel that same way with fujifilm because of the crop factor on my favorite full-frame vintage lenses, but it's not as bad as m4/3 was for me. Photography I prefer full frame all the time, it's just so much easier for my perfectionist adhd brain, but fujifilm's colors and ease of use in photography is just so refreshing that I the crop factor doesn't bother me as much. My two cents? Pick the camera that you believe you will be more excited to use more often; the camera that gives you less work that you don't want to do; the camera that helps you focus not on the camera itself, but what you are filming, photographing, or otherwise telling a story about. The camera that gives you the least amount of worries will be the one that gets you up, excited and going to go and do something. That could be the GH6, X-H2S, or something else entirely.

@@chancehansen "the light you loose from the lens is more manageble" it's a misconception that you lose light when adapting FF to APS-C, the entrance pupil and light transmission is the same as on full frame, the aperture equivalent change pertains *only* to depth of field...

ProMist to the rescue.

Yes

I know this is a bit late, but I would say the S5IIX without a doubt is the better option for film makers and videographers. The Panny is a much better value when considering the specs and the image coming from the s5IIX looks a lot more organic than the Fuji (in my opinion). Also, L-mount is great and opens you up to a vast world of adapting lenses!

$2500 for a crop sensor camera is unbelievable alright, unbelievably absurd. Next year, you'll be saying that $5k for a crop sensor camera is a steal! Just say no to the insane price gouging in the camera industry.

@@michaelbell75 if you’re upset about that then you’ll be real upset to hear that the Alexa 35 (crop sensor camera) costs $78,000 😂😂😂. It’s not about the size of the sensor it’s about the quality, dynamic range, speeds of the sensor. Name just one other camera with these specs at this price I’ll wait.

@@michaelbell75 This has to be the dumbest thing I've heard

@@adnan_velic dude, that’s a specialized cinema camera, not an average crop sensor mirrorless. Huge difference

@@michaelbell75 ok here’s another one canon c70 for $5500 with a s35 sensor and less features than the xh2s. Just because a sensor is full frame doesn’t mean anything. I sold my Sony a7 iv and kept my xt4 because that full frame sensor showed barely any benefit compared to my old xt4. Side by side comparing footage it was not an upgrade. People are brainwashed by marketing making them believe full frame is the way to go. I too was brainwashed but after owning a Nikon z6, a Sony a7iv, a Panasonic s5 I can confidently tell you the benefit of going full frame is ALL in the 1 extra stop of low light performance. The depth of field thing full frame people talk about is just a fast prime on the s35 sensor.

Black out? No issues with MF lenses on my end

@@spensersakurai ok cool. Some other RU-vidrs have mentioned it.

Waiting for them to blow it on the L2 camera, and if they do I'm done with the L mount alliance.

Did you?

Yeah I hate this

Fujis dont have an olpf, so theyre naturally too sharp, to solve this problem just blur the footage in davinci, or push the camera 1-2 stops.

@@Dennis94913 I don't think it's an OLPF issue. Some Panasonic cameras like the GX85 and the S5 don't have an OLPF either and they don't have this problem.

@@gabrielmachadobsb Well too be fair, you can tell there's a slight difference in sharpness between the S5 and the S1H which has an OLPF, although the S5 is not as crazy sharp as the Fuji.

are you sure that you’re not just using the Velvia film sim? its a bit weird with skintones, Astia’s better for that

@@abdelkarimouzzine5671 nah, used f-log and eterna mostly, I see it in this video too, the face doesnt look alive, plastic, there are just 3 main skin shades in uour face smudged out, no detail or shades

@@johnnyweissmuller5838The fact that you're comparing f-log and eterna makes me question your opinion. Eterna compresses the tones of the skin which can be good for some types of skin whereas f-log gives you a more uncooked look. Very different from each other.

@@GabrielAlves-lp1qr well, the most used fuji lut for f-log is ”f-log to eterna” that gives a great base for further manipulation, in whatever mode you use, fuji has issues with skin in video

@@johnnyweissmuller5838 Just because a random youtuber told you to use this lut doesn't mean it's the best method for you. What you're doing is using a Film Simulation that you don't like based on other people's opinions and tastes. I suggest you use the WDR Lut if you're not using Davinci.

FUJI XH2S is a great camera, it seems sharper and with more definition on back ground than Red... But there´s a red tone and a video look that bothers me, I don´t know if it can get more cinematic, that´s why I love Lumix S5

@@cinemacine I really doubt that red tone is Fuji's fault, look at de F-Log 2 footage

@@cinemacine It's just heavily oversharpened, no additional detail. Also heavy (chroma) noise reduction taking out the rest of its life out of the footage. Quite a mess.

If you don't mind the forced sharpening then why not if you like the features of the Fuji better. I'll be sticking with my Panasonics (S5 and S1H).

