For those who don't like the X100's...

bastibe wrote:

Jeff Biscuits wrote:

liggy wrote:

You dislike the OVF, ignore the perfectly fine EVF and then go on to say you’re fine without a viewfinder at all a la GR. Makes no sense whatsoever.

I can see some sense in it, though it may initially seem obscure.

[...]

As you say, you certainly can use the X100 as an EVF camera. It just constantly reminds you that, in its opinion, you’re not using it properly 😉 Which the GR doesn’t.

Thank you, Jeff, for expressing my thoughts more clearly than I could.

At the time, I had the X-T2, the X100T, and the Ricoh GR. I had bought the X100T mostly for its OVF. But seeing that the OVF experience was not what I had hoped for, I found the X-T2 a better EVF camera and the GR a better noVF camera.

I can totally follow your reasoning. I've shot film with rangefinder cameras (including Soviet FED and Zorki cameras to the wonderful Voigtländer Bessa R-models) and then moved on to a digital Epson R-D1, which I still own and use. I entered the world of Fuji with the original X100 (which I still own and use, too), then got an X-Pro1 which I replaced with an X-Pro2 last year.

As you say, the focussing spot in a 'true' rangefinder, like the R-D1 is a unique feature that the focussing box of the X100's just cannot match. The OVF on an X100 is wonderful, but it just doesn't offer you the same experience as a more classic OVF. That's why, even though I did get used to the Fuji X100 and X-Pro's and wouldn't want to part with that concept, I still take out the ancient, antiquated R-D1 from time to time. Just simply for that real, classic, unadulterated OVF-experience.

It's all personal taste and preference, no right or wrong here. And to me your choice and the reasons for it do make sense.

Just wondering how you like the Sony. I find it a fascinating camera, but is it worth the, well, let's be nice, rather steep price?