>>4397954
Yes, you are fucking retard.
Just stick to your phone.

>>4397954
Its an awful camera with worse iq than micro four thirds and no weather sealing. Seriously.

Just get any other semi-compact, a7c a6700 ricoh gr, om5 gx9, anything but a fuji

>>4397954
I had an X100t for several years. It was a good companion to the various DSLRs I had at the time. I wouldn't have it as my only camera
> I didn't want to lug around my camera and several lenses

You literally don't have to, just buy one versatile lens.

>>4397954
real question you should ask yourself is why you want to return to this dying hobby. If it's just "it looks cool to carry a compact camera like this" then you're going to get buyer's regret very quickly. I assume it's not photography since if you liked taking photos you would've done so regardless of the camera, even with your phone.

>>4397982
Iphones are photo ruining slop
Jeetdroids are social and sex life ruining insecure junk
>inb4 use my blacklisted by every other app grapheneage OS and only socialize with fellow hackers at anthrocon
Nah buying a ricoh griiix go fuck yourself

It's idiotic to pay 1700€ for something that's worth half that before the zoomer tax. They could sell them for 800$ and they would still get enough profits to justify the model. The rest is just pushing the price to the limit retards are willing to pay. If you have the money and it's not a financial burden go ahead and enjoy it, but you're not better than a millionaire that pays a small fortune for a banana taped to a wall.

>>4397954
Go for it if you have the money spare, but it's foolish to expect a camera to totally revitalize your desire to take photos. I guess just be ready to keep going out to take pics even after the initial honeymoon period is over in ~3 months.

>>4397954
Just get the X100 T or F and save a fortune.
Or get a Leica M240 and a 35mm lens for not that much more money. It will be a lot more enjoyable to use.

>>4397954
Just buy a compact camera with a decent zoom that is ACTUALLY pocketable, enjoy being able to ACTUALLY frame the way that you want instead of having a 35mm FOV for everything, find a phone app or some presets that give your JPEGs an ACTUALLY pleasant look, save $1500

>>4398116
>the initial honeymoon period is over in ~3 months.
I had this happen when I bought my 70D years ago and figured, oh, I guess photography is just a means to an end after all.Then about 6 months later I actually found myself wanting to go places IN ORDER to take photos. That kept going for a while until I was kind of sick of the bulk. Then a a year ago I got the R10 and the honeymoon period hasn't ended.

I'm of the opinon that if the user is actually interested in the hobby, and the gear isnt a pain in the ass to use, it just stays enjoyable forever.

>>4397954
You will hate that camera. The only people that like it are experienced winogrand imitators aka faggots that cant afford a leica and non-photographers. Get a ricoh gr instead. Even a leica Q is a better deal.

>>4397954
If you're the kind of person that would be okay with spending that sort of money on a watch or a necklace, I see no reason why you shouldn't buy this camera. Like all of fujifilms models, it's a fashion accessory first and a camera second. The photos won't really look good, they're an afterthought. But you probably will look good using it. If that's what you're interested in, why not?

>>4398300
>If you're the kind of person that would be okay with spending that sort of money on a watch or a necklace, I see no reason why you shouldn't buy this camera.
I can.

The kind of person that buys a $2000 necklace is going to be innately repulsed by an east asian knock off of german design. It's like buying a grand seiko that's pretending to be a rolex and proudly wearing a disgusting knockoff and a tribute to business and profits over creativity and soul. At least get a tudor ffs.

Not so up to date leica models are still good cameras and are actually you know, real. Not fake. And they work with REAL leica lenses, not a shitty lens a japanese paper company probably designed for a disposable camera.

The X100vi sits in that uncomfortable scam zone between disposable fun and entry level luxury where you find all the crap like seiko watches, apple products, and korean "luxury" cars.

>>4398305
I can't tell if this is trolling or hating but I'm loving it either way.

