Conclusion

What we like What we don't
  • Excellent image quality
  • Wide choice of attractive color modes
  • Very good video quality
  • Effective and customizable ergonomics
  • Image stabilization allows hand-held video shooting and more stable stills
  • 15 fps shooting with mechanical shutter and >100 shot JPEG buffer
  • Fully-articulating screen great for video
  • Good separation of stills and video to enable fast switching
  • Separate stills and video menus simplify things even for stills-only shooters
  • Good battery life
  • Can be charged or operated with USB power
  • Extensive customization of buttons and interfaces
  • Strong range of video tools (peaking, zebras, punch-in while recording, corrected preview for Log shooting)
  • 10-bit internal Log capture with selection of useful LUTs provided
  • Autofocus performance is heavily subject-dependent
  • No AF subject tracking in video
  • AF performance highly lens dependent
  • Face/eye detection is awkwardly integrated and not as dependable as rival systems
  • IS system not great at identifying intentional movement (can give 'grabby' results)
  • Buffer lasts less than 3 seconds for Raw at 15fps
  • Limited video recording time may be restrictive for certain types of shooting
  • Need to retain USB-C dongle to attach headphones
  • Fully articulating screen may not be your preferred option for stills shooting
  • No external charger provided

The X-T4 isn't pitched as an X-T3 replacement, but it recognizably improves on one of our favorite cameras. High-end APS-C cameras are no longer the only options within sensible reach of most enthusiasts, but we think the X-T4 offers a distinct and interesting combination of capabilities that justify its existence and its price.

As a stills camera, it can be seen as an image stabilized and slightly updated X-T3. This is no bad thing: we've not seen an APS-C chip that out-performs its 26MP sensor in terms of Raw performance and the latest generation of Fujifilm's JPEG engine offers more creative options than ever. The Eterna Bleach Bypass color mode perhaps marks the point where Fujifilm ran out of attractive films to simulate and tipped over into the Instagram filter territory it'd previously avoided, but like any creative option, we suspect people will find uses for it.

ISO 160 | 1/120 sec | F4.0 | Fujinon 16-55mm F2.8 lens @ 16mm
Photo: Richard Butler

As well as adding stabilization, stills shooters will find the X-T4 can shoot much faster. The adoption of a new new battery, while losing backward compatibility, adds over 50% longer battery life than the X-T3, if compared like-for-like. And, while it doesn't happily adapt to all subjects, the camera's autofocus system is noticeably more effective in some regards.

In terms of video, it's a more dramatic telling of a similar story: the video quality remains the same but the addition of image stabilization (despite the occasional glitch) is transformative. Feature additions such as line-level mic input and the corrected Log preview are all welcome, as is the dial-operable 'movie optimized control' mode, but it's the ability to produce excellent results without a gimbal that makes the X-T4 shine. It's comfortably the best video camera Fujifilm has yet made.

ISO 160 | 1/80 sec | F2.8 | Fujinon 50-140mm F2.8 lens @ 56mm
Photo: Richard Butler

If considered only as a stills-shooting camera, there's a lot to like about the X-T4, but its price would probably hold it to a Silver award. But we believe it's made more compelling if you shoot video. Or, to be more precise, if you also shoot video. It's a really good stills camera, it's a really, really good video camera, but the thing it excels at it switching back and forth between being both. We're not sure there's another camera that offers such a strong combination.


What we think


Dan Bracaglia
Editor
Ergonomically, the X-T4 offers one of the most enjoyable and refined user experiences of any mirrorless camera on the market. And for the price, it is also one of the most feature-packed, especially in terms of video tools. But you can pick-up an entry-level full-framer for about the same price as an X-T4 and get better image quality and in some cases, more reliable autofocus. But will you enjoy shooting with it as much?

Compared to its peers

The X-T4 brings 15fps shooting, improved (albeit somewhat subject-variant) autofocus, a larger battery and, of course, image stabilization over the Fujifilm X-T3. These differences are likely to justify the price difference even for many stills-only photographers, and should probably outweigh the relatively small impact of screen articulation type or loss of the metering switch. If you want to shoot both stills and video or any hand-held video, the choice is even clearer.

Against the Sony a6600, it'll depend on what and how you shoot. The Sony's AF tracking is a little stickier, its speed assessment a little better and its face/eye detection incomparably more reliable. But in most situations the difference in outcome isn't huge, and it will depend on your subject. In terms of enjoying the photographic experience, we find the X-T4's handling and ergonomics vastly preferable. The Sony has longer battery life and offers reliable subject tracking in video mode, but the Fujfilm's 10-bit capability makes its footage much more malleable and it's better at switching between video and stills.

The thing that threatens to overshadow the X-T4 is the ~$2000 full frame mirrorless camera

Perhaps the thing that most threatens to overshadow the X-T4 is the very concept of the ~$2000 full frame mirrorless camera. The Sony a7 III and Nikon Z6 both offer in-body stabilization and similarly sized bodies, and are old enough to sell for near the X-T4's price. Full frame can offer undeniably better image quality if you use lenses that are equivalent or faster, which can't be ignored. But APS-C offers a different size/weight trade-off, allowing smaller, perhaps more manageable body/lens combinations which don't necessarily give up too much in image quality. In video, the Fujifilm more than holds its own. If you're shooting a scene and need to maintain a minimum depth-of-field, the Fujifilm's 10-bit footage will have similar IQ and be more gradable.

The other great rivals as stills and video cameras are Panasonic's Lumix DC-G9 and DC-GH5. They both have smaller sensors than the Fujifilm but more refined IS systems (the GH5S' oversized, BSI sensor competes better with the X-T4 but there's no stabilization and its 10.2MP make it less capable as a stills camera). The GH5 also offers better video tools, 4:2:2 internal capture and better thermal management than the Fujfilm, letting it shoot much longer and making it the better video camera overall. But when it comes to a combination of stills and video the X-T4 offers the better balance: it shoots faster has higher resolution, higher IQ and lets you jump back and forth effortlessly.


Scoring

Scoring is relative only to the other cameras in the same category. Click here to learn about the changes to our scoring system and what these numbers mean.

Fujifilm X-T4
Category: Semi-professional Interchangeable Lens Camera / DSLR
Build quality
Ergonomics & handling
Features
Metering & focus accuracy
Image quality (raw)
Image quality (jpeg)
Low light / high ISO performance
Viewfinder / screen rating
Performance
Movie / video mode
Connectivity
Value
PoorExcellent
Conclusion
The X-T4 is one of the most expensive APS-C cameras available but also probably the most capable. Its autofocus system isn't quite as consistent or refined as the best of its rivals but in every other respect it excels. Its images are attractive, its video quality superb and it's engaging to shoot with.
Good for
People shooting both stills and video
Not so good for
Must-get-the-shot sports shooting
88%
Overall score