There is a big fad for Sony FF mirrorless at the moment and

>fuji x forum
I'm sure we've got some solid, unbiased info here.

>>2805727
It's actually very well written and at least it is Fuji shilling their own forum. Sony shills post their shit all over Canon forums

File: asdf.jpg (179KB, 1187x686px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1187x686px

Nikon is is my current setup. Saving up for Fuji.

>>2805750
It's actually very well written

It's full of hyperbole anon.
And what's the point of arguing against full-frame mirrorless? Sooner or later the majority of ILCs will be mirrorless. Crop cameras, FF cameras, budget cameras, professional cameras, compact cameras, large cameras. It's literally the future.

>fool frame

File: 2015-05-31 15.11.17.jpg (186KB, 1000x565px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1000x565px

>>2805831
>Sooner or later the majority of ILCs will be mirrorless.
Why would that be the case? Lens size alone makes me prefer aps-c. I used to have full frame. I'll never go back. The benefits are truly minimal.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	HTC6525LVW
Camera Software	3.4.0-ga9a3f03
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:05:31 15:11:17
Exposure Time	1/12 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	-1.7 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Other
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.82 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2688
Image Height	1520
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Hard

>>2805831
Incorrect, it`s pretty well balanced

I`m not neccessarily against the idea of full frame mirrorless, I`m sure someone will get it right one day. But they haven`t done yet no matter what Sony shills claim

>>2805712
Seems like a retarded opinion piece. Makes random assertions and usually comes to conclusions that do not follow as such.

For instance, apparently not having IBIS with ~that lens mount size helps image quality, and that may be true. But in practice, the A7 II beats an X-Pro2 even despite IBIS.

Maybe there were other factors that were advantages in the engineering trade-offs made, or maybe Fuji is just incompetent and Sony is competent? I don't know and I don't care, but either way, the author is full of shit.

Even generally speaking Sony's cameras -including the FF ones- do extremely well overall in comparisons and reviews within their price bracket (be it comparisons for features or image quality), even if you care a fuck's worth if they're DSLR or DSLT or MILC or whatever. They are simply good.

>>2805712
I personally prefer DSLR's.

But he's forgetting that more glass = better image quality.
The longer flange distance of DSLR's mean lenses can't get as well corrected as mirrorless equivalents.

>>2806018
Bullshit, the post.

The biggest problem is that Sony have a full frame mirrorless line which is sitting at the enthusiast level.
They tried to take too much inspiration from CaNikon, but they fucked up. Sony managed to produce 6 bodies that have terrible battery life, terrible ergonomics and are quite frankly horrible to shoot with.

It's not hard to win over photographers when you already have great tech/gear, but it takes a lot more to win people over to the point that they enjoy using the gear.
>>2805958
>maybe Fuji is just incompetent and Sony is competent
Maybe it's both. Fujifilm are cucked with APS-C and Sony are cucked by being unable to produce a body that controls and handles well.
The X mount is harmed by being developed for mirrorless ahead of tech like IBIS.

>>2805831
>Sooner or later the majority of ILCs will be mirrorless.
Why?

>>2806034
Gotta love when Fuji users bash Sony ergonomics. I can understand people using Canon or Nikon complaining about this aspect of Sony cameras, but Fuji? Both systems are mediocre in terms of ergonomics.
Apart from that why do people try to prove each other which camera brand is inferior? I can't believe it's only to justify their purchases. Like, why do they even care?

>>2806070

>Apart from that why do people try to prove each other which camera brand is inferior? I can't believe it's only to justify their purchases. Like, why do they even care?

Why do people support different football teams? It's like a more vapid autistic version of that.

I've never used a mirrorless ILC but it seems like the same people who touted the small size of mirrorless are the same people who touted 'faster start-up times with an SSD'. It might be true but its not at all the real reason you get and use one.

Aren't they quieter than DSLRs? That would be the big benefit for me. Being able to not draw attention in a quieter location because i hit the shutter and went KUHCHEEEENK with my dslr.

