I had the Fuji X100t and REALLY enjoyed shooting it. It's a completely different animal. Probably more like the rx1rii. But mostly, I still fight the Sony ergonomics and Overall shooting experience. I've seen some very good stuff done with th xt1 and have often wondered if I could simplify my kit in both size and simplicity. Might make the shooting more enjoyable.
I don't do this for a living, so...do, I really need the highest MP and sharpest edge to edge if it comes at the cost of less fun?
Open question. Semi rhetorical. I just remember the X100t being so much more fun to shoot. And the Sony just feels like it gets in my way and I have to fight it to make it do what I want. Maybe it's just in my head.
There are pluses and minuses to both systems and as they age some minuses will no longer be negatives. To be, having had deep experiences in both systems (NEX-6, 7, a6000, a6300, a7, a7rII and X-E1, X-Pro 2, X-T1, x100 ps, x100t, x70) here is what I think are ones for me.
+ IQ, DR of sensors ar unmatched
+ ability to adapt anything to it. For me I didn't at all, but I could see the appeal of slapping a MF lens or Metabones
+ massive amount of tech into it, IbIS, 4K, useable Eye AF)
- overheating (only had it happen to me once)
- crippled technology at times, why still using UHS-I? Sluggish at times.
- buffer stinks. Why have 11 FPS if buffer is filled at 21 shots. Then lock up for 8-10 seconds to clear buffer
- no dual card slots, no fast way to move AF point
+ full features lens lineup. Started with fast 1.4 primes. Now releasing slightly slower, faster AF, WR primes that are somewhat affordable. 23/35 f2 for under $500 each. Sony has only 2-3 lenses under $500.
+ film simulations, JPEG that are useable SOOC.
+ manual dials
+ listen to users (AF joystick, dual UHs-II slots, 3 way tilt screen, AF cases like 5dm3 series constant FW updates)
+ offers a good selection of gear types. Want a corner EVF? Have the X-Pro 2. Want a DSLR style? Have the X-T series. Offers a high end and a value option for both (X-Pro 2/X-E line and X-T(X)/X-T(XX)
- closed system, no real 3rd party support
- slower to change settings, no mode dial, could be plus or minus
- slower AF historically. Even at flagship to flagship or comparative models to other systems, Fuji has also had slower AF. Maybe X-T2 will fix that.
- lenses start expensive. But Fuji has the early adopter tax on lenses more than anyone I know. If you don't need the lens right away, wait 4-6 months after release and you'll get it for 10-25% off.
+ a positive is the used market has a good choice in more affordable lense a because of the constant sales.
If you base it on IQ, pixel peeping, pulling shadows, post processing latitude, shooting at ISo80,000, etc, Fuji will never keep up with the Sony system. If you base it off of shooting experience, requesting features and getting it, and having a smaller, lighter, more affordable system then Fuji will compete and win in many cases. I'll say it and I've heard it many times, shooting with the Sony gives me great results but getting there isn't the most enjoyable. Shooting with a Fuji my end result might not be as technically rich but the journey there is more enjoyable.
If I was a working pro or someone who demanded the best landscapes like David or portraits like Vin then I would probably stick with Sony. I would then have to factor in the $3,300 for the a7rII, or the $4,000+ for the next body. I would have to factor in the $1,800 for the 85 GM, or the $2,200 for the 24-70. The $1,600 for the 50 1.4 or the $2,600 for the 70-200GM. You're talking a $10,000+ investment. Easier for a pro or an avid shooter. While the Fuji system is still expensive, my intended kit is going to be under $4,000, which is still a lot of money, but for s serious hobbyist is easier to budget than a Sony system.
It's good that we have these great toys to play with and you can't go wrong with either.