X-T4 from Sony A6600?

Hello,

Just looking for some advice - i've been flip/flopping at lot over the past year on gear, thankfully making most of my money back. I've had an A7iii (sold it - too big/bulky, expensive lenses) and in December bought an A6600 and Sigma 30mm f1.4 for a trip to Hawaii. While in Hawaii I rented for 2 weeks a Sony 70-300 (full frame). The 70-300 stayed mostly on my camera, and for landscape/wide shots, I used my iPhone 11 Pro since I didn't have a wide lens.

Overall, there's a lot I like about the A6600, but my trip really showed me that I'm more of a zoom person than a prime person (using mostly primes indoors in low-light). I'm looking at the 16-55 f2.8 G and it's $1450 here, and that got me thinking about Fuji and the X-T4 (and the 16-55 2.8 which is about 1100 here). I feel I could easily sell the 6600+30mm and recoup most of the money I paid for it - effectively, going from Sony to Fuji would cost me about 300-400$ - which is something I am considering.

My likes of the 6600:

• The AF is so unbelievable - the lock on tracking AF, EyeAF and Animal eyeAF (yes I know Fuji doesn't have this)
• The DR - I was able to pull details from the shadows with little loss of quality from my trip, this was great.
• The IQ is amazing - personally I don't buy in to the colour science - most images look appealing if you're not comparing them to something else.
• The small size - one reason I got rid of my A7iii was due to bulky/heavy and expensive lenses

There are things with the 6600 that really annoy me:

• Lack of dials - it really only has 1 dial that you can customize for aperature/ss/etc. There's another one, but it's so finicky (the menu dial) that it's easy to accidentally press it and activate a separate function
• No joystick - moving the focus area is painful and since I use my left eye in the viewfinder, the screen is mostly covered and difficult to use the screen to set the focus point
• Sony doesn't seem too invested in APS-C - yes there's the 16-55 (expensive) and the 70-350, but I think they just released these lenses to shut up the A6xxx users - it doesn't seem to me that they're heavily invested in the format. There's also no good wide lenses for APS-C - only the 10-18mm f4 which is hit or miss IQ wise.

The X-T4 looks really good and overall I think would be cheaper in the long run - yes there's the initial $400 to switch over, but lenses are generally cheaper, and the X-T4 has a lot of the things I miss from the a7iii that are not on the A6600 - extra dials, joystick, etc.

However I do have some questions:

1. Is the X-T4's autofocus closer to Sony's? 
2. How is the X-T4's tracking (lock on + track)?
3. How's the DR?
4. Is it normal that Fuji lenses seem to be a bit "softer"? Sony's seem sharper (e.g.: the sony 16-55 2.8 vs fuji 16-55 2.8)
5. Is the X-T4 significantly bigger than the 6600? I know from a weight perspective it's about 100g, but overall size, it seems the X-T4 is more in FF size territory for the body (yes I know lenses are typically tiny)
6. Most importantly - I am a pure iPad user for my workflow and I use Lightroom - is this going to be a problem with the RAF files? (I shoot raw) - lots of comments on this forum give me great pause on this.
7. What would be the best portrait/indoor prime as a starter that provides great IQ, shallow DOF?

Thanks!

Interesting..

I'm in a similar position, shoot mainly a7r2 but want to upgrade my a6000 to a better walkaround. I also want easier transfer of files between camera and phone which Fuji does.

Was thinking a6400 or a6600, but I thought I'd check out fuji first.

I too have the same concerns over Sonys support for anything outside full frame particularly around lenses going forward

I like the fact I can focus bracket in camera for some models, and the Fujis seem to have alot more options software wise

I do want a better EVF, the 6400 and the 6600 have this, Fuji goes even better but this limits the camera choices. The X- T4 looks great but it is bigger than the 6400, the X-e3 is a similar size but 3 yrs old now.