@@DennisSchmitz agree, I think all this companies has to stop that resolution competition nonsense wich such high megapixels count in small sensors, it's just dumb, even in the phoography side, I really don't get it. And they wonder why people are not buying cameras.

looks quite bad indeed, also there's barely any chroma information in darker areas.

this is my main gripe with fuji, the way they sharpen the image just makes things look thin. I dont know how else to put it. It's unfortunate too when you consider the great dynamic range and colors you can get out of it, or even their previous cameras.

Same here. I'm watching this video projected in 4K at 150 inches and the haloing from the sharpening is quite apparent. Other than the image processing the camera seems pretty damn great but of course none of that matters when the image is the way it is.

Though these are legitimate concerns or personal issues, you need to think of who will be using this and how. Anyone using this with digital lenses and content creation in mind (RU-vid for example) will probably be fine with the sharpening. Especially if they are trying to take advantage of autofocus and eye detection. However, anyone who wants to shoot more serious video, that being short films, etc, will be doing manual focusing anyway and will most likely (not saying in all cases) adapting vintage lenses. Like what was stated in the video, fuji doesn’t have a ton of options video wise for lenses, they have a very limited lineup and most professional that I admire that work with these cameras normally have adapted older glass to their systems to take that digital edge off. Plus we can’t forget post processing (with de sharpening for example) and filters that can be adapted. Like I said even though these are legitimate concerns, at the end of the day, if this is in the hands of a professional does it really matter? Most people that complain (not this thread in particular or this comment, just speaking generally) are usually shit or lack the proper knowledge for colors, editing, or really the eye for it. For example, if my clients have hired me because the videos I use to produce on a XT-3 (a photo focused camera) were so good and came out way better then my competition/peers who had technically better/dedicated video cameras, it’s a testament that you don’t need a “beast” of a camera to make amazing results. And I’ll say the same here, regardless if there is a little issue or quirks with the camera like sharpening, if even the director for The Joker (which image wise is beautiful) de sharpened their footage, what’s the difference here?

I think this might be a product of their stubbornness in using Xtrans sensors. You can't sharp Xtrans footage with the same algorithm you use on Bayer sensor, so they might oversharpen the hell out of it in camera to prevent you from doing it in post. And Xtrans also generates terrible purple moire, which they "fix" with aggressive chroma noise reduction. Fuji needs to rethink everything, which is frustrating when there is so much good in this camera, but it's held back by a flawed core design

@@thejimmyfermin I don't disagree on what you're saying about what people need, the ability to pull a good image in the right hands, as well as with the methods to sort of "desharpen" footage. I also rock an XT3 paired with a P4k and have been hired to do shoots where others would've balked at my "lack" of gear (and other shooters have given me funny looks before). But I always come out just fine. I always prefer the P4K image but the XT3 is more than good enough and is sometimes the tool needed to get the job done. However, in regards to sharpening, I just feel llike it's something that fuji could implement pretty easily without any real downside, or at least one that any of us can really think of. E.g. I've worked with a7siii and a7iv footage numerous times, and even tho some of that "sharpness" is still there, the image looks more organic than fuji's in that specific sense (fuji colors are better imo). It's sort of like why not just implement it if possible, rather than holding back the capabilities of the camera?

@@_o__o_ I noticed great deal of sharpening when NR is completely off. And this amount of sharpening doesn’t exist on what i have seen in other videos.

@@sepehratefi fact is, the whole image processing pipeline is a complete mess and rather competes with that of a drone instead of an actual cinema camera.

@@DennisSchmitz strongly disagree.

@@sepehratefi oversharpening and heavy chroma filtering taking out all the live are huge problems. Not going to use this camera for that reason for my projects.

@@DennisSchmitz you do you but there is no over sharpening what so ever.

leica SL have contrast detection autofocus and they still sell well. Plus, if it's for a pro gig, I would be adapting it with cine lens and having a focus puller pulling focus anyways.

@@zKMotion true but this is less for narrative/art stuff and more for event coverage where you can't really afford to lose a shot.

@@AnzelLmao even when shooting events, most of the time still would be MF plus we adapt moded cine lens housing for event work as well. Only time we'll use AF is probably on gimbal and that's it.

@@zKMotion but to be honest, Leica could launch a camera with 3 stops of dynamic range and it still would sell because of the Leica brand

@@gabrielmachadobsb yup, fuji will still sell as well

with phone video it is, but definitely with narrative or even corporate or documentary work, avoid anything oversharpened.

For the stuff I shoot I usually always have to soften the image a bit in post and that works fine on an image that looks good with minimum sharpening forced in camera and as little as possible forced noise reduction. However when the image looks like this Fuji it's pretty much unfixable. You'll just be smearing and otherwise manipulating the artifacts from the sharpening and make it look even worse.