X-T4 from Sony A6600?

xeriwthe wrote:

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.

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

I also wanted to mention, reading your initial post mentioning bulk of A7 series, that the X-T series cameras are pretty large relative to e.g. X-E3 or X-T30.

In the end I feel like I probably should have gone with a more compact series fuji camera, I don't quite 'get' the grip on my X-T2, it's kind of painful on my fingernails in normal hand hold grips. it's weird it never quite feels 'right', while my simple flat x100s feels comfortable. i dunno, i noticed this the first time I picked one up but was too enamored with buttons and dials, I can admit that now. still is fun but, I can't deny the X-T30 would make a lot more sense for me.

it's also big in a way that makes me self conscious I don't need this photographic firepower going on walks with my family

Xeriwthe: I completely agree with you and this is what I was trying to convey in my earlier posts on this thread. Fuji X-T* cameras don't have the best ergonomics for long-term in-hand comfort. compared, say to Canon. Of all the X-T* designs I have tried, I like the X-T3 the most. I like the two-way tilt screen and the D-pad for example, and the camera is not too heavy. The X-T4 starts to become close to the weight of the full frame A7 series and it's heavier than a Canon RP. For me that defeats the reason to use APSC cameras.

As I said earlier, I bought an X-T3 and then an X-T30 as a second/backup body. But the X-T30 is the one I use the most by far; every single day its with me because its so small and light with exactly the same output as its larger siblings.

Its a pain to use because its too cramped for me and for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. But this little bundle of image-producing glory, goes everywhere with me. Isn't that what counts in the end?

JayPhizzt wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

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.

You can definitely get more clinical results with Fuji as well, though. It depends a lot on what software you edit with and how you edit.

Like I said I love the Fuji ergonomics, but I do actually agree that the grip could be a bit better/bigger on the X-T3. I haven't held an X-T4, but it is a bit thicker so the grip should be a bit nicer to hold. There is of course also the X-H1 if you want a bigger/deeper grip.

I've never used an X-T30, but yes, the Q-button does look quite oddly placed

Btw, if you want a lens with character I can highly recommend the Mitakon 35/0.95, it gives your photos more of a "vintage" look than any Fuji lens does. It's also a lot cheaper than Voigtländer lenses

Thanks for the tip. I shall definitely try the Mitakon 35/0,95 some time.  I already have the Kamlan 28/1.4 and the 50/1.1 mk.ii and I enjoy both of them very much on Fuji cameras. I think of them differently to Voigtlander lenses. The Voigtlander range are mainly high quality precision lenses inspired by classic lens designs and meant to be used across the entire aperture range. They are beautifully crafted as well.  I think the very wide recent lenses from China are mainly catering for the Bokeh fanatics out there - and some of them do a great job at it. That's how I use them anyway. However, recently some Chinese manufacturers are upping their game and trying to produce much better lenses. The difference between the Kamlan 50mm f1.1 mk.i and mk.ii is considerable.  The mk ii can be used much more seriously.  As always these are just my opinions. I am not an optics engineer or professor!  I must find a way to try the Mitakon...

I traded in my Sony a6500 for a X-T3 and now a X-T4 and a X-E3. I don't regret it.

The X-T series are a little bigger than the a6xxx series. The a6xxx are sized more like the X-e series. The ergonomics and the physical controls just work better for me.

The 35mm f1.4 is a good environmental portrait and all around indoor lens.

When I made the switch, I traded a lot of equipment in at KEH. Sony -> Fuji. It made the switch less $$ painful.

James H MacAllister wrote:

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.

I've had a different experience. I use it for geotagging. I set up the camera remote for all of my Fujis. I just start the app on my phone, leave my phone in my pocket, turn my camera on, and it works. It does take a few seconds to connect though, so I can't keep the camera off between shots and power it on for a quick shot.

Having come from a Sony a6500, I felt the Fuji app worked better.

I'm holding off on the body for now, and looking at lenses as ultimately that is what makes a system and costing up a set.

The x-t4 is very nice but too big

The x-t30 is OK, but I'm not sure it is any better than the 6400

Would I be better waiting for the E4? I'm also hoping that IBIS might filter down into other ranges.

How do I tell between the older slow focus lenses and the newer better ones

Am I right in thinking the f1.4 primes are the premium offerings

I'm attracted to the longer lenses, the lens range feels alot more balanced across focal lengths than Sony for apsc lenses.

mmacleodbrown wrote:

I'm holding off on the body for now, and looking at lenses as ultimately that is what makes a system and costing up a set.

The x-t4 is very nice but too big

The x-t30 is OK, but I'm not sure it is any better than the 6400

Would I be better waiting for the E4? I'm also hoping that IBIS might filter down into other ranges.

