X-E3 + 23/f2 is $250 more, the lens sticks out twice as far, no OVF, and no leaf shutter. Thumbs down.
Either you “get” the X100 or you don’t. If you don’t, nothing is going to convince you. For me it’s the best digital camera ever made.

LOL, yes once every camera drops to half its price they all become more attractive!
Again, the X-E2 doesn’t have an OVF, the same number of manual dials and controls, or a leaf shutter. If they’re not important to you, great.

They are important but not $1000 important.

To you. Many other will say otherwise.

Overpriced? Not at all. I have about 550 shots from Paris from nights on the river to street. ALL are tack sharp, perfectly balanced with total gray scale (shot mostly B&W with Yellow filter) and never did it ever feel cumbersome or heavy on my shoulder. Perfect "pro" travel camera...I used it mostly on full auto and just adjusted up and down on the dial.24mp and all printable. I also have and X-T2...but this is my preferred travel camera. It had the same results last year in Rome, Positano and Barcelona.

The lens isn’t “soft”. It’s soft-er at very close distances at f/2. With real life subjects it’s simply not noticeable. And the autofocus isn’t “slowish” at all. It’s fast enough to be an excellent street photography camera. I’ve never even bothered with the manual focus mode.
Maybe you should limit your comments to cameras you’ve actually used?

Soft lens? I'm a pro shooter in LA for 25 years and I just got back from Paris for 12 days and used this exclusively. Tac sharp. Every shot including B&W night shots...and I put it on Auto SS, Auto Aperture and Auto ISO. This camera is the bomb!

With all those implementations now you’re talking about a way bigger camera which defeats the purpose of the X100 series.

Yeah, because so often something costing more than three times more is really just no better at all.

I think you guys are missing the point of this camera. This is a more affordable rendition of the Leica Q—minimalist, fixed lens, great ergonomic controls and image quality—in a relatively light and compact body.

If you want an X100F with interchangeable lenses, I have great news for you! Fuji already makes this camera, and it's called the X-Pro2. In fact, it also has faster autofocus and shutter speeds. What's that you say? The X-Pro2 is bigger, heavier, and more expensive? Congratulations! You now understand the key tradeoffs between fixed and interchangeable lens cameras.

An articulated LCD would certainly be nice, but again it would change the character of the camera, not to mention adding size, weight, and cost.

I get that we're all seeking the "perfect" camera, but the reality is that such a camera cannot exist. Demanding interchangeable lenses and articulated LCD in the X100 is akin to complaining about luggage space and rear seat legroom in a Porsche.

Ok, thank you for your comment and stating the obvious.
I need to tell you, sarcasm comes in many flavors and I do own a x100 camera

Irony only works when there's a consensus about the subject a hand. These forums are full of opinions from every angle so I had no way of knowing you were being sarcastic unless I was already familiar with your previous comments.

Ore you click on my username and gather some info, e.g. what cameras I use ;) knowledge is power...

Do you honestly think it's reasonable to research the post history of every commenter I reply to?

To answer your question, please find every discussion thread for each of the X100 releases.
But here is a quick one for you: we pick the X100x because of its limitations and the small formfactor.

> It seems to me that the XPro2 would be a much better buy.

It all depends on your needs. The X100F is not meant to be an all-purpose, jack of all trades camera. Its design is optimized for a particular type of photography, while making many sacrifices that would make it a poor choice for other types.

The XPro2 is a fantastic camera, and no doubt a more versatile choice than the X100F. However, it's also considerably larger and heavier, even when equipped with an equivalent lens. It's also substantially more expensive, especially after factoring in the cost of a lens. So the question of which of the two is the better camera depends entirely on the needs and preferences of the buyer.

No, but apparently you've confused it with 4chan.

So you really want us to answer if your local retailers stock the camera??

> So many significant drawbacks

All cameras have drawbacks. The idea is to choose the right one for the task at hand. If you want the best resolution, speed, AF, dynamic range, etc., then buy a 1DF. But good luck using that for street photography or carrying it around with you while on vacation.

The X100F is optimized for portability and usability and is ideal for street photography. The AF speed in single shot mode is pretty decent. Contiuous AF sucks, but then this is not a camera intended for sports photography or for serious video work. The cameras that do best for sports and video will have serious drawbacks for street photography.

The Sony a6xxx is considerably bulkier, and like all Sony cameras has terrible ergonomics and menu system. It lacks the Fuji's dedicated, tactile controls for aperture, shutter speed, and ISO.

