Fuji X-T3 released

Any of the following could have contributed...it's impossible to know what primarily affected the final result:

- Lens "character"
- Lens colors/micro contrast
- Lens rendering of motion
- Softening filters
- Post-production
- Lighting and how it's shaped
- Camera movement

Even the final aspect ratio delivery may favorably trick the brain. And I'm sure other variables as well.
 
reem12 said:
Can anyone tell me if they Know if any film grain was used on this project. The texture is amazing without being over done. If this is right off the camera I'm wondering what iso was used to produce this effect. Also is it the cine lens used on this project that has this film looking this sharp without the digital sharp look we're used to seeing from dslr shot material. I'm just noticing a drastic difference with the xt3 when the cine lenses are being used. the motion even looks better for some odd reason. any knowledge of behind the scenes would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Click to expand...

https://fujifilm-x.com/global/stories/making-of-x-t3-a-memento-of-life/

1.jpg
2.jpg
 
Yes indeed pure drifting. I believe the only max lens used though was the 18 to 55. I see it used the 23.98 frames per second, but the motion looks so much more filmic with these cine zooms than they do using their photo zooms. If I can get this consistent type of look out of my xt3 I will personally not see a reason to keep chasing different camera brands for my cinema work. This will be more than enough. But I am seeing the benefit of those cine zooms. their our a couple of other shorts circulating with the same set up, are yielding similar results.

In terms of filmic grain, I'm venturing to say this was added in post due to the fact, the DP said they chose to keep the iso at it's lowest, 640? I really doubt this cam would have produced this type of grain at this low of iso. If that being the case, the colorist did an amazing job dialing in the perfect amount to enhance and not distract from the film.
 
reem12 said:
Yes indeed pure drifting. I believe the only max lens used though was the 18 to 55. I see it used the 23.98 frames per second, but the motion looks so much more filmic with these cine zooms than they do using their photo zooms. If I can get this consistent type of look out of my xt3 I will personally not see a reason to keep chasing different camera brands for my cinema work. This will be more than enough. But I am seeing the benefit of those cine zooms. their our a couple of other shorts circulating with the same set up, are yielding similar results.

In terms of filmic grain, I'm venturing to say this was added in post due to the fact, the DP said they chose to keep the iso at it's lowest, 640? I really doubt this cam would have produced this type of grain at this low of iso. If that being the case, the colorist did an amazing job dialing in the perfect amount to enhance and not distract from the film.
Click to expand...

To sweeten the deal, B&H and others have had that lens on sale for $2,999.99, $1,000.00 off the regular price. Very tempting except the small and light still lenses are superior for run & gun documentary filmmaking for me. The AF is too valuable for me to give up. But if I am hired to shoot something a bit more planned out, not from gimbal, I would rent this lens, it makes very nice looking images with the X-T3.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1388303-REG/fujinon_16580131_mk18_55mm_t2_9_lens_fuji.html
 
It'd be cool if there was an entire f/2.8 pancake prime range, all in a similar size to their 27mm f/2.8. Although I think 8-16, 18-55, 55-200 would be too hard to pass up for the way I'd use this camera - fast-paced shooting. Just like the olympus lenses, these are way more tempting to "collect" vs. any canon lenses, I think it's the silver that gets me.
 
reem12 said:
Can anyone tell me if they Know if any film grain was used on this project. The texture is amazing without being over done. If this is right off the camera I'm wondering what iso was used to produce this effect. Also is it the cine lens used on this project that has this film looking this sharp without the digital sharp look we're used to seeing from dslr shot material. I'm just noticing a drastic difference with the xt3 when the cine lenses are being used. the motion even looks better for some odd reason. any knowledge of behind the scenes would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Click to expand...

[WARNING & apologies to X-T3 fans: Parade Raining Follows]

While some of the other demos looked impressive for skintones/color/detail, this example evoked the opposite reaction. For this subject matter it would seem one would want to 'periodize' the look such as these examples: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36389581 . It's art, so it's subjective; I felt it didn't work.

Admittedly I only owned one Fuji camera (3D) and the video quality was poor- so that's an initial bias. After examining the X-T3 at the same time as the EOS R at Samy's in LA, the build quality was far lower, and the LCD and viewfinder were so low quality I'm not sure I'd ever purchase this camera, regardless of video quality (instead for that price range go for the A7 III and correct color in post (did it with A7S I/II- a hassle but now not an issue with more experience. The 10-bit argument doesn't really hold water (used to shoot 12-bit RGB on the C300 II- getting better skintone color results with the 1DX II (8-bit 422; custom picture style). For extreme grades, yes, 10+ bit is certainly helpful, but I don't do that (always try to get in camera looking as good as possible)). Additionally, the tiny battery puts it back to A7S I/II swap-o-matic mode for power (vs. A7x III with updated batteries).

