I haven't used the XH2 but isn't the EVF better? I chose the X-T5 for simple ergos that made sense to me at the time. These days, having spent time and adjusted to the Gfx control layout, I don't think I care about that anymore. I don't think I will likely upgrade my X-T5 until there is a notably better EVF on the X I am looking at.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I haven't used the XH2 but isn't the EVF better? I chose the X-T5 for simple ergos that made sense to me at the time. These days, having spent time and adjusted to the Gfx control layout, I don't think I care about that anymore. I don't think I will likely upgrade my X-T5 until there is a notably better EVF on the X I am looking at.
Yes, a little bigger and almost 2x higher def. But it still isn't anywhere near what I'd call a gold standard for EVF...
Jack Flesher wrote:
Yes, a little bigger and almost 2x higher def. But it still isn't anywhere near what I'd call a gold standard for EVF...
What would you consider the gold standard for EVF's? For me, the Gfx100S and X-T5 are the best I've used, but I would like to see improvement. I feel like a really good EVF and improving the manual focus experience go hand in hand. Some of the Nikon focus aid seem nice, worthy of copying. But the EVF needs to be better and the tactile experience of electronic focusing needs a major improvement. When I focus with my old fully manual Contax 120 macro, I really enjoy the experience. I'm not sure that is possible via bodies and firmware updates but I wish the manual focus experience was more important to all of the camera makers.
SGinNorcal wrote:
What would you consider the gold standard for EVF's? For me, the Gfx100S and X-T5 are the best I've used, but I would like to see improvement. I feel like a really good EVF and improving the manual focus experience go hand in hand. Some of the Nikon focus aid seem nice, worthy of copying. But the EVF needs to be better and the tactile experience of electronic focusing needs a major improvement. When I focus with my old fully manual Contax 120 macro, I really enjoy the experience. I'm not sure that is possible via bodies and firmware updates but I wish the manual focus experience was more important to all of the camera makers....Show more →
My GFX 100S wasn't as good as my XH2 and felt about the same as my Nikon Z's and XT5 -- the XH2 is better, just not stellar IMO. I suspect any of the newer cams with 9+ mega-dot EVF's are the gold standard now.
Jack Flesher wrote:
My GFX 100S wasn't as good as my XH2 and felt about the same as my Nikon Z's and XT5 -- the XH2 is better, just not stellar IMO. I suspect any of the newer cams with 9+ mega-dot EVF's are the gold standard now.
it seems like one of the worst possible areas to save money, a cheaper EVF. I seems that standardizing on one across a line of products would be worth the tiny extra cost of a high res EVF.
I always feel like the choice is determined by glass size. Stuff like the 50 1.0 and 200F2 I would never put on the XT5 personally. The XH2 grip is something that I'm not getting rid of for the most part, it's just too comfortable.
JadedWriter wrote:
I always feel like the choice is determined by glass size. Stuff like the 50 1.0 and 200F2 I would never put on the XT5 personally. The XH2 grip is something that I'm not getting rid of for the most part, it's just too comfortable.
I think that is a matter of personal preference rather than a rule. I use the 100-400 on my XT5 and it feels just fine.
I like having grip real estate. When I had that lens I was using it on the XT3 with a vertical grip or an XH1 with a vertical grip. gdanmitchell wrote:
I think that is a matter of personal preference rather than a rule. I use the 100-400 on my XT5 and it feels just fine.
JadedWriter wrote:
I like having grip real estate. When I had that lens I was using it on the XT3 with a vertical grip or an XH1 with a vertical grip.
I don’t disagree with anyone’s preference for a larger camera body. I’m just pointing out that it is a subjective preference, and that not everyone shares it… and that some of us are fine with larger lenses on smaller camera bodies.
After using both a T2 and H1 for several years, I found form factor to be more important than the user interface. So I sold both and bought a S20 and H2. They pair together well. The S20 is mostly for travel and hiking. The H2 is landscapes and wildlife.
I agree that the grip and EVF are both features that are very important. From that perspective I actually enjoy the X-H2 to the X-T5. Control wise I like the X-T5 but it’s more unique and different from the other cameras I own. Problem is that uniqueness if you understand what I mean. The X-H2 has the 5.76 Mpixel EVF. Not as good as the 9.44 Mpixel Sony EVF on a few of cameras but better than the 3.6 and 2.6 EVF on others.
