I don't want to sound rude here or anything in this direction but I will say to each point something: 1. I don't know what u did but Fujifilm Picture Outputs are always very sharp especially with the 90mm or the 55-140mm lens. Fujifilm is known for their high quality glass. No other company builds lenses with such hq glass inside than Fujifilm. I guess because u shooting sport the lack of sharpness is because the autofocus of the X-T4 is not fast enough for your purposes. Should had known before that Fuji is not known for having the fastest autofocus. Especially the X-T lineup. I shot on both A7iii and X-T3 and had outstanding sharp images on my Fuji camera. But the autofocus of the A7iii was much better. And the lack of sharpness because of the sensor is really little almost not visible especially with all cameras after 2023. U even can get sharper images with a MFT sensor without any problem. 2. The best ibis has panasonic and olympus not fujifilm. And if you had researched u would have known. Fuji (especially X-T lineup) is for more relaxed shooting and framing of your pictures. You can use it for wildlife and sport but not with the same result like a A7iii or Canon R5. The first ever ibis that Fuji build was the X-H1 and then for about 3 years nothing else. The X-T4 was the second ever camera with ibis that fuji did. U comparing it with the Z7 and the R5 which are made for this kind of cases like sport and racing and fast object photography. The X-T4 is a retro designed lover camera with high quality capabilities for high quality pictures that u take everyday because u carry your fujifilm with u everyday (or at least during the holidays). 3. Low light capability...If u concerned about grain in the picture...that's a feature that every fujifilm photographer accepts. Some even come to fuji to have this clean grain in their pictures. Low light is not the strength of any APSC Sensor or even smaller sensors. Here the fullframe shines. But as a photographer u should know this. Thats why the high iso on Sony or Canon is much better. But this is literally the ABC of photography knowledge. 4. colors...If you want clean colors u buy Sony. And thats written everywhere...reddit, dpreview and so on. U buy a fujifilm for the look of it's special color grading. Especially in their jpegs. My take is that u didn't researched enough to fill up your knowledge about photography. Of course it's your opinion and that's totally fine that u don't like the fujifilm outputs and the handling of this camera but u literally bought the wrong camera for your work. And that says that u didn't researched at all because then u would not had bought it. Fujifilm cameras are for people that enjoy shooting pictures calmly and without much editing afterwards. It can be used in extreme conditions but with limits that u will have to accept. So talking bad about a camera that is good for it's purposes just because it was the wrong buy for the purpose u need it is not really nice if u consider for what this camera is actually there for. It's bad to u because it's not fitting your purpose but it's not near a bad camera.
You need more context and be more clear about your comparisons. Are you comparing your low light photography of your 70-300 F4-5.6 to someone's 70-200 F2.8 on FF? Because that comparison will absolutely have a huge disparity in low-light performance. But I know from experience as a pro who shoots weddings, portraits, and everything in between with a Fujifilm Camera and previously with a Canon DSLR FF, that if I took Fuji's 50-140mm F2.8 and compared it against another 70-200 F2.8 on FF, the differences in low light performance and final image quality is about 1-stop difference, which is barely worth caring about. I mean dude... based purely on the gear list in your descriptions, you seem to be comparing 24-70mm F2.8 lenses and 70-200mm F2.8 lenses to a totally different class of lenses that you own for Fujifilm which seem to be the 70-300 F4-5.6 and the 16-80mm F4. Those lenses have significantly less light-gathering capabilities and will offer way less sharpness as a tradeoff for their increased zoom ranges. Maybe you did test it with more comparable lens options, but that wasn't made clear in your video and you don't have video evidence of your claims. Manny Ortiz has a video comparing a Nikon Z camera with a Fujifilm XH2 which is a much better comparison between the FF and APS-C systems and even though the FF does have better results, it's again, within the limits of about 1 stop and barely worth making a fuss over. I wouldn't be such a hard critic on this, but I shoot Fujifilm professionally and videos like this can potentially hurt the perception of people who use these tools to possible clients. Like imagine if someone random nobody hired me based on my credentials, but because he saw a kinda shitty video that said "Fujifilm Kinda Sucks?" and then gives me a hard time throughout the shoot or asks me to leave and not do the photos. These videos are so stupid and only encourage toxicity and brand think. And It's not because I'm a "Fujifilm Fanatic" I don't care man, It's the camera I own and work with, maybe in the future I switch of Canon or Sony, who knows. But I wouldn't make a fuss about it and I would like to keep my option open and not be hamstrung because of RU-vidr's who want to talk about why they "switched"
