>>2875106Oh man, where do I even start with this...
>no lensesFuji has substantially more lenses than Sony has FF E-mount lenses. Remove the "consumer" zooms from both lines and the number is exactly the same.
>of lenses available, awful qualityRidiculous, I don't even know where you'd get that idea. Fuji's been making lenses since Sony was making transistor radios, and their X-System glass has been universally acclaimed.
>no good 3rd party AF adaptersRelevant to maybe 0.5% of the userbase. If you're one of them, good for you, buy the Sony if you've got a whole bunch of Leica glass that you want to use on a non-Leica digital body.
>crop>sensor pixels less than half the sizeYep, and it doesn't really matter when you have a whole lineup of fast glass designed around it. Sensor performance is more than adequate at high ISOs and you don't have to deal with stupid crop factors since you're not trying to use FF lenses on it.
>worse low light performanceSee attached image. It's basically identical.
>shite autofocusConfirmed for not having used one, this isn't an X-Pro1. It's accurate as all hell and plenty fast, especially with newer glass.
>no ibis>fixed screen>no nfcOk? I guess IBIS could be nice.
>92% viewfinder coverageOnly for the OVF, which doesn't even exist on the Sony.
>$1 more expensivelol
>dat fuji flash supportYeah, this legitimately sucks. Hopefully that's changing in a few months.
>even worse ergonomicsCan't even begin to understand where this is coming from.