Pouncer wrote:
I know what you mean. Regarding EVFs, I don't particularly care for any of them. It's why I still have a Nikon D780 and a handful of Zeiss lenses.
There almost too many good options these days.
Well reading comments here I get the impression that no one is choosing a specific X camera for its exceptional EVF. We are all just settling for what Fuji is giving us. Sorry, that to me does not say we to many good options from Fuji. Are there any EVF, not optical view finders, that anyone is really pleased with on any camera?
swldstn wrote:
Well reading comments here I get the impression that no one is choosing a specific X camera for its exceptional EVF. We are all just settling for what Fuji is giving us. Sorry, that to me does not say we to many good options from Fuji. Are there any EVF, not optical view finders, that anyone is really pleased with on any camera?
Fujifilm EVFs work just fine.
It is quite possible — certain, actually — that some other camera have higher level EVF specs, but most of us really don’t care since this is mostly immaterial to making photographs.
Well, I like my XT-5. You have your Sonys for big lenses and wildlife. I use an XH-2s at work so I do have experience with both. I think the XT-5 is a little stealthier for street and travel and it packs a bit smaller. But as everyone says, it's really down to what feels best to you. Good luck!
It is quite possible — certain, actually — that some other camera have higher level EVF specs, but most of us really don’t care since this is mostly immaterial to making photographs.
I guess we don't need EVF's at all then. I agree that Fuji EVF's are fine but that is all. I want the best EVF possible that fits in the available space. It doesn't do me any good if my Fuji EVF is as good or better than whatever other camera you compare it to. I would love to see whatever state of the art EVF is at the time of the camera design to be used. Instead all brands seem to package their better EVF's with other features of their better cameras as part of an upgrade path. I would question if EVF cost vs. quality is really different enough to make the decision based on cost. I suspect it is more about maintaining that incentive to trade up. Fuji could break that pattern and standardize across product lines.
swldstn wrote:
I agree that the grip and EVF are both features that are very important. From that perspective I actually enjoy the X-H2 to the X-T5. Control wise I like the X-T5 but it’s more unique and different from the other cameras I own. Problem is that uniqueness if you understand what I mean. The X-H2 has the 5.76 Mpixel EVF. Not as good as the 9.44 Mpixel Sony EVF on a few of cameras but better than the 3.6 and 2.6 EVF on others.
the Sony 9.44 that almost never renders as such and immediately down-rezzes and shimmers with moire during autofocusing? That Sony 9.44?
RoamingScott wrote: the Sony 9.44 that almost never renders as such and immediately down-rezzes and shimmers with moire during autofocusing? That Sony 9.44?
Yes it does down rezz (if that is even a word) but I’ve never had a shimmer with moire problem and I’ve owned two different ones. I know you shoot various cameras, what camera do you think has the best viewfinder in the sub $6500 (pre tariff) market? Is there one you think sets the standard that should be achieved? Of course I’m assuming it’s good enough to really tell if a 40 Mpixel APS-C sensor is really in focus.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I guess we don't need EVF's at all then. I agree that Fuji EVF's are fine but that is all. I want the best EVF possible that fits in the available space. It doesn't do me any good if my Fuji EVF is as good or better than whatever other camera you compare it to. I would love to see whatever state of the art EVF is at the time of the camera design to be used. Instead all brands seem to package their better EVF's with other features of their better cameras as part of an upgrade path. I would question if EVF cost vs. quality is really different enough to make the decision based on cost. I suspect it is more about maintaining that incentive to trade up. Fuji could break that pattern and standardize across product lines....Show more →
swldstn wrote:
Yes it does down rezz (if that is even a word) but I’ve never had a shimmer with moire problem and I’ve owned two different ones. I know you shoot various cameras, what camera do you think has the best viewfinder in the sub $6500 (pre tariff) market? Is there one you think sets the standard that should be achieved? Of course I’m assuming it’s good enough to really tell if a 40 Mpixel APS-C sensor is really in focus.
There is no "best" EVF, because so many are built around what the camera specializes in.
The 100 II probably has the most immersive EVF, but it wouldn't be capable of maintaining that on a stacked sensor camera with no blackout. The very fast refresh 5.x EVFs are the best balance for general use and MF magnification, and the new Nikon versions have a very nice peak brightness compared to others.
the Sony 9.44 that almost never renders as such and immediately down-rezzes and shimmers with moire during autofocusing? That Sony 9.44?