Fuji vs Canon costs

If you want great value for $$$, & a range of native lenses second to none in both zooms & large aperture fixed focal lengths, micro 4/3 is pretty hard to go past. I personally especially enjoy the range of fixed focal length lenses in the system. The very thing that brought me over from Canon to Panasonic. Small, light, excellent IQ & very reasonably priced. Not at all interested in the expensive monster Pro primes (relative to the format) OMD produces.

Brick & Mortar, I assume?

[deleted]

Yes, that one chunky big zoom you are now stuck with carrying everywhere.
Not too mention Canon treating APSC as the red headed stepchild. Been there done that. EFM is a bad joke, RFS looks to be continuing the tradition

[deleted]

The thing is you may not want to cover all focal lengths every time you leave the house. If you want a small but still capable option a m43 camera with one of their small primes is a viable option. I have shot m43 and FF together since 2009 and see the entire collection of gear as one system each with their pros and cons. The folly comes when buying gear in each system to try and be equivalent . This is a comparison between my smallest m43 lens + camera option and my smallest Z mount plus lens option. Whilst you do sacrifice , DOF / subject isolation and total light gathering with the m43 kit it is far smaller far lighter and if at a social event far more wife friendly 😀

[deleted]

There are interchangeable lens phones now ? Though they would win the wife friendly award.😀 My comparison was between gear I own. To paraphrase the old saying there is always a smaller fish 😀 My wife has a couple of Sony 1" P&S camera the very small but well featured RX100V with for me with my ham-fisted approach awful ergonomics and the R10iv which is surprisingly capable, if you don't mind the ergonomics { or lack of 😀 } for a carry everywhere camera with a wide feature set the RX100 models offer a lot. It all just depends on what compromises you are prepared to make the R8 has made a number of compromises to keep it smaller lighter and cheaper such as the lack of IBIS, poorer EVF, very poor battery life etc

[deleted]

why should they do that?

I've done exactly that

[deleted]

Here's the thing. I don't get inferior results. My tiny little f1.4 primes give the equivalent of your big, bulky and expensive 2.8 zooms. At the expense of changing a lens. Which, incidentally, is why I bought an interchangeable lens camera in the first place. Mind blowing huh.

Depending on the type of comparison and the conditions under which you conduct it then that is probably true.

But it definitely is not true for all situations.

This is an interesting video : 7 Reasons To Use a ‘Real’ Camera Instead of a Smartphone

I didn't say that. But it's close enough not to be of much concern to me -if at all. My photos will still be of the same subjects, same or similar framing, perhaps a few more megapickles depending on chosen body, and a bit less noise.
The big difference is, my tiny little "inferior" camera/s is with me virtually all the time. And the best camera is the one you have with you. Complete with one of my favourite ultrawide lenses, and something a bit more "standardish" Something a phone doesn't do. Well, the cheap Chinese phones that I sometimes carry with me anyway. Not to mention how utterly sh!t phones are to use as cameras either.