Joel_O wrote:I just need our lockdown to ease up so I can go to a shop and handle the smaller new Fuji bodies.I see that you are in Israel.  I visited there for a short time in 2009.  I have read that Israel leads the world in vaccinations.  I thought I read a few days ago that Israel was almost back to normal.  Still having lockdowns?  I am still waiting for a vaccination here in Japan.

Henry Richardson wrote:Joel_O wrote:I just need our lockdown to ease up so I can go to a shop and handle the smaller new Fuji bodies.I see that you are in Israel. I visited there for a short time in 2009. I have read that Israel leads the world in vaccinations. I thought I read a few days ago that Israel was almost back to normal. Still having lockdowns? I am still waiting for a vaccination here in Japan.Ahh, I wish! Vaccinations would be much further than up here in Norway, where I currently live. I must have created my account back in 2010 when I was an exchange student in Haifa. Thanks for catching that!

Geekapoo wrote:Yannick,FZ300, RX10III, RX10IV, EM5 iii and GX8..all great suggestions, especially if mainly shooting in good light.I've seen ppl with RX 10 IV... what is use case for that... 1700 dollars for a 1" sensor?I'm guessing it's the 24-600 lens?Can't imagine IQ could be great, but could be wrong...

Henry Richardson wrote:Joel_O wrote:I just need our lockdown to ease up so I can go to a shop and handle the smaller new Fuji bodies.I see that you are in Israel. I visited there for a short time in 2009. I have read that Israel leads the world in vaccinations. I thought I read a few days ago that Israel was almost back to normal. Still having lockdowns? I am still waiting for a vaccination here in Japan.https://www.insider.com/pfizer-halts-shipment-of-covid-vaccines-after-israel-doesnt-pay-2021-4Maybe won't be so high going forward.

If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You  know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the best

(Lighthearted reply.)  This is the worst advice.  Snowboarding isn't the same as you don't carry your gear for hours up hill.  Once you've done that you know that there is no room for compromise on the weight question.  I've read one mountaineer who cut the handle off his toothbrush to save weight (Mike Gill, IIRC).  Once you give in on one thing you are down the road to madness and you end up renting a Yak to carry the gear.  Of course anything other than Fuji is also going down the same road.

a_c_skinner wrote:(Lighthearted reply.) This is the worst advice. Snowboarding isn't the same as you don't carry your gear for hours up hill. Once you've done that you know that there is no room for compromise on the weight question. I've read one mountaineer who cut the handle off his toothbrush to save weight (Mike Gill, IIRC). Once you give in on one thing you are down the road to madness and you end up renting a Yak to carry the gear. Of course anything other than Fuji is also going down the same road.Great pitch. Buy Fuji or a Yak. Up to you.I don't push the way I used to in the mountains, so I've allowed myself some creature comforts. But packing light is still a great equalizer for the fitness-level of an office worker. "Light is fast and speed is safety", and all that. By drinking plenty in advance, carrying less liquid and accepting slight dehydration in the end of the day it's easy to save a whole kg. So, another way to put it: Buy Fuji or drink even less to stay at the same weight?In defence of snowboarders thou... Splitboarders are usually pretty weight conscious. They have to haull their ass up.

Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.

Joel_O wrote:Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.Actually you could build a lightweight comparable system around the a7c, I doubt it would be so much heavier! But, it will be a lot more expensive and the tele zoom eg the Tamron 70-300 is much larger than the 55-200 and will rely solely on ibis of the 7c.So Sony's weight reduction is real and below 85mm can be very very compact, in weight and volume. Above things just get big and the real issue us the 7c, a very mediocre evf and permanent efcs, which might affect bokeh when shot wide open with fast lenses.Fuji af, especially zone is great for tracking now, just shoot away and with skiers its unlikely to lose focus on such objects!

