Originally posted by bdery I've taken an academic interest in Fuji (and mirrorless in general) lenses recently.
My do they suck! There's no other way to put it.
The amount of backed-in corrections required to have these lenses perform close to your consumer-level DA lens is astounding. It's hard to imagine where all the hype comes from.
The reason I had stumbled on that video in the first place is seriously considering buying a Fuji X-T30 to use alongside my K-70 (still like it more than my KP). The Fuji gets a lot of positive comments and praise and commonly said to have much better glass than Sony has, a cheap (??) a6000 being the one I was originally interested in.
These videos were a revelation to me, and probably to a few other readers. I know when I go out on shoots or have meetups which include a number of mirrorless users, most often a Sony Alpha A7 II or III, it's rare to see a mirrorless shot that impresses me more than those taken with a DSLR. I chalked that up to mirrorless guys perhaps being less experienced, or perhaps just older and not seeing images as well as they used to since a lot of them claim failing vision is the reason for getting their Sony for that "amazing eye focus".
...but compared side by side my K-70 and KP shots are just as cleanly focused on eyes as any of the Sony shots when we compare them in the field and perhaps even quicker to set-up, focus, shoot. I see mirrorless shooters in my groups missing a lot of shots by taking a little too long to frame and focus. Still I thought maybe in my hands the hundreds of AF points and 10-thousand menu options would make the higher price I had to pay for comparable lenses and camera worth the trade-off.
So after watching a few more comparisons I think perhaps the vaunted mirrorless advantages has been somewhat overrated. TBH I'm now no longer at all interested in Fuji, nor Sony for that matter. Not worth the ecosystem shock to to use dual systems if the glass and imaging isn't noticeably better, and I really don't see all the advantages mirrorless shooters seems to espouse when actually comparing platforms using identical scenes and settings for images taken on both.
I know, there are probably niche use-cases where a mirrorless might be great under certain specific scenarios: large object running towards you, a big playful dog, a child running towards you, something like that. Mirrorless focusing systems look to be far LESS advantageous for smaller objects either moving or not: Birds, landscape, wildlife, flowers and butterfly, groups of active people or children.
So now I'll be satisfied to remain a Pentax user, especially so if the newly revealed K-Series camera coming next year has honest photography benefits and not just fluff features to keep up with the mirrorless and Canikon crowd. The benefits of good glass over more camera features is underappreciated anyway IMO, and I have no issue at all with finding good to excellent Pentax lenses. I'll save that money I would have spent on Fuji/Panasonic/Sony and lenses and put it in the photography-bank for now, waiting to see if a new Pentax body wows me or I find I really do have a need (okay a want) for yet another lens.