addicted2light

Given that Irident is free to try, why don't you see for yourself?
 
The "painterly" effect comes up mostly with foliage and very fine detail. Personally I am reasonably happy with Lightroom most of the time for relatively small prints (at least up to A3+).
 
But for A1 and maybe even A2 Irident (especially disabling noise reduction and distortion correction) and the free/donation-ware RawTherapee* both extract IMHO a huge amount of fine detail more than Lightroom, even using in LR the Bridgwood sharpening method(s):
 
SHARPENING X-TRANS FILES IN ADOBE LIGHTROOM
 
*In RawTherapee for the best results you'll have to use "Deconvolution Sharpening" and "Microcontrast" sharpening at the same time

If you want an 85/90mm the Canon 85/1.2 FD should supposedly be really really good.
 
But if I were you I'd go for a longer lens, like a 180 or a 200/2.8 (assuming you have the space to back up, obviously).
 
This because the medium format look depends as much from the thin dof than from the compression given by a longer focal length.
 
Please keep in mind that you might want to have the tip of the nose in focus as well (it's a matter of taste, but I certainly do), and if so shooting at f/1.2 will not feasible, and you'll probably need at least f/2.8 anyway.
 
And lastly for the best results (not for a tight portrait, though) I'd use the "Brenized method": http://ryanbrenizer.com/category/brenizer-method/
 
It's the only way IMO to achieve a proper mf look on small sensors (small = not medium format, so Sony/full format as well). I've shot mf for years (still do), so maybe I'm a bit overcritical, but just using a shallow depth of field it is not gonna cut it.
 
EDIT: I just noticed you listed "80Mp" as one of the features of the Sony sensor that could help with the look. Sorry, but megapixels have nothing to do with this. The "look" is only linked to the physical dimensions of the sensor, regardless of the resolving power. A 20 years old 6 megapixels medium format back can still produce "the look" effortlessly!

If you want an 85/90mm the Canon 85/1.2 FD should supposedly be really really good.
 
But if I were you I'd go for a longer lens, like a 180 or a 200/2.8 (assuming you have the space to back up, obviously).
 
This because the medium format look depends as much from the thin dof than from the compression given by a longer focal length.
 
Please keep in mind that you might want to have the tip of the nose in focus as well (it's a matter of taste, but I certainly do), and if so shooting at f/1.2 will not feasible, and you'll probably need at least f/2.8 anyway.
 
And lastly for the best results (not for a tight portrait, though) I'd use the "Brenized method": http://ryanbrenizer.com/category/brenizer-method/
 
It's the only way IMO to achieve a proper mf look on small sensors (small = not medium format, so Sony/full format as well). I've shot mf for years (still do), so maybe I'm a bit overcritical, but just using a shallow depth of field it is not gonna cut it.
 
EDIT: I just noticed you listed "80Mp" as one of the features of the Sony sensor that could help with the look. Sorry, but megapixels have nothing to do with this. The "look" is only linked to the physical dimensions of the sensor, regardless of the resolving power. A 20 years old 6 megapixels medium format back can still produce "the look" effortlessly!

The impossibility of interchanging the X-T10 eyepiece for a deeper one was the main nagging point in my short experience with the camera (for now I've had it for less than a week).
  But it looks like I may have found a DIY solution that actually works. I don't yet know how well it will withstand the test of time and being put in and out of a bag without caring too much, but for now it sure looks promising.   A Nikon DK-19 eyecup happens to be the right fit to mount perfectly on top of the X-T10 non-removable eyepiece. Obviously the problem is that it will not stay put in place on its own.     Luckily this is easily solvable. The DK-19 has a shallow "lip" inside, and this is the part that it will actually be in contact with the X-T10 eyepiece.   Smearing a tiny bit of Sugru inside this lip, then pressing in place the DK-19 and letting it rest for a few hours (preferably 24) it will give the Sugru time to cure. At that point the DK-19 eyecup will be bonded with the X-T10 original one.     Two notes: the DK-19 is often kinda of expensive. I happened to have one still around from my Nikon days. But I've used even cheap Chinese knock-offs without a problem the company that makes Sugru claims that should you want to remove it at a later date you will be able to do just scratching it with your nails and then wiping the surface clean with baby wipes. I believe them, because Sugru should basically be silicone caulk mixed with something like corn starch to make it in a paste and allow it to cure faster. But this is the first time I've ever used Sugru, so do this at your own risk. Should the eyepiece become permanently bonded to your camera lowering its resale value you're on your own...   For me I don't care, because I don't see myself getting rid of the X-T10 for any foreseeable time (I love this thing...) and because I've had an extended eyepiece on all my cameras since when I was still a kid in the '80s.  

