Fujifilm X-T4: People are MAD
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2024
- KEH has the best prices on used gear & there's NO risk selling your cameras or lenses! sdp.io/keh14 + 5% off coupon "TNC20"
Win Tony's drone at freesdp.com
Tony previews the Fujifilm X-T4 (sdp.io/xt4) & compares it to the Fuji X-T3, Fuji X-H1, Canon EOS R, Sony a7 III, and Nikon Z6. In some areas, it really is the best mirrorless camera you can buy - but is it overpriced?
Filmed with the EOS R: sdp.io/EOSR + sdp.io/C24f14
Music provided by Epidemic Sound (affiliate): bit.ly/2MwDey7
I'm mad it doesn't come in champagne gold!!!!
OMAR GONZALEZ! - star struck.
I'm also mad it doesn't come in oxblood or maroon!!!
Actually a gold and black version would be sick as hell.
Hi Omar, I sub to your channel too. 👍
@@Bob-Horse thanks Andrew. Appreciate that!
Biggest complain about Fujifilm from Tony point of view: they dont offer a free trip to Hawaii or New York...
Hit the nail on the head.
SHIT hahahahhahaha
You're disgusting
We haven't seen the Fuji X-T4 first impression videos yet..... ;-)
@@KoushikBar spot on!
As an X-T2 shooter I'm very excited to pick up an X-T3 for super cheap next month!
Me too! We're like vultures
What's super cheap? It's been 1,299 for the body for awhile and it'll probably stay that way
@@SolidMGSnake bruh 900$ used so if mrsp goes down 1300 to 900-1000$ used will be forced to be much much priced like 600-700$ ball park it happened to xt-2 so i will happen again
Assuming the XT-4 will be more expensive than the XT-3 giving the upgrades it has, the XT-3’s price probably isn’t going anywhere. 🤷♂️
Lol I’m excited to get a xt-1, unless getting the xt-2 is worth it? What do you fuji owners think?
"The X-T4 is Fuji's top of the line camera, which is mid-range compared with other manufacturers" *goes on naming cameras with higher resolutions and full frame sensors.
I think you might have forgotten the GFX line, specially the GFX100. Is that mid range? How does it compare to other cameras? You want performance, speed and fast autofocus: go with the XT line. You want the highest image quality possible, go for the GFX line.
Or you want both IQ and performance, go for a7riv or a9ii or an r5. Fuji does not exist in a vacuum
Mohammed Asadullah Khan are you saying that image quality is not possible from an APSC camera? I think that a lot of people are getting fantastic image quality from 12 megapixel, tiny sensors on smartphones. 35 mm sensors are not all the same and do not a guarantee of image quality.
@@The.Urban.Birder Not even close to the IQ from the GFX line.
@@johnsg8 Which has neither the performance nor the lens selection for action photography, which is what Sony offers: acceptable IQ with impeccable AF performance and huge native telephoto lens selection. Do you see how that undermines both the X-T and the GFX lines?
Mohammed Asadullah Khan blah blah blah don’t buy the damn Fuji then Khan, continue using your Sony’s for sports and we’ll continue using our inferior Fujis🙄😆
I am not a pro so I try to not fall for the new technology too often. At the moment, I am very happy with my X-T2 and 3 F2 WR lenses, and my Pentax K-1.
The X-T2 screen if perfect for me when shooting church events and family parties. I don't film myself, I don't do much video and I don't vlog.
The K-1, despite what people think about it's AF and FPS, still produces high image quality. I leave it to those blessed with more money than I get the latest and fastest toys.
My flip screen of Nikon D5500 broke in middle of an event 4 years ago(later fixed by warrenty) .. Then I bought Nikon d750 and then nikon z6 which both has tilt screen. Personally I prefer the tilt screen for photoshoot, it's better and feels more convinient while shooting.. The swivel flip screen is only useful if your take selfie or vlog or over head shot, rest of times tilt screens are better.
I tend to disagree but only if the manufacturer has thought of such situations and addressed the durability... As both Canon and Olympus have on theirs.
Both Tilt and flip screens both work very well in my use case. And as an arena shooter, I find I can get both low and high angles with these screens that would otherwise result in me climbing fences or crouching down.
Thanks for the preview. And for me is the other way around. No flip screen = no way. The flexibility it provides is priceless.
For mine, the best part is the driving down of the prices of the older models. Just stepped up to the XT-2 for a reasonable cost - really sensational stills IQ.
You are wrong with the tilt screen vs full articulated. Both have advantages and inconveniences but for a street photographer/videographer that wants to be low profile the tilting screen is 1000 times better. No point to argue on that. After having tried both systems for years with Panasonic I can tell you that once you flip out the articulating screen your discretion is gone. Experienced it hundreds of times . The Gx7 was sweet for that while the GX8 and GH5 are horrible if you want to take candids. Now if you are not into this kind of photography/video the articulating is great.
Fuji XH1 is definitely Not “plasticky”...I do agree that it’s bulky. Can’t wait to see how this magnetic ibis will compare.
people have strange problems on those internetz...
typical 1st world problems)
flip screen does impact negatively for waist level shooting. The screen is to the side not inline with the lens. That is why some people prefer tilt screen over flip screen.
Flip screen is all some only for web camera use or vlog, in pro use tilt was more useful, in video especially
Don't get your reasoning on iPhone simply having more dots there for better. It has a much, much larger screen. Should calculate the DPI for a fair comparison
EXACTLY
Assuming the xt-4's screen is similar in physical size to the xt-3:
The iphone 11 pro max (10m dots) has a DPI of about 458 ppi.
The Fujifilm xt-4 (1.6m dots) has a DPI of about 360 ppi.
IPHONE: 2688x1242 resolution with 6.5" diagonal
XT-4 GUESSTIMATE: 900x600 resolution with 3" diagonal
I mean though, the iPhone screen is not more than 6 times bigger.. so kind of obvious that it wins in DPI as well.
Also, size was a part of his argument, pictures would look better on the camera if the screen was bigger even with the same DPI.. a critique directed at all camera makers.
You're missing a big point. Many users (or maybe most of them) from Fujirumor were asking for the S1H or XT100 screen, which allows you to tilt AND flip the screen. It's the best of both worlds and that's why so many users are upset that we get this flippy screen instead.