I'm still getting my head around the range in general and still need to look into lens comparisons and cost up how much the switch would cost

I have the XT4 and the 16-55 and it is as big as a FF camera with a 24-70f2.8 lens. The FF cameras are better in terms of ergonomics and handling compared to XT4. It is not comfortable to hold the XT4 and the the 16-55 compared to a A7 series camera or the EOS R/RP, Nikon Z camera due to a much better grip. The a6600 with 16-55 f2.8 is much more comfortable to hold, is smaller and more secure in hands.

Picture quality is a toss up between a 6600 and the XT4 and video is similar, with maybe XT4 being better.

Battery is better on the sony.

Primes are better overall with fuji but sony has good ones from Sigma.

mmacleodbrown wrote:

Interesting..

I'm in a similar position, shoot mainly a7r2 but want to upgrade my a6000 to a better walkaround. I also want easier transfer of files between camera and phone which Fuji does.

Was thinking a6400 or a6600, but I thought I'd check out fuji first.

I too have the same concerns over Sonys support for anything outside full frame particularly around lenses going forward

I like the fact I can focus bracket in camera for some models, and the Fujis seem to have alot more options software wise

I do want a better EVF, the 6400 and the 6600 have this, Fuji goes even better but this limits the camera choices. The X- T4 looks great but it is bigger than the 6400, the X-e3 is a similar size but 3 yrs old now.

I'm still getting my head around the range in general and still need to look into lens comparisons and cost up how much the switch would cost

While it's gotten better with updates, Fujifilm Camera Remote App is finicky at best. Even when it does work it's not very convenient. Most people try it and never use it again. Definitely wouldn't consider it as a reason to switch.

Thank you, that pretty much seals it then, either the 6400 or the 6600 it is then..

Stokkes wrote:

Hello,

Just looking for some advice - i've been flip/flopping at lot over the past year on gear, thankfully making most of my money back. I've had an A7iii (sold it - too big/bulky, expensive lenses) and in December bought an A6600 and Sigma 30mm f1.4 for a trip to Hawaii. While in Hawaii I rented for 2 weeks a Sony 70-300 (full frame). The 70-300 stayed mostly on my camera, and for landscape/wide shots, I used my iPhone 11 Pro since I didn't have a wide lens.

Overall, there's a lot I like about the A6600, but my trip really showed me that I'm more of a zoom person than a prime person (using mostly primes indoors in low-light). I'm looking at the 16-55 f2.8 G and it's $1450 here, and that got me thinking about Fuji and the X-T4 (and the 16-55 2.8 which is about 1100 here). I feel I could easily sell the 6600+30mm and recoup most of the money I paid for it - effectively, going from Sony to Fuji would cost me about 300-400$ - which is something I am considering.

My likes of the 6600:

• The AF is so unbelievable - the lock on tracking AF, EyeAF and Animal eyeAF (yes I know Fuji doesn't have this)
• The DR - I was able to pull details from the shadows with little loss of quality from my trip, this was great.
• The IQ is amazing - personally I don't buy in to the colour science - most images look appealing if you're not comparing them to something else.
• The small size - one reason I got rid of my A7iii was due to bulky/heavy and expensive lenses

There are things with the 6600 that really annoy me:

• Lack of dials - it really only has 1 dial that you can customize for aperature/ss/etc. There's another one, but it's so finicky (the menu dial) that it's easy to accidentally press it and activate a separate function
• No joystick - moving the focus area is painful and since I use my left eye in the viewfinder, the screen is mostly covered and difficult to use the screen to set the focus point
• Sony doesn't seem too invested in APS-C - yes there's the 16-55 (expensive) and the 70-350, but I think they just released these lenses to shut up the A6xxx users - it doesn't seem to me that they're heavily invested in the format. There's also no good wide lenses for APS-C - only the 10-18mm f4 which is hit or miss IQ wise.

