@Raynaud any objective evidence to support your claim that Sony has the worst colours? This website shows Sony is usually not at the bottom of the table (it varies between camera models) but not sure whether they compared RAW or JPEGs https://pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reproduction-ranked/

Velvia is the worst film simulation from Fuji. You need to tweak it if you want to use it.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lets not forget that Jones obvious thought the X-T4 was a significant upgrade or he would have just saved money by choosing the X-T3.

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.

Raynaud - You are wrong and you can't speak for me.

But just wait and find out for yourself the T4 will get the exact same treatment from Fujifilm as how Fujifilm has treated its H1 owners.

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.

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.

Cheers.

All fine with me. Whatever you think.

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.

ikaika777

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.

Yeah, nobody does IBIS better than Olympus.

I have seen anyone refute Chris and Jordan. Just the opposite.

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.

Some never bothered to respond but as you are a fan a response will not alter your bias

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.

Here are the hideous Sony video colors.
It’s shocking you actually like them.

https://youtu.be/iCxvO8wzVKc

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.

You linked to DPReview TV's video from the Sony A7RIV launch and, I agree, the Sony video off of the A7RIV does not impress.

But it's the ZV-1 Standard video that we are talking about in this video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=844&v=lbCznwAHi4Q&feature=emb_logo

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 has not posted their thoughts

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.

and?.......... totally meaningless to the fuji camera in question
ps you were made from PARTS of of your parents dna......

@Raynaud

What about this?
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/2176369272/fujifilm-x-t4-sample-gallery-dpreview-tv/3209532722
Radioactive greens and unnatural reds.
Regards

https://youtu.be/97ON0JvHOB8

"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.

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).

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.

These are all edge cases.

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.

Sirkhan

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).

@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.

Idaho_X +1

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

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.

Yes, but these only apply to JPG.

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 ;)

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 bought a used car 90,000 miles on it and the darned manufacture won’t replace or update parts for free on it.
I am sure you think they should.

Well, if they don't offer spare parts for a charge either, you will be just as scr*w`d

Sure, go for it.

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.

Your analogy is totally misplaced!

I get the "hardware" changes the X-T4 brings.

However, all the X-T4 AF and video improvements are achieved using the exact same sensor and image processor as the X-T3.

So my question is when does the X-T3 get those improvements via a "kaizen" firmware update?

Hopefully very soon.

Cheers.

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.

@Thoughts Thanks for the reply to the question.

Regarding the "software" features migrating to models with similar hardware, the options are essentially:

1) Free firmware upgrade
2) Paid firmware upgrade
3) No firmware upgrade. Buy the new model to get the new software features.

I was wondering if Fuji had mentioned their approach regarding the X-T4 s/w upgrades being brought to the X-T3 and X-Pro 3.

Cheers.

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.

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"

Like I said, the X-T3 was the best APSC in 2020.
If you are worried about price, it is a great option.

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.

@Bobby Supardi
+1 Similar to best sedan car but with sport car price. Are many consumer will buy it?

Wait, my sedan is faster 0-60 than virtually every sports car on the market.
It’s the X-T4 of cars I guess. 😀

@ Bobby @ forest dream: I strongly disagree.

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.

@Toni, u don't have to agree with me. Go ahead support Fuji by buying the xt4 at release price. i'm happy for u.

@ 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.

Af is the best until XT5 is released. Then we'll hear how XT4 struggled in xxx scenarios. Until XT5, XT4 is flawless :)

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.

There was a recent blind test comparing x-tran to Bayer. 88% preferred the x-trans images.

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.

Are you claiming that is not true?

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 :( :( :(

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.

I wouldn't call it useless. And I would not call 24mm eq. an extremely wide end.

But sure, IBIS vs IBIS in the normal / short tele range would be more interesting. I agree.

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?

https://youtu.be/R6Gdjn3-TB8

On the other hand - Sony IBIS was never a benchmark, right? How about Panasonic's implementation on the S1 series?

@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

True. One should buy everything without questioning it :) Fueling consumerism made their boss the richest man on Earth.

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.

@Sarman, why didn't you just put a screen protector on those cameras?