X-Pro3 or X-T4 as a second camera

I only shoot stills. My main camera is a Nikon Z6. While I love it, I can not carry it all the time with me. Well, I can, but it is not worth it.

My second camera is an X100V with which I have a very strange relationship. Most of the photographs I take with it are not so good (comparing with the Nikon). It's not faulty technology. As I've come to realise, 35 is not the focal distance I'm that comfortable with. I know it now since yesterday I finally put a teleconverter on it, and suddenly got some very decent pictures from it. The converter is quite large though and makes the camera bulky.

For over a year I've been toying with the idea of getting a second body, and for a while was dismissing the option of X-Pro3. Mainly looking at X-T4. I can't say that X-T4 excites me, but the lens range is very appealing. Nikon Z 24-70 f/4 is a fantastic lens, but for the price of, say, 70-200 f/2.8 I can get a second body (Fuji) with a decent lens. A couple of weeks ago I realised that X-Pro3 with a couple of primes is a very compelling option. I could get a 33 or 33 WR and, say, a 50 WR.

Since I'm a bit lost, I'm asking for advice. How much will I miss IBIS on X-PRO3? Is X-T4 a better option? Are there any disadvantages I'm missing (say, I've seen someone complain about the breaking screen on X-Pro3)?

In a nutshell, X100V does not do the job as a second, daily carry camera for me. X100V + a teleconverter might do the job (focal distance), but becomes a bulky beast. Can I improve the situation with an X-Pro3? Or X-T4?

Here is an image from yesterday:

A Z50. Honestly. Same system, backup, shares some lenses, same interface, nice size, loads cheaper.  Similar colours too.

a_c_skinner wrote:

A Z50. Honestly. Same system, backup, shares some lenses, same interface, nice size, loads cheaper. Similar colours too.

Or a ZFC. HELL sell that x100v for top $$$$$. There will be no difference in images.

I said Z50 as the controls are, I think, similar to the other Z series.

I somehow keep forgetting about this option…

How about the X-E4? or the Nikon Zfc?

Like you I looked at Fuji (and changed) to have a smaller lighter camera.  I don't regret this (well I do a bit) but if I were doing it now I'd almost certainly have Nikon Z50 backing up a D800 and selection of lenses, plus an adaptor.

If you’re looking at small size, maybe a Ricoh GR III or GR III X ….. otherwise getting a pancake lens for your Nikon …..

I'd advise against the X-E4.  It will simply start the OP down the slippery slope to a whole Fuji system.  The X-M1 did for me.

I’m not a fan of x-e4. Seems like ergonomics is an important factor for me. Z50 is great ergonomically, but what scares me is 20MP (I print sometimes, and am planning to print more and larger) and the lack of DX lenses. FF Z lenses are amazing, but are large enough to just take my Z6.

Out of curiosity, why do you find the slope slippery?

I've posted this before, so apologies if anyone ever reads my posts.

I spent ages with Nikon FM2n x 2 and Nikkors. I got a D200, then a D800, both logical but blimey the 800 was big and heavy, though excellent. I had an early Olympus M4/3 but it wasn't consistent. It was the only camera I had that couldn't consistently produce sharp images - shutter shock.

I saw a package deal of the X-M1 and the two XC zooms. After a while it dawned on me that I couldn't see much advantage to the D800, even looking closely at the images, and bought an X-T2. Some really careful comparisons said to me that the size of the D800 offered little or no advantage in IQ. The cost of the D850 when it came out finally made me think I'd not keep up with developments in the Nikon line and so I sold up.

The slippery slope is that you will not see any advantage to the Z6 when you have a current Fuji body and a decent lens - which they all are of course.

For me the Fuji strength is a single system ranging from big, competent and complex (X-H2s) through to small and light (X-E4 or X-T30) so you get redundancy and choice. Hence my Z50 suggestion which does the same, albeit needing DX lenses to make the real difference.

Thanks, Andrew. I see your point. I love my Z6, it’s an absolute beast. Boring, reliable. The S glass is insane. It makes me forget that I have a camera in my hand. Until it doesn’t… Also, people on the streets get a bit uncomfortable sometimes. This is probably why I’m internally against X-T4. Not solving the problem I’m trying to solve. X-Pro3 seems like a different beast though. Maybe I’m stupidly sold on the illusion of more immersed experience with the hybrid VF and the hidden rear screen. If only I could pull the trigger on something like Leica Q2… Lots to think about.

DrivedCat wrote:

I’m not a fan of x-e4. Seems like ergonomics is an important factor for me. Z50 is great ergonomically, but what scares me is 20MP (I print sometimes, and am planning to print more and larger) and the lack of DX lenses.

Sounds like you just have to bring your bigger camera and deal with it.  Though the 4mp between 20-24mp is a matter of being able to print like a centimeter or two bigger at 300dpi.

FF Z lenses are amazing, but are large enough to just take my Z6.

Out of curiosity, why do you find the slope slippery?

-- hide signature --

Thanks,
Anton

rlandrigan wrote:

A used Z50(i like the camera but it's just not worth the new price) or ZFC(which is honestly overpriced) will get out of the way and can be a second Z body as needed as well.

In what world is a camera with these capabilities overpriced when under $1000?