The X-T4 looks really good and overall I think would be cheaper in the long run - yes there's the initial $400 to switch over, but lenses are generally cheaper, and the X-T4 has a lot of the things I miss from the a7iii that are not on the A6600 - extra dials, joystick, etc.

However I do have some questions:

1. Is the X-T4's autofocus closer to Sony's?
2. How is the X-T4's tracking (lock on + track)?
3. How's the DR?
4. Is it normal that Fuji lenses seem to be a bit "softer"? Sony's seem sharper (e.g.: the sony 16-55 2.8 vs fuji 16-55 2.8)
5. Is the X-T4 significantly bigger than the 6600? I know from a weight perspective it's about 100g, but overall size, it seems the X-T4 is more in FF size territory for the body (yes I know lenses are typically tiny)
6. Most importantly - I am a pure iPad user for my workflow and I use Lightroom - is this going to be a problem with the RAF files? (I shoot raw) - lots of comments on this forum give me great pause on this.
7. What would be the best portrait/indoor prime as a starter that provides great IQ, shallow DOF?

Thanks!

Just a few pointers:

The fuji XT4 should be of similar size to the A7III. And the sony a6600 has a wider range of zoom lenses than the fuji system. You have the superb 18-135mm, you have the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and the new tamron 70-180mm 2.8. You have sigmas support too for general purpose lenses. On  the fuji system you really only have the one 16-55mm 2.8, and if you want longer you have the slow 55-200mm or the super bulky 50-140 2.8.

Thay said, i love fuji and I think you'd be better served - you body wise - with any XT camera.

JayPhizzt wrote:

I don't know how the AF is compared to Sony, but I have an X-T3 and the AF is very good and it's supposed to be even better on the X-T4. Wouldn't surprise me if Sony is still a bit better in the AF department, though.

I'm not huge into moving subjects (no kids), but we do have a few dogs that run around, that's about the extent of it - maybe some sports/etc if I go to an event. Looking at some of the XT4 previews on YT, seems to be decent. I don't think one can go in expecting to match Sony, not at this time anyway.

I find the DR to be very good on the X-trans4, I've never felt limited by it and I even shoot landscape.

Very good to hear!

I believe the reason why you might experience some Fuji photos as "softer" is due to the X-trans sensor and subpar demosaicing. The X-trans sensor requires different demosaicing compared to the conventional bayer sensor to get the most out of it. Lightroom is well known for not being the best option for X-trans. If you use Lightroom I highly recommend to either use Iridient X-transformer to convert your files or switch to another editing program. Personally I use Capture One which does a very good job with X-trans files.

I could buy X-transformer, but it would wreck my workflow since I would need to use my Mac - i only have the iPad licence for LR (it's like 50% off) so my workflow would be SD Card -> Mac -> process with X-Transformer -> Back to SD card -> IMport to LR on iPad.. just longer and often my mac isn't around me (I don't bring it on trips)

As for the best portrait lenses you have the 56/1.2 and the 90/2, both are fantastic lenses with amazing IQ. The lenses are one of the main reasons to shoot with Fuji as they are generally very good and many of them are absolutely superb.

Thanks! the 56 is probably more my style - 90 would be a 135 equivalent which is a bit long for me.

Appreciate the comments!

mmacleodbrown wrote:

Interesting..

I'm in a similar position, shoot mainly a7r2 but want to upgrade my a6000 to a better walkaround. I also want easier transfer of files between camera and phone which Fuji does.

Was thinking a6400 or a6600, but I thought I'd check out fuji first.

I too have the same concerns over Sonys support for anything outside full frame particularly around lenses going forward

I like the fact I can focus bracket in camera for some models, and the Fujis seem to have alot more options software wise

I do want a better EVF, the 6400 and the 6600 have this, Fuji goes even better but this limits the camera choices. The X- T4 looks great but it is bigger than the 6400, the X-e3 is a similar size but 3 yrs old now.

