The Fuji XH1 Review. Fuji takes it to the next level.

69 Comments

1. Hi Steve, thank you this detailed review. After some month and firmware updates which do you recommend now? XT2 with a 55-140 2.8 or the XH1 with a 55-200 3.5-4.8?
   Regards 🙂

2. Hi Steve, have you used M lens on the XH1 with he Fuji M mount? I plan to use the the M 50/2 and 35/1.4 on the XH1..

   • I have not, as I prefer using M glass on full frame cameras as APS-C crops out some and doesn’t use the entire lens. Which would have its positive side though (no corner smearing)..so now that I think of it, I should be trying them out on Fuji bodies ; )

3. Hi Steve,
   Excellent review. I just bought this camera two days ago and put it through a one day field test yesterday with the 16-55 which I have been using on a gripped XT1 since 2015. I have an X-Pro 2 as well, which works fine with my smaller primes, including a Summicron 28.

   I sold most of my leica glass 3 years ago to free up sone working capital..

   The reason I purchased the 16-55 is I was convinced that the lense although bulky would obviate the need for carrying 3 primes. My focusing eyes are not as fast as they used to be and I don’t like switching lenses and exposing sensors to dust. Needless to say, that lense delivered in spades. I carry it plus one prime for bokeh shots when needed.

   Now, I have purchased the XH1 to host the 16-55 and the results yesterday were exactly as I anticipated, superb.

   I read this article before I made the purchase and you reinforced my inclination.

   Thank you,

   WB7

4. Note that the 16-55 f2.8 lense is like a 24-82, not like a 24-70. The differcence is significant.

   • The Fuji 16-55/2.8 is roughly equivalent to 24-83/4.3 FF lens. And that’s why 24-70 is so much bigger and pricier. I still have my old Canon 24-85/3.5-4.5 lens, Fuji is more like that one. Canon is small, light and cheap. I used that Canon lens on Sony A7Rii and now on Sony A7iii with MC-11. I must say Canon is definitely sharper at the center but softer at the edges than Fuji.

5. Oh and one tip- if you set the metering to “average” (the logo is [ ] with nothing in the middle), the Fuji will meter close to an “expose to the right” deal- which is fantastic if you shoot RAW and want to recover highlights the majority of the time. The shots may be a bit under exposed but that’s how expose to the right works.

   • Do you also adjust the exposure compensation dial to be over by 1-2 stops to adjust the histogram or just shoot average mode and adjust in post? I shoot 200 default and 1600 auto iso in daylight and bump up to 6400 auto iso in dark daylight days.

6. The X-E3 has the same film simulations, color output and same sensor/processor of the X-H1. Same image quality.

   Just to put some things in perspective, particularly for a camera that costs $899 USD.

   I think the rep. you had for “fuji hate” was simply that many many times you seemed to have these strange experiences like lack of DR, etc. There was never such thing with Fuji. Fuji 16 MP X-trans is based of Sony’s sensor used in Pentax K-5 and other Sony 16 MP cameras, and this one is based of the same A6300/6500 (notice the whole “copper wiring to lower noise at high iso deal” for both). Both of those sensors are great, period. In all the cameras that use them.

   The one thing Fuji really needed to level up drastically was AF and overall speed, and they have done that all the way to the X-E3 – even if the X-T2/X-H1 operate even faster with the battery grips.

7. All written here may be accurate (I really don’t know as I have not used any of the two cameras compared), but for me, the pictures shown here could have been done with almost ANY digital camera, even an iphone (perhaps not for prints) Artistically or from the technical aspects needed from a camera to make these pics, almost anything would do.