Joel_O wrote:Hi everyone!I've been happily shooting with a Fuji X-E1 for the past 10 years. But now it's time for an upgrade. The question is to what. I thought of just getting the newest iteration of the X-E body, but it seems there is now a plethora of Fuji options (X-E4, X-T30 and X-S10) and new contenders from Canon (M6 MkII) and Sony (A6400, A6600 and A7C). I would therefore very much appreciate your advice.I mostly document my time in the mountains (examples below). It's obviously a lot of landscapes, but also people (portrait type) and some action (skiing). The body + general zoom lens (or prime) needs to fit into a 8x12x15 cm waterproof bag (with some stretch, see image below, the 50-230mm barely fits), so the X-T3 and X-T4 are out. Tripods and longer / bigger lenses stay in the car.The X-E1 obviously works fine, but the 16 Mpx prevents larger prints and the AF is only good for single-spot focus (a PITA when trying to catch anything fast with cold fingers). I use out-of-camera JPG:s a lot, but for prints I usually edit RAW files. I would like to try my hands on some video clips, but stills are more important.This leaves me with the following thoughts.X-E4: Good size, but lack of grip could be a problem (especially with gloves on).X-T30: Only slighly bigger in size, but with decent grip.X-S10: IBIS is tempting for video and low-light stills, but is it too big and will it be impossible to operate with gloves? Especially the chunky exposure compensation dial in the other Fuji bodies is prizeless.M6 Mk II: Good size, has a small grip and should have a much more usable continuous / tracking autofocus than the Fujis (which would help with the skiing action), but the lack of built-in EVF could make it impossible to shoot anything on sunny days in the snow... JPG:s should be nice too.A6400 & A6600: Both are acceptable size and the main differentiators between them seem to be price, weight, IBIS and weather sealing. But will I like the JPG:s and will it be too much of a hassle to change a setting, even if the AF rocks? Or am I just prejudices based on "common perceptions"?A7C: It's very tempting to get a FF camera in this size and weight class, but will it be overkill? There seems to be a good selection of small-enough lenses available to fit my dry-bag and I can have as many big lenses waiting in the car as I want. The same hesitation as above regarding JPG:s and usability apply. At least it has a chunky exp. comp. dial on top!All in all, it seems the safest bet would be the X-T30, but with the exception of the larger prints, could I really do something significantly more with it compared with the X-E1? Specs wise the Sonys are very tempting, but I am skeptical since I have no experience with them... And the Canon could be very perfect until you get the sun from the wrong angle!Oh, the joy and agony of gear.Any thoughts on how to proceed?My own personal opinion:Given you feel the need of changing your camera I would recomment you go for a weather sealed body +lens combo.It might not be compulsory but since you are to change you'd better consider the optionIN this case I believe both Sony cameras will  work for youo, with the 6600 having the additional IBIS which is ery handy.If, however you feel you do not need weather sealing, then it boils down to X-S10 vs A6400. in this case: for IQ i'd give fuji the edge.The AF on all sony cameras is absolutely unbeatable, if this may help your photography.Cheers,

a_c_skinner wrote:(Lighthearted reply.) This is the worst advice. Snowboarding isn't the same as you don't carry your gear for hours up hill. Once you've done that you know that there is no room for compromise on the weight question. I've read one mountaineer who cut the handle off his toothbrush to save weight (Mike Gill, IIRC). Once you give in on one thing you are down the road to madness and you end up renting a Yak to carry the gear. Of course anything other than Fuji is also going down the same road.You are probably right on the comparison between snowboarding and mount climb, I have absolute no experience from the 2ns.But if weight was really an issue with OP, he shouldn't check an ILC system in the 1st place. A p&s, such as the suggested FZ300 or the even lighter 1" cameras are lighter and much more flexible than the XE1 with two lenses.

jjz2 wrote:Geekapoo wrote:Yannick,FZ300, RX10III, RX10IV, EM5 iii and GX8..all great suggestions, especially if mainly shooting in good light.I've seen ppl with RX 10 IV... what is use case for that... 1700 dollars for a 1" sensor?I'm guessing it's the 24-600 lens?Can't imagine IQ could be great, but could be wrong...Check samples in flickr. IQ is not just great but outstanding in good light due to the very sharp lens. And don't underestimate the 1" sensor, its very capable in good light.

