Is Full Frame a Trap!? | Fujifilm X-T4 vs Sony A7R IV
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 сен 2024
- In this video, Josh from Georges compares two cameras the Fujifilm X-T4 and the Sony A7R IV to see what they are like for both stills and video. Assisting Josh is Warwick Williams from Fujifilm Australia who shares his insight on the 26.1MP APS-C sensor design found in the X-T4. In comparison, this is much smaller than the 61MP full-frame sensor found in the Sony, but will the quality stack up against the Fujifilm?
Throughout the video watch as Josh and Warwick compare the quality between matched lenses from both brands, including:
FUJIFILM XF 56mm f/1.2 R Lens vs Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM Lens
FUJIFILM XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR Lens vs Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Lens
After looking at all the sample images, the conclusion is mixed. Around 50% of the images Josh could tell which camera took the image; however, with the remaining, it was up for debate. What this suggests is despite the brand and selection of lenses, you can always get excellent images. While this comparison is tough, each camera did have its advantages.
For instance, the APS-C sensor is smaller, which makes it ideal for travelling. Plus with the rotating screen on the FUJIFILM, it makes it easier to vlog with. The Sony A7R IV, on the other hand, is larger but has the ability for a headphone jack to monitor the audio.
Regardless of the camera, you decide head into Georges where our team can assist your photography and video needs. At the end of the day, it comes down to your personal preference. Let us know what you think of the photos down below - we would love to hear from you.
------------------------
FUJIFILM XF 56mm f/1.2 R Lens - www.georges.co...
FUJIFILM XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR Lens - www.georges.co...
Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM Lens - www.georges.co...
Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Lens - www.georges.co...
MB01SSOPDCD3ERZ 
Кино
Zooming in and telling us the 61mp sensor has more detail than a 26.1mp sensor is really enlightening. Thanks.
U read my mind
Lol
you can’t even call it a true 26 mp, because it’s way inferior to a full frame
LoL
@@Archonsx lol
No client is zooming in 250%-350% percent on an image. The fact you had to even zoom in that far to see a difference speaks volumes to the aps-c sensor in the XT4.
100%
And no client will say "Oh, I hope you used a full frame camera to get a more shallow depth of field." Let's be realistic, client's wont give a crap about your sensor size. They'll give their opinions on how your shots looks, and if you deliver great photos on a M4T or a APS-C sensor, you think they'll care that you use a full-frame sensor? The full frame hype is definitely a trap.
50% is standard to zoom in to when you are selling your work to be presented on web which is most cases in 2020.
Exactly
But you can reframe easily in post processing on A7Riv without losing much quality. If you have the money, get the A7R4. Fair comparison would have been with A7iii
Wouldn't comparing the A7III be a little more reasonable?
It would have been even more interesting comparing it with the XT30 image wise
I mean the A7III is 2 years older than the XT-4 so maybe they wanted to compared up to date cameras. But price wise it makes way more sense obviously.
In deed the sensors in both camera's are the same technology and pixel-size (just x-trans color-array on Fujifilm). So it's a pretty good comparison, if you want to understand the benefit the bigger-sensor gives you - which is more pixels. And the options in the available lenses you have.
Yes
Absolutely not. This is a no-hold barred comparison. The best of each manufacturer, because once you get to the high end, the serious hobbyist usually wants the best today, even if it will be superseded in a few years. They should have done more tripod shots since the shaky hand of the shooter makes a bigger difference to image quality. It reduces the test to which camera has the better image stabilization.
3:36 The clock looks sharper in the X-T4
it looks overall more contrasty and therefore better on the xt4. i own a xt3 as well as an a7iii and as soon as i start cranking up shadows or icreasing ISO i start to see the sony winning
Facts. Since you'll have your focus on the subject much better working on a smaller sensor. Full frames have its perks, but they just both do the same on most close up scenarios.
Comparing two cameras where one is double the price of the other seems odd to me. The Sony is a superb camera, but in terms of value for money, particularly if you shoot video as well as stills, the X-T4 is probably the best on the market.
@JJ James With Fujifilm X-T4 v Sony A7R IV as part of the title, I'd say it was a comparison.
@JJ James Sorry, you've lost me now. I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
It goes to show you don't need to spend all that money on a Sony when you can get fantastic result with the Fujifilm
Have you checked Canon EOS RP? With only $1000 you get a full frame mirrorless with small form factor and a competitive video capabilities as well. I think eos rp is still the winner if we’re talking about price per value. But yes XT4 is one of the best hybrid shooter
If you shoot manual focus video yes otherwise it’s no contest as the video af on Fuji is mega unreliable
I switched over from Canon to Fuji and I don't regret it, it changed my life and ff or apsc doesn't make a difference, a good picture is not about pixels and gears, it's about how you feel, what you see and how often you have your camera with you but thanks anyway for sharing!
I changed from Canon to Sony (Ar7) to Fuji and am happy, happy, happy.
Lowlight is where there is a noticeable difference.
I’d say the Sony’s dynamic range and resolution make it the obvious choice of image quality is the goal. Fuji would be good for portability and cost.
i switched from nikon d850/d810 to fuji gfx sold my nikon lenses gfx cameras is good at one thing imageoutput other than that they hunt on focus misses focus and are slow on everything
@@CryoftheProphet Fuji is actually more expensive. Let's say 1 standard zoom + 2 primes, maybe the classic 35mm and 85mm that many people like.
Fuji XT4 $1699 Sony A7iii $1699
16-55 $1199 Sigma 24-70 $1099 or Sony 24-105 f/4 (if we want equivalence and house brand)
23mm f/1.4 $899 Sony 35mm f/1.8 $648
56mm f/1.2 $999 Sony 85mm f/1.8 $548
Total $4796 $3994. Even if the A7iii is not on sale at 1999, total is still $4294. $500 cheaper.
