DPReview TV: High-end APS-C mirrorless camera comparison

There were still enough features missing to push it down the list.

As for the FF body, because the Fuji is a special camera in the way it is designed and operates. If there were a full frame that functioned the same, many people would use them, but where we are right now, there isn’t.

Sep 6, 2021*permalink

enrique santa

If you are a happy FF user why do you worried about apsc or m 4/3?. We are really lucky that some of people giving us their opinion in this forum, did'nt own Nikon or any other brand or apsc woud be out of production long time ago. Apsc is not only about price is about more compact cams and LENSES. Is about an excellent IQ and is about not all of us are "pros" and we don't need a monstrous plenty of buttons cam. I'm more than happy with apsc, I never make better pics (IQ) than now in my film days, so please buy your FF be happy and let be happy apsc users¡.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

well, basically it is the sociopsychological principle of validation. I have a better sensor, hence my results are of more value than my peers' and therefore I myself am of more value than my peers'.
Our world is full of that basal brain work.

Jun 15, 2021*permalink

But it is not just a simple product; instead people need to justify their decisions and belief in general and they will do that with varying forms or aggression. Hence you will never see the end of these debates here.

Jun 15, 2021permalink

FTOG

Yep, @kreislauf, confirmation bias is very real.

And a lack effort to try and really understand the other person's position - without a need to 'convert' them to your own.

Jun 15, 2021permalink

Radovan

Agreed.

Jun 16, 2021permalink

DeltaFoxtrot

Hell, this got deep 😊

Jun 17, 2021permalink

Yeah, but the other side is that some of us just genuinely love the particular bodies we use and don’t care if people know it… I don’t need confirmation that my camera is a great camera, I know that, because I’ve used it, and it does everything the way I want it to and very well at that.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

I wonder how many, into phography, really care about video.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

TiltShiftR

Not I. I must admit when I watch these reviews and it's Jordan's turn to talk about the video aspects of the cameras, I just fast forward to the next segment. I don't care about video. I use my iPhone for those times I do use and it's good enough for me.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

40daystogo

I've been a stills photographer ever since the film days before auto-focus, and recently I've seen the power of video to communicate a message. Now video has become my overwhelming preoccupation. At first, it seemed like a totally different planet with terminology I had no idea. Moreover, it requires learning a completely new skill of video editing. It felt like a massive learning curve. Some people are not willing to try that because of the discomfort of leaving their comfort zone. Imagine. We are at the brink of a new technological dawn where, for the first time, the tools to create and publish videos for the whole world to see have, within a few years, entered the hands of enthusiasts. And yet, there are some who are slow or reticent to even tip their toes in this brave new world. Perhaps it'll take the new generation who grew up with video - those who don't even know a world without internet video.

Jun 15, 2021permalink

Satyaa

I'm a stills (hobby) photographer. I got into video accidentally on someone's request and learned what a good job my FZ2500 can do. I was as much impressed (more surprised) as my clients were (charity, not paid work). I don't touch video functions while shooting for hobby.

A close young friend is a journalism major. She learned a bit of videography, editing, story tellilng, etc., in her courses. Currently she's exploring all career options.

I advised her that she should be taking a small camera to events and shooting lot of images for her collection/library so that they will come in handy when she does journalism work in future. She never liked that idea. She said that video tells a story better.

Another friend, a school teacher, takes lot of photos of her work for documentation. Wasn't asked by her school, she just likes to do it. She's not a photographer by any definition! I only know because I sometimes get questions about her camera.

Everybody's style is different.

Jun 15, 2021permalink

Radovan

I’d say lots of hobbyist underwater and travel photographers care about video. Most probably want good video autofocus and ibis, rather than advanced video features. Great video straight out of camera.

Jun 16, 2021permalink

I like the idea, of being able to make videos for various things, like training for my team. But not more than I like still photos. I do like drone videography though.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

Nikita66

Thanks for this video.
I get perfectly sharp 20x24 prints from a 24mp APS-C camera. I never print bigger than that, so why pay more for bulkier FF? The slight improvements here and there with FF ain't worth it to me.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

XCameraObscura

Being a Fujifilm user since the first X100... mixed feelings! Indeed, the optical qualities and color science are excellent but I've had way too many manufacturing and reliability issues. Getting some of these problems resolved was a very frustrating story. Hard to understand why Fujifilm must be the only brand not getting a decent RAW-convertor support in Adobe without the typical 'worms', the least thing you'd expect from a major system. Why can't Fujifilm collaborate with Adobe - instead of pushing C1 with its ugly interface in the market? I don't own the X-T4 or GFX100s but anything before that was very disappointing in video too, not due to the sensor nor the camera, but the focus breathing I experienced with most lenses. I'm quite invested in the system, the only reason why I'm still living with it in my projects, but if I would have the financials to make the choice today, I'd go Canon EOS R, Nikon Z maybe even Leica SL2,... whatever.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

I find the raw files work great with most converters on the market, so maybe Jobs was right, Adobe really is filled with lazy developers.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

Einride

I don’t know why I would buy any of these when I can buy a full frame Z5 new for 1000$. I guess low weight and small size would be why. But I’d rather adapt an M-mount rangefinder lens to the Z5 in wait for the compact 28 and 40mm lenses.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

Because many don't want to buy a Nikon.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Mariano Pacifico

Buy Nikon dSLR

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Gustavo Taliano

maybe because FF lenses are way more expensive than APSC even used?

Jun 14, 2021permalink

The results of an adapted M-mount lens for a nikon Z5 might surprise you in terms of image quality and usability, but not necessarily in a good way.

Jun 15, 2021*permalink

thx1138

Because the D500 destroys the Z5 when it comes to AF, and IQ is still excellent in 2021.

Jun 16, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

@ thx1138: If I was buying into a syste,, I would not go for a DSLR because of the limitations with the mirror (vibrations, size, weight, slows down everything, all lenses need to be calibrated for precise autofocus, poor manual focus control with OVF when focus is critical, low light limitations, lack of true depth-of-focus control, no visual feedback for the end result, amd more), and that future development is on mirrorless cameras.

Jun 16, 2021permalink

Einride

@Magnar W
Unsurprised to see you get brand specific. Switch out “Z5” for “RP” and the question holds. I mainly mentioned the Z5 because it’s unequalled at its price point.

I would certainly buy an APSC for reasons already mentioned – size and weight of the lenses.

To get a D500 or Canon equivalent for high speed action is a good argument. Especially taking into account of the broad selection of telephoto lenses.