lol..ok... I guess all the photographers ive seen in fuji groups that shoot action such as sports or racing werent using fujis because ive seen some fantastic shots.... I guess those folks took the time to read the manual
Stoked on all the feedback, positive and negative. Will definitely have to explore some of the topics mentioned down the line potentially in a follow up in defense of Fuji! Additionally I'll add some more context here, so you have more information to judge off of! XT4 and Autofocus: As several commenters made good points about, my experience with Fuji primarily comes from using the XT4 which as several commenters have pointed out doesn't have the best autofocus for my use case. This includes tracking being slow and imprecise, which would significantly impact the sharpness of my images. Glass: I have shot on a pretty wide range of Fuji Glass, having either owned, rented or borrowed many of the Prime's and Zoom's (both Pro and Variable Aperture). My testing and reference for this video primarily came from Prime's in order to give Fuji the benefit of the doubt but the reference image was from an f4-5.6 zoom. In case anyone was wondering my favorite would be the XF23mm f2. :) Lightroom: Yes I edit on lightroom, photo and video is work for me, so I use the tool most adept to what I need. However as several commenters pointed out Lightroom doesn't handle RAF files the best. However for me this is an issue with the RAF files not lightroom. At Wy'East we have a range of cameras, Lightroom is the best tool for our team and I can't set aside a separate work flow because the industry standard tools don't play well with it. XT4 vs ______: For those discounting my points because I compare the camera mostly to the R5, there's a section of the video at 01:00 just for you! These are subjective points based on experiences, experiences that include but are not limited to the A7 series, the a6000 series, the Z series, film and yes the R5. And yes I do understand pixel counts and pixel size. Lastly, this is a subjective review. If you wanted a spec based review there are lot's of those and there are lot's of people more qualified to cover those subjects. This review is based of the experiences and opinions of myself and our team. Our experiences and use case will not be the same as yours, but I hope you'll respect our opinions none the less.
About the AF issues, Fuji is a bit old school in that regard. Wide area tracking just sucks not gonna lie, but I find a better hit rate using single focus points without tracking like in the old school DSLR days, this might be an issue trying to capture fast paced sports.
Hey man, I appreciate you going into some of these criticisms with an open mind and even taking some criticisms on the chin. I have a ton of respect for you with that. I also appreciate that you changed the title of your video. I'm sure the algorithm hates that, but it's a much less inflammatory take on your criticisms of the Fujifilm camera system. Again much appreciated.
I own a x-t4 and a a7iv. Had lots of camera in the past. I think you made pretty fair comments on the x-t4. The a7iv is much sharper and more detailed than the x-t4. When I had an a7riii (42 mp) vs the a7iv (33 mp) I could barely tell the difference in image quality. But the a7iv vs x-t4 the difference in image quality and low light capabilities is huge. Having said that, I love my x-t4. Love the film sims and in good light has a really nice look to both stills and video.
You can get great sharpness on Fuji with the right body, technique, and lenses. But for action photography, I agree that there are definitely better options in the marketplace. I have an X-T4 and the 2.8 Fujinon zooms, but I prefer to shoot Canons for sports and action. I realize the X-H2s is Fuji’s current top action camera, but Canon has so many DSLR and mirrorless body and lens choices that keep up with sports.
100% possible! I should have been a little more clear in this video on the ways in which I shoot and the conditions I put these cameras through. I do think the Fujifilm cameras can shoot sharper images under ideal conditions (prime, tripod, good lighting). However I never get to shoot in ideal conditions, I'm shooting in storms, with tracking auto-focus and zoom lenses. And consistently the trend I've seen across years shooting on mirror less systems is that in the field, the Fujifilm is consistently coming out less sharp. 100% could be me! But the difference I've seen in the exact same use case between Fuji and the other systems we shoot is enough to convince me. This review is less spec based and more based on years of real outcomes.
@@nathansaier the XT4 was not meant for action photography. I agree that the XT4 does not match up to those other cameras. But you’re not using the best Fuji has in the market. The XH2s/XH2 and XT5 have much better AF. Also, if you aren’t using DxO Pure Raw 3 to process the Fuji RAW files you aren’t getting the best image quality. I even used it with older XT4 files and they were much cleaner files after DxO. It’s the XTrans sensor. Adobe still hasn’t figured it out and Capture One is just a little better than Adobe. Also the 70-300 is not the best for sports/action. The 50-140 2.8 is much faster and sharper. So is the 100-400. If I had unlimited funds I would probably have full frame kits. But honestly, nobody can tell the difference between my FF shots and my Fuji shots in the last 2 years. It takes a different approach to get what you want out of Fuji.