Nate Kong Thank you! I’ve been saying this very thing for a while now. To me, the obvious solution is to implement something like on the X-T100. Sadly, the X-T4 will never be in my future as the traditional style of fully articulating screen is terrible for what I do.
The short conclusion of this video: X-T4 is not good enough because with APS-C camera without some f1.8 zoom lenses you can't get your background Tony enough
Hey Tony, you left one of the biggest advantages of the XT4 vs the full frame cameras out of the comparison : The price of the lenses. You only compared the body prices.
Canon RF 70-200 = $2700
Sony 70-200 G Master = $2600
Fuji 50-140 = $1700,
canon rf 85mm f/1.2l usm = $2700
FUJIFILM XF 56mm f/1.2 R = $1000
the full frame lens is bigger and costs $1700 more.
Besides Sony, the other full frame cameras do not have a lot of good small lenses. Fuji sure has few big lenses but they have good and pro quality lenses that are small.
Compare crop lenses to crop lenses, Fuji is $$$. Fuji lenses are just as expensive as full frame glass. Six of Fuji lenses are just as expensive as Zeiss Batis or Gmaster lenses. Fuji lenses aren’t cheap especially if you compare it to other crop lenses.
But those lenses are not giving you the same results, therefore, not the same lenses. Those more expensive lenses combined with full frame cameras are going to give you less noise, more DR, and more background blur with the option of stopping down and getting identical results to a Fuji. The Canon RF 85mm can also resolve upwards of 50mp.
Nikon's equivalent to Fuji 50-140 f/2.8 would be 70-200 f/4 and new it is $1,400. So $300 cheaper.
Nikon's equivalent to Fuji 56 f/1.2 is 85 1.8 S, which is $800. So another $200 cheaper. And there is an excellent 85 1.8G which used goes around $300. So price advantage of Fuji lenses is a myth because one needs to understand which lenses are equivalent.
The advantage of Fuji lenses in availability of some small f/2 primes like 23mm f/2. Nikon does not yet have anything similar in size.
Don't forget aperture is also cropped in crop system, so Fuji 50-140 f/2.8 is more like 75-210 f4.5? Don't get me wrong, I want to get into Fuji system too(love that film simulation and the dials), but Fuji 100-400 is hard to beat against Sony 200-600.
and the prices are with discount not release prices 🤦🏽♂️
Tony, thanks for this review. I want to say that I’ve been shooting since the mid 50’s, having gone through endless camera systems along the way. I chose Fugifilm at this stage of my life for the lightness. Your argument for other full-frame cameras caused me to reflect on whether I made a mistake and in that, for my needs, haven’t. I’m not a professional but I can say I am at the personal end of the spectrum as to why I’m still shooting photos, essentially for my pleasure, not for financial reasons. So the smaller sensor works very well. If I was shooting professionally, I would have to go with the full frame for reasons you mentioned. For pleasure, I love the fugi system for its results, light weight and regarding lenses, smaller, at least to date.
A fully articulated screen is not panacea, and there are legitimate reasons why photographers may not want them for their needs. Stop acting like you're the only person that's used a fully articulated screen, most everyone who's had a digital camera has had one at some point. I've used them and dislike the extra motion/size they induce when you want to do something so simple as a low-level discreet shot. The simplicity of the old screen was brilliant, this is just a feature that should have been reserved for a more video-focused body like the X-H line.
What you forget is that xt line up is adored by street photographers, having it flip out to the side draws attention. I hate the screen on the EOSr , it draws attention. I can use my mobile phone with wifi if I need a self portrait
The only concern I have with a flip screen is an L bracket getting in the way. Of course I imagine as more and more manufacturers start implementing flip screens on their cameras L bracket designs will also evolve to accommodate them.
Then stop being lazy you want everything done for you. This is the craft of photography at your fingertips you can go on Amazon buy bunch of parts and build your own bracket adapter
Exactly. Oooh... all the video bloggers out there need a flippy screen. Screw everyone else.
I love how you say the XT4 is almost the same price as the EOS R which is full frame... and then 5 minutes later you throw EOS R in the ocean because it's no good XD. I'm not a pro nor need it so I won't be getting it, but I'm getting that new X100V on Thursday! Super stoke about it!
I got one too, the first package one ! XD are you getting the same ?
The X100V is Fuji’s truest X camera. XT4 is like giving what most people want in a camera.
@@zeissiez Huh? Are you saying that the Fuji spirit resides more in the X100V compared to X-T4, because X-T4 is just a product made to please people, whereas the X100V is the camera Fuji really just want to make?
@@akirafan28 I don't even understand his argument. The reason why companies make different versions of the same product is satisfy the various needs of their diverse customer base. The type of photographer who picks the X100v might not go for the xt4 which is targeted at hybrid shooters. So one product you like does not make the other less valuable.
when is spock going to send evil tony back to the mirror dimension?
People complaining about the flip screen... “we don’t want more functionality or versatility” ... 🤦🏻♂️
You're actually losing some of that functionality. However, I know that Fuji had designed a screen that could tilt and flip, I wish they had used this technology on the XT-4.
@SwitchRich yeh but you can frame yourself without having to buy an external monitor which seems like a massive advantage. You can still use the screen without flipping it out and have your centralized screen
ShaneYetti hahahaha
10:18. Not sure I follow your logic here. "I love it, so you will too." Nah. Haha. People have different preferences. I've used a fully articulating screen many times for photography and absolutely hate the usability of it. Is it handy for making my UA-cam videos? You bet. For my real estate work, wedding work and photography in general, the tilting screen of my X-T2 is much more enjoyable. If they had implemented a design similar to the X-T100 or S1H, I think it would have satisfied both camps.
I shoot real estate also, and fully agree about the 3-way tilting LCD. Its also better when I shots of racing car drivers sitting in the cockpits of formula cars (e.g., Indy Cars) from holding the camera directly overhead with the LCD tilted out from the top.
@@stephenscharf6293 Hey, Stephan! Can't speak to shooting racing, but I utilize the tilt screen on every real estate shoot. I love it! The flippy screen would be annoying for that application (for me, at least).
@@KentuckyMan30 Hi KentuckyMan30! I agree fully; the flippy screen would be, in a single acronym, a PITA for RE/Arch photography. Not only would be a hassle fiddling with it, but it would be a time-suck as well. BTW, I know your YT channel and enjoy your content.
When the screen is flipped out, it makes it a lot harder to position the AF point by touching the LCD, which is the fastest way to move your AF point.