>>2806070
As a Canon/Fuji user, I dramatically prefer Fuji's ergonomics to Canon's. The physical controls, the EVF, the shape of the body, and available grips, etc all fall to hand nicely, and make operation very very quick and easy/intuitive.

>>2806074
>its not at all the real reason you get and use one.
Speak for yourself. The compact size of an X-E2 and 35mm f/2 is a huge benefit to me.

>>2806070
>>2806070
>Gotta love when Fuji users bash Sony ergonomics
Calm down there Omar. I also own other cameras.
>I can understand people using Canon or Nikon complaining about this aspect of Sony cameras,
Please expand on this point.
>Both systems are mediocre in terms of ergonomics
I'll agree with that slightly, Fujifilm fucked up with the X-Pro 2 ergonomics (the awful ISO dial) but one has an edge over the others and ever over nu-canikon.

>Apart from that why do people try to prove each other which camera brand is inferior? I can't believe it's only to justify their purchases. Like, why do they even care?
It's the financial investment that drives people to it. Most people can't afford to own different cameras or are too invested in one ecosystem. You want the choice you made to be the right one.
Once you own cameras from different manufacturers, that drops and there's no need to shill your favourite camera hard anymore.

Either way, almost all modern cameras are absolute trash compared to 35mm SLR's and MF bodies. As >>2806073 says. It's mainly autism with a hint of buyers remorse.
>>2806074
No mirror slap. Some newer cameras from Sony and Fujifilm have modes which use the electronic shutter only. The only sound you'll hear is the lens focusing.

>>2806078
not full frame though. in a 1.6x sensor vs whatever the x-e2 is, sure I can understand that but surely the A7 is quieter than a 6D or a D610

>>2806082
If you can get over the FF vs APS-C (1.5x) argument, then the mirrorless bodies are okay. There's a lot of "crop standards" available with fast apertures.
>surely the A7 is quieter than a 6D or D610.
The shutter on the A7/A7R is pretty loud. You've only removed the mirror slap.
I don't know if they added full electronic shutter on the A7II etc though.

File: 1430067582068.jpg (149KB, 530x600px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 530x600px

>mfw the A7 literally has a plastic lens mount like a canon 1000d

>>2806082
The X-E2 is a 1.5x sensor.

>If you can get over the FF vs APS-C (1.5x) argument, then the mirrorless bodies are okay. There's a lot of "crop standards" available with fast apertures.
Especially in a system designed around that sensor size, rather than something like Sony that's designing their lenses for full frame, and letting a6000 owners use them if they want.

File: 10737.gif (745KB, 500x264px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 500x264px

>>2806080
>Either way, almost all modern cameras are absolute trash compared to 35mm SLR's and MF bodies
MFW I have to keep reminding myself what day it is.

>>2806080

>Apart from that why do people try to prove each other which camera brand is inferior? I can't believe it's only to justify their purchases. Like, why do they even care?
>It's the financial investment that drives people to it. Most people can't afford to own different cameras or are too invested in one ecosystem. You want the choice you made to be the right one.

Lack of confidence. People hate the idea that their choices are being thought of as inferior. But if they really knew as much as they pretend they know they wouldn't give a shit what anyone else thinks.

Sony FF mirrorless are not good because they are mirrorless, but rather good in spite of being mirrorless.

File: 1453336662867.jpg (7KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 223x226px

>>2806340

>>2806105
No, >>2806080 is right and it's already April 2 here.

File: original.jpg (140KB, 973x518px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 973x518px

>>2805712
>>2805784
>DSLRfags will defend this.
But really, have you actually seen the retardedly huge lenses a DSLR need to get to achieve super wide angles?

This mirrorless isn't a fad, it brings a real advantage if you would just bother to look at the right focal lengths.
Nikon and Canon needs their lens to be over 4 times larger than a simple mirrorless lens, because they have to design around their huge flange distance.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

Fuji sensors are garbage, they'd be better off with a traditional bayer pattern than this x-trans fuckery.

