Category Archives: Review

In a world of full-frame mirrorless cameras and DSLRs with ever-spiralling megapixel counts, do Micro Four Thirds cameras have a legitimate claim on the professional photographic market? The system that was launched by Olympus and Panasonic in 2008, was an evolution of the original Olympus Four Thirds concept and is still going strong today. New cameras and lenses are continually being released for the system, however, it can be difficult for photographers to get a sense of whether this system is right for their needs.

We’ve put together a quick, contemporary guide to highlight the pros and cons of the Micro Four Thirds system in an attempt to make things a little easier for you.

Like every camera system, Micro Four Thirds has its advantages and disadvantages. Use this guide to figure out how these pros and cons would correspond to your needs as a photographer and/or videographer, and whether that means Micro Four Thirds is right for you…. .

Advantages

Smaller and lighter – This is something Micro Four Thirds cameras have been known for since their inception, but it does bear repeating. Most Micro Four Thirds cameras are significantly smaller than their DSLR counterparts and smaller than most full-frame and APS-C mirrorless cameras. This also goes for the lenses, a Micro Four Thirds telephoto tends to be noticeably lighter than a telephoto for DSLRs. If you’re the type of roaming photographer who needs to carry their gear around a location, this reduction in weight can really add up over the years. The smaller form factor of the cameras also provides an advantage in situations where you want to be unobtrusive, such as wedding or street photography.

Longer focal lengths – The sensor size of a Micro Four Thirds camera provides an equivalent focal length of 2.0x that of a full-frame camera, providing the same field of view as a full-frame lens with twice the focal length. A 300mm lens acts like a 600mm focal length on a full-frame camera. For shooting distant vistas or easily spooked wildlife, this is a godsend, allowing you to achieve focal lengths that wouldn’t be possible on full-frame cameras without spending massive amounts of cash.

Mix and match lenses – The co-operative, collaborative nature of the Micro Four Thirds system is something we’d like to see more of as it’s so useful for photographers. Panasonic Lumix users can snap up the latest Olympus lens, stick it on their camera and start shooting, and vice versa. No adapters, no fiddling – it just works. How nice would that have been during the great Canon vs Nikon wars of the 1990s, eh?

Unique technological innovations – All cameras have their individual quirks, flairs and features that make them worth buying. It’s worth taking a detailed look at Micro Four Thirds cameras to see if they suit your photographic preferences. Panasonic Lumix cameras, for instance, come equipped with 4K Photo modes that allow the user to extract 8MP stills from 4K footage and the flagship GH5 even ups this to 6K Photo. Before deciding on your system, it’s worth looking into whether the camera you’re eyeing up has interesting features that might find their way into your workflow.

Comparatively lower cost – Again, it’s all relative. But in general, you’re shelling out significantly more cash for full-frame DSLRs, large-sensor mirrorless cameras and their paraphernalia than you will for a Micro Four Thirds system. If budget is a concern, this is worth considering.

Disadvantages

Small sensors means inferior low-light performance – The nature of the Micro Four Thirds standard means that its models are wedded to a specific size of sensor, across all of the models which use the system. There’s no getting around the fact that it is a smaller sensor than full-frame or APS-C. This confers some advantages, such as the crop factor mentioned above. However, it also means the cameras are unavoidably poorer in low-light, with inferior dynamic range compared to their larger-sensor counterparts. In most lighting situations the cameras will cope just fine, but if you’re regularly going to be shooting in situations that require the use of high ISOs, this could well be a deal-breaker.

No optical viewfinders – Electronic viewfinders are getting better and better, to the point that many photographers will happily say they prefer them. But, they still cannot quite match the ‘in-the-moment’ immediacy of an optical viewfinder and this is something Micro Four Thirds cameras will not provide.

Weaker autofocus (for stills) – This is a gap that is closing, with Micro Four Thirds manufacturers having done a lot of work on their autofocus systems. However, if this is an important feature for you, autofocus on DSLRs will still be reliably superior when it comes to stills shooting faster and more accurate. This situation may change in a few years, but hasn’t got there yet.

Mirrorless shooters have been singing the praises of Fujifilm’s flagship X-T2 ever since it arrived on the scene and it’s not hard to see why — it’s a fantastic camera, producing beautiful images not to mention crisp 4K video. However, last year the new X-H1 arrived on the scene, a more overtly video-oriented camera, building on what came before but bringing a whole new bag of tricks.