>>4398305
>that uncomfortable scam zone between disposable fun and entry level luxury where you find all the crap like seiko watches, apple products, and korean "luxury" cars.
oh yes the scam zone where you stop getting any material benefit, only the expectation of admiration. and yet the admiration never materializes

people keep falling for it lol

>>4397954
the good thing I've heard about these is that fuji is the only company with jpg presets that actually look good straight out of camera

>>4398381
Absolutely correct. For all their faults, Fuji have done really well with generating beautiful jpegs sooc. Classic chrome and Proneg Hi are my favourite looks.

>>4397954
You are on /pee/ so everyone is going to hate this camera here cause its full of autistic pixel peepers. The only /pee/-approved cameras are the ones like 5D MKii, D850 and K-1, dinosaurs that weight a ton.

I own this and love it. But it is my secondary carry on and i probably would not buy it as my only cam. Images are pleasant to look at, i have set it up to shoot both jpeg and raw, just in case if i wont like the output of jpeg i can always tune it afterwards in lightroom. Also, with 40megapixels i have set the focus ring to do digital zoom, so it crops from 35mm to 50mm and 75mm with plenty of resolution.

>>4398392
>75mm with plenty of resolution
>plenty of resolution
>10MP

It would be a decent camera for $900-$1k. At current prices, just buy a ZF.

>>4398381
just good marketing + people being lazy
other brands have more options and control for in-camera jpg, and have for decades
most people are just too lazy for anything more work than copying a "recipe" they see online
>>4398392
the early x100's used to also be well like on here
the hate really coincides with Fuji being more mainstream
>>4398400
Zf is dope, and would go great alongside an x100, but they're very different cameras

>>4398392
>Autistic pixel peepers
>BTW I pixel peep (crops 35mm to 75mm)
The most shilled camera on /p/ is the sony a7c, a 24mp dinosaur that essentially doesn't do video, get with the times
>x100vi
>40 megapixels
Our local fujifag did some tests comparing his xt5 (same sensor, MUCH better lens) with a 24mp nikon, and the amount of detail was actually the exact same at 300% zoom to try and see the difference. It just looked like an AI upscale. Even with normal sensors, a 24-to-40mp difference isn't easy to perceive without line charts or a black and white cat. On the tech side, xtrans necessarily has less color resolution than bayer, and it still has moire, xtrans moire is just close enough to chroma noise for fuji's jpeg engine to eliminate it more consistently than it could bayer moire. On predominantly red and predominantly blue textures, it turns to absolute mush, and apparently because of computer fuckery the green resolution isn't higher, it's still a bit blurry. In a bad digital way. What you can crop depends on what color it is.

Then add the lens. The x100vi does not have a super great lens. It's somehow worse than an entry level plastic canon prime for the EOS M. The dpreview samples looked like iphone photography up close. Peoples real samples continue to look like iphone photography, and I refuse to believe "its meant to be used for instagram" is a good cope for a $1700 camera.

So you are essentially saying you are saying you are happy with the amount of detail you'd get from a 5mp crop of a 24mp normal camera.

That is not amazing or worth $1700. The x100vi's actual image quality is essentially the same as an eos m with a pancake or a ricoh GR IIIx.

>>4398404
Early x100s were a new thing and we didn't have compact FF or good compact aps-c with normal sensors yet, only DSLRs and even shittier micro four thirds. later ones haven't improved at all, still arent even weather sealed, and micro four thirds caught up. The OM-5 mogs any x100.

>>4398419
>Our local fujifag did some tests comparing his xt5
If you're gonna cite me as a source, let me be on record that I like the x100 series, and prefer using my X-T5 to my Zf, and have no problem doing pro work with the X-T5 either
Disagree with your analysis of my test, and I've done plenty others tests, but that wont ever change your perception

>>4398424
liking something and something not being a technological wonder are not incompatible

you can have fun being a bit gearfaggy, but the x100 series is not a tech wonder and today it's really an ordinary and disappointing device instead of a glimmer of hope in a world of blobs. it's a really mediocre camera that would be about $700 less if fuji weren't so greedy. what the camera actually does, doesn't stand out, or impress people who have already used other cameras, just newbies who just now realized 5mp crops look ok (a 5mp PNS sensor looks ok? WOAH, we used those as a society for 15 years ffs)

look at everything else you can in the same segment now
>Olympus: em5iii om5, Sony: a6500 a6600 a6700 a7c a7cii a7cr, canon: eos-m6, ricoh: GRIIIx, lumix s9, leica: m8 and Q typ 116 prices are now low enough to list them here and they are still good cameras
its overcrowded if anything

>>4398422
olympus lost their entire camera business to a money laundering yakuza, and fuji is aggressively marketing to the worlds least responsible consumer demographics: young women on social media and the same geeky reddit men that keep buying mechanical keyboards.

