DPReview TV: Sony a7 III vs. Fujifilm X-T4 - who's the king of enthusiast cameras?

@lacikuss You know that you can get EF-S to Sony FE AF adapters too, right? This can't be an argument in favor of any of these two contenders.

But if we talk about the native mount options with fast AF Sony sometimes has an edge with lighter, smaller and cheaper options.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#858.429,841.596,858.667,ha,t

Sony has a lot of lenses. But they got to that place by users adapting Canon glass for quite a stretch of their mirrorless ILC selling history. And they didn't share that "open mount" spec with Metabones, either.

@laciuss As Jordan mentioned - Sony has significantly more native mount lenses to chose from than Fuji, some of them are cheaper, smaller and lighter too, while they are still covering the full frame. If you want to travel light, go Sony a7c. And this is even before you throw AF accuracy/speed/prices into equation.

Compare 56/1.2 vs 85/1.8, or Fuji 23/1.4 vs Sigma 35/2.

@il_alexk have you seen how small all are the f/2.0 weather sealed Fuji lenses? Sony doesn't have equivalents, they are all bigger, so for travel light go Fuji. There is no discussion that APSC lenses are smaller than FF lenses. So no, for travel light Fuji beats Sony, unless you go to smaller sensor size.

Comparing the largest current production Fuji with the smallest Sony.. how about you do that comparison with an X-E4 and then it will be more fair-and also fair in terms of control layout. The A7C just isn't as versatile and controllable of a camera as the X-T4.

Here we go.. https://j.mp/3ulOkeu

(I clicked on the second one of il_alexk's links above).

@Mr Bolton. You do realize that Sony's 35mm camera in your link is shown with a removable lens hood , don't you? If you remove it Sony will be a couple of mm shorter than the Fuji combo. ;)

Here is another comparison where A7C is smaller than your X-E4:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#858.667,869.596,841.596,ha,t

Isn't this impressive for a FF camera with a flip-screen and 5-axis IBIS to be smaller than a compact APS-C camera that doesn't have any of these?

@FuzzyDice Check Christopher Frost's reviews for both. Sigma is way sharper on FF than Fuji when both are wide open. Both in the center and in the corners. One of the best lenses for Sony, actually.

The X-E4 is smaller in dimensions than an A7C.

X-E4: 4.78 x 2.87 x 1.29" (121.3 x 72.9 x 32.7mm)

A7c: Approx. 5 x 2 7/8 x 2 3/8" (124.0 x 71.1 x 59.7mm)

The Fuji is also $849 and the A7C $1798; Adorama USD retail on 03-09-2021

Neither is WR, both feature competent 4K30 video. The Fuji lacks IBIS, but that might help explain its smaller size. The diminutive XC 15-45 kit lens adds OIS and only 1.76" of extra depth to the Fuji.

Only you can decide if it's worth spending the $950 extra to get IBIS and FF in a compact travel cam.

[Edit] or spend just $150 more and get the Fuji X-S10 with stellar IBIS, better video, and magnesium build.

bruh - this is the internet. I am sure people on fluffy bunny forums get death threats.

I don't think it's a battle of any kind really. This seems to me like a perfectly realistic and logical comparison of cameras around a certain price point, which is how many people typically shop for something.

Usually people might have more than just two options, but I believe the comparison was limited to reduce the length and complexity of the video. Comparing more options might be better suited for a written article, which I wouldn't mind seeing. 😺

onlyfreeman > my comment is related to the many weird comments about this comparative. DPreview is obviously a gear-oriented website, and I'm sometimes interested in technology (this is the reason why I'm here), but I'm exhausted with theses age-old arguments filling 90% of the threads ;-)

JP - buy why would the fundamental trade-offs between size/ergonomics // noise/sensor size // lens size/light gathering ability // high price of new technology/still good old tech --- why would any of those conversations stop happening. No new technology has silenced or rendered useless any of those compromises we all have to deal with. Do you expect to see some new conversation that no one has thought of yet?

In Australia IBIS is colloquially known as a bin chicken.

It's time for DPR to start rating all cameras on their appearance. I need to know, which camera is the most "attractive"?

The only 'professional' lenses missing from the x-system are the super telephoto lenses. Everything else is professional. Fuji is known to have great lenses. A bit expensive, in my opinion, but great lenses.
I don't think I fully grasp what you are getting at. I think you are saying something like - the A7iii is the bottom camera in the Sony FF lineup. That being the case - you can move up to either a pro sports camera, the A1, or a pro portrait and lanscape body - the A7RIV, or a pro video body, the A7siii. Whereas with the X-T4 - that is it - you can't get any higher in the x-system. Is that right?

But - Fuji has the roughly equivalent 50-140/2.8. About half the price but similar equivalent focal range. I think the point of this review between a very popular FF camera body and a very popular DX body was that the gap really is closed, for any real world photography uses that are not camera nerds with way too much time on their hands inspecting each and every pixel. Put the Fuji 50-140/2.8 on an x-t4 and the Sony 70-200/2.8 on any Sony body - and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the resulting images. Yes, a few images might give you a clue if they have DOF that would be very difficult to achieve on the x-t4 - but really that would be the only indication. BTW - if you are a portrait photographer and have to rely on blurring out backgrounds to achieve composition - maybe you should spend cash on a photography class instead of more gear. Not saying that is your case - just in general....

The 50-140 f2.8 is not equvalent to a FF 70-200 F2.8, it's equivalent to the 70-200 f4. The f4 Sony is also cheaper as the video describes (like the Fuji f1.2 prime costing a lot more than a Sony f1.8 prime)

What I'm saying is the comparison of the T4 with the 50-140 F2.8 to the Sony A7III with the 70-200 f4 is very close in capability, cost, weight, etc BUT... the Sony also offers the 70-200 f2.8 where the Fuji cannot and never really would since there's not the professional segment to go after.