As with many of their other cameras, the Axxx sacrifices battery life in order to deliver a smaller body, despite the fact that this is offset by poor ergonomics and an exceptionally bulky lens.

Sony designs cameras that excel on a spec sheet and in absolute image quality. But in actual use, their design flaws make them unpleasant to use. The Sony also lacks an optical viewfinder, which can be a welcome feature when you want to track your subject while shooting a burst without dealing with viewfinder blackout.

Skanter, of course the Sony has a big big big drawback : the lenses.
And this Sony drawback is fuji 's strength
So you really believe there is more than one decent lens for the apsc Sony line ?
Unfortunately not.

Macro Arment, an influential, independent developer who helped create Tumblr, Instapaper, and Overcast, spent some time extolling the virtues of Sony's high end cameras, no doubt persuaded by the specs and the hype. In a recent podcast, he admitted that this was a mistake, and that after using the high end A7R II for a couple of years, he realized that its clunky controls and menu system made it a chore to use.

Judging from some responses I am seeing for Sony A9 camera review, I guess my ask (comparing these two cameras) is a very dangerous one. Either brand' die-hard (Fuji or Sony) fan will perhaps lynch you for saying anything not-so-positive about their respective brand.

How foolish of me to suggest this idea :-)

The Sony will outperform the Fuji in image quality and AF. But it’s a terrible camera in many other aspects, including battery life, ergonomics, and its infuriating menus and cheap buttons and dials.

I had the battery run out on my a6300 -once in 2 years. I popped in a spare in 10 seconds. How is this a problem?

I love the Sony ergonomics, and the camera is totally configureable to users' taste. I would not trade my a6300 for 10 Fujis, especially with a Fuji fixed screen which is a total disaster.

skanter, you made K1000usrs point very well!
applause.

You are one of those die-hard brand fans that we all love because of the facts presented.

Here is an example of a panorama using my old X100.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/robculhane/6936672888/in/album-72157629827555447/
My daughter still uses it and takes panos of where she lives in Indonesia. It doesn't have dust in the view finder either and it has survived 4 years of undergraduate living and a year in the tropical environment of Indonesia.
I almost forgot to mention: when I was using the X100 in this set of pictures in the national park, it had the 'sticky aperture blade' problem which was common in the X100. I used to take a picture, look at its exposure, and then retake the picture after adjusting the shutter speed manually to compensate.

>I really see no need to upgrade until Fuji stuffs a full frame CMOS sensor in there

That's never going to happen. A larger sensor would require a complete redesign of both the camera and lens, resulting in a larger, heavier, and more expensive product that loses the magic of the original.

I've owned an S and still own a T. No such dust, ever. Maybe you have a lot of lint in your pocket.

I own a X100T for 2 years (without any bag) and no dust in the viewfinder.
the knobs and dials are well enough designed for me w/o any play.
And yes, it is a cheap Leica, that is why I could afford it!!!

RX100 II is unusually strong for a compact. Have it, compares favourably even at ISO 800 as long as you do manual/aperture priority and pick the right settings. Fiddling with its options sucks by comparison but it's a more useful compact. Also, no dust yet in the lens!!! X100 has a good amount of dust, although it does not harm its IQ, just its looks.

I've had 3 different RX100 cameras, one RX100 II and 2x RX100 III. Had Fuji X100, the first version. RX100 series does't come anywhere close to X100.
My preference or your preference DOESN'T MATER:
RX100 lens is examined in many tests, and proven to be generally not so sharp and performs very badly at certain F-stops. The improved in, in MK3, is well, not much improved. In general, RX100 was making me much better pictures than RX100 mk3.
The Sony vs Fuji JPEG processing... now that would be a matter of opinion, but we are talk about every single review praising Fuji, and many are bashing Sony, and that's exactly what I see.

Now, my dirty cheap Pentax K30 with a dirty cheap Pentax 35mm f2.4 lens blows Fuji out of water. And that's my only complain - such costly camera, with fixed lens, should be better. But to compare it with any RX100. Now that's ridiculous.

before I trust your single post, I'd trust the dozens of reviews and provided raw files to test myself.
If your RX100 fares better than the X100, you made some serious mistakes!

I'm still confused about the digital teleconverter samples. Why would anyone ever use the teleconverter if it makes photos worse? I don't understand how you "reframed" each shot. The teleconverter should be just like cropping a photo, yes? And with "upsampling," it should produce slightly better results than simply cropping. You should keep the camera exactly steady on a tripod, and take 3 shots of the same subject, at each teleconverter length, so we can get an accurate sense of how much actual "damaging impact" there is. Could you do so and substitute the results in your review?