I'm still getting my head around the range in general and still need to look into lens comparisons and cost up how much the switch would cost

These are all good points, but you seem to already be heavily invested in Sony. Myself, I can sell the 6600 and Sigma for about 80% what I bought them for and move completely to Fuji.

I have been looking at a lot of lens reviews on YT and they all do seem to be less sharp/older than equivalent Sony's - I'm not sure if this matters to me or not yet, probably not something I'll notice.

It really bugs me there is no decent ultra wide angle on the Sony - like a 8/10-24.. The 10-18 is getting long in the tooth and has quality control issues so it's hit or miss if you get a good copy, and the range is small.

I think if I went fuji, i'd get the 10-24 f4, 16-55 f2.8, 56 f1.2 and maybe the 55-200 or 100-400.

WaseemH wrote:

I have the XT4 and the 16-55 and it is as big as a FF camera with a 24-70f2.8 lens. The FF cameras are better in terms of ergonomics and handling compared to XT4. It is not comfortable to hold the XT4 and the the 16-55 compared to a A7 series camera or the EOS R/RP, Nikon Z camera due to a much better grip. The a6600 with 16-55 f2.8 is much more comfortable to hold, is smaller and more secure in hands.

Picture quality is a toss up between a 6600 and the XT4 and video is similar, with maybe XT4 being better.

Battery is better on the sony.

Primes are better overall with fuji but sony has good ones from Sigma.

This is what I feared - that the XT4 is pretty much a FF camera physically, but with an APS-C sensor. It almost seems as though if you go Fuji, you're doing it for the reasons people go Fuji (look, body details, etc.).

I guess the lenses are small, which makes up for some of it.

The battery isn't a big deal for me, but yes the 6600 battery is nice with 800+ shots - I never had the battery run out while in Hawaii.

Thanks for the feedback.

Miguel-C wrote:

Just a few pointers:

The fuji XT4 should be of similar size to the A7III. And the sony a6600 has a wider range of zoom lenses than the fuji system. You have the superb 18-135mm, you have the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and the new tamron 70-180mm 2.8. You have sigmas support too for general purpose lenses. On the fuji system you really only have the one 16-55mm 2.8, and if you want longer you have the slow 55-200mm or the super bulky 50-140 2.8.

Thay said, i love fuji and I think you'd be better served - you body wise - with any XT camera.

Appreciate the comments Miguel!

It's unfortunate the XT4 is similar size/bulk as the A7III - the 6600 is a joy to hold - but other ergonomics are bad in general with the body.

I know the tamron 28-75 is a good lens, but it doesn't make sense to me on APS-C, that's an equivalent 42-112 which is a very odd FL and not wide at all.

The Fuji 100-400 is sure cheaper than the Sony 100-400!

Stokkes wrote

These are all good points, but you seem to already be heavily invested in Sony. Myself, I can sell the 6600 and Sigma for about 80% what I bought them for and move completely to Fuji.

I have been looking at a lot of lens reviews on YT and they all do seem to be less sharp/older than equivalent Sony's - I'm not sure if this matters to me or not yet, probably not something I'll notice.

It really bugs me there is no decent ultra wide angle on the Sony - like a 8/10-24.. The 10-18 is getting long in the tooth and has quality control issues so it's hit or miss if you get a good copy, and the range is small.

I think if I went fuji, i'd get the 10-24 f4, 16-55 f2.8, 56 f1.2 and maybe the 55-200 or 100-400.

True but I'm invested in FF not apsc. If I'm upgrading this is my chance to switch or I will be invested.

I'd recommend the little X-T100, which is an outstanding camera after its firmware updates, contrary to reviews which were all done with the camera's original firmware. I think its Bayer sensor delivers superior image quality to the X-Trans cameras. And its 15-45mm kit lens is sharp, offers a very versatile field of view (22-67mm full-frame equivalent), and can deliver awesome macro shots when using manual focus, which lowers its already great minimum focus distance of 5 inches to approximately 2 inches.

