MikeA

The I don't like the idea and nobody will ever use it | given choices people won't use them | I'd never use it so who cares | so it's a stupid idea mindset has never been a sufficient reason to dismiss an idea out of hand. I've seen that attitude so many times over the years in the software industry. It wasn't persuasive the first time I heard it, and it isn't persuasive now. But it's remarkable, how well nay-sayers can read the minds of millions of complete strangers. : )
 
Auto-focus? Look how lousy it is. Don't bother developing it further [that was the "professional" attitude when auto-focus first appeared; I remember, because I was there to see it]. On-line retailing? Stupid idea. Nobody will shop that way. Put a little car on Mars? Ridiculous. It'll never work. Electric car? Stupid idea. Nobody'd buy that. More than 640K memory? Absurd. Nobody'll ever need more than that. Only in a faerie world. LOL.
 
The good news is that people with their eyes on the prize don't think that way. Now w.r.t. stabilization, whether a "dual" design would be economically feasible or worth the time to design is obviously a whole different matter. I can't know the minds of millions of strangers, either, but I'll bet that given such options, people would use them — even in a non-faerie world. : )

I'll skip the hosannah to Fuji's own "extended" eyecup (yes, I use it, but only because there's no choice out there)… You are right, there's no "proper" eyecup for an X-T1. Maybe PRC will cough out one someday, but until then – DIY is a way to go. 
 
PS: Hoodman seems to be working with the government contracts a lot lately, I have no other explanation for a $100,000 eyecup R&D figure.

Nikon hate Canon, Canon hate Nikon, Canikon hate any one that trys to ruin their monopoly.
 
Who cares?
 
Really?
 
If you've bought into the Fuji X  system, it is because it offers something that makes your photography a much more enjoyable past time (or work tool) than using any of the other systems.
That's all that matters.
 
Every system will have something the other systems don't have, and all the small minded little people trying to justify their choice as opposed to the features that choice did not come with, just to stop them feeling like they've made a bad choice.
 
I like the picture - not the camera, not the photographer, not the software used to process it, not the computer used to process it on or how good it looks on this smartphone or that tablet.
 
So, I think you can assume this will be my only comment on such a subject...
 
Look forward to enjoying other peoples pictures and advice on how to get shots or certain effects into a picture etc.

I don't think that's a sensible comparison, and potentially useful ideas merit better than facile dismissals. And one man's "aggravating" often turns out to be another man's "hmm -- interesting." Digital cameras are engineering marvels produced not by people who think this is stupid -- we shouldn't bother trying it but by people who think intriguing idea -- how can we do it? Fuji strikes me as a prime example of a company with that can-do mindset, and both they and their customers are reaping the benefits.   It hardly takes a massive leap of imagination to think there could be a design permitting both kinds of stabilization, with the ability to automatically disable in-body stabilization when the OIS of a lens is switched on. Or switch OIS off and use the sensor-based stabilization if you prefer. Or use only in-body stabilization all the time. Or use neither.   The fact that there's no camera doing such a thing now doesn't mean there couldn't be in the future. People have often used "but then the camera companies would be cutting into their own markets for stabilized lenses!" as an argument against in-body stabilization. I think that also represents a failure of imagination. Better way of looking at it: Design a best-of-both-worlds system. Given choices, people will make good use of them.

The I don't like the idea and nobody will ever use it | given choices people won't use them | I'd never use it so who cares | so it's a stupid idea mindset has never been a sufficient reason to dismiss an idea out of hand. I've seen that attitude so many times over the years in the software industry. It wasn't persuasive the first time I heard it, and it isn't persuasive now. But it's remarkable, how well nay-sayers can read the minds of millions of complete strangers. : )
 
Auto-focus? Look how lousy it is. Don't bother developing it further [that was the "professional" attitude when auto-focus first appeared; I remember, because I was there to see it]. On-line retailing? Stupid idea. Nobody will shop that way. Put a little car on Mars? Ridiculous. It'll never work. Electric car? Stupid idea. Nobody'd buy that. More than 640K memory? Absurd. Nobody'll ever need more than that. Only in a faerie world. LOL.
 
The good news is that people with their eyes on the prize don't think that way. Now w.r.t. stabilization, whether a "dual" design would be economically feasible or worth the time to design is obviously a whole different matter. I can't know the minds of millions of strangers, either, but I'll bet that given such options, people would use them — even in a non-faerie world. : )