@Pete1959: This has nothing to do with not using the exp. comp and being afraid of doing things manually. The issue is that compared to X-T10 / X-T1, X-T2 meters differently, and almost always underexposes, whatever the lighting situation. It doesn't matter if you use spot metering, it will still underexpose in general, and moreover, it's a lot more sensitive in it's metering than earlier Fuji cams. You shouldn't be having to resort to keeping the exp.comp.dial to +⅓ EV by default.
For easy lighting conditions, I cannot for the life of me understand its metering choices. For tricky lighting situations, I always fix exposure/WB manually anyway.
Checking against the histogram, X-T2 is always at least ⅓ EV underexposed compared to the histogram of a jpeg or raw image where levels and exposure are fixed. Checked and rechecked output vs. EVF and / or LCD. Not an issue in matching exposure.
Of course, the X-cameras are the same format and size as film half-frame cameras. You may well be the only person on earth who would buy a Fujifilm half-frame film camera. There are good reasons why Fujifilm may not respond to your desire.
Over the decades, film has improved very slowly. In the past two decades, there has been little incentive to improve it at all. My gorgeous art deco Olympus FT was the epitome of half-frame, but even with the superb lenses, the print quality was appalling, even compared to ordinary 35mm. Back then, size REALLY mattered.
On the other hand, sensor quality has made jumps in orders of magnitude. According to the great photographer and printmaker Ctien, m4/3 caught up to 6×9 film about six years ago. This could be nit-picked, but the fact is that digital lusts for nothing that film gives. Film has a cost, processing has a cost and printing has a cost. Only if your time has no value, time too has a cost.
Then there is the obvious. No matter the format, the total cost of ownership goes up with each exposure when shooting film. Film has its cost, processing has its cost, printing has its cost, and then there is time. Processing colour film yourself requires precise timing and temperature. Negative film is a bit forgiving, but slides—the equivalent of shooting JPEGs—is not. Temperatures regulated to ±¼° and disaster if you fumble. Kodachrome offered no processing options. Successful printing in the fume-room means years of practice and vast quantities of materials—and time. With Photoshop and an Epson photo printer, a day in the fume-room is reduced to 15 minutes or less with the result assuming maximum skills, approaching colour separation/dye transfer printing more than direct colour.
Again it can be argued, but an APS-C or full frame image is now well past what medium format offered back in the film era and approaching large format. It may be well worth mentioning that large format lenses showed appalling numbers when tested upon standard laboratory standards. With an 8×10 contact print, it simply did not matter. With a photomural, it also did not matter, since it was viewed at a distance. Our Fujinon lenses can match or beat the lenses that were sold during the film era. Compared to the best of that time, our lenses are bargains.
If you want decent image quality, forget the smaller formats. Medium-format may equal or exceed m4/3. Our APS-C and full frame are in the limbo between medium and large format. Decades back, shooting the breeze with my working colleagues, I recall wanting a 35mm sized camera that shoots 8×10 quality images. I am old, but I may well shoot with one in my lifetime.