No one noticed the stuck white pixels starting at 1:42? Along with the magenta issue, comparatively low build quality, and problems with raw conversion (X Trans vs. normal Bayer pattern for stills), I'm giving this camera a pass (almost pulled the trigger until I handled it in person- really wanted to like it!).

[/END Parade Raining]

Have been looking for an upgrade to the Canon 80D for travel/gimbal and like many, am waiting for the A7S III. Perhaps the XH2 with IBIS will have better build quality + LCD+VF?
 
jcs said:
[WARNING & apologies to X-T3 fans: Parade Raining Follows]

While some of the other demos looked impressive for skintones/color/detail, this example evoked the opposite reaction. For this subject matter it would seem one would want to 'periodize' the look such as these examples: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36389581 . It's art, so it's subjective; I felt it didn't work.

Admittedly I only owned one Fuji camera (3D) and the video quality was poor- so that's an initial bias. After examining the X-T3 at the same time as the EOS R at Samy's in LA, the build quality was far lower, and the LCD and viewfinder were so low quality I'm not sure I'd ever purchase this camera, regardless of video quality (instead for that price range go for the A7 III and correct color in post (did it with A7S I/II- a hassle but now not an issue with more experience. The 10-bit argument doesn't really hold water (used to shoot 12-bit RGB on the C300 II- getting better skintone color results with the 1DX II (8-bit 422; custom picture style). For extreme grades, yes, 10+ bit is certainly helpful, but I don't do that (always try to get in camera looking as good as possible)). Additionally, the tiny battery puts it back to A7S I/II swap-o-matic mode for power (vs. A7x III with updated batteries).

No one noticed the stuck white pixels starting at 1:42? Along with the magenta issue, comparatively low build quality, and problems with raw conversion (X Trans vs. normal Bayer pattern for stills), I'm giving this camera a pass (almost pulled the trigger until I handled it in person- really wanted to like it!).

[/END Parade Raining]

Have been looking for an upgrade to the Canon 80D for travel/gimbal and like many, am waiting for the A7S III. Perhaps the XH2 with IBIS will have better build quality + LCD+VF?
Click to expand...

Definitely entitled to your rain, all potentially valid points. But you are almost the lone voice not digging on and buying this camera, everyone else seems to love it ;-)
Not sure where you're getting low quality, especially the EVF, it's been lauded as one of the best mirrorless EVFs out there lately, but the screen is decent.
The dials and buttons are excellent and feel MUCH more solid that the plastic junk that's all over Canon DSLRs, to me.
I don't Vlog so I don't take into account all of the Vlogger whining that the screen doesn't swivel but I can judge focus and exposure on it decently.
And yes, the battery set up is weak, but workable and not bad at all with the grip using three of them.

It seems you're also missing the value equation, how much are you going to pay for the A7S III? This camera is now $1,399.00!
Are you going to pay double or triple that for the Sony? It may be better when it comes out but worth 200 or 300% of the cost of the X-T3?
Not to me. But maybe to you, fair enough. The only flimsy thing on it is the battery door, to me.
But my 80D battery door is crap too as are almost all mirrorless cameras.
 
jcs said:
[WARNING & apologies to X-T3 fans: Parade Raining Follows]

While some of the other demos looked impressive for skintones/color/detail, this example evoked the opposite reaction. For this subject matter it would seem one would want to 'periodize' the look such as these examples: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36389581 . It's art, so it's subjective; I felt it didn't work.
Click to expand...

I agree. The images look great, but somehow too clean for the subject matter. Something is off. Perhaps they need more "grain", but there is also just far too much depth of field in many shots. Even that cover shot with the family and the title - that house needs to be far more out of focus in the background. I also would have definitely chosen other lenses. Probably older Cookes - S2/3's. Not super clean Fuji. It feels like TV drama, not cinema.

Atrocious sound mixing in post as well. Completely different in several matching shots, often coming from the same character. Inexcusable.

Lastly, this is an art direction issue, but everything is also physically far too clean in the shots - the clothes, the ground, the fences, everything. Even the people. It's a bit like shooting a civil war drama and having all the soldiers on the battlefield wearing cleaned and pressed uniforms. Just not convincing.
 
Last edited:
jcs said:
Along with the magenta issue, comparatively low build quality, and problems with raw conversion (X Trans vs. normal Bayer pattern for stills), I'm giving this camera a pass (almost pulled the trigger until I handled it in person- really wanted to like it!).
Click to expand...

