Fourth-Generation Fuji X-T4 Is a True Redesign

Best of both: new Fuji X-T4 combines desirable features of the
X-T3 and X-H1, with a new twist

Usually, new versions of existing cameras are "refreshes," improving (sometimes "improving," quote-unquote) a few features and changing a few things so they can draw a new round of reviews, and/or enable a price increase, and/or attract customers who have a desire to own the latest and greatest. (Thom says the new Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III is being derisively referred to as the "E-M1 Mark II Mark II," which I think is  funny if a little mean, and Nikon fans were scornful of the paucity of changes on the D6.) Occasionally, however, the opposite happens: a new iteration of an existing camera model is actually a complete redesign hiding in a similar-looking body with series naming and similar controls. To name one, that was the case with the Olympus OM-2S, a film camera manufactured from 1984 to 1988. It featured mostly new innards inherited from the newer flagship camera in the range at the time, in a then-familiar older-style body, retaining the old name.

Although based on the successful and very popular X-T[x] series and retaining its naming heritage, the new Fuji X-T4 is also a completely redesigned camera. It should really be thought of as a different camera altogether.

The takeaways:

• The shape and weight have changed: it's bigger and heavier.
• It uses a new battery ($70) that has almost double the capacity of the old one (but no cross-compatibility with older cameras either). This has resulted in the add-on battery pack / vertical grip ($329) being quite large.
• All-new shutter is quieter and faster than on older cameras, with spectacularly improved durability: it is said to have double the expected life of the old one, to 300,000 actuations. That's deep into what used to be considered professional-camera territory.
• IBIS (in-body image stabilization) inherited from the high-tech, high-tolerance X-H1. But with even better specs.
• Flip-out articulated viewing screen, abandoning the two-way flip-up screen that Fuji had previously brought to near perfection.

Those are far from the only changes, but those are the biggies. The short take is that this is a fundamentally all-new camera that strongly resembles the X-T3 (and shares its sensor). It combines the X-T3 and X-H1 into one. 

Fuji X-T4 big rig. Photo courtesy B&H Photo.

The feature that betrays the new camera's fundamental identity is the flip-out screen. Accurately or not, the audience for cameras like this considers IBIS to be primarily a videocentric feature, so the X-T4 follows suit with the viewing-screen style most favored by video shooters. This will probably be the biggest thing to get used to for people whose muscle memory is grooved to older X-T[x] cameras.

Another change is that the Still/Movie switch has been moved to a collar underneath the shutter-speed dial:

It's changed by way of a front-facing tab.

Otherwise the controls should be broadly familiar to most X-T3 shooters.

The Fuji X-T4 has a price at introduction of $1,699 and will ship in the Spring. It's available in black or silver and can be pre-ordered now.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Kenneth Tanaka: "I have been on a bit of an X-system buying craze this winter. I'd be embarrassed to give details here but I will say that I have owned the X-T3 since it was introduced. (I also admit that it's not my most-used X camera.) Having disclaimed all that, I have to admit that I just don't see the X-T4 as a good value at $1,700 today. Yes, Fuji appears to have made many changes and enhancements that their X-T3 customers have requested and I salute them for that. But it's a different market today. $1,700 will buy you a much more capable full-frame camera system today, especially on the lightly-used market. Hate to say it but it just might be a little late for the X-T4's features on an APS-C camera."

Edwin: "The X-T1 originated from an idea—a smallish footprint, real shutter speed dial, ISO and exposure compensation dials, nostalgic design (it was trying to distance itself from other DSLRs) that looked like old film cameras. The last point resulted in a camera body with a very shallow hand grip and other odd ergonomic issues. It was a hit for people who like a camera different from the then 'normal' DSLR.

"However, as Fujifilm tried to cater for the need of more people, they are adding features and capabilities to the camera while trying to maintain the original design theme. When people picked up the X-H1, they realized that that should be the real deal instead of the weird design theme of the X-T[x] series. Now Fujifilm listened, so they're putting a lot of X-H1 goodness to the X-T4, but in order to be true to the original design theme, they came up with this compromised body. Yes, it's like a newly designed camera, but not from the ground up! They should have ditched the 'old film camera' design and came up with something more than a 'huge upgrade.'"