You get about 600g less weight though which is probably good for travelers and hikers. But anyone who says Fuji isnt expensive hasn't done comparisons.
This comparison is worthless on many levels.
let´s see yours. ?
Lul
I'd take the Fuji and buy some extra wonderful lenses with the remaining $3000
Which is exactly the issue that's neglected here: In terms of lenses, full frame is much more cost efficient.
Landscope 360 in what way would buying full frame lenses be more cost efficient?
Have you seen the prices of Fuji lenses and lack of decent third party options? For a Sony you have fantastic Sigma, Samyany and affordable native options. With Fuji, you have expensive native options that are very dated in terms of technology, cheaper slower lenses or questionable third party Viltrox lenses.
- X-T3 user.
Sam Grimes just to clarify... having owned 3 “Art” sigma lenses... they’re crap! The build is bad, they focus inconsistently, the image details are bad... with the Fuji native glass, you at least have Fuji’s stellar optics, another way to look at it.
@@mortenthorpe We're talking about a different range of Sigma lenses in that case.
You should shoot night photos in Raw. Compare the noise after post processing.
I own both cameras. The XT-4 has become my favoured camera, it’s lighter, easier to carry and to use take the handheld photos I like to take. As Fuji users know, there’s variable glass available, some lenses are excellent, all are really good.
Fuji user here. The Sony portraits at 5:21 looks significantly better. In fact, the Fuji looks out of focus..?
I have an XT3 but have been wondering about maybe moving to a full frame. This video was very helpful in helping me realize that the APS-C sensor is more than adequate for my needs. I was actually shocked at how close the image quality was between a 26 and a 61 megapixel camera.
I’ve had a Canon DSLR, but now have a Fuji X100T. I love it, and can just wear it on my belt. My friend has a very nice full frame Nikon - but when the two were placed side by side, I’m happy to keep the Fuji. I basically just use it a lot more (speaking as a non professional, that is!). He uses a rucksack, I use a belt pouch.
I switched from full frame Nikon to APS-C Fuji last year, and to be honest, I would not go back to Nikon or any other full frame camera. The APS-C cameras today are very capabale, and unless you are shooting astro, the bigger sensor size is barely an advantage in almost any scenario.
What should be mentioned is that the 24-70mm GM doesn’t fully resolve the 61mp of the RIV. That’s why I bought the Sigma 24-70mm Art instead for mine as its sharper. Fuji make amazing cameras, easily the best APSC system on the market. But if you want to see what the RIV can really do test it with the recent GM and recent Sigma Art glass and compare it to the GFX 50R/S and GFX 100, that would be a fairer comparison.
So, judging by this, I can get a smaller and more compact camera (look at the lens difference), 1/2 price cheaper, for just about the same performance? The test was unfair to the X-T4 and yet it still held its ground...
@Apple Pear If you print images or crop a lot then absolutely, but for most users Fujifilm is good enough.
Apple Pear I agree but the Fuji held its own and at at least half the price. They better hope Fuji doesn’t decide to make a full frame
APS-C is about a stop worse than full frame in every way. That's hardly even close.
@@youknowwho9247 cheaper, smaller, good quality, capable in professional environnement (depending on what you do) and if you know what the fuck you are doing you can take incredible photos no matter what gear you are using (aps-c - ff or even medium format)
and it also depend on the feel you have for the camera, if you take a A7R IV over any other camera just cause of the perf that's kinda sad cause if you hate how it feels, the ergonomics, the menu system etc you are stuck with it for a while (same with any other camera again)
ruclips.net/video/zZNr24yVD9s/видео.html&ab_channel=NigelDanson
good video about large prints, differents sensor and still amazing to see that you can print an aps-c shot that much without losing quality.
@@kannonfps APS-C is neither smaller nor cheaper if we're comparing pieces of gear that offer the same performance. Feel free to shoot with whatever you want, but let's acknowledge the objective facts here: No crop sensor camera does or will ever match the image quality and creative flexibility of full frame.
You go with a Sony A7R IV if you need the absolute highest quality image and largest bokeh possible. You go with the Fuji XT-4 if you want 93% of everything the Sony offers at half the weight and cost (On body and most lenses).
Also, the Fuji is WAY more fun to shoot with.
I like fuji more and I do have sony a7mak3 and fuji xt3 I don't know I just like fuji more nicer color and clean image
It's nice to know others opinion. I am contemplating between Fuji x-s10 and Sony a7c. I thing I will go with Fuji.
Love my X-T4, paired with 16-55 & 50-140 is awesome for video, I finally settled on classic chrome film simulation
X-T4 + Sigma art 18-35 f1.8 absolutely fantastic
I have both and I grab the Fuji most of the time. The AF on the A7R iv is much better the tracking and eye af is on a completely different level. However for everything else the Fuji is a JOY to shoot. The A7R iv raw file sizes are a pain. Both have their strengths but if I had to choose 1 to keep Id choose the Fujifilm.
The problem with this comparison is equivalent f-stops and iso aren’t explained. Fuji lenses are actual more money than the equivalent ff lenses from Sony. With that said, both cameras are great tools for photographers.
If you get a full-frame camera and an APS-C camera with the same settings and take the same image, that image will likely have different exposures. Firstly, remember that the image sensors are different sizes, meaning that each sensor is actually gathering a different amount of light (The full-frame one gathers more because the sensor area is larger) secondly, the way manufacturers calibrate the native ISOs on cameras is different, meaning that even if the sensors were the same size, ISO 100 on one camera would not necessarily mean the same exact sensor gain or voltage on the other camera if it were also at ISO 100. So there has to be a calculation that is done to step down the full-frame camera to match the light-gathering limitations of the smaller APS-C sized sensor in order to make this comparison scientifically fair.
This is bogus.
The exposure will be the same, because the sensor area is smaller, so the smaller amount of light entering, will make the image just as bright, as the fullframe one.
