: This is a fantastic camera and probably the best crop sensor money can buy right now. But for me is FF or no deal specially at this price range. Crop sensors need crop price, not crop sensors at full frame price. I know "new camera fever" is all the thing and that all that's old(er) is labeled old news and garbage. But something's like an a7III or even a second hand a7RII (that costs less), eat the XT4 for breakfast, lunch, dinner, plus drinks, dessert, ice cream and all snacks in between. And no, I am not a Sony fan, quite the opposite.. but facts, specs, IQ and costs are what they are.
I got different fuji camera among eos 5dII and now eos rp.
fuji's apsc advantages over canon : - video (better or equal full frame camera) - DR (you can really see it on the pictures) - (now IBIS)
canon's advantage (eos r and rp) : - full frame look pictures, can't be beaten. even with a 8 year old sensor for eos rp.
it's only 1 advantage for canon but this is game changer. i compared so much pictures.
difference than can be an advantage or inconvenient depending of your taste : - color tone and redition : different from all over camera because of xtrans (i like both fuji and canon) - body look and ergonomics (i prefer canon) - lenses (i prefer canon too price / quality ratio)
both share the size advantage (game changer too vs nikon and sony)
your choice depend of your taste and use...make a list and check boxes and order your priority, it's an easy way to choose the best camera you need. remember, no perfect camera for now, but got a lot hope in R6.
I was just talking to a sports shooter who has an A9ii. He made some great points. (I made a few to him first :) )
The A9ii DR is about the same as the X-T4 or similar up to about ISO1600 (maybe IS3200), and noise is not an issue at those ISOs either. The XT4 shoots at 15 FPS with mechanical shutter and A9ii only 10. Both shoot at 20 FPS with an electronic shutter. A9ii hit rate is slightly better (he said only a few frames per second) A9ii electronic shutter has less rolling shutter, but rarely a factor. X-T4 has better IBIS.
So he talked about how he prefers a mechanical shutter and how the X-T4 gets the same or more keepers because it does 15FPS vs 10 FPS. He said IBIS difference doesn't matter much in sports. His conclusion was the X-T4 with the 100-400/5.6 is as good (sometimes better sometimes worse) than the A9ii with the Sony 200-600/6.3 zoom. IQ is the same, speed is similar, and number of "hits" is about the same overall. The main difference is...
The FujiFilm camera/lens is cheaper and smaller. And the images look nicer SOOC when he's in a hurry. He doesn't shoot video, but video is going to be better too.
If FujiFilm would make some more sports lens, for those on a budget it would be a much more compelling camera than a $4000 A9ii, with almost no compromises (and better video and IBIS).
I don't get the issue with price. This camera is a bargain compared to most FF cameras. IBIS is better always vs all FF cameras. Video is better 98% of time vs all FF cameras except the S1H. Frames per second is better than any FF camera except the A9 and A9ii Images colors are arguably better than most cameras, Images over all are as good as 24MP FF cameras except under rare cases when a wide enough aperture lens is not available, and in cases where anything but a razor thin DoF is necessary, IQ can be virtually equal (except colors may actually be better with the Fujifilm camera) The only place the Fujifilm camera falls short is resolution, against the more expensive FF cameras. But if resolution is your thing there is the GFX100 :)
Overall, no FF camera can do all the things this camera can do for anywhere near the price. For the price it is the best overall stills/video camera.
most people who shoot ff do not want aps-c, for good reason... the problems with the x-t4 are typical for fuji gear:
1) weak lens selection, esp wrt 3rd-party glass 2) weak af, as dpr clearly stated in all reviews 3) no powered zooms for video, afaik 4) x-trans nightmare & gimmicky "film" simulations 5) not ff, does not compare to ff p.q. at all 6) overpriced in the aps-c segment 7) no path to ff 8) etc.
If you're looking for an APS-C camera the XT-4 ticks the most of the boxes and Fujifilm seems to have come close to perfecting the XT-line after dragging their feet for a decent time adding IBIS to a smaller body camera.
The problem with the price is at its pricepoint you can get a similarily specced camera with a bigger sensor for the money. Trading some video prowess of the Fuji for a camera with potential for better image quality for the price.
The XT-4 is an attractive package, but slash the price by lets say 200€ or so to create a bigger gap between it and the Z6 and Sony equivelents would make the decision much easier.
Wow, lots of lies by the desperate Sony fans. DPreview never called the X-T4 AF "weak", just the opposite. S-AF is as good as it gets and C-AF is better than most need. C-AF combined with a 15 FPS mechanical shutter and 20 FPS electronic shutter make the camera better for shooting action than any Sony APSC camera, and better than ANY Sony FF camera using a mechanical shutter. Shockingly it is better than the A9ii because you'll get more keepers when using the mechanical shutters on both cameras. And the A9 cameras have notoriously low DR for FF cameras, which means there won't be any noticeable difference between the XT4 and an A9 at ISO100-1600. So the Fujifilm 100-400 F5.6 lens will be a little better than the larger Sony 200-600 F6.3. So yes, the X-T4 at less than half the price of an A9ii will get more keepers and often better IQ. Of course video sucks an ALL Sony cameras, so that is no contest either. Sony's ugly SOOC colors makes their video/stills even worse
I want it - trouble is it's expensive for an APS-C body, and I already own an X-T3 with grip. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the twizzly screen, but a slightly chunkier body with IBIS ticks a couple of boxes. I dunno. I think if it had a new and improved sensor, and/or it was a few hundred pounds less expensive, then I'd place an order, but the value for me is a bit marginal. Still, that's not to take anything away from the fact that it's a very nice camera, sensibly proportioned, and with a very nice, lightweight lens lineup. So a bit on the expensive side for now, but still very desirable.
I've always found Fujifilm camera images look great with little to no tweaking. I am not talking about noise. I am talking about the image and how it looks. With other more expensive cameras colors look strange or don't go well together or turn people off. I really like the baby picture here. The standard profile images look superb.
I pointed this out as well but this is only a Velvia simulation setting and I wondered why they would included that on the camera when it appears to be utterly useless and in the sample gallery it is confusing people.
As to Raynaud...what should embarrass a person is catty comments to other posters. These lack in basic civility and aren't helpful.
The pictures of the flowers that are an out of camera Velvia simulation. Too me this looks really terrible...to each their own but I'm trying to understand if perhaps some people like this or are they showing it to show how bad it looks?
For the flowers they picked the wrong film simulation. That’s not the cameras fault. It like complaining a picture take. With a B&W film simulation doesn’t have enough color.
Overall, after look at the past several galleries, Olympus and Fujifilm appear to have the best SOOC colors, better then latest Canon IMHO. And Sony has by far the worst.
Rynald...My point wasn't that this camera has bad color, my point was this was a bad simulation and I'm trying to understand the point of including such an option. So it's not like saying as you suggest that a B&W settings doesn't have enough color but like a B&W setting is producing ugly B&W. This camera is creating ugly Velvia.
I know this won’t happen, quite predictable at dpreview!, but a direct comparison should me made between the Fuji X T4s claimed 6 stop ibis and Olympus EM1 Mark III. This should be included predominantly in the finalized review of the EM1 III. But no we will not see this, as it will make the XT4 look less reliable? This is not to say the XT4 isn’t an amazing camera, and decent ibis, but when it comes to claims, and you say it’s up with the best, then back it up! Compare all the latest, include the Nikon Z6 etc. I’m also still waiting impatiently for that multi format 20x30 print test! https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-olympus/fuji-xt4-vs-omd-em1-iii-ibis/
IBIS effectiveness is inversely proportional to sensor size (at the same FoV), assuming every participant is equally adept technologically. This is actually one of the most compelling arguments for a smaller sensor in the great sensor size debate.
But for how long? 6.5 stop is the theoretical limit for IBIS not due to the technology but the Earths rotation. You’ll find that the 7.5 stops achievable with Olympus is really for handheld astrophotography. Whilst there is always room for improvement, IBIS is relatively new for FF and apsc mirrorless.
With some FF cameras achieving 5 stop of IBIS, the gap is already more than made up by BSI sensors.
For video IBIS is not without it caveats and gimbals are used for more serious video. There are compelling reasons to go with larger sensors for video due to low light performance and a thinner DOF which is often preferred by many in video for more cinematic output.
Buy the X-T3, plus the T-200, or the new Sony ZV1... This T4 is really a let down... no 6K video?!??!The same IQ??!! In such an expensive camera? These Fuji guys are nuts... where is the beast that they anticipated?
The A6600 has worse IQ that the old A6300 and A6500 according to DxO. All those cameras use the most of the same hardware as the A6000 from 2014. So you are telling everyone to avoid those old cameras.