   • I love when people leave comments saying this, and it has been said maybe over 1000 times here, and over 20,000 times on articles I have seen elsewhere. Lots of talk, but no proof of it. Show your work! Please. Send me a post on your iPhone photos that beat any $2000 camera made. The fact of the matter is, no, there is no phone made that can beat any camera like this, or in the same class. For one thing, phones are awful in low light. Period. Try cranking up to ISO 12800 on a phone. Oops. Try getting some shallow DOF or using an f/0.95 lens on a phone. Oh wait, you can’t. The dynamic range of a phone’s imager is awful as well and can not compare to any modern day digital camera. I can go on and on and on but the fact is there is no phone made today that can truly compete with a pro level camera in any area. With a real camera one can change the entire look and feel of the images by changing lenses. Want shallow DOF? Get a fast prime. Want crisp sharp images? Get a zoom like the one used here. Phones are not versatile either. I love my iPhone X but even with its software trickery it can not even get close to a real camera. A camera is more than a few photo snapped with a zoom lens while evaluating it. ; ) It will be a long long time before a phone can really compete with a real camera.

     • I fully agree. And what about the framing with a phone, especially in in bright sunshine ??

8. Nice review. Just one comment, a 16-55 APS lens is not a 24-70 equivalent, but a 24-83 equivalent. While the difference is not huge, that extra 13 mm gives you a tad more compression with portraits if you can step back a bit to get the same framing. 70 mm FF is a bit too short for portraits in my opinion.

9. Currently shooting a Leica Q and CL+35/1.4… 28 and 50(equiv) being my favorite focal lengths, and often wanting to switch between them without switching lenses. These two cameras are relatively small and fun to hold and use, but really the reason they are not Fujis is the glass. To take the 35/1.4 and compare apples to apples (APS-C), while the Leica is a bit larger, the imperfections seem to have been designed to still be aesthetically pleasing… e.g. if I forget to correct CA on the Leica it isn’t as ugly, and if the bokeh is busy it isn’t in an unpleasant way. Both of these have really bothered me on the Fuji 35/1.4. The Q blew the 16/1.4 out of the water in terms of the ‘nuances’ of lens rendering, and the Q is smaller!

   Anyway, writing this to say that I could easily be enticed back to Fuji if the lens game were taken up a notch. Maybe Leica will always put the most love into their lenses and that is just the world we live in…? Leica+Sony is not an option because I’ve had several Sony bodies and never loved holding them, and I like to have the AF option.

   I will say that one thing that bugs me terribly about Leica AF and many AF implementations is the fly-by-wire acceleration which ruins the experience. The Q is the only camera I’ve used to get fly-by-wire right. It is so right that many don’t even believe it is electronic!

   • This is funny, i’m sure the Leica lenses are almost “free” of CA but keep in mind you can buy an entire fuji system with the price of one lens. Does the XF35 have CA sure, a bit at 1.4 for theres this option in the menu called Lens Optimization that fixes it in the body.

10. The JPEGs with the Classic Chrome preset are phantastic! I don’t use RAW anymore with my X-Pro2.

11. Review the Pentax KP Steve

12. Thanks for this review Steve.

    I’m currently switching from Nikon D750 for Fuji (X-H1 or the future new X-T3) for reasons :
    – size and weight : of course it depend of the lenses you use, but you can have a really nice light set-up with the f/2 23, 35 and 50mm. Really nice lenses, light et small, and relatively affordable.
    – Jpeg quality and films simulation (Film bracketing is so great, you can have in 1 shot a superb B&W Across, a very nice color Classic Chrome, and 1 more choice)

    Sony make really good Hybrids FF camera, the A7RIII is for sure better than the Fuji X-H1 for AF speed, tracking, low-light, and more … but it’s much more expensive !
    Same things for the lenses : Sony make really good lenses, (Zeiss 55 f/1.8 for example), but again they are very expensive compared to the f/2 Fuji lenses (metal construction, weather resistant…).

    • I’ve had two of those f2 fujis….they aren’t that great to be honest. At close focus distances they are plain horrid.

      • And I thought the 1.4 versions were horribly slow to acquire focus…

      • Interesting. I have used the f2s alot, and continue to do so with the35 and 50. Now I admit that close focus (<1m) isn’t a particularly important use case for me. The 23 I found was fine but lacked a little character, not unlike the55 Sony. The much maligned(tech review sites mostly) 35 draws lovelypictures to my eyes and is tiny. The 50 isfantastic, again for me. I guess we all have different tastes. Small, solid, weather sealed, nice real world results.

