>>3852786>It is the choice of the photographer>Please expandYes, because they use a different (i don't want to say inferior) sensor and glass systems for the sake of it IF they don't merely do it for the camera's body, which is totally fair in terms of ergonomics but odd and wholy homosexual in terms of "style" and "street creed".
>Muh film emulationsI know you didn't say that and i don't think you will but for those who wanted to say that: You can do the same with a RAW converter with profiles, which i think most of them have (other than the free ones like Darktable i suppose).
>Hipster tax is a made up term for markup regarding film camerasIt's a term for pretty much everything, made up more than 10 years ago, it applies to boots, flannel shirts, cigarettes, beers, video games, music equipment and so on, you get my point. It's based around marketing towards "retro" or "different" tastes of certain "alternative" niches (which are not really alternative because they are mainstream) and charging extra for it for no reason.
X-Tranny sensors are good, more than good, but i don't think their technology is worth more than a full frame sensor of the same price range. A real hipster sensor (as in alternative, obscure, not sought after but different) would be the Foveon. Fuji has in them the body ergonomics only, because there's fast glass but build construction is not that good (plastic), AF is not good regarding the price (50mm 1.0, 16mm 1.4); i only see the ergonomics as a reason, and i don't think they are worth more than a tank Pentax DSLR or a hardened Z series ML in terms of construction only.
I am not the beholder of truth, could you please tell me why? at least Pentax K3III has the 2000$ excuse that the camera is the most rugged APS-C around along with the brightest OVF. Why is a XT-4 much more expensive than a Z50?
