Fujifilm X-T4 Also Plagued With Overheating Issues

In the last week we've heard a lot about the latest camera unveiled by Canon. As great as these cameras are on paper, Canon has confirmed that they may have issues with overheating after a certain amount of use. Unfortunately, this is not just a problem that Canon cameras are suffering from, Fujifilm is also having problems with overheating too. 

In a recent video from Tony and Chelsea Northrup, they perform a detailed on the Fujifilm X-T4. For the most part, the Northrups describe the camera in a positive light, however, they do point out one potentially major problem, and that is the overheating. When filming in 4K, it seems that this camera does overheat. Northrup also discusses the amount of time it takes for the camera to overheat and in what kind of conditions, which could be useful for those that own the system already. 

This is disappointing but also rather strange to me. I own the X-T3 and use it for a lot of our videos. I absolutely love the camera for a number of a reasons and I've never experienced any kind of overheating with it. I've regularly shot long clips with the camera and even after hours of use, the camera has absolutely no problem. The latest camera offers very similar video specifications to the older model, yet seems to overheat quite quickly. 

The problem could be due to the addition of IBIS in the latest model, although I should mention this is complete speculation on my part. In my view, if video is a major reason for buying one of the Fujifilm cameras, I would recommend the X-T3 for now as that is far more stable than what the X-T4 seems to be. 

Check out the full video linked above to see how the camera performs. 

Log in or register to post comments

67 Comments

Guy Butterworth's picture

northrup will be happy his has found a problem ... !!:D.. i find it really weird that people are focusing on video on photography websites and channels ... how about focusing on stills and actually photography .. how many people outside the you tube world and a small amount of professionals will actually use these cameras for videos ? let alone to their performance limits ? and will care enough or be worried enough that it will actual affect them in anyway ?

Usman Dawood's picture

It’s actually a huge number of creatives that want small cameras with great video features. Whole industries have developed on the back of this demand. Just look at the gimbal market as an example. There are lots of brilliant gimbals for mirrorless cameras.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

Then they should make one for the video creatives and one for stills. This market is getting a little out of focus. Do you need a car? Yes. Great, we have this giant bus to sell you.

Gary Pardy's picture

They did. X-T3 for stills, X-T4 for video.

the dikiz's picture

non sense.
Back then there was X-H1 focused on video, but with X-T3 and X-T4 they made it more capable for video than X-T2

Gary Pardy's picture

So, the X-H1 is a video focused camera compared to the X-T2, but the X-T4 is not when compared to the X-T3? Same sensor, adds IBIS and a cine film simulation. What's the difference?

00Robb00 00bboR00's picture

The X-T4 is for video. At one point according to Fuji rumors the X-H line was dead so it was thought the X-T4 would be the merging of the supposed best of worlds. When the X-T3 arrived many dumped on it for the lack of IBIS especially when compared to its priced peers. I found it funny shortly after that you have the X-T4. I think Fuji is getting a little lost with its offerings its already bad enough they don't support or treat their other bodies equally case in point the X-H1 which have some IBIS issues yet no firmware support despite being at the time a flagship, yet the X-T4 receives one. One another note I wish the better supported the X-E3 and make a new version with IBIS

the dikiz's picture

Yes however, Fujirumors continuously claims the X-H line isn't dead.
https://www.fujirumors.com/we-repeat-fujifilm-x-h2-will-come-but-not-in-...

Nicolas KIEFFER's picture

Again, wrong tool or wrong usage.

If you are really so much entitled to video, you pick a videocam, not a photocam.

If you consider making a video is the same job as making a still picture, you are already full wrong, even if you are using some common principle and mechanics. But dude, we are still asking photocameras to act like pro cinecameras, go figure !

Usman Dawood's picture

DSLR and mirrorless cameras are far more convenient from an overall perspective. Also, video features in these types of cameras are here to stay. It makes little sense and would actually cost more to produce a camera without video features now. I vaguely recall an interview with a manufacturer that discussed this point too.

Also, the argument of if you want video features go buy a videocam make little senses because I did, I bought the X-T3, it's literally a video camera along with being a stills camera.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

Video to stay, well, that's fine. Keeping the level of video to 8K for youtube stuff, that's useless for probably 99% of users. Imposing it and deal with heat issues becomes laughable and ridiculous. Look at Canon, 20mp for stills with the R6 if you don't care about 8k, that's the only option for a still camera. The only good thing is for you where people who want to shoot only stills with 45mp have to pay for 8k technology... for you. We get your argument it's convenient for you. Are you saying that we would need a $600 drive to store stills? I don't think so. No it would be cheaper to not have 8k for still photography far from what you wrote.
BTW, I do hope you will clearly explain why the R6 doesn't feature 8K. If it's cheaper to manufacture than no video or a lower max level of recording, why no 8K?

Gary Pardy's picture

Sony kind of lit a fire under everyone to shorten upgrade cycles and push specs like smartphones that were improving year over year. I think we're seeing a plateau for the form factor as it is. Computing power and power efficiency just isn't there to deliver these video specs without a severely curtailed record limit.