If you’ve been shooting photos and video with the XT2, you may be wondering whether this more recent model is worth the upgrade. We’re going to take a look at the differences between the two cameras, with a focus on video, to try and determine whether you are better off upgrading to the new Fujifilm X-H1.

What are the differences in video?

At first, things look similar on paper. The X-T2 shoots 4K video, as does the X-H1. However, once you delve into the details, it becomes clear that the X-H1 is a different offering entirely. It’s able to shoot F-Log internally, which is Fujifilm’s flat colour profile designed to retain as much detail in an image as possible to allow for optimal colour grading in the edit (see our guide to Canon’s C-Log for more information on Log profiles [https://www.fixationuk.com/close-up-c-log-on-the-eos-5d-mk-iv/]). It also manages a bit-rate of 200MBps, doubling that of the X-T2.

It also simply shoots for longer — you’ll get 15 minutes of 4K shooting at a time on the X-H1, as opposed to 10 minutes on the X-T2. Fujifilm has also brought its popular Film Simulation modes into the video sphere — the X-H1 has the ‘Eterna’ simulation built in, designed to be a quick and easy way to shoot attractive footage with high dynamic range. You can also apply DR expansion modes to video in the X-H1 as well, allowing you to push your dynamic range further still. According to Fujifilm, combining the Eterna simulation mode with the DR expansion modes can net you up to 12 stops of dynamic range, which by anyone’s standards is pretty impressive.

It also records slow-motion footage in 1080p at up to 120fps, while the X-T2 tops out at 60fps. What’s more, as a nice bonus, the X-H1 squeezes in an extra step of ISO for movie mode, topping out at 25,600 rather than 12,800 on the X-T2.

In some respects the cameras are the same, most notably the sensor crop — when recording video, both the X-H1 and X-T2 crop the sensor by a factor of 1.17x.

Image stabilisation

The Fujifilm X-H1 is the first model in the series to come sporting 5-axis in-body image stabilisation. It works in conjunction with XF and XC lenses, with as much as 5EV of compensation possible when paired with optics like the XF 35mm f1.4. It also uses dual processors to power its stabilisation, which Fuji says should make the effect faster and more responsive.

Electronic viewfinder and LCD screen

The X-H1 gets a decent upgrade in both its viewfinder and its LCD monitor compared to the X-T2. Its viewfinder resolution is now 3.69million dots, a significant bump from the 2.36million on the X-T2, and while its monitor is the same resolution and size (1040k dots, 3 inches), it’s now a touch-sensitive model.

Build and handling

If you’re an outdoorsy, all-weathers kind of shooter then the X-H1 is definitely worth your time. It’s a bigger and heavier beast than the X-T2, weighing 673g compared to the X-T2’s 507g, however all this weight is due to an expanded grip and extensive weather-sealing — a total of 68 seals around key points. Its magnesium-alloy shell is harder and more scratch-resistant too.

Drawbacks of the X-H1

It’s not a totally clean sheet for the X-H1. Both of these cameras use the same battery, and all the extra functionality on the X-H1 means it drains its batteries faster than the X-T2. Its CIPA rating is 310 exposures per charge, compared to 340 for the X-T2. You can expand this with a battery grip, and of course you’ll want to pack spares, but it’s still something to be aware of.

There is also the matter of the aforementioned increase bulk in the camera — if you’re carrying your camera for long distances or extended periods, this extra weight could add up.

Conclusion

While the cameras look very similar on the surface, once you start delving into their feature-sets it becomes clear that the X-H1 represents a significant improvement over the X-T2, especially in video terms. That extra dynamic range really expands your options and is certain to improve the quality of your finished product, while there are also plenty of features that’ll make your stills-shooting life easier as well, most notably the in-body 5-axis image stabilisation. If you’re currently considering the upgrade, our advice to you is, quite simply, go for it!

Feel free to get in touch with the team if you have any more questions about the Fujifilm X-H1 or X-T2!

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a serious attempt by Fuji to start courting pro video shooters and hybrid photo/video content creators. A large APS-C mirrorless camera capable of shooting 4K at a high bit rate, with colour profiles optimised for video, it merits serious consideration if you’re looking to upgrade your CSC video kit or expand your skill set into this area.

A camera of similar dimensions and spec, one that similar users will be considering, is Panasonic’s LUMIX GH5, successor to the GH4 and considered by some to be the gold standard in terms of mirrorless cameras for vloggers and the like. While there are many cameras available for the videographer, mirrorless and otherwise, these two models are very similar in terms of price, physical size and capabilities. Thus, if one is tempting you, the other merits consideration too.

