>>2942407>>2942414>proof resistantConsidering they mean different things, and the anon i was replying to got it wrong, it's fairly relevant.
>>2942419>fuji has a mf bodyPentax has for years, how many 645z/d users do we have here? Lg do a 106" tv, doesn't make my 47" any better.
>>2942504>no I'm talking about only sonys crop bodiesBut sonys ff options are the same price point as your fujis, whys it not a fair comparison? Is it because sony doesn't give a fuck about crop bodies/lenses, because they're a joke, remember how seriously people took any other format smaller than 135 in the film era, toys for kids and curiosities.
And your d810 has worse iq than an a7rii, is larger, heavier, doesn't have glass in the same league, doesn't have separate dials for aperture, iso, shutter speed, no ibis, a fixed screen, 1/8th the focusing points, sucks cock at video, 2/5ths the shutter life, costs more.
If your doing sports, yeh, it's a better choice, for anything else it's not. Give me one area where the d810 is objectively better.
And are you really boasting that you've spent around $4k on crop fuji bodies, you could have got a pentax digi mf for that.
>>2942559Name fuji lenses that beat
50 1.4
85 1.4
90 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
35 1.4
55 1.8
28 2
Protip, these lenses all destroyed their canikon counterparts and this is just the oem range, there's also the zeiss batis and loxia range exclusive to e mount.
I take it the 56 1.2 is fujis crown jewel? Put it up against a sony and do a little cry mate. Pic related.
>>2942635Tell me one thing wrong.
>>2942668I looked it up, every fuji lens looks disgusting next to a good ff equivalent. That's just facts and data.
