I currently own a pen-f, which is tiny. But I figure if I'm going to haul around a brick, might as well go for full-frame. Especially since Sony came out with the a7c. However, Sony doesn't seem to have small lenses and their tone rendition doesn't have the same effect on me.
Guess I'll just have to wait and hope for a pen-f mark 2...
> They also offer a pixel-combining mode now that shifts the sensor very small, precise amounts and then combines images to increase resolution up to 4x in the final result. You need a tripod and some time, but I'm looking forward to playing with it.
This is great. My pen-f has this, and the images it produces are wonderful. But there are some failure modes, like leaves moving, and the water has a high likelihood of looking weird.
The thing is that I want enough of an upgrade from my m43 (with which I'm happy enough) for it to make sense, and the xt4 and its lenses are too close to full frame to make it worth it.
The current smaller Fuji bodies are still fairly bigger than a pen-f, and, for my use, a net downgrade (no in-body stabilization). The only line-up that compares is Sony's, with the rangefinder format. But as I've said above, their tonal rendering isn't exactly what I like.
On an old Sony a65 I never use the exposure compensation or ISO or aperture preview physical-controls. There's a control wheel for shutter speed and aperture depending on PASM mode, which I use all the time.
But then I never use out-of-camera JPG, just raw at lowest ISO — to me, that seems to provide more possibilities.
(For example, converting a single raw file multiple times into an exposure series and then using the old Enfuse software to combine the "best" exposed pixels.)
What trouble have you had with Fuji RAW + Darktable? I've been using it without trouble, but I wonder if I'm doing something wrong?
But seriously, the out-of-the-camera JPGs are _ridiculously_ good. Sure, you're throwing away information, but I found I very rarely used that information.
If I'm doing something particularly intricate, complex, or delicate I might shoot raw. For walking around the city taking snapshots? JPG is more than fine.
The X-H handles nice, but as a still (amateur) photographer, the X-Ts are where it's at. Having separate, physical controls for exposure compensation, speed, ISO, and aperture is a delight. The tilting screen on the X-T line is also a better fit for still photography than the articulated one on the X-H lines. Here's hoping they keep it.
I have an X-T3 now, I'm waiting for the X-T5. It should come out in a few months, and cost a bit less than the X-H. The main advantages should be the 40 MP sensor (vs 26) and sensor-based image stabilization (introduced in the X-T4). They also offer a pixel-combining mode now that shifts the sensor very small, precise amounts and then combines images to increase resolution up to 4x in the final result. You need a tripod and some time, but I'm looking forward to playing with it.
It's hard to explain exactly how, but the color rendition straight out of the camera on Fuji kit is also second to none. Other posters commenting on RAW files are right, though - they're a pain because of the non-standard sensor. Only Fuji's terrible software and commercial offerings like Lightroom do a decent job. Darktable, for example, doesn't. I stopped shooting RAW partly for this reason, but also because the JPG engine on Fuji kit is outstanding. It makes the best JPGs straight out of the camera I've ever seen.
The APS-C sensor size across the entire line also means that high-quality glass is a bit more affordable, smaller, and lighter than some of the competition.
I guess I became a huge Fuji fanboy along the way.