>>4082235I would put M as more fun to use, but X-Pro a lot more functional.
M is a simple, refined experience, great IQ in a tiny size, but you have to work for it. Functionally limited to 28-90mm primes, or less if you have glasses. No video or other modern QOL features, but the focus peaking is honestly my favorite of all the brands.
X-Pro is capable of MF, and you can use the OVF, aren't stuck with focus & recompose, and can get greater focus accuracy than an M, but it's a lot slower in process since the ERF is off in the corner. If you really want to MF, just get the Leica, it's a much better MF experience, and the X-Pro's are much better with AF imo.
Aside from easier passing off a camera to a friend for a snap, it's Oktoberfest time, and a lot easier to shoot an X-Pro with a beer in one hand than an M. Brought my M to enough festivals this summer to be frustrated enough that I usually opt for an X-Pro for similar events now.
>I'm afraid to buy the Fuji and after a year or two I notice that I would prefer FFpicrel is Voigt 50 f2 APO on top (on 36mp FF) vs Fuji's 33 f1.4 on bot (x-pro3). For one of the optically best M-mount lenses and a 12mp advantage, the difference isn't as crazy as I'd expect. Setups are about the same size, but X-Pro would give AF, WR, more lens options, etc.
The shooting FF f1.4 all the time kinda bores me honestly, and anything short of that I can easily get with the X-Pro. Noise is the same if you account for field of view and depth of field (by not shooting ff f1.4). I honestly think I notice the difference in resolution more-so than anything else (like dynamic range), but an X-Pro4 would help with that.
>>4082258>but don't have a true rangefinder OVFNo rangefinder mechanism, but OVF works similarly. It's closer to an M in operation and function than some actual rangefinders like a G2.