First, you have to move your right hand away from the grip to the left, after AF point positioning, you have to move your right hand back to the grip. With a tilt screen, you can touch the LCD to position AF point in no time with the right hand holding the grip.
The LCD of Lumix S1H and Sony A-mount A99ii can make everyone happy though. You can use it both like a tilt screen and flip screen.
If I have to live with a flip-out screen, I'm gonna dream about the Smart Controller AF-ON button on the Canon 1dx mkIII, which makes AF point positioning as efficient as touching the LCD.
Why are you so depending on autofocus this is the craft of photography. And those times you should have no problem dealing with manual focus
Okay, Tony, don't be that guy that thinks if everyone could just see what you see they'd all agree with you. No reasonable person will deny that there are benefits to the flippy screen. But don't assume that people who prefer the 3-way tilt are just ignorant newbies who have never tried a flippy screen. There are legitimate downsides to the flippy screen. Dismissing them or ignoring them just generates hostility.
one drawback of the flip-out screen is that it is much harder to use a L-bracket on such a body. L-brackets that are compatible with flip-out screens do exist, but they tend to be bigger and bulkier.
while mounted vertically on a tripod, the flip-out screen also might not have the range of motion available to work.
Top five problems with the X-T4 according to this guy.
(1) Does not come with built-in bottle opener.
(2) No Google Assistant integration.
(3) Cannot survive a fall when thrown off a bridge from a moving vehicle. Relatedly, no parachute included in box with kit lens.
(4) Fuji. That's only four letters. Canon and Nikon BOTH have five letters. That's 25% more letters.
(5) No 64K video.
"...upcoming R5 will blow everyone else away..."
What happened to "Marketing BS"? ... :-)
Yes if you got 5000$ to spend
Remember, Canon always cripples their FF's...they still have to sell $50,000 4k Cinema cameras.
denault3985 which canon camera is 50k? 😂 c700 FF is 33k c500II is 16k
Lmao
@Dan C not just edit. How are they screening 8k at 100%?
I'm not a professional photographer or prosumer or even a even a high end amateur, so the main reason I would buy a camera would be for the fun and enjoyment of the experience. The fact that Tony, who can chose virtually any camera he wants, chooses the Fuji X-T3(4) for his recreational shooting is good enough for me. I always thought the X-T1/2/3 cameras were beautiful, nostalgic, and they are now capable of doing just about anything one could ask from it. I'm sold.
You can’t promise we will love it for street photography, since that’s based on the fallacy that your taste is everyone else’s. Everyone is different. I have tilt and fully articulated screen cameras, and I always use the tilt screen camera for street photography since the subject never sees the screen. When I use a fully articulate screen, the subject often notices and stops the behaviour I’m trying to photograph. Oh, and I broke a GH5 screen at the hinge 5 weeks after it was released. Again, I’m glad you haven’t had it happen to you, but your experience isn’t everyone’s
Ironically, the flip screen is what has convinced me to save up my money to get the X-T4, instead of the X-T3, lol!
because you are not photographer, are you? Good news for you vloggers of course. Fuji betrayed photographers :(
@@mavieskizz I was a photographer for many years, shooting with Nikon DSLR and "the trinity", but damn they got heavy! For pure photography purposes I'd still choose DSLR with a non-digital viewfinder, but now I am at a stage in life where I want to have lighter, more portable gear for casual travel photography, and yes, for videography as well, which is why I am looking at Fujifilm and also maybe Olympus. I've used Nikon for a long time, and I loved my D800, which was the best camera I've ever owned. But I felt like I needed a change, so I decided to sell it with two of my lenses, and only a few short weeks later we went into lockdown and now all plans for buying new camera gear are completely on hold, since it's not like we can travel anywhere anyway, lol! What a nightmare.
@@BeckyTregear Technology has advanced a lot. The age of DSLR is closing and there are many advantages in its electronic displays. xt-4 is a perfect machine for you with its flip screen if you are going to shoot vlogs. I am interested in street photography and rarely shoot videos. Scenes on the street change fast. You need to take a quick frame without noticing the right angle on street. The flip screen in this scenario is cumbersome and unusable. But tilt screen is perfect.
Crazy glare/reflection off the big screen in your new set. Need to adjust the lighting ...
New set-up looks sharp otherwise.
The most annoying feature on my Olympus EM5 II is the side flip screen. Its much harder for me to compose an image with the screen off to one side and not in line with the lens. Has it ever been useful? sure but it has been fare more annoying than useful. The argument that I could just not flip the screen to the side is not valid because than I also can't tilt it to view from above or below and this is what I need a tilting screen for.
I feel the same. Love my Olympus EM5 II but I only use the flippy screen for the (rare) selfie or when filming myself playing piano. Most times I keep the screen folded back in the protected position and use the viewfinder for stills or flat against the camera body if I want to use touch focus. For any situation where I will possibly need to hold the camera high (like in a crowd) or low (stealthy street pictures) I take my SONY a6300 with its tilt screen - much more practical.
Oh man Tony, I know you are a sony-man, so I was surprised that the first part of your video was rather objectively , but the rest of it is disapointing sony biased again .Why do you call the XT4 a midrange camera?
There is no doubt that it is the very top-end APS-C camera in the market today, blowing away the rest of the competitors in every single aspect!! And with this specs it is also competing with the most of the top end FF cameras out there, including sony. If the XT4 was a FF camera with the same specs otherwise, I am sure that it would also blow a away many of the FF mirrorless cameras out there, also in regard to ergonomics and handling, built quality, color science, EVFs and touch screens, menu Systems, etc. So you find the Fujifilm XH1 feeling plasticly-yreally? I had a Sony A9 for a few months, and this was feeling really plasticly compared with the amazingly well built XH1!! Even the EVF and the touch screen were superior to the highly prized Sony A9.
Furthermore, you complain about the size and the relatively low resolution of the LCD-screen? May I ask you about the specs of the LCD-screens of top-end Sony FF-bodies like the A7rIV or the A9II? They have the exactly the same size(3"), but even lower resolution!!! (1.440.00 Sony vs. 1.620.00 Fuji). And the screen of the XT4 is fully articulating!-a feature many V-Loggers have asked for, and not in the first line for making selfies!! So which camera has the better LCD screens? The 'midrange' Fuji for 1700 bugs or the top-end Sonys for over 4000 bugs? And the price will drop also.