Meanwhile the X-T3 was rated by this site as the best APSC camera and best camera under $1500. So telling people to buy one is great advice. Although, like Jordan and Chris pointed out the X-T4 improved 5 or 6 different thing on the X-T3 and is an even better camera. Both have DCI 4K, 10 bit video, 4K 60p, and a lot of other video specs that cannot be found on any Sony ILC today. And telling people to get a ZV1 that was soundly trounced by an old iPhone for video is terrible advice.
Who cares, it doesn't translates into better image quality. 4K video has been around since 2014. This camera should be out in 2015, or 2016... A fully articulated LCD should have been on every Fuji camera, so where is the beast? As for being the best APSc camera, no camera beats the Samsung Nx 500 and it was released in 2015... Is it for IBIS? well buy a gimball... this camera will be toast in the recent future... 8K is just around the corner, with the Canon R5/SOny A7 sIII, etc...
Everyone else has moved on from lousy 8 bit, 100Mbps bitrate, 4:2:0, non-DCI, 30p max, 4K video. Oh, and why Sony still uses sensors with such bad rolling shutter is a mystery.
Quite annoying I found the constant mentioning of APS-C camera. I think that most people would have realised after - say - the fifth mentioning that this "could be the best APS-C camera on the market" ...
It is a little bit like saying: not a bad camera ... but (!!!!!)
I used the A7III for a while and although a good camera (read: good!) I found handling and EVF miles ahead on the X-T2 I used at the same time. Only one example !
So please now and again give us a break and don't over-emphasise the sensor size "too" much. It does get a bit annoying after a while.
You did miss in this particular Fuji review that it's very pretty compared to say the Sony or Canon you compared it against. Was it because you got stuck with the black model??
The thing is usability is more important than pure quantitative specs. People who are not good at something will always look at quantitative things than qualitatitive ones. Ibis or video switch only, or flip screen or deeper grip are more important then having a newer more mp sensor. So yeah it is a Real Upgrade
You are right about usability. Flip screen, video switch, bigger grip, heavier weight are all downgrades to me compared to the previous models. That is why I have no use for the X-T4. Especially this flippy thing is getting in my way of working.
The single AF box tracking demonstrated in this video covers ALL my focussing needs
- landscape with off center subject, use center focus point then recompose - portrait off center, use center focus point and recompose - wildlife waiting for subject to appear off-center, move focus point
I’ve been waiting to upgrade my X-T2 and have just been convinced.
I bought the X-T4 to upgrade my X-T2 and it was worth every penny. Being able to shoot sharp shots in lowlight at night at 160-250 iso at 1/10-1/15 SS was worth it. And great tracking af and better face/eye detect. I rarely take it off single box tracking af because it’s so great.
I stand by what I first said about this camera. If you currently own an X-T3 it is just better to wait for the X-H2.
That will be the true upgrade.
Because what did fujifilm actually 'upgrade': - IBIS - Battery - Shutter
All the rest is firmware related and could be brought up to par with a simple firmware upgrade.
I am also not sure if the X-T4 will receive much love from Fujifilm regarding firmware updates. I guess we may see a single update and only up to the moment the X-H2 arrives.
Yes so has the EVF improved. But most of these hardware upgrades are pretty minor. Of course Fuji will tell you all together it is a big upgrade.
I understand from their point of view - But as a user - Nah! All those things will be added to any new camera.
But maybe more importantly is that the true upgrade is to be expected with the X-H2 getting a new sensor and processor and all the new features.
Basically the X-T4 is a X-T3 on steroids - Its better. But not by much! To me it doesn't truly stand out enough over the X-T3. The X-T3 is already a very capable camera, but its resale value is really low. So the investment towards the X-T4 is pretty high.
X-H2 will probably get the same price as the current T4. Especially now competition on the FF front is heating up and its prices come down.
I think this will be the biggest challenge for Fujifilm over the long run. How to keep these X-Series cameras attractive enough? It is not going to happen by upping the price.
I mean...every manufacturer will tell you their latest camera is worth the upgrade from the previous camera. Unless you have a specific need, the smart money is on upgrading every other generation.
You forgot the new switch for switching between stills and video. This was a major improvement that fixed a major criticism of the XT3. And the LCD which was already mentioned.
You forgot a lot which makes you look silly, and kills your point.
So basically what the OP is saying is that in spite of several major hardware upgrades, the camera is not a major upgrade. OK, got that.
The reality is that the upgrades are significant. Any one of them may matter a lot to many users. Take battery life for example. Not a sexy feature, but very important. Or that switch for switching between stills and video: may not seem like much on paper, but for some users could be a big deal in real life use.
Add them all up and it is a big upgrade. This reminds me somewhat of the Nikon D810 to the D800. On paper some would say it was a minor upgrade but ask users and they will tell you it was a big one. Just refining several hardware components can make a big difference in reality. Ask car manufacturers.
The OP's point is basically that if not a new image sensor or processor, then the upgrade doesn't count for much. Granted, those are important components but not the only ones. The XT4 is in every way a far more refined camera.
No what I say is that many users here are walking and talking like the manufacturer. They don't even try to think for themselves they talks the same marketing BS Fujifilm tells you. They are just sheep.
This is a mediocre update and Fujifilm laughs their balls off to see its disciples buying the X-T4.
I'll bet many of those people jumping from the X-T3 to the X-T4 will all be crossed early next year when the X-H2 comes out and then notice there will be NO love from Fujifilm for the X-T4
Fujifilm is playing the exact same game as they did with the X-H1. Except it is now over the heads of X-T3 users
Don't get me wrong the X-T4 is a very capable camera, but compared to the X-T3 it is just a very mediocre update IMHO
All the updates done were necessary because Fujifilm cameras lacked behind in most of its features compared to its competition. But many Fujifilm users here seem to have some sort of bias. Don't criticize Fujifilm or you shall be expelled from the herd! That's pretty sad
Fuji improved pretty much everything except changing to a new image sensor or processor. They took all of the criticism of the shortcomings of the XT3 and fixed them, in a relatively small amount of time to release. That is not a mediocre update.
And it's fine to disagree. And please, no one is expelling you from any herd. But there is such a thing as perspective. It's one thing to say that the updates are not for you, but to declare them as not meaningful or as somehow part of some nefarious Fuji marketing strategy is bit over reacting.
To me it is a mediocre update - And you may think differently that's entirely up to you.
This is a great camera, but not the camera you should buy if you already own an X-T3 imho. It is a great update to any other X-Series T, H, or E camera, but not for the T3.
The T4 to T3 is the exact same kind of update as the H1 was over the T2. An update in hardware and then..... it turned out that Fujifilm didn't care over the H1, despite all the rumbling and roaring of how great the H1 was. It received none of its love this camera actually deserved.
The H1 turned out the be the least loved camera by the Fujifilm engineers and it was abandoned straight after the X-T3 arrived. This exact same thing will happen to the T4.
I'll dare to say that Fujifilm will drop support for the T4 as soon as the X-H2 comes out with a new processor and sensor. The T4 will receive not much love by its developer. You may disagree, but I feel Fujifilm is playing the same game.
Jones is allowed to have his subjective option of the X-T4 upgrade, but people who owned both an X-T3 and X-T4 are probably more reliable in their opinions of the upgrade.
Darngood - I bought the X-T4, because it has some great video features and a full tiltable screen. It is great for my videoneeds. I came from X-T3 went to Nikon Z6 and Z7. Sold off Z6 as it didn't bring me what I had hoped for. From that money I bought an X-T4. I use Z7 for my photography needs.
Fujifilm is not new to me. As a matter of fact I owned most of its cameras from 2012 with X-Pro, now up to X-T4. I pretty much know what has been improved.
Camera to me are tools that need to get a job done. I have not much emotion to them. I criticize for what I don't like of a camera. I also praise them for what they do well.
What he means is, despite the 5 or so major hardware changes that fixed this site’s and other users criticisms of the x-t3.... And despite all the software updates that improved the camera... They didn’t change much else. Only hardware and software. The name didn’t change much and the box it comes ibis about the same size.
@Jones - I'm not sure why you're arguing that the X-T4 wasn't a big upgrade, you bought one instead of the X-T3 or waiting for the X-H2 which proves it is.
Darngood - I can already tell you chances are quite large I will buy the X-H2, if nothing unforeseeable happens and then sell off the X-T4. I see this camera as a gapstopper to me.
That doesn't change the fact that if the X-T4 were the small upgrade you claim, you would have just bought another X-T3, especially since you just needed a camera to hold you over till the X-H2.