You might find this helpful:
 
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche
 
This guy tested old Minolta lenses on Sony full frame bodies and against modern glass like the latest A and E mount offering.
 
It is mostly in German (use Google Translate), but often the images really speak for themselves.
 
On a side note, I like quite a bit my Minolta MC 24/2.8 (old version, not the new one with the 49mm filter size) and the 105/2.5 MD (latest version).

Elliot (not Eric) Paul Stern, that's why you were out of luck:
 
https://elliotpaulstern.me/2017/04/21/eyecups-compatible-with-fujifilm-x-pro2-jjc/
 
 
AMAZON (they are calling them "eyecup" instead of "eyepiece", that's why you and I both couldn't find them at first):
 
Larger Version for People that Wear Eyeglasses:
https://www.amazon.com/JJC-Silicone-Eyepiece-Fujifilm-Eyeglasses/dp/B06Y4M6G6M/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1492843023&sr=8-11&keywords=fuji++eyecup
 
Normal version:
https://www.amazon.com/JJC-Silicone-Eyepiece-Fujifilm-FinePix/dp/B06Y4LMLZC/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&qid=1492843023&sr=8-21&keywords=fuji++eyecup

I'm not sure I agree.  Although you may be technically correct, in a real world usage situation and then reviewing the outputs, you will always get sharper images from the Sony.  How do I know?  I have been running a Sony A7R for close to 3 years and also a X-Pro2 for almost 1 (before that, I also ran the X-E1 and X-T1) and contemplating getting the X-T2 as my second Fuji body.
 
I had contemplated getting rid of the Sony altogether when I got the X-Pro 2 to finance the X-T2, I always run two bodies when I shoot and when I got rid of the X-T1 I wanted as replacement but I just couldn't.  The Sony sucks balls to use, the Sony also takes more work in post but when you get it right, the files can sing.  Now I'm just contemplating just spending the extra $$$ to buy the X-T2 anyway.  Both cameras are good but for different reasons.
 
I have an X-Pro2 with the XF10-24mm.  I have the A7R with the FE16-35mm.  Which would I choose when I go out shooting landscapes, the Sony pretty much all the time.  The only time where the difference is minimal and not enough to care is when the XF14mm is mounted to the X-Pro2, so if I don't need anything wider than 21mm, I sometimes pick the X-Pro2 and XF14mm but generally the X-Pro2 and XF10-24 can not beat the A7R and FE16-35mm.
 
 
 
I am with you on this one which is why I just could not let go.  The Sony only comes out on a special purpose use.  I have sold almost all my Sony lenses except for 2, the FE16-35mm wide angle zoom and the Zeiss 50mm f1.5 m-mount lens.  The files are great and the tonal graduations in good light really do sing.

I shoot with both (X-T10 and A7r first gen).
 
I toyed with the idea of switching completely to Fuji for quite a bit (you can read about it on my blog, where I published as well a shootout between the 16Mp X-T10 and the 36Mp A7r using the same, adapted, lenses).
 
http://www.addicted2light.com/2016/07/29/giving-the-boot-to-sony-a7r-vs-fuji-x-t10/
 
But in the end, at least for now, I kept using both.
 
The real advantage of the Sony sensor is not necessarily its size, unless of course you want the shallowest possible depth of field. What keeps the Sony in my bag, its several annoying quirks notwithstanding, is the fantastic ability to push the shadows with (@ 50 Iso) essentially no noise at all.
 