Jun 16, 2021permalink

TheWillRogers

The Z50 with both lenses and FTZ costs the same as the Z5 body alone. The Z50 has a better sensor than the Z5, albeit smaller. A used Z6 body costs what a Z5 body does. It's hard to justify the Z5 for anything other than studio stills when the closest members in the Z family outshine it.

Jun 16, 2021permalink

Urbex Mark

@Gustavo not really. Especially when you consider that you need f/2.8 lenses on crop to get similar results to f/4 on FF.

Jun 16, 2021permalink

Gustavo Taliano

@Urbex in my case a canon EF 17-50 F2.8 is cheaper than a EF 24 -70 F4.
and I quote used gear mostly for other countries where you get a warranty on them. Here in argentina buying used gear is hit or miss.

Jun 17, 2021permalink

Daft Punk

I don’t know why people who drink the full frame kool aid feel the need to tell us about their views on smaller sensors.

Jun 17, 2021permalink

Okay, I’ll bite.

Z5
Not a great AF system, it just is very foreign compared to the way others are doing it and it’s not standard.

Still using the older D600 Sensor, not bad but a bit slow.

No IBIS at all.

Slower Frame Rate.

Video not as good.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

Urbex Mark

@Fuzzy - Z5 has IBIS, right?

You are correct that it isn't a very strong option for video but for stills only I think it's pretty nice.

Sep 7, 2021*permalink

steveTQP

Nice comparison, and really no surprise on the conclusion, as the Fujifilm X-System is their main "focus", and their equally superb MF GFX System is also expanding, and recognized as a superior alternative to the likes of Hasselblad, Pentax and Mamiya. Having had the Fuji X=T3 with some superb Fujinon XF optics, I agree that it's a stellar system. In fact, had I not gone with the Nikon Z7 (and some stellar Nikkor S lenses) for printing very large, I would be an X-T4 user today. Regarding your test categories, personally, the Image Quality is by far most critical, and battery life and video are least important. Thanks for the comparison!

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Maxx787

Another user selecting Nikon over Fuji in terms of image quality and colour seems indisputable at this stage. Not that Fuji XT lacking in the lens department but Nikon taking the Z system to new heights destined for more followers.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Hold on a second, the Z7 line isn’t exactly entry level full frame and at 42 MP, the image quality is actually closer than you think. The price of the newer Z7 II bodies would be a turnoff to people in the sub $2000 budget and the AF certainly wouldn’t keep up with several of the APS-C bodies.

Sep 7, 2021*permalink

FuhTeng

Turns out more money usually equals a better camera (let's just ignore the Leica no one remembers exists).

Not the most insightful video you've done but I'm sure someone will find it useful.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

io_bg

Yup, quite an unfair comparison as the Z50 and M6II can hardly be considered 'high-end'.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

But they are the highest end APS-C bodies that Canon and Nikon offer.

As for Leica, it’s not really better in every way, but it is very expensive.

Sep 7, 2021*permalink

io_bg

Not sure what's the point of reviving an old thread. But, Nikon offers the D500 which is a true high-end APS-C body. Like Canon's 7D II.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

Well, it isn’t just an old thread, these are comments on an article too.

But they were looking at the high end Mirrorless market.

Sep 7, 2021*permalink

Atahualpa

I found it unfair that the M6 was ranked higher than Z50 due to a couple of DX lenses, otoh it's a totally different mount and with Z50 at least it's the same mount than any other Nikon mirrorless camera. So with the M6 you are buying into a locked system and with the Z50 you can always go FF later if you like and keep your lenses. Also I mean we'll probably see (according to latest rumors) that Nikon expands the DX line and so overall some comments did not age very well...

Also, some errors like 2nd place saying third in the text and someone saying third, while it's actually second. Take some break, relax a little.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

jsevidon

Too bad they didn't include a Leica APSC camera. It might have shown that it was superior, which it shoud be for the price, or it wasn't showing that the extra money really isn't worth it. I happen to own both APSC and FF Leica mirrorless cameras and I think such a comparison would have been worth it for would-be camera buyers. Mirrorless cameras are getting extremely close in ever higher performance now.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

Nikonparrothead

Given that Leica has two APSC cameras, you’re right!

Jun 15, 2021permalink

Mlumiere

For my purpose the Canon M6 MK2 is the best !

Jun 13, 2021permalink

I agree when Chris said it is underrated. It’s never going to win a comparison like this, but it’s definitely quite different from the rest here.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

you have to take those videos with a grain of salt. those cameras are all capable and sometimes it is a simple thing like a button layout, a specific feature or a simply a lens that makes you choose a specific camera/system.

Jun 15, 2021permalink

ottonis

Fuji has one strategic advantage over Sony, Canon and Nikon: The gap between their APSC and their Medium Format line is so huge that they are free to build the very best APSC camera they possibly can - without having to fear any cannibalization of their MF sales.

This is much different from Nikon, Sony or Canon who see their APSC cameras just as the lower end of a continuous spectrum, their cheap FF cameras being somewhere in the middle and their high-end FF cameras (A1, R5, Z7ii) being the top of the crop.

If the A6600 provided internal 10bit 4:2:2 oversampled 4k recording it would eat away a lot of Sony's A7siii sales. So, Sony keeps the APSC line deliberately lower specced in order not to draw away potential customers from their FF models.

Fuji does not have such problems and can go "all in" with their XT models.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

The extra difference is not that huge and Fuji has no cross compatibility. So yes, they pour more into APS-C but that only gives them a competitive advantage FOR APS-C. However their competition is from both APS-C and full frame.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

onlyfreeman

In my opinion the only thing Fuji is lacking is a top AF system, I wonder if Fuji will be getting anywhere near Sony or Canon's level anytime soon.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

One of their biggest problems is lens design especially with earlier lenses.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

chse

Fuji is in the process of delivering updated versions of lenses. AF performance is a property they seem to improve with the updates.

Jun 16, 2021permalink

It’s not that they don’t have one, it’s that it is very customizable based on the subject and for that it requires tweaking.

The camera conspiracies guy was struggling with getting it right and Fuji straight up told him how to setup his camera for AF tracking, based on what he was shooting. Since that time he has never had another AF Issue.

The one thing that I find interesting about Fuji, is that they will listen to you. I had a complaint about the way my X-T4 was rendering hair, and I let them know it! They turned around and had one of their specialists reach out to me to try and work through the settings in the camera to resolve it. In the end, we found a setting that corrected the issue and I was very shocked to have such a high and tech reaching out to me.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

photopassion8

What? No Leica CL?

Jun 13, 2021permalink

TiltShiftR

No pretentious camera brands allowed.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Daft Punk

Leicas are fantastic. The founders of modern photography. Their latest mirrorless cams are superb, especially regarding their user interface which is best in the business. And I’m not pretentious !