Darngood - I didn't because money is not a real issue for me. But I fully understand not everybody is in that same lucky position. So if you can only spend your money once. Then be aware that you can only spend it once every few years. It is then better spend wisely.
Most people have extra money because they don't make foolish purchases, and spending several hundred more on a camera they feel is a small upgrade is a foolish purchase. Therefore logically, you realize it's not a small upgrade.
You are right The X-T3 got some excellent FW updates, compared to Sony a6x00 cameras that get virtually nothing.
X-T4 users should get the same. I am sure they will get several big FW updates.
And you were right about the major hardware updates too, unlike a6x00 cameras that are basically 2014 cameras with new SW, although you did forget about several of the major X-T4 hardware updates.
The XT4 and XT3 are easily the best APSC cameras. And maybe the best overall for all formats.
If you don’t like better tracking af, way better lowlight performance, better battery life, or don’t like the idea of getting sharp shots at 160-250 iso at 1/10-1/15 SS in lowlight at night then the X-T4 is not for you.
All the marketing bullocks and the people in here believe everything Fujifilm tells them. I have used both and as for AF performance improvements - They are hardly noticeable. But go ahead buy this camera if you feel the need for it.
I won't withhold you. But be aware that the X-T4 is not the true upgrade. That is for the X-H2 to come next year. You will also soon find out Fujifilm is not going to give the X-T4 much love after the new sensor and processor will be available. Just like what happened to the X-H1. It is the exact same story all over again.
The XT4 IBIS is better than any other IBIS in an APSC camera, sure, you’ll get better images at slower shutter speeds with it. It also shoots at 15FPS while tracking (20 with electronic shutter), so you get more “keepers” per second than any other APSC camera too.
@Jones Indiana, um, it’s not “marketing bullocks”. It literally has better lowlight performance -6EV, it literally has a better tracking algorithm, it literally has a better battery, it literally shoots 15 fps in mechanical shutter, and it literally has an awesome IBIS system. I have no idea why you’re even bringing up the X-H2, the X-H series cameras are a totally different line of cameras to the X-T series. The X-T4 is a dramatic upgrade to the X-T3. The X-T3 wasn’t much of an upgrade to the X-T2. The X-H2 will really be geared to videographers just like the X-H1 was.
This is the wrong forum to actually talk about photography. This place is full of gear heads and trolls, many of which like to argue about cameras but don’t know how to take a decent picture and lack any aesthetic or creative impulse. If they weren’t arguing about cameras they would be arguing over PC vs Mac or some other BS thing.
Enjoy your camera. It is truly excellent. And if you want to know what your camera is capable of , google Jonas Rask, The kage collective or Kevin Mullins.
On Olympus cameras you can set the IBIS system to freeze your frame as soon as you half press the shutter button. I am surprised that other manufacturers don't use this technique (at least Fuji doesn't). I wonder whether Fuji continues this behaviour during the shot and this is the reason why Olympus can get better results especially for very slow shutter speeds.
Fuji is better, Sony is better ... What difference does it make, if what you should do is learn to take photos. I look on Flickr and Instagram, I see terrible shots with Fuji XT30, XPro, Sony A7III, A7RIII ... No one ever asked me what I shoot with. Buy some photography book, sign up for an academy, I don't know ... Gear won't save those terrible compositions and that sense of aesthetics. I say this out of respect of course.
The best advice I could give to most would be to choose the camera that you enjoy using the most. The best camera is the one that you actually pick up and use. That will be the one that will inspire you to take the best photos. That will be the one that you practice the most, and hence improve the most.
So many people overlook ergonomics, handling, just plain joy, and are trained to just pay attention to specs. The capabilities matter, but more important is that you actually enjoy using the camera. For most of us photography is a hobby, something we enjoy...so what's the point if you choose a camera that you don't enjoy using? Esp. when you can usually find one that you do that will offer similar functionality.
For many Fuji represents a camera that they actually enjoy using. And that's what will matter the most to most people.
Ha3, DPR is photography and videography equipments review site. By comparing these tools or gadgets help pontential consumers to make sound decision.
Comments from others may help to paint better picture of an equipment.
As fuji user for many years, i find that fuji cams and lens drop in price very quickly. In fuji world, waiting for the right time or promotion is the way to go.
I’m sure the XT-4 is a great camera, but I’ve never liked the overly “knowing”, self-conscious XT styling. To me the X-Pro series with small primes is far more business-like. I’m out of crop-frame Fuji now, but I miss the OVF in the X-Pro 2 I had. Too bad Fuji gimped the OVF in the X-Pro 3 (now you cannot use it with the 14mm).
I watched the 4K stream of this show on my calibrated monitor. The video shot by the XT-4 looks excellent. Jordan did a good job. It is nice to see good video after the ugly ZV-1 video Last week that lost to the iPhone R in the video/IBIS comparison. So much was wrong with that thing. Such a shame.
Anyway, just looking at both video and stills they look so much nicer Right out of the camera than most of the FF and all the other APSC cameras. Only the S1H right probably has better video.
And live those gorgeous Fujifilm colors. That EPL10 looked darned good too, but overall this camera is the best around today.
Well, Raynaud, you are welcome to lampoon my comment, but the video speaks for itself.
As soon as it opens we see a very orange-faced Jordan and then the video stays overly jaundiced from there. Add to that its softness... nothing looks crisp anywhere in it. If this is what you think is good video, more power to you. Go ahead and buy it.
jordan does look like he has a bad sunburn, while chris has a graveyard tan, with no color to his face.
i'd expect the latter, given that they are in canada, where there isn't much sun, but it's still disturbing :-0 i suspect that he looks alive in real life :)
great video minus the color issues, can we go back to using the gh5.
oh and thx for confirming that the xt4 af isn't up to par with the competition, those bike pics prove the point.
The ZV-1 looked awful directly compared to and older iPhone. Chris mentioned that not only did it look bad but the IS didn’t work close to as well either.
The XT4 gallery looks great and on a real monitor (not your old 1080p model) the video looks better than any video from a Sony camera.
The comparison against the iPhone XR shows the ZV-1 video looking very natural and contrasty while the iPhone looks like a dull HDR mess.
The funniest part is at 13:48 when the video switches to a cutaway of Chris holding both cameras (shot with a GH5 perhaps). Can you see how Chris' skin tones flash from natural looking on the ZV-1 to orange on the Panny?
Virtually everyone agrees the iPhone video looks better. Chris talks about it too. Are you calling him a liar? IS is even better on the old smartphone.
If you want lousy video get an Rx100iii. It’s the same camera without the poorly designed articulating LCD that is too dim to use in daylight.
Virtually everyone who has commented said the ZV-1 (made up of parts from 2014 or before) looked worse than the IPhone. Like I said even Chris commented on it.
You need to learn to view which settings were used for each gallery image. So when the photographer deliberately uses a over saturating film simulation you don’t look dumb complaining about over saturated colors.
Check the film simulation used then come back and admit you messed up.
I watched the 1080p stream of this show on my calibrated monitor. The video shot by the XT-4 looks kind of soft and the graded colors look too brown. After the briiliant Sony ZV-1 video shot last week, the quality of this video seems like a let down.
After watching the ZV-1 get trounced by an iPhone XR for both video and stabilization it is fun to sarcastically make fun of it. That LCD on the ZV-1 says it all. Does it articulate 180 degrees? Nope. It points of the side and looks broken. It was nice to see Sony admit their colors were so bad, but again their attempt to fix them was a failure. Oh well, take an old camera body from the part bin and put a crooked facing LCD and that’s the junk you get.
I pixel peeped a bit in the Gallery and was not impressed tbh. I mean, X-T4 and the 16-55 is $2600 combo. And with the 90mm it's even more (!) Looks just average quality to me, especially for that kind of money.
that's because of the xtrans sensor. It gives a mushy wormy look to pictures. The effective resolution out of the xt4 is probably around 12 megapixel. That's smartphone territory. But paid reviews/advertisements won't tell you about this.
"that's because of the xtrans sensor. It gives a mushy wormy look to pictures. The effective resolution out of the xt4 is probably around 12 megapixel. "
BS... just use the appropriate (and free of charge) software.
A camera which would bully me into the choice of only 1 (one) software is useless to me and most others. Most serious (in particular professional) photographers depend on an efficient post-processing workflow. Not everyone are nerds or elderlies with endless spare time at hand to waste for clumsy PP workflows. I don't understand why Fuji grants the Bayer privilege only to their 'professional' (GFX) cameras.
@dpthoughts: Just use the *provided* software or OOC pictures. They are great.. If one use bad software they will get bad result. This is the case with Lr.