Yes, I know. You mean equivalent in terms of DOF - right? That big Sony can just melt away your composition problems. Nice.

DOF is not the largest part of it. Light gathering is involved in so many other areas of photography than DOF. The PHYSICAL APERTURE at the front of the Sony 70-200 f4 is a near perfect match to the Fuji 50-150 f2.8 for a reason, they're very similar lenses assuming you raise the A7III's ISO a stop in your comparison to the Fuji T4.

If you buy a Canon EF 70-200 f4 and a focal reducer EF-X adapter like this one...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1569437-REG/metabones_mbspef_x_bt1_canon_ef_lens_to.html
...the resultant lens+adapter on the Fuji would be 50-140 f2.8

BECAUSE THEY'RE EQUIVALENT!

You know that not everyone seeks the thinnest DOF possible all the time right?

Right - but as this review pointed out - the differences between FF and crop are now very small. Most non-photographers will not see a difference in the image quality between these two bodies. And photographers only see it because they look for it - they know what to look for. It isn't that the differences contribute to an overall lesser image in the crop camera.

It's not any bigger or smaller than it ever was and it has very little to do with DOF. It's a 1.5x crop of a very VERY similar sensor technology. The FF BODY simply shows a stop less noise at high ISO and a stop more DR at base ISO than the APS-C. That number hasn't changed much in 20 years of digital photography. That means you should compare lenses based on their PHYSICAL characteristics rather than f-stop because year after year, camera after camera, the capability comparison between FF and APS-C continues to be, almost EXACTLY, the crop factor. That shouldn't really be surprising.

Right - but even if that gap stays the same - there is a point of diminishing returns. Meaning - both sensors have reached the point where under normal lighting conditions - and normal subjects a photographer would encounter - the difference to the eye between these two sensors is - nothing. Yes - if you shoot greyhound dogs at a dark racetrack - by all means - get a D5 and some long glass. Fine. But - aside from specialist stuff like that - for normal every day photography - these two cameras are roughly equivalent. You could not say that in the past. The D300 was visibly worse than the D3 under fairly normal lighting conditions that a photographer would typically encounter. The sensor technology is now at the point where - unless you are some kind of specialist that needs the highest, cleanest high ISO shots - like for shooting basketball under bad gym lighting - then a good, clean ISO 6400 should work for most people. And that is what the x-t4 provides.

Capabilities increase like you said yes, but you're not accounting for standards also increase. Show somebody some 640x480 TV broadcast of the mud bowl after watching a sporting event at 4K 60fps and ask them if they think the resolution, refresh rate, and dynamic range of the old broadcast were "fine".

Your eyeballs are far better than you're giving them credit for. We have not reached the point of sensitivity compared to our own eyeballs in many situations. Sometimes the cameras are even better but often they're not. I agree in concept there is a saturation point, I disagree in practice that we are near it.

The standards are actually decreasing. Most photographers work is now viewed on the web - not printed in and on display in galleries. Most people don't even have 4k monitors to view them on. I would say modern photographic tools far outpace the medium most likely for the images to be viewed on.

I can think of one use case where the noise advantage of FF really is valuable. If you are shooting landscape with a wide dynamic range and need to pull shadows up and are also printing the image large - FF could be an advantage. Other than that case - and others where you are printing large and need good noise performance - for average web viewing - crop is fine.

No idea what you are talking about here, but Sony has a 70—180/2.8 that is lighter, smaller and cheaper than Fuji's 50-140/2.8. Which in FF gives you a better low light performance and smaller DoF.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#858.854,841.621,ha,t

Agree, this was entertainment, however with the we-take-no-prisoners-attitude of the brand war proponents in this forum this is click-baiting.

Taking a partly dated FF camera and compare it to the newest top-of-the-line APSC is questionable but of course legit. Weight, size, price are all similar and would be deciding factors to a photographer NEWLY entering the scene.

But few Fuji afficinados will jump ship (some do) to FF and leave their lens base behind. The reverse is also the case. Within the FE-mount ecosystem you can always upgrade to a faster A9, a more-video 7s, a higher res A7R, whatever your itch is. To leave that behind for a Fuji ecosystem with expensive lenses and some gaps is a serious obstacle.

My good old Olympus E-M1II. It's far better than I really need...

I use both kinds of sensors. That's a non issue nowadays

I also use different systems. I, for the life of me cannot see what all the fuss is about with the fuji sensor. I think its wonderful. I think it has been blown out of all proportion.

I actually prefer high ISO images from X-Trans over regular Bayer.

Foveonit: you might hate high ISO, given by your name :D, but high ISO jpgs from Fuji out of cameras are basically without color noise.

Horses for courses. The main reason I chose Fujifilm from my canon DSLR was the manual dials. I take your point about the ISO dial, usually auto, but I extensively use the shutter speed dial, aperture ring, and exposure comp dial, and enjoy the fact I can see values and not require a screen, except for more precise adjustments. I also adore the M/C/S dial on the front, and the ability to change drive settings with a switch and require no menus. The less I have to use the menu the better. Setting a SS and aperture for your chosen subject type, then let the ISO sort itself out, compromising on the SS or aperture as required in more difficult lighting.

personally I never use auto ISO. I prefer to know the value being used and set it manually.

Absolutely, as VOGUE has a huge online presence.

I wanna see a comparison of the YI M1 & a6600, the results might be quite interesting.

Or Sony RX10 IV against Pentax KP

I strongly suggest you rent before you buy- If that’s an option for you, it can make a big difference.
Specs, online reviews have nothing on personal experience. Rent the gear you’re likely to own (or rent) later.