Timothy Linn's picture

There's actually a good reason why the R6 doesn't offer 8K, Benoit. That format requires a resolution of about 34MP minimum—but that's with a 16:9 aspect ratio. If you increase the height of the sensor to get to a 3:2 ratio for images, that puts you in the mid-40MPs for your required sensor resolution.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

Possible, I have no clue, I really don't need video and as a user, I have no interest into studying the technical manufacturing limitations. Sounds like I should conclude that contrary to the 5D and 6D, the sensors of R5 and R6 were designed to fit two video markets not stills. Earlier this year, I thought about buying an R5, but that before I learned all of this. Now I'm definitely holding any purchase. I could actually go with another brand in the future. Not worried about over heating, so Fuji could be an option.

Usman Dawood's picture

I said nothing about 8k or that I need 8k for YouTube. In fact in several articles I said I won't be shooting 8k. Where are you getting this from?

Also, the R6 doesn't have 8K because it's only a 20mp sensor, it literally doesn't have the resolution for 8K.

I feel like you've confused me with someone else.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

That's misleading. You wrote that video in DSLR and mirror less systems is here to stay and it would cost more to not have it. Now you say, I have nothing to do with 8k, you won't use it and I'm confused. What am I supposed to understand? that as a video user you don't support 8k in still cameras when clearly this is the path manufacturers are taking?
Stop saying it cost more to manufacture a still camera without video, it's absolutely ridiculous. Just the fact that they need bigger cards and can't figure out what type of card to sick with for video shows that they have to get out of their way to make it work for video. So the additional cost is not due to taking stills. Stop falling for what they want to feed you.

Usman Dawood's picture

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9433714188/let-it-roll-why-camera-make...

Also, saying I don't want 8K doesn't mean I'm against video features in camera, how does that make sense? It's like if I told you I don't need a 150mp, and you turn around and say oh well you must be against stills features.

How are you coming to these completely out there conclusions?

Benoit Pigeon's picture

Canon 5Ds, 5DsR, Canon Ra. I hope you are kidding when you say they can't justify expanding their models variations due to manufacturing and distribution cost. Even the 6D were a variation of 5D models. Try something else.

Usman Dawood's picture

I never said most of what you claim I'm saying or even implied any of it. You're completely making up stuff and then telling me I said those things. I can't continue discussing anything with you.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

Well, that's interesting! lol
What was the point of your link? What did I make up, please elaborate.

Usman Dawood's picture

The link was in response to this and only this statement you made.

"Stop saying it cost more to manufacture a still camera without video, it's absolutely ridiculous"

Benoit Pigeon's picture

The link is really about an opinion from the writer. No number, no hard evidence backing up his text regarding skipping the video. The thing is, I wouldn't expect a manufacturer to help by providing true data, numbers or share strategies and development process. It would be a little innocent to assume they would share their numbers, the real cost... That's why I wrote ridiculous, simply because it's not realistic to expect knowing those numbers and strategies. The only numbers we, as photographers should be concerned with are what they charge us and what we get for that amount in order to make a purchase decision. Personally, I could replace my lenses and cameras tomorrow for 2 R5 and depreciate it all over a few years, but I don't feel that right now Canon's focus is very clear. I see more weird precipitations and signs that the still photography is starting to no longer be of interest at Canon. So no new investment for now, and changing brand is definitely considered as an option in the next couple years if the trend doesn't change. May be Fuji medium format.

Usman Dawood's picture

Right but that article goes into some detail explaining why this is the case. It's difficult to explain things in detail through comments.

The way I'd look at it is if it were financially feasible to produce a cheaper full-frame camera because it doesn't have video features, manufacturers like Canon would have done it already. Think about cameras like the EOS RP. In order to keep the cost low for that camera they removed a lot of features except video. I mean it has a worse battery than the older 6D Mark II but they improved the video features and it's still less expensive than the 6D II.

In essence, video features did not impact the price in any significant way.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

I'm totally open to integrated lower end, 5 year old video features. I have plenty enough cameras that came with videos that I know I have never used for any recording. Now Canon wants me to get 8k if I want to switch and shoot with a 45mp mirrorless. It feels more like the opposite of what you wrote, force it on everyone to make it a successful product. My opinion of course.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

Usman, I see the new Z5 from Nikon. It's a downgrade from the Z6 but visibly seem to be an extremely affordable tool for probably 90% of videos and for the price, you can buy the camera and half a top lens compared to the R6. So yes, they do price and change things as will because they really can, and very obviously, they will. It's a myth to say they can't and too many people get convinced just by reading it. I think Canon goofed with a R6 that's in my opinion pretty much DOA now if you look at price vs real needs. Nikon would be smart to put something out like the R5 at around $3k and grab the D to R clientele that Canon was hoping to take from Sony.

Usman Dawood's picture

You can't really compare the cost of a camera from one brand vs another and use that as a way to determine why and how they price things. You can compare the Z 5 to the Z 6 and then make some assumptions.

Benoit Pigeon's picture

As a client, I have full power to compare.

Usman Dawood's picture

Fair point but completely different context from what we're discussing.

Kent Smith's picture

I remember once a web designer told me emphatically, "No one wants to watch video in HD."

Gary Pardy's picture

No one is asking for or expecting RED or Arri results from a hybrid shooter.

More comments