Fuji X-T4

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, neosushi said:

So from what I have looked up so far, the 33mm Viltrox seems to be only a half stop brighter than the f2.0, you can't focus as close as the Fuji so you kind of lose a bit of the f1.4 advantage. Also the sharpness doesn't seem great, as well as build quality. Price-wise it's more expensive than the fuji. Mmm I'm leaning towards the Fuji 35 f2.0, but that would be the equivalent of a f3.0 on a FF (bokeh-wise). I wouldn't mind if Fuji put out a newer version of their 35mm f1.4 with (much) better and quieter AF... 

Not quite...

The difference between f2 and f1.4 is one stop and it's got nothing to do with how close a lens can focus and one may focus closer than the other. In this instance, no idea.

Plus you might find a used Fuji 35mm f2 the same price as the Viltrox new, but otherwise (euro prices anyway), the Viltrox is ball park 260 euros and the cheapest Hong Kong importer for the f2 Fuji is ball park 320, but 400+ is the more typical European price.

From the tests I've seen, the Viltrox looks sharper.

I have the XF 35mm f2 and it's OK, but just that, OK. It's a bit of a meh lens, ie, does nothing special apart from being small and light.

Unless having the smallest lens is your thing, I'd give the Viltrox a punt!

[neosushi]

12 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Not quite...

The difference between f2 and f1.4 is one stop and it's got nothing to do with how close a lens can focus and one may focus closer than the other. In this instance, no idea.

Plus you might find a used Fuji 35mm f2 the same price as the Viltrox new, but otherwise (euro prices anyway), the Viltrox is ball park 260 euros and the cheapest Hong Kong importer for the f2 Fuji is ball park 320, but 400+ is the more typical European price.

From the tests I've seen, the Viltrox looks sharper.

I have the XF 35mm f2 and it's OK, but just that, OK. It's a bit of a meh lens, ie, does nothing special apart from being small and light.

Unless having the smallest lens is your thing, I'd give the Viltrox a punt!

Thank you. You are right I misread the XC 35mm for the XF #noob. The Fuji sells around 400€ in europe and Viltrox 350€ aound my area (France) - not an extensive search though

It seems like the "f1.4" in terms of brightness is actually closer to a f1.8 in this case. Being the difference between F and T measure for light. Now that being said in terms of bokeh I'm not sure how that plays out. 

This is the test I have seen would be interested in your advice : 

 

[thebrothersthre3]

This guy finds the 33mm 1.4 optically superior to the classic Fuji 35mm 1.4, which is impressive. 

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, neosushi said:

Thank you. You are right I misread the XC 35mm for the XF #noob. The Fuji sells around 400€ in europe and Viltrox 350€ aound my area (France) - not an extensive search though

It seems like the "f1.4" in terms of brightness is actually closer to a f1.8 in this case. Being the difference between F and T measure for light. Now that being said in terms of bokeh I'm not sure how that plays out. 

This is the test I have seen would be interested in your advice : 

 

I’m not French but I live here also!

YouTube: Vu Nguyen and Denae & Andrew who have bothered reviewed as had Mr Angry above.

Tokina are supposed to be bringing out their own versions later this year and I am waiting to see what they are like myself.

[heart0less]

A video from a professional DP.

He also reports "some weird IBIS issues".

 

[Video Hummus]

Only thing I don’t like about the Fuji system is the native lenses from Fuji for video. They all seem lackluster in that department with AF and motor noise. Also I’ve seen really good AF and the classic pulsing artifacts from the X-T3/4. It’s likely they are using a crappier version of Sony’s hybrid AF or something with a mix of PDAF and Contrast detect. 

[Emanuel]

  I guess not with their f/2 lineup of WR primes, am I wrong on it?

 

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

Only thing I don’t like about the Fuji system is the native lenses from Fuji for video. They all seem lackluster in that department with AF and motor noise. Also I’ve seen really good AF and the classic pulsing artifacts from the X-T3/4. It’s likely they are using a crappier version of Sony’s hybrid AF or something with a mix of PDAF and Contrast detect. 

 

 

[ade towell]

yes no motor noise on the f2 primes or 18-55mm or 16-55mm or 55-200mm. There may well be others I haven't tried...

[dgvro]

On 5/20/2020 at 3:06 PM, heart0less said:

A video from a professional DP.

He also reports "some weird IBIS issues".

 

Beautiful video, best stuff I've seen so far out of the XT4 (particularly handheld) really. His shots don't appear to make the IBIS issues (jumpiness is there) look so terrible.

 

I have the camera a few days now, I use it only with manual lenses. I've been pretty sickened with the IBIS issues, having come from a GH5, it's a lot worse. Very close to returning it and just saving money with an XT3 or XH1 but still undecided... I do own a gimbal (which makes the XT3 even more viable).

I think the best tactic I've found so far is to (avoid DIS at all costs), set the focal mount length to about x0.64 to x0.71 of the real focal length. The sticky, stepping, grabbiness of the IBIS is still there I guess but it's downscaled, mitigated to something pretty usable that, crucially, still is enough that it smooths out your actual UN-intentional hand shakiness. Its ugly little quantised steps in sensor movement are smaller, but there's still enough IBIS to look smoother than pure handheld without IBIS.

The huge catch here is that I guess Fuji doesn't allow you to set the focal mount length yourself when any lens is attached with electronic communication. So I don't know what the hell I'll be able to do then to improve the stabilisation stickiness. An EASY band-aid for the video IBIS imo would be to always allow the user to set a downscaled focal mount length like this to mitigate the over zealous IBIS.