File: 1.jpg (144KB, 970x461px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 970x461px

For the babies who still don't get it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:27 09:29:28
Image Width	1952
Image Height	1110

>>2806369
baka

>>2806369
That's some "Horsepower per door" advanced asspulling if I ever saw it.

>>2806381
You have to understand a lens is very important in a camera, the more you restrict it, the worse workarounds you have to apply.
If you give a lens designer a task of producing a lens for left and right, there is good probability his lens for the left system will be optically superior.

And the worst case scenario for the DSLR system is what you can see here>>2806366
That's a direct consequence of a mirrorbox taking up space that should have gone to the lens itself.

Those two images are related to each other.

>>2806376
Let's exaggerate to get the point across.

System A's flange distance: 1 mm
System B's flange distance: 50 mm
System C's flange distance: 500 mm
No optics are allowed within the flange distances, because there are flappy mirrors in the way. System C has 10 flappy mirrors for whatever reason.

It's now your job to create a 10 mm super wide angle lens for all three.
The lens needs to be F5,6.
The lens needs to weigh 371 gram at most.

How well will your lens for system B and C even be compared to System A?

>>2806383
>If you give a lens designer a task of producing a lens for left and right, there is good probability his lens for the left system will be optically superior.

But that isn't the case. Sony lenses are rubbish and A7 users spend even more money on adapters so they can use Canikon lenses

>>2806405
You have to wait for reviews of the new 85mm lens to come out before slamming on it.
Doing so before that just reveals your you have a political agenda on this issue.

Same thing with the new 24-70 and 70-200. Why sling shit on them before they are even properly locked at?
Did Sony kill your grandparents?

>>2805712
>If you take something from the camera body, you have to give it back to the lens, and by the same amount.

so the flappy mirror is a plus?

>>2806405
>northrub considers the gm 85 1.4 is the best 85 lens ever
yea. whatever.

>>2806406
I said Sony lenses ARE rubbish, not new Sony lenses will be rubbish. I can't possibly know that, and nor can you.

But since the 24-70 at least appears to be priced at US$300 more than the Canon equivalent the money-grubbing bags of shit at Sony are no doubt hoping to trouser most of the 400 bucks people spend on the metabones adapter. If they add that amount to every lens their customers will be paying the equivalent of an adapter for every single lens they buy. And they'll still focus slower and the battery life will still be shit. At least the shareholders will be happy.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1222774-REG/sony_sel2470gm_fe_24_70mm_f_2_8_gm.html $2,198

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html $1,899.00 ( $1,749.00 after discount)

i think fuji owners have a mental illness

>>2806438

Sonydrones are retarded, so happy I sold my A7r, what a hunk of shit.

Sony is and always will be consumer.

>>2806433
>so the flappy mirror is a plus?
Yes

>>2806441
Explain this>>2806366 then.

How can it ever be a plus to fuck up your lens to such a degree, just because there is a stupid mirror where there should be optics?

I've read all comments. Now do you gear fags appreciate the benefits of a Leica? Solves all problems identified above.

File: image.jpg (508KB, 1053x1299px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1053x1299px

How it really is

God tier
>Manual SLR OVF
>Leica OVF
>Large Format Ground glass focusing

Great tier
>Cutting edge EVF (Leica SL)
>Fullframe OVFs specialised for MF

Good tier
>All other Fullframe OVFs
>Sony/Fuji/Olympus/Lumix EVFs

Bad tier
>APSC OVFs
>Pre-2013 EVFs
>Fuji x100/X pro OVF
>TLRs

Shit tier
>compact camera OVFs
>rear lcd
>pre-2012 EVFs

Just fuck my shit up
>Corfield Periflex

>>2806443
>How can it ever be a plus to fuck up your lens to such a degree

Who, apart from you, says it fucks up a lens? They work extremely well, and so far Sony have failed to prove that their system works anything like as well.

>>2806451
Have you even compared that gigantic Nikkor lens to the Voightlander?

Unless the Nikkor lens is 5 times higher image quality, how is it not a fuck up?
That damn lens is over 4 times larger than the small Voightlander lens.
And they are same Aperture.

