>>4241349>But what do you define under "low light" maybe I just have the wrong thing in mind when saying that. aps-c with a f/2 (f/2.8 FF equiv) lens can handle brightly lit urban areas at night. FF with IBIS and a f/1.4 prime can handle dimly lit urban/suburban areas all the way down to moonlight for some bodies (R6; A7S III).
>What the problem with it being a fixed lens, I don't see much use for other kinds of lenses, maybe I'm being naive but what other lens could I possibly need?That focal length (on aps-c) is good for street. And maybe that's all you're interested in. But if you get into other subject areas you're going to want other lenses. With the x100v you're paying $1,400 to never be able to change the lens. What if you decide you need a little more low light capability? You cannot attach an f/1.4 or f/1.0 lens, or a stabilized lens.
That lens is also not the sharpest off center, nor is that sensor the best in low light. It's behind the aps-c sensors in other bodies. Heck...it looks worse than an EOS M5 (2016) at high ISO, and the EOS M5 + 22mm f/2 is a heck of a lot cheaper on eBay (<$500) with a sharper lens (but no 4k if you want video). I'm not saying to go with an EOS M5...EF-M is being replaced by RF...I'm just making the point that the x100v does not have the best performance. There's a reason people here are telling you that it's a meme.
If you think aps-c can cover your low light needs and you're worried about size, go with a modern compact aps-c body and lens. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji...just don't get a fixed lens meme camera. If you like the look of Fuji bodies or like Fuji color science the X-T3 or X-T4 would be a far, far better choice.
picrel illustrates how bad the lens is off center.