And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.Actually you could build a lightweight comparable system around the a7c, I doubt it would be so much heavier! But, it will be a lot more expensive and the tele zoom eg the Tamron 70-300 is much larger than the 55-200 and will rely solely on ibis of the 7c.So Sony's weight reduction is real and below 85mm can be very very compact, in weight and volume. Above things just get big and the real issue us the 7c, a very mediocre evf and permanent efcs, which might affect bokeh when shot wide open with fast lenses.Fuji af, especially zone is great for tracking now, just shoot away and with skiers its unlikely to lose focus on such objects!I looked at this more closely yesterday. If I compare like-for-like lenses, the Fuji ends up 13-40% lighter than the A7C. Here's the numbers I came up with:Body only: A7C (509g) vs. X-E4 (with some kind of ~50g grip = 400g) or XT30. That's 25% lighter for Fuji.Body + General (slow) Zoom: AC7 + Sony 28-60/4-5.6 (676g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 15-45/3.5-5.6 (462g). That's 40% lighter for Fuji.Body + General (faster) Zoom: AC7 + Sony Zeiss 24-70/4 (939g) vs. EX4 + Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 (710g). That's 25% lighter for Fuji.Body + wide prime: AC7 + Tamron 20/2.8 (729g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 14/2.8 (635g): That's 13% lighter for Fuji.Body + nifty-fifty: AC7 + Sony Carl Zeiss 55/1.4 (790g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 35/1.4 (587g). That's 26% lighter for Fuji.Body + tele zoom: AC7 + Tamron 70-300/4.5-6.3 (1054g) vs. XE4 + 50-230/4.5-6.7 (775g). That's 27% lighter for Fuji.Granted, there are light combinations with the A7C, the difference is not huge and if I picked an equally heavy (~500g) Fuji body the difference would be non-existent. But together with the size difference, the ~25-30% weight difference still matters. I was (and still am) tempted by the tracking, FF DR and IBIS in the A7C, but in the end of the day, I don't want to compromise on weight. (Price is these days less of an issue).If Sony really committed to small rangefinder-type bodies and produced a good selection of light and quality glass (in addition to the 28-60 kit lens), I think it would be a much harder choice to stay with Fuji and APSC.

The Sigma fp L is a superlight FF at ~420g and now has quite light all-metal "I series" lenses with aperture rings. Sigma have the most advanced film modes after Fuji, and also have in-camera re-processing. The 61mp "fp L" (as opposed to the almost the same 24mp "fp") also has a very high resolution sensor with a "crop-zoom" option which can extend focal range in-camera with more precision. The main downside for stills is the electronic-only shutter; yet, this has a plus-side since the camera has no moving parts and is weather-resistant.(Probably off-topic, but it’s the only camera which can shoot video directly to SSDs, so video storage is far cheaper and needn’t be compressed at all)Suggested lenses to correspond with your Fuji kit, would be:28-70mmF2.8 (470g) or the even smaller+wider Panasonic S 20-60mmF3.5-5.6 (350g)65mmF2 (405g) record-breaker; all-metal with aperture-ring24mmF3.5 (225g) demi-macro of 2:1 in FF mode; all-metal with aperture-ring105mmF2.8 with 2x TC (700g) extremely sharp macro, but can be a telephoto with the TC and "crop-zoom" (there are also Panasonic, Leica and Sigma telephoto zooms in L mount, but more expensive and heavier.)Alternatively:an X100V with the wide & long TCLs, or a;Silver X-Pro3 since you’ll probably have it for ten more years, and so it can be justifiedHonourable mention: The Panasonic S5 also has the same mount as the fp above, and is quite compact at 715g, but with a big grip so there’d be no need to buy accessories etc. It’s got great colour (though not the number of options as Fuji and Sigma) and is a better all-rounder than the fp (IBIS, mechanical shutter, etc) but not as tiny or X-E like.Sony colour would be hard to face after Fuji, and Canon has good colour, but the system is closed and lenses very expensive (same with Nikon) whereas Sigma and Panasonic are sharing lenses, and building them at various sizes + price-points, while keeping them all high quality (including Leica and Leica-certified.)