Which of these cameras is the better buy? We’ll take a closer look for you in our Fujifilm X-H1 vs Panasonic LUMIX GH5 comparison guide…

Build

Externally, these two cameras are very similar. There is barely a hair’s difference in their dimensions, with both measuring around 140mm by 86mm. At 673g, the X-H1 is a little lighter than the 725g Panasonic GH5, but this isn’t really enough to make a significant difference. If one of your main concerns is lightness and portability of your kit, both of these cameras will suit you well.

Elsewhere, both cameras have a full complement of features useful to the videographer, such as rear LCD screens – the Panasonic’s is both a little larger at 3.2 inches, compared to 3 inches on the X-H1, and higher resolution, with 1,620k dots compared to 1,040k. The Panasonic also scores an extra hardware point for coming with a headphone port built into the camera – if you want one on the X-H1, you need to spring for a battery grip. Both cameras also boast dual SD card slots, a very handy feature for memory-hungry video work, and high-resolution electronic viewfinders.

Internally, there are significant differences worth highlighting in the sensors of the two cameras. The GH5 uses a Micro Four Thirds Live MOS sensor with 20MP of resolution, while the XH1 houses a larger APS-C CMOS sensor with 24MP to play with. This gives the XH1 an edge in terms of the image it produces – richer and with more detail than the Panasonic’s.

Video quality

Both cameras are capable of shooting DCI 4K video, which comes at a resolution of 4096 x 2160 pixels. The Panasonic GH5, however, has a significantly better bit rate of 400Mbps compared to 200Mbps on the XH1, which improves the quality of the video captured. Both cameras also have their own bespoke flat Log profile, used to capture the maximum amount of colour data possible in order to make the grade easier when it comes to editing. The Panasonic Log profile is known as V-Log L, while Fuji’s is F-Log. The Panasonic profile is 10-bit (when used in the GH5) while Fuji’s is 8-bit, so that means you’ll get richer colour depth out of the Lumix model.

Shooting experience

You’ll have a great experience shooting with either of these cameras – both are superbly designed by firms with decades of experience in the field. There are some differences worth noting however.

First, let’s look at low-light performance. The Panasonic Lumix GH5 comes sporting an ISO range of 200-25,600, while the Fujifilm XH1 manages 200-12,800. This might lead you to assume the Panasonic will have the edge in low-light shooting, however, the GH5 is not particularly rated in video circles for its low-light performance, with many users agreeing that footage only really stays usable up to about ISO 6400. Thanks in no small part to its larger sensor, the Fujifilm XH1 produces better low-light footage and copes better at high ISO levels. If low-light shooting is a priority for you, this is worth keeping in mind.

(Of course, it is worth mentioning that in this arena, both of these cameras are comprehensively walloped by Sony’s A7S II, the undisputed king of low-light shooting in the mirrorless realm, with a price to match. That’s out of the purview of this particular blog for now, but is worth mentioning.)

If you’re a run-and-gun type of filmmaker you may find yourself wanting to rely on your camera’s autofocus system, and both of these models deliver pretty well on that front. The XH1 has the edge though, with 325 focus points compared to 225 on the GH5, and a hybrid system that makes use of both contrast-detect and phase-detect AF, rather than just phase-detect on the GH5.

Incorporating slow-motion footage into your video work? Both cameras will allow you to do so, however the GH5 will do it better, shooting at a super-slow 180fps, compared to the still-respectable 120fps on the XH1.

Finally, the GH5 has an edge in terms of battery life, shooting for longer than the XH1. Both cameras can take battery grips, which you’ll want for shooting video.

Lenses

The Fujifilm XH1 is of course X-mount, and this gives it access to the full roster of X lenses. Many of these are absolutely gorgeous – tack-sharp, with generous maximum apertures and smooth zooming action in the models that offer that functionality. However, the Micro Four Thirds mount of the GH5 makes it a comprehensive winner here. The user just has so much glass to choose from at first instance, without needing to get any adapters involved. That’s tough to beat.

Verdict

It’s a tough one, for definite, and the important thing to remember is that both of these cameras are fantastic achievements in technology that will serve you well for your videography needs. For now though, the Panasonic Lumix GH5 has a slight edge thanks to superior video features such as its higher bit rate and better Log profile, as well as the superior lens selection. This, of course, does depend on your situation – if you think you’ll be relying on autofocus and/or shooting a lot in low light, the XH1 may well be your best bet. Feel free to get in touch with us if you’d like to chat about the strengths and weaknesses of these cameras in greater detail – someone on the team will be happy to help!