>>4108620man, i feel like early x100's were seen overwhelmingly positive on here years ago, but that's also when they were almost exclusively used by more serious enthusiast types, not mainstream
there's a lot of people now that grew up with smartphones, instax and whatever film camera their parents had tucked away
i remember when i was a teen, the fun i had playing with my dad's x-700, even though i had 0 idea what i was doing
so i can totally see the appeal of the x100 line being something that offers a perceived similar tactile feel of a film camera, with "film like" image quality, without the hassle of film or even post processing
i do think it's weird that the critiques of some cameras often are more about certain users of the camera, not the camera itself
i know the common idea of leica being for rich folk, and that's definitely what you'll mostly find on forums online, but definitely not the case for everyone i know irl that use leica, all are normal income, most even have normal non-photo jobs, just serious enthusiasts and the cameras just work for them
6k is a lot for a single camera, but i know way more normal income people that have spent more on cars, magic the gathering, computers, video games, guns, etc, not to mention the resale value is worth considering too
q2 specifically, i almost view as 6k for an autofocusing 28 lux, still cheaper than an actual 28 lux, that just happens to also have it's own camera attached to it
they're both great cameras for what they are, but terrible choices for most
it's a shame so many people can only see them so negatively, but haters gonna hate