Yannis1976 wrote:jjz2 wrote:Geekapoo wrote:Yannick,FZ300, RX10III, RX10IV, EM5 iii and GX8..all great suggestions, especially if mainly shooting in good light.I've seen ppl with RX 10 IV... what is use case for that... 1700 dollars for a 1" sensor?I'm guessing it's the 24-600 lens?Can't imagine IQ could be great, but could be wrong...Check samples in flickr. IQ is not just great but outstanding in good light due to the very sharp lens. And don't underestimate the 1" sensor, its very capable in good light.100% agree. Bought the RX10IV when it first came out as Sony had finally solved their AF issues (the RX10lll was not particularly good). The RX10IV is easily one of the best cameras I've ever owned.  The image quality at 600mm is better than the Fuji 100-400 at 600mm and it easily tops Fuji camera AF. The weakness is low light performance and image croppability.The RX10IV is the Swiss army knife of cameras. I'm happy with it (see photo examples in link below). I would not want it to be my only camera but I could not see being without one (I like bridge zoom cameras).

And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.Actually you could build a lightweight comparable system around the a7c, I doubt it would be so much heavier! But, it will be a lot more expensive and the tele zoom eg the Tamron 70-300 is much larger than the 55-200 and will rely solely on ibis of the 7c.So Sony's weight reduction is real and below 85mm can be very very compact, in weight and volume. Above things just get big and the real issue us the 7c, a very mediocre evf and permanent efcs, which might affect bokeh when shot wide open with fast lenses.Fuji af, especially zone is great for tracking now, just shoot away and with skiers its unlikely to lose focus on such objects!Even lenses like the 24-105 are substantially bigger and heavier, if wanting an all day lens, compared to something like the fuji 16-80...You are right, there are some tiny primes under 85mm...but after that it's out the window. I'd also say, under 24mm...out the window for the most part... look at sony 20mm 1.8g or Tokina F2, compared to Fuji 14mm 2.8... I know not a direct equivalent...but that's what is on offer.If you get 35mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8 for Sony, they are basically the same as Fuji's 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2, so nothing gained there.Also definitely no 340g bodies like the XE3.A great light landscape combo like the XE3 with 16mm 2.8 weighs less than just the A7C body only.

Joel_O wrote:And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.Actually you could build a lightweight comparable system around the a7c, I doubt it would be so much heavier! But, it will be a lot more expensive and the tele zoom eg the Tamron 70-300 is much larger than the 55-200 and will rely solely on ibis of the 7c.So Sony's weight reduction is real and below 85mm can be very very compact, in weight and volume. Above things just get big and the real issue us the 7c, a very mediocre evf and permanent efcs, which might affect bokeh when shot wide open with fast lenses.Fuji af, especially zone is great for tracking now, just shoot away and with skiers its unlikely to lose focus on such objects!I looked at this more closely yesterday. If I compare like-for-like lenses, the Fuji ends up 13-40% lighter than the A7C. Here's the numbers I came up with:Body only: A7C (509g) vs. X-E4 (with some kind of ~50g grip = 400g) or XT30. That's 25% lighter for Fuji.Body + General (slow) Zoom: AC7 + Sony 28-60/4-5.6 (676g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 15-45/3.5-5.6 (462g). That's 40% lighter for Fuji.Body + General (faster) Zoom: AC7 + Sony Zeiss 24-70/4 (939g) vs. EX4 + Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 (710g). That's 25% lighter for Fuji.Body + wide prime: AC7 + Tamron 20/2.8 (729g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 14/2.8 (635g): That's 13% lighter for Fuji.Body + nifty-fifty: AC7 + Sony Carl Zeiss 55/1.4 (790g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 35/1.4 (587g). That's 26% lighter for Fuji.Body + tele zoom: AC7 + Tamron 70-300/4.5-6.3 (1054g) vs. XE4 + 50-230/4.5-6.7 (775g). That's 27% lighter for Fuji.Granted, there are light combinations with the A7C, the difference is not huge and if I picked an equally heavy (~500g) Fuji body the difference would be non-existent. But together with the size difference, the ~25-30% weight difference still matters. I was (and still am) tempted by the tracking, FF DR and IBIS in the A7C, but in the end of the day, I don't want to compromise on weight. (Price is these days less of an issue).If Sony really committed to small rangefinder-type bodies and produced a good selection of light and quality glass (in addition to the 28-60 kit lens), I think it would be a much harder choice to stay with Fuji and APSC.These are not really fair comparisons imo? The equivalent to the Sony 28-60 is actually the Fuji 18-55. Similarly the x-e4 has no ibis, so actually you can see the a7c attraction. Personally I wouldn't touch either camera and I'm not a fan of 18(28) to x zooms either. But if size is all that counts, sure the x-e4 looks small and light but if you keep the aperture to equivalents then you will really see what Sony did with a little help from Tamron, Sigma and Samyang too!Personally, ibis is now a must especially with primes and even with ois lenses too. So a7c, 28-60 and Tamron 70-300 is very comparable to Fuji X-S10 18-55/55-200 both offerings will provide almost identical results but Fuji X-S10 has a better evf and general functionality is far far superior!

