>>3630626>no, actually I don't have the reported issue that I implied in my last postSure
>it got hot menu divingSo you mean when the sensor isn't even working? Fucking yikes.
>no sony has been rated as having better image quality than fuji and their colors are garbageOh, then how come when Tony northrup did subjective testing of colours, sony won, and when pdnonline did objective testing of colours, sony won.
How can they be the most liked, the most accurate and garbage? You seem to have taken this very personally and you're trying to imply your feelings are more important than facts.
>I wont address sensor sizeIt's good to admit that even you can't mental gymnastics your way around every fuji fuck up.
>>3630632>all cameras heat upLiterally none of my sonys have felt warm to the touch after shooting for 8 hours.
>>3630634>$800 for a 24mm f2 lens that isn't close to sharpLol, why do you defend this, surely you realise we're going to take the piss out of you lad
>>3630641>uses endless strings of meaningless adjectives in response to "techno babble"Tl;Dr I didn't understand your big words so I'm going to use big words :(
>thinks changing settings is processor intensiveLaughing my LMFAOS off bro
>>3630642>bloviatingYou sir, sound shallow and pedantic.
>>3630647>changing a setting is resource intensive on sonyWell that's an odd hill to double down and die on.
And no, changing settings isn't intensive in the slightest. I presume you're referring to fujis "I'm too retarded to edit my own photos jpeg filters"? No, pal, applying curves is not resource intensive, and hasn't been since about 2003. Any shit phone can do it.
Why is it fuji fags are so frequently the dumbest fucks on this board, they really gobble down coomsuming