Jun 17, 2021permalink

They’re overpriced.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

jackspra

Liked the video.Nikon need a Z series D500 body.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

ANAYV

Z 50 does really good in high ISO I.Q. :
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4581127
AF is quite good for BIf , too
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4581358

Jun 13, 2021permalink

I guess it is good thing to be spoiled with choice, maybe not for ecology and environment as our endless consumerism we are forced into creates a lot of damage. But look at the second hand market. You can take stunning images with 10+ years old gear on cheap, however that would be against current economical doctrine.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

KjellRS

What doctrine, to create new and better cameras people want to buy? Sure, there are some products with built-in obsolesence but I don't see the ILC manufacturers doing anything malicious here. If you want to use a 5Dmk3 it's as good as it was in 2012 - knock yourself out. Do you think the R5 shouldn't exist, simply because people will sell/scrap their old gear and replace it?

I don't mind trying to be greener, within reason... but "pull the handbrake" stunts to kill progress and innovation isn't going to help, it'll just get you sidelined as some modern Amish. Like I can get behind switching out coal and oil with solar and wind power, but I'm not giving up my car for a bicycle. If you want to good for you, but you'll walk that path alone.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

the49er

This entire market is small and getting smaller. Should this evil consumerism stop as you wish it would, the entire industry would collapse and there would be no 10 year old cameras 10 years from now.

While your wish for a mad-max world is curious, it's not practical in any sense other than to collapse civilized society.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Both valid points, yep, would agree that cameras might be the least of a problem in what I am trying to say. Cheers, take care.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

astroste

These "best" videos are getting boring and are not getting views on YT (esp. for audience who dont come to the site often). Not surprised they have so few subscribers given the popularity of this site. DPR should consider making more comprehensive or non-standard comparisons (e.g., FF vs APS-C vs M43), taking advantage of their access to many cameras.

Restricting on sensor size is stupid. If I am in marketing and ignore Fuji's offerings (X or GFX) when researching market for FF, I will probably get fired. I am in market for a new system (from Canon 7D with some good lenses) and considering x-t4/Z6/R6 + lenses, but I found most of these reviews not helpful (e.g. how much FF is really better, if that's true, how about GFX 50R).

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Georgescanvas

Chris and Jordan are a good YouTube duo. It all depends what their employers are aiming to achieve.

Number of subscribers isn't necessarily a key metric. You have to keep in mind that the viewing public have very short concentration spans. Attaining notoriety in a click bait environment is a race to the bottom.

I think they would get more YouTube traction if they stopped following the crowds and went back to more detailed reviews.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

DPR TV isn’t really aiming to replace DPR written articles, but sublime by them.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

the49er

And so far 1 person agrees with you. If you feel so strongly, why not launch a competitive online review page and compete head on with this silly DPR?

Jun 14, 2021permalink

I feel like people argue for Fuji's lens selection based on some time period before Sigma dropped their excellent F1.4 primes, Sony released the new G lenses, and the latest Tamron zooms.

I personally looked at switching from APSC E Mount to Fuji X and concluded that the lenses on the "other side" were generally FF expensive without the advantages of a FF system. Indeed, you can often get third-party FF glass with a wider aperture (e.g. F2.8 vs F4) for a cheaper price.

Fuji does some things better (and some worse) with their bodies, but the lens lineup is a weird mix of sane, ancient, and stupidly expensive.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Yes, third party support for E-Mount is the best around. Fuji do have some third party support and more seem likely. I like my Fuji (just like I like all my other systems), but their lens lineup is a bit all over the shop. Tamron on Fuji I think would make a nice difference as they are the only third party doing zooms (for APS-C). Though to be fair, apart from the 18-200mm they hadn’t until very recently done anything in the APS-C space. The 17-70 and UWA only just very recently came out. It’s an evolving market.

Now I wish Sony would make a nice APS-C camera I’d want to use for all the excellent lenses they have for APS-C now. While Fuji’s lens line is as discussed, they do have a body to suit most users. Sony have iterated on only one body type in the history of APS-C E.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

MAC

Agree with the comment about sigma f1.4 primes. and the comment about older lenses and FF comparison. An additional point is that fuji doesn't work with class leading DXO PL4 Elite with deep prime Noise Redux which is so good that it is worth at least an extra stop..

Sep 27, 2021permalink

Elisam, 100% agreed on Sony bodies. I left Sony APSC, because they keep iterating the A6000 and artificially holding back features instead of just making a damn good $1,000+ or $1,500+ camera from scratch like Fuji.

But to Sony APSC is a way to lure people in to the brand, whereas for Fuji it's how they survive. Sony probably sees every FF sale lost to APSC as a failure of segmentation.

Sep 27, 2021permalink

Rinman

I do wish LENS selection would have played a bigger part in this comparison. Lenses like the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 and the Sony 70-350mm and the new auto-focus Samyang 12mm f2.0 ánd the Sigma 16-30-56mm f1.4 trio are just plain GOLD and such excellent value.

I can learn to live with bad menu's, and my hands have gotten used to the small(er) form factor of the A6600. It is the lenses that make (much of) the quality and attraction of a system. Now if only I had an eye for photography... 😉

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

Bender79ita

It did play a role, he mentioned Nikon not supporting the Z dx system and Sony having plenty of lenses, third party or not. The video even shows a Tamron 17-70 for a brief moment. The price of a "trinity" (10-18, 16-55, 70-350) is so awfully close with FF Tamron/Sigma offerings though (and even Sony's) that 400 usd savings on the body make you ask yourself many questions, specially if you aren't looking for the maximum reach on your 200-600 but shoot other things then birds.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

DFPanno

At this point I could never buy an expensive cropper over a FF camera.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Seems to me that the XT-4 'cropper' is quality enough and worth the price, particularly with that (unmatched) APS-C lens selection.

My biggest concern would be: how much to spend on lenses that don't cover a FF sensor. Too much in my case, not enough 'need' or desire for extreme telephoto.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

It's not really "unmatched APSC selection," though. The system has many old slow-to-focus lenses and lacks all the cool new third-party glass like the 17-70mm F2.8 or 11-20 F2.8.

I feel like people argue for Fuji's lens selection based on some time period before Sigma dropped their excellent F1.4 primes, Sony released the new G lenses, and the latest Tamron zooms.

I personally looked at switching from APSC E Mount to Fuji X and concluded that the lenses on the "other side" were generally FF expensive without the advantages of a FF system.