        • You must have got a far better copy of the 35 than I did.

    • You aren’t going to save size/weight with X-H1. Just look at comparison: http://camerasize.com/compact/#567.699,772.448,777.681,ha,t
      And you won’t save money either. Fuji is offering the lowest bang for the buck compared to any other system.

    • Man, much rather go with the Sony A7III. You’re comparing the Fuji to the A7RIII which is really not on.
      Sony made very sure that dollar for dollar you get so much more with the A7III than with the Fuji. Size, weight, lenses, versatility, 3rd party support, AF speed, you name it.

      • Frank Lee The construction quality in the A7III is horrible to be a $ 2,000.00 camera, the back of the camera is covered in plastic, the fuji in this sense has better construction and better ergonomics, fuji has many advantages compared to Sony are not only benefits. ..

        • Both have advantages. Sony is much faster with AF. Sony is a much better video camera. Sony has much better battery life. Sony is more comfy to hold (IMO), Sony is much better in low light (I mean LOW light). Sony is full frame and works much better with adapted lenses from Leica, Nikon, Canon, etc. The Sony has MUCH faster AF-C performance. As for the Fuji, it is larger, heavier and more blocky but does feel more substantial in build over the A7III (Though not the A9). The Fuji offers great JPEG quality out of camera, with the typical Fuji colors and rendering. Fuji has a nicer EVF. So it all depends on what you want. No one is having issues with Sony build quality, so it is more perception that anything. It’s not something you ever read about or see. No issues. But this Fuji, unlike Fuji’s of the past, feels more substantial in the hand so yes indeed I would say build feels better with the Fuji. But almost everything else, Sony wins. The A7III IMO is the best $3k camera you can buy today at $2000. I am not a huge fan though of the Sony body style, or. the button placements and menu system. Fuji wins here as well.

13. Hi Steave. I’ve tried this fuji x-h1 and i like a lot of things about it, but one thing scarry me. Zomming in jpg i found the fine detail strange, in particulary skin detail seem to be plastic, irreal.
    do you notice it?
    maybe is x-trans sensor?
    maybe is applied a default noise reduction?

    • I have noticed it in the past, but it is so much improved from the older sensors I do not see a problem at all. I always have noise reduction OFF on any camera I use.

    • This is a myth nowadays .
      On all my cameras I turn NR off. Having the XT2 I do not have any of those plastic or weird things that I read online.
      I don’t know on previous generation Fuji cameras since the XT2 is my first Fuji but what I can say is that it is significantly better than my PenF in terms of colors, definition and low light .
      Love the addition of the IBIS on the XH1..

14. Hi again Steve, I meant to ask in my previous comment whether you’ve tested the Eterna simulation for stills. Classic chrome has been my favourite on the early models but I’m finding Eterna intriguing. Stephen

    • Hmm not yet.

15. The X-H1 is the first digital camera I want to shoot. It handles so much better than the X-T bodies and its EVF is the first I’ve found comparable to an OVF. The experience is the closest so far to using a 35mm body. The A7 III may be a similar price – and I gave it much thought – but its advantages are offset by bigger and heavier lenses, especially if those lenses are going to be Sigma Art. Couldn’t be happier at the moment.

16. I sure appreciate a camera that can hold the highlights like that.
    Trying to figure out why the shots in bright sun look like bright overcast. The brightest areas are so white, and not tilted toward yellow – as whites normally are, in the sun. Maybe this is a quirk of that Classic Chrome preset.

    • Or maybe the autowhitebalance does a great job.
      Outside, I do trust my X-Pro1, X100T and X-T1 absolutely, but the moment I step indoors, I have my grey-card ready

      • “Or maybe the autowhitebalance does a great job.”
        Not sure what you mean. You mean you _want_ bright areas, on a sunny day, to be neutral white to very-light-grey?
        To me, that makes a sunny day look like a bright overcast day. Imho, scenes with direct sun need to look warm – like most camera’s would render, by default.
        Maybe you think I’m attacking your favourite camera, but I’m just suggesting the one preset is quirky.

