[Do we tolerate the bodies because of the lens qualities?]

Do you know of such a comparison or have access to them to do it yourself? When you look at the X-A2 against the X-E2 in DPReview's Studio Comparison tool, the color looks the same and the X-A2 appears to capture more detail in the brushes and flock, text, etc.

 

Here's a link to see for yourself:

 

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xa2&attr13_1=fujifilm_xe2&attr13_2=pentax_k50&attr13_3=sigma_dp1m&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.8285001781261133&y=-0.5720233669676049

 

I don't meant to argue here, but I can see a huge difference in color between the dpreview of A2 and E2.  I think the E2 pops more, though my original observation started between looking at the images attributed to the A series cameras on the Fuji website and simply noting that they were missing something that the other cameras were not.  What attracted me to Fuji was seeing the output of what kind of magic the camera produced.  I will testify that I get that sort of feel out of my camera and work with the T2.  I honestly am not a huge fan of the E series, guessing it is similar downgrade from the pro series as the T20 is to the T2, I think.  Honestly, just not that impressed with the E series or the A series for that matter.  I honestly think the T10 is a cheap enough option for beginners, as most of the complaints on here seem to stem from the E line of cameras.  I think that when you switch out that E2 for a Pro2 or even an E2S, there is a much more pronounced difference.  While this may not be the most technical of answers, I get a wow factor with the T2 that simply isn't there from the A series.  As I said before, I realize that a lot more goes into an image than simply the sensor, so maybe it is unfair to compare an A3 with a T2 as they are not anywhere near the same price point, and maybe the E2 is the closest to the A2 so that you are getting a more apples to apples comparison with only the sensors being different.  I also agree that the texture is sometimes slightly better with a more traditional sensor, but the way it evens off is part of that painting with light feel that Fuji has.  I love the way that Trans sensors process an image, and while you might disagree, I know that it makes them different.   Maybe the only true way to compare would be to put a traditional sensor on a higher end Fuji body, but I honestly don't feel like there is anything to complain about with the image quality of the T2.  The things I want improved are the buffer, somehow including a XQD card with maybe an integrated battery mount so the attachment might not feel so different than the rest of the camera.  Also, in terms of writing information, it would be great if I could write to internal memory and export through hdmi, so if the cord is bumped I have a backup file.  Those are really the issues that I have and would love to see addressed with the high end Fuji cameras.  I would also say that testing a camera against a chart is like telling me what the specs are compared to showing me real world examples, and in that department, I have yet to see an A series camera ever wow me.  Or an E series.  PRO and T series wow me all the time as well as the 100 series.  I'm sure a great photographer could still make the most of any camera, but the reason people will put the money down is if the camera is working as hard as you are.  If you get better mileage out of an A series or a Non Fuji brand, I'm not here to judge.  

[Do we tolerate the bodies because of the lens qualities?]

I would also like to comment that I haven't had any issues with either the X-T1 or X-T2, and wonder if the original poster had issues because of the lower quality cameras, as I have no idea if the quality control for the X-E2 would be the same as one of their flagship cameras, but I have no real issues.  I do love the lenses, but I find the actual image processing, algorithms, and sensor/coloring to be the real highlight of the Fuji systems.  My biggest complaints range more on the lack of a full frame sensor and on their commitment to smaller sized cameras.  

 

I appreciate for many of you, the smaller sizes on say the kind of camera that the X-Pro2 is, isn't the same kind of camera that the X-T2 is, especially for those of us who mostly use the camera for video.  While the output really is market leading, as the portion of the sensor that is sampled is higher than even full frame DSLRs, the issue comes in the form of overheating and that so many of the buttons not being easy to access for my big hands.  I honestly think that attempting to keep the camera to a smaller sized hampered many of its capabilities, though I stay because honestly nothing else on the market looks like Fuji.  It is sometimes quirky in order to have this very paired down approach that I sometimes feel is maybe afraid to reach for its complete capabilities or to go outside of a very niche market and price range to completely compete with the high end Nikon and Canon.  

 

I understand that for many of you, the joy of having a Fuji is the X-100 series that is just a very easy tool to go out and shoot with and it makes shooting fun again, but that really is not my reasoning, nor is that the kind of camera I would ever buy.  With that said, I also think that the X-T2 has the best autofocus on the market, bar none, the best coloring, the best lenses (albeit not the best selection, though slowly improving), the previously mentioned best 4K outside some of the very high end pro camcorders, and the best customer service and updates that I have ever seen from a camera manufacturer.  

 

While there is no perfect camera, and I'll concede that Pentax has the best weather sealing hands down, they have the worst autofocus, the worst video (I realize that is a special factor for me), and I also find IBIS systems to leak the lubrication onto the sensor over time, I have no issues with the weather sealing or build quality in either my cameras or their lenses.  I realize that every camera company will manufacture duds, but the part that makes me not worry about that is the amazing customer support that if I were to buy a dud, that I would be taken care of.  The issue is knowing what is that you need in a camera and finding the kind of camera that most suits your needs.  If I were a nature photographer that specialized in the worst possible elements, maybe Pentax would have more of what I wanted.  If I did more portrait work, I'd probably have stuck with Nikon and the D800 line of cameras.  Same if I needed extreme ISO, which is my biggest gripe with Fuji actually.  The point is that I don't see why people complain about a single camera not being all things to all people.  No camera has the best build quality, best color, best ISO, best lenses, cheapest, best lens selection, best auto focus, best customer service, best battery performance, best dynamic range, best frames per second, highest pixel count, with adjustable pixel range, that has a full frame sensor with the same pixel pitch as a crop sensor.  It sure would be nice if that existed, but you kind of have to pick your battles, because such a camera would cost a lot more than we would want it to, and I'm sure still people would complain.

 

I would also like to reply to someone criticizing the X Trans sensor, and say that while it might take longer to record RAW files, I would suggest that you compare the output with the X-A series that does not use the Trans sensors and see if you prefer that output.  I see a difference in the coloring of those sensors and would not prefer they make this switch in future high end models.