And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.Actually you could build a lightweight comparable system around the a7c, I doubt it would be so much heavier! But, it will be a lot more expensive and the tele zoom eg the Tamron 70-300 is much larger than the 55-200 and will rely solely on ibis of the 7c.So Sony's weight reduction is real and below 85mm can be very very compact, in weight and volume. Above things just get big and the real issue us the 7c, a very mediocre evf and permanent efcs, which might affect bokeh when shot wide open with fast lenses.Fuji af, especially zone is great for tracking now, just shoot away and with skiers its unlikely to lose focus on such objects!I looked at this more closely yesterday. If I compare like-for-like lenses, the Fuji ends up 13-40% lighter than the A7C. Here's the numbers I came up with:Body only: A7C (509g) vs. X-E4 (with some kind of ~50g grip = 400g) or XT30. That's 25% lighter for Fuji.Body + General (slow) Zoom: AC7 + Sony 28-60/4-5.6 (676g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 15-45/3.5-5.6 (462g). That's 40% lighter for Fuji.Body + General (faster) Zoom: AC7 + Sony Zeiss 24-70/4 (939g) vs. EX4 + Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 (710g). That's 25% lighter for Fuji.Body + wide prime: AC7 + Tamron 20/2.8 (729g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 14/2.8 (635g): That's 13% lighter for Fuji.Body + nifty-fifty: AC7 + Sony Carl Zeiss 55/1.4 (790g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 35/1.4 (587g). That's 26% lighter for Fuji.Body + tele zoom: AC7 + Tamron 70-300/4.5-6.3 (1054g) vs. XE4 + 50-230/4.5-6.7 (775g). That's 27% lighter for Fuji.Granted, there are light combinations with the A7C, the difference is not huge and if I picked an equally heavy (~500g) Fuji body the difference would be non-existent. But together with the size difference, the ~25-30% weight difference still matters. I was (and still am) tempted by the tracking, FF DR and IBIS in the A7C, but in the end of the day, I don't want to compromise on weight. (Price is these days less of an issue).If Sony really committed to small rangefinder-type bodies and produced a good selection of light and quality glass (in addition to the 28-60 kit lens), I think it would be a much harder choice to stay with Fuji and APSC.These are not really fair comparisons imo? The equivalent to the Sony 28-60 is actually the Fuji 18-55. Similarly the x-e4 has no ibis, so actually you can see the a7c attraction. Personally I wouldn't touch either camera and I'm not a fan of 18(28) to x zooms either. But if size is all that counts, sure the x-e4 looks small and light but if you keep the aperture to equivalents then you will really see what Sony did with a little help from Tamron, Sigma and Samyang too!Personally, ibis is now a must especially with primes and even with ois lenses too. So a7c, 28-60 and Tamron 70-300 is very comparable to Fuji X-S10 18-55/55-200 both offerings will provide almost identical results but Fuji X-S10 has a better evf and general functionality is far far superior!You rarely find true "equivalents..."But, why only concerned with aperture equivalents and put that on a pedestal, and not focal length equivalents?The 15-45 is equivalent to a 23-68mm lens... so the Sony might have a similar aperture, but loses the range.The 18-55 doesn't have a muffin design, the build quality is also on a higher level than the sony, with again, longer range. It's not really mirrored in sony lineup. Sony of course has lenses that aren't mirrored in Fuji's lineup, such as the 90mm 2.8 macro.None of these are truly "equivalent."He just picked mostly the lightest lens options available.I do agree with you that I have no interest in zooms that start at 18/28... needs to be 16/24 minimum for me.I don't agree that IBIS is a must, I've never used it in my 25+ years of photography...I've got by fine. It's a nice to have sure, but not a must. But I'm one of those that doesn't even consider AutoFocus a must, depending on the lens... If I went Sony, I'd probably pick up something like the Zeiss Loxia 21mm.I think the sony 50mm 1.8 would be more comparable to Fuji though, instead of the 1.4 lens. Or even the 2.5G. So depends what options you go with.You can absolutely build a very light Sony kit, but if you want the lightest kit, and are more concerned about focal length coverage, rather than max aperture, Fuji is inevitably going to be smaller/lighter. The IQ is "enough" for most applications.