The exposure with same exposure values will have the same brightness, but the aps-c will have less detail and more noise, especially at low-light scenes or high iso scenarios.
This was hilarious - and I'm a fuji user too. However the Fuji guy was quite protective of his gear/Fuji name. Each time there was something slightly negative, he would jump in to defend Fuji. The other guy didn't care so much.
he is a fuji employee ;)
The biggest differences are if you're making large prints or working in low light. But there are others.
I've used the a7r iii and the xt3 and there is a pretty big difference. I like working with the Raw files from Sony. Was not a fan of the xtrans. I suspect a lot of the love for Fuji comes from their jpegs.
higher quality ff files are more versatile in post production
I think a lot of Fuji love actually comes from design of the camera. Some of us just like having a more old school dial layout and a camera feel that is more aligned with an old manual film camera. My first introduction to photography as an art form was on an old Pentax K1000. The X-T series harkens back to that.
One of the things I also considered before buying in was future lens price. The Fuji system doesn't have third party stuff but the good Fuji glass is relatively affordable in comparison to the Sony stuff.
@@joroshiba I understand most of that, although the lack of a grip bothered me a little. I guess it's what you're used to. Being a Canon user for a decade I prefer the traditional Canon or Nikon style layout.
@@donschiffer7400 I have small hands haha.
You guys should compare RAWs not JPGs, because that's why there is difference in contrast and colors. On fuji cameras there are many film simulation JPG modes and default "provia" picture mode is indeed a little bit too dark and saturated although shadows arnt clipped as people may think based on this video (turning on shadow and highlight clipping in lightroom confirms this). I still like using Provia film simulation mode in lightroom from time to time, because overall picture looks amazing (I like realistic but still saturated colors), but I always increase shadows settings later on. With default color mode in lightroom shadows looks normal without any additional tweaks and that's why RAWs should be used in this comparison.
When it comes to picture quality, modern fuji APS-C cameras like X-T3/4 can match many older full frame cameras like Nikon D750 when it comes to resolution and noise, but something like Sony A7R4 has indeed big resolution advantage. Personally I think even 26MP is more than enough and RAW size is also important factor. 26MP 55MB uncompressed and around 30MB with lossless compression is still acceptable. in comparison Sony 61MP RAWs are gigantic, 120MB uncompressed and without losseless compression support, so for people like me who dont like to delete pictures I literally save 4x more money on storage space.
I feel like Sony A7R4 is more geared towards real professionals who take photos for very big billboards and who dont care about money and storage space as much. IMO not even wedding photographers will benefit from 61MP resolution and storage space is expensive. There's only one small issue I have with Fuji XT3/4. Fuji x-trans sensor requires ML Demosaicing (enhance details function in lightroom) in order to get best picture quality (better sharpness, less noise, more color depth) and it takes around 10 seconds on my PC to reconstruct single RAW image.
BTW- I have also noticed aperture isnt matched correctly in this comparison. APS-C F1.2 will look like F1.8 on full frame because of the difference in crop factor. That's why depth looks a little bit different on A7R4.
I shoot all my wedding on fuji Xt4s, Fuji not just for amateur market, can work professionally i went from full canon to APSc Fuji, and I haven’t noticed any difference, only that enjoy carrying around less weight and working with the Fuji cameras is heaps more fun.
You can use Capture One their Fuji RAW management is way better and faster you dont have to use enhanced details kind of thing.
@@bushpixel396 I know people (including fuji) recommend "capture one" to all fuji users, but I have tried it and I dont like it. IMO picture quality is inferior compared to "lightroom" + ML demosaicing, and not just sharpness and colors looks worse (ML demosaicing also improve color resolution, especially flowers looks more vibrant at 1:1 zoom) but film simulatiom and color profiles dont match my default camera profiles (I dont have such problems on fuji x-raw studio or lightroom). Capture one is forcing something like HDR into all color profiles (it prioritize highlights and boost subtle color tones) but I still prefer my camera default color settings.
@@PabloB888 By default Lightroom cannot manage to do proper demosaicing of fuji files so its inferior in this aspect. You need to make a neural network run by using enhanced details , which can take days on big collections. The details difference with Capture One is then really thin (I conceid its superior) but for a much more intensive computing work, its not worth it as it makes the overall developing process a real pain. In Capture One , once import process is done, you're good to go. For the color aspect I disagree.
I find the overall experience smoother on Capture One but thats even more true for Fuji users.
@@bushpixel396 I can edit only 5-10 photos max. There's no way I would edit hundreds of photos in a row, because I have to spend around 15-20 minutes on each photo in photoshop. Additional 10 seconds (that's how long it takes to render enhance details on my GPU) is really not a big deal for me.
FUJI RAWs in lightroom without ML demosaicing looks far from good, because even at moderate sharpening "worms" are everywhere, but ML magic do the job extremely well. In fact with ML trick fuji RAWs in lightroom are even more detailed than Capture One RAWs, but I can see why some people may think it's the other way around. The thing is Capture One is using much stronger sharpening at default settings, turn it off and then look at details before they will be boosted with fake sharpening..
And the last thing in regards to colors. Fuji RAWs in Capture One looks different (maybe even better to some people like you, because Capture One prioritze highlights over contrast), but when I use "provia" color mode in Capture One, I expect to get the same look as "provia" from my camera when I was taking photos. If I want mire highlights in certain areas I can always edit it by myself.
Maybe I will try once again Capture One in the future, but right now I dont even want to.
4:40 a lot more detail and clarity on the right
6:11 you HAVE to make the picture on the left brighter. What is the point?
7:15 That makes sense!!!
To be hones, sony has much more depth, just like gfx 50r has it over sony a7rIV. Bigger sensor gives more 3d'ness to the photo.
