>>2982873The Fuji wasn't more ergonomic in quite a bunch of ways, but it had the better grip.
Not bothered at all about the menus and operation in general, all the important settings are quick on the Sony and the Fuji had almost more quirks with its knobs and levers overall.
Why would a small difference like that make me pick the device that takes worse photos?
>>2982879> I bet you'll find the Fuji files are sharper at 16 mp than the Sony at 24.No chance.
> granted, but i doubt you'll find much difference between 8fps (which is fucking amazing and was top of the line two generations ago) and 11.Yes, I do.
I'd actually mildly prefer even faster bursts for group photos and AE bracketing. Not willing to do a $1k+ upgrade over just that, though.
> lol wut. have you actually looked at Sony's lineup for their crop line?Surely some of those $600-900 primes and $1k-2k zooms will look better than the cheapest APS-C Sony E-mount glass.
But I don't have to only use Sony manufactured or APS-C glass? I'll use what's good.
> TTL is for soccer moms.It's clearly mostly for photographers.
Also, Fuji has long been one of the brands most marketed to soccer moms...? [Tied with Canon, I guess]. I find this concern quite ironic.
> wutYup, the Fuji was metering just about everything worse when I tested it. Not just AF was worse, but also AWB and what ISO/shutter settings it picked. Had more of a tendency to over- and underexpose. Not good.
> doubtfulIt's worse by like 1/4 if not more, you can go see various tests plus the usual CIPA metrics.
> but they're both absolutely terribleIs there any camera using EVF that will do much better after you compensate for the individual batteries weight?
