>>4211520>The lenses are way more expensiveThe cheapest first party sony lens is $150. Third party autofocus lenses go $100 and below easily. I have seen sony lenses like the samyang AF 35mm f2.8 sell for $50 The cheapest nikon Z lens is $280 new. I'll admit it's pricier than sony.
Manual lenses made by ttfartisan are even cheaper and are made for every mount, but can't really say they count when you miss out on 50% of what makes up the price of your camera.
>The sensor is worse than fujiThat sensor is revised and altered every year so it's current with whatever year the camera is released. Only people who don't understand how the sensor supply chain works say so and so camera has an older sensor - they just know the IMX model number but ignore the reivisions. Even if it weren't, that mostly only affects video specs. SNR among all cameras has been largely unchanged since 2010 so the photos are fine, and fuji has one major point of inferiority:
Xtrans. Unlike bayer, xtrans is a 3x3 CFA, so it captures less fine detail and less accurate color than bayer in the same way bayer array sensors capture less fine detail and less accurate tonality than monochrome sensors. Even fuji fans admitted it... they celebrated when fuji needed 40 whole megapixels to equal the sharpness of a 24 megapixel camera. K3k. They did this because it was cheaper to reduce moire with an inferior CFA than purchase and install an anti-aliasing filter that would reduce moire without having as much of an impact on sharpness.
Now, there is nothing wrong with not having the sharpest gear ever, but if you don't, you should at least pay less for it
>inb4 muh x-t5 does 62.k vidya! before overheatingYeah because you totally need 6.2k video that's what people buy cameras right there, meanwhile hollywood is using blackmagic pocket 4ks for blockbusters. And I'd rather shoot video with a pansonic gh5 since it's also a more capable stills camera than literally any FOOLjifilm.