Lr outpur quality is always way behind CaptureOne even using "normal" filter like Bayer (EOS 5D, m34..).
Changing a well-established software workflow is a pretty significant step, and one which for many users would be unwise to make. One workflow for your new images, another for the hundreds of thousands of others. I wouldn't buy an X-Trans camera for this reason. Even knowing about the Adobe problems with x-trans, I also found the gallery images underwhelming from a quality point of view — and that includes the OOC jpegs. The Fuji lenses seem a little over-hyped (and over-priced) to me.
Yes, this is the other main problem. Lenses tend to be over-hyped, and over-priced by a factor of 2-3 over what they should cost actually. And they see a lot community complaints about quality (decentering issues), or about becoming outdated (old, slow motors, Fuji don't update their old lenses). For me, this doesn't go together well with such price tags.
We seem to enter a paradox situation, where equivalent full frame set-ups become cheaper and sometimes even more compact than APS-C counterparts? Third parties seem to contribute a lot to that recent trend by now.
So I'm afraid that mirrorless APS-C (and also Olympus M4/3) will be subdued into a small niche, like Pentax has been in the DSLR world. Also Sony's APS-C will suffer from full-frame becoming the "better APS-C" over the course of time, of course.
APS-C will thrive on the lower end (cheap, very small, convenient family & vlogger cams&lenses, like Sony's lower 6x00 or Canon M).
Very nice review. Fuji definitely updated the X-T4 with all the much requested features for the X-T3. In that Fuji succeed! I suspect that this one will be one of the most balanced cameras made so far. In my case, I started with the X-H1 and really like the balance of this camera due to the size. I will await the X-H2 if it happens, but the X-T4 is one fine camera already!
R&D has really stalled for all APS-C makers except FujiFilm. The X-T3 is better than anything else today. Even though it is older, it is this review site and almost all review sites "BEST APSC camera". The X-T4 is even better. Chris and Jordan did a good job explaining why. FF is overkill for me. FF is too big for me. FF can't deliver the features I want for under $3000. IMHO, these are better cameras for every day use, video, and just about everything beside photography in the worst light.
I have to say those galleries only confirm my thoughts this is the best camera around today,
Otherwise - I don't see why bother misguiding others.
Currently, Sony A7 III + 28-70/3.5-5.6 costs less than X-T4 with either 18-55/2.8-4 or 16-80/4
Nikon Z6 + 24-70/4 costs almost as much as X-T4 with 16-80/4, although it should be compared against 16-55/2.8 instead.
Both the Nikon and the Sony have better image quality and perhaps AF. They also excel in the number of lenses you can attach to them, with or without retaining AF capability.
The gallery shows out massive areas that are out of focus as if we need to be impressed with the bokeh XF 16-55 produces. The colors are a bit washed-out though...
His point is those are inferior cameras. And they very much are inferior to a lot of people. None have 4K 60p video. None can shoot 15 FPS with their mechanical shutter. None can shoot 20-30 FPS. None have IBIS as good. There’s a lot more the Fujifilm camera does better. Personally I think the Fujifilm images look a lot better too. IQ for most of the world is about color and content, and I’d argue it easier to get better content and colors are usually better with the Fujifilm camera. Because it does more than those inferior cameras.
And we are talking about a photo-camera here, not a video-camera.
As a photo camera, X-T4 cannot compete with the FF competition.
Whatever people personally think, just shows their level of ignorance, lack of expertise or experience, and I suspect, in some cases, lack of integrity.
Calling the competition's product "inferior" without anything to back your words with, and having an interest in this, might get you some serious penalties in some countries.
I guess in yours, the law-enforcement is over occupied demonstrating how to abuse power, so you took the chance to make a buck.
You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to mislead people!
I wouldn't use the term inferior. But that's not misleading. Those FF cameras are entry level lacking most of the X-T4 features, and the feature they so share such as IBIS are...well...inferior on the FF cameras. Maybe inferior is the proper term. Let's just say not at good, and poor values. Get the XT4 and the images will usually look better SOOC as well as the video, plus you can so more with it.
I have to disagree with you. I own Sony A7RIII and Fuji ( most used camera at the moment is X Pro2 ).
We are past the stage where there are meaningful differences in image quality. That includes my A7RIII vs old 24mp Fuji. 90% of the time there is NO difference.
I can print both HUGE. I can display both on a 5k monitor. Both look great.
So the big difference is this - which camera is most likely for ME to produce high image quality. For me, this is Fuji. I prefer using them. I prefer the files. I like the colours more. I like the Jpegs more. Fujis are more fun to use.
You are confusing "image quality" with the quality of the image. I tend to take better images with Fujis. I am not alone. For some people, Fuji cameras are superior to Sony.
This is a creative art. Some devices suit some people better, allowing them to create more effectively than other devices.
Photography is NOT looking at DPR images comparisons at 200%. It really isn't.
Daft Punk - I have Z6 and X-H1, with similar sensors than the cameras that you have.
I usually shoot macro or landscape and the difference is IQ is there, whether you want to see it or not. While it's a close call at base ISO, as soon as start increasing it, the difference becomes obvious. For cropping and pushing, the Z gives me way more head-room.
I do manual focusing on the Z6, because all my F mount lenses don't AF, and even with the EVF lag, I have more in focus images than with AF on X-H1 with XF 80 Macro OIS or XF 55-200, which both mis-focus too much for my liking!
For landscape - it's the same stuff - the Z gives me more lens choices, better corner performance, better dynamic range, better detail for grass and other foliage.
Yes, the Fuji is sometimes more fun to shoot (when it focuses correctly), and some XF prime lenses are small and light because they are not perfect wide open. The shutter on the X-H1 is a piece of art. Apart from that, I tend to reach more to the Z.
Kyle Style - my previous comment was to Raynaud, who seems to be confusing their personal opinion and preferences with objective facts to an excessive degree.
Regarding your original comment - I cannot fully agree with it, as "best" is quite subjective. Best in what?
Yes Fujis are fun, but are not dominating every single category in APS-C, and if they do, they do it with a hefty price margin. Let's be honest to one another here and compare apples to apples, shall we?
Groan. Another apples-to-oranges comparison presented as "objective facts". Guess what, if you compare A to B and B has a property X and A doesn't, someone who needs X is going to pick B, no matter how A makes you feel in your distorted "only size matters" world view.
I have to agree. FF rarely gives you any real world advantage. Only in the darkest of situations.
And the XT4 does so much more and has better colors, especially over the Sony. With little effort it is so much easier to get better looking stills and video with the XT4. I think the galleries here alone prove that.
@sirkann: that Sony 28-70/3.5-5.6 is a really really bad lens, one of the worst out there of its type. The Fuji kit lenses are vastly superior.
And I agree with Raynaud: I'd rather use a Fuji than a Sony; it's more enjoyable to use and will offer better colors. You can have any tech spec advantage with the Sony; I'd rather be out having fun using a camera and with a Fuji I would still get amazing results. IMHO, the only Sony worth having is the a9/a9II due to its unique stacked sensor and the AF it provides. But of course that is a $4500 camera.
@sirkhann I don't think there is such a thing as a best camera, sure there are price brackets and similar specs, but personally it's all about the most appropriate camera you can get within the budget. If you love the Fuji approach, their looks, their film sims, get an X-T4. If you don't care about that and want the best AF on the market, get an A7III. If you have a bunch of Nikon glass, get a Z6 with an FTZ adapter (I know there's a lot more to the Z6 than that). And that's if you're a pro. If you're an enthusiast just get what you like shooting with and forget about specs and how it compares to other cameras. Buy what feels good in your hand, what makes you want to pick it up and shoot and has the lens lineup, which creates the look you like (cuz if you're not doing landscape or macro, I.Q is secondary).
Well, another logical fallacy of Raynaud. He/She is full of them.
So, if you follow Raynaud's logic, where FF rarely gives you any real-world advantage over APS-C, it should also mean that APS-C rarely gives you any real-world advantage over m4/3. And also, GFX rarely gives you any real-world advantage over FF.
So, according to this logic, don't waste your money on GFX, FF, or APS-C. Buy m4/3 and save money. Don't forget to thank Raynaud for all the money you have just saved!
@sirkhann Although I agree there is an obvious DR bump when adopting a larger sensor, let's not get into Ad absurdum territory. There's a difference between having a DR advantage and having a DR advantage big enough, that it's worth the upgrade. Now for some, there's not that big of an advantage when comparing m4/3 to APS-C or APS-C to FF or FF to MF. Nonetheless if you compare m4/3 and FF, or APS-C and MF, now there's a really big difference. So much in fact that they can become complementary, e.g. an m4/3; APS-C body for when you want to have a light kit or you need more reach and a FF/MF body when you need absolute DR and IQ. That's also why Fuji skipped FF altogether, because sometimes you need the IQ, but many times you don't want to lug around a huge kit and with APS-C having good enough IQ you're set. FF is a great sweet-spot don't get me wrong, many folks don't want to deal with two lens mounts, but if you have a high-end APS-C body, chances are you don't really need FF.
