Anyone switched from Z6 to X-T4?

alekt449 wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

alekt449 wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

alekt449 wrote:

vegetaleb wrote:

alekt449 wrote:

Mr Bolton wrote:

sirkhann wrote:

Mr Bolton wrote:

Was thinking that-or comparing ten year old optics with brand new, more expensive optics. Sensor size aside, Nikon's brand new optics do seem razor sharp.

Seven, not ten. The Nikkor is 2 years old, meaning that the difference is 5 years, which is still something.

Following your tone - yes, the Fujinon is older, lack weather resistance, and is simpler optical formula. The Nikkor, even being newer, twice the weight, sealed, and optically better, most of the time sells lower than the Fujinon. In fact, I bouth the Nikkor brand new for about the same price I got the Fujinon used.

Sorry for being the messenger here, but Fujifilm themselves, and many Fuji "followers", refuse to understand that tables have turned in the last 1 or 2 years, and most of the competitive advantage is gone. But everyone is free to pour money in overpriced gear and see magic that is not there... The real magic is how Fuji is able to make some people close their eyes and open their wallets 😆

Twice the weight is something on a long hike or bike ride. With that said.. if all I wanted were sharpness then I'd get the 100 megapixel medium format GFX100. Let's see your puny full frame sensor hold up to that bad boy.. I'm kidding because that's not really a fair comparison.

As of today, I can get the Nikon Z for within five bucks of the Fuji, both brand new. Both $600. Also the Fujinon came out in 2012, not that it matters really. But it's obvious that Fuji tried to make it smaller, so as to play to the strengths of APS-C especially back then when full frame was all gigantic DSLRs with mirrors. When comparing optics between what was available back then, the Fujinon holds up very well.

Agreed, Fuji needs to update their glass, or else start letting Sigma and Tamron make more third party options. If only I could mount up some of that Sigma glass without having to buy an L mount camera with its AF that makes my X-H1 look state of the art.

With all the above said.. it is easily possible to get great photos at any sane monitor resolution, print size and viewing distance using any modern day camera of any sensor format. In some situations, even an iPhone ;-D So, since it's not possible to buy a really bad camera nowadays, shouldn't the focus be on what gives you joy to shoot? What ergos and feature set make sense to you for the shooting you do and in what conditions?

They're all awesome in their own way. But the Fuji magic is a real thing, or else they wouldn't still be in business.

You can mount all the Canon and Sigma EF lenses on the Fuji with Fringer or Viltrox adaptor. The Sigma 18-35 with adapter has surprisingly very very good Video AF on the newer bodies. As for the Nikon Z- as a fan of nikon I don't like what they are doing. The worst performing mirrorless FF system with the most uncertain future out there. Yes very sharp big lenses but noting that isn't already made better cheaper and smaller for the E- mount or RF, especially the third party mirrorless designs like from Tamron, Samyang and Sigma. At this point the only argument for going to Z is having old nikkor lenses. For someone starting from scratch Z has nothing to offer.

No need to flame this thread even more with "my sony is better than your nikon" or "Tony said nikon is dying so Nikon is dead in a year". There are no perfect cameras nor better mirrotless, each model can be better for someone and horrible for someone else. Sony has big and more expensive lenses GM to compete with Z lenses if we are talking native lenses, on sony you win third party lenses (for now) while on Z6 you win all the FX ones, some will hate sony UI and will prefer Nikon's one, some will prefer the x-t4 for its video capabilities and selfie screen, as well as fujinon small lenses. No need to bash a brand or a model.

I started digital photography with a fuji 2mp,then with 2 Canon IS bridge cameras, then nikon d50 and 90, then back to fuji with x-t10, x-t20 and x-t3, and now nikon, I could be back to fuji if I am tired of nikon, so yes I get the camera that is better fit for me without being submissive to brand loyalty or Tony, Angry photographer or Jared

I am not flaming anything, but stating facts that are known. Because when someone comes to the thread and reads it, he or she must also know what are the negatives of the Z system and decide if they want to adapt and wait for lenses which might never come, or move to more mature and even cheaper or more niche but expensive system.

Why wouldn't the z lenses on the nikon roadmap come?

It depends on your preferred FOV too, personally I like 35 and 28mm, the 35 Z lens is unbeatable at this price point, the 28mm is coming in a couple of months. I preferred (personally) the 35 Z lens over all the ones on sony alpha, it's not too big nor heavy, price is ok specially that I got it for 700$ in July offers, it's optically amazing and razor sharp even at f1.8, what else would I want?

Wait, wait...if this is your game ok, they will eventually come. We are talking now.
You say that you prefer the 35Z but you don't have a choice- there isn't any other nativ option. Sony has 7 nativ AF 35s smaller, bigger, cheaper, sharper, lighter. Fuji has currently 3 options small, bigger and viltrox mix of the two. Canon will have also 2 nativ options soon. For you it optically amaizing but I don't care for sharpness. I want maximum DOF with 1.4 and beautiful background for portrait, or small and light 2.8 for street and video. The FE 35 1.8 is also tiny compared to the Z. Sharpness again is so overrated that the most lenses are too sharp and sterile. Only argument for Z I hear is sharp.. Close down to f8 and every lens is sharp.

See? You are flaming the thread again with sony vs nikon, we could debate a year and nobody will win because each of us has his preference, but saying that a brand is better than another because it's based on your likings is nonsense. The new 35 f1.8 from sony is as the same price but is not really smaller and suffer mich higher CA, the XF 23 f2 and even f1.4 are really smaller yes

Again PERSONALLY I prefer quality over quantity, or smaller and lighter and I take an x-t30 + 23 1.4

-
For lenses reviews and tutorials about Fuji Raf editing https://fujiandstuff.wordpress.com/
My shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jeffmerheb
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/147690104@N02/

I am not flamming anything. I said strong and weak points for every brand. Not what is based on my likings, but simple facts. Z mount 1 lens, E mount 7, Fuji 3 in this particular example. 1 lens= no choice. If you are ok with this one and only perfect lens ok, but don't try to sell it here as the holy grail. If you don't like the facts, I can't help you.

I think you didn't see in big font the word personally when I talked about my choice, I never said like you did that X brand is better for all photographers.

And frankly I would swap my Z6 tomorrow morning with an x-t4 if it had a screen that can turn vertically or horizontally without the need to keep it flipped out