Older X-T10 or a newer X-T100? Help decide please

Threaded wrote:

If it has to be between these two, I would go with the XT100 because the XT10 has some issues, as an older camera its AF will be slower, and it suffers from a common problem with X-Trans II cameras of having over aggressive JPEG noise reduction on skintones at ISOs over 1600, and you did say JPEGs were important to you. The play button fault is also well known.

That said, personally I don't like the XT100 either - I'd save and look elsewhere in the current range. XT20s will be getting more affordable now. The XT100 although "newer" was built down to a price and has a sub-par processor inside, and while there are those (here) that like to vehemently disagree whenever this is mentioned, the overwhelming view of reviewers is that it doesn't perform well. They might all be wrong of course, but they probably aren't.

The X-T100 is not the fastest thing on earth but the reviewers are constantly dropping down from high end kit and are always going to find a camera like the X-T100 frustrating which is priced down on reduced processing clout with no compromise on image quality.

In the current trend a processor that was fine 2 years ago will be sub-par now so you can chase the curve but will never catch up with it as in 2 years time it is all sub par again.

I had an X-T10 and certainly would not swap my X-T100 for one. I also have a X-A3 which works OK and considering some reviews think the improved X-A5 is almost unusable I take these reviews with a pinch of salt. Not having to buy the camera themselves takes a big lump out of the equation. Nikon Zee not Zed mirrorless at £2,000 entry level. No problem.

The X-T100 was not built down to a price but built at a price. It works fine for what it is but the modern constant kit comparison fever always muddies the water on the particular merits of any kit in its own right. A lower cost camera being 'crippled' is also a popular term in the assessment of affordable stuff.