>Previous model of this Fujifilm camera also got raving reviews from Verge and was mocked in photography circles.
I've found "photography circles" to be ignorant pixel peepers, who wouldn't appreciate good ergonomics or know how to take an actual good picture even if their live depended on it.
(Have worked, among other odd jobs, as a freelance human interest/travel photographer back in the day).
Totally agree. Pros do use Fuji cameras. It depends on the job.
Remember, it's the photographer who takes the picture. The camera is just a tool, and if the photog wants to use a Fuji because it makes him happy and his pictures are bomb as fuck then who is to complain.
>I've never known any 'pro' to use anything other than Nikon, Canon, and Sony. But I know plenty of amateur's who use Fuji.
How many do you know? Pros range from portrait and wedding photographers, to travel photographers, photojournalists, sports photographers, product photographers, professional fine arts photographers, etc.
Sports photographers and journalists did switch to Canon at some point because of the faster/more automated autofocus system, but they bounced back to Nikon circa the D3, and people use stuff all over the map now.
And of course back in the film days (pre 2000-2005) tons of pros used Minolta, Leica, Olympus, Pentax and other brands, and lots of them kept their brand loyalty.
Also most really well paid pros in fashion and product photography used medium formats such as Hasselblad. And with news and wedding photographers transitioning to video, lately Canon (which started promisingly) and Nikon have been seen as big jokes compared to Sony and even Panasonic.
This looks like a premium-priced hobbyist camera, not a realistic substitute for a good SLR.
There's a lot to be said for the form factor for hobby/casual photography. SLRs can be a PITA to carry around in a way that smaller cameras aren't. Just by being portable, this camera will catch a lot of images that a big SLR won't.
But image quality is clearly a good few steps short of the output of an equivalently priced Canon or Nikon DSLR.
That will be an acceptable compromise for many buyers - but it won't work for everyone.
I think that's true of all mirrorless. A full-frame SLR is going to take better photos because it lets in more light and has a larger sensor. It's hard to get around physics.
But, as you noted, carrying an SLR can be a pain. I tried to get into photography many years ago, with a Canon Rebel XT. It didn't stick because I hated carrying the bulky thing around. I stuck to point & shoots, then my iPhone.
I recently picked up an Olympus PEN e-PL6, which, for me, strikes a nice middle-ground. It fits in my wife's purse, or my small backpack (easy to carry-on flights, unlike the Canon, which ate up my underseat area on its own). It is light enough to carry all day. And has an excellent selection of lenses for all purposes.
Of course, I also frequently carry my Canon S100 because it is truly pocketable and still takes excellent photos.
A lack? There's a huge and often price-insensitive market in decades-old manual-focus lenses for the Sony mirrorless cameras to the extent that I've given-up trying to find bargains and curiosities amongst 35mm lenses on eBay, and I've been in this hobby for nearly 30 years.
The only untouched seam of treasure appears to be medium-format lenses ( Mamiya, Hasselblad, Pentax etc ) which are too big and bulky for the mirrorless crowd.
I know there are tons of old lenses on the market. For me the main reason to go with Fuji was that they have a 100-400mm lens for which Sony doesn't have an equivalent. Obviously this may change but as of now I find the Sony APS-C lens selection a little uninspiring. I thought about the A7ii though but I didn't like the handling.
Previous model of this Fujifilm camera also got raving reviews from Verge and was mocked in photography circles. The review, not the camera.