Fuji X-T4

[Simon]

Having got a small rig cage to mount microphones, etc, , i have noticed, and read elsewhere since, that a couple of annoying features about the XT-4 are :-

 

The screen doesn't angle up, you have to flip it out, then up - and if you have a cage attached then you can't do that properly.

The silly rubber flaps on the HDMI port size of things are not that well designed, and get in the way

There are apparently some settings that are disabled once you start shooting a video - not got to that bit yet.

 

Other than that, I'm liking the camera a lot.  I never had a an XT-3 to compare it to, I suspect the XT-3 was pretty close other than IBIS. The buffer on multiple shots is looking good. 

 

regards Simon 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Simon
Correction

[Richard Baker]

My second X-T4 has just arrived along with a third lens so I suppose I've now jumped into the Fuji pond with both feet.

 

Why did I go for the 4? Well, primarily for battery life. They're obviously a bit larger and I haven't once run out of power - even through the coldest weeks of this winter. The only question mark before committing was the EVF which took me a while to understand (I convinced myself that they'd delay the wake-up process and I'd miss pictures) but I really don't have a problem with this feature. 

 

I love the B+W simulation for when I'm working on a current monochrome documentary project for which I'm using all three electronic, hybrid and mechanical shutters, depending on how quiet I want to be. Only two little gripes: I've noticed that the little buttons that lock the ISO top left, and the shutter lock button top right, both become sticky due to dirt build-up so I tend not to leave them 'up'. And then there's Live Shooting Mode which works on some occasions, but not others. No idea why.

 

As far as how I photograph, they have also changed how I position myself. So if I have a low angle I need to find, the reversible screen now allows me to look down rather than crane my neck into the viewfinder. Passers-by think I'm filming which seems to alter their perceptions. And then there are the choices of burst speeds. At first, I was fascinated at the number of frames I recorded as someone walked past a point of interest. Editing afterwards became a much slower process because I was flitting backwards and forwards between near-identical moments when half as many would have been adequate. Now I shoot at a maximum of 5fps - but more often, on Single frame mode.

 

(Edit: And I forgot to mention IBIS which is brilliant. Handholding at speeds I dared not consider before. But I did learn the hard way when using a tripod. You need to knock off IS first!).

 

Overall Five Stars!

 

Richard.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by Richard Baker
Added a sentence

[BradleyPhoto]

4 hours ago, Richard Baker said:

My second X-T4 has just arrived along with a third lens so I suppose I've now jumped into the Fuji pond with both feet.

 

Why did I go for the 4? Well, primarily for battery life. They're obviously a bit larger and I haven't once run out of power - even through the coldest weeks of this winter. The only question mark before committing was the EVF which took me a while to understand (I convinced myself that they'd delay the wake-up process and I'd miss pictures) but I really don't have a problem with this feature. 

 

I love the B+W simulation for when I'm working on a current monochrome documentary project for which I'm using all three electronic, hybrid and mechanical shutters, depending on how quiet I want to be. Only two little gripes: I've noticed that the little buttons that lock the ISO top left, and the shutter lock button top right, both become sticky due to dirt build-up so I tend not to leave them 'up'. And then there's Live Shooting Mode which works on some occasions, but not others. No idea why.

 

As far as how I photograph, they have also changed how I position myself. So if I have a low angle I need to find, the reversible screen now allows me to look down rather than crane my neck into the viewfinder. Passers-by think I'm filming which seems to alter their perceptions. And then there are the choices of burst speeds. At first, I was fascinated at the number of frames I recorded as someone walked past a point of interest. Editing afterwards became a much slower process because I was flitting backwards and forwards between near-identical moments when half as many would have been adequate. Now I shoot at a maximum of 5fps - but more often, on Single frame mode.

 

(Edit: And I forgot to mention IBIS which is brilliant. Handholding at speeds I dared not consider before. But I did learn the hard way when using a tripod. You need to knock off IS first!).

 

Overall Five Stars!

 

Richard.

 

 

Funny you should say this about passers by perception of filming vs photography when using tilting screen. Certainly seems to be a thing! Ideal really!

[Richard Baker]

19 hours ago, BradleyPhoto said:

Funny you should say this about passers by perception of filming vs photography when using tilting screen. Certainly seems to be a thing! Ideal really!

 

I try to use it to my advantage. There's less suspicion if people think I'm filming, rather than doing stills. 

[Richard Baker]

13 minutes ago, PAL Media said:

Case in point

 

Well, quite.