>>4398428
>not being a technological wonder are not incompatible
True, but I come from the perspective that most modern cameras are technical wonders compared to the dogshit I started on decades ago
I can also acknowledge when certain performance thresholds exceed my needs, and I'm totally fine working with "lesser" cameras
So even if they suck a little more (I do think the extent of their suckness greatly exaggerated), who cares? I see plenty of good photos I like coming from people using them, and can find plenty of dogshit from literally any camera

If your point is mostly Fuji is bad sheet performance per $, totally agree, always had been the case (though they do give 2nd best employee discounts). The implication that Fuji downright sucks and are incapable of good pictures, is what gets me.

>>4398433
>Fuji has unfixed tech flaws and has failed to improve their quality as fast as they've raised their prices, and in todays market, you can get the same pictures for less money, out of a more durable camera, that has additional things like better weather sealing, pixel shift, in camera focus stacking, etc.

>>The implication that Fuji downright sucks and are incapable of good pictures
a 6mp dslr is capable of good pictures but its also a $100 ebay find instead of a $1700+ pseudo-luxury product lacking major luxury sells like authenticity and a noble heritage

>>4398439
>has failed to improve their quality
See, this is the issue. Quality has improved, both on the sensor side, and on the lens side. You're simply incorrect if you don't think so.
>you can get the same pictures for less money
Again, if your point is mostly Fuji is bad sheet performance per $, totally agree, always had been the case. No need to repeat it over and over.
>out of a more durable camera
There are certainly more durable cameras, but my Fuji's have held up just fine. If they didn't, I would've switched long ago. Plus, we all know how much durability people actually need from the weather sealing thread, remember?
>pixel shift, in camera focus stacking
True, how often would you say you use these features yourself?

>>4398440
>Uhm, you dont need a really well made camera, so pay extra for a rattly mediocre one
yeah no
you are licking corporate boot lol
OM-5: Same photo quality, good colors, filmic, retro style, can swap lenses, survive 30 minutes of a light drizzle, and do a ton of other stuff.

photographers are the biggest consumer cucks on earth. iphone market share +1%, large sensor camera market share -1%, every time you defend a company falling behind the quality standards of a cheap smartphone (they come with IP ratings and actually do handheld HDR). Imagine if anyone else thought like photographers.
>Why should ford make cars with better fuel efficiency and crash safety? Show me the time YOU went poor due to gas prices, when YOU needed to run out of gas miles later, and when YOU needed a car that was safer in a crash. Didn't fucking think so. Ford is fine. All you need to do is get from point A to point B. Entitled gearfag. You don't need more. You're just complaining. Oh muh price performance, yeah sure try not being poor. Us REAL drivers will focus on experience and soul. Skill issue. You can't drive if you need more than a 50s mustang. Prove you need more. Prove it. Prove it!
Photographers, this is your mindset. To a T.

You can pay $1700 for a fuji that might survive being briefly moistened and pose for a photo of it bearing a few droplets, that fuji will never repair. Or you can take the same photos and more with a $800 OM-5 with a proven track record of surviving hurricane conditions, that OM system has been known to repair if they're asked nicely. You can not get into telephoto or wide angle photography with an x100vi. Once you're licking corporate boot you might as well accept buying a whole other camera to use a different lens.