Bill Tyler: "Like a few others, I disagree about the flip-out screen. I shoot a lot of macro, often of small living subjects in situ. A flip-out screen lets me, among other things, shoot for portrait (vertical) orientation without craning my neck into knots. The flip-up screen is fine if you never want to rotate your camera 90 degrees, but as soon as you do, it's nearly useless. Unfortunately, I also agree with whoever noted that the hinging mechanism seems more prone to breakage with the flip-out screen. Sigh."

Mark: "Well, they lost me as an upgrader with that screen redesign. I already skipped X-T3 because I didn't feel the improvements made it worthy compared with the X-T2. Now Fuji add something I really, really wanted, IBIS, but throw in a back screen redesign that is great for videographers but awful for stills photographers. The tilt screen in previous X-T[x] models allowed to use the camera unobtrusively for shooting from the waist. It was also really useful for overhead and ground level shots. The new design makes the camera more conspicuous, more awkward to hold, and less intuitive for framing the shot because the screen is now off-axis. Since I use the tilt screen in my X-T2 a lot, I'll have to pass on this one. That's two X-T[x] models I skip in a row. At some point I may come to realise I won't find in Fuji cameras what I need, which would be a real shame."

Mike replies: Speaking personally, the screen change also loses me. I just really don't care for that kind of design. I've owned several. The last one I liked was on my Olympus digicam from 2003, when I was experiencing a moveable screen of any kind for the first time.

Not only does it do away with what I thought was a perfect design—ideal functionality, ideal implementation—but in some ways it seems like a betrayal of existing users. The screen was an integral part of the X-T[x] series cameras' identity.

Of course, as a writer for others I'm happy for people like Bill who like the change. It's not all about me.  :-)

Robert Newcomb: "I just upgraded my Leica M4-P with a $250 CLA. No screen or battery or firmware to worry about and it’s probably good for another 20 years. 😀 "

Stephen Scharf: "A note of interest regarding the X-T4 release: Patrick at FujiRumors conducted a poll, asking X-T1, X-T2, X-T3 and X-H1 owners if they planned to upgrade to an X-T4. By statistically valid margins of approximately 2:1, X-T1 and X-T2 owners do plan to upgrade to the X-T4. Conversely, by margins of approximately 2:1, X-T3 and X-H1 owners do not plan to upgrade to the X-T4. Looks like we're at the point where most end-users can skip generations. This of course, will significantly impact sales over the longer term."

Mark Myers: "Instead of offering silver and black bodies, why not offer versions in the 3 way tilt and articulating styles to suit the user's needs?"

Mike replies: This makes great sense, and I've always wondered why cameramakers don't go for it. I suppose because it compounds the difficulties of the supply pipeline and retailer's stocks, and doesn't immediately or obviously result in more income. Speaking of simpler cameras, I've always thought camera makers should offer de-contented versions of their higher-end cameras. They used to; the Spotmatic SP500 was one; the Leica R4s and Bronica SQ-B were decontented versions of the R4 and SQ-Ai that now sell for more than the more feature-laden versions. 

Comments

[emptyspaces]

I always feel those side-flipping screens could snap off, which is why I greatly prefer the one I can flip to waist level. I like the stability of a strap behind my neck, camera pinned against my body, and hitting the shutter button with my thumb. It’s one of those minor features that could venture into “deal breaker” territory for me.

The Olympus camera I often shoot with does this perfectly.

[Malcolm Myers]

Fifteen years ago I would lust after each new iteration of camera, thinking about when I was going to 'jump in' and get one.

Nowadays I admire them from afar, knowing full well that I won't be buying anything. What I already have is sufficient.

On the subject of film, I bought a Pentax P30T with 28-80 Pentax lens, 2x converter and flash for £2 (yes two). Sadly the camera needs fixing but it was worth it for the lens alone.