[Harry Harrison]

4 hours ago, Richard Baker said:

I try to use it to my advantage. There's less suspicion if people think I'm filming, rather than doing stills. 

Interesting that you've noticed that, it's the lack of eye contact I suppose, like a Rolleiflex. In fact put on a slightly wide lens, a 23mm say, pull the screen out, set it to 1:1 Raw + jpeg and that's pretty much like a modern day Rolleiflex.

[meanderingemu]

On 16/02/2021 at 04:35, Richard Baker said:

My second X-T4 has just arrived along with a third lens so I suppose I've now jumped into the Fuji pond with both feet.

 

Why did I go for the 4? Well, primarily for battery life. They're obviously a bit larger and I haven't once run out of power - even through the coldest weeks of this winter.

 

 

 

 

thanks for the info.  It is one thing i have found substandard so far with the Xt-3, the batteries performance which i could live with easily in normal condition has been poor as soon as we got slightly cold weather, sometimes going from 2 bars to 0-red flashing with one shot.  

[Phil]

On 15/02/2021 at 13:30, Simon said:

There are apparently some settings that are disabled once you start shooting a video - not got to that bit yet.

 

I've been using my X-T4 to shoot some video clips as well as stills - not noticed that anything is "disabled" when shooting video although there are some settings that may optimize some buttons/dials for each mode.

 

There are 2 independent groups of menu settings - one for stills and another for video.  There is a selection switch under the shutter speed dial to switch the X-T4 between the stills settings and video settings.   After the stills and video menu settings are set to our liking there's no need to go back into the menus to change settings for stills or video.  Flip the stills/video switch under the shutter speed dial to select those camera settings.  No all menu settings are common to both modes as some not needed/desired for both modes.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Phil

[Richard Baker]

14 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

 

thanks for the info.  It is one thing i have found substandard so far with the Xt-3, the batteries performance which i could live with easily in normal condition has been poor as soon as we got slightly cold weather, sometimes going from 2 bars to 0-red flashing with one shot.  

 

That's a factor I wantd to avoid. I can't tell you how much larger the cells for the 4 are but they do make a difference.

[Richard Baker]

19 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Interesting that you've noticed that, it's the lack of eye contact I suppose, like a Rolleiflex. In fact put on a slightly wide lens, a 23mm say, pull the screen out, set it to 1:1 Raw + jpeg and that's pretty much like a modern day Rolleiflex.

 

When needs must, I suppose. Something primeval in me still wants me to look through the viewfinder, though.

[Harry Harrison]

14 minutes ago, Richard Baker said:

When needs must, I suppose.

Yes, I was having a whimsical moment, but great pictures were taken with TLRs by some great photographers (usually using Rolleiflexes) and part of their strength is that they don't attract attention because you're looking down at the camera rather than at the subject. No real digital equivalent, probably never will be. The low(er) viewpoint also comes into it.

[Martin L]

20 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Interesting that you've noticed that, it's the lack of eye contact I suppose, like a Rolleiflex. In fact put on a slightly wide lens, a 23mm say, pull the screen out, set it to 1:1 Raw + jpeg and that's pretty much like a modern day Rolleiflex.

Totally agree with the lack of eye contact thing and the looking down rather than at people

I use an angle finder on my ancient Canon for close to ground shots and have noticed a complete difference in peoples attitudes if I use it standing up

[meanderingemu]

4 hours ago, Richard Baker said:

 

That's a factor I wantd to avoid. I can't tell you how much larger the cells for the 4 are but they do make a difference.

A bit larger, for me the issue was more that since i had a XT20 as my second body i would have needed different battery, plus the XT3 is a great camera (and was $1000 cheaper), and as i said i've never had an issue with one additional battery in other season.  But the performance at -15C was a bit of a bummer.  I have adapted, and it hasn't been too bad because i haven't had many circumstances needing 2 bodies this winter (mock-down has really curtailed everything), so i technically function with 3 batteries

[Richard Baker]

On 18/02/2021 at 08:54, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, I was having a whimsical moment, but great pictures were taken with TLRs by some great photographers (usually using Rolleiflexes) and part of their strength is that they don't attract attention because you're looking down at the camera rather than at the subject. No real digital equivalent, probably never will be. The low(er) viewpoint also comes into it.

 

It's a good technique but the difference between looking into a dark TLR v/f and a sunlit screen (for example) is that you still miss details in the frame. I know you can review before leaving but that one frame where you've got the moment but cropped that annoying item in the corner is really annoying.