It depends on what you need ;-) Nikon Z6 and Sony A7 III are less expensive (prices Central Europe). There is not much difference in weight. Fuji 16-55 is heavier than equivalent Nikon or Tamron lenses. Nikon Z lenses are weather sealed (half of Fuji's not) and most of them are sharper. Nikon has better grip, ergomics. Fuji bigger lens selection, flip-out display, more compact prime lenses, etc. It's just a matter of taste and needs. If you like Fuji-go for it. If you like Nikon or Sony-go for it. In 95 % of the cases you won't see a difference in image quality. If you don't believe that, just download a bunch of RAW samples and open them all together in Capture One. You probably won't be able to see the difference in image quality between a Nikon Z6 and a Z50 with it's kit lens(!). (Photo-Me-Ike did a good comparison on youtube). Only the high-MP cameras make a clear difference. So why always argue on what's better. Just buy what you like and don't always try to justify your choice.
Thoughts R Us Why the α7R IV is not worth having? You mentioned the ancient kit zoom, the new standard kit zoom is 24-105. There are also Tamrons and Sigmas. Regards
I love Fujifilm and its traditional colors, but since the first generation of the XPRO XE XT was released, it no longer amazes me. Simple changes from one generation to the next such as changing buttons or placing IBIS that many companies have used for more than 10 years. I will keep my amazing Fuji Prime lenses and will wait The sixth generation of XT.
Well, 4 is unlucky number in Asian culture. There was no Fujifilm S4 Pro for a reason. I don't know why they went for X-T4, but it's definitely not tradition!
As a long term Fuji user the XT3 has proven to to be extremely good. Was not impressed really with the XT4 . Not really interested in video so had a look at an Xh1 which uses the same batteries as the XT 3. Bought an XH1 at >1100 less than an XT4. For 99% the differences are not worth chewing the fat over. The Ibis is great, maybe slightly behind the XT4 but do not think its worth the extra money sorry to say. I am not so tied to video so the XT4 offers me nothing. Fuji lenses where they have stabilisers are good, I use my Xh1 with a few none Fuji lenses and to give some of my other slr lenses stabilisation. Advice those looking at Fuji to seriously look at the XT3 or if you can find one the XH1. The last point the grip on the XH1 is great, handling better than the XT3.
Even though there were several big upgrades, the one I think is most helpful is the switch for video/stills settings, It is easy to reach and lets you quickly flip back and forth between video and stills settings. It was much needed, I think some other brands have something similar. Watching the video, I agree with Chris and Jordan, the IBIS is better than any other APSC camera(or FF for that matter), and rivals the best IBIS in the industry (the M43 cameras). The sensor is also the best overall APSC sensor too.
Personally, since this camera does more overall than ANY FF or ASPC camera,unless you shoot black cats in coal mines, this is the best camera on the market. And for those who are IQ snobs then the GFX100 or similar medium format cam.
And then there are the Fujifilm colors. Like most of the rest of camera, 2nd to none. I am sure the trolls will find something where the cameras is only 2nd best and harp on it, but overall nothing else today is close overall.
"Even with fine-tuning of the system response, the X-T4's autofocus finds subjects with unpredictable acceleration/deceleration challenging, again giving very situation-dependent results."
"This essentially rules-out the use of AF tracking for team sports, where members of the same team are likely to be dressed similarly, but also adds a degree of uncertainty with any subject: performance will be unpredictable if the background contains similar colors to your subject."
"Unfortunately this ability isn't well integrated with the face detection system: you can't use your chosen AF point to specify which face you want to focus on. And, given the system's habit of finding faces that don't exist, and losing ones that do, you will need to be ready to override the camera's decisions."
the two biggest problems for me with fuji is the lack of lenses for both stills and video, and no path to ff.
fuji has been pushing the video specs, but how many powered video zooms do they have? none that i know of, which is a deal killer for most event shooters... pro eng/efp lenses have powered zooms.
sony has six powered pz-series zooms, and a much longer history with making pro video bodies... you can use sony lenses on aps-c, ff, all the way up to some of their best pro video bodies.
When you shoot RAW, not all converters are able to match the exact JPG rendering, especially when you have tweaked the tone curve a bit, because the default contrast is a bit high.
When you are after color-fidelity, Fuji colors becomes more of a pain ;)
FYI, Lightroom and adobe camera raw have the Fujifilm profiles. And for whatever reason I found colors were always easier to make look better in Capture One than with Sony cameras.
Sure, but they don't match the JPG rendering in C1P. And for older cameras, there are no film profiles either. Fuji did not bother to give PhaseOne these, so another instance where owners of older cameras were conveniently forgotten by Fuji.
I was referring to previous gen cameras like X-T1, or even current gen cameras like X-T100, which never got the same level of support when PhaseOne introduced C1P for Fujifilm.
What I'm talking about is caring about customers by being consistent.
What you are talking about is gaming the system and getting stuff for free.
Sirkhann Just out of curiosity what cameras do U use and what subject matter do you shoot? I’ve been using Fuji’s for the last five years, dumped my Leica gear just couldn’t get great hit rate, I also shoot the H6D100c but my experience with the Fuji files has been wonderful. I can’t produce mushy or wormy images from the Fuji .raf files. My pp technique is probably 20% global and 80% luminosity masks with feather selections, layers using selective color for dark and light tones the all images are selectively contrast graded and finally sharpened for specific output. I will say that proper lighting and exposure makes a huge difference for me! Just curiosity begs when I read your posts do u shoot at high ISO often to push the sensor. or at wide open to get bokeh, or what would be your go to style? Do u shoot RAW?
Avid X-T3 user here. I was finally able to test out the new X-T4 mainly for it's upgraded IBIS. I was quite impressed with the stabilization when shooting 60p and interpreting it to 24fps. Really clean, high quality slow motion. However, I'm not sure how much footage would have been useable if I couldn't slow it down. The IBIS was quite jerky in most of my RAW footage. Granted, I was unable to test the video with an additional OIS lens. All I have is the 56mm, 16-55 and the Zeiss 12mm. Maybe the kit lens or one that has the optical stabilization would of helped with some of the jerkiness. The X-T4 and the Ronin S were magical. No need for a OIS lens. I really didn't need any post stabilizing. When I use my X-T3 and the Ronin, most of the time I need a little bump in warp stabilization in post just to clean it up a tad. Another positive when shooting was the flip-out LCD. It's really handy when I'm using the Ronin. I don't necessarily have to rely on an external monitor.
So if the X-T4 AF and video improvements are all that...then the million dollar question is...when are those improvements coming to the "recently" released X-T3 as it has the exact same sensor and image processor as the X-T4?
No matter the number of DPR "reviews" the X-T4 remains an X-T3 plus
I bought the x-T4 for the fully articulating LCD and IBIS.
Like Chris and Jordan say the fully articulating screen is a big improvement. I know some don’t like them, but those people are weirdos.
So even though the X-T3 was rated as the best APSC camera in 2020, with IBIS, the screen, the better battery, etc. the X-T4 is a major leap ahead of it.
Video of PlumShots making a similar complaint... What are the differences between the XT3 and XT4!!! What have the Romans ever done for us???? https://youtu.be/Y7tvauOJMHo
Re software updates, a Fuji exec was asked about this and answered something to the effect that a software update requires resources, and it's a matter of priorities. One cannot just copy and paste the same lines of code from the X-T4 to the X-T3. it is a different camera and everything is so integrated in every device these days for better performance, that considerable work still has to be done to create such an software package.
Fujiflm should replace X-T4 with more powerful processor which built via 7nm process. Taiwan TSMC produce 7nm processor for other company. 7nm processor produce less heat.
Less heat may let X-T4 record longer video.
Fujiflm should able direct replace X-T4 with high end smartphone processor since both use same ARM architecture. It just need minimum R&D. Snapdragon 865 processor may only cost around USD 50.
So the A6500 is virtually the same camera as the A6600. Sony could have issues a FW update to do the same thing. Same goes for the A6300 and A6400.
The XT4 added a better shutter, better battery (so did a6600), IBIS, improved controls for switching between stills and video, and added the fully articulating screen. Those are some big differences. And as Chris said very welcome improvements.