This alone opens your shooting envelope quite a bit. That said, in many circumstances you could do the same with the Fuji just using HDR.
 
And while it's true that taking multiple shots is not always feasible, the same goes for the Sony (or other full frame bodies) when you start taking into account that in order to have extended depth of field quite often just stopping down it isn't gonna cut it, and you will have to resort to focus staking.
 
For comparison, the only three really annoying "features" I've found with Fuji are: the sensor reflections when shooting with the sun in the pictures (not always, but frequent enough to be annoying); the lack of an extended eyepiece for the X-T10; and the HDR bracketing limited to a measly +1 -1 stops.
 
If I were to start from scratch, though, I'd definitely go the Fuji route.

Morning Shine
55-200mm

Cheers Andreas

Thanks, you're way too kind!

My workflow for the best looking shots, or at least the ones that appear to potentially be among the best, is now to stitch (with the camera in portrait orientation, using a super small rail + the L bracket) anything from 3 to 5 pictures taken with the A7r.
 
This does two things: first I can potentially print them huge, or at more reasonable sizes but with excellent sharpness; secondly I can use not-so-exceptional lenses that I like nonetheless a lot for their rendering - like the 50/1.5 Jupiter 3 - and still get sharper pictures that if I'd used a Zeiss 55/1.8 single-shot at any given print size.
 
If instead Canon plans to let us capture this amount of detail in just one shot, so with an extremely small pixel pitch, they better come up first with both a global electronic shutter, otherwise the shutter shock will most likely be atrocious; a kick ass sensor or lens based stabilization for when you're shooting handheld, and a range of extremely good primes under 50mm, otherwise all those pixels will be massively wasted at anything but the dead center of the frame.
 
There is too much mushy stuff on flickr already

Hi and welcome.
 
Just to give you some perspective (even if I don't shoot sport) I have an Olympus E-M10 with the Pana 25/1.7 and 35-100 (the small one, not the 2.8) as my "non-photographic travel" and street camera that, shutter lag aside, I quite love.
 
But the Fuji files, IMO, are noticeably sharper already with the über-cheap 16-50 kit lens as long as you know how to properly sharpen them (sharpening with Fuji files is totally different than with other cameras, they need a TON of sharpening to realize their potential, but then they won't look oversharpened but simply "sharp").
 
And a comparable pro kit is not that much different in terms of size and weight (check on camerasize, the version "camera + lenses" on the top left).
 

E-M1 + 12-40/2.8; X-T2 + 16-55/2.8; E-M1 + 40-150/2.8; X-T1 + 100-400 (600mm eq.)
 
As wide angles for landscapes, this is more my field (and yes, lame pun intended ). With Fuji you are super covered: you can choose between the 10-24/4 OIS, 14/2.8, 16/1.4, 23/1.4 and now 23/2. I haven't tried all of them, but apparently they are all stellar lenses, so which one you choose is just a matter of personal taste/needs.
 
Lastly, about Sony. For landscapes I have an A7r. After buying a Fuji X-T10 on a whim (it was heavily discounted at a brick and mortar store nearby) I started to get much better results from the Fuji, with much more consistency and with MUCH less effort. At some point I even compared their output side-to-side shooting the same scenes, just to be sure I wasn't "seeing" things, and up to 100cm wide the Fuji files are nearly indistinguishable, seen side-to-side, from the ones shot on the A7r...IMHO.
 
Long story short: my A7r has now landed on ebay...

Hi and welcome.
 
Just to give you some perspective (even if I don't shoot sport) I have an Olympus E-M10 with the Pana 25/1.7 and 35-100 (the small one, not the 2.8) as my "non-photographic travel" and street camera that, shutter lag aside, I quite love.
 
But the Fuji files, IMO, are noticeably sharper already with the über-cheap 16-50 kit lens as long as you know how to properly sharpen them (sharpening with Fuji files is totally different than with other cameras, they need a TON of sharpening to realize their potential, but then they won't look oversharpened but simply "sharp").
 
And a comparable pro kit is not that much different in terms of size and weight (check on camerasize, the version "camera + lenses" on the top left).
 