Fuji does some things better (and some worse) with their bodies, but the lens lineup is a weird mix of sane, ancient, and stupidly expensive.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

FUJIFILM XF 18mm f/1.4 R LM WR Lens - New Release

FUJIFILM XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens - New Release

FUJIFILM XF 27mm f/2.8 R WR Lens - New Release

perhaps you know better than I, but is there a better APS-C wide angle zoom on the market than the FUJIFILM XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS WR?

Sigma and Tamron will follow the money, eventually, and Fujifilm is obviously committed to the APS-C format, long term. Unlike the other three camera companies in the comparison review.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

SoW, you're making my argument for me. XF 18mm is almost three times as expensive as the excellent Sigma 16mm F1.4. Again with Fuji you pay FF prices. It's more expensive than the excellent Sony 20mm F1.8G, and that's a FF lens!

The XF 10-24mm F4 is as expensive as Tamron's 11-20mm F2.8 lens. Sure the Fuji has IS and better build, but it collects a lot less light. For LESS, you can even get an F2.8 UWA zoom on FF (Tamron 17-28mm).

By the time you pay Fuji prices, it's no-brainer just to go FF. Even Fuji sees the writing on the wall and is transitioning to MF.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

No, I'm not making your point for you. An 11-20mm is NOT the same as a 10-24mm on any format.

Read, again: "Sigma and Tamron will follow the money".

"By the time you pay Fuji prices, it's no-brainer just to go FF. Even Fuji sees the writing on the wall and is transitioning to MF". I just pointed out THREE 'new releases'. For people focusing mostly on telephoto, the "no-brainer" aspect of your argument holds no water. APS-C sensors can continue to evolve just as FF sensors do, and the lens base exists (and thrives) with Fujifilm.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

And yet Sigma and Tamron chose not to release their newer lenses on XF mount, only E mount. Keeping a pattern alive.

In 10 years XF APSC will be gone, with Fuji holding on to a MF niche.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

I did hear exactly that ten years ago regarding the m43 platform.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

I don't know the details about why Sigma and Tamron "chose" not to release their newer lenses on XF, do you? E mount was the main initial target for Sigma and Tamron, is that a surprise for you?

I expect APS-C to survive in some form for beyond 10 years, I'd be betting on Fujifilm and Canon, personally. And I wouldn't be counting out m43 either. Way too many (good) lenses already out there.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

So it HAS to be exactly a 10-24mm f/4? Seems like a way of building a strong argument. Well Sony has a much much better 24mm lens than Fuji does because 23mm is NOT the same ;)

You’re right, 11-20mm f/2.8 isn’t 10-24mm f/4... it’s better.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Bender79ita

With the price of these APS-C body and lenses it is indeed better to go FF for high IQ stills only. Hybrid shooters that want 1 billion mb/s bitrates have a reason to chose Fuji. People that stick to kit lenses: Nikon is best value. Canon: nobody cares. Sony? 200-600 and birds. To each his own. More choices are good. The usual.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

man, I am delighted, how easy Bender79ita breaks the camera system decision tree down for us.
should have read it earlier, I picked the wrong brand, damn...
next time, I buy a medium format camera, and not a cropper or cropper-cropper or god forbid, a cropper-cropper-cropper...

Jun 14, 2021*permalink

Bender79ita

@kreislauf, do you buy micro 4/3 or aps-c for maximum stills IQ? You don't. That doesn't mean these systems are useless or don't have a future. Well... except Canon M. I mostly shoot APS-C and 1" btw. I'm more then ok with the compromises in IQ, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Jun 14, 2021*permalink

When one looks at a photo, you can't really tell which pictures were taken with a cropped sensor.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

You could be right Elisam, but I'll likely hold out for the SigRon(O'Kina) 12-15mm f1.8 for those special wall-hugger landscape prints. At f1.8, of course.

Jun 15, 2021permalink

People were blocked from making lenses on the Fuji X Mount, but I think they’re about to change that as Tamron said they will be making them for the X Mount.

As far as FF goes, it isn’t that simple.

Many Fuji shooters hate dealing with Sony colors.

Many Fuji shooters also know that their camera is largely easier to use and generally better implemented for features, when compared to the Nikon Z bodies. Also, the X-T4 is higher resolution than the Z6 and Z6 II (it does show in side by side comparisons.

Canon colors are decent, their AF is very fast, and they’re certainly building quality lenses. However, they want $700 more for the R6 than the X-T4, and the R6 didn’t get half the features or optimizations of the R5. If you watch how comparisons, you’ll see that it is not only lower resolution than the X-T4, but the color science isn’t even close to the same as the R5.

So, saying I would just go full frame isn’t really that easy.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

Seems like FF was "the thing" for a while, then manufacturer and manufacturer started making more and more APS-C models again....

Sep 7, 2021permalink

DFPanno

I started shooting "FF" with an EXA II B in 1964 so it has been "the thing" for quite some time.

Oct 15, 2021permalink

Beshkno

WARNING! USE THIS INFORMATION AT YOUR OWN RISK. THIS ARTICLE IS FOR MARKETING AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. ANY SIMILARITIES TO FACTUAL OR USEFUL CONTENT IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

Hear, hear.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

LarryinId

Yes, clearly funded by Fuji.

Jun 18, 2021permalink

jonby

Honestly, what is the point of comparing cameras at such different price points as this, and aimed at such different market segments? It just ends up looking like there's some commercially-driven ulterior motive at play and undermines credibility. Anyone looking at the XT-4 is far more likely to be weighing it up against the Z5 than the Z50, for example.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Beshkno

@jonby, " commercially-driven ulterior motive", please say it ain't so!

Jun 13, 2021permalink

jonby

'fraid so. You heard it from me first!

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Tarasca

The output I get from Z50 and a6400 with native lenses are way superior to Fuji and Canon. I think a fair comparison should have been: Xt3 / a6400 / Z50 / any M.
Canon´s mount varieties will always set them 4th place.
Also, Z50 battery gives almost 1000 shots and a6400 1200...

Jun 13, 2021permalink

To be honest X-T3 would still win, A6400 would still be second and Z50 still be last.

Z50 competes to the Fuji X-S10 or better said X-S10 competes to the Z50 considering the fact that the X-S10 came after the Z50.

What's wrong in this title is that DPR decided to use the wording 'High-End' while everybody should know the only high-end cameras in this test are the X-T4 and A6400.

Both, the Canon and Nikon are aimed towards a complete different group of users in terms of marketing and feature-set by their respective manufacturers.

So it is basically a biased review in which one clearly needed to be the looser and the other clearly needed to win this beauty contest.

