Sure. I’ve had one before. But it’s also $1400. That has to be weighed against getting another lens that is bigger but has better IQ. Don’t know what it is, but haven’t seen very impressive X100V images yet apart from Jonas Rask. Will probably rent out a variety of lenses before making a decision.

Z6 + 35mm 1.8S = $3K. So you're essentially comparing X100V to a camera double it's price, weight, with no leaf shutter or built-in flash, or film simulations, nor dedicated dials & aperture ring. Apple & Oranges??

More like $2,500. And the comparison isn’t to the camera plus lens. It is strictly put; what is the best value to get the 35mm focal length for me at this time. The Z6 and X-Pro 2 are sunken costs. It doesn’t make sense to say it will cost $2500 at this point. The additional money I have to spend is either $700-800 for the Z35mm 1.8s, $1400 for the X100V, $3000 for the next RX1R or the costs for adapting a lens to the Z6. And then sort out the price/compromise. It wouldn’t make sense to spend $1400 to get a camera if I wouldn’t be happy with the images.

point remains: you're comparing apples to oranges. i.e a premium compact fixed-lens APS-C rangefinder vs a FF MILC body + lens.

I don't think the X100V is about ultimate image quality. The image quality is very good, but not the absolute best available. That's not what this camera is for, though—if it was, it wouldn't be using a pancake lens. The X100V is all about the photographic experience. You have to approach the camera for what it is. Accept the constraints that it imposes and just focus on making really good pictures. Any artist will tell you that imposing constraints, even arbitrary ones, is one of the most effective ways of boosting creativity. If that doesn't appeal to you, you'd probably be happier with something else.

rolling out with a Z6+35mm also poses restraints. so does using an a Ricoh GR, Coolpix A, RX1R series or Leica Q. There is nothing more noble about the restraints Fuji chooses versus other manufacturers. again, its the balance between compromise and output. and for the price and those limitations, the gallery isn't inspiring the pockets to open.

It is possible to find more value in a $3000 fixed lens camera than a $1400 fixed lens camera, if the output from the former makes the cost more palatable.

Everyone's different. I think if the X100V's image quality isn't there for you, it's not there for you.

Here's to hoping for the compact 28mm and 40mm Z lenses on Nikon's roadmap to come out soon. I'm sure they will be excellent and small, even if they're not pancakes. The Z6 body really isn't that large when you think about it, it's the lenses that make it feel massive, at least to me. And the X100 series isn't really that small either.

Recently, I had this exact dilemma where I found myself leaving the Z6 at home because it's just too big for certain environments. I brought the X100F or M10 instead. But I can see using the Z6 had I had a compact lens available to me.

Still, sadly, the perfect camera/system seems not to exist for most of us. But at least for you, I think there's some hope on the horizon. And yes, dealing with a 40mm or 28mm (crop?) for a 35mm shooter isn't ideal, but I don't think it's the end of the world. At least you're not a 24mm shooter like me :)

Are we trying to compare APS-C vs FF?

It’s a common myth that image quality is the all-encompassing important factor in photography. For people who use their cameras day in and day out, factors like handling, control, or even just familiarity can be much more important. X100 series cameras speak to such philosophy, so it’d be a shame to reduce it to just image quality

Yes well, forgive me for my inability to deduce the X100V's amazing handling from the images above.

Feel free to read the actual texts in the reviews of generations of the X100 series camera and posts from users. If reading proves to be taxing, perhaps watch Chris’ and Jordan’s new video on the camera

As a Canon FF user with « old » tech from 2012 (Canon 6D Mk I), I have yet to see an APS-C that could make me switch

I said this elsewhere already but I don't think IQ is really the point of this camera. Yes the IQ is good, but there are other cameras which are better. This camera is about a unique photographic experience, rather than ultimate performance. It's about seeing what you can do with a 35mm, f/2.8 equivalent pancake lens on a really nice body with lots of direct controls. If you're comparing its performance and specs to other cameras, you're probably not going to enjoy an X100V.

Either the camera appeals to you on its own terms, or it doesn't. It's a niche camera, not intended to be for everyone. If you're after performance above all, consider the X-T4 and how it stacks up against the competition. The X100V isn't really a competitive camera, it just is what it is.

@MyReality

Well, I hope they’d look much better under sunlight indoors too.

