RightAngle

That most definitely was not an interesting read. Sator, you are explaining how some Sony fanboys are after your scalp, which might be the case, but it seems a bit like a lame defence for the many half-baked arguments you bring to the table. It's not about Sony or Fuji or Canon, it is about writing articles, common sense and logic. "I keep repeating that it's a critique of professional grade full frame mirrorless" This is a term that we see constantly used for explaining how autofocus, some sensor size, available lenses or whatever isn't up to the task. It's just an empty term though. Professional work means simply being paid for your photography and there are so many different types of work, from those requiring manual focus to those being done with compact cameras, that the term is so wide as to be virtually meaningless when applied to specific technologies or their performance. "more serious professional grade work" What does that even mean? Is a landscape shot with an a7r not "serious"? Empty term to suit whatever nonsense you come up with. "None of these innovations are unique or inherent technical characteristics specific to mirrorless." True, however, they are currently available mostly on the mirrorless side, so they are an advantage for mirrorless in the real world. Same like a nice wide grip isn't unique to DLSRs, but is an advantage for those cameras. "Even if one of them was foolish enough to do so, why would we believe even a word of this?" Why would we believe your words and what are you saying? You are basing yourself on the assumption that Sony made E-mount without thinking about future FF development, why? Can you explain this? You have only made empty claims that E-mount is problematic. There isn't an "optimal" mount size and flange distance - it's a choice. And why are R&D costs such an issue? Should we just stop developing new technologies and stick forever to the tried and true DSLR? "AF with DSLT should be just as fast as a DSLR, and definitely faster than mirrorless. With an equipment bag loaded with several proper professional lenses, there is a size advantage to DSLT/DSLR. DSLT already has an EVF with exposure preview. If Sony upgraded their A line to have 5-axis IBIS (on a wider diameter mount better able to take it), and then added their best sensor, why on earth would I want to ever consider buying one of their FF mirrorless cameras ever again?" So, it is all about AF? That is your definition of "professional"? What is that size advantage to the DSLT you are talking about and what will happen in a few years when mirrorless AF, which has been improving consistently until now, arrives at the speed of DSLRs and is also inherently more precise? "Well maybe to adapt lenses, but non-native AF lenses perform so inconsistently" According to whom? The Roger Cicala article you linked to? "But then I thought to myself why it was that (other than Leica) nobody else is building FF mirrorless systems. I started to suspect that most of these companies like Fuji, Canon, Nikon, and Pentax already know perfectly well that the blow out in lens size means that the size advantage of mirrorless doesn't scale up to FF. " Or, maybe, there are other aspects to what these companies are doing? Maybe Fuji simply are interested in their niche and the two big ones prefer to squeeze every last dollar out of the technology they already have? Why aren't they putting EVFs in their cameras like the DSLT, if they know things so well? How come their mirrorless endeavours are such half-baked stuff? "Mirrorless APS-C and M4/3 make sense, but not mirrorless FF." That doesn't make any sense - it is simply a different sensor size. What you fail to acknowledge is that Sony's FF is barely 2.5 years old. We haven't seen all the possibilities. Fatal mistake? You do sound like a hater, which is way worse than the fanboys you are talking about.

The OP asked a simple question and look what he got - colors, RAW converters, menus, what to care about... Short answer is no, Fuji cannot beat Sony. Longer answer is depends on the body and lens you choose. Simply put, with Sony, currently, you have the potential for much better results in terms of resolution and sharpness. For example, if you choose a Sony body with 24MP, 36MP or 42MP and one of the many excellent lenses for the system, you simply won't be able to achieve the same with Fuji.

Not a Fuji user, but I'll chime in. "Where I live there aren't any places which rent out fujinon lenses." You are deciding between focal lengths, just rent a camera and a lens from any brand. "If I'm gonna invest in a new lens I have to be 100% sure I won't regret it." Given that you are not familiar with the relative FOVs, that's not going to happen. If you are that worried, the best solution would be the 10-24 zoom. What follows is subjective, although most people I know are in agreement. 16mm is actually not that wide, especially when it comes to tighter interiors. The speed will be mostly irrelevant for the purposes you mention, unless you take night shots - stars, auroras etc. It is roughly as big, as heavy and as expensive as the 10-24 zoom. So, you better be sure that you need that speed. It is also weather sealed, but depending on how and what you shoot, that might be completely irrelevant. 14mm is great. It is in the beginning of the ultrawide territory, without being an extreme. It is a nice compact lens, easy to carry around. It also has the smallest filter thread of all of the lenses you mentioned, which will result in cheaper filters in case you decide to use those. 12mm is getting really wide. It is great for tight interiors and landscape, but that wide becomes a bit strange for city shots. One can achieve very interesting results, but it will be of limited use. The 10-24 zoom is also very nice, although I doubt the usefulness of the OIS. It is nice to have, but at these focal lengths it won't give you as much. The manual focus is fly by wire, which I find to be a big problem for landscape. It also has the largest filter thread. Personally, I would take the 14mm.