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Richard Baker said:

I know you can review before leaving but that one frame where you've got the moment but cropped that annoying item in the corner is really annoying.

I'm with you, it is impractical. I will say that on the occasions that I've set mine to the square format I've really enjoyed the discipline but this has been mainly with static subjects, landscapes, flowers etc. and I was composing through the viewfinder, I've always liked the square format I must say. I'm always shooting RAW so the uncropped version is always there to go back to but it opens square in Lightroom. I had to update Lightroom with something to enable me to 'uncrop' but then the full unadulterated RAW file is there though it might have had to have been converted to DNG, can't quite remember.  I don't think I would have necessarily noticed these square compositions after the event if I hadn't shot them that way in the first place. Sorry, I don't mean to keep coming back at you, that's it really, just thought you might not know this if you're new to Fuji.

[Richard Baker]

On 19/02/2021 at 12:57, Harry Harrison said:

I'm with you, it is impractical. I will say that on the occasions that I've set mine to the square format I've really enjoyed the discipline but this has been mainly with static subjects, landscapes, flowers etc. and I was composing through the viewfinder, I've always liked the square format I must say. I'm always shooting RAW so the uncropped version is always there to go back to but it opens square in Lightroom. I had to update Lightroom with something to enable me to 'uncrop' but then the full unadulterated RAW file is there though it might have had to have been converted to DNG, can't quite remember.  I don't think I would have necessarily noticed these square compositions after the event if I hadn't shot them that way in the first place. Sorry, I don't mean to keep coming back at you, that's it really, just thought you might not know this if you're new to Fuji.

 

What does irritate me isn't so much a Fuji foible, but a LR character. I (may have already said) that I use the b&w simulation for a specific monochrime project which I love. BUT LR shows me the colour version when I click on a RAWs detail which makes editing a real pain - I only want to see the b&w while editing and the colour rendition interferes with my visual decision-making. 

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Richard Baker said:

I (may have already said) that I use the b&w simulation for a specific monochrime project which I love. BUT LR shows me the colour version when I click on a RAWs detail which makes editing a real pain - I only want to see the b&w while editing and the colour rendition interferes with my visual decision-making. 

Yes, I haven't done that but I can see that would be a pain, and unnecessarily so. You could I suppose create a 'setup' to apply your chosen B&W profile after import but it would be nice if LR did it for you. I used to shoot B&W film almost universally for myself but I find it difficult to do so with a digital camera, difficult to ignore the colour version but then rather absurd to have both a colour and a B&W version of particular shots, not so difficult that I'd want to go out and buy a Leica Monochrom though obviously. I know of a photographer that I like who shoots B&W all the time, kind of in the style of James Ravilious. I've never seen a colour image from her though she uses Canon I think, I wish I had that discipline.

 

I went out and shot some square format images the other day, RAW + jpeg, prompted by your post. Would you believe it the RAWs came into Lightroom uncropped (the jpegs were cropped of course) but I've yet to work out how or why. Back to the drawing board.

[Richard Baker]

32 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Yes, I haven't done that but I can see that would be a pain, and unnecessarily so. You could I suppose create a 'setup' to apply your chosen B&W profile after import but it would be nice if LR did it for you. I used to shoot B&W film almost universally for myself but I find it difficult to do so with a digital camera, difficult to ignore the colour version but then rather absurd to have both a colour and a B&W version of particular shots, not so difficult that I'd want to go out and buy a Leica Monochrom though obviously. I know of a photographer that I like who shoots B&W all the time, kind of in the style of James Ravilious. I've never seen a colour image from her though she uses Canon I think, I wish I had that discipline.

 

I went out and shot some square format images the other day, RAW + jpeg, prompted by your post. Would you believe it the RAWs came into Lightroom uncropped (the jpegs were cropped of course) but I've yet to work out how or why. Back to the drawing board.

 

There has to be a setting that stops both rendering in b&w or as a square - as one has chosen to view in-camera. Of course, one would rather have a full-size colour version as back-up. Perhaps that's for another thread about LR.

[GeoffK]

3 hours ago, Richard Baker said:

 

What does irritate me isn't so much a Fuji foible, but a LR character. I (may have already said) that I use the b&w simulation for a specific monochrime project which I love. BUT LR shows me the colour version when I click on a RAWs detail which makes editing a real pain - I only want to see the b&w while editing and the colour rendition interferes with my visual decision-making. 