@FoxShutter: I've owned them all, except the S. If you aren't aware of the constant improvement in AF speed, resolution, menu improvements, and handling, you don't really know the 100 series cameras. The change from rotating selector dial to joystick, and D-pad don't count as real changes to you? How about the huge EVF changes?
Listen, I currently use my 'F,' and I've still got my old X100, which I pull out from time to time. And every time I do, I think 'this is cute.' The menu's a puzzle, and shooting above ISO 1600 is a crap shoot -not to mention how quickly the battery drains. It's what I'd call 'charming,' I still think dearly of it, because it's the camera that got me into Fuji, but to say that the image quality is better that any later X100 series cameras is just foolishly romanticizing something from the past.
Oh, and as a jpeg shooter, I'll say this: if you aren't getting batter jpeg images SOOC with a newer version of the 100 series cameras, you're doing something wrong.

Wow, I have one on order and this is the first time I am seriously thinking of canceling it. I have the original x100 and the camera wont focus correctly if the optical VF is used, only the back panel lcd.

I was also writing off Nikon but now may consider the z6 with the converter and the vs firmware.

I have the x-pro1 & xe2 which are both exceptional. Thoughts and opinions would be appreciated.

With regards to the images, the RAW are very flat and the JPEGS as mentioned don't seem to have the pop perhaps menu settings could correct this?

All sensor sizes have their place.

It's for pros and other photographers that know why they need it.

here goes the worm again ......

Which shots in particular? I don't see any wormy details.

I see it in all of the shots, but it's easier to notice in the landscape ones.. I'm sure they will still print fine; you don't need this much resolution for that. It's simply my observation that this 26mp sensor doesn't seem to capture details and texture as well as the earlier 24mp and 16mp sensors, at least as far as the OOC JPEGs and ACR/Lightroom renditions are concerned. When viewing these shots at 100% I see a lot of smoothing of textures, and details look like watercolored brush strokes - which makes them look like worms to me. They don't look natural.

Nonsense!

BS, Boring comment from Borissimo.

Worm tongue :)

peterwr, I think the fundamental difference is in the designs of the sensors. This is my theory. The (Sigma) Foveon X3 Merrill is a three layer sensor, and it captures textures splendidly. On the other end, the x-trans sensor has a much greater green channel response, at the expense of the blue and red channels; this enables the x-trans sensor to capture more luminance information, and thereby greater resolution but at the expense of texture. This is why I think that x-tran images that feature pavements, sands, rocks, bark - basically anything with texture look so smooth and featureless. On the other hand, this shortcoming works great for human skin since it has the effect of smoothing out imperfections.

There's a really annoying optical illusion at work with these kinds of coastal images, where the picture is taken at a 45-degree (ish) angle to the tideline. The ocean presents as a triangle, which makes straight horizons look slanted.

That said, I'm sure a few of my horizons are a little off. I was standing in wet sand.

Those slanted horizons are an art technique.

I hear you, the outdoor scenes can be impacted by Seattle's gloomy weather. What worries me here are that the indoor colors aren't any better. My own guess is that everyone's buying the same Sony sensor these days and that's why we are seeing these me-too-color kind of images.

No slight against Carey or Barney, for sure. This is only about the X100V.

"...a 2006 era Fuji S5 Pro would have captured much better color if it were in a side by side shoot with the X100V."

Sadly, I can't really think of any other camera released since the S5 Pro where that wouldn't also be true.

Agree, Bob. The S5 Pro set a high bar, didn’t it? It seems like since then everyone has compromised somewhat on color, Fuji included.

Agree too. Fuji "beautiful colours" look now plastic and candy that's why I do not like landscapes taken with Fuji, even people. Ricoh renders colours much better in these subjects, more organic, also Nikon. But the best is Leica M9 with M glass. Fuji colours from X-Trans look most artifical in my view compared to other brands.

Unfortunately I had to retire my Fujifilm S5 pro. I loved that thing but it developed a red streak when reading out that CCD. After Fujifilm cancelled all that support and there was no replacement I have stayed with Nikon. It would not be my choice today.

nothing spectacular. just another new camera. save on trips, not gear

the S5 Pro dynamic range was superior as imho

I absolutely love the S5 Pro. It is, to me, hands down the most rewarding camera I've owned. I could take a shot with that "lowly" 6mp sensor, and it was just fun to work with. Shots looked great straight out of the camera, but I could play with the raws to my heart's content, all the while knowing that, hey, it looked great when I started, and all I was doing was pushing each shot to where I wanted it to be. Other cameras always seem like hard work, like I had to work at it just to get something I liked. I tried profiling my S5 once in ACR, but much preferred the unprofiled results!!!

