The Sony a7 III Versus the Fujifilm X-T4: Which Is Right for You?

Both the Sony a7 III and Fuji X-T4 are the result of several generations of refinement, and they are both highly capable cameras for a wide variety of applications in both photo and video. This great video comparison takes a look at both cameras to help you decide which is right for you. 

Coming to you from The Hybrid Shooter, this excellent video comparison takes a look at the Sony a7 III and the Fuji X-T4. Both cameras are fantastic devices; the a7 III was one of the best all-around cameras I have ever used when I reviewed it, while the X-T4 is an impressively capable flagship. Of course, the most fundamental difference between the two is that the a7 III is a full frame camera, while the X-T4 uses an APS-C sensor. Certainly, the larger sensor will give you certain gains, but Fuji's X-Trans sensor has made huge leaps and bounds in the past few years, and unless you are at the very extreme of technical demands, you are likely to be perfectly happy with the results and performance you get. Check out the video above for a great breakdown of what you can expect from each camera. 

Log in or register to post comments


Michael Steinbach's picture

Thanks for another non review by Alex.

Tom Anderson's picture

He's definitely the worst. The face of the new copy-paste generation of "writers" and "journalists".

Alex Cooke's picture

I am definitely the worst. 5 out of 5 of my exes agree!

Tom Anderson's picture

Maybe you could write an article rather than copy/paste once in a while.

Robert Roma's picture

How is it possible to write an article saying nothing but absolute drivel? God help us!!!!!!!....

Cool Cat's picture

Hey Alex. It's hard to compare apples to apples when the Sony a7 III and Fuji X-T4 are really two different cameras. So I'll stick to my Hasselblad X1D 50C that I'll never own. Sorry for being a little sarcastic. It must be hard finding articles to write all the time.

Alexander Petrenko's picture

In case you have an option not to own, I'd choose Phase One. And don't forget about not having good lenses for that.

Montgomery Burns's picture

Would you prefer a7 III vs a7 III or X-T4 sv X-T4? The price is close, both are hybrid mirrorless cameras targeting the same customers. It is perfectly relevant comparison imo.

Les Sucettes's picture


It makes no sense to say that the Sony body is smaller when the lenses are 3x bigger.

Also when it doesn’t suit the Sony it becomes a “personal opinion”. Menus access to dials etc are basically put off as aesthetics...

Just the typical techno/Features reviewer without the perspective of a user. The user is just “preferences”.

Montgomery Burns's picture

Sounds like a biased Fuji fanboy. It it doesn't praise Fuji on every single point, it is biased or without perspective...
Which lens is 3x bigger? Tamron f/2.8 full fame primes? 55mm Zeiss? Ever heard about equivalency?

Venson Stein's picture

Sony sucks. Not even a camera company. Consumer Electronics company.

Les Sucettes's picture

Calm yourself Robin. A fullframe setup is bigger. There’s no point in arguing.

The GFX system however is about the same size as fullframe.

See what I’m doing here?

No point in denying physics

Montgomery Burns's picture

Is that supposed to be a joke?

Aleksey Leonov's picture

Lenses not any bigger.
I have Sony, Fuji and Canon.
For example Fuji 56/1.2 is equivalent to Full frame Sony 85/1.8.
And size and wight is identical.
Physics dude.
Fuji is perfect for fun, Sony for Professional work.
Sigma lenses big exception, those all huge as F**k! :D:D:D

Venson Stein's picture

Sony is a toy. Nikon for professional work.

Les Sucettes's picture

No point in denying that fullframe setups are bigger mate.

Unless you want to agree with me that the GFX is the same size as fullframe also.

Les Sucettes's picture

Also, not correct: /f1.2 is f1.2 in any system. It’s a myth the fullframe industry likes to push, except of course when they compare themselves to Medium Format. Then all of a sudden reviewers acknowledge it and Medium Format has no f1.2 or whatever...

The only real difference between an f1.2 fullframe and f1.2 aps-c is bokeh.

And actually you can argue it provides benefits in reverse too: want more depth of field with a wider open lens? That’s an advantage for arguably many more needs - except portraits.