In this video there's noticeable difference in DOF and shadows details, but only because settings arnt matched correctly. With default film simulation mode JPGs on Fuji have stronger blacks. RAWs with the same color profile looks very similar. You only need to remember to set aperture correctly because APS-C sensor will give different DOF on the same aperture compared to full frame. DOF at F1.2 on fuji APS-C can match F1.8 on Sony, but not 1.4 like in this comparison.
Sure, and what's the physical reason for that? Don't say a bigger sensor because that's not a physical explanation. Have you considered, that the difference may be down to different post processing (they shot JPEG)? What exactly is "3d'ness"? Could you please define that?
The thing is: bigger sensors with bigger pixels give you more dynamic range and less noise, bigger sensor with same pixel pitch gives you about the same dynamic range and noise levels at higher resolution (so you could scale it down and reduce noise while adding sharpness). The GFX100 has the same sensor as the A7Riv and the T3/T4 (same pixel pitch, same technology stack) - just at different sizes. That means same ISO noise, about the same dynamic range (on a sensor level). Differences might be introduced with amplification stages.
@@diotough There are any number of ways to approach a comparison like this. The one that makes sense to me is viewing the images you are comparing at the same size, whether on screen or in print. In this scenario, a larger sensor with the same pixel pitch as a smaller sensor will exhibit less apparent noise even if it is equivalent when both images are viewed at pixel level.
@@timothylinn That's like comparing fuel economy of a 150mph car at 150mph with the one of a 200mph car. It's a distorted comparison. You have to take equivalency into account. Or else you'd take all shots with a 50mm lens at the same aperture - the results will be different because all you changed is sensor format. That distorts everything. If you want a fair comparison you have to take equivalency into the equation. At that point the sensor size doesn't matter anymore and it's solely about pixel size. This is true for going bigger or smaller.
The effect for you might be different because you only need resolution X and not 2.25X then sure you only use it at X but the reason for your gain is not the larger sensor but the downsampling. The noise performance is related to pixels not downsampled resolution. If all you need is a 4k sized image then you're fine with 8-9MP which means you could downsample from the APS-C image at a factor of 3. There won't be any difference at that point. If you scale one image to 100% and downsample the other it's not meaningful comparison.
@@diotough My comment assumed equivalency along with the same field of view and composition on each sensor. That necessarily means that different focal lengths will be used. As I said previously, it just makes more sense to me to discuss/compare image quality and noise at your preferred viewing size, whatever that might be. It has nothing to do with "fair".
That order in which the blind test photos were shown was quite chaotic if you don’t mind me saying so
Full frame is not a trap. That’s like people who shoot M43 saying the APS-C is a trap or those who shoot FF saying that MF is a trap. Each have their purposes and their pros and cons.
It just seems that anyone who shoots at a particular sensor size says that any larger sizes are unnecessary. Fuji suggested that until they came out with MF.
BTW, I’m a fan of Fuji. I still shoot an S3 Pro.
Is ASP-C a trap?
Exactly is Yes.
I started using camera, bought a X-T30 around 9 months.
When I zoom inside, Blur !!
F5.6 with tripod.
Why not use a smartphone to do the same things, when I seen ASP-C resolution.
I was thinking about switching over to Fuji from Sony FF.
My reason mainly was that I assumed to save a quite bit of weight going APSC since I do a lot of hiking.
When I was comparing the high end Fuji lenses 8-16 2.8, 16-55 2.8 and 100-400 4.5-5.6 to my current setup 16-35 2.8 GM, 24-105 4.0 G and 100-400 4.5-5.6 GM it ended up 2835g for Fuji to 2738g for Sony 😱
-> So when you now also consider the better light capturing capabilites of FF and all the other advantages like DOF doing portraits I'm definitely sticking with Sony
I'm mainly using the 16-35 on my A7R3 while having the 24-105 on my a6500 -> this way I'm covering 16mm - 157.5mm without switching lenses and always being able to use both for quite reasonable video quality 👌
The cool retro looks and the extremity versatile operating concept of the Fuji is really tempting though 🤔
But you could have gotten an XT30 with the 18-55 or even the 15-45 zoom, or the small Fujicrons, and save a lot of weight and money for good enough image quality
@@nickbakis1553 You know that there are also cheaper and lighter Sony f4.0 or variable aperture lenses if i wanted to go for "just good enough" image quality?
My point is just that if you compare apples to apples as close as possible the difference in weight is very small or even not existing.
This means that the only reason for going Fuji FOR ME would be the cool operating concept.... that's unfortunately not enough for satisfying the switch since I also tried the X-T4 and I still found the grip not large enough 😕
@@thomassch.4110 I agree that if you compare the larger Fuji bodies and equivalent lenses, there is no much weight advantage (that's why I think Fuji should concentrate on the smaller bodies and lenses). I also agree that if you want the best image quality, you'll stick with FF. For me, the image quality difference is not large enough to justify the weight difference and cost, especially in relation to the smaller bodies.
@@nickbakis1553 there is a huge weight difference in lenses between the two systems.
@@gaprofitt Example?
Oh wow, comparing a Fuji to a Sony with an official Fuji rep, this won’t be biased at all...
Maybe the images are fake isn’t ? Nasa controls RUclips
Josh was biased toward Sony so who cares?
X-T4 User here.
4:50 There's more depth on the Fuji? The Fuji has pretty great bokeh, but to me the subject on the Sony looks more 3D, not to mention the difference in sharpness and detail. The building photos are harder to distinguish between the two cameras, but not this one.
I am a nikon user, nikon still does not surprise me in the mirrorless, now sony and fuji are quick to give new alternatives, with respect to the comparison, the 60 megapixels could be lowered and so it would be a remarkable comparison .. greetings
I think it all the depends on what you need,.
The Nikon z6 is better than both this cameras for external 10 Bit 4:2:2 Video and can probably focus better or just as good as Fuji on video.