17. Hi Steve,

    Read two other reviews on IBIS. It showed side by side Fuji much smoother than the A7Riii. Would you please address in your next segment. The difference was dramatic. Almost to the point where it seemed the Sony did not have it

    Thank you,

    Wes

    • I agree, the Sony almost seems as it doesn’t have it. The Olympus bodies are dramatic, and the best implementation and the Fuji is right in the middle. It may be due to sensor size.

18. As a Fuji user for several years I took the plunge and bought the X-H1 a few weeks ago.
    I am thoroughly enjoying it and consider the extra ‘heft’ a plus point, as Steve says – and I too think that the shutter release is a delight. Certainly the build quality is very satisfying.
    Batttery life is not good, but I don’t find carrying a few extras much of a problem – without resorting to the grip.
    Fuji lenses do, I believe, represent great value for money and perhaps this is not always sufficiently recognised.

    • But what’s also not realised is half the lens line up is in bad need of upgrading. With sloppy aperture barrels, noisy AF. ThE newer F2’s are also only average at best.

      • I agree there as most of the olde lenses are the ones I had issues with. Noisy, slow, felt cheap…

19. Steve,

    Great review and much food for thought if in the market for a new toy. One question…please your thoughts on this particular model when considering their line of lenses which seem quite extensive, plus on the smaller side, with aperture ring, etc. http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x-lenses/#See_All

    Thank you,

    Wes

20. Fuji colors are often vibrant and interesting and skin tones usually look good to me. It is entirely a matter of personal taste and perception but many Fiji images look bitingly sharp to me in a way that almost hurts my eyes. I realize that others may prefer this look but for the most part, it is not a look I enjoy. Just one opinion.

    • You can always tone the sharpness down. Fuji gives you the option.

21. Great to know you are enjoying the XH-1. I did consider this for all the reasons you like about it so far, until I heard the a7lll coming. I don’t mind the size (actually, a7 series are too small with no place for my pinkie), but it’s the battery life that drew me toward the Sony. No way am I getting a battery grip. Defeats the purpose too much.
    Steve, you also mention the GM lenses to be better than the Fuji here. Since Leica just announced the 16-35mm for the SL, are the GM as good if not better than the Leicas?

    • Hey Aki, I have not tried the new Leica 16-35 but I would guess that it will be the best 16-35 of all time, also the heaviest and largest! Looks like a gorgeous lens. The Sony A7III, is a better option that this Fuji in the grand scheme of things…full frame, longer battery, faster and smaller. The Fuji will be for those who don’t mind APS-C (It has its benefits), and want the Fuji color and the external body controls. Tough to go wrong with either though the Fuji has more charm ; )

      • Steve, thank you for your reply. I need a fast focusing relatively light zoom for travel and family photos (3 year old non stopping kids), and considered the XH-1 for its wonderful colors OOC, but that is out for sure simply due to the battery life. I had a share of bad experience with the a7r2.
        I actually have a few Leica M and S lenses and thought the SL would be a great backup in addition to those bodies but the slower and heavier lense of the SL vs the Sony GM line prevents me from going that route. Hoping for SL2 to be that camera help improve the AF from what it is now but probably another year of waiting for it’s release at least. I suppose for autofocus stuff, I should just go for the Sony and it’s GM lenses. As much as I would have liked to it just does not seem right to get those SL zooms with that AF missing shots of my kid when you can get the Sony system that will deliver.
        Love to hear your opinion on the Leica SL zooms vs the Sony GM zooms. Cost aside, the size, weight, and speed seems to favor the Sony and maybe the performance to the Leica? Thank you again for your time!

        • Thanks. Leica SL Native lenses are some of the best I have used. They are just large and heavy, making it to where I do not want to use them. IN a studio they would excel, every day or street? No. But I feel the Leica SL glass is up there with the best there is.

        • Aki, I have an SL with the 24-90 native zoom and a 13-months-old and a 9-year-old children. I don’t miss many shots because of focus, I use often continous focus with face detection and as long as they show the face and not the profile it works great. Otherwise manual focus using the joystick to autofocus when I need to also works great. I am extremely satisfied. But I have not tried the A9 yet so I cannot compare.