Meanwhile the latest Sony cameras haven’t changed since 2014 except for FW updates, and the outdated hardware like It’s poor LCD and USB 2.0 hasn’t aged well.
@forest dream - finer production process is not guaranteed to be running cooler! It allows you to pack more transistors in the same volume, but as the crystal becomes more concentrated, getting the heat off of it becomes harder! Also - finer process means tinier wires, and that increases resistance, which you may partially offset with lower voltage.
So - 7nm may give more transistors and more processing power, but more processing power may produce more heat.
@forest dream: you write: "Fujiflm should replace X-T4 with more powerful processor which built via 7nm process. Taiwan TSMC produce 7nm processor for other company."
That "other company" is Apple, and they have far more money for such chips than Fuji. And what they produce them for...iPhones...is a far more lucrative market than traditional cameras. So it's not like Fuji could easily buy these chips like Apple can.
@sirkhann: Generally as the process nodes get smaller, we get microprocessors that are smaller and faster, using less energy and offer more performance. That's why everyone chases this goal.
@Thoughts R Us If want cut cost, Fujiflm should direct buy & use Snapdragon 865 (which latest smartphone processor built in 7nm and exclude 5G feature) from Qualcomm. These Snapdragon very cheap and only cost around USD 50.
TSMC produce many processor for Qualcomm & Apple. Qualcomm & Apple just design processor, did not produce it.
7nm process only means the chip can built smaller, then need less power to run, then produce less heat. It is reason Qualcomm & Apple new processor built in 7nm. New iPhone produce less heat than old iPhone for same app because 7nm processor.
Most of camera & smartphone processor based on ARM architecture from ARM Holdings, can easy change/use other brand processor. For example, some Samsung smartphone model use different processor in different country/region: Samsung Galaxy S10 use Exynos 9820 (8 nm) - EMEA/LATAM;Qualcomm SM8150 Snapdragon 855 (7 nm) - USA/China.
In addition, modern 4/8-core processor can auto turn off certain core (e.g. smartphone standby which no app running). It make small app cost less power/heat in new processor compare to old processor.
It means if fast processor (Snapdragon 865 which 8-core) running in X-T4, the processor can turn off certain function/lower the speed for less heat. Even turn off/lower speed, Snapdragon 865 run faster (and less heat) than very old X- Processor 4 (4-core ARM processor).
IMO Fujiflm still use X-Processor 4 because it is proprietary. However, processor R&D cost is very high. I wish Fujifilm focus his R&D on sensor and lens.
I'm sure the unit cost of any component depends on the volume you order, so I don't think a camera manufacturer could buy them as cheap as even one of the smaller smartphone manufacturers could. Unless they committed to using the same processor in every iteration of every model for the foreseeable future.
And if using smartphone processors had given the camera makers bigger profit margins than they get by developing their own proprietary processors, wouldn't they have done so already, considering the state of the market? Isn't it in fact cost-cutting that is the reason for cameras being stuck with less than state-of-the-art hardware? I'm genuinely curious, because I don't know the answer to these questions.
@Revenant No all smartphone has good selling even they use Snapdragon processor. E.g. Smartisan only sold 3 million smartphone within 4 year. It is because Snapdragon processor produced for global market without custom make, it already mass produce with cheap price. It similar to Intel processor which use for global PC/laptop is cheap.
Fujiflm X-Processor are custom design, which need special request OEM factory custom make for them. So, we know which is high cost.
Never before has a camera been so far ahead of all other cameras in a format (closest are its siblings). For APSC: Best sensor Best stills Best video Best IBIS The list goes on and on.
The X-T3 was rated as the best APSC camera here just a couple months ago, and now this one is even better.
How romantic ..."never before". I like that. Never before a camera manufacturer tried so hard to make customers think that bells and whistles (and design) equal higher image quality and therefore they deserve to be priced higher. Actually, I am wrong. Apple did it first. "Your next computer is not a computer"
Actually, all camera companies, and all tech companies, try to make customers think that bells and whistles and design equal higher quality output and deserve to be priced higher. Since all car companies use high tech, that also means all car companies do that as well.
But I would say that in this case Fuji has delivered very meaningful upgrades.
Yes, Fuji or X-Mount deserve to be best APS-S system. No doubt about it. X-T4 is really important product to compete in mirrorless world where IBIS, Batt Life, and Eye AF is consider indispensable. But, fuji lens and cameras sometimes just cross the boundary of FF system. Many, myself included, choose Fuji because FF just to expensive. XT4 will become the best APC-S only when it price not so close to FF.
First: The X-T4 just hit stores. The price will come down with time just like the one of the X-T3 did.
Second and even more important: Yes, there are full frame cameras out there with a lower price or with roughly the same price, but those FF cameras are cameras introduced many years ago or entry level FF cameras with old tech that can not compete in most areas. It would be better to compare an entry level APS-C camera with that kind of FF camera. FF cameras with comparable specs as the X-T4 cost roughly 1000 bucks more like the X-T4. In my opinion this is a notable price difference.
Who said I'm going to buy the X-T4. I never buy a cameras at release price. Usually I buy cameras at the end of the product life cycle. Therefore my next camera may be the X-T3.
But I understand that manufacturers have to price products higher at release to gain schumpeterian rent (which is especially true for high end products) and do not feel the need to cry about it.
I replied to your statement that the X-T4 is as expensive as a FF body, but this is only true for an entry level FF body. That's comparing apples to oranges. An roughly comparable FF camera like e.g. the Nikon Z7 costs about 1000 bucks more.
@Toni, glad you are a smart buyer. XT4 will fall in price really soon. It wont sell well at FF price point. With GH6 and XH2 rumor flying around, people will hold their buying decision especially this pandemic time. XT4 will share the same fate as XH1.
@ Bobby, sure the price of the X-T4 will come down to some extend, but I don't think the X-T4 will share the fate of the X-H1. I still have not grasped what Fuji was thinking releasing a new high level model with an outdated sensor when the new sensor was already around the corner. They should have introduced the new sensor with the X-H1 first. What a poor business decision IMHO.
Let's just be happy that there are enough joices around. There are really good cameras around even at low price points regardless of the brand. One has not to buy the lastest and greatest camera to take great pictures.
The baby on the first photo of the sample gallery says it all ;-)
When will we see the first camera with EVF, claiming wysiwyg, that makes "Raw processed with ... (LR). Shadows Boosted ..." obsolete? E.g. with a camera dial for shadows like on the Pixel 4? Would love to give up the ISO dial for this as Auto ISO works well.
Great point. Boosting shadow (and sometimes recovering highlight) is the main reason that I still shoot RAW all the time. Would love to be adjust JPG outputs.
Fujifilm offer their DR ranges and other tone adjustments, most of which can be accessed with button presses on their highly configurable cameras like the T4.
Yes, every manufacturer has something like that. But somehow it doesn't work out -- just watch sample galleries. Would be good to have a standardised setting among brands, like EV correction available on every camera and commonly used for highlights.
Ruekon: Additionally one can adjust the strength of shadow and highlight recovery for the JPEG output at Fujifilm cameras. And you also can adjust that settings afterwards via in-camera RAW processing. I do this all the time for sharing Fotos in the go. It works really well.
@ Ruekon: I should add that my personell "gold standard" on my X-T2 is setting the exposure compensation dial to +2/3 stops, highlight recovery to -2 (that's the maximum) and shadow recovery to -1. That gives the best results in most cases for JPGs IMO.
You could also assign customizable buttons for adjusting highlight and shadow recovery, but I am fine with adding it to my Q menu.
Yes, it's on Fuji's marketing budget! What do you want? Fuji too keep all these money, give them to the R&D department to develop a well rounded camera, that you will not need to upgrade in one or two years, but keep for half a decade?
@ sirkhann: Are you suggesting that it's predecessor (the XT-3), which just recently was awarded best APS-C camera here on DPR wasn't a well rounded camera which badly needed an upgrade?!
C'mon! You do not have to love the X-T3 or Fujifilm as a whole, but that's quite a stretch.
Well, now that it was replaced only 18 months after it's release, it feels like some corners have been cut just to be able to rush a body to the market and have it own the APS-C crown for couple of months, before the competition gets something more compelling.
I don't get why Fujifilm is releasing new bodies with such heist and why we (people already on the system) are supposed to buy them as frequently as we buy toilet paper.
And as the things that were upgraded may not always sound that convincing on their, why not pay some people to tell others how great the new AF is and how much the video had been improved.
Dunno about you, I'm just sick of it and paying people all the time to "convince me" to upgrade looks fishy :)
A DPR award also means nothing to me if I already suspect that there's some brand bias. Let's talk what was X-T3 able to achieve for the same amount of money, or whether it can compete with D500/ K-P/ K-3 II / 90D.