Funny thing about the S5 was that it was slightly quirky. The DR was amazing (none of that ETTR stuff, just middle the exposure, and pull the highlights), but you had to watch out for highlight noise if you made a big pull, because the sensor just worked that way. I shoot with a variety of bodies these days (D850, D500, D7200, X-T2), but none of them intrinsically produce quite such pleasing results.

em5.3 is great camera for a lot of things, but that is not one of them.
It is nice to see the Fujifilm camera does so well though.

MFT are not known to be good partners in shadows/lowlight. Don't ask them what they can't do. I manage all sizes of sensors and sometimes my MFT (GH5 and PenF) are the best. Sometimes

I don’t have an x100F. The x100v will be my first jump into this family of cameras.

It would still be a tough call as X100F are like 40% less than an X100V on the used market. Depends how much you want video and shoot closeups.

:
badi, I do agree. Those in their ecosystem don't have anywhere else to go that is directly comparable. And it's undeniable that they do the best that's out there in their category

This is why I equally say if they also had a FF line of products based on their X-Trans sensors, they'd probably swing away most of the bigger sensor competition. Their APS-C products already knock on the door of their FF rivals in some ways. Now imagine if they actually were FF..

"they can't touch the overall IQ of FF cameras no matter how you look at it."
As any equivalence fan will you tell you, your statement is wrong. It depends on the lenses, the aperture, the amount of light, and so on. You should have said "all things being equal", but as we know things are rarely equal. Name a FF camera that shoots 20 fps and 4k/60p for under $3000.

As AI and computational photography improve, these smaller sensors will be more than "good enough". Even now is most instances they already are.

But if you are a real IQ snob, them you are in lick. Fujifilm makes a camera with better IQ than any FF camera. Now don't be a hypocrite. :)

Fuji APS-C with a 23mm f2 can "touch" what a FF with a 35mm f3.0 can do. And the lens would be at least that slow to keep the same camera/lens depth.

"as the market's competition toughens up and their price/size advantage thins-up."

Leica's Q2 and Sony's RX1, which hasn't been updated in a long time, are the X100V's full frame competition and they are both significantly more expensive. So in regards to the X100V, the price and size (don't forget depth with the larger FF lenses) advantage are still solidly in favor of it being APSC.

:
Sorry, show me ONE competitive FF camera out there on the market now that has same or worse low light capabilities and noise floor.

One.

Anyone?

Thank you, that's what I thought. Conversation done.

I disagree. There are plenty of options if one wants FF.

I would rather see them going the opposite direction and start focusing on size and weight again. As you said the their cameras and lenses sizes are now al ost as big and heavy as FF, which defeats the purpose.

Also dump X-Trans please.

We all know that ff generally has one stop less noise than aps-c. That being said, compare the X-Pro3 (same IQ as the X100V) to the RX1R-2 at ISO6400 and the difference is less noticeable than 1 stop,.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xpro3&attr13_1=sony_dscrx1rii&attr13_2=apple_iphonex&attr13_3=apple_iphonex&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=32&attr16_3=32&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.2156240267244666&y=-0.6252118257676516

Botifarro

Show me one FF camera that can shoot at 20 fps and also 4k 60p video.
Show me one FF camera under $3000 that can do just one of those.

You are crying about a small difference in IQ, but here have many cases where a FF CANNOT do it at all. Its "close" vs. "can't". A camera that "can't" isn't even in the competition. Thank you, that's what I thought. Conversation done.

btw, today's FF camera are not match for FujiFilm's best camera. Once again. Thank you Conversation done.
LOL!!

Butifarra... another FF advocate with the same old “FF is better” that has been discussed for years.

I don’t care if FF has better noise at ISO 40000000... my Fuji XT3 with a nice set of fast primes are more than enough for basically any need and way more enjoyable than my own A7R2 (FOR ME).

@Foskito - "“FF is better” that has been discussed for years." It is better for some applications and it has been discussed for years and verified by DPR.
You do not need to defend your Fuji gear if it works for you. It is what it is. Some people need a sports car, some need a truck.

There are side-by-side comparisons which show the new lens is better and sharper. Might not be a huge difference, but the difference is there.

Still purple problem and no d pad and an overheating problem.

I’ll keep my F and wait for the next iteration.
Too bad because I really wanted to get the V.

I'm holding an x100v right now and have had it on for about an hour, exploring menus, doing test shots. It is mildly warm near the ael/afl button. I'm not having any overheating problem.