No, rent a Yak.  Standard advice on here is to rent first!

Strangefinder wrote:The Sigma fp L is a superlight FF at ~420g and now has quite light all-metal "I series" lenses with aperture rings. Sigma have the most advanced film modes after Fuji, and also have in-camera re-processing. The 61mp "fp L" (as opposed to the almost the same 24mp "fp") also has a very high resolution sensor with a "crop-zoom" option which can extend focal range in-camera with more precision. The main downside for stills is the electronic-only shutter; yet, this has a plus-side since the camera has no moving parts and is weather-resistant.(Probably off-topic, but it’s the only camera which can shoot video directly to SSDs, so video storage is far cheaper and needn’t be compressed at all)Suggested lenses to correspond with your Fuji kit, would be:28-70mmF2.8 (470g) or the even smaller+wider Panasonic S 20-60mmF3.5-5.6 (350g)65mmF2 (405g) record-breaker; all-metal with aperture-ring24mmF3.5 (225g) demi-macro of 2:1 in FF mode; all-metal with aperture-ring105mmF2.8 with 2x TC (700g) extremely sharp macro, but can be a telephoto with the TC and "crop-zoom" (there are also Panasonic, Leica and Sigma telephoto zooms in L mount, but more expensive and heavier.)Alternatively:an X100V with the wide & long TCLs, or a;Silver X-Pro3 since you’ll probably have it for ten more years, and so it can be justifiedHonourable mention: The Panasonic S5 also has the same mount as the fp above, and is quite compact at 715g, but with a big grip so there’d be no need to buy accessories etc. It’s got great colour (though not the number of options as Fuji and Sigma) and is a better all-rounder than the fp (IBIS, mechanical shutter, etc) but not as tiny or X-E like.Sony colour would be hard to face after Fuji, and Canon has good colour, but the system is closed and lenses very expensive (same with Nikon) whereas Sigma and Panasonic are sharing lenses, and building them at various sizes + price-points, while keeping them all high quality (including Leica and Leica-certified.)Thank you very much for this incredible left-field option!I had no idea such a Sigma body even existed. The lens lineup also looks versatile and roughly similarly prized to Fuji's offerings. The lack of integrated EVF and handling could be issues. But perhaps most importantly, would the tracking AF be any better (or even as good) as with the new Fujis? It's one of my main reasons for upgrading (I'm really tired of only getting a couple of pre-focused shots of a skier passing by). According to the DPReview initial impressions video, this fast panning situation could also be an issue with the electronic-only shutter.Regardlessly, it's incredible to find a sensor like that in such a tiny body. Goes to show what is possible. It also begs the question, what could any of these companies do, if they really put their mind to designing a premium, properly light and well-handling camera? I understand it's a very niche market, but still.The X-Pro3 is certainly a sexy fellow and the price is acceptable when thinking in terms of annual costs. Definitively planning to keep whatever I get for another 10 years.But it also looks humongous! Similar size to XT3 (even if a bit lighter):https://camerasize.com/compact/#869,872,816,858,864,800,836,841,ha,fI'm going to keep my eye out for future small FF bodies from the Leica-Sigma-Panasonic trio. Looks like the glass is there, just need the body.I also wonder if Fuji will bring out some new bodies this H1, or if Covid has put any such plans on hold...