>>4398452
>you dont need a really well made camera,
More power to you if you need a tank, makes me want to see your work even more. From my perspective, I think Fuji's are also well made, not the best made, but still well made. They've held up over the years in lots of adverse shooting conditions. If they didn't hold up to my needs, I would've dropped them. You very well may have greater needs than I, no doubt. Do you have any experiences of a camera not holding up for your needs? I'd love to hear
>you are licking corporate boot lol
By saying they are bad perf per $, and suffer from a used hipster tax, and aren't top of the line? That's boot licking to you? I'm just honest, wish you could be too.

>overspending corporate bootlickers btfo by micro for thads
spending more than you have to is childish. as a society we should ridicule big spenders.

>>4398454
Not sure what copium you're on. I dread having to use a Fuji for portraits, because it's severely gimped compared to a pro body. On Fuji, my keeper rate goes down, and I have to work around the limitations, the poor lens design, and the small sensor.

>>4398477
Its like using a nikon d40 but worse somehow. No wonder mirrorless didnt really take off until the a7iii.

>>4398477
To each their own, my keeper rate doesn't really change with the system I use
Would love to see what you're able to get out of the system though!

>>4397954
>worms
>40MP APS-C
>worms
>small but not quite small enough to put in your trouser pocket
>worms
Being you I would buy any version of a GR III or wait for a GR IV. That is if you require absolute pocketability. If it's not such a big deal then there are some MILC options that have already been posted.
If you want the retro look (admittedly the top dial design is very practical and nice to shoot with) then try to look for a used X100V perhaps (but it will still be expensive).
>>4397982
>dying hobby
https://www.canonrumors.com/bcn-data-for-december-cameras-are-booming/
>>4398305
>east asian knock off of german design
X100 series looks nothing like Leica. It's obviously inheriting most of its design from the TX-1 and GSW690III.

>>4400099
Wait for the canon retro ff. Its going to mog the sony a7c to death.

Future canon retroshit > snoy a7c > fuji xe- > ricoh gr > fuji xf/xa > fuji x100
>bcn
This is jap camera retailer data. You can always ignore it because it means nothing.

>>4400099
>inheriting most of its design from the TX-1 and GSW690III
no you're thinking of the xpros. the x100 is clearly a clone of the konica hexar platform

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	700
Image Height	467

>>4397954
It's an expensive and fun camera. As an alternative, you could search for a used X-Pro 2/X-Pro 3 plus a 35mm 1.4 lens.

This board is full of bullshit.

>>4400108
>Nikon ZF >>> Future canon retroshit > snoy a7c > fuji xe- > ricoh gr > fuji xf/xa > fuji x100
Ftfy

>>4400277
1.5x scale clown camera with nonsense UX

Fuji and leica's dials are well executed and their cameras are well proportioned. Why did nikon make it clown sized, mix it with PASM and cut out half the customization and AF joystick? Did they correctly predicted that no one would want the Z6III (fatter and lower DR than the Z6II) and cripple the ZF accordingly?

>>4400306
only 3 small lenses for the fat gripless wonder and they all suck
2x optically shit plastic 1x bzz bzz 3 stop vignetter that stops being a pancake if you add the hood to regain filter threads (and weather sealing)
no wonder everyone sane buys them just for adapting leica lenses

>>4400306
Well, if you want a toy rather than a capable camera, that's up to you.


>>4400308
NASA is using these optically shit lenses to fake the next moon landing, so I guess you have a point.

>>4400306
Well, if you want a toy rather than a capable camera, that's up to you.


>>4400308
NASA is using these optically shit lenses to fake the next moon landing, so I guess you have a point.xxhwhk

>>4400329
the ZF is a toy too you shill fuck

>>4400331
This is a thread about a toy camera and its options.

Anybody with half a brain will just get the best real camera within budget.

>>4400333
Go shill someplace else

>>4400330
>NASA is using the 40mm f2, 28mm f2.8, and 26mm f2.8
Lol no they are not, they are using ruggedized and higher quality S line primes because they already had contracts with nikon.