In my opinion, the Fujifilm XT4 is in no way a midrange camera exept for its price!! It is superior in many aspects to many of the mirriorless stuff out there. Of course it has some limitations compared to FF cameras, but they are not as big as many people think!!
@@jaegerschtulmann Dumb comment, Off to bed kiddo,school day tomorrow.
Fuji considers their top end the X-Pro so yeah the XT is mid range
It's objectively a mid-range camera based on the price and sensor. There's really nothing to take personal about it. I have no relationship or attachment to Sony... this was filmed on a Canon. As I stated, I love the X-T3 and I've already ordered an X-T4 for my own use. And yes, we've complained about the TERRIBLE rear screen on the Sony's: ua-cam.com/video/azAqpMAvgNw/v-deo.html
@@TonyAndChelsea
4K 60p with crop 1.18 or without crop for full frame?
The 3+ year old Sony a6300 has a full stop more dynamic range at base iso, where landscape photographers make their bread and butter, than the XT-3, which has the same sensor as the XT-4. Can't believe they are releasing a camera in 2020 with a base iso of 160.
Flippy screen makes sense. Sometimes when conducting an interview in a small room, the camera is up against the wall and it is not possible to stand behind it to see the screen👍
Very familiar with this exact problem. Flattening the tripod legs to squeeze out every last mm of space
That's what hot-shoe mounted displays are for.
@@GoneToHelenBach Yea, cause that's what I want to do, spend more money.
Happens to me at work all the time!
@@DarrinHowells I bought a used hot-shoe mount monitor on Ebay for £18.00
So you don't want to spend more money but you presumably participate in photography, which is inherently expensive, and you're watching a video about a new camera. 🙄
I personally like x-t3 screen design or other screens that don't swing out on the side. I couldn't tell you exactly why but I just don't like the screen swinging out to the side
I hate "flippy" screens. They snag cables, clash with or don't work at all with L brackets, confuse my perspective. Funny how we've had options in so many things we buy... but when it comes to cameras we're stuck with one or the other. I would NOT buy this one.
Derek Midgley -
I won’t be surprised if it sells better than the X-T3
Also he claims APSC has no size advantage over FF but ignores the fact that lenses for APSC are smaller and lighter.
But they're not. They are smaller and lighter when they give you equivalently worse results. You can't cheat physics. Look at the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 compared to a 24-70mm f/2.8 on full frame. Both give similar results for different sensor sizes and they're about the same sizes.
@@TechnoBabble First of all: Yeah that's absolutely true. If you make a lens smaller you'll have to sacrifice maximum (equivalent) aperture for rquivalent focal lengths. So a lot of APS-C or even more so MFT lenses will be physically smaller, but also slower. However quite a few people are fine sacrificing aperture for a more compact lens design. And in here comes another factor: optical quality. More compact/slower lens designs on Full Frame often tend to be cheaper lenses with worse optical quality (chromatic abberration, distortion, flaring, ...).
So if what you actually want is a more compact set of lenses with high optical quality you propably want an APS-C system, as for full frame you would be limited to lower-end lens options from most manufacturers.
Then again there will also be a lot of people who disagree with that and want larger, faster lenses, which is just as valid.
So as always it depends on the individual. For some people an APS-C system will actually yield a size advantage when keeping in mind which type of lenses they might want.
That's my opinion on the matter anyways.
@@emptystring6833 you're entire retort was based on what a person might prefer. Nobody was talking about anything subjective. He said that APS-C has a size advantage, I told him that that was only true because you sacrifice image quality. There are also plenty of VERY good and not insanely expensive full frame lenses that already exist that can be adapted as well as lenses that are simply much higher end than anything for APS-C.
@@emptystring6833 You nailed it with your comment. And for the reasons you gave, the Fuji X series is significantly lighter than full frame.
I do own both myself, flip and tilt, and tilt makes your setup SO much more discrete. Articulate/flip automatically grows your footprint significantly, and if you're a low angle shooter, like parents, shooting from hip level is quite common, and a minor tilt does not grow your footprint at all.... that said, parents can use the flippy for family portraits, it's somewhat helpful but by the time you back away from the camera.... not really. If you cant figure out the advantages of a tilt screen, you probably havent used it enough. Removing/Packing the camera bag, you dont even need to close the tilt screen all the way, good luck leaving your articulating screen open and stuffing it in your bag. There are obviously advantages of both systems, Canon literally makes both types of screens, fuji makes both types, not everyone is a youtuber, and dealing with an articulating screen all day long can get finnicky.
Well done Fuji, really fantastic upgrades! I will say I love the flip up down and out screen of my XT100. I think this style screen would have divided opinion less. However, I do appreciate the Canon/Pany style flip screen can fold back on itself to protect the screen which is a big plus.
Yes, by any objective standard, the x-t4 will be excellent.
However, I found the x-t3 to be just heavy enough to make shooting with one hand uncomfortable for long periods. The x-t4 may be even worse.
I prefer a tilt screen because it stays behind the camera and can be pushed up faster. It also allows more room on the right side of the camera, so the controls don't have to be pushed under the base of the thumb.
I wouldn't be complaining about this if the x-pro3 hadn't been gimped. I only think a center-mounted viewfinder makes sense for long, heavy lenses.
Props to them for replicating Panasonic's boost IS, legitimately excellent feature.
After this video, I think I can use my Xt-3 five more years.
5:45 - Well that didn't age well...
A flippy screen is the reason I'm finally getting this camera.
As an xt2/xh1 owner and photographing 99% of the time, I see nothing here worth the upgrade and a few things against an upgrade (though I'm happy for Fuji technical success).
People will always look for a way to find fault in something, it's like they feed off it. It just shows that in the end, you can't please everyone. I'm definitely getting this day one though.
Brave Usang 🎵All I want is the perfect cameraah🎵
@@listonheinz9103 That's the thing..there's no such thing as the perfect camera lol
The flippy screen ist for videographers the tilty screen for photographers. They should release separate cameras
Then people would complain about Fuji having too many product lines and dividing the consumer base.
Aymaan Sumandi The „consumer base“ IS diverse, it is photographers and videogs. They have different needs
@@hailynewma9122 I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just saying that other manufacturers who have done just that have been criticized for encouraging market segmentation. So it's kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't. My 2 cents, at least.