I initially passed on it and the upcoming AF firmware had me excited again - for a second - but I do not like the build quality either (and other things). If you have a chance, check out the Z6 at Samy's if they have it out on display.

I'm about 48 hours away from purchasing it depending on what's said about the RP in the next day or two.

Currently, I think it's the most underrated camera of the year (this year because it started shipping too late last year). No 4K/60p is hurting me though, but I need to own something soon (not rent).

Some of the X-T3 is undeniably gorgeous though...I like this guy's work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDTUkuHhTps&t=3s
 
NorBro said:
I initially passed on it and the upcoming AF firmware had me excited again - for a second - but I do not like the build quality either (and other things). If you have a chance, check out the Z6 at Samy's if they have it out on display.

I'm about 48 hours away from purchasing it depending on what's said about the RP in the next day or two.

Currently, I think it's the most underrated camera of the year (this year because it started shipping too late last year). No 4K/60p is hurting me though, but I need to own something soon (not rent).

Some of the X-T3 is undeniably gorgeous though...I like this guy's work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDTUkuHhTps&t=3s
Click to expand...

Here's X-T3 footage that I think looks really excellent:

Nikon Z6 vs. EOS R:

I've always thought Nikon is right up there with Canon for skintones/color (different, but still excellent). For video the Z6 is certainly a better option vs. the EOS R! And if one has the lenses, equivalent for stills (more personal preference at that point).

puredrifting said:
Definitely entitled to your rain, all potentially valid points. But you are almost the lone voice not digging on and buying this camera, everyone else seems to love it ;-)
Not sure where you're getting low quality, especially the EVF, it's been lauded as one of the best mirrorless EVFs out there lately, but the screen is decent.
The dials and buttons are excellent and feel MUCH more solid that the plastic junk that's all over Canon DSLRs, to me.
I don't Vlog so I don't take into account all of the Vlogger whining that the screen doesn't swivel but I can judge focus and exposure on it decently.
And yes, the battery set up is weak, but workable and not bad at all with the grip using three of them.

It seems you're also missing the value equation, how much are you going to pay for the A7S III? This camera is now $1,399.00!
Are you going to pay double or triple that for the Sony? It may be better when it comes out but worth 200 or 300% of the cost of the X-T3?
Not to me. But maybe to you, fair enough. The only flimsy thing on it is the battery door, to me.
But my 80D battery door is crap too as are almost all mirrorless cameras.
Click to expand...


Well Dan for whatever reason I tend to think differently, as I'm sure you've noticed over the years (called the VENICE an ARRI challenger right when it came out; wasn't a popular position. Now the VENICE seems to be a new favorite). Not trying to be a mismatcher or troll, just see things differently. I agree on the value proposition, however I'd rather spend $2k for an A7 III (for video) and $2300 for an EOS R (for stills), but not both. Have you examined the EOS R in person? Build quality and LCD+VF (resolution/detail) are in another league- retina-like compared to pixelated (too bad the EOS R video is so handicapped). When I owned 5D3's and the C300 II, I purchased the 1DX II to provide 4K60 (and replaced and then sold the 5D3s for stills). I thought I could sell the 1DX II and get the X-T3 for both stills and video (going smaller+lighter- same long-term goal as you), however after further research that won't provide the combined stills+video quality I need (right now stills are more important). Then thought perhaps X-T3 for video and EOS R for stills, however build quality and other issues nixed that idea. After spending more time with the 80D (gimbal etc.), prefer full frame over crop- don't have that many fast+wide primes (50 1.4 isn't wide enough, 16-35 2.8 II isn't fast enough, 85 1.2 and 135 F2 are the other current options: way too narrow for crop and our kinds of shoots). Putting the 70-200 F2.8 II on the 80D and shooting the moon was pretty cool though (best moon shot yet- maybe a 2x TC could let me see the secret space force moon bases ;) ).

I think it's important to politely state one's views even if unpopular, as it can help others make more informed purchase/rental/production decisions. For example, wish I'd known about DJI's terrible batteries before buying a Ronin-M (that everyone raved about at the time- never heard a peep about battery problems (until specifically searching for solutions)). How many people got burned by Sony camera's overheating, etc.? (pun intended, not literally)
 
For shooting handheld using cameras of this size, I only want to actually hold it in my hand. I used a zacuto marauder/gh4 with good results but it begins to contribute to a larger footrpint, going against a huge benefit of a tiny camera.

The GH5 obviously has IBIS but I've been paying way more attention to skin tones lately and while material from it can look good on a computer, I find it rarely looks good when streaming youtube videos on a TV.