E-M1 + 12-40/2.8; X-T2 + 16-55/2.8; E-M1 + 40-150/2.8; X-T1 + 100-400 (600mm eq.)
 
As wide angles for landscapes, this is more my field (and yes, lame pun intended ). With Fuji you are super covered: you can choose between the 10-24/4 OIS, 14/2.8, 16/1.4, 23/1.4 and now 23/2. I haven't tried all of them, but apparently they are all stellar lenses, so which one you choose is just a matter of personal taste/needs.
 
Lastly, about Sony. For landscapes I have an A7r. After buying a Fuji X-T10 on a whim (it was heavily discounted at a brick and mortar store nearby) I started to get much better results from the Fuji, with much more consistency and with MUCH less effort. At some point I even compared their output side-to-side shooting the same scenes, just to be sure I wasn't "seeing" things, and up to 100cm wide the Fuji files are nearly indistinguishable, seen side-to-side, from the ones shot on the A7r...IMHO.
 
Long story short: my A7r has now landed on ebay...

The only "dream lens" that Fuji doesn't already make, for my kind of shooting, would be a relatively compact (i.e. as small or smaller than the 55-200) and stabilized 200/4 macro (1:2 would be more than enough).
 
EDIT: and a 16mm f/2! I shoot at f/11 or 16 most of the times, I don't want to lug around the 1.4 version...

The only "dream lens" that Fuji doesn't already make, for my kind of shooting, would be a relatively compact (i.e. as small or smaller than the 55-200) and stabilized 200/4 macro (1:2 would be more than enough).
 
EDIT: and a 16mm f/2! I shoot at f/11 or 16 most of the times, I don't want to lug around the 1.4 version...

I've tried several times to warm up to Capture 1, especially given that they give you a slightly limited version for free if you shoot Sony. But I can't stand the fact that it litters the file system with its own files and other several small annoying quirks (well, annoying from the perspective of a LR and PS user). But thanks for the suggestion!
 
That said, and even if I'm a self-confessed sharpness nut (in terms of lens performance) I'm not too obsessed with the sharpest possible print. Quite the opposite actually, I think sometime a print too sharp might look unnatural or, even worse, take away the attention from your subject to the technical quality of the print itself. So I get what you say when you write that you have to move the sharpness slider the other way with some lenses, otherwise the results will look "unflatteringly sharp".
 
A proper print, IMO, (and based on what you say I guess you agree) should be transparent, for lack of a better term, and every enhancement (and I post process my files quite a bit) should be in function of the subject.

From what I know, most people who have the 23 usually don't use the 35 much after that. It also signify which photography they shoot more. You'll be able to tell yourself. More environmental portrait / streetscape or 50mm portrait.
 
Depending on whether you shoot interiors or landscape, I'd recommend the 14 F2.8 or the Samyang 12mm.
 
The 16, while it's a beautiful lens, isn't quite wide enough for landscape, too wide to portrait unless you really want to go for the unique look.

OH MY GOODNESS I love this topic.  My two cents:  Don't throw it around, but use the darn thing.  If it gets dinged up, so what?  As I've mentioned in other posts throughout when I'm done with cameras they become paperweights. I still own my 1978 Minolta X-E7.  If you saw it, you would swear it doesn't work; but it does!
It has traveled from the northern slopes of Alaska, to the Florida tropics and everywhere in between!
 
I don't abuse gear, but I'll be damned if I'm going to baby it.  All this bullshit of WR and non-WR lenses to me is just that.  BS.  If a lens can't get wet, screw it -- move on.
As I've said before: Back in the day, there were no WR lenses.  We used what we got.  Period.
 
That's my story and I'm sticking to it! 

We are talking of differences appreciable on prints.
 
I doubt that any appreciable difference can be seen even in high quality printing, though, perhaps, not in monitor staring at a test.
 
On the other hand one can stare to meditate.
 
Omphaloskepsis is a meditation technique where one reaches a deep meditative state through looking, at extreme length, to one’s navel. The modern version has to be the monitor ( and it puts a lot less strain on the neck).
 
 
From wikipedia...
 

your test is very illuminating too.
 