The Sony A7r4 creates beautiful images and video,.. but the images are huge, and the video is not 10bit to an external recorder...
The Fuji XT4 are a great in between systems.
As someone who has both A7III and XT3 and Xpro2 I can confidently say the A7III is a much more well rounded camera. It has an amazing autofocus system, much more third party support for lenses (which end up being cheaper than fuji lenses) and the grip is much more comfortable.
I'm a Fuji guy and to be fair, the Sony won hands down. 60 Mps, sensor twice the size is understandable. (I was also a bit disappointed with fuji dynamic range....) But isn't it all about getting the shot?
I left FF DSLR because of the size. Although mirrorless FF bodies are half an inch smaller, there is no real difference in size. Their new lenses, undoubtedly amazing, are twice the price of my DSLR equivalent (why?)
Fuji image quality may not quite on par, but my fuji camera comes with me more than any FF would and it's good enough for me 🙂
I think a more fair comparison for the Fuji would be to put it against the Sony A7 mkiii
It could be interesting if A7r4 is compared with GFX50 + GF110mm f2 since the have closer megapixel count
Dude... that like medium format to the full frame
For me as a hobby user only the overall system size and the price counts. As a professional photographer I would get the Sony ARIV, because the equipment has to meet the requirements in the best possible way and there are still resolution reserves that I would miss with the XT-4.But privately I photograph landscapes/cities and watch the pictures on my PC / TV. Here the difference between the two cameras is small.
System size counts for professionals as well
Comparing Fuji APSC 56mm f1.2 to Sony FF 85mm f1.4 in term of depth of field is unfair. It will be apple to apple to compare APSC 56mm f1.2 to FF 85mm f1.8.
I'm glad someone pointed that out
This
Isn't that one of the inherent advantages of a FF, though? You can't get a comparable fast aperture in a crop sensor.
@@pablonetx There is a Fuji 50 f1.0 now
@@nickbakis1553 and it's absolutely massive. weighs 25% more than the Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN for Sony.
THIS is the comparison breakdown I wanted to see!✨
Give a link to the originals of the photo, better google dive! It’s strange for me why you didn’t bring the photo to a single scale in the video. I understand that different viewing angles, but only on the same scale, it makes sense to compare them! But what about video recording?
For the price of the Sony get a Fujifilm medium format.
The GFX and 1 wide lens is enough.. you can just crop the shit out of it 😂..
Yup
Forgive me if I am wrong. If you have a different sensor size then the way you work out of equivalence between different systems means changing values to suit. I mean the crop factor affects more than magnification. Then also sensor size combined with lens diameter determines the field of view.
Meaning these comparisons are not entirely comparable on one to one basis. That topic is a lot of convoluted maths and technically not much of an issue to a casual shooter.
However from a general point of view the differences in colour reproduction mean that you are not really losing out in terms of quality.
I would say you could use either but for large media and extra detail especially when in raw format or indeed a 16-shot pixel shift image to create 240 megapixel stills then the Sony has that advantage.
From what I have seen fujifilm is going to be better for filming. Also Ibis and steady shot should be considerable factors when deciding between these.
Personally I would like both as each system have great tools and tricks up their sleeves.
It took me a while to feel confiable going from full frame to APS-C but very happy with my X-T4 & X-T3. Random thought but I don't think I could comfortably shoot with a micro thirds sensor especially that the prices of the lumix high end is the same exact as the X-T4
Exactly! I was thinking about the GH5 but it’s hard when their good native lenses cost about as much as full frame lenses.
What camera is that? G9 or GH5?
Aps-c has it's place just as full frame and medium format. Sony a7riv can also shoot in aps-c mode with just as much megapixels as xt4 and it can do it with a 200 jpeg buffer. The camera can do triple duty including video.
What is the cost comparison (bodies) for these two cameras?
Some pixel peeping also shows that the Fuji sensors are really textures eaters. Even the XT4 did not fix that. Doesn’t mean it is a bad camera of course.
Lol the xt4 sensor is a sony sensor. In fact xt4 , 7r4 and the fuji medium format sensor are the same sensor tech just in different sizes. If you buy fuji you buy sony. Thats why a xt4 has more dynamic range than canon eosr full frame sensor. There are no better sensors at the market.
The only thing that’s holds me back is AF speeds. Definitely, will consider the Fujifilm for the size in the future but for professional work will always be with the Sony A1.
When you compare you’ll always covet what the other is doing. The photographer makes the image and not the camera, especially with cameras today where you really can’t by a bad one.
The 60 mpx Sony sensor means, you need 2 times less lens. You can crop out 1/4th of the photo, which means double focal length. And the cropped photo is still 15 mpx.
If one needs to crop that much, he or she should then spend their money taking some photo classes instead.
Seems like Sony wins this one, but I don't think it was the body, it was the glass. Or in the portrait examples the operator, the Fuji was just simply soft from being ever so slightly out of focus from the eyes.
Yeah, one brand wins over the other. How interesting!
yes differences between ff and apsc are negligeable most of the times just though as wildlife photographer when you shoot constantly above 1600 ISO at 400mm at F/4 in woods or during dusk and dawn, trust me less Noise of a full frame is a big deal breaker if you have to print your image and exhibit them into a gallery. You can get as far good processor but sorry nope for some photography field FF are still the best choice.
Why not compare this sony with fuji gfx?
I see lots off chromatic aberration at sony picture at 3:05 no one seems to mention or is it just me ! :)
its not just about full frame vs apsc. its about lenses on each system. full frame lenses were traditionally more versatile and have more pro features like weather sealing and better AF speed and accuracy. that the same reason why xt3 and xt4 can be used professionally since their lenses are actually pro grade. while sony, canon, nikon, despite having some pro lenses for apsc, their full frame lenses are on another league
Fuji is holding its own very well. I think that when people know that the Sony has 61MP sensor, they seem to feel that it has to be better. When you peep 350% to see a difference, does it really matter to a hybrid non-professional shooter like me? And what is the price difference?