@sirkhann: corners were not cut with the XT4; they fixed the rough edges and corners on the XT3. What Fuji did was rather remarkable in that they took the criticisms of the XT3 and quickly fixed them and issued an updated model. That's pretty responsive in my book.
And one doesn't have to buy the new model if you don't want. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade. The presence of the new model does not in any way negate the older models or what they do.
The fixed lcd screen in the Pentax K-2? (if they call it that) That Pentax will be a OVF shooter. I will never buy a camera with a fixed rear LCD ever, no more.
First off - where is the beloved XF 16-80/4 that you have reviewed recently? Seems like you chose the Brick (16-55/2.8), which is not bundled with the X-T4, and even 18-55/2.8-4 instead.
Second - the best APS-C on the market? Is this because all cameras with the XTrans III are discontinued? And since when XTrans is better than a Bayer sensor? Maybe for video, but definitely not for stills - the micro detail is missing, and the higher sensor amplification takes its toll, resulting in lower DR and SNR compared to cameras with native ISO-100.
Third - AF is improved? Ok! This is what we are hearing every time a new Fujifilm X camera is released. Is it competitive with the current generation of similarly priced cameras, or it would be one of the major reasons to upgrade to X-T5 when it's launched next year? I'm personally sick of upgrading to the next Fuji only because how mediocre the AF speed and accuracy on these cameras is!
And no comparison to similarly priced FF cameras either...
And I hope X-H2 is made with photographers in mind, for once! If it's just another beefed-up video toy with meh photographic implementation, I'll skip! But I'm convinced even Jordan will not switch from S1H to a beefed up X-T4 with a X-H sticker on it!
The other reason to upgrade to X-T5 will be that it won't be overheating as fast as the X-T4, but another issue will be introduced which will be solved in X-T6.
Maybe X-H2 will be a beefed up X-T4 with added aluminium heatsink.
Sirkahn, Fujifilm has often been accused of “cheating” because they use a particular (and ISO approved) calibration method, which is intended to protect highlights; their iSO 160 gives exposures, and thus DR and noise, similar to some other manufacturers at about 100. Gotta love the ambiguity of that standard! That said, I would welcome a lower base, even at the price of poorer ultra high ISO performance.
Reminds of how Fujifilm galleries get all the compliments and Sony galleries get all the complaints. Color and better pictures overall. Say all you want, at the end of the day, the Fujifilm images and video just look better.
Raynaud, I'm afraid you have fallen victim of multiple logical fallacies.
First - the comparison is hosted on YouTube, so expect compression in both detail, and color. What I clearly said, is that XTrans lacks microcontrast - something, you cannot properly evaluate on heavily downscaled image on YouTube.
Second - all compared cameras are Fujifilm. So - differences might be due to Fujifilm's implementation, not technology differences.
Third - as I said, Fujifilm uses higher amplification, which results in lower dynamic range compared to best APS-C cameras. So - again, comparing with another Fujifilm camera, you cannot see any difference.
Fourth - rendering of JPG profiles in camera. Well, the mere fact that you can have different colours out of camera speaks tons about the calibration Fujifilm applies in each body. But I shoot RAW.
Fifth - I have first hand, personal experience, shooting with both XTrans and Bayer sensor Fujifilm cameras, as well as other cameras.
Sirkahn, any documentation for your (third) claim that Fujifilm uses more amplification at their base ISO than other manufacturers?
Everything I’ve seen indicates that at the same ISO and exposure, Fujifilm RAWs are darker, I.e., less amplified (compared to same gen sensor in a Sony, for instance). My understanding is that base ISO means unamplified, so sensors with base ISO 100 and 160 should have the same amplification (I.e., none) at their respective bases. That’s what base ISO means, I thought.
CeeDave - The readout from the sensor is pre-amplified before recording the same way the microphone volume is pre-amplified before you connect it to the recording device (or your camera).
Go to photonstophotos.net, and compare the (maximum) photographic dynamic range of Sony a6600 and Fujifilm X-T3. You will see a difference of 1EV between, which Sony is able to achieve at base amplification (at ISO100) compared to X-T3's base at ISO160, from where, the values are very close for both cameras.
Sirkahn, yes, that’s what I intended to convey. The amplifications and DR for the sensors are the same at their respective bases. Sony and Fujifilm Just label the base of the same (or very similar) sensors with different numbers, because they use different protocols within the ISO document. Of course you get lower DR shooting below base, that is well known. I wrote about DR at base, and it appears we agree that there’s no meaningful difference in that case. What was your point?
No, I don't agree. You get 1EV higher DR with the Sony at bast case scenario. E.g. because of the higher readout amplification, the Fujifilm cameras offer 1EV lower dynamic range compared to the competition, and that can bite you back unexpectedly shooting on a bright day - highlights clip early, and you cannot lift shadows to infinity. If there is someone with you, who shoots the same scene with another camera, the difference looks obvious when you compare photos later :( :( :(
I found that 24MP Fuji XTrans sensors clip earlier than Canon APSC sensor but in shadows they are still about 1/2 stops better. When I had Nex6, I found that it had comparable overall DR with XPro1. That's according to my non-scientific tests, of course.
Aaah Turk Diggler is on the menu next holiday season then! On a second level, this review seems to suggest that several things have been fixed with the X-T4, which is always a good thing! I also can't understand why people hate the fully articulating screen. Most say it attracts attention when swivelled to the side. Others say it's annoying not to have the screen on the same axis as the lens. Valid points. Then again, even a photographer would need to have on some occasion the screen facing forward, I know I do, and that isn't possible with the screen mechanism up to the X-T3.
Still love my XT2. The xt4 is tempting me because of the IBIS that can improve my results when using legacy adapted lenses. And generally quicker focus is also great of course.
Yes, all these Fujifilm reviews sound so biased and paid I'm no longer convinced I can trust them. It's a serious put-off, even for loyal customers. There can be a significant gap between expectations one can get watching all Fuji marketing brain-wash, and the actual performance of the actual overpriced camera or lens, once you get it (them) home.
agree they're not even trying anymore. If you listen to "official reviews" then everything is perfect. You have to wait for the actual costumers who pay for their camera to get their hands on it to get an honest review. Then you discover the CAF is not that good, the EVF leaks light, it overheats, the titanium frames comes off, the lenses can't autofocus smoothly, the sensor smears all the detail and photos look wormy and mushy.
Olympus has by far the best IBIS, so that actually is high praise to be in the same league. All the other FF and ASPC IBIS implementations are several steps down.
Yes, but size matters and not like you think. ;) Here is a video showing the X-T4 stabilization compared to the full frame A7RIV and sensor in the iPhone. The APS-C sensor is stabilized better than the full frame but worse than the iPhone. So it’s safe to safe M43 will likely be somewhere between the iPhone and the APS-C. No?
@sirkhann You should never trust a site that is owned by amazon. And most everyone who reviews anything has a personal wallet agenda. No one is wasting their time for any reason other than to make some return from it
They have nice polished reviews but I look at them for entertainment only
At least its not flop flipwell who begs for money, shoves his kids into every video and shows his expensive watch and mercedes car. He once used to actually say "this product is bad" but its bad business practice today to say negative things about a product. No affiliate money and mfr are not happy so they wont give you freebies or lend you gear to review You must downplay all negatives Internet money baby
Fujifilm is the semaphore of APSC format and probably will remain since the big guys they see the APSC format as cash cow. I guess that their next APSC flagship will be a mirrorless version of XT3/4.
Sad to see the 3-way tilt screen making way for a fully articulating screen. The latter is so much more cumbersome and draws more attention. I don't see why you would prefer a FAS over a 3-way tilt. The latter offers just as much flexibility for vertical shots as a FAS and is quicker to deploy.
I soooo agree with that. Specially if you're shooting tethered, having an articulated screen where you also have your cables is not a very good option.
I HATE those tilt screens, I had two Sony's with scratched up LCDs that also deteriorated around edges. You also get lots of oil and smudges from you noise on the LCD panels too.
I love being able to flip it around for protection. And fully articulating screens are much more useful. It was nice to see both Chris and Jordan point this out.
Fair point about being able to stow them away, although I never had any trouble with damaged lcds, this despite my cameras having quite a few scratches.
In what way are FAS more useful than 3-way tilts? The only use case I can think of is vlogging or selfies.
I am the only person on the planet who gives a rat's ass about the type of rear display screen mechanics. The EVF is mucho importanto and my lead analytic. The rest is gravy.
Sarman 2525, fuji screens go to the side as well without being fully articulated. Just perfect to shoot in studio with a camera connected to a pc, specially if you're doing landscape and portrait orientation images.
