mristuccia
Well-known member
I don't follow the idea that "a simplistic interface and relatively few buttons and dials" could be an evaluation criteria.What's hard to follow? Some people like external controls. Some don't. There are lots of arguments for both sides, but it comes down to preference. If my camera does not "spark joy", as Marie Kando would say, it doesn't get used. Even if you use the "it's just a tool and get's the job done, who cares what it looks like" argument, that's still a reflection of your own values. And they are yours. And that's fine.
My own experience handling the Fujis is that I liked the 100 much more in the hand than either of the 50's. It doesn't satisfy some of my other personal requirements (size and weight), so I didn't get it. But it satisfies many others. The X1D is a better match for Vieri than it is for me, but it's still the best compromise for me right now.
Matt
For example, I like simplistic interfaces and few buttons as well, nonetheless I've chosen a Fujifilm X-T2 as my APS-C "reportage" camera, because of its weight, form-factor and output quality. I've navigated its hugely complex menu only one or two times, I've set up all the stuff that I need and now I use the camera almost as a point-and-shot one, by only changing ISO and aperture on a normal reportage or street-photography shooting.
On the MF side I have a CFV-50c back which I use with my 503CW camera for "slow" art/conceptual photography. Again, I've chosen it because of its versatility and output quality, despite it has a very poor user interface and very few buttons and customisation options.
In the end I operate both cameras in the same simplistic "zen" way. It's up to me how I use a system, however complex it may be.
On the contrary, a simple system cannot be turned into a complex and fully featured one in case our future photography career would need it.
Last edited: