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

I do not know where I fit in on the totem pole so to speak, but I find it incredibly useful to have a camera that can be used on a handheld gimbal that can turn around and be a good interview camera. The more roles a camera can play the more of a chance I have to want it in my bag. But, I am a OMB, so a premium is put on value and not needing to carry around separate cameras for every task.
 
I recommended the XT3 to a couple journalists and docu people that may not be a full time camera person, but might want to shoot interviews or broll at random times during their assignment.

Now, the XT4 seems even better, as the ibis would mean they wouldn’t even need a tripod for b-roll or off the cuff interviews. Seems stellar!

But i spend so much time with a camera, that certain comforts and quality features are more what i look for.
 
James0b57 said:
I recommended the XT3 to a couple journalists and docu people that may not be a full time camera person, but might want to shoot interviews or broll at random times during their assignment.

Now, the XT4 seems even better, as the ibis would mean they wouldn’t even need a tripod for b-roll or off the cuff interviews. Seems stellar!

But i spend so much time with a camera, that certain comforts and quality features are more what i look for.
Click to expand...

A lot of it depends on what you are shooting and how far you travel to get your desired shots. I wanted to shoot a sunset from the top of some cliffs with the Sony FX9 last week.
I dragged the FX9 with the XCDA FX9 back, a 150 Wh V mount, my Sachtler and Miller tripod and a back pack with some spare V-mounts. I realized when all was said and done
that I was hauling over 50lbs of gear up the side of a mountain for one sunset shot. Objectively, my X-T3 with my Gorilla Pod could have taken the same shot and the end result
probably would have looked as good or almost as good. And the Fuji would have weighed about three pounds with the lens and Gorilla Pod. So for that assignment, if I wasn't shooting
for a camera review, the X-T3 would have buried the Sony for flexibility and convenience. For for interviews, the Sony is clearly better.
 
Was asking about size preference for smaller cameras. Like the XT3 vs S1H vs 1D, which of those would be the prefered size?

Especially if the choice is between XT3 with micro hdmi and a 1D with proper i/o’s.

Despite the 5dmkii “dslr revolution”, there was never a dslr-like pro video body. And even today, we have professionals preferring dslr/mirrorless over more traditional video bodies. So, what happened? Why the disconnect with manufacturers?
 
Last edited:
I admit, that the modularity of something like the S1H is nice, and in ways the 1D shape is a little bulky, but maybe something in between. Though, if it means better internal power, cooling, full i/o, and better weather sealing, then i would end up preferring the full size flagship dslr style body for dedicated video use. And then using a xt3 or komodo for specialty situations.

But i already paid full price for a 1DC back in the day. I put my money down, not like i am talking hypothetically here.
 
My preferred size is the a6500. The a7 is already bigger than I need, and the RX100 is way too small. Yet my current camera is the p4k, with is way bigger than that, so: I will jump through the hoops if the image quality is there.

BTW: currently downloading XT3 footage to play with inside Resolve
edit: it could be smoother but it's not bad at all, I could work directly with this H.265 footage
 
Last edited:
For me, I have two size areas, gimbal and everything else. I am happy with anything from the S1 to a GH5.Sony RX10 sized for hand holding or tripod ect... For the gimbal, GH5 is the largest I would want unless the body is light weight. I am considering the upcoming Canon R5 and I hope with a light prime it would be in the ball park of the GH5 with 12-40 lens. So sort of a one, two punch. I have not checked on the weight of the XT-4 and lens. The Fuji might be a great gimbal camera if it is light weight and the AF is strong.
 
It DEPENDS on the person. Not everyone likes their meat cooked the same way (and some do not eat meat altogether).

The X-T3 has most of the same I/Os that the 1D-type body has (micro vs. mini HDMI), so the difference in the body doesn't make a difference in that case. (It's not like we have a choice of having XLRs or SDIs on the bigger 1D-type bodies. Cooling is moot; technology has advanced enough and will continue to get better.