What a load of rubbish, you just tilt them now you want to use them.
is it unfair to say the canon RP is cheaper at 950$ when on release it was 1299$? and only after time and people unwilling to buy the camera that canon had to update it and lower the price to be something more appealing?
though its still unfair comparison to see the 70-200 canon since its the smallest of it's kind when the nikon/sonys are going to be bigger- then again that canon 70-200 gets longer when zoomed in and might looks as smaller as shown in the video. or its wider because its full frame, or heavier??
it is unfair but it is the a competition as we speak. Unfair, but pragmatic.
@@armandot9137 i can agree to that canon is about to surpass many brands to be on top.
funny he talks about fuji haters but I dont want to come off as someone like that :( but still wanna/gotta point out how some , not all, of the commentary is a bit bias, or wondering maybe its not as bias as i think it is.
another comment would be lens cost - full frame lens inherently are going to cost more. and seeing canon cheaper alternatives are just lens that I wouldnt want to use. but that prime 35mm with Optical lens stabilization is something im very fascinated with.
@@JayGrapherTh The fact that you are asking instead of claiming, and also pondering your own bias, puts you head and shoulders above brand fanboys.
@@JayGrapherTh Anyway: For equivalent results, full frame lenses are cheaper, generally. Lens manufacturers charge more for equivalent lenses in crop format. In terms of weight and size, it's pretty similar across formats, because it's a matter of optics. You need a large opening to let in extra light. What I mean by that is that a 24-70mm f2.8 lens for full frame will be similar in size as a 36-105mm f1.2 lens theoretically would be in 1.5x format.
@@smaakjeks hmm its not extra light, its just depth of field and "blurry" back ground that's the main difference. not how much light.
another example totally wrong is the "speed booster" cause you are not simulating full frame light in a APSC. you are simply squeezing more light in to a smaller area (sensor) and thats how you get more light with speed booster. NOT that full frame gets more light.
like a magnifying glass that focus light in to one spot.
i think you mixed the focal length cause in full frame lens is 24-70 2.8 while apsc is 18-55 f2.8 & thats how its always been made.
-in any case, better just have these lens have the T.stops as well to give proper information about how much light you are getting. haha
S1h screen is the best of both worlds - flip + tilt (2-way)
Panasonic FTW
Being landscape photographer who never shoots videos, I use a L-Bracket on tripod for portrait-orientation when I want to shoot a pano/stitch and this screen likely won't work well (if at all). The original 3 way screen X-T series has had from the beginning was perfect. I wouldn't say I am mad, or hate...just likely won't upgrade X-T3 to X-T4 ...but not sure I would anyway, X-T3 has worked very well and not really needing one. I am curious to see how photographers like me would deal with L-Bracket.
this is my fear as well mate. I live for my L bracket on all my cameras. Im sure there may be a way of engineering around this...I hope.
The XT4 is not Fuji’s top end camera, that would be the GFX 100. Comparing the XT line to full frame dosnt make sense to me. They serve different purposes and different people. It’s like comparing apples to jalapeños, they are both fruit but have very very different characteristics lmao.
Cesar Vargas good point!
Does this guy even know what he is talking about? Megapixels? More light in full frame sensors? XT-4 top end camera? Oh boy, give me some of that wine!
He clearly said this being Fuji's top end only matches other manufacturer's mid range. Full frame sensors also capture more light, maybe not per surface area unit, but the bigger sensor is able to accommodate a bigger image circle. Even then, at the same megapixel count, each pixel in a full frame sensor will capture more light than each pixel in a smaller senser.
Do you know what you are talking about? Or do you even listen? Do you even comprehend?
@@69elchupacabra69 First of all, the top end of Fuji is a GFX 100. Second, the "eye balls" of the full frame sensors have pretty much the same size as an aps-c. So no it doesn't gather more light per pixel. Light gathered by a sensor has to do with the build quality of the sensor, the processing power and many other things besides the size of it!
Do you capiche now?
@@megaskimming if you have two rectangles, one is 1.5x bigger than the other, and you divide both rectangles into equal number of subrectangles, then obviously the subrectangles of the bigger rectangle would also be 1.5x bigger, and therefore gather more light each.
Heck we don't even have to think about individual pixels. If you have two rectangles, and one is 1.5x bigger than the other, and you have a circle able to cover the bigger 1.5x rectangle, then the bigger rectangle will always be able to cover more surface area of the circle. The smaller rectangle will only cover equal surface area of the circle as the bigger rectangle if the circle is small enough to fit the smaller rectangle.
Again, in terms of per unit surface area, both will gather same light, but if you talk about per pixel or overall sensor surface area, then ff will always gather more light.
Even if you meant per surface area, your original comment mocking him for saying more light in FF sensors is misleading and unwarranted at best.
@@megaskimming light gathered by a sensor had nothing to do with build quality. It's basic physics: a bigger area gets more light than a smaller area. It's that simple.
Is not X-T4 the best all round camera they have to offer? Is either the X-H1 or the GFX100 a better comparrison to Canon Eos 1DXmk3/R, Nikon D/Z6, Sony A9mkII/A7RmkIV, Pentax K1mkII, Olympus OM-D E-M1x/mkIII or Panasonic S1H/R in both build and features?
I have cameras with both kinds of screens and I find myself rarely pulling them out of place so either will work for me.
More light is not gathered with 35mm sensors than APS-C. Sensors are not solar panels. Exposure values are equivalent per unit area.
I think they should have the flip screen on XH lines and not on XT
SeanKimStyle The XH line is probably dead. Nobody bought the first one.
@@falkensmaize it sold out at lower price point. They will be releasing xh2 in 2021
This camera is so tempting BUT I'm still a Sony guy right now. Thanks for your thoughts.
I for one am actually keen on the flippy screen. When we were travelling around Europe 5 years ago we didn't get very many photos of the two of us together, we got a couple of selfies with my iPhone or my husband's point and shoot pocket camera. I shot (and still shoot) on an X-Pro1 and took plenty of beautiful landscape and street shots. When we were on a bridge leaving Carcassonne a family asked us to take their picture with their camera which I did so then asked them to return the favour using my camera, what we got was a photo with brilliant colour reproduction, the fort in the background in perfect focus and us two a blur in the front. Really bloody annoying. Therefore I am eagerly looking forward to finally upgrading my camera body with this one. Our next holiday will have a few good selfies of me and my family amongst all my landscape shots.
Why bother watching this now that the official launch has just occurred? Possibly to just spot the Sony sponsored criticism I guess.