22. Hi Steve,
    Great review. I am very tempted by this camera now.
    Would you choose this or the Olympus Em1.2?

    It seems that the Fuji colors are better, also low light will have the edge on the Fuji right?

    Thanks

    Eric

    • Well, between those two I would have to go Fuji. It is larger and boxy in design but has charm, and the fantastic color options that are very very good. I could see having this with 2-3 primes going from wide to mid tele. It will beat the Olympus in low light, and is about as fast in AF. I have always loved micro 4/3 and Olympus, but I have to be honest. There is so much competition these days for them from Sony (A7III) and Fuji (XH1). It really comes down to what you shoot, and what your needs are. The EM1 MKII is very capable, just has weaknesses due to the smaller sensor. The Fuji DR seems damn good as well!

      • Great !
        I am going to buy this Fuji, I really love the design of the camera and I will pick the 16 55 f2.8 as my go to lens.

        Also I shoot a lot of videos and this Eterna simulation sounds great.

        Cheers

        • The 16-55mm is a beast of a lens. Just came back from a 2 week trip to South Africa where I took it and the 100-400 (also a fabulous lens) but the 16-55mm was a real eye opener, I had not had chance to put it through its paces properly before the trip, and decided to take the plunge and not take anything else apart from those two lens). THe 16-55mm really is like having 4 primes in one lens, its stellar at 16/23/35/and 55mm great rendering, super sharp and much faster AF than any of the existing primes except the 90mm. Now I am looking at my 10-24mm, 35mm and 56mm lenses and giving serious thought to whether they still have a place. The 35mm will stay as although the AF is slow compared to the 16-55 firmware the new bodies have improved its performance and I still love its low profile and rendering for street. However the 56mm days are now looking numbered as due to its slow AF it is now only used for studio work at F8 and above taking away its main distinction F1.2 away from it, I also have the 90mm which is a nicer rendering lens than the 56 imo. The 10-24mm will now only stay for video as its useful to have that wide an angle in tight spaces, for travel photography the 16mm end of the 16-55 is more than enough. So the 10-24mm might go and be replaced with the 12mm from Samyang. All in all starting again I would say that an X-h1 with the 16-55mm is a very compelling pairing that you would be hard to beat at the price point.

23. These images take me back to my Tokina 16-50/2.8 PRO DX days.

    I pulled up the optical design diagrams and wasn’t surprised to see that the Fuji 16-55/2.8 has an extremely similar design to the Tokina.

24. Wow, Steve! Surprised at the gushing review. I just switched from Fuji to Sony for an A7RII (wanted the extra resolution + dynamic range since I mostly shoot landscape / cityscape). From your past love of Sony’s I was hoping for affirmation on my decision 😉 and instead you’ve even got me half second-guessing!

    • DO not second guess! The Sony is the better bang for the buck. Full frame, faster, better low light (though it’s pretty close), much better battery life, EVF is about the same. What you gain with the Fuji is the color modes, and external controls on the body. It’s the best Fuji has ever made but the Sony cameras still offer more. All depends on what you want out of a camera really. I still have my Sony ; ) It’s not going anywhere. But this shutter on the Fuji is something special, I will say that!

25. Great write up Steve.
    May I ask how you feel the xh1 compares with say the Olympus em1ii with the Oly pro grade primes and zooms in terms of color, tri x and slide film modes, sharpness, pop, usability, speed and just overall experience. In the past you had said that you’d choose micro four thirds over any APSC starting out, is this still the case with respect to xh1, em1ii, pen f and latest Panasonic g9? Thanks for your time and glad to see you back falling in love with your job again 🙂

    • Yep, I have always said I would stick with M 4/3 and Full Frame. I never found any APS-C that I could bond with. But this camera, may be the 1st to change my mind for APS-C. It’s lovely, though big, and boxy in shape. The 16-50 makes it feel larger. So it will be bigger than the Old setup. BUT, yo gain these color modes which no camera can match or replicate. You gain great video for what I think is the 1st time in a Fuji. You also get a great large EVF, amazing shutter, dual slots, and speed! The XH1 with 2-3 fast primes would give you better low light performance, same speed as the Oly (maybe faster), the Lovely Acros simulation for B&W and a well made solid weather sealed body. I did have a G9 here for a few days and could not jive with its size for what it is. It was nice but I’d take the XH1 today over Micro 4/3. First APS-C to do that for me. (I still own the Old system and lenses btw).