>Well, if you want a toy rather than a capable camera, that's up to you.
The ZF and Z6III are both toys. The Z bodies were already sufficiently fat to handhold a 400mm prime. Making a mere 35mm camera even larger, and then cutting the base ISO dynamic range down to the level of APS-C, yes, fucking APS-C, is unforgivable and I will not feel bad for niggors when snoy inevitably bullies nikon out of the stills market and turns them into the new panasonic so fuji can take their place. A $2000+ full frame camera should never, EVER have the dynamic range of an APS-C camera. If that is okay, good enough, etc, just use an aps-c sensor, wow fucking done.

Fuji is currently making better camera bodies than nikon. It's that bad. Why? Because 40mp xtrans, once downsampled to 24mp, has more dynamic range and less chroma noise at every ISO than the Z6III. The only true full frame camera with AF that is better than an X-T5s is the large but unergonomic ZF which has a worse UI with useless dials and missing joysticks and custom buttons. Even snoy a7cs aren't that bad. Anyone considering the ZF should just get an X-T5 and wait for firmware updates to improve the AF even further. The current firmware gives it AF performance between the Z6II and ZF.

>>4400422
KEK at least the z8 has no shutter so its justified. z6iii - worst camera of the decade.

>>4400422
>Because 40mp xtrans, once downsampled to 24mp, has more dynamic range and less chroma noise at every ISO
>wait for firmware updates to improve the AF even further

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA he believes this!

>>4400442
He’a actually right. Xtrans chroma noise resistance is magic.

t. Compared z6ii and xt5 in person before the new firmware. The xt5 was better even way back then…
Worse weather sealing tho.

>>4400422
>>4400447
This is some serious cope. Go look at your charts while the rest of us shoots with equipment that works.

>>4400448
>HUH, FUJI LOOKS BETTER IN REAL LIFE USE? Go look at your charts! *zooms in 200% on a full sized, unedited raw* ahhh, sweet comforting proof my 7lb nikon fool frame is still king.
In real life, images get resized down because no ones computer screen can fit more than 8mp on it at once, so a higher megapixel camera with xtrans has a huge advantage over a lower megapixel non-fuji. Why do you think fuji cameras sell out almost instantly?

You should all relax and pixel peep my squirrel.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-H2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	750 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5984
Image Height	3990
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:19 23:41:47
Exposure Time	1/420 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	5.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	500.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2100
Image Height	1400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4400463
>Why do you think fuji cameras sell out almost instantly?
Because they are popular lifestyle products, not because of qualities related to photographic workflows.
I have two fujis and have taken hundreds of good pictures with them. But the shitty lenses, the useless autofocus, the purple fringing, and the poor low-light performance killed any hope I had in Fuji. Some of the best shots are lost forever, mainly due to ridiculous autofocus misses.

Those problems vanished the second I picked up a z8 and S glass. Where I used to be struggling to get one good image, I am now getting more good shots than I can use. Not a shill - just a disappointed fuji shooter.

I have two Nikons and have taken hundreds of good pictures with them. But the sterile lenses, the useless autofocus, the PDAF banding, nonexistent video codecs, APS-C dynamic range, and the unfixably rockwellian color science killed any hope I had in Nikon. Some of the best shots are lost forever, mainly due to ridiculous autofocus misses.

Those problems vanished the second I picked up a Panasonic Lumix S5II and Sigma ART glass. Where I used to be struggling to get one good image, I am now getting more good shots than I can use. Panasonic's new PDAF is a game changer. Not a shill - just a disappointed Nikon shooter

>>4400476
baitiest bait lmao

>>4400476
Kek. Wonderful cope

I have two Fujis and have taken hundreds of good pictures with them. But the shitty, sterile lenses, the useless autofocus, the PDAF banding, nonexistent video codecs, purple fringing, bad dynamic range, poor low-light performance and the unfixably stale or high contrast color science of modern mirrorless killed any hope I had in these brands. Some of the best shots are lost forever, mainly due to ridiculous autofocus misses and the cameras and lenses being far too big for my hands.

Those problems vanished the second I picked up a eKids Bluey camera and Bluey glass. Where I used to be struggling to get one good image, I am now getting more good shots than I can use. eKid's new Bluey Film Simulations is a game changer and completely btfo's Fuji with Bluey's rich history in shooting cartoons. Not a shill - just a disappointed Fuji shooter.