Do you even realise how much Shit people will throw at Sony if they made a lens that was +4 times larger than a DSLR lens?
No.
But it's apparently ok when Nikon does it.

>>2806454

They don't recognise Sony as a "real" camera company so they'll always get a ton of shit.

>>2806460
sony really don't care.
they're just waiting for canon to give up and buy their sensors and become the new overlord.

>>2806406
>You have to wait for reviews of the new 85mm lens to come out before slamming on it.
Why on earth would I wait for reviews before I slam something?
Surely I'd only slam something after using it enough to form my own opinion.
>>2806438
>>2806367
>>2806440
nice meme
>>2806446
>Fuji X100/Xpro OVF in bad tier
>Leica OVF in god tier
Je nes comprends pas.
Is it because the framelines are purely digital? Or is it because you love the rangefinder patch which is prone to flaring?
>>2806460
>>2806465
They are a real camera company. At least more so than Canon who seem to be stuck firmly 4 to 5 years in the past.

>>2806440
great.
a7r is shit because no pdaf and efsc

>falling for the sony FF mirrorless meme
>Falling for the Jason Lanier shill

>>2806405
>users spend even more money on adapters so they can use Canikon lenses

Literally me.

A7Rii w/ Nikon adapter for the Primes my dad left me. Love this glass.

>>2806454
Retrofocal wide angle designs have been a fact of life since the rise of the SLR. And people have dealt with it thanks to the advantages OVFs had over RFs at the time. For the first time in 60 years has it been feasible to use short focal flange ultra wide angles again.

The A7 is just unpleasant to shoot hands down.

Daily reminder that M43 is the only mirrorless system that actually succeeds at being a good mirrorless system.

>small size
>low weight
>excellent and comprehensive photo and video features
>large lens ecosystem

Fuji cannot into AF or video (even the xpro2). Sony FE cannot into lenses or size (how many years did it take to make a 50/2? How many dollars for a 35/2.8, a focal length/aperture combination not offered since the 80s?). Sony E cannot into lenses or IBIS (no telephotos worth buying, $1000+ zooms, a smattering of primes). Nikon, Pentax, and Leica cannot into market share. M43 only loses 2 stops DR and noise performance to gain those advantages. If you needed 14 EV DR at base ISO, you could pick up a D800E cheaper than a A7RII. If you needed to shoot at ISO12800+ regularly, then obviously you'd choose the largest sensor you can get your hands on. Otherwise, M43 covers every lens type you'd ever need. The S-AF performance of M43 CDAF is fast enough for even action, and the extra DOF helps too. The C-AF is fast with Panasonic DFD or the E-M1. The E-M5II and E-M1 EVFs are as good as the X-T1s. The Olympus IBIS is magic tier.

Face it, M43 isn't """"""""""dead""""""""", you just want a bigger sensor and camera to show off.


>pls bite

>>2809017
>Face it, M43 isn't """"""""""dead"""""""""
We just need someone to design the perfect point and shoot to put it in

>>2806074
I used to hate mirror less but going m43 has really turned it around for me.

It's so bloody nice that two companies can share a damn lens mount. So many good choices for lenses.

Panasonic 25mm f1.4 is sick. It's just a hair below Sony's 55mm zeiss wonder toy.

>>2809150
>We just need someone to design the perfect point and shoot to put it in
They have, it's called the
>D U S T
>U
>S
>T
and even that can fit a superior APS-C chip.
>μ43 btfo

File: foolish.jpg (357KB, 1400x711px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1400x711px

this

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

>>2809017
> Sony FE cannot into lenses
Eh, it has around 5 times more good lenses than the best m43 system.

They're not tiny or cheap for the most part, but that's quite normal for good glass.

M43 has a lot of okay lenses for cheap, but almost none that are as sharp, even if you're willing to pay for them.

And it's not like you can't adapt a ton of cheap glass to an E-mount camera, either.

> The Olympus IBIS is magic tier.
Sony's is the same though.