Who you think would win the streetrace?
A fully outfitted Ferrari, or the basic Renault Clio?

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

The Z50 doesn't really compete with anyone. Behind on specs, no native lenses, and no interest from the manufacturer. At least EF-M has a full casual lens lineup on the cheap.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

BrentSchumer - But is merely forgotten by Canon, also the lens support is rather poor next to the fact that it failed in Europe and never got any real traction. Add the strong rumors that Canon wants to quit the M-Series and you would be a fool to invest in it. Not to say that it is completely incompatible with the RF and so a waste of an investment if you ever would like to go Full Frame. You can then start all over again including the ability to switch brands.

At least you can use every Z and F lens on the Z50 natively or with the FTZ adapter. There may not be many DX lenses but at least you can upgrade anytime you want to.

If APS-C is your thing there is only one to go after and that would be Fujifilm. You are then tight to this system, but it has the best APS-C support of all brands and moreover a full line-up of lenses.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

Mlumiere

"Canon´s mount varieties will always set them 4th place !" Are you an alien ?

Jun 13, 2021permalink

I disagree on EF-M/XF. If you're someone looking for a reasonably-priced camera for travel you want small inexpensive lenses and svelte bodies. And if they want say one good larger lens there is always EF with endless selection.

The general APSC market is very different than the Fuji "I want full frame price and size with APSC characteristics" market. I know people who shoot both and they're very different segments.

The Z50 continues to be junk, from the outdated sensor to the weird limitations (no touchpad EVF?), to the dearth of native mirrorless lenses. It's a shame as the body is great to hold, but it's clear that Nikon shoved it out the door as a placeholder.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Alastair Norcross

The outputs I get from the M6II and EF-M mount lenses are way superior to Nikon and Sony.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

j tokarz

The Z50 is the nicest small camera i have ever used. The IQ is superb. And as you say the battery seems to lst forever. I pair mine with a samsung 14mm and get fantastic results. I have lots of others including fuji, but this is the one i use the most. Also, with the adaptor i can use hundreds (well not quite) of great older sigmas and tamrons at not too much money.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Canon changers their mounts so often - I could never buy into their systems...

Jun 14, 2021permalink

I bet it’s still nice and small with that bulky adapter and full frame lenses attached.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

i do hear "superior" here way too much...

Jun 15, 2021permalink

Tarasca

1) I use Z50 as second camera from Z6 with all native Z (Z20, Z35, Z50 1.8s, Z70-200 2.8 and waiting for Z14-24 to come home) Dont´have that option on RF.
2) I had Canon R5 and sended back with RF35mm f1.8. Is for me the most expensive system and the least effective. CA everywhere on RF lenses and same result as EF. Also Had 5D mII.
3)Got a6400 (will be selling it) and a7III with failure on shutter with just 8000 actuations.
As a street parade, theater, concert, landscape, astro, portrait, birding, and sometimes sports photographer who also print, the quality even with a Z50 with Z lenses is far superior than R5 with RF leneses which some are not even weather sealed. My job gets under heavy rain eventually. Imposible with a7III and same with most RF lenses by now. But guys is just about time! When Nikon realeses a D500/D850 mirroless the system will be highly solid.

Jun 20, 2021permalink

Brueghel

DPR is comparing the Z50 (900 CAD on amazon.ca) with the M6 ii (1200 CAD on amazon.ca), the XT-4 (1900 CAD) and the A6600 (1600 CAD) in a "high end APS-C mirrorless comparison". In what sense is the Z50 high end ? In only one: it is the high end of the APS-C ML line of cameras produced by Nikon. And BTW, the only one :-) When are DPR people going to understand that apples should not be compared to bananas, and peaches should not be compared to pizzas ? AFAIK, this is taught in elementary school.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

SpeedyNeo

But the important question is how many bananas can a Canadian dollar buy?

Jun 13, 2021permalink

You're right; DPReview should exclude the Z50 from all future comparisons. Nikon APSC mirrorless is clearly stillborn.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

@SpeedyNeo - Two!

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Brueghel

I should have added an obvious thing : The Z50 is a great camera :-)
It can be compared but intelligently.
As far as the number of bananas a miserable canadian (i.e. commie) dollar can buy, well, the answer is 0.0001 banana. That's why people die of hunger in socialist Canada. And if you look at performance with Covid, Canada is indeed a total mess compared to the sterling performance of the US

Jun 14, 2021*permalink

Georgescanvas

Good video which shows how overpriced all of these APSC models are in a rapidly shrinking market. The camera brands are in denial.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Well the X-T4 is possibly the only camera you will ever need, given the good AF and 4k60p, the lens line up and stuff. I would be happy if it was my only camera.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Vit Adamek - I did away with the X-T4 as its AF completely sucked!

It is horrible when there is backlight - It doesn't function properly in dim light and often started to hunt. It can't properly track moving subjects as it goes too easily out of focus because it looses track. For video it hunts as hell and can't even keep your face in focus.

Worst camera for video I ever had!

But the real problem with Fujifilm these days is that they don't even want to admit the X-T4 AF is faulty. Not even the slightest love from Fuji for a hard needed firmware update to solve all of its problems its clearly End Of Line.. and no Kaizen love.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

Nikoolix

Francis85 there's a lot Fujifilm can improve indeed, but a lot of the things you describe just sound like user error...

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Nikoolix - I would suggest you do a youtube search on Fujifilm X-T4 autofocus problems in video.

I can assure you NO user error.
I have had a near 12 years of Fujifilm experience and have had most of their X-T series cameras. But there is a day that you need to say enough is enough.

If Fujifilm can't solve the problems they have with their AF implementation. And if it is just unreliable in a professional environment then it is better to put a point behind it and tell them you quit as a X-Photographer.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

I am really enjoying the "ancient" Canon 40D at the moment, and its AF-C. I am f. tired of all the lazy and gimmicky tracking modes although the eye-af tracking on mirrorless is useful indeed. I still rather 'track' the subject myself through OVF using af-on button and fire at will. Much more fun and enjoyable shooting experience to me at the moment, much more rewarding.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

It's more likely that these flagships aren't the bulk of their APSC sales. The A6100/M50/X-T200 probably outsell the flagships. But yeah the current pricing of APSC doesn't really reflect the heavy segmentation on these models (*cough* A6600) or how cheap FF is getting.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Francis is clearly the issue here. So many people use the X-T4 and many of them for video, without major issues.

I personally never have any major issues with mine at all.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

FuzzyDice, a lot of that comes down to the lenses used and lighting. There are definitely lenses that struggle.