The 60mp isn’t what makes the r4 a better camera, it’s the dynamic range that the r4 has, which is one of the mirrorless cameras money can buy, it’s not without limitations, but image quality from the r4 is going to be hard to match with any apsc camera. It’s just a monster of a camera.
I enjoyed the video, so thanks for sharing it. But i have to point out that the 24-70mm f2.8 GM is a bit of a turd in the Sony lens lineup. In terms of resolution it actually loses to much older Canon and Nikon DSRL lenses with the same focal range. You should've tried the 16-35mm f2.8 GM instead which is super sharp and compared that to the equivalent Fuji lens. The 85mm f1.4 GM you tested on the Sony side is great though, and so is the 56mm f1.2 Fuji.
Anothing thing, when you write "scaled 250%" on the photos? What is scaled exactly? Are the images from both cameras resized to the same resoltion (Fuji photo upscaled to 61mpix) beforehand and then both scaled equally? At 100% the difference should be clearly visable on a decent display (perhaps less so in an overcompressed RUclips video however). I don't own any of these cameras but i happen to own the predecessor of both. The Sony A7R3 and Fuji X-T3 and i have no problem seeing the difference in resolution between those two, so the difference should be even clearer with the 61mpix sensor in the Sony A7R4.
as a real estate photographer using nikon Dslr im interested how the fuji stacks up. Im not sold on the mirrorless current offerings from canon sony and nikon. New lenses new everything except flash is going to take a toll
Difference is the available lenses, and if you work with a staff of photographers then the Sony is best because you can keep pool lenses for all to use, fast long telefotos, but I like the Fuji more because of its design. Once past 26 megapixels I am no longer all ooh and ahh.
the enjoyability of camera system personally be always factor to the size so as everyday camera will choose XT series
I think a more fair comparison would have been between the Sony and a Fujifilm GFX 50R, at least price wise haha.
The strangest thing happened yesterday after I posted here. I was unscrewing my shutter release cable from my X100S and something happened the broke the on/off switch. The on/off switch now spins past the on/off positions and I can no longer download photos using the HDMI ports. I've had this camera for 8 years and I've made many memories with it. When I called Fuji today they said that they no longer carry parts for the camera. They told me to send the camera in and if they can't fix it they'll offer me some kind of upgrade to the X100F. I'm besides myself.
The new X100V camera is fantastic for many reasons but one stands out. The new version 2.0 fixed lens is now sharp at f2. I've always hated how soft the X100 series is wide open. If Fuji can offer me a steep discount on the new X00V I will jump on it, if not I'm afraid I might be hanging up my Fuji hat for good, thanks in part to this video here. What changed my mind about Fuji is what I pointed out yesterday in this video at 4:23.
Warwick laughably said that the bokeh on the Fuji X-T4 was equivalent to the Sony A7R IV. Sorry, not even close. Like I said the color fringing around the lights in the photo from the X-T4 is just awful. The bokeh area in the Sony photo is smooth, clean, soft, and free of fringing. The A7R IV is, hands down, the better photo.
Today I sent my X100S in to Fuji to see what they say. Because of this video and many others I've been studying I might jump from Fuji to Sony. It's sad. I've owned Fuji cameras for 15 years and no other. I can now get a Sony A7III for the same price of a Fuji X-T4. Yes, I will miss the manual dials but the image quality out of the Sony is qualitatively better than out of Fuji. Thank you for posting.
Aperture isnt matched correctly (these guys arnt taking into account crop factor) and that's why you can see difference in depth. Green fringing on bokeh lights is visible on both cameras but it's indeed stronger on fuji. X-trans sensor has more green pixels, so maybe that's the reason why (if that's indeed the case you can fix it with ML demosaicing in lightroom). It's also possible sony software is applying automatic chromatic aberration filtering, while fuji is not using any CA filtering. Lightroom would reduce it anyway by default on both cameras. The biggest difference in this comparison comes from different color profiles for JPGs (they should compare RAWs). If I would make similar comparison people wouldn't tell any difference besides resolution in this comparison.
Honestly, I was so confused with the A and B samples. The A looked softer than the B so I was sure it was the Fuji, but the B images looked warmer, and I thought Sony was supposed to shoot a bit cool so that threw me. I decided that detail/sharpness was more of a calling card than WB though. None of those Fuji images look CRISP to me.
And that's not simply in comparison to the Sony, I shoot a GR III which is WAY sharper than anything ive ever seen from an XT.
I always say Sony and FF is better for details but man Fuji JPEG really have a SOUL and nothing can't beat him... Sony is a serious tool but I just enjoy using Fuji much more...
For me there is only one negative thing (very important thing) about my fuji cameras and that is the AF. For stills the AF is ok, but for fast moving objects, like in my case dogs walking up to me, the AF from fuji is a disaster compared to the AF of my older nikon dslr gear and the sony a7III of a colleague mine, my fuji gear scores downright bad. A hit rate of 3/10 for my fuji xt4. A hit rate of 7/10 for my nikon d850 and a hit rate of 8/0 for my colleague's sony a7III. Fuji urgently needs to work on their AF system. For video, the sony is miles ahead of fuji too. At Fuji, they've known for so long that their AF is among the worst, but they barely do anything about it. This will cost fuji customers in the future! Fuji could be the king in its class, even compared to full frame they do very well, but that AF ..... :(. Come on fuji !!
One point I was thinking about... would you agree that since nowadays relatively high ISO's are not a problem, the aperture size basically only plays a role in DOF control? I mean, you would only get fast lenses for shallower DOF, not for low light capabilities - so Fuji's 50mm f/1 costing $1500 gives the same FOV and DOF as Sony's 85mm f/1.8. You would shoot ISO 800 on Fuji and ISO 2500 on Sony for the same exposure time. Is that worth more than twice the price?