I know the camera is only $1399 but that's also a luxli timpani + luxli cello. My point is it hasn't quite done it for me, despite offering incredible value - maybe IBIS would have sealed the deal. While the camera looks awesome for video and would be amazing for stills it's quite far down my list of prioritized purchases at the moment!

It'd be cool if their film simulations included ones like "sony fs7, canon c200 wide DR" etc.! At that point the other brand of camera has been purchased (to use on a multi cam shoot) so why not cough up the ingredients to make life easy? This is only an unrealistic request by the way.
 
Last edited:
jcs said:
I've always thought Nikon is right up there with Canon for skintones/color (different, but still excellent). For video the Z6 is certainly a better option vs. the EOS R! And if one has the lenses, equivalent for stills (more personal preference at that point).
Click to expand...

He made one vs. the Sony too (Z7): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tvBykD_sNQ&t=147s

I'm only waiting to hear about the new RP just in case Canon does something crazy. The price is even rumored to be as low as $1299.

There is no point in releasing a camera so soon after the EOS R so this one is just bizarrely interesting. 2 days.

I'm prepared to be disappointed, however, a pleasant surprise would really complicate things for me as I want the Nikon, ha.
 
NorBro said:
He made one vs. the Sony too (Z7): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tvBykD_sNQ&t=147s

I'm only waiting to hear about the new RP just in case Canon does something crazy. The price is even rumored to be as low as $1299.

There is no point in releasing a camera so soon after the EOS R so this one is just bizarrely interesting. 2 days.

I'm prepared to be disappointed, however, a pleasant surprise would really complicate things for me as I want the Nikon, ha.
Click to expand...

Out of the camera Nikon looks better than Sony (Z7 also more $). I was able to get acceptable results for video with the A7S I/II and the A7 III has better color, so could deal with it for video (not sure about raw stills matching Canon or Nikon raw stills). The new super AF firmware update for the A7 III isn't due until April- that could be really fun for wild gimbal shots. The A6400 AF demos are impressive: should be even more impressive on FF cameras:

For the time being, focusing on doing better lighting set ups and better content using just the 1DX II (A) & 80D! (B) :)
 
jcs said:
I've always thought Nikon is right up there with Canon for skintones/color (different, but still excellent). For video the Z6 is certainly a better option vs. the EOS R! And if one has the lenses, equivalent for stills (more personal preference at that point).

Well Dan for whatever reason I tend to think differently, as I'm sure you've noticed over the years (called the VENICE an ARRI challenger right when it came out; wasn't a popular position. Now the VENICE seems to be a new favorite). Not trying to be a mismatcher or troll, just see things differently. I agree on the value proposition, however I'd rather spend $2k for an A7 III (for video) and $2300 for an EOS R (for stills), but not both. Have you examined the EOS R in person? Build quality and LCD+VF (resolution/detail) are in another league- retina-like compared to pixelated (too bad the EOS R video is so handicapped). When I owned 5D3's and the C300 II, I purchased the 1DX II to provide 4K60 (and replaced and then sold the 5D3s for stills). I thought I could sell the 1DX II and get the X-T3 for both stills and video (going smaller+lighter- same long-term goal as you), however after further research that won't provide the combined stills+video quality I need (right now stills are more important). Then thought perhaps X-T3 for video and EOS R for stills, however build quality and other issues nixed that idea. After spending more time with the 80D (gimbal etc.), prefer full frame over crop- don't have that many fast+wide primes (50 1.4 isn't wide enough, 16-35 2.8 II isn't fast enough, 85 1.2 and 135 F2 are the other current options: way too narrow for crop and our kinds of shoots). Putting the 70-200 F2.8 II on the 80D and shooting the moon was pretty cool though (best moon shot yet- maybe a 2x TC could let me see the secret space force moon bases ;) ).

I think it's important to politely state one's views even if unpopular, as it can help others make more informed purchase/rental/production decisions. For example, wish I'd known about DJI's terrible batteries before buying a Ronin-M (that everyone raved about at the time- never heard a peep about battery problems (until specifically searching for solutions)). How many people got burned by Sony camera's overheating, etc.? (pun intended, not literally)
Click to expand...

I always appreciate your opinions, you have a unique perspective that I definitely don't have and if we all liked the same gear, everything would have a tendency to look the same and would probably be pretty boring.