The pixel count is now the main red herrings used to sell camera.
 
A key word in advertising.
 
Bigger! New! Improved!...goes all the way up to 11!
 
Since you are Italian (I hold dual nationality Italian-Dutch) you may remember a washing powder which advertised for years and years ( since I was a kind and it is a long time ago) that it was washing “ whiter” ( whiter than what wasn’t clear).
 
They had it in different countries too, we had Dixan in Italy and they had Persil some other places.
 
If only you buy this camera...new, improved, bigger, better, everything will change for you.
 
It has a larger sensor ergo it does more ( more than what? And even more importantly what can you do with it that you couldn’t do without it?).
 
 
Whiter than white.

Ha! You got me. 
I guess if you were a spy, you would be be using the VF more than I!
For most of us with ordinary lives however, you can see how having the menu on the LCD makes sense.
Thanks for letting me vent.

The reasons are several, some a matter of personal taste some objective differences, and some of them are probably classifiable under the "extra mile" category, so to speak. Always keeping in mind that they are both great cameras anyway, and that I shoot mostly landscapes and not portraits (where the full frame COULD have an edge, depending on your particular style).
 
The following is more or less the "pros and cons" list I've sketched up trying to decide:
 
 
The five biggest pros (together make up for 90%):
Ease of post processing. I can get Sony and Fuji files to look more or less the same with post processing. But with the Fuji I get where I want to be MUCH faster. To give you an idea, and not considering localized adjustment (dodging and burning etc.) that depends on the content of the single image and may or may not be needed on a case to case basis, I generally spend less than 2 minutes for each file in Lightroom / Photoshop with Fuji files, while with the Sony's the time can easily stretch to 10 or more. Highlights. Related to the previous point: even if the Sony has more dynamic range both on paper and by my own tests compared to the straight (i.e. without any kind of compensation, DR, or curve adjustment; this is the key) Fuji files, in reality the highlights with the Sony look always strange and peeled off. Please keep in mind I shoot most of the times in the woods, where dappled light is the norm and the contrasts are extreme. So for me is fairly easy to have a couple of spot of lights on a lightly colored tree trunk that look (but are not) blown out. So most of the time I spend with the Sony files are to make sure the highlights are ok (underexposing and compensating) and using localized adjustments (brush etc.) to recover the single spots. With the Fuji all this is unnecessary. My guess they use a different, more film-like, curve in camera, so the highlights are always ok as long as you expose properly. This is a BIG point for me, probably 50% of the reason. Colors: Fuji colors, possibly because I've shot for years with Fuji films, look the way I want most of the time almost straight out of the box. The same with Olympus, btw. And with the Fuji you get more color separation, for lack of a better term. Look at the dead leaves in the 2nd picture. Like I said you can almost get there with post processing with the Sony, but life is too short to spend it in front of a computer! Shutter shock. This point is directly related to the A7r: no shutter shock. I love shooting with long lenses (200 and up). But with the A7r I had quickly forego this because unless you use a fast enough shutter speed (like you were shooting handheld) the images most of the time come out blurry. I could solve this buying an A7 II or an A7r II, but this wouldn't solve the previous points, though. DOF. With the Sony, even with a 18mm lens @ f/16, is impossible to have everything in focus in most shots (remember, I don't shoot "landscapes at infinity", but "landscapes in the woods" most of the time). So for most of the shots you'll have to resort to focus stacking. Besides the added workload this means loosing shots, because something moved during the shooting or because the software algorithm made an error or because you made an error. The light can change, the wind can be blowing, etc., you get my point. With the Fuji one shot is enough 99% of the times... Blue channel. With the various Sony cameras I've shot (not just the A7r) the second you start post processing your files, even at 50 or 100Iso, unless you aggressively expose to the right (but then you'll have troubles with the highlights, see the second point), the blue tones of skies and clouds (and sometimes the reds of trees bathed in sunset light) will become completely riddled with noise. To give you an idea, is like shooting at 3200 iso with the Fuji! Not ideal for landscapes...to say the least.  
Several other reasons that could have made me buy an A7 II / A7r II instead (but thanks to the previous points Fuij is still the best solution for my needs):
Tripod. With the Sony to avoid shutter shock even with the wide angles I have to use the same tripod and head I used with my large format 5x7" setup. No need to say it is HEAVY. The Fuji is rock steady, even in mechanical shutter mode, even with the lightest tripod I own. Haptics: I'm comfortable with the controls of the Sony, but all the same I found myself reaching for the Fuji every time I go out. Most of that has to do with the terrible shutter button of the Sony, mushy as hell without a clear point of detent. THE worst shutter button I ever used, and in several decades (I started shooting when I was 5) I've shot with a LOT of cameras. Weight. In all a slightly lighter setup compared to the one I use now (taking lenses into the equation), possibly up to 1Kg less. Lenses. Fuji has the focal lengths I need and at the right price point for my pockets (on a side note: a 3.000€ 50mm lens? Sony must be kidding!) Iso. Base Iso of 200: faster shutter speeds to freeze wind-blown branches and grass High Iso. No hot pixels at high iso. The Sony puts out hundreds of hot pixels most of the time (especially under artificial light) at 1600 and up, the Fuji is whistle clean.  
There are as well cons, but they are outweighed by the pros, at least for me:
 