How do I tell between the older slow focus lenses and the newer better ones

Am I right in thinking the f1.4 primes are the premium offerings

I'm attracted to the longer lenses, the lens range feels alot more balanced across focal lengths than Sony for apsc lenses.

I just watched this tutorial on YT (caution it's almost two hours) on the X-T4 and the camera just looks like an absolute joy to use (coming from a Sony). I am reconsidering.

https://youtu.be/m5frhQ_X3T8

It does look good, but the size of the camera means I might as well just pack my A7r2 in my bag which is far better. I'm looking for a more portable solution

mmacleodbrown wrote:

It does look good, but the size of the camera means I might as well just pack my A7r2 in my bag which is far better. I'm looking for a more portable solution

I agree that the weight and price of the X-T4 takes it too close to the price of a FF camera like the Sony A73 or second hand A7r*, which will have many people questioning its value for money.

I love the Fuji system, but for me, APSC is about smaller, lighter and less expensive cameras.

mmacleodbrown wrote:

It does look good, but the size of the camera means I might as well just pack my A7r2 in my bag which is far better. I'm looking for a more portable solution

I think when you compare APS-C size to FF size and you only talk about the body, you missing something. The biggest size difference between APS-C and FF is the lenses.

The XT4 is the king of APSC at the moment with many class leading camera features, especially on the video front. If you 1)  Love retro dials, 2) don't mind a larger camera, 3) love shooting with primes, and 4) shoot alot of videos, then I would advocate changing. That said, A6600 is no slough and is capable of producing nice photos/videos.

Personally, I switched from XT20 to A7iii because 1) I do not like the zoom lenses in Fuji collection, 2) I do not like the small grip on Fuji cameras, 3) the AF on XT20 was subpar, and 4) I do not like using dials. In the past, full frame Sony lenses have been really big and expensive compared to Fuji. However, that has changed with the release of many fantastic offerings from Tamron and Sigma that are wonderful and more reasonably priced.

If you compare XT4+ 16-55f2.8 vs A7iii+tamron 28-75f2.8, the price/size difference is really minor. Just my 2cents.

While Sony is great in some areas, I agree with others in saying the X-T4 does many things very well.  The autofocus is certainly much better than previous X models.

YY101 wrote:

The XT4 is the king of APSC at the moment with many class leading camera features, especially on the video front. If you 1) Love retro dials, 2) don't mind a larger camera, 3) love shooting with primes, and 4) shoot alot of videos, then I would advocate changing. That said, A6600 is no slough and is capable of producing nice photos/videos.

Personally, I switched from XT20 to A7iii because 1) I do not like the zoom lenses in Fuji collection, 2) I do not like the small grip on Fuji cameras, 3) the AF on XT20 was subpar, and 4) I do not like using dials. In the past, full frame Sony lenses have been really big and expensive compared to Fuji. However, that has changed with the release of many fantastic offerings from Tamron and Sigma that are wonderful and more reasonably priced.

If you compare XT4+ 16-55f2.8 vs A7iii+tamron 28-75f2.8, the price/size difference is really minor. Just my 2cents.

Agree. But if you look at the A6xxx it is alot smaller. I already have the a7r2, I'm looking at a xt30 or e3 sized setup. From what I can see the zooms are on a par for apsc, but fuji has the long range covered more than Sony though the 70-350 has helped close the gap.

I'm tempted to see if a e4 is released as the e3 is probably my favourite body in the fuji range followed by the xt30, if I'm looking at T4 size, I might as well just bring my A7r2 along.

tcgoetz wrote:

mmacleodbrown wrote:

It does look good, but the size of the camera means I might as well just pack my A7r2 in my bag which is far better. I'm looking for a more portable solution

I think when you compare APS-C size to FF size and you only talk about the body, you missing something. The biggest size difference between APS-C and FF is the lenses.

Very valid point, it was the lens range that had me starting to look at Fuji. However I tend to shoot longer so so lens size becomes less of an issue as they are all large though alot smaller than FF

I have zooms, but shoot mostly primes. I understand the interest in the point and shoot qualities of the zoom vs zooming with your feet.
You seem to be set on a small package, but adding a FF zoom to an APS-C body increases both weight and size vs using a lens designed for APS-C.
I've not used, but you might consider a camera such as the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10. I don't know which camera model/brand. would be best, but this category offers relatively small and fast (f/2.8) zoom. The 1" sensor negatively impact your ability to isolate the subject by using a shallow depth of field, but APS-C and relatively slow zoom lenses already does this when compared to FF and fast primes.