I'm confused I've shoot with a xpro 2 and a a full frame camera i had 0 issues with sharpness or quality...I'm not saying your wrong but i know tons of fuji shooters and i switched to fuji...a r5 compared to a xt4 is a one sided comparison
Thanks for sharing, i don’t think anybody could disagree with you as absolutely you should be getting a bit better quality from FF, but having the knowledge of shooting canon and Fuji for many years i can see what your issues are with Fuji as u should be achieve much better results as many professionals using Fuji are achieving. with the skiing example, the 70-300mm is not marketed as a professional lens, but yet you expect professional output?, the 100-400mm, 150-600mm or the 200mm f2 are much better & suited for professional results. What Canon lens where u comparing it with? also I noticed when u zoomed in that image didn’t nail focus it was very soft and thats one of the drawbacks of that lens it can be a bit hit and miss. Also the Fuji is a bit trickier to setup the AF custom settings, did you have release priority or set to focus priority? and which custom setting where you on? Im Usually shooting my weddings and events with Canon R5 and 24-70mm f2.8 EF and XH2 for the tighter shots using the 56mm and 90mm and honestly for me yes the Canon gives me better low light noise performance I give it that but only slightly, however the Fuji far then makes up for it with better colors and skin tones and the AF performance on both cameras are about the same with maybe the Canon oh so slightly in front but not by much. I think you will find much better results with an XT5 or XH bodies and im ordering 1 more Xh2 as i just cant justify keeping the R5 anymore as i have to eventually move to RF glass which is insanely expensive and the results on Fuji are Basically very similar but half the price if not less.
Did You use Iridient X-Transofmer to demosaic Fuji X-Trans sensor files? Perhaps Your results are because of wrong workflow? I have been Canon FF pro user for years, and I know how FF files looks like. Hardly can tell diffirance in low ISO in terms of sharpness. Beside.. There is huge gallery in dpreview with sample photos (including RAW files), where You can download files and evaluate them on Your computer. I have tried it many, many times (including Nikon Z6 RAW files). Again, hard to tell diffirance in terms of sharpness when You push Fuji RAW thought Iridient X-Transofmer. You mentioned problems with noise at high ISO. Again, did You tried to process those files in DXO PureRAW 3 with DEEPprime AI algorithm? Results are just outstanding. Files are very clean, full of detail. Color science?... I don't even know how to address to this. Color perception is subjective I get it so won't argue. But I will just ask, have You tried excellent RNI Film Profiles, or eventually cobalt-image camera profiles? :)
I haven't and a lot of commenters have addressed needing a specific work flow for fuji raws, the issue is our team has a range of cameras with a wide range of files being processed for client projects we can't create special work flows because one camera needs them.
@@nathansaier so, maybe it should be clarified in Your future video, that problem with Your team + Fuji cameras lays not in Fuji X-Trans sensor, but with specific workflow in which You find that is not efficient with rest of Your cameras? That statement is more true and fair 😅
Video kinda sucks. I’m looking at changing platforms, leaving Nikon and exploring ideas. However, this video had a lot of talk and no substance, just apples to pizza comparison. We need apples to apples, come on!
About the sharpness, I’ve compared my X-T2 (x-trans) and my X-T100 (bayer) and I feel like the X-T100 is sharper/able to resolve tiny details better. I think X-Trans is a gimmic for selling cameras, nothing more tbh. That said, I get all the details I need from my current X-T5 and I’m very happy with it. Sounds like your standards might be higher than mine, which is valid ofc. :)
Have XT-4. IMO, sharpness issue is an autofocus matter - not satisfied with the camera a/f hit rate. Better for single point a/f but disappointing for other modes.
The X-T4 is extremely capable of taking sharp images. Sensor size does not generally impact sharpness. Your camera handling and glass however will. Selecting the correct/optimal shutter speed to suit the situation is imperative. I work as an editorial photographer for a newspaper and have an X-T4 along with a Nikon Z8. I agree that the autofocus of the X-T4 is not up to fast action and sport but for everything else it is fantastic and produces incredibly sharp images with amazing colour. You either had a dud camera or your aren't using the appropriate camera settings. The other issue that you may be having is the widely reported "worm" artefacting that occurs when sharpening Fuji Raw files in Adobe LR. You should either just rely on the amazing jpegs produced by the Fuji cameras, do you post production in Capture One or use one of the number of third party apps that convert the Fuji Raw file to a DNG and then edit in Lightroom. Just my thoughts
I bought a Nikon Z5, second hand, to try full frame. Sold all my Fuji, inc XT5 to swap into Nikon. Better colours, autofocus and handling. But that’s for me. Each to their own and what works for you.
Obviously a 45MP sensor will be sharper than a 26MP sensor when cropped this has nothing to do with the camera if you used the xt5 that is 40MP it would be as sharp.
I agree with you about most of the issues with Fuji's cameras you mentioned. Especially, the file handling when processing the image with Lightroom, I think the file is best optimized with Capture One only. I have used a few Fuji camera bodies and collected some good lenses (my favourite is 35mm1.4), but when I hold my friend's Sony A6000 in my hand, yes, even with that old camera body, still a lot better in terms of AF capability, ergonomic, reliability. In short, Fuji makes nice cameras but it is not worth it imho
Finally, with the XT5 I’m able to get the shots I wasn’t getting with the XT4. I mostly shoot street photography and don’t use continuous for any reason. I also use a faster card for the larger megapixel count. The camera isn’t perfect and I hope they can refine it a bit, but at least it’s better at focusing accuracy than the XT4.