Fully articulated screens are excellent. Ideal for low angle / level portraits and protecting the screen in transit. As well as vlogging.
also keep in mind the XT3 and XT4 has the same guts and Fujirumors says the XT3 is getting a firmware update to match the AF improvement and other firmware goodies of the XT4
Can you spell IBIS?
Im kinda excited im not writing off the xt4 but then im still rocking my xt1 and have no complaints
All of the other UA-cam reviewers: X-T4 First Impressions!
Tony : X-T4 People are MAD (Hate in Thumbnail)
*SONY FANBOI TRIGGERED*
What
I'm a Canon DSLR user and I really miss the flip screen that my 60D had but my 7D2 and 5D4 lack. Shooting low angle landscapes or flower macros in the field without being able to turn the screen 90° up is literally a pain. All the flippy hate from people who've never actually used one is ridiculous.
Giant fail for macro work.
@@spike-- not quite sure why a flippy screen is a "giant fail" for field macros. Last time I shot macros of moss amid autumn leaves, I had to stand over my camera bent over and composing the image upside down because I can't comfortably get myself low enough to see the LCD. Being able to rotate the LCD 90° up like on my 60D would have been way easier. Likewise, the time I was in the Chateau de Versailles and wanted to shoot the painted ceilings hand-held. That would have been way easier with a flippy screen instead of almost literally bending over backwards.
@@JohnDrummondPhoto well its quite simple. With the screen off to the side its right in the way of focusing while the camera is at grounded level. Tilt works great. Flip your better off on your belly. I own both. Maybe you only auto focus.
@@spike-- it's not in the way at all. I used it with my 60D that way. Flip it to the left and turn it up.
@@JohnDrummondPhoto put it on tripod about 6 inches off the ground and try to manual focus on a little jumping spider once. You have to reach over the screen.
I'm MAD it doesn't have EF-M mount.
A natural progression of the X-T line. When I was searching to purchase a camera the three biggest complaints I ever heard No IBIS, No fully articulating Screen, Need to buy a bunch of batteries. They have answered all those complaints. If it's not for you it's not for you. Love my X-T2 and when I need to upgrade one day Happy to know that Fuji listens to their users.
What?? No built in tripod...this is bullsh@t...I’m mad!!🤣😂🤣
Forget Selfie use for the flip-screen. I have used my camera on a monopod (Canon T5i) and used the flip screen to allow me to see salmon jumping up stream, from the articulated screen. Comes in REAL handy. Also, when shooting over hedges and walls (again on a monopod), I can angle the screen downward, so I can see shots over the barriers...
All good reasons, but for me flippy screen is no good and dealbreaker. For the way i shoot i need a tilting screen only
It still tilts - but to the side.
@@phildoodler2199 that is the problem: it it tilts to the side. It just does not work for me.
@@armandot9137 there shit! Try manual focusing on a tripod when its 8 inches above the ground.
@@spike-- for my style of shooting tilting is a must, articulating gets in the way. I understand others have other needs.
@@armandot9137 im sorry. Tilt good.flippy bad. I shoot alot of low level. My bad.🍻
Love the flip screen!! It’s what i have used for years in my Canon. It’s amazing to use for photos, vlogs, everything - especially when you shoot above a crowd or want an ariel style shot.
9:20 Holy Sh*t. I've always hated that they don't tell you the actual resolution, instead just giving you a number of dots (I so thought they used 'dots' as a synonym for pixels). But that they count every single blue, red, green dot as one unit is crazy. Thanks for clearup, Tony!
these guys confuse me soo much that i bought canvas and paint, I don't need a camera.
Maybe I’ll upgrade from XT1 to XT 3 now
the big advantage of fuji over sony is lens price. The 50-140 is $1,200 ish on sale, the sony is over 3k. Now I know its an apples to orange comparision, the 2.8 being only half true, but that's still a huge difference in price.
Regardless of sensor size, I've not been able to produce images of the same quality with the eos r. I'm not saying it can't, I'm just saying I don't get nearly the output from the r. And I'm a long time Canon shooter.
Eyes of the gfx100 now for studio work. Fuji's actual top of the line.
Thank you so much! The XT4 is also a top-end camera, no way only midrange! Only Sony biased, Sony sponsered fanboys call it so.
I am a fuji user, and i own 3 fuji lense. I think this is a great video. I love all the facts and comparison, it makes me understand where i stand, whether i should invest even more into fuji, etc, because i always want to improve, and knowing all the options and limitation is great.
I am an XT3 user . I shoot stills . No way will I upgrade to an XT4 ...the changes are videocentric ...wish Fuji would pay more attention to stills photography eg a sensor with bigger photosites even if it means fewer pixels . Ibis only counters camera shake it cannot reduce moving subject motion blur . Any still still photographer who invokes ibis and uses a lower shutter speed will find that the motion blur is worse .
Videographers will be glad of the changes stills photographers not .
Man, Ibis is a huge change if you are into night/low light photography.
Alvaro Carboni no it’s not ...your camera would be on a tripod
There are techniques to dealing with motion blur stop being lazy and learn them
You know? I could not care any less about your "right ways". I enjoy my XT-2 and enjoy doing night street photography. It is a style that does not go well with tripods and the IBIS will be an extremely useful thing. It would allow me to use a larger array of lens usually not suited for night photography and that's a fact, not only for me but for many other photographers. Maybe it's not suited for your particular style but in all honesty your opinion sound like the grievances of "my photos will not be special anymore".
@@graham_T yea not if you try to walk around be or be somewhat sneaky.
No, the Fuji primes are much smaller and lighter than other systems. The 'Fujicrons' are amazing, yes they are only F2.0 (F2.8 equivalent) but they are sharp, water resistant and produce exceptional photos, and the entire range of 'Fujicrons' can fit in your coat pockets, no need for a camera bag!
The 56mm FR1.2 when compared to the other FF 85mm 1.8 'elephants' one finds that the output is almost indistinguishable.
For a man who claims to like his X-T3 you are doing a poor sell. Fuji produces a series of very light and small professional standard prime lenses and you fail to acknowledge this here. The X-T3 is also not a "mid-range camera". It is a professional camera used by professionals. Of course it does not compete with the 1DX Mark III for sports action photography, but the X-T3 is not designed to be a sports action camera, perhaps the X-T4 will be more suited to this type of photography? Anyhow no camera is perfect for all types of photography, the 1DX Mark III is a shocking travel camera and would be terrible for wedding photography, but....the X-T4 could very well be the closest we get in 2020 to the near perfect 'all round' professional camera.