Hi there! Great observation. Ideally you'd get "fast" lenses to not only achieve greater depth of field, low light capability but also for the ability to shoot at a faster shutter speed. As most cameras are now hybrid, being able to shoot both photos and videos, having the extra stop of light in Fuji's 50mm f/1 for example, will come in handy when shooting both photos and videos in lowlight without the need to compensate much with the ISO.
After shooting with Fuji xt2 for several years I added a Nikon Z6 full frame 24mp camera. Some big takeaways were how much cleaner the full frame image was after post processing. Detail is largely based on which lenses you use and dynamic range was very similar. High iso there was only around 1stop cleaner but Fuji has less color noise but Z6 keeps the color much better at high iso. You can also focus much closer with apsc. If you want bokeh to separate your subjects full frame is easily better. Shooting long exposure night photos full frame is much less noisy. After using the Z6 for some time and going back to the Fuji you realize how horrible the wormy artifacts are in Lightroom. It makes me never want to use Lightroom again with my Fuji. Even after trying capture one full frame is still cleaner. I like the benefits of full frame unless you desire smaller lenses above ultimate quality.
You can fix "worms" in lightroom by either lowering "detail" slider or using ML demosaicing ("enhance details" function). When it comes to capture one, I dont like using it. Colors and dynamic range arent matched correctly with default film simulation presets in my camera (unlike fuji x-raw studio and lightroom), and I dont like how sharpening filter looks like. I can get better quality in lightroom, especially with "enhance details" function.
@@PabloB888 To me that's the opposite, I find Capture One much smoother and the overall software lighter and fast
Thanks for the Video guys. I think a better comparison wound be the Fujifilm H2 vs the A7R IV.
XT4 costs same as A7iii so that would have been a more fair comparison!
It's still an interesting comparison
At 4:23 the Fuji photo has green color fringing in the bokeh area around the lights. There is no color fringing with the Sony photo.
I saw that too
Why are always Fuji photos so dark in the shades?
@4:30 the noise in the background on the Fuji compared to the Sony....the complete lack of detail in the hair and the eye, did it miss focus?
This video is very similar to videos made comparing MFT cameras to full frame cameras. Those MFT videos also concluded that it is a user preference; small lighter MFT cameras provide almost the same quality pictures except for the amount of Boca and extreme low light capability.
I remember getting my first camera, the a6400 and all the reviews made me feel inadequete because it was a "crappy crop sensor". Now, all of a sudden, crop sensor is cool and my FF is crap. Oh well.
Hi, I listened to all your video with great interest, even if I DO NOT take photos but only videos in 4K. You hardly hear such detailed videos. Could I ask you a dry question? I do not ask for advice but I would like to know only your thoughts. What miroless would you buy to make documentaries in 4k, with high quality travel clips and with just one zoom lens? Let me explain: what would YOU buy? Thank you
The Fuji is a beast for the price!
Those are all well lit scenes though. Even a phone will do decently. Compare them at 6400 in poor light and the advantage of FF can be seen clearly. Especially something like the a7III that does great in poor light.
It's one f-stop advantage that in lot of cases can be negated with the use of IBIS or a tripod
Not really. The pixel pitch of the A7R4 is 3.76 microns while the XT4 is 3.74 microns.: essentially the same. The Sony loses its low-light advantage by cramming so may photodiodes on it’s full-frame sensor to provide 61 megapixels that most photographers don’t require. The A73, on the other hand, has a pixel pitch of 5.93 microns and as a result, has superior low-light performance..
@@davidreichstadter8587 No, that is a mistake many make; That is not how ISO works. ISO is not about individual pixels, it says something about a whole image. The A7RIV does NOT loose the advantage, as follows: It is still possible to take a high-res A7RIV image and lower its resolution to, for example, 24 Mpixels by combining pixels. The noise will therefore decrease and the image will be very similar to an image taken by the A7III. Just check DXOmark, they test these values: The A7III has a ISO 3730 score and the A7RIV has an ISO 3344 score. A little bit lower, but only about 10%
This is the reason why the A7RIV is so nice; with good light you have 61 megapixels (!!) and when light gets dimmer you still have great ISO. This is all because the sensor is larger. This is a definite advantage for full frame over APS-C with same / similar pixel size.
@@rindertraap1263 So you buy a 61 megapixel camera and then to compensate for noise, reduce your image to 24 megapixels. If that works for you, then hey, I'm with you. :)
@@davidreichstadter8587 You REALLY don 't understand how this works, now do you...
-
With the A7RIV you can have is ALL: In decent light you will enjoy the full 61 megapixels resolution with virtually no noise at base ISO.
-
When light is low and ISO goes up a bit you might decide to lower resolution and enjoy a 24 Megapixel image which is comparable to A7III in noise levels.
-
When light is REALLY terrible even for an A7III you can go even lower at will, whatever you like. Lowering the resolution to 12 or 6 or 2 Megapix the visible noise AT PIXEL LEVEL will be less and less.
-
BUT YOU DO NÓT HAVE TO. With the A7RIV you have that choice. When light is fine you'd probably decide to enjoy the full 61 Mpix image.
-
Are you being daft deliberately...? Try this with your own camera and some really noisy images; the more you lower resolution, the less pixel-noise you will see. Not the sharpest tool in the shed now, aren't you...
The XT-4 is a great camera, I keep seriously considering purchasing it as an alternative to a FF camera. But every time I see images from it (I'm a photographer not a videographer) they seem soft. It's never critically sharp. Along with the difference in control of DOF I just can't pull the trigger. Don't get me wrong it produces lovely images, but to my eye they just don't compare to a FF camera with a FF lens.