[John Krumm]

If my XH-1 hadn’t been stolen I likely would admire but not buy this camera. However, it has, and so I think I will, as soon as I sell a few things. The quiet shutter, extra good af, and solid ibis mixed with the usual Fuji stuff has high appeal. Looks like we still have at least two months before arrival.

[Ken]

As APS-C and even M 4/3 cameras keep getting bigger and heavier, my D750 and XT-1 are looking better and better every day.

[Animesh]

I disagree with the idea that the "flip-out" screen being video-centric.

I shoot *only* stills (indeed would pay a bit more to have the video clutter removed from my cameras).

This flip-out screen would allow me to "stow" the screen out of the way and get on with shooting (as opposed to operating) the camera.

[Mark Kinsman]

This version of the XT line further refines the camera as a hybrid stills/video camera with most changes favoring video....at the expense of some still photography features. Having the luxury of owning a few different systems, I have both the tilt and the flip style of lcd screens. For me the tilt screen is the preferred choice. I find this style of flip screen a nuisance for still photography. Removal of the photometry switch combined with the flippy screen leave me cold, with no desire to upgrade from my current versions. Perhaps I’ve aged out of Fujifilms target market.

[Max Cottrell]

It is a bold move to retain the X-T3 sensor... personally, I am utterly delighted about it. 26 MP is plenty for an APS-C camera

[Dave Van de Mark]

I was at my computer around 10pm last night when the B&H email flew across my screen announcing the XT-4. I proceeded to watch the video. Needless to say I was impressed.

By coincidence, two days ago, a proposal I had made 19 months earlier for some special 50 years later photography in Redwood National Park, was approved.* When the Nikon Z7 first came out, I had announced that would be my choice for the project (which I was overly betting would be immediately approved).

So, as I was mapping out my purchase plans for the Z7 and 24-70 F/4, the XT-4 crashes the party. Since I already have a lens I like from my nearly dead X-Pro 1, I could stay in the Fuji camp and even afford a couple xtra lenses. I know oh so well what I have been able to do with just 16MP and the XT-4 would give me 10 more and be virtually instantly familiar to use.

So I'm likely to have a few nightmares regarding this two horse race for my $$. The Nikon would give me 30 more MP for an additional grand, not counting the required lens. I can also purchase the Z7 & lens refurbished for quite a savings, which certainly makes for a "photo finish" race. Wish I knew more about any risks buying refurbished.

* I was active in efforts to establish Redwood National Park, so I am a rare example of a living photographer able to revisit places a half century later and record the changes.

[Dave Jenkins]

I recently acquired an X-H1, which I like very much. Given the combination of features in the X-T4, I don't expect to see an X-H2.

I really like the way the X-H1's screen works. I don't care for the side-flipping screen on the X-T4 at all.

Doesn't matter. I think the H1 will be all the camera I need for a long time to come.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

It's funny, because viewfinder options used to be one of the major distinguishing features of professional SLRs. The Nikon F and successors had entirely interchangeable viewfinders, and had several options including waist-level. Right-angle and magnifying finders were offered as options mostly to pro-level bodies in multiple lines. And then, suddenly, in digital, a flexible viewfinder that let you shoot in multiple positions was relegated to amateur cameras. I'm far from the only person to complain about this over the decades of the digital era. (I do understand the worry about damaging it; but hey, professional equipment is frequently put at risk in normal use!

Movie cameras, say the high-end 16mm ones used for documentary production and some news-gathering, had very complex and flexible viewfinders because you had to put your eye right up to them, there wasn't enough light coming through to project on a big screen you could then see from many angles. Digital has changed that, making it at least possible to use cameras with your eye far from the viewfinder. But it's still better to get at least a reasonably square look at the LCD, so full swivel/tilt is best for me (and I'm very glad the OM-D EM-1 MkII has it).

(By the way, did you notice that the pre-release price of the OM-D EM-1 MkIII is lower than the original price on the MkII?)

[Daniel]

Some of us just don't get along with electronic viewfinders. Optical finders are what we stay with. Horsed for courses - I guess.
A lot of technical improvements and newer gear but way too much of "same old, same old" type of photos.