Also, I've rented and used both Canon Teleconvertors with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM and IMHO, they are both awful and noticeably degrade the image quality, the 2X more than the 1.4X obviously. I shot BTS on Cosmos at Sunset Crater in Arizona with the 2X on the 5D MKIII and it was terrible, the CA was off the charts, the images were soft in comparison to just the 70-200. I'm a bit leery of all teleconvertors to be honest, they are something that has design compromises optically by their very nature. If you need a long lens, buy a long lens. The idea of a teleconvertor is more appealing economically but the image, yuck. Maybe the Fuji 1.4X I am going to try will change my mind but the Canons? Ughh.
 
puredrifting said:
I always appreciate your opinions, you have a unique perspective that I definitely don't have and if we all liked the same gear, everything would have a tendency to look the same and would probably be pretty boring.

Also, I've rented and used both Canon Teleconvertors with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM and IMHO, they are both awful and noticeably degrade the image quality, the 2X more than the 1.4X obviously. I shot BTS on Cosmos at Sunset Crater in Arizona with the 2X on the 5D MKIII and it was terrible, the CA was off the charts, the images were soft in comparison to just the 70-200. I'm a bit leery of all teleconvertors to be honest, they are something that has design compromises optically by their very nature. If you need a long lens, buy a long lens. The idea of a teleconvertor is more appealing economically but the image, yuck. Maybe the Fuji 1.4X I am going to try will change my mind but the Canons? Ughh.
Click to expand...

Thanks man, it's certainly fun/entertaining to have intelligent discourse especially when there are many different viewpoints. E.g NorBro and I had a long debate over Canon color and we kept it cool. And to be clear, Canon color is far from perfect, it just tends to work better than the competition when "normal" people examine the results (e.g. after working hard on getting GH4/FS700/A7x skintones looking good and showing the talent examples also taken with Canon cameras, they always chose Canon). If Sony puts VENICE level color on their A7x series, I think that's good enough to switch from Canon, even for stills (A7x III already looks pretty good and can work for stills with some work in ACR).

Thanks for the tip on the TCs- read reviews on B&H and thought they might be useful. In your experience ACR's CA correction won't work (curious if the TC shows up in metadata)? No more usable detail and not better than upscaling in post?
Maybe you had a bad one?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732111-USA/Canon_4410B002_Extender_EF_2X_III.html?sts=pi
I am very surprised with this extender. I am using this on a 5D Mark III with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I read several reviews saying the image wasn't very sharp but I am getting some great results with it (even hand held.) Just remember to double the shutter speed compared to your zoom to get the best results. So if you are shooting at 200mm with the 2x extender you will be at 400mm so your shutter speed will need to be at least 1/800 to get the best results. If you are on a tripod you can get away with a slower shutter but I try to keep it at least equivalent to the lens. I will attach a quick photo I shot from 20ft away at 400mm total and then the cropped version to see all the detail. The compatibility chart says, If the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens is attached to an EOS camera having multiple focusing points and an Extender is attached to the lens, only the center focusing point will be usable for AF. But, to my surprise, ALL of my focus points are working with this lens and the 2x extender. I had to go back and re-read it to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, but EVERY focus point is working even though it says only the center focus point would be useable. The only drawback I can see so far is the focus is much slower to find it's mark in low light but seems to be great with well lit subjects. So maybe the message is for older cameras? One other thing I have noticed but haven't had time to do a real test is the depth of field. The loss of light is as it should be by doubling the 2.8 to 5.6 but the depth of field doesn't seem to follow what I expected. Normally if I am shooting a subject at f5.6, I would have a deeper focus area. With the extender, I seem to be getting a really shallow depth of field as if I were still shooting at 2.8. So to get some more usable focus depth I have to stop it down to 7.1 or higher (as you can see in photos below shot at f9). I actually like the really shallow depth I am getting since I mostly shoot artistic shots and modeling but I could see how this would be a problem with sports and such and may be the reason some people are getting some softer results. And again, I haven't had time to completely test this theory. So, to sum it up. I have had very sharp results with the 2x Extender as long as I keep the shutter at the proper speed. It is a great way to double your compatible lenses (will not work with incompatible lenses because of the way part of it slides into the lens.) And, on my 5D Mark III with the 70-200 2.8 IS II, ALL the focus points are working. I love having a small way to basically have the zoom of a 400 without carrying the extra bulk and the cost. If I were shooting sports or such for a living, I would buy the proper lens. It does lose focus speed relative to the amount of light available and in lower light may not focus at all unless you can find a hard edge to catch.
Click to expand...


Pulling the 70-200 F2.8 II off the 1DX II and putting on the 80D is a kind of TC ;) As would using a higher resolution sensor (5DS/R etc.). For astro seems like using a telescope with a DSLR adapter would be the way to go?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top