      • Thanks so much for your response Steve!
        May I also ask in terms of speed if you used the boost grip / enabled the performance mode in the camera body and what difference it made to the overall speed. My understanding is that there are two performance enhancing modes that are not enabled by default. The first is ‘performance mode’ (enabled in the menus) and the second ramps the AF, framerate and viewfinder refresh performance up a second notch with the boost grip. Personally that doesn’t interest me as I think they should just enable ‘boost’ out of the box.
        Finally you may end up wanting to keep the Fuji for a little longer…. fujirumors is suggesting some major AF and speed improvements in the next few days via a ‘kaizen’ firmware update.

        • Hi there is a lot of confusion over the boost or performance mode. They are essentially one and the same thing. The overall title is performance mode and it has two settings, standard and boost. Without the grip the boost setting boosts the speed of the AF. The grip if added then enables the additional increases in frame rate and viewfinder refresh when you switch on boost mode, it also adds a dedicated switch to enable boost mode on the grip itself. X-H1 in boost mode without grip gives you fast AF out the box, and unless you are shooting sports where you need high continuous frame rates with no blackout then its not a real advantage. The viewfinder does not black out in Continuous Low or Medium only in continuous high, and with the grip not even in that mode.

26. Steve – Great review. One thing – In the high iso comparison the Sony looks out of focus. It is not a dof issue as far as I can tell.

    • I wasn’t testing the focus, and pulled the same OOF spot for each (both are OOF there, the sony shows more OOF due to the DOF). Does’nt matter as the noise will not be out of focus, and this was strictly a test for ISO noise. It was a better sample in the frame than the in focus area.

27. The first picture (Sister Gloria Areola) is just wow. I love my A7, but I have never seen so nice colours out of cam.

28. Good review Steve!

29. Hi Steve,
    i see you enjoyed the Pride Parade, lovely Pictures.
    Yes, Fuji is easy to use and if you consider buying lenses to that body, it is much cheaper than the Sony also. Fuji is about lenses, so they have a very high performance, even the cheaper ones. It doesn’t make too much sense using Fuji bodies with other brands. Even the three Zeiss lenses for Fuji are not better than the nativ lenses imho. The missing detail is more the fault of the sensor than the lens i think. You can easily compare the cameras when using the same lens with an adaptor on both the Sony and the Fuji.
    One remark about using AWB. When you use the quick access on the screen, just swipe to the right and you can directly adjust the WB to your liking an a very quick way. Maybe try this with the Provia Standard setting and the colors will be more vibrant in favor to the Pride Parade?

30. Something is wrong with the standard color… Is this a pale color limited edition? Using Leica…this is like day and night…

    • That’s the “classic chrome” film simulation for the jpeg. You can fine tune it as you wich before or after in camera, other presets are available and are more “punchy” with more contrast and saturation.

      for Steeve : have a look at the xt20 + 35mmf2 combo , it’s like a x100 50mm equivalent ( without ovf of course )

    • This is not standard color but one of the Fuji Film simulation that digitally replicate the colors of their different films ( here classic chrome)

      • The only one using standard is the comparison at the bottom with the Sony.

31. Thanks, Steve. I was waiting to see when you’d write about this camera. Here’s to part 2!

    I think that the Eterna simulation is going to be a big, big plus. It’s right there in the camera, no need to do anything except activate it. If you’re careful with exposure, the color timing will be a piece of cake, as there would be very little to do.

    Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony now have some serious competition: the Blackmagic 4K Pocket. It’s nowhere near as small as the original HD Pocket Camera, but it costs less than most mirrorless bodies and it does 4K ProRes and RAW. I dare say that this new camera from Blackmagic could actually be a great stills camera.

Comments are closed.