[Tom Dills]

One of the great things about a new camera is that it gives as many excuses to not buy it as it does reasons to buy it. I love my aging X-T1 and have skipped the last two iterations, but this model may just tempt me into the upgrade, despite the fact that it might have "features" that I don't personally want or need.

[Stephen Scharf]

From my perspective as a long-time product development professional, I view the X-T4 as a "line extension" rather than a true redesign. its essentially no different than how the Panasonic GH5S or Sony A7S are video-centric line extensions of the GH5 and A7, respectively. My guess is that "X-T4" was decided upon because Fujifilm felt that designation would result in more sales than calling it an X-T3S. While it is slightly larger & heavier than an X-T3 and has improved shutter durability specifications, it's still using the same sensor, image processor, and AF system, and essentially the same body, so...it's an X-T3 line extension. (Note: I am very pleased to hear that Fujifilm has confirmed it will continue with the X-H line).

More to the point, though, I find it ironic that camera companies that primarily make stills photography camera & lenses are effectively being forced by a very small, but very vocal, segment of its customer base, the YouTube Stills Photography content creators into making their stills cameras into video cameras so that said YouTube Stills Photography content creators can run around shooting videos of themselves taking....stills photographs.

Oh, and I HATE the flippy screen. So much for taking cool shots from directly overhead of racing car drivers sitting in the cockpits of their formula cars. The 3-way tilting LCD was perfect for this.

[Rob L.]

Having just received my X-T1 back in it's new. IR-filtered form, I'm struck yet again on how much Fuji nailed it on their first attempt at an SLR-style body. I love my X-H1, it fits to hand like no other camera I've owned, but the X-T1 is Lotus or Miata like in it's nimble, small perfection.

[John Robison]

Like the shutter speed dial, just like the old days. Speaking of the “old days” just hung a roll of 120 6X9 up to dry. Haven’t processed any medium format for years. It takes awhile to get back into the routine.

[Bob Johnston]

The reason why Fuji have stuck to the 26mp sensor is that there is no better sensor available at this time. however there is a rumour that Sony have a 43mp sensor waiting in the wings:https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/possible-leaked-spec-sheet-of-the-new-sony-43mp-8k-aps-c-sensor/

The X-T4 looks to be a finely engineered camera but the improvements over the x-T3 are not enough to persuade me to upgrade. I will wait for the X-t5

[Bear.]

I don't have any cameras with flip screen, so don't really care one way or the other. But years ago, I had a little Canon point and shoot (A620??), which had a fully articulated screen, which I loved because I could flip it over and have no screen at all. I think the present Olys still do that. Does the XT-4?

[Yes. --Mike]

[Adam]

Seems like Fuji is taking the same route as Sony RX100, with different generations living on in parallel at different price-points.

I picked up the X-H1 at the fire sale price and love it (sold my X-T1). The X-T4 doesn't have enough to entice me over, and since I mostly do stills the tilt screen of the older cameras is preferable. Though I've done a little video and can definitely see the appeal of the flip. But it's cumbersome IMO for stills.

Seems like the X-T4 has grown to be within a mm of the X-H1 (which was considered big), though the X-H1 is still bigger in depth as it has a much deeper grip, which I really like. For me the X-T1 was always a hair too small and fiddly, and I love the size and feel of the H1. It's not as pretty as the X-Ts but it has a nice tool-like charm to it.

But otherwise the X-T4 blends the best, mostly, of both worlds. The bigger battery is certainly a welcome change! That's my main complaint about the H1.

[cgw]

Dud design(X-H1)+great design(X-Tseries)=over-priced oddball camera whose specs alone won't be enough. Has Fuji finally dropped the ball with this one?

[profligatographer]

Living in a rarely visited or considered realm (Pentax), I will sometimes turn to DPReview's side-by-side comparison of features with these new cameras.

Doing so, I see that the $1,700 Fuji compared to the $600 Pentax K-70 has many similar features like the fully articulated LCD, which I learned to love with the old Nikon Coolpix 8400. However, it is lacking one point important to me, and that is the built-in flash. [Who needs an external flash that more than doubles the size of the camera?]

Then there is the matter of nearly three times the price!

Happy where I am.