"I don't have this problem, so it's not possible that you did" lacks empathy and critical examination. There are a lot of variables when using an ILC.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

Oh I see. No I don’t deny it is possible he had issues, I’m just stating the obvious from what I know about the camera. AF tracking is something you likely have to tweak to your style and subject. This is pretty much how it has always been in the X-T bodies.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

Fuzzydice - playing it on the man doesn’t make i am wrong. It only shows you being another Fuji groupie with a biased view.

You may find it good enough. But there are many more that complain besides me. I would suggest you do a youtube search and find many others have problems too. So many problems with so many lenses for video.

I think you better keep shut if you’ve never used the video features on the X-T4 extensively. And NO i am not doing it wrong. It is the algorithm that s*cks my friend.

Sep 7, 2021*permalink

Heritage Cameras

Is it just me, or are the (auto-generated) subtitles in Turkish?

Jun 13, 2021permalink

What I took out of this piece was more the extent to which the aps-c mirrorless segment looks over-priced. Historically, the aps-c vendors have charged a huge premium for IBIS, which is pretty much standard on FF MILC. Plus, the trad vendors allow fairly wide access to a bigger range of lenses at different price points.

Again, aps-c lenses can be quite expensive against some of the FF options which often have wider equivalent apertures. Sure, they'll be sharp, but they should be because of the limited image circle.

The systems are not even that small, that only really kicks in with M43 or 1".

Jun 13, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

The benefit of aps-c over full frame narrowed when the huge price gap between the sensors disappeared.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

However the APS-C and micro 4/3 has its place, with smaller and lighter lenses combined with long reach if desired. Each to their own.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

@ Vit Adamek: Or you could use the same physical focal length with a larger sensor and make a crop, since there are full frame cameras that are as compact and light as some smaller sensor cameras. Each to their own, as you write.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Vit Adamek - The 'reach' advantage is also falling away.
These days there are plenty of FF cameras that even cropped to the same field of view retain more resolution than your MFT or APS-C camera.

Also your weight advantage does not exist any longer if you take equivalence to the matter.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

@Magnar W - indeed, the market segmentation where FF sensor == Pro == $$$$$ has now thankfully eroded, which a) asks the relevant question - how come aps-c prices are not reflecting costs better, and b) has allowed me to buy into FF.

Perhaps most of the vendors don't care, and aren't inclined to risk the main bright spot in their offerings, namely FF MILC and associated new lens systems.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

A Nikon Z 7 ii body costs approximately 3.5x as much as a Z 50 body. Why compare those two? Their sensors’ pixel densities are roughly equal. If a picture taken on a Z 7 ii and cropped down to APS-C the result is a 20.3 MP image. The Z 50 has a 20.9 MP sensor. Why do that? Super-telephoto work! Crop-sensor bodies make less sense when using wide angle, normal, or short telephoto lenses. But they are extremely useful when super-telephoto lenses are considered. Shorter, less expensive lenses are needed for crop-sensor cameras. With some subjects you can only get so close, so cropping is the only option anyways. It is for that reason that professional wildlife and bird photographers supplement their full frame bodies with crop-sensor bodies.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Johnny - APS-C is not reflecting cost better because of several reasons:

- Shift in production capacity of APS-C to FF.
Making production cost not go lower for APS-C but does for FF.
- Better yield of larger sensors due to improved manufacturing makes for less spill.
- Revenue earned (profit) in higher end FF cameras are basically subsidizing and financing lower end FF to make it more attractive to the mass.
- Money in this industry is not really being made by camera sales, but much by lens sales. Lenses for FF are generally spoken a little more expensive and do have a higher profit margin.

- R&D costs for an APS-C camera are not less then they are for FF or SMF. The most expensive part in any camera is its sensor, but many other components are just the same for any camera.

And so the largest differentiator in cost is the sensor
An APS-C sensor on average goes for $185 OEM.
An FF-Sensor on average goes for $295 to $350.
So the actual difference on average is only 100 to 150 dollars.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

-Con't-

Whereas they mostly sell a FF camera at 3 to 6 times the price of an APS-C camera. Making FF a more interesting market segment to invest in from the manufacturers point of view.

You can sell a lot less FF cameras while still being more profitable.
APS-C is a large volume but low profit segment. FF is a more luxury product with a much higher profit margin.

As sales volume is dropping so is revenue and profitability.
This is the reason why you see CaSoNikon moving away from APS-C and why they will keep on pushing FF. They want to take as many people on board as they can. But not at all costs.

Same for Fujifilm why it is now heavily investing into SMF and trying to attack FF by a lower price for SMF, in the end putting even more pressure on APS-C as price triples down.

CaSoNikon are forced to sell their FF cameras at a lower price point as well to keep hold onto their marketshare. And so they dump APS-C and reason why Fujifilm actually bites into their own tail.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

@Francis85 - 3-6x price of aps-c camera?? I've gone down the cheapskate route of FF-sensor dslr with a D750 and couldn't be happier. For my applications, much superior and cheaper than aps-c MILC.

If I want small, then the rx100 is pretty good too.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

@Magnar W

You did not get the point. Check i.e. weight of 600 equivalent lens for FF vs Micro 4/3 and then check the prices and overall weight for these combos. Even if you crop in with FF there is no direct proportions comparison.

Well saying that, I just ordered the BigOS Sigma 50-500 to use on my Canon 40D. Because I just love the photographic experience with this tank like equipment. Not best for hiking I guess but supplemented with my Panasonic GM1/GX9 with 12-32 pancake and other small and brighter lenses, i.e. 20mm 1.7, 45 1.8 etc., and the great and best value ultrawide angle zoom ef-s 10-18 I have all fields covered on cheap :-D

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

(unknown member)

@ Vit Adamek: I am talking about using the same physical focal length, and making a crop from the larger sensor to get the same image quality.

I am not talking about this confusing "equivalence" stuff, where you assume that longer focal length is needed for a bigger sensor. If you do so, though, the larger sensor will always win when comparing technical image quality.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

That is relative, in good light and with most people viewing stuff on small screens nowadays, you will be hard pressed to see any difference.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

@ Vit Adamek: I am not using my cameras under best conditions only

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Because the sensor isn’t the only factor when it comes to building a camera. You have custom chipsets, AF Motors, build material (Magnesium Alloy), Battery, card readers, connectors, LCD, EVF, and dials. All of these things add to the cost.

Also, if Sony has to customize the chip that will cost extra as well, so Fuji X-Trans likely has a higher cost than other Bayer sensors.

Of course you also have lens costs. The best lenses for the Fuji, are usually cheaper than the best lenses for the Full Frame Sony and Canon.