Stokkes wrote:

WaseemH wrote:

I have the XT4 and the 16-55 and it is as big as a FF camera with a 24-70f2.8 lens. The FF cameras are better in terms of ergonomics and handling compared to XT4. It is not comfortable to hold the XT4 and the the 16-55 compared to a A7 series camera or the EOS R/RP, Nikon Z camera due to a much better grip. The a6600 with 16-55 f2.8 is much more comfortable to hold, is smaller and more secure in hands.

Picture quality is a toss up between a 6600 and the XT4 and video is similar, with maybe XT4 being better.

Battery is better on the sony.

Primes are better overall with fuji but sony has good ones from Sigma.

This is what I feared - that the XT4 is pretty much a FF camera physically, but with an APS-C sensor. It almost seems as though if you go Fuji, you're doing it for the reasons people go Fuji (look, body details, etc.).

I guess the lenses are small, which makes up for some of it.

The battery isn't a big deal for me, but yes the 6600 battery is nice with 800+ shots - I never had the battery run out while in Hawaii.

Thanks for the feedback.

I made a move from Sony APSC to Fuji a few months ago. I had the A6600 and A6400. I’m really enjoying the Fuji system but ergonomics is one of Fuji’s weak points I’d say. The main reason I switched was to have access to Fuji’s wonderful f1.4 primes.  I was also originally attracted to the classic style dials of the Fuji but I find I never use the exposure or the ISO dials (because the automatic options are so good). My most used dial is exposure compensation and that has now been assigned to the rear fn dial. So all three top dials are near-redundant for me now.

Eye focus and general AF with Sony is amazing and if that’s important for you I’d be wary of switching. It’s not just the Sony AF system that’s faster, it’s that most of their lenses can keep up. Fuji have a lot of older lenses that are slow and/or noisy to AF. The newer Fuji bodies like X-T3 and X-T4 are much better than previous models. But still the lenses can hold them back. Sony wins here. I’m not an AF fanatic so this weakness doesn’t bother me with Fuji. I often use vintage lenses anyway, whether on Sony or Fuji. 
The Fuji app you mentioned for transferring files to your phone: forget it. I didn’t give it more than ten minutes.

So, why do I like the Fuji system? As mentioned above, it’s the lenses. Fuji’s lens line-up is built around the APSC system. Most are small and light which encourages me to carry a camera with me at all times. I have a lot of fun with the film simulations and creating my own variants. Fuji lenses, especially their faster 1.4 primes are not precision-sharp like Sony’s. The Fuji’s retain more of a classic character and are plenty sharp for me. Overall, my pictures with Fuji have a more classic rendering. 
The weight of the X-T4 together with the worry that Fuji don’t pay enough attention to ergonomics, is not a camera I’d recommend unless IBIS is a must-have for you.

I think the X-T3 is their best all round camera body. I really enjoy the tilting screen on it. But - I also bought the X-T30 as a backup/second body and that’s the camera I now have with me almost all the time. Because it’s so small and light. Ergonomically it’s horrible. It’s too cramped and the function dials get switched accidentally when holding the camera. The touch screen has a mind of its own too. So I’ve turned off the touch screen functions, the Q button and the front function button. Now I’m happy and the camera is always with me as I said. I’ve had so much fun and great pictures from the Fuji cameras and lenses. That’s what matters to me.

enigmatico wrote:

Stokkes wrote:

This is what I feared - that the XT4 is pretty much a FF camera physically, but with an APS-C sensor. It almost seems as though if you go Fuji, you're doing it for the reasons people go Fuji (look, body details, etc.).

I guess the lenses are small, which makes up for some of it.

The battery isn't a big deal for me, but yes the 6600 battery is nice with 800+ shots - I never had the battery run out while in Hawaii.

Thanks for the feedback.