Fuji can produce sharp images, but they will never be clinically sharp. If that's what you are going for, Sony with Zeiss will deliver. If you don't care about absolute sharpness, than you can deviate from full-frame to apsc, or even mft.
@@proksalevente I ended up going with an R6, just made sense as I already had EF lenses from my 5Dmkii
@@proksalevente Fuji will never be sharp what meth you on?
@@themusicalgamerisreal aps-c sensors are inherently more demanding on glass than full frame counterparts, in turn, they will never be as sharp as full frame, as the glass manufacturing is the same quality across the board.
@@proksalevente funny that Fuji make some of the sharpest glass made there kit lens is sharper then my cannon primes there perfectly sharp if you can’t get a sharp photo it’s you not the lens
I shoot a ton of models with an APS-C camera. They don't about the camera's sensor size; just the results.
I shoot with my XT4 and I’ve had a few FF cameras, and I don’t see a difference at all. Fujifilm’s glass is pricey, but it’s high quality glass in my opinion and I love my ASP-C system.
pricey ? if you compare the price of a GM glass from sony or even zeiss glass, fuji actually appear pretty cheap to me in terms of price/quality ratio imo
Missing the Low light high iso photo quality. Let me know if you made another video for that.
Why compare a$5,000 camera with a ,$2,200 camera..... You thought that made sense chief? Wow...zooming in with 61 mp vs 26mp and surprised at more detail in the 61mp ....is just..... Amazing.....😐
Thank you very much. Now I am sure I don't want Fuji. Full frame is better
A little concerning that they thought the A7RIV was Sony’s “flagship” FF camera. I believe at the time of filming that would be the A9II (A1 wasn’t out yet)? Also no disrespect to Fuji, but the Fuji rep tried way too hard to defend Fuji in areas where it clearly didn’t measure up to the Sony. Like…it’s okay man, the Sony costs twice as much and simply will be better in certain scenarios lol
It is probably a mistake to have a brand representative on a camera comparison video between different brands lol.
To most photographers they always comparing gears, but to select photographers, they talk about how can you incorporate your skills to a camera. I can rock both cameras or any particular cameras, even film cameras anytime anywhere. But if you ask me which one to choose between this two cameras i will choose both because i have both. Always remember guys the most important part is the process of taking the photos. Not just pixel peeping or looking at the bokeh. All of that is irrelevant in the final process. Specially if your a professional. Coz mainly if you look at the work of great photographers you wont see any blurred back grounds on their work.
Stupid question that’s no need to be proved.
Its no doubt full-frame performs better than cropped sensor, period.
What's even more interesting, the XT3 has the same processor as the 4. So the XT3 competes with the IV
And even more interesting, the xt30 has the same sensor with the xt3, so the xt30 competes with the iv
And what’s even more interesting, the 24 MP previous sensor of the XT-2 also to be found on my personal XE-3 is hardly any different then the current 26 MP. Therefore the Fujifilm XE-3 compares with the Sony A7R IV! Lol.
@@Viewtolove lol - come on Fuji, bring us an xe4
im a stills shooter and dont print large images so why pay double and dont need 60 megapixel sony
Both cameras are perfect, what’s wrong are shooters. Social media just make cameras bad. Any camera will be great if you are great.
Fuji colors rock far more than you showed in your handful of photos. If you're making a billboard you might need the extra megapixels, if not, the Fuji colors rock, the money you'll save will buy another $3500 in lenses and you'll be very happy!
you didnt test a low light situation!there the ff has advantages with high iso's
Thank you for your video! We have been shooting with the X-series since they came out on the market. We are currently using the X-T4s. We are trying to determine if we need to also invest in a full-frame system or medium format. There are times where we need better image quality (for cropping, larger prints, dynamic range, or low light). Since I have very large hands, the Sony's have been out in the past. Any recommendations?
There are certain advantages of using full frame of course, especially when you need a lot of cropping on the photos. Not trying to defend either one of them, but We all know that quite a lots of professional photographers are using Fuji as their primary camera. That says it all.
U said it all man, cheers
should compare the sony against the gfx50r
I print my images and my client can not zoom it in to 350%
Full frame has much better glass, show me a Fuji equivalent to sigma’s excellent 35mm f1.2? Or is there any lens that can mimic the 105mm f1.4 art on full frame? I doubt it
Can you compare medium format and fill frame pls.
comparing a 61mp Full frame for nearly $4k with a 24mp APSC $1500 - this is a rediculous comparison,
Great work guys but there’s really no point in comparing dynamic range and color pop-ness and contrast in JPG...
Why? Is it because all camera users have time for post processing?
Nick Bakis no, because it’s an aesthetic choice by camera manufacturers that has nothing to do with inherent differences between sensor sizes, which is what this video is exploring judging by the title.
@@rickyissak565 To all of us that do not post process, the FF advantages should be visible in jpegs as well. In addition, this shows that one f-stop advantage of FF may not be that important or the only deciding factor.
One thing they barely mentioned on was the price difference for the slight advantages that the Sony gives you. Both are great cameras and the Sony is better at many things but it’s price reflects that, while the Fuji is just as good to where most people won’t be able to tell the difference between pictures and about half the price.
Slight? The a7R4 has 14.8 stops of dynamic range, it also has a 60mp sensor. For the price of the r4 you are getting a camera that holds its own against medium format cameras. This video is evidence that the r4 is just a much nicer camera
i have both but the fujifilm is better, the jpeg color is amazing.
Another method for a shallower depth of field and a more blurred out background is getting a little closer to your subject. On your portrait shot with the bokeh balls, it seemed like your subject was smaller on the Fuji which could be interpreted as being further away from your subject. I’m sure you shot them both at the same distance but I find that I aim to get a little closer to my subjects when I use my 56mm and the results are more pleasing to me.
So you prefer bokeh over exaggerating their nose