Then you will have people like Johnny who think just because their DSLR is full frame it will automatically beat an APS-C body. It won’t!

Sep 7, 2021*permalink

People like Johnny probably think that all cameras are compromises, and have different strengths and weakness, whose value depends on individual priorities against the cost of the system.

For what I normally want to do, my FF dslr is better and cheaper than an APS-C body (and yeh, I have a Fuji aps-c too).

People like FuzzyDice like straw men it seems.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

Boss of Sony

The Nikon and the Sony are the only cameras in this comparison that have a decent grip. When you’re travelling, or taking photos for hours, or even just walking outside, a grip become extremely useful. The Fuji has a lot of nice dials, but doesn’t have a decent grip because Fujifilm cares more about aesthetics than functionality.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Well ye, but you can add grip to fuji and likes if desired, and can't remove the "built in" one if needed. But I would generally agree with you.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

I mean my A7RIII has a so-so grip, and I added an L plate for like 30 bucks.

"Small grip" is the easiest thing to fix.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Phil Flash

I agree. When I was looking at upgrading my Sony A7s to the A7III, and then picked up the Nikon, I said to myself "Now THIS feels like a real camera" and I switched back to Nikon. Feel is subjective, but the Z bodies are solid and feel good in my hand.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Boss of Sony

I felt that way when I picked up the Panasonic G9. But it was over my budget.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

What? The X-T4 grip is great! The bottom portion comes out more so your bottom 3 fingers can cup the camera nicely. The top portion cuts away to give your index finger more room to move. However, if you want it deeper, there are several grip extenders fairly cheap for the Fuji bodies.

Sep 7, 2021*permalink

duchamp

What a shame to make it aps-c only group and not cropped sensor group. As such m43 Panolympus are entirely out of the picture.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

b m

The Fuji way too big for an APS-C, the Nikon I didn't even know existed, the Canon lacks an EVF and not many good native lenses, if you add larger lenses plus adaptor defeats the purpose of a small and light camera.
I have the a6400 because it had EVF and good native lenses. But I hate the menu and I prefer image quality out of Canon . So there is no perfect camera. Canon could make one with good EVF and more native lenses and it would be a winner by all accounts

Jun 13, 2021permalink

I used the A6400 for a while and eventually moved to the A7RIII for better controls and sensor, among other things.

I miss the A6400 tracking, but man oh man does Sony cut down their APSC bodies.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

only reasons for APS-C to exist:
1. Significantly smaller/lighter
2. significantly less expensive
than FF gear and
3. decent enough IQ and functionality.

Canon EOS M delivers on all 3 counts. Fuji too big and expensive. Nikon no system at all. Sony bodies too expensive and ergo problematic. Canon clear winner for me.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

One can get an X-S10/X-T30 which for most part are also superior to Canon for a similar price but way better lens line up

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

(unknown member)

EOS M is a dead end once Canon releases RF mount APS-C cameras. Not even existing M lenses will adapt anymore.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Canon EOS RF will remain FF. Canon will never launch an RF body with APS-C sensor. No matter how much Canon Rumors guy and a few forum denizens believe in it.

EOS M will remain as Canon APS -C system. Extremely compact, very capable and very affordable.

I can fully recommend EOS M/EF-M system to anyone lookkng for max. bang for the buck - at a budget less than 1/4 of FF.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

main problem with Fuji is lens pricing. Nice lenses, but only crop. nice, equivalent FF lenses can be had for the same money.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

BackToNature1

@nonolet

"main problem with Fuji is lens pricing."

Since the target market would mostly go for $1,000 or less Cameras, Fuji does have the FUJIFILM X-S10 Mirrorless Digital Camera with 16-80mm Lens for $1,499.00. You could then add the FUJIFILM XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens for an additional $799.00. That pricing relative to what you are getting compared to the rest of the APS -C systems seem to be an decent deal.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

@Nicolas,

Honestly, I think EF-M has a better APSC lens lineup for today's market. Fuji covers more ground, but their lenses are stupidly expensive vs FF, large, and heavy.

With EF-M, you get lenses that are priced for a more casual buyer with weight and size that is perfect for travel. If you're going to drop $1,700 on a body and $1,000+ for your zoom lenses, why wouldn't you just go FF?

Jun 13, 2021permalink

@backtonature1

nothing wrong with the Fuji X-S10 plus the 2 zooms. Except, too large and too expensive for a crop kit.

compare any Fuji camera + lens combo to an EOS M50 (II) with 11-22 + 18-150 zooms and 22/2.0 or 32/1.4. that's the absolute sweet spot in terms of APS-C systems in terms of capability, IQ, handling/performance, size and price on entite market today. Perfect travel kit. More than enough for any normal income amateur.

And even with M6 II, the same lens kit will be more compact and a lot less expensive than any Fuji combo - with very little "sacrifice", if any.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

steviewa

@nonolet
Canon will do apsc r mount no doubts about it, when is the question

Jun 13, 2021permalink

i don't think Canon will ever launch EOS R crop sensor camera. Except a few "super35" video cams with RF mount. But not stills/hybrid EOS R models. It just does not make sense. FF cameras after R3 will all have 40+ MP and crop mode. no need for extra crop sensor R bodies or "RF-S" lenses.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

@BrentSchumer:
As I see, the cheap Fujifilm's lenses are rather similar to the Canons. The biggest difference is that you can not get "premium" options on EF-M and probably will nether do..

Some lenses are big, some others are lightweight. An XC 14-45 is about 150g while the XF 16-55 F2.8 (tack sharp wide opened) is about 650g

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

for less money than "higher grade" Fuji X lenses cost, i can get and use any Canon EF glass ever made - from 50/1.8 STM for € 99 all the way to L lenses. Especially if bought second hand - in near mint condition from folks who can't wait to spend a lot on money buying RF glass. To me a much more rational and better route than spending lots of money on Fuji X crop-only glass.

Jun 13, 2021*permalink

Fuji only has a few cheap primes and one XC zoom, with other zooms and most primes generally way more expensive than other mounts.

18-135/150mm -
Z: None LOL
E: $550
EF-M: $500
XF: $900

I've rented the XF version, and it's nothing special.

UWA Zoom -
Z: None LOL
E: $830 (Tamron, F2.8) $800 (Sony, F4)
EF-M: $400 (F4-F5.6)
XF: $1,000 (F4)

Jun 13, 2021permalink

steviewa

@nonolet
Which bodies will give you 30mpx ish in crop mode that cost around 2k

Jun 14, 2021permalink

@nonolet: well, one can use, as well, every EF on Fujifilm's. There are loads of (good) adapter with full support (electronic, AF...)