I made a move from Sony APSC to Fuji a few months ago. I had the A6600 and A6400. I’m really enjoying the Fuji system but ergonomics is one of Fuji’s weak points I’d say. The main reason I switched was to have access to Fuji’s wonderful f1.4 primes. I was also originally attracted to the classic style dials of the Fuji but I find I never use the exposure or the ISO dials (because the automatic options are so good). My most used dial is exposure compensation and that has now been assigned to the rear fn dial. So all three top dials are near-redundant for me now.

Eye focus and general AF with Sony is amazing and if that’s important for you I’d be wary of switching. It’s not just the Sony AF system that’s faster, it’s that most of their lenses can keep up. Fuji have a lot of older lenses that are slow and/or noisy to AF. The newer Fuji bodies like X-T3 and X-T4 are much better than previous models. But still the lenses can hold them back. Sony wins here. I’m not an AF fanatic so this weakness doesn’t bother me with Fuji. I often use vintage lenses anyway, whether on Sony or Fuji.
The Fuji app you mentioned for transferring files to your phone: forget it. I didn’t give it more than ten minutes.

So, why do I like the Fuji system? As mentioned above, it’s the lenses. Fuji’s lens line-up is built around the APSC system. Most are small and light which encourages me to carry a camera with me at all times. I have a lot of fun with the film simulations and creating my own variants. Fuji lenses, especially their faster 1.4 primes are not precision-sharp like Sony’s. The Fuji’s retain more of a classic character and are plenty sharp for me. Overall, my pictures with Fuji have a more classic rendering.
The weight of the X-T4 together with the worry that Fuji don’t pay enough attention to ergonomics, is not a camera I’d recommend unless IBIS is a must-have for you.

I think the X-T3 is their best all round camera body. I really enjoy the tilting screen on it. But - I also bought the X-T30 as a backup/second body and that’s the camera I now have with me almost all the time. Because it’s so small and light. Ergonomically it’s horrible. It’s too cramped and the function dials get switched accidentally when holding the camera. The touch screen has a mind of its own too. So I’ve turned off the touch screen functions, the Q button and the front function button. Now I’m happy and the camera is always with me as I said. I’ve had so much fun and great pictures from the Fuji cameras and lenses. That’s what matters to me.

I really appreciate the comment - it really has me thinking the decision to go to X-T4. The ergonomics/size/AF quality are my primary concerns and it doesn't seem that these would be improved or stay the same over the 6600. i'm hoping some stores re-open here soon so I can go test an X-T4, i'd hate to buy one blind even though Amazon has a generous return policy.

I don't think i'd be happy with the X-T3 - the smaller battery life, while not super important, makes a big difference if you're out and about all day - only carrying one battery does shave a bit of weight - every gram counts! Also the X-T4 is probably overall going to get better with future FW updates and that vari-angle screen is real nice.

Cheers

Stokkes wrote:

Miguel-C wrote:

Just a few pointers:

The fuji XT4 should be of similar size to the A7III. And the sony a6600 has a wider range of zoom lenses than the fuji system. You have the superb 18-135mm, you have the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and the new tamron 70-180mm 2.8. You have sigmas support too for general purpose lenses. On the fuji system you really only have the one 16-55mm 2.8, and if you want longer you have the slow 55-200mm or the super bulky 50-140 2.8.

Thay said, i love fuji and I think you'd be better served - you body wise - with any XT camera.

Appreciate the comments Miguel!

It's unfortunate the XT4 is similar size/bulk as the A7III - the 6600 is a joy to hold - but other ergonomics are bad in general with the body.

I know the tamron 28-75 is a good lens, but it doesn't make sense to me on APS-C, that's an equivalent 42-112 which is a very odd FL and not wide at all

I was under the impression you didn't shoot wide that often, I feel 28mm is a nice focal length on apsc.

JayPhizzt wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

I made a move from Sony APSC to Fuji a few months ago. I had the A6600 and A6400. I’m really enjoying the Fuji system but ergonomics is one of Fuji’s weak points I’d say. The main reason I switched was to have access to Fuji’s wonderful f1.4 primes. I was also originally attracted to the classic style dials of the Fuji but I find I never use the exposure or the ISO dials (because the automatic options are so good). My most used dial is exposure compensation and that has now been assigned to the rear fn dial. So all three top dials are near-redundant for me now.