Very good review. People don't understand 40 megapixels on crop is not the same as full frame. I shoot M43 Olympus and full frame is about two stops better ISO within the same generation of cameras being released. Tony Northrup did a side by side photo sample of the Panasonic GH5 and the Canon R6 and the Canon R6 having less megapixels was sharper. Also think if it this way my Olympus OMD E-M1ii at ISO 200 is about full frame at ISO 800. You can fix the Fuji issue but you will need to use DXO PhotoLab or DVD PureRaw. If you want to edit in another program export to DNG. DXO is the best when it comes to raw files.
Interesting to hear your experiences. Lots of strong opinions in the comments but I think it's completely fine to dislike a certain system. I, for one, just can't deal with Sony's ergonomics so I'll never get one. I never used an XT Fuji, only GFX (which use a fundamentally different sensor), but my photos look much better using Capture One than LR. Zero use to you, because you are video-focused, lol.
I have the XT5 and the Z6. I also had the x100v. The x100v was not sharp despite all the reviews saying it was. Maybe it was the sensor. The XT5 I found was vastly sharper, and with some solid glass I find that it’s super sharp. Now that may not be true once you crank up the ISO. I got the Z6 because I have Leica M Mount voigtlander lenses that I use on both cameras but since they are full frame lenses I got the full frame camera. Also the full frame would be better for low light. If I do more professional work I may invest more into the Nikon system tho
Interesting. Although I have 4 x Nikon FF bodies and 3 GFX MF bodies, 70% of my published work and that includes, including VOGUE, ELLE, GRAZIA, etc... has been done with the X-T3, 4 and X-H2 series, as well as our videos for the last 3 years. I use Capture One for all of our imagery. Choose your tools accordingly.
LR is not able to properly resolve the RAF files, I know it kind of sucks, but if you use capture one you can also retain the film simulation within the RAF files while having more flexibility to push those files to their limit
100% Capture one and it’s as shap. I chance software not Camera body 😅.. and this guy using a portrait / landscape / street / normal sports camera for action sports in the storm 😅 off course the 4000$ camera is better.
I think currently it's working fine. At least I don't see any difference between both. A few years ago it was a shit but currently it's working at least for me.
What debayering method did you use for the image raws? That Fujifilm image looks like something odd debayered it and didn't take into account that X-Trans sensor require a different debayering method than regular Bayer matrix sensors. That would explain why it looks nearly corrupted and jaggy when zoomed in. Can you try some other raw converter where you can check the debayering method? I think DarkTable lets you change the debayering method.
Great to see really underrated channel a lot reviewer always say positive about this camera never talk about usability and real world test especially using for processional client works
the camera receives positive feedback from people that use it for the right purpose (wedding, street, landscape). And people that dislike it tell why they don't like it for this kind of purposes. Here the problem is that the camera was used for a purpose it wasn't designed for and then it was talked bad about as if it's the cameras fault.
Honestly, that was my primary goal here someone buying their first mirrorless will just get watered down positivity from big channels. And use-case isn't a defense, our other cameras do everything better (portrait, wedding, action, landscape) if a camera needs to only be used in studio lighting to perform it's not a usable camera for any professional.
I completely agree with you. I also struggled with all of the same things you mentioned. I sold everything and moved away from APS-C altogether. I haven’t tried the newer Fuji cameras that reportedly perform “better” because they just keep getting more and more expensive, and at those prices (X-H2S at $2,500!) you can get a better performing Full Frame camera like the Canon R6, Panasonic S5ii or the Sony A7IV. People like to shit on Sony, but they’re built for professional work. The AF is top notch, and S-Log3 has the best dynamic range in the business. I’ve used Canon and Panasonic, but they can’t perform at the level that Sony does. I’d suggest renting out and testing any of the newer Sony bodies and give it a shot.
that's because of the xt4 bad AF problem if you have XH2S-XH2 you won't find all those problems specially the XH2S its so fast and accurate for sport photography.
No surprise. Fuji build their cameras around their filmstock centered jpg engine. Especially the XT series would never be adressed to 100% professionals. They are cameras for amateurs. A pro can adapt, sure. But why? For client work I use my A7R3 lineup (photo only) to get clean and workable raw files. For private stuff I love Fuji jpgs. Nothing wrong with it.
I rather shoot with a phone than with an ugly camera that looks like a computer with a tiny LCD screen inside (Sony, Canon, Nikon). Ok, that’s just me.
Exactly! After shooting for years with the A7 series, R series, 5D series, film cameras, z7, medium format all for paying clients. I just have no idea how to use a enthusiast crop sensor camera.