​OIS only on zooms (come on Fuji...) harsher out of focus transitions unless you use the same focal length (not the equivalent one), especially noticeable when there are defocused highlights in the background ("bokeh balls"). Not a big deal, like I said it suffices using a slightly longer lens stepping back a bit (1.5 times!) The watercolor effect, especially noticeable with "aerial" shots where there is a lot of air between you and the subject (long lens landscapes). This is solvable using aggressive sharpening or Irident. And, to a lesser and different extent, is a problem even with the Sony, because has to do with the air currents lowering a lot your real resolution. The difference is that Sony files become muddy/blurry instead of "watercolored". As you can see you shouldn't have asked me this question on a Sunday morning, I have too much free time on my hands! 

I use both a Sony A7r and a Fuji X-T10. Just answered a similar question on another post:
 
http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/2513-sony-power-vs-the-siren-song-of-kaizen/?do=findComment&comment=23293
 
so I'll just copy&paste here for your convenience. Hope this helps.
 
I'll just add though that in terms of "bang for the bucks" Fuji trashes Sony big time, especially with the crazy prices that the latter is asking for the latest models. And as for the lenses you can read what I think about below.
 
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
I own both a Sony A7r and a Fuji X-T10, so maybe I can shed some light. 
HIGH ISOs AND LONG EXPOSURES
In low light the Sony, once resized to 16Mp, it has a tad less noise, but Sony sensors (or at least every Sony camera I've ever had) put out A TON ( = hundreds) of hot pixels both at high iso and doing long exposures, even with the "long exposure noise reduction" engaged. So for anything over 800 iso and for long exposures Fuji it is.

HIGH CONTRAST BORDERS
The original A7 series (A7 and A7r) has compressed raw. This is not a major thing most of the time, EXCEPT when you have sharp transitions from dark to light. Think a window in near silhouette and an outside scene, or a tree trunk against a sunlit background. Then as soon as you start pushing the contrast (and you will have to, because the vast dynamic range of Sony sensors means that the images will be pretty flat straight out of camera) you're left with horrible halos like you normally get on over-sharpened images. You can cure this with careful brushing in Photoshop (or up to a certain point negative clarity in Lightroom), but it is a gigantic pain in the you-know-what. Fuji does not have this problem.

LENSES
I don't personally have any Sony lens, because most of them are simply too expensive for what they give you, even terrific piece of glass like the 55/1.8. Besides, from what I've read it looks like Sony has a bit of a problem with sample variation (again, no personal experience in this field). But I use Contax Zeiss and Minolta MD adapted lenses (Contax for general use, Minolta for pastel like colors and low contrast), and with the camera strapped to a stable tripod the results are terrific. That said, from 180mm and above, tripod or no tripod, you better use fast shutter speeds otherwise the horrific shutter shock of the A7r will blurry the image (should not be a problem with the A7 though).* Fuji has the advantage of having a way better lens line-up, IMO, both in terms of focal lengths covered and in terms of sheer quality. Even the cheap 16-50 that came with the X-T10 is a surprisingly good performer! And with the OIS I've been able to shoot up to 1s (yes, one full second!!!) @ 50mm with sharp results (keep in mind, I've been shooting since I was maybe 5 years old, YMMV).