 

If you've clicked on Black and white (develop - basic) then AFAIK you only see a b/w version as you work through any set of controls in LR.

[Harry Harrison]

6 minutes ago, GeoffK said:

f you've clicked on Black and white (develop - basic) then AFAIK you only see a b/w version as you work through any set of controls in LR.

That's true, but the Fuji B&W film simulations are more than a simple B&W conversion so if you want to replicate that, the look you see through the viewfinder when actually shooting, then it is best to have LR set the profile. However, Lightroom only attempts to do that, only the Fuji in-camera processor can do it precisely as this very detailed article explains.

 

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2020/08/18/fujifilm-film-simulations-definitive-guide

[GeoffK]

17 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

That's true, but the Fuji B&W film simulations are more than a simple B&W conversion so if you want to replicate that, the look you see through the viewfinder when actually shooting, then it is best to have LR set the profile. However, Lightroom only attempts to do that, only the Fuji in-camera processor can do it precisely as this very detailed article explains.

 

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2020/08/18/fujifilm-film-simulations-definitive-guide

 

I'm a little confused. The question was about RAWS, surely the film simulation can only be produced as a jpeg, as a RAW is a RAW...only the original information.  I've only occasionally used Fuji cameras (owned most of them through one of my businesses but only play with them the odd time).

 

I've used various Fuji presets in LR/PS - mainly Velvia (some god awful ones in the early days) - I know that there are some ACROS  ones around

 

https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2016/11/simulating-a-better-acros-with-raw-files-in-lightroom

 

Various opinions on how it works v incamera jpegs.

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

2 minutes ago, GeoffK said:

I'm a little confused. The question was about RAWS, surely the film simulation can only be produced as a jpeg, as a RAW is a RAW...only the original information.  I've only occasionally used Fuji cameras (owned most of them through one of my businesses but only play with them the odd time).

Once in Lightroom, or many of the other RAW processors, you can apply the Fuji film simulation to the RAW file and at least use that as a starting point. It is however a profile that Adobe (in the case of Lightroom) have created to approximate to the in-camera processing that was applied to the jpeg. I'm not fond of the Velvia profile on the jpeg generally but it is a guide to a direction of travel if you like. With B&W they've got quite sophisticated, simulating different coloured filters etc. so if the end result is intended to be B&W I can see benefits in seeing that through the viewfinder as well thanks to the EVF. 

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, GeoffK said:

 

I'm a little confused. The question was about RAWS, surely the film simulation can only be produced as a jpeg, as a RAW is a RAW...only the original information.  I've only occasionally used Fuji cameras (owned most of them through one of my businesses but only play with them the odd time).

 

I've used various Fuji presets in LR/PS - mainly Velvia (some god awful ones in the early days) - I know that there are some ACROS  ones around

 

https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2016/11/simulating-a-better-acros-with-raw-files-in-lightroom

 

Various opinions on how it works v incamera jpegs.

 

 

 

 

nope, for example Capture One will reproduce the selected film simulation on the RAW files.  You can then change the C1 interpretation of the simulation, or remove it altogether.  But it i shoot in Acros, my image will be loaded with that simulation and be B&W (which is not the same as the B&W module from C1).   It will not however respect the in camera crop, that is only applied to JPEGs. 

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Once in Lightroom, or many of the other RAW processors, you can apply the Fuji film simulation to the RAW file and at least use that as a starting point. It is however a profile that Adobe (in the case of Lightroom) have created to approximate to the in-camera processing that was applied to the jpeg. I'm not fond of the Velvia profile on the jpeg generally but it is a guide to a direction of travel if you like. With B&W they've got quite sophisticated, simulating different coloured filters etc. so if the end result is intended to be B&W I can see benefits in seeing that through the viewfinder as well thanks to the EVF. 

 

 

Capture One can apply it automatically, i always do.  The only issue is that it labels it "auto" and sometime I forget which one I used.  

 

I remember starting my foray in Fuji X-T world with Velvia, because i used to like the film version, but now rarely use it.   

[dlmphotog]

On 21/01/2021 at 20:41, Chuck Nacke said:

Loved FUJI since the RDP film days (100 ASA chrome film)

 

RDP was the start of my FUJIFILM love also. I was working at a commercial studio when they switched form Kodak 120, 4x5 film with it's inconstant ASA ratings and wide swings in color form different batches to FUJIFILM with its dependable consistent color and ASA. The X100 was a paradigm shift for me as well.