 

Anyone else found similar stuff when testing the IBIS?

 

I know the DIS is bad (except for purely static 'tripod-like') shots, but I'm still unsure if IS Boost is helping or harming. Results seem to vary with it all the time.

Haven't used any OIS lenses with Fuji yet but I'm pretty sure I'm not really interested in them. For video the lens OIS always causes grabby stepping jitters imo and anyway it just reduces the glass options, so, so much.

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, dgvro said:

Beautiful video, best stuff I've seen so far out of the XT4 (particularly handheld) really. His shots don't appear to make the IBIS issues (jumpiness is there) look so terrible.

 

I have the camera a few days now, I use it only with manual lenses. I've been pretty sickened with the IBIS issues, having come from a GH5, it's a lot worse. Very close to returning it and just saving money with an XT3 or XH1 but still undecided... I do own a gimbal (which makes the XT3 even more viable).

I think the best tactic I've found so far is to (avoid DIS at all costs), set the focal mount length to about x0.64 to x0.71 of the real focal length. The sticky, stepping, grabbiness of the IBIS is still there I guess but it's downscaled, mitigated to something pretty usable that, crucially, still is enough that it smooths out your actual UN-intentional hand shakiness. Its ugly little quantised steps in sensor movement are smaller, but there's still enough IBIS to look smoother than pure handheld without IBIS.

The huge catch here is that I guess Fuji doesn't allow you to set the focal mount length yourself when any lens is attached with electronic communication. So I don't know what the hell I'll be able to do then to improve the stabilisation stickiness. An EASY band-aid for the video IBIS imo would be to always allow the user to set a downscaled focal mount length like this to mitigate the over zealous IBIS.

 

Anyone else found similar stuff when testing the IBIS?

 

I know the DIS is bad (except for purely static 'tripod-like') shots, but I'm still unsure if IS Boost is helping or harming. Results seem to vary with it all the time.

Haven't used any OIS lenses with Fuji yet but I'm pretty sure I'm not really interested in them. For video the lens OIS always causes grabby stepping jitters imo and anyway it just reduces the glass options, so, so much.

The Fuji 18-55 ois is an amazing lens to have. The OIS really works well.

[MrSMW]

15 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

The Fuji 18-55 ois is an amazing lens to have. The OIS really works well.

The 16-80mm f4 is even better.

Not much bigger or heavier, but IMO more clarity and a bigger range plus constant aperture whereas the 18-55 is really only f2.8 at the widest and quickly goes f4.

It's currently my workhorse do it all lens alongside the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and Tamron 45 f1.8.

[ade towell]

Wondering if the 1.29 crop you are able to turn on for all modes is a digital zoom or if there is no quality hit from filming normal aps-c? Be a useful tele extension for all lenses if so

[MrSMW]

3 minutes ago, ade towell said:

Wondering if the 1.29 crop you are able to turn on for all modes is a digital zoom or if there is no quality hit from filming normal aps-c? Be a useful tele extension for all lenses if so

Nope, it's a crop!

 

[ade towell]

Sorry bad terminology, so there's no drop in quality when using it say in 4k 25p?

[colepat]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

The 16-80mm f4 is even better.

Not much bigger or heavier, but IMO more clarity and a bigger range plus constant aperture whereas the 18-55 is really only f2.8 at the widest and quickly goes f4.

It's currently my workhorse do it all lens alongside the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and Tamron 45 f1.8.

I was thinking of doing the 16-80mm and Sigma 18-35 as well. Seems like a great standard kit. Happy to hear someone else using it and enjoying it.

 

[androidlad]

39 minutes ago, ade towell said:

Wondering if the 1.29 crop you are able to turn on for all modes is a digital zoom or if there is no quality hit from filming normal aps-c? Be a useful tele extension for all lenses if so

There's a slight but noticeable quality drop in 4K in 1.29 crop mode in terms of sharpness and moire, because it's oversampling from 4.8K, compared to 6.2K in normal mode (up to 30P).

[MrSMW]

41 minutes ago, colepat said:

I was thinking of doing the 16-80mm and Sigma 18-35 as well. Seems like a great standard kit. Happy to hear someone else using it and enjoying it.

 

I can’t find a better combo.

I would rather the 16-80 was f2.8 but it isn’t.

I would rather the 16-55 had OIS, but it doesn’t.

I wish the Sigma 18-35 had OIS, but that doesn’t either.

I wish the Tamron 45 was a bit smaller and lighter...

Compromise everywhere as there is with all kit, but for my wedding video needs, paired with XT3 (not 4) these I feel are my best options.

I am going to (when work starts back up in 2025) replace my current cheap Gobe variable ND with the Polar Pro, but otherwise the only interesting bit of kit on the radar is Fuji’s own 50mm f1.0. I hope it’s not too big or heavy compared with the Tamron 45, but even if it is, still might consider it if it’s the dogs wotsits for video.

Generally though, I think other than the MK’s (too unwieldy and no AF so not for me) Fuji’s lens options for video is not the best but other stuff with the Fringer works really well.

[MrSMW]

Oh and from what I have seen and unless I have said this before, the OIS on the 16-80 seems as good as the IBIS in the XT4.

I’d go with the XT4 if I could for all the other benefits but can’t get past the screen.

Still planning on getting one though, but it will be purely for stills as for video for me, the XT3 is a better option.

[Andrew Reid]

Why is X-T3 better option for video?

[MrSMW]

For me (as I wrote) 😉 because the screen is in alignment with the lens and not sticking out the side.

Otherwise (as I wrote) 🤠 I think the XT4 is better in every way!