Fujifilm X-E

You can get the X-T4 relatively cheaply. Unlike the T3, it has a fully articulated screen and in-body image stabilization. I have the X-T4 and X-E3, both of which purchased used for much below the price of the newest models (about $800 each). No regrets, and I love both equally. The E3 is my stripped-down pocketable camera; with the Fuji 27mm pancake lens, I can fit it in a jacket pocket or shoulder strap bag, and it weighs almost nothing, less than my iPhone. This combo is pretty much equivalent to the immensely popular X100IV, but much better value for money. The T4 is the bigger camera I use for nature and macro shooting. Tons of settings, more advanced features (focus bracketing and "picture in picture" focus closeup are important to me), more advanced dials. It's heavier and bulkier, but also more solid (IBIS, weather sealing). For some reason Fuji appears to consider yellow focus peaking (which IMHO is the best colourbfor it) to be a high-end feature reserved for the T4, which is annoying.

I don't know, but I recommend trying it, you might be surprised. The X100IV is awesome, of course, and if I could afford it, I'd probably own one. But it's more than 2x what I paid for my X-E3. A fixed-lens camera is built around the limitation of having just that lens. To me, if I only bring the 27mm with me when shooting, then that is exactly like a fixed-lens camera. But it also means I have the option to take it on a bird-watching trip using my Fujifilm 70-300mm lens — something you just wouldn't be able to do with an X100. That flexibility is worth something, which in my opinion makes the lower price of the X-E range even more of a bargain compared to the X100.

This is the opposite of my experience. I went from a D300s kit with about $10k of lenses to Fuji. I had an X100s, then an X-E2, and now an X-Pro3. The X-Pro3 especially is light, has excellent physical controls, and very much feels like a vintage Leica. It's what I'd consider an "art camera" -- not what I'd choose if I were shooting weddings regularly, but perfect for street photography, family stuff, and perfectly capable of higher-end commercial work if you're willing to put up with its quirks. The quirks are the point , though.

I shoot raw jpeg on fuji and basically never edit. The workflow friction is high enough to cause month or more delay between taking and sharing pictures. Plus I find it tedious and boring. All I do when I shoot on camera is plug it into my laptop or PC and immediately