Fujifilm X-T4 camera rumored specifications : 6k60p video and 10-bit internal

NorBro said:
The 4 will have the draw of the larger sensor and more attractive color science, and the 6 would most likely have the better IBIS and something appealing like 4K/120p over its smaller sensor. Maybe even 8K recording. I definitely think it will have 6K recording.
Click to expand...

I suspect the XT-4 will be a bit cheaper than GH6, which will probably start out at $2500+. And S1H price beg the question of whether you are better off getting something like an EVA-1 or a C200. For me the XT-4 threads the needle of what I want in an mirrorless a bit better. GH6 sensor size too small. S1H sensor too big and heavy and expensive. An audio unit would be cool for the XT-4, but it doesn't seem to be Fuji's style. Maybe they can break with stupid inertia and use mini-XLRs to cut down on heft.
 
DLD and Norbro, you guys get the last word on the Arri thing. Cellphones are still pretty far behind, even the XT3 tier of camera feels better, but the leap frogging sort of advancement seen in cellphone cameras, is impressive.

Looking forward to what the XT4 might be. I liked the XT3, but a few small things ultimately made me stop using or recommending it. Still, left an impression and i am cheering them on with my best intentions, but not my wallet.
 
For me, 6K recording, IBIS, Flippy Screens are all fun, neat things but none of them would make me upgrade from the X-T3 to the X-T4. A video waveform monitor, HDMI Type A output and ending the 29:59 and 19:59 recording limits could.
Internal audio on consumer cameras to me is pointless, all mirrorless cameras sound like garbage compared even to the Tascam DR10L and I am sure compared to the upcoming Tentacle 32-bit recorders, much less a Sound Devices or Zoom F6, so
what's the point besides a tiny bit of convenience? Even with an audio extension unit, if the mic preamps, A/D and other audio circuitry are crappy, why bother? At least cameras like the FS7, C200/300MKII have usable internal audio, if not great,
but the mirrorless? Not for me.
 
Last edited:
If you are going to put TC in a cam like this (read X-T3), it would be darn nice to be able to at least jamsync it. I mean how hard is it that ? Not looking for clean sound or expecting a clock to run flawlessly for days on end, but certainly helpful when using these things as B cams...which is let's face it, often what they are.
 
yoclay said:
If you are going to put TC in a cam like this (read X-T3), it would be darn nice to be able to at least jamsync it. I mean how hard is it that ? Not looking for clean sound or expecting a clock to run flawlessly for days on end, but certainly helpful when using these things as B cams...which is let's face it, often what they are.
Click to expand...

TC in all hybrids that offer it is not usable. The GH5 drifts almost immediately making it unusable. If you need TC then I think using a different camera is a better choice.
 
Many cams don't hold a jam w/o support well.
Will the GH5 sync to continuous tc box like tentacle?
That would be a more realistic expectation.
 
Gweilo66 said:
Many cams don't hold a jam w/o support well.
Will the GH5 sync to continuous tc box like tentacle?
That would be a more realistic expectation.
Click to expand...

That would be the better option since it records the timecode on an audio track, but if you need internal 2-channels of audio then that could be an issue.
 
yoclay said:
If you are going to put TC in a cam like this (read X-T3), it would be darn nice to be able to at least jamsync it. I mean how hard is it that ? Not looking for clean sound or expecting a clock to run flawlessly for days on end, but certainly helpful when using these things as B cams...which is let's face it, often what they are.
Click to expand...

We use the Tentacle Sync Es with our X-T3 and C200 on the 3.5mm Ch3-4 input to sync them to our Sound Devices Mix Pre recorders and they work like a dream, painless and seamless.
They even have a built in scratch mic. You don't need a dedicated TC input honestly, it's nice to have but as Eric notes, cameras like these usually have
crappy, unreliable TC functions as well. We don't shoot many events so I have not checked multi-hour drift but for normal shooting, starts and stops, we set
our main Tentacle to TOD TC and let it go, utilize the Tentacle software to sync it all up, it exports an XML. FCP X opens it and voila, everything is in sync.

The dark secret is that the mulitcam function is so good in FCP X, we don't even use TC for multiple cameras, we just sync using scratch audio and that works great too. We only use the Tentacles for footage
we shoot for clients or when we throw the SD Mix Pre 3 in the mix since it doesn't have it's own TC generator like the Mix Pre IIs but it accepts TC from the Tentacle and stamps the files.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
Internal audio on consumer cameras to me is pointless, all mirrorless cameras sound like garbage compared even to the Tascam DR10L and I am sure compared to the upcoming Tentacle 32-bit recorders, much less a Sound Devices or Zoom F6, so
what's the point besides a tiny bit of convenience? Even with an audio extension unit, if the mic preamps, A/D and other audio circuitry are crappy, why bother? At least cameras like the FS7, C200/300MKII have usable internal audio, if not great,
but the mirrorless? Not for me.
Click to expand...

I am all for high end audio gear but the GH5 with the audio unit and a good mic has produced some nice audio for me. Useless? I think that is a bit harsh. We all work at different levels and to me, I do not think most clients would notice the audio captured properly in an interview between a GH5 w/XLR, Zoom F6 or a SD setup. IF one has a client that would notice then using a cheap mirrorless camera on that shoot is probably pointless imho. With some post work the 24bit files can be made to sound good. It is all relative.