This is the same type on nonsense one sees under MFT videos. Doing apples to apples comparisons, Fuji lenses are the same size and weight as their full frame counterparts and virtually always overpriced. Not to mention that the image quality is still substantially inferior to any full frame alternative, especially the high res ones. At the base ISO, the Fuji produces three stops more noise than a high end Nikon. The X-T3/4 are good pieces of kit, not doubt - for enthusiasts who don't need the best quality results. But they most certainly can't hang with professional grade full frame cameras.
@@youknowwho9247 Fuiji 35mm F2 (170g): Sony FE 50mm F2.8 Macro (236g)
Fuji 23mm F2 (180g): Nikkor 35mm F2.8 AI (240g) and Tamron 35mm F2.8 Di III OSD (210g),
Fuji 16-80mm F4 (440g): Nikkor 24-120mm F3.5-5.6 (560g),
Fuji 18-55 F2.8-4 (330g): Canon 24-70 F4 (600g) and Nikkor 24-70 F4 (496g)
Give your Nikon a 'lick' for me.
@@hollowcore2 Hilarious how you think cherry picking a few lenses where Fuji has a tiny weight advantage makes for a good argument. Especially when those where it's more than a 100g difference are also not comparable because the full frame options are faster. Not to mention that all those full frame lenses offer substantially better build and optical quality than the Fujis.
Here's the real issue though: While full frame can pretty much match Fuji for size, weight and cost on the low end there's also the option for fast high end glass. For Fuji X-mount you've got virtually zero fast, pro grade glass.
@@youknowwho9247 Before you start jumping onto other topics let us just settle this 'size of kit' issue first.
EVERY sensible person who knows anything about cameras and lenses KNOWS that with the X-T3 and its lens ecosystem that a Fuji photographer can travel around with a much lighter kit and achieve the same results as any Nikon fan boy like yourself. We could take a survey of knowledgeable people and prove this.
As you should know (if you are honest enough to admit it to yourself) that to find lenses to compare is a tricky thing. So I looked at the Fujifilm lens line up and then I looked to lenses made by other companies that would work with a full frame camera. So I applied the crop fact calculation so that the APS-C versus full frame went so:
23mm=35mm, 35mm=50mm etc.
I even looked at the f stop equivalency just to keep you happy (even though APS-C lenses let in the same amount of light as a full frame lenses with the same f stop...just to please you!) So I compared f stop 2.0 to f stop 2.8 on the full frame lens.
It was a challenge to find lenses to compare but I did find them. And Fuji in the VAST majority of comparisons had the lighter lenses! Now Nikon fan boy, why don't you spend an hour like me and come up with your own evidence to prove me wrong?!!
And you have an advantage over me because all of Fuji's XF lenses are high quality build and mostly made of metal. Nikon on the other hand has a large range of good quality lenses but it also has quite a number of rubbish, junky, plastic economy lenses too.
It should be easy for you to find a junk plastic yet light Nikkor lens to put against a number of the Fujinons....but that would be trying to compare not like with not like wouldn't it?
Good luck in your challenge Nikon boy, but I doubt you are willing to put the effort in.
@@hollowcore2 Why would I waste time proving the obvious to a Fujihadist who's so stuck in his own confirmation bias that he won't acknowledge the facts, no matter what? There's a reason why 95+% of professional photographers shoot full frame. If you're happy wasting money on overpriced Fuji gear - go ahead. The rest of us will do the math and make more sensible decisions.
This channel feels like if walmart had a talk show about cameras.
Jordan Tarrant Walmart is better than these clowns
And yet you're here, watching and commenting.
@@bazzie85 yes, correct, for about 30 seconds. That doesn't make it less garbage.
@@fleshmuseum Do your own review Super man ,I will be waiting .
@@ChrisBird1 yes daddy
The flippy screen on my many years old Canon 650D is exactly the same design as the "new" Fuji X-T4 design. Since I switched to various full format cameras I have to say that this flippy design is the one thing I always missed. It's the most versatile and useful thing to have - and durable. Had my old camera on festivals, backpacking etc, nothing breaks. You can even protect the screen, which no other design can. Once you used it you will never want to give it back... Very strange how some people react before trying.
No wonder people have everything in US. The prices are just through the floor.
The whole anti-flip screen thing is just silly. If you don't like it, don't open it. It's pretty simple.
Then people wont be able to look down on the camera and still look at the screen.
Great review as always 👍 got to disagree with one statement though Tony, "the xh1 feels more plastic"? It's made of the exact same magnesium alloy as the xt1 /xt3 but it's 25% thicker with a hardened surface and a strengthened lens mount for bigger lenses. I have the xt3 and xh1 and the build quality of the xh1 is definitely a step up and feels more professional
I currently have a Nikon d7100, which has an APS-C sensor. One reason I want to upgrade/change is that the noise performance is not that good after ISO 400 and other features like color science and IBIS I feel somehow limited with my old camera. One concern I have with the XT3 and XT4 (both have the same sensor) is noise performance and dynamic range, DR seems to be even lower compared to D7100, and because XT3/XT4 has more pixels in the same sensor area (24MP vs 26MP) it means the pixel is smaller and more susceptible to noise. I have heard some criticism with XT3 noise performance and in the XT4 announcements, I do not see any upgrade in the sensor or processor... I guess I will have to wait some months for other camera releases and future reviews of XT4 to see if they improved the manufacturing process or the noise performance by firmware...
i have a X-T3 and want IBIS ))
I have a flip screen on my canon, never has been a problem. I rarely use it, but when I use it I'm glad to have it.
why doesnt cmera mfgs just make the same camera with two screen options? same model just specify which style flipscreen you want....they obviously can do both with the same body
Increased costs in engineering and manufacturing. Chances are stocks won't be all sold for one model and you get stuck with inventory of one or the other.
The profit margin would be miserable almost not enough to pay for research and Design it's not an option great photographs have been made for years without it. Stop being lazy
Does it have enough bokeh?
To be fair, Fuji's top end camera is their medium format camera.
we all know that Fuji medium format has the sharpest image quality that not even full frame sensor could ever deliver. and there medium format are Fuji flagship cameras.