>>2809197
Well, all of the Olympus primes are very sharp except the 17. The PanaLeicas and most of the Panasonics are good too. The PRO and Panasonic 2.8 zooms are as sharp as can be. The 40/45-150 cheap telephotos are pretty sharp, but i'm not sure I'd include them here. Do they touch the Zeiss 55 or the GM lenses? No, I don't think so. But you'd be wrong to say there's more sharp lenses on native FE than there is for M43. Hell, there's probably more sharp lenses for M43 than there are lenses for FE.

FE has an advantage in adapting lenses simply because of focal lengths and crop factors. But if i wanted to fuck around with manual focus, I'd buy a film SLR.

>>2806437
>>2806405
I have some some really, really bad news for you. The new lens looks like it's going to be exceptionally good.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/

For now, you can attribute this to the extra space for optics as ponted out here>>2806369

>>2809258
Well it should be. All the 24-70/2.8 Tamron copies are exceptionally good.
Think about it, Pentax has the 24-70/2.8 for the K-1, now Sony can be just as good as Pentax. Yay!

Nevermind my previous post, it was some other lenses that had to be stopped down.

>>2806438
I really don't understand Fuji owners. Sony owners allegedly shill their cameras all over the place, but Fuji owners don't even do that. They mostly seem to be occupied with shitting on other cameras.

>>2809848

Going by the exif in RPT's, they mostly seem occupied with shooting photos.

I know this doesn't neatly fit into your dichotomy of shitposting or shilling, but hey. Facts are facts.

>>2809856
And significantly less so on Flickr. As always, I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself. That being said, I sincerely doubt that any specific brand attracts people who just don't like taking pictures, but I really do not quite understand why (some) Fuji users are so obsessed with proving that other cameras are shit. This doesn't exactly happen as much with Nikon and Canon users.

>>2809867

I think you're just suffering from confirmation bias, m8. Gearfaggotry is equally virulent from every brand.

Show me on the doll where the fujifag hurt you.

>>2809869
That may well be true.

>>2809867
>I really do not quite understand why (some) Fuji users are so obsessed with proving that other cameras are shit
Fuji owner here.
Almost every other camera is shit. But Fuji cameras are also shit, digital aperture ring, focus by wire, that bastardisation of the ISO dial on the X-Pro 2.

Any gearfag is bad desu.

>>2809867
>but I really do not quite understand why (some) Fuji users are so obsessed with proving that other cameras are shit.
Fuji users defend their cameras against Sony users who have never held one. That's it. Full stop.

>>2809241
>Well, all of the Olympus primes are very sharp except the 17
Only by m43 standards, or this would indeed be a no-brainer.

Just look at the sharpness field map:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-90mm-F28-Macro-G-OSS-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-75mm-F18-on-Olympus-PEN-E-PL5-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R__1517_917_898_839_1252_917

That 75mm f/1.8 is often mentioned online as one of the sharpest lenses for Olympus, and it is also the sharpest one on DxO.

The difference is just vast.

> The PRO and Panasonic 2.8 zooms are as sharp as can be.
They equally are a notch or two below the arguably usually more expensive E-mount glass.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-90mm-F28-Macro-G-OSS-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Panasonic-Leica-DG-Nocticron-42-5mm-F12-ASPH-on-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH2__1517_917_1252_917_1297_677

> But you'd be wrong to say there's more sharp lenses on native FE than there is for M43.
No, I'm correct.

> FE has an advantage in adapting lenses simply because of focal lengths and crop factors
Yes, and of course because the smart adapters are currently best on that system. No one else has as many adapters that fully let you use the lenses in question, including AF and IS and all.

>>2809892
LOL, You just proved his point.

>>2810003
That Sony guy made an attack, and a Fuji guy defended himself?

>>2810005
>That Sony guy made an attack
>OP is literally a Fuji forum doing mental gymnastics to explain why they are not irrelevant and attacking Sony

Is this some kind of idiot bar fight now? Muhhhhh, he attacked first! It's fucking stupid.