*I use a pretty heavy tripod with an Arca Swiss B-1 ball that was more than strong enough to support my 5x7" large format camera, and I still get shutter shock, so yeah, it's a thing

FF Vs APS-C
My approach to this is pretty simple.
If you shoot portraits FF has the advantage of shallow depth of field (but you can get similar or better results with a faster lens on Fuji like the 55/1.2).
If you shoot landscapes or street FF has the disadvantage of the shallow depth of field. Especially with the high resolution sensor of the A7r I have quite often to focus stack images even with short lenses, because there is no way that I can get all in focus even stopping down the aperture (and besides, very few lenses will let you stop down to f/16 without robbing you of the sharpness you're searching because of diffraction; there is not a fast rule, it will depend by the optical scheme).

MENUS
I don't see where the big deal is anymore. The original X100 menu was horrible, as have been the menus of a couple of Nikon's cameras, but nowadays I find that whatever you're shooting you will get the hang of it pretty quickly, assuming you're actually using the camera instead of letting it sit on a shelf.

X-TRANS vs SONY: SHARPNESS
Fuji files will take A TON more sharpening to realize their potential, especially if you're using an Adobe raw converter. Not a problem, but it is something you should be aware of. And IMO at 100% Fuji files, for this reason, might look often a tad "unnatural". It is a moot point, though, because once printed they look fantastic, as the Sony's. The only real difference here is the one in megapixels, and with the new 24Mp sensor coming even that is becoming academic at best. Besides, even 16Mp files print beautifully, as long as you know how to properly sharpen in multiple passes (import, creative, printing), up to 1m generally, and up to 1.5 meters with some subjects, even on glossy paper (the most demanding one). And on matte or canvas probably the sky is the limit 

X-TRANS vs SONY: DYNAMIC RANGE
Sony dynamic range, from my own test (shooting a grey step card and measuring the white point 0-255 value within Photoshop), it is around 11 2/3 stops.
Fuji X-T10 dynamic range is, again from my own test, around 7 1/3 stops.
This might look huge, and it is, but in real use unless you like the HDR look with no shadows you will have to compress the dynamic range quite a bit. Besides, a print on paper can withstand generally 5 1/2 stops of dynamic range anyway. And should you want to extend it anyway, I find way easier to shoot multiple images with the Fuji and combine them as an HDR 32 bit file to work on in Lightroom than to having to do the same to extend sharpness with the A7r (focus stacking is way more prone to errors that will not let you combine the images properly). 

X-TRANS vs SONY: COLORS
This might be the last point, but in reality is where the real difference boils down. Please, keep in mind that some of the difference will be due to the characteristic of the lens used (for example Contax glass has a particularly contrasty and saturated signature), but most of it will depend by the sensor itself.
This is a matter of taste. They are both capable of delivering great colors.
But Sony colors are IMO more on the warm-greenish side of the spectrum (think like the 17th century Flemish school of painters, or Turner), while Fuji in my admittedly for now limited experience (compared to Sony) tends to favor cooler blues and redder, bolder reds (think Giotto) (obviously using the same white balance).

But why do you need the specs. Just because a picture has more resolution does not mean its better. i don't think we are there yet, but there will come a time when the resolution will make things too clinical. Actually in some ways we are already seeing that a little bit with HDR. A lot of non-photgraphers I know instinctively don't like HDR, they look at it an go woah that's fake how much photoshop did that guy use. I want people to react to my pictures based on content, composition, the technicalities of the image are important but they should not be visible. Best advice I ever got on mixing was "add an effect till you can just about hear what its doing, then pull it back a few notches from that point, if you can hear it its too much" I think we are getting to the same place, if you can see how technically perfect a photo is, its too much.
Of course I realize this is a subjective opinion