Some people on here have pushed against full-frame cameras because they want smaller bodies and smaller lenses...so their preferred size would be smaller. Some have big hands...so they may like something a bit bigger to hold. Some build up stills cameras into cinema cameras...so they are probably indifferent.

Then there's support gear to consider. Different hardware, physical strengths. For some, cameras that vary by several millimeters or a handful of grams will not make any difference. For others, you can add the aforementioned grips to increase size and in some cases functionality if needed.

One size does not fit all.

___

For most people, pricing and features come first.

If there's an 8K/120p mirrorless with everything you can imagine for $1000, you can bet size becomes irrelevant real quick.

Most people will physically and mentally compromise and naturally adapt to the size later if their feature set is there (or a lot of it).

And most of these cameras are all designed in a similar way with the very main buttons like the thumb/finger wheels/dials being available around the same locations. Touchscreens are nice. I think any of these medium-sized bodies will work if they are loaded with features. And even better if they have the connections people want (like a full-sized HDMI). XLRs, SDIs; more dedicated I/Os are not happening.

___

At the end of the day, there will always be something to complain about. If the HDMI is on the left side, people will ask why it's not on the right side. If there's dual-card recording then triple-card recording will be needed because grandma needs a copy too.

The main industry disconnect is because many of the cameras are cheaper and better for people than what's currently available. Take away the few cinema cameras that are on the market for under $10K, and there's nothing left but mirrorless cameras.

If manufactures made more cooler cameras for $3K-$4K-$5K then more people would be interested rather than using stills cameras for video.

For many of us, stills cameras that shoot video are pretty much all we have right now.
 
Samuel H said:
My preferred size is the a6500. The a7 is already bigger than I need, and the RX100 is way too small. Yet my current camera is the p4k, with is way bigger than that, so: I will jump through the hoops if the image quality is there.

BTW: currently downloading XT3 footage to play with inside Resolve
edit: it could be smoother but it's not bad at all, I could work directly with this H.265 footage
Click to expand...

Do you use a cage for your camera?
 
Bassman2003 said:
For me, I have two size areas, gimbal and everything else. I am happy with anything from the S1 to a GH5.Sony RX10 sized for hand holding or tripod ect... For the gimbal, GH5 is the largest I would want unless the body is light weight. I am considering the upcoming Canon R5 and I hope with a light prime it would be in the ball park of the GH5 with 12-40 lens. So sort of a one, two punch. I have not checked on the weight of the XT-4 and lens. The Fuji might be a great gimbal camera if it is light weight and the AF is strong.
Click to expand...

How do you handle plugging into a live feed or run mic hops? Do those cameras handle 3-4hr 4K continuous recording without over heating?

What makes you prefer the GH5 for shooting?
 
Samuel H said:
BTW: currently downloading XT3 footage to play with inside Resolve
edit: it could be smoother but it's not bad at all, I could work directly with this H.265 footage
Click to expand...

If you already have it in Resolve, then transcoding it to a more edit-friendly codec is easy.
 
Still can't figure why everyone seems Hell bent on editing a long GOP, terrible editing codec like H.265? Are all of the people obsessed with doing this news shooters where you have to have a cut ready for upload a few hours after you shoot it?
H.265, while it looks great, is not an editing codec. Prores and lots of other flavors are. I'd always transcode all my long GOP formats to Prores for editing, completely disregarding the time needed to transcode it, it's so worth it.
 
James0b57 said:
How do you handle plugging into a live feed or run mic hops? Do those cameras handle 3-4hr 4K continuous recording without over heating?

What makes you prefer the GH5 for shooting?
Click to expand...

I use PX270's for live multicamera shoots. I mainly use mirrorless for "project" style shooting or corporate highlights/interviews. The XLR unit is on the camera if needed. So I have a limited use for these cameras. Which in turn, drives me away from a C200 so to speak as I need the SDOF camera to be a lot of things. Small helps that and price helps that as well. Since I am a Canon stills shooter, I am ready to pounce on a 5R if the video specs are good. A strong 5R would cover a lot of bases for me. The S1 is a good option but I just prefer Canon for stills. The interface just makes more sense to me or I am used to it. I like FF for stills, s35 or m4/3rds is fine for video.