>>2809867
>This doesn't exactly happen as much with Nikon
Nikon users are the most aggressive of the bunch.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as a digital rangefinder, is in fact, a rangefinder-styled digital camera, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, An OVF + autofocus. The OVF in say an Xpro-2 is not an rangefinder system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning digital camera system made useful by the supplementary electronic viewfinder, electronic framelines and integral autofocus components comprising a full mirrorless camera system.
Many Fuji owners use a rangefinder-styled version of the mirrorless camera system every day without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, this version of a viewfinder on a mirrorless camera which is widely used today is often called in error a “rangefinder”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the autofocus OVF system, developed by the Fujifilm corporation. There really is an optical viewfinder, and Fujifilm X- system owners are using it, but it isn't a rangefinder as it is on a Leica.

The OVF is the viewfinder: an element in the digicam system that presents to the users eye the scene that you wish to capture. The OVF is an essential part of a mirrorless camera system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a focusing system, such as a rangefinder. The OVF in a Fujifilm camera is normally used in combination with an autofocus system: the whole system is basically OVF with autofocus added, or OVF + autofocus. All the so-called “rangefinder” Fujifilm digital cameras are really manifestations of an OVF + autofocus.

File: 3.jpg (59KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 300x300px

>typical fuji user

>>2809867
Ken Wheeler

>>2810356
.....
What?

Dat low light performance on the a7s tho

>>2810356
I'd like to interject for a moment to point out that the relation between the word "rangefinder" and a physical, mirror-based rangefinder mechanism is only an assumed one, and not the only method of rangefinding. It's not even the most common type anymore, if you're talking non-photo applications.

An X-Pro using native lenses, therefore communicating with the lens aperture info and measuring the lens' focus distance for previewing parallax, is, literally a rangefinder.
It's just not a manual, physical, mirror-based rangefinder. It's a digital exif-based mechanism.

It's about like calling a jetliner a plane.

>>2810557

>

>>2810557
Wait a second, are you sure you're a girl?

>>2810574
Pretty androgynous and dyke-ish, but definitely a girl.

File: Smartpicsuk-owner-Steve-Burton-blog.jpg (40KB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x320px

>>2809867
They pissed away money on garbage that is so bad they defend it by screaming about how good the jpeg quality is. It should be expected that they will take every opportunity they can to defend their purchase. Although admittedly some know what they bought, the butthurt ones are usually the ones who sold all of their higher end gear to switch.

Most Fuji owners are 45yr old fatties or 19yr old hipster bitch boys, both of which think holding a DSLR is equivalent to weightlifting and so crying about how big and "heavy" other cameras are is all they can do.

>>2810999
>Most Fuji owners are 45yr old fatties or 19yr old hipster bitch boys, both of which think holding a DSLR is equivalent to weightlifting and so crying about how big and "heavy" other cameras are is all they can do.

Maybe on the internet, but this certainly hasn't been true of the Fuji owners I've known in real life. All of them have full FF DSLR systems, many even own and use digital MF, and the Fujis are casual fuckaround cameras for them. The same holds true for me as well, I own a pretty decent Nikon FF DSLR setup, and take my X100 with me when I don't want to bring a "big" camera, or when I'm out with my film gear and want a reasonably compact but high quality digital option as well.

>>2810999
>Most Fuji owners are 45yr old fatties or 19yr old hipster bitch boys, both of which think holding a DSLR is equivalent to weightlifting and so crying about how big and "heavy" other cameras are is all they can do.
Nice.

I do keep crying about how big and heavy other digital cameras are. Because none of them have a proper fucking shutter speed dial anymore. It's for this reason that I'm forced to lug around not only 135 slr bodies weighing 600g+ but also medium format rigs weighing a kilo and a half.

Which could all be avoided if Sony would just stick a shutter speed dial on the camera and some bleedin' aperture rings on their lenses.
So yes. You're damn fucking right that as a 27 year old hispster bitch boy fatty that I'll shill my camera endlessly.

>>2811163
>if Sony would just
Sounds like an idea, call Sony's legendary customer support and tell them