Eye focus and general AF with Sony is amazing and if that’s important for you I’d be wary of switching. It’s not just the Sony AF system that’s faster, it’s that most of their lenses can keep up. Fuji have a lot of older lenses that are slow and/or noisy to AF. The newer Fuji bodies like X-T3 and X-T4 are much better than previous models. But still the lenses can hold them back. Sony wins here. I’m not an AF fanatic so this weakness doesn’t bother me with Fuji. I often use vintage lenses anyway, whether on Sony or Fuji.
The Fuji app you mentioned for transferring files to your phone: forget it. I didn’t give it more than ten minutes.

So, why do I like the Fuji system? As mentioned above, it’s the lenses. Fuji’s lens line-up is built around the APSC system. Most are small and light which encourages me to carry a camera with me at all times. I have a lot of fun with the film simulations and creating my own variants. Fuji lenses, especially their faster 1.4 primes are not precision-sharp like Sony’s. The Fuji’s retain more of a classic character and are plenty sharp for me. Overall, my pictures with Fuji have a more classic rendering.
The weight of the X-T4 together with the worry that Fuji don’t pay enough attention to ergonomics, is not a camera I’d recommend unless IBIS is a must-have for you.

I think the X-T3 is their best all round camera body. I really enjoy the tilting screen on it. But - I also bought the X-T30 as a backup/second body and that’s the camera I now have with me almost all the time. Because it’s so small and light. Ergonomically it’s horrible. It’s too cramped and the function dials get switched accidentally when holding the camera. The touch screen has a mind of its own too. So I’ve turned off the touch screen functions, the Q button and the front function button. Now I’m happy and the camera is always with me as I said. I’ve had so much fun and great pictures from the Fuji cameras and lenses. That’s what matters to me.

The ergonomics might be a weak point for you, for me they are one of the things I love the most about Fuji. I find their gear so intuitive and fun to shoot with. The ergonomics and the lenses are some of the main reasons most people shoot with Fuji I'd say.

As for your experienced lack of sharpness I wonder what software you use to demosaic your RAW files? Or perhaps you shoot JPG? Without proper demosaicing you won't retain all the details. I do believe this is the cause rather than the lenses. My current Fuji lenses(16/1.4 and 80mm macro) are the sharpest lenses I've ever used.

You misunderstood my meaning. Yes. The Fuji lenses are sharp. I shoot RAW + JPEG and get very sharp results. However the Fuji lenses have more of a beautiful classic rendering than Sony lenses. This is high praise from me, not criticism. I spend a fortune on lenses from companies like Voigtlander, to get lens character over lens precision. I’m almost always at f1.4 with Fuji lenses and only rarely stop down if I need extra focus depth. So I’m using Fuji lenses to achieve as near to a vintage look as I can get. It’s my choice to use them this way. When I need “sharp” the lenses rise to the occasion. 
When it comes to ergonomics, I find the X-T3 to be the best Fuji all round. (From the ones I’ve tried of course). I include the placement and function of buttons as part of the ergonomic properties of a camera, as well as the grip. How on Earth the placement of the Q button on the X-T30 got past the design testing stage, I’ve no idea. You really don’t have an option other than to disable it, which thankfully you can now do after a firmware update. (Don’t get me going on the touch screen). 
When it comes to all-day in hand comfort, I’d say Canon do a better job with ergonomics. Because of the design of their grip and placement of the buttons, shutter release etc. 
Anyway, as I said, I’m totally sold on Fuji for the lenses, the fun factor, the film settings, for being bold enough to produce a camera like the X-Pro 3, etc. My tiny X-T30 is with me all day, every day, enabling me to produce superb images and amusing me with its design flaws.