I know it seems we are asking a lot, but I like to go off of existing cameras to set a bar for others. For me, the GH & S1 series have set the bar for video features. It is up to the other makers if they want to match it.
 
puredrifting said:
Still can't figure why everyone seems Hell bent on editing a long GOP, terrible editing codec like H.265? Are all of the people obsessed with doing this news shooters where you have to have a cut ready for upload a few hours after you shoot it?
H.265, while it looks great, is not an editing codec. Prores and lots of other flavors are. I'd always transcode all my long GOP formats to Prores for editing, completely disregarding the time needed to transcode it, it's so worth it.
Click to expand...

For me it is about backup space. I prefer to keep an original chain and if you transcode everything and get busy, you have a ton of hard drive space used. My rule is to have two copies of anything in the edit bay, so it adds up if you shoot long events like myself. I have to render complex stuff like 4k grennscreen and it is a pain to keep track and space for the original and rendered (which is huge). Long GOP just makes it easier and I can edit what I need for the most part without transcoding. I use Edius and it has a nice proxy feature. So multicamera shoots (4-6 cameras) get a proxy made for editing which is tied to the originals, so you actually cut the originals along with the proxies. So backups and editing copies are the same smaller Long GOP files.
 
Ok, i can see i phrased this question horribly.

Thank you Pure, that was about as close as anyone got to answering. I feel your approach to shooting is very well thought out, and your experience informed choices are appreciated.

Alright, sorry for side bar hijack, back to the thread topic.
 
Is it fair to say(while walking) the X-T4 w/ IBIS with Fuji 16mm f/1.4 lens on a gimbal(such as Zhiyun Crane 2 or Moza Aircross 2) are a low light killer combo?
 
boo said:
Is it fair to say(while walking) the X-T4 w/ IBIS with Fuji 16mm f/1.4 lens on a gimbal(such as Zhiyun Crane 2 or Moza Aircross 2) are a low light killer combo?
Click to expand...

Just beware that while the XF 16mm f/1.4 WR is a magical lens, I love mine, I have only operated it wide open once in a situation on a documentary where I really didn't have a choice. Upon reviewing
the wide open footage, I found it noticeably softer and not nearly as good microcontrast as stopping that same lens down to 2.8 or 3.5. I rarely if ever operate fast lenses wide open because they will
always be optically subpar wide open compared to a few stops down. For me, that speed is sort of like driving a Ferrari around, you rarely need to floor it but it's there when you need it.

Also, if not lighting and shooting in poor light are your primary MO, you'll be happier with a FF camera IMHO. I never run the X-T3 higher than ISO 1600 if I can avoid it. Not because I am afraid of a little
noise and grain but for me personally, going above that means I need to light a scene somehow. It's not just grain and noise, as you probably know, color fidelity and sharpness go out the window in low
light, ultra high gain situations.

Coming from a film BG, unless you are shooting news, I see no reason to operate any cameras at insanely high ISOs, although I will say the new Sony FX9 I shot with all last week
came with a relatively slow f/4.0 zoom but the camera has dual base ISO of 800 and 4,000 and I have to say the ISO 4,000 was handy with such a slow lens, even with lighting since I didn't have high output
lighting. The grain and noise was remarkably good at ISO 4,000, my X-T3 at ISO 4,000 wouldn't have even been in the same neighborhood as the FF sensor on the FX9.
 
Last edited:
boo said:
Is it fair to say(while walking) the X-T4 w/ IBIS with Fuji 16mm f/1.4 lens on a gimbal(such as Zhiyun Crane 2 or Moza Aircross 2) are a low light killer combo?
Click to expand...

With 16mm, the IBIS needs to be disabled to avoid corner warping.
 
Bummer on the warping. Yeah how's the 8-16mm 2.8? What would be a recommened lens on a gimbal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top