That's why I specifically wrote "3-way tilt". 3-way tilt screens are different from normal tilt screens in that they tilt 3 ways: up, down, and sideways. Hence the name: 3-way tilt. There are also tilt screens that tilt in 4 directions. I believe Pentax and Nikon have tilt screens that even tilt in 8 directions.
Thank you Chris&Jordan for focusing on the aspects that really matter for photographers rather than just specs.
With the technology in the consumer photography market maturing, most reviewers have reacted by focusing on the few areas in which there are still quantifiable improvements to be made: Megapixel counts, continuous shooting speed, autofocus, etc. Problem is: all of that is already more than good enough for most uses and most users.
Significant updates happen in less quantifiable areas: ergonomics, weather-sealing, shutter mechanisms, stabilisation, interface, etc. It is good to see that you focus on the camera package as a whole rather than just the meaningless numbers on a spec sheet that make no appreciable difference to users.
Splendid presentation for XT4. But i think people will more interested to know how it compare to r, s1 and z6 at that price point. Comparing h1 to m6 and 6600 make better sense.
Lets see. Better video, better color (except maybe R), faster FPS, 4k 60p, better IBIS, and so on. There is a long list of things those cameras cannot do that this one can.
In this matter, how would my X-H1 (arguably, a tab better sensor than XTrans IV, albeit slower to read) compare to a full-frame Z6?
Z6 beats X-H1 for: - Image Quality - very clean files, tons of Dynamic range, tons of detail, juicier color - IBIS is dead silent (X-H1 is not) - Lenses are slightly bigger, but totally destroy most Fujinons in sharpness, image homogeneity, and price at that focal range. I mean Z6 + 50/1.8 S costs way less, focuses faster and has way better IQ wise than X-T4/X-H1 + XF 35/1.4 - Quick menu on Z6 is actually useful - Very clean EVF with no tearing and almost no noise when zoomed in, making it (almost) great for manual focus. - General compatibility with DSLR party lenses via FTZ - Better AF
What I like about X-H1 - Shutter. Period. - Accepts SD cards, which I have many of - Gives me a piece of mind for moire, although I haven't tested them side-by-side. - Lighter travel setup (I'd use X-T100/X-T1 for that, actually)
This week we sat down (virtually) with senior executives of Fujifilm to learn more about the development of the new GFX 100S, plans for future lenses and what kind of a company they want Fujifilm to be.
The Sony a7 III and Fujifilm X-T4 aren't cameras we would normally compare head-to-head. Yet, they're two of the most popular enthusiast models available today. Watch Chris and Jordan duke it out over which one is best.
The inclusion of in-body stabilization in Fujifilm's X-S10 means it's able to offer a lot of the features of the flagship X-T4. So, price aside, what are the differences between the two models, and how much of a bargain is the smaller camera?
After two rounds of voting, DPReview readers have decided on their favorite product (and runners-up) of 2020. Find out which cameras and lenses topped the list!
The Nikon Z30 is the company's latest 'creator' focused mirrorless camera, a 21MP APS-C model made to be more vlogging friendly than ever. Find out what it offers and what we think so far.
Sony has just released a trio of impressively small, light, ultrawide lenses for APS-C. These lenses are designed for vloggers, so Chris decided to film himself and find out how they perform.
The Fujifilm X-H2S is the company's latest APS-C flagship, using a 26MP Stacked CMOS sensor to deliver the fastest shooting, best autofocus and most extensive video specs of any X-series camera yet. Here's what's new and what we think so far...
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
Ahead of a full announcement next week, details have emerged about Xiaomi's upcoming flagship smartphone, the 12S Ultra. The phone, co-developed with Leica, will include the Sony IMX989 sensor, a new 1"-type sensor that Xiaomi reportedly developed alongside Sony.
Kosmo Foto founder, Stephen Dowling, has written a comprehensive tribute to the Olympus OM-1, a camera that set a new path for SLRs with its compact form factor and extensive lineup of lenses.
The Nettle Magic Project uses a hidden Raspberry Pi device with an IR camera to scan and decode a deck of cards marked with invisible UV reactive ink. The scan produces a full breakdown of the deck and delivers it to the performer in nearly real-time.
We go hands-on with Nikon's new compact super-telephoto lens, the Nikkor Z 400mm F4.5 VR S, to see what all Nikon has managed to pack into this lens, even without the help of PF elements.
Profoto's new A2 monolight is extremely compact and lightweight. It's about the size of a soda can and weighs around 770g with its battery and optional stand adapter attached. The 100Ws light is designed to be portable and easy to use.
DigiKam is a free, open-source raw photo management and editor for macOS, Windows and Linux. The team has recently released the latest version, bringing the app to version 7.7.0. The update adds many bug fixes, new features and file support.
The Nikon Z30 is the company's latest 'creator' focused mirrorless camera, a 21MP APS-C model made to be more vlogging friendly than ever. Find out what it offers and what we think so far.
Nikon has announced the Z30, an entry-level Z-mount camera aimed at vloggers and other content creators. What are our initial impressions? Better watch to find out.
Nikon has announced the Z30, a 21MP APS-C mirrorless camera aimed at vloggers and content creators. It has a lot in common with the existing Z50 and Z fc with a few tweaks and a lower price tag.
The Nikkor Z 400mm F4.5 VR S is incredibly compact, measuring just 104mm (4.1”) in diameter by 235mm (9.3") long and weighing 1245g (2lb 12oz) with the tripod collar. It's set for a July 2022 launch.
NASA and the University of Minnesota are working on a citizen scientist initiative alongside the Juno Mission and need your help. Volunteers are tasked with identifying atmospheric vortices on Jupiter, as captured by the Juno spacecraft.
The PROII CPL-VND 2-in-1 Filter offers a variable neutral density filter with between 3-7 stops of compensation as well as a circular polarizer filter. Independent control means you can dial in the exact type of compensation you want in a single filter.
Joining its diverse lineup of ONE R and RS action cameras, Insta360 has announced the 1-inch 360 Edition camera, co-engineered with Leica. The camera sports dual 1"-type image sensors and records 21MP still photos and 6K/30p video with a full 360-degree field of view.
Capture One Mobile bring Raw photo editing to iPadOS devices. While it's a familiar look and feel, it's clear Capture One has focused on providing a touch-first interface, designed for quick and easy culling and editing on-the-go.
Godox has announced the R200 ring flash for its AD200 and AD200Pro pocket flashes. The new add-on is a lightweight ring flash that works with numerous new light modifiers, promising portable and controllable ring light.
Even sophisticated microphones can't eliminate ambient noise and the effect of acoustics. But researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have developed a camera system that can see sound vibrations and reconstruct the music of a single instrument in an orchestra.
Do you want to shape and create content for the largest audience of photography and video enthusiasts in the world? DPReview is hiring a Reviews Editor to join our Seattle-based team.
In our continuing series about each camera manufacturer's strengths and weakness, we turn our judgemental gaze to Leica. Cherished and derided in equal measure, what does Leica get right, and where can it improve?
A dental office, based in Germany, had a team of pilots create a mesmerizing FPV drone video to give prospective clients a behind-the-scenes look at the inner workings of their office.
Samsung has announced the ISOCELL HP3, a 200MP sensor with smaller pixels than Samsung's original HP1 sensor, resulting in an approximately 20 percent reduction in the size of the smartphone camera module.
Street photography enthusiast Rajat Srivastava was looking for a 75mm prime lens for his Leica M3. He found a rare SOM Berthiot cinema lens that had been converted from C mount to M mount, and after a day out shooting, Srivastava was hooked.
The lens comes in at an incredibly reasonable price point, complete with a stepping motor autofocus system and an onboard Micro USB port for updating firmware.
The new version of the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 6K brings it much closer to the 6K Pro model, with the same battery, EVF but a new rear screen. New firmware for the whole PPC series brings enhanced image stabilization for Resolve users
The OM System 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II is an updated version of one of our favorite Olympus zoom lenses. Check out this ensemble gallery from our team, stretching from Washington's North Cascades National Park to rural England, to see how it performs.
The first preset, called 'Katen' or 'Summer Sky,' is designed to accentuate the summer weather for Pentax K-1, K-1 Mark II and K-3 Mark III DSLR cameras with the HD Pentax-D FA 21mm F2.4 ED Limited DC WR and HD Pentax-DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited lenses attached.
As we continue to update our Buying Guides with the cameras we've recently reviewed, we've selected the Sony a7 IV as our pick for the best video camera for photographers. It's not the best video camera we've tested but it offers the strongest balance of video and stills capabilities.
Comments