Jun 14, 2021permalink

Personally I won't use 3rd party adapters. Especially not, when I get native Canon EOS M bodies and native Canon EF-M glass and native Canon EF/EF-S lenses with native Canon adapter - all for a lot less money than Fuji gear.

Also much dislike the Fuji retro design and UI philosophy. It was the best solution for analog-mechanical cameras. It is not for digital cameras. Don't see any reason why my 2021 camera should look like a 1960s camera with mono-functional dials and aperture rings.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

@nonolet:
As far as I know, thoses 3rd party adapters works just well and got regularly software updates.

The dials on the recent Fujifilm's X-T can be configured to act like on a "modern" DSLR. And the X-S10 got PASM out of the box.

Cheers

Jun 14, 2021*permalink

unhappymeal

@Brent I fully agree. EF-M is missing only a few things on the lens side to be perfect for its intended use:

-a cheap but decent zoom that goes out to 350 mm
-a good (I didn’t say fast) standard zoom

For everything else you can just adapt EF and call it a day. On the body side, they need something with IBIS and an EFC shutter. The amount of shutter shock on the M6 II with telephoto lenses is truly atrocious.

As for Nikon Z DX, an 18–140 is on the roadmap and a DX UWA is also rumoured to be in development. Add a few primes and it will be as fleshed out as EF-M, but share a mount with Z FX.

Jun 15, 2021*permalink

I hear this bunk about the Fuji lens prices a lot, it is simply not true. The majority of the X-Mount lenses are under $1000 and that includes most of their best prime lenses.

If you look at the Canon, Nikon, or Sony, most of their best lenses are nearly doubt that or more. Plus, many of the Fuji lenses are smaller than what Nikon, Canon, or Sony have.

Also, if you buy used Fuji lenses, that ceiling is now around $600 for most lenses and some are $400 max.

Sep 7, 2021*permalink

Zinch

The Fuji plays in a completely different league. It should be compared to FF cameras IMO.

If you are not going to buy expensive (and big and heavy) FF f1.4 and/or f1.2 lenses, the Fuji has a lot of sense. It's the rationale I made when I chose Fuji half a year ago.

In my case the X-T3: a lot of high end specs and features and a very enjoyable UI cheaper than an entry level FF and you only lose 1/3 of a stop of dof control and noise with the f1.4 lenses against FF f1.8 lenses. You also get the colors and jpeg output of the Fuji wich I like a lot.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Many Fuji f/1.4 (f/2.1 equivalent) lenses are more expensive than FF f/1.8 or f/2 lenses though.

Jun 14, 2021permalink

unhappymeal

And those XF f/1.4 lenses usually have slow focusing motors or are not weather sealed.

Jun 15, 2021permalink

Umm, 16mm, 18mm, 23mm, 27mm, 33mm, 35mm, and 10-24mm all have Weather Sealed models now. Granted, the 23mm, 27mm, 35mm versions are F/2 or larger.

Keep in mind Fuji also has a 56 F/1.2 and a 50 F/1.0, as well as third party F/0.85 lenses, so shallow Depth of Field is achievable.

As for equivalent, the 1.4 will always allow more light than a native 1.8 with similar angles of view.

Sep 7, 2021*permalink

Nikita66

The X-T4 seems like a v nice camera, but I just don't want to pay that much.
I've always liked Nikon ergonomics and wish they'd take APS-C seriously.
IMO, a 2.3m "dot" EVF is unacceptable. Shocked that everyone is okay with this. What's that, 0.75 mp?
That Canon charges extra for an awkwardly mounted EVF is a deal breaker.
I have a6400, and sadly, I hate it. I don't mind the ergonomics, it just behaves too much like a computer, and computers ain't fun to me.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

wjan

I own Z50 and its 2.3M dots EVF is absolutely fine for me. I also have a Nikon Z6ii with its 3.6M dots EVF and even if I can see some resolution difference between both, the difference in experience is not that big. But maybe it is so just because I didn't use any of the high-end 5-8M dots EVF. Who knows, maybe they are really like a world apart.
The main problem of Z50 is not its specs, it is the missing APS-C lenses in Z mount.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Nikita66

I agree the lack of DX lenses has always been an indication that Nikon didn't take APS-C seriously (and smaller bodies and lenses). Imagine if they'd worked on a super compact APS system instead of the dopey "1" system.

Jun 14, 2021*permalink

You can get a used X-T4 for $1300 to $1400 on Fred Miranda’s forums. So it’s cheaper than the 6600 that’s for sure.

Sep 7, 2021permalink

BackToNature1

Well there is certainly an bias tone being seen here, but it isn't' coming from Chris. Also, FF lens heavier than APS-C lens doesn't necessarily always equate to Heavy.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Good video. İn my mind, you could easily add high end M43 for a crop round up.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Paul JM

Oh. Perhaps they should then include iPhones as well ?

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Revenant

The size difference between APS-C and 4/3" is so small that it makes perfect sense to compare them.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

gfrensen

I don't want to start a war here, but M4T is not doing very well. There are some great cameras out there, they take great pictures and even greater videos, but it is not selling well. I do hope I'm wrong but I think that they will end up in a niche market, if they make it at all.
And what is even more, many M4T cameras are as large or larger then FF cameras and a lot of them come in the same price range, the same goes for the good lenses. So what is the main reason to go M4T? In the end there is no good reason any more. I know there are some small cameras and lenses that are not to expensive, but in the end M4T is loosing to APS-C and FF.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Paul JM

Ten years ago I did buy a MFT camera but I have gifted it to my children so they can photograph their finger painting

Jun 13, 2021permalink

This is supposed to be a comparison of “high-end” APS-C mirrorless cameras. The Nikon Z50 is Nikon’s “high-end” APS-C mirrorless camera because it is Nikon’s ONLY APS-C mirrorless camera. The other three are much more expensive, and really belong to a higher category relative to the Z50.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Merida

Nikon Z50: $856.95
Canon EOS M6 Mark II: $850

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Not in my area. There is a $150 CDN difference with kit lens at my favourite local store. The price differences with the Fujifilm XT-4 and Sony A6600 are quite a bit more.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

cosmicnode

The Canon requires a additional cost EVF.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

Revenant

As Chris explained, it's not a comparison of high-end cameras, but of "the best camera each system has to offer". As such, it's a valid comparison, but I'm not sure how useful it is.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

To be fair, the Z50 and Z-DX is dead on arrival and should be excluded from any comparison.

Jun 13, 2021permalink

j tokarz

My Z50 wasn't dead on arrival, its working great.

Jun 14, 2021permalink