>>4460595
>>4460596
It's a really poorly made camera. Everything from the rattly build to the clunkiness of every moving part and common camera function (ie: autofocus, menus) calls back to all those disposable semi-premium consumer electronics toys of the mid 2000s (good enough but not great notebooks, mp3 players, etc) that were always 3 generations behind in tech and 1 generation behind in price. Except it's 2025, and it's a social media meme. So it's 10 generations behind and 1 generation ahead in price.
The thing is literally a plastic shell that isn't truly weather sealed, it has wiggly doors ffs, and it's going up against better made and/or cheaper compacts that only lack sheer image quality - while targeting a market that doesn't give a fuck about sheer image quality. The x100vi isn't even pocketable so it also has to compete with people buying sony aps-c and even full frame and just slapping cheap shit samyang lenses on, and while sony has shit image quality, the x100vi market doesnt give a shit about shit image quality and sony's shitty green colors are just begging to be turned into a cinestill 800t film sim. If you don't like green, buy a ricoh gr III/X or an olympus/om system.
Call fuji's general lack of quality soul if you want (autofocus worse than an a6500) but the slowish but functional dell notebook with finish rubbing off the plastic aesthetic is some really shitty fucking soul.