It is more than a little convenience - batteries, cable connections, mounting etc... Some times it is a pain.

I agree it looks like Fuji would probably not have an XLR unit, but I have to ask - why not? It is a $200-$300 add on that turns the camera into a way better tool for video. = more sales...
 
Erik Naso said:
TC in all hybrids that offer it is not usable. The GH5 drifts almost immediately making it unusable. If you need TC then I think using a different camera is a better choice.
Click to expand...

Changing an entire camera system (especially the lensing) because of the TC is not realistic.
I am not trying to find a solution to what currently doesn't properly exist.
(I own four Tentacles and it's often a PIA.)
I am talking about the need of manufacturers to make it exist.

We are reading 6K pixels worth of image at 25, 30 or 60 fps nowadays.
Honestly, how difficult is it to have a decent clock and jamsync ?
You want to sell multiple cameras ? Strikes me as obvious.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
I am all for high end audio gear but the GH5 with the audio unit and a good mic has produced some nice audio for me. Useless? I think that is a bit harsh. We all work at different levels and to me, I do not think most clients would notice the audio captured properly in an interview between a GH5 w/XLR, Zoom F6 or a SD setup. IF one has a client that would notice then using a cheap mirrorless camera on that shoot is probably pointless imho. With some post work the 24bit files can be made to sound good. It is all relative.

It is more than a little convenience - batteries, cable connections, mounting etc... Some times it is a pain.

I agree it looks like Fuji would probably not have an XLR unit, but I have to ask - why not? It is a $200-$300 add on that turns the camera into a way better tool for video. = more sales...
Click to expand...

It probably is harsh but I've been dealing with this since the dawn of the digital revolution. It's a whole chain of priority.
Manufacturers build garbage audio into cameras because they don't think users care or will notice the difference.
Users don't care or notice the difference until they use something quality and then realize how bad the audio is from cameras.

Here's my main beef. We used to sort of let is slide because "the audio that actually gets used is coming from the sound mixer" so camera
audio wasn't that important, you could use it in a pinch or if you were lazy but if you wanted good sound, you conformed your audio and used
what the sound mixer recorded. FF a few years and now few of us are hiring sound mixers anymore unless we have a well financed project.
So that means today that much more of the in-camera audio is what is used for the final product. Even the cheapest digital audio recorders
tend to objectively sound so much better than any prosumer camera, I discovered this with both the GH5S and the our X-T3. We've been using
both on gimbals the past couple of years with the Tascam DR10Ls as well as our pretty inexpensive SD Mix Pre 3. There is simply no comparison.

Of course, it's how good is good enough and for many clients, they don't care or don't have an ear so possibly mirrorless audio is good enough.
But if you are audio focused, as I am, when you do a rough cut with camera audio and then conform to the audio even from your cheapo Tascam
DR10L and A/B is back and forth, there is no comparison. It's not that modern mirrorless have as much hiss and noise as we used to have to put
up with from VX1000s, it's that cheap mic pre-amps (they literally cost as little as .50), A/D and D/A convertors have hardly any dynamic range,
there are large amounts of intermodulation distortion, channel bleed from poor channel isolation. And now we have 32-bit floating point recording
on very affordable recorders which takes externally recorded audio up another two or three notches above the garbage camera audio.

If in camera audio suffices for one's need, more power to them, it's a little faster, easier and more convenient. But double system sound isn't
really very difficult to implement into a workflow, I did it for two years when the 5D MKII and MKIII were our main low budget cameras and that was
with no timecode, just a handclap or dumb slate. The only workflow where it doesn't work is if you hand off media directly to clients after a shoot.
I've had clients who are cool with doing that but many clients aren't, especially if they need to go to air or the web immediately like with EPK and
junkets.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
But if you are audio focused, as I am, when you do a rough cut with camera audio and then conform to the audio even from your cheapo Tascam
DR10L and A/B is back and forth, there is no comparison. It's not that modern mirrorless have as much hiss and noise as we used to have to put
up with from VX1000s, it's that cheap mic pre-amps (they literally cost as little as .50), A/D and D/A convertors have hardly any dynamic range,
there are large amounts of intermodulation distortion, channel bleed from poor channel isolation
Click to expand...

I'm pretty happy with the audio my GH5 records when using the Panasonic XLR adapter and a Sound Devices MixPre-D to feed audio to the camera.
( the MixPre-D pre-amps are far better than any Tascam gear I've owned or my cameras by themselves )
 
I can't say I disagree with you Dan but it sounds like you are referencing using the internal mic of the camera. Nobody would argue that there is better but in my experience, the GH5 with the XLR unit is pretty good, especially with post treatment. I guess my point is, good enough for work that includes using a $2,000 camera. Which is a lot these days! :(

I would like to convey to all of the manufacturers that this level of audio for all of the top tier mirrorless cameras is needed for them to be complete video tools. Because the people that buy and use them probably do mid to low level paying work! So if the bots are reading this - Fuji, make an XLR audio adapter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top