By the way, it’s not “fullframe”. It’s 35mm. Real fullframe is 8x10.

Montgomery Burns's picture

56mm F1.2 on APS-C full frame provides the same results as 85mm F1.8 on full frame. End of story. There is nothing else to discuss.
35mm is full frame. 8x10 is large format (the real large format, not what Fuji calls large format).

Les Sucettes's picture

Nope, a 1.2 provides 1.2 Light on to a sensor regardless of Sensor size ... just because a sensor is bigger the lens doesn’t let more light in!

What changes is Bokeh / depth of field. A f6.3 on APC has approx the same depth of field as f8 on 35mm. And a f1.8 the same Bokeh on 35 mm as f1.2 on APSC.

And yes, 8x10 is large format. Which is why it is the true fullframe. 35mm isn’t fullframe just as much as Medium Format isn’t. It’s a Marketing Term.

Montgomery Burns's picture

Absolutely not. The amount of light is only the same per square inch or square mm, not the total amount of the light.

Sorry, but you are not the one to decide what is full frame. It is rock solid historic term for 35mm sensor. Deal with it.

Les Sucettes's picture

You know that f1.2 refers to the distance to the opening of the lens. Has nothing to do with square mm’s.

35 mm is the technical term. From a Medium Format perspective we always laughed at the notion of fullframe. But then from Large Format photographers perspective they always laughed at us. So you’ll just have to bear it that I’ll laugh at all the 35mm people running around claiming with a crescendo in their voice they have a fullframe just before they orgasm in their pants. Deal with it. Fullframe is tiny.

Montgomery Burns's picture

Sorry, but you are clueless, F-number refers to something completely different.

Nobody cares what / who you laugh at and nobody will stop calling 35mm sensor full frame.

Les Sucettes's picture

Happy reading ... 😂

Just don’t comment if you have no clue. F-number has nothing to do with light on sensor square mm.

Listen to yourself talk!

Montgomery Burns's picture

Literally read the fist sentence. It is *ratio* not a distance.
I won't even try to explain equivalency to you, there is no chance that you would understand that.

Les Sucettes's picture

Between your silly claim that f = square mm of light on sensor and my, grabted clumsy, explanation that f has something to do with the distance to the opening, I think we can all agree that my explanation is somewhat more accurate.

Light per square mm


Montgomery Burns's picture

We can only agree that you don't have enough knowledge to discuss this topic as you just proved.Especially for some who wants to talk about physics.
I never said that " f = square mm of light on sensor" you made that up. I said that the light gathering with F1.2 on FF and APS-C is only the same per square mm, not totally, which is correct.

Les Sucettes's picture

I get it, what you are talking about is sensor technology... or the fact that smaller sensors are more dense than 35mm and therefore each mp receives less light. Arguably that’s about sensor technology not Aperture.

But fine Sony Sensors are amazing. And for Aps-C to compete there you’d need 35mm producers to sleep on the wheel. So inherently there is a disadvantage which is similar to the advantages a Medium Format provides over 35mm

Tom Anderson's picture

There are extremely high-quality, compact lenses for the Sony like the Zeiss 35mm or Zeiss 55mm.

The problem with comparing glass between FF and APS-C is that to achieve the same results on both in terms of light gathering and bokeh, the crop sensor needs a lens that is a full stop faster than the full frame. Compare on a level playing field and you will find the opposite of your assumption in real-world scenarios.

Les Sucettes's picture

Or you can say, to achieve the same depth of field with the same amount of light you have to go up a full stop on Full Frame and then compensate weither with slowing down SS which means more motion blur or jerk up the ISO.


Arguably 2:1 APS-C because in far more practical circumstances would you require more depth of field than the Bokeh difference between f1.2 and f1.8 or f2 if you insist.

Unless you are one of those people who really like it when the pupil closest to you is sharp and eyelashes, the other eye, and tip of the nose completely blurred.

Tom Anderson's picture

I'm glad you had the time to blabber that nonsensical reply.

More comments