Xt-4

[pegelli]

And as far as youtubes go, I usually don't find those very useful, too long and boring. I would much rather see a statistical relevant test that Jim Kasson did on a few cameras with IBIS a few years ago, but since those are not available for Olympus vs. Fuji I will believe your claim that Olympus has the best IBIS of all brands. However even if Olympus is 1 or even 2 stops better I'd leave it at that and wouldn't call it "lightyears" ahead. Maybe it's just me but I just don't like internet amplifications.

 

[ptomsu]

And as far as youtubes go, I usually don't find those very useful, too long and boring. I would much rather see a statistical relevant test that Jim Kasson did on a few cameras with IBIS a few years ago, but since those are not available for Olympus vs. Fuji I will believe your claim that Olympus has the best IBIS of all brands. However even if Olympus is 1 or even 2 stops better I'd leave it at that and wouldn't call it "lightyears" ahead. Maybe it's just me but I just don't like internet amplifications.

Well, you can call it what else you want, but having shot with Olympus for the past 10 years besides a number of other brands I do know that olympus is still leading in the IBIS area. What i really hate about all that buzz of IBIS in the X-T4 is that it is 3 years late IMO and that they are marketing it as the greatest invention ever - come on :thumbdown:

Ok I think we should leave it at this

 

[pegelli]

What i really hate about all that buzz of IBIS in the X-T4 is that it is 3 years late IMO and that they are marketing it as the greatest invention ever - come on :thumbdown:

I agree, but I think that's not only a Fuji problem. If you read the Nikon and Canon marketing campaigns when they launched the Z and R series you might even start to believe that they invented Full Frame mirrorless :ROTFL:

 

[ptomsu]

Well, now I need to revise my latest posts - just have seen this last video from Max Yuryev and he compares the IBIS of the X-T4 to A73 and Nikon Z6 - and guess what? The Fuji clearly wins.

This does unfortunately not allow to see how the X-T4 compares to Olympus but I have to say now that Fuji obviously does a very nice job finally with IBIS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvytGuUEQeU&t=14s

SO the X-T4 gets higher on my wish list again - never say never again :ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[neilss]

Well I've been reading along. I am not really the Xt4 customer at this time but hey, why not comment. Size vs FF options.......I've had Z6/7 cameras in hand and an XH1 is pretty much the same size as a friend who owns a Z7 can attest, that is until you add a lens. The F2 primes from Fuji obviously win here as I can load an XH or a Pro3 into my winter coat pocket with any of those primes fitted. The FF options are great till you add a lens. The Fuji gives you the option of using small lenses or the larger zooms and primes. A Z Nikon in my coat with a lens? Can't.

I did a test shoot with the Z7 owning friend. We had his Z7, a rental Z6, my XH (no Pro3 released yet) and my D4S Nikon. I shot a portrait of him with each camera from ISO 200 to 25,600 (Fuji to 12,800). We lit the shot with an LED Godox head in a 30 year old Chimera bank.

We used the default for each in LR. The defaults add some NR as ISO's climb it seemed but we left them on for the time being.

The D4S crushed all for noise and crap at hi ISO's. Things got a little rough at ISO 25k but it was an easy cleanup and in the end looked like Extachrome 400 from years past, maybe. The Z6/7 were nearly identical at all ISO's so that was kind of a surprise. The XH1 was a real surprise. Where the D4 had zero color noise in the shadows the Z6/7 had plenty of noise, freakin rainbow of noise and the XH1 barely a hint of color noise. The Fuji looked better at 3200 than the Z6/7.

Again this is the defaults that LR loads in on import. The Fuji wasn't without noise but it was Luminence not so much color.

So that is kind of an overview of that test. For decades I made a living with my cameras and I owned and shot many formats. Back then the large cameras were (not counting 4x5) the medium formats. I also had Nikon and the Leica was the small go everywhere device. Now the Nikon is the large one and the Fuji the small one. The biggest reason I don't yet have a Z Nikon is it can't be small. I already have a Nikon that is large so why have another. Yes I am ignoring the vast difference between a D4S and a Z6 in theory and design. Plus my Z would have that adapter on most of the time making it all even bigger.

Yes there may be less expensive more "feature" packed alternatives to the Fuji line. What good are they if they are large enough I don't take them out of the house enough?

Neil

 

[biglouis]

From the discussion above the only point I would pick up on is the comment that an advantage of the APS-C system and therefore Fuji is in lens size.

In my experience this is quite variable. For example, the XF 23/2 is truly tiny and reminds me a great deal of my 35/2 Summicron. However, my XF 80 macro is a big lump of glass and very similar in size and heft to the Sony 90 macro which I thought ridiculously big on my Sony Alpha bodies.

An even more dramatic comparison is the 100-400 which Matthieu Gasquet points out is not much lighter or smaller than the FF Canon 100-400.

In fact, my GF 45/2.8 in weight is very similar to the XF 10-24 or XF 16/1.4 which means either it is a very light lens for an MF system or that the XF lenses are heavy.

I prefer the Fuji system over my m43rds system that it replaced but the only truly compact, lightweight system is Panasonic or Olympus m43rds (or perhaps the Leica DRFs + lenses) if size/weight is a concern, imho.

LouisB

 

[ptomsu]

I prefer the Fuji system over my m43rds system that it replaced but the only truly compact, lightweight system is Panasonic or Olympus m43rds (or perhaps the Leica DRFs + lenses) if size/weight is a concern, imho.

LouisB

This is exactly the reason why I still stay in m43 and will most likely update to the EM1.3 (you note the special wording - update instead of upgrade as I feel it is more an update) and continue using this system.

But what I most probably will do is to add some FF mirrorless body (system) with selected lenses as soon as I can get hold of a great offer - most likely Nikon or Canon form what I can see today and what directions these 2 are evolving their mirrorless systems.

 

[pegelli]

An even more dramatic comparison is the 100-400 which Matthieu Gasquet points out is not much lighter or smaller than the FF Canon 100-400.

Only comment I would make is that I think to do a fair comparison you should really look at equivalent "field of view" or reach. So the Fuji APS-C100-400 should really be compared sizewise with a FF Canon 150-600 (don't know if such a lens exists) or alternatively the FF Canon 100-400 should be compared with something like a Fuji APS-C 70-300.

 

[rayyan]

Hmmm...

All I can say is I am waiting for a quantum physicist to measure the force fields between the up/down quarks or whatever between these 3 compared cameras’ photons to allow me to determine which is better!

Till that time, I shall reserve judgment as I only print at A3 maximum and view on screen at a max mag of 50%.

Of course, with the usual caveat that YYMV.

Get ‘ Real ‘ folks!

 

[neilss]

Oh it's very true that some Fuji lenses are large. Some of the large ones I want. The 50-140 is superb, the 90 is great. They are almost DSLR large. But I have the option with the Fuji of the 23/35/50 tiny lens set. I HAVE that option. The other systems?, my Nikon?, no such option. As I said the Fuji mi my instance is supposed to be the small system.

Neil