I cringe at the misinformation this channel shares on the internet.
It's a different system, no matter if it's the same brand. You'll have to buy everything again. That's Tony's point
Nice glance at the new X-T4. I like your videos !
Personaly I own a X-H1 and a X-T20. Went from CANON to Fujifilm primarily because of the viewfinder. The 3.690.000 dots in the X-H1 one were brilliant two years ago and still surpasses the SONY alpha 7 III.
Lastest rumor is no headphone jack. You'll have to use the included usb c dongle
fitzpb its no deal breaker for me, though I would've used it occasionally, and now I'll use it a bit less. But I'll live.
I get the 'buffer is not enough' point from a theoretic persective, but in reality it will rarely or not pose a problem. Last month I shot with my X-T2 wildlife in Antarctica on continuously and I got zero problems. And that was done for multiple seconds in RAW.
I can't believe people complain about a flip screen... Nobody is forcing anyone to flip the screen. Just use the screen however you need to.
It's because it loses the ability to tilt without flipping it out.
I see. I guess for me, I don't see the one extra step as a problem. I'd like to hear the reasoning for the people who are against this type of screen.
@@imseeno I love flippy screens. Yes, I'm a videographer - no selfies or vlogging though. But I do understand the reasoning for not wanting it. Since it flips out to the side, you are not looking in the direction the camera is pointing. People hate change. But most everyone backs their vehicles out of the driveway using their mirrors...so there's that.
@@imseeno I like flippy for video on a tripod or for selfies but in some situations tilt is better. In a crowd when holding your camera above your head (e.g. at a parade or a concert) having the screen off to the side is more annoying to the people behind you and it's also more awkward to compose your shot because the screen is not in line with the camera or your hands. Similarly, taking waist high "stealth" shots, the screen flipped to the side makes the camera more obvious (less stealthy) which flags what you are doing to the subject . For macro shots close to the ground the screen out to the side can be an issue depending on the amount of space you have (makes the camera wider). Lastly, is situations where you are shifting between using the viewfinder, camera held high shots, and camera held low shots, the tilt screen can be adjusted much faster so you may miss viewer shots. SO .. depending on your shooting style and whether you are stills or video-centric a flippy or a tilty may be the best for you. I understand Fuji makes one which can function both as a flippy screen and as a tilt screen. This would be the best of both worlds :-)
SwitchRich ah I see. Thanks for the insight
It only has 26Mp you just called sony A7 III the king it only has 24Mp
I've been shooting Fuji professionally for 3 years. The moment I saw the flippy screen I decided not to buy the X-T4. I take 90% of my photos at waist level, camera is off to save battery,I turn it on while flipping the screen with 1 finger, take the picture and put the screen back. Easy and fast. Not with a flippy screen though. This reminds me the fad with smartphones leaving the headphone jack - while there are phones with it I won't buy one without! Same with the tilty screen.
I have the XT3 and find the lack of a flip screen one of the main reasons why I don’t use it very often. That said, my main interest is video so the inclusion of IBIS and flip screen are compelling reasons for me to sell my XT3 and buy an XT4. 240fps and larger battery are also persuasive. Agree with you about the headphone jack on phones though!
I'm the same way. I love shooting at the hip and quickly tilt the screen up. I don't think the X-T4 is an upgrade. It's basically a different version of the X-T3 version 2 with a flippy screen and IBIS. Some people will love the flippy articulating screen, some prefer the quick tilt. that's why they have 2 versions for different folks with different strokes.
May I suggest checking the reflection of your lights on your monitor before recording next time?
Broooooooooooo, you still owe canonrumors an apology for the EOS R5 info you called fake.
I use a flip screen for macro work at a work bench. You can sit forward of the camera and move the object to get the focus and composition you want. It is far more comfortable than being behind the camera and doing it the traditional way. Once you have a flip screen you will use it in ways you never guessed you might.
"Once you have a flip screen you will use it in ways you never guessed you might." EXACTLY. I bought a 6D Mark II because it was the cheapest full frame Canon I could get. But once I got used to that flip screen, I fell in love with it. 6 months ago I bought a used 5D Mark IV and get frustrated as hell when I'm in situations where I need a flip screen. The 5D Mark IV is the superior camera, but there are times when I leave it at home because I know I'll need that flip screen for something (car shows, small kids, etc). I never want to buy another camera that doesn't have one.
Always pushing Sony, the Fuji cameras have an advantage in video/still photography...can any of the Sony FF's do 4k/60fps yet? Btw, how good are the Sony skin-tones?
Thirdly, the Sony A7iii still has a 2.5m dot viewfinder and 900k backscreen...no where near "class-leading or middle-level" specs.
These are photography cameras, virtually nobody needs 4k60. Sony has much better color than Fuji. It also offers a stop better noise performance and subject isolation because it's full frame. And one doesn't have to deal with the failed X-trans nonsense. The Sony is very obviously the better piece of gear at the same price.
@@youknowwho9247 "Sony has much better color than Fuji." lol. "The Sony is very obviously the better piece of gear at the same price." all hail corperate, I hope Sony notices you bro, shilling this much for their products for really no reason. So much incredible inaccuracy your entire comment is just flat out dishonest. Why?
- They are hybrid cameras, that is their entire point, they aren't just photography cameras
- Many people want to shoot 4K 60p, it's a popular format and serious video shooters with 4K workflows want this
- You'll have a hard time finding anybody who would agree that Sony has better out of camera colors than Fuji.
- Not sure what the failed X-trans sensor nosense refers to, the camera produces lovely photos.
Meanwhile, as said above there are flaws to a A7 III, despite it being a great camera. Stuff like the rear screen and evf. Why deny those? Why do you feel the need to jump in and 'defend' your brand when somebody points out a flaw with it. OP is right, the Sony is not class leading in everything. And thats fine. Nothing is perfect, the Fuji system, and no doubt this X-T4 will have flaws too. No clue why you become so incredibly defensive about it.
The flip screen is awesome. I have a Canon I have been using for travel for almond 10 years. Never had a problem AND it adds so much function in terms of composition and framing (especially in tight spaces and also when being discreet in street photography) Use it and you will love it. Fuji is not perfect for every situation and that’s why I still have and use my NIKON kit and big glass. Fuji addressed all my concerns and I am very happy. The XT3 is still awesome, (especially with software updates) and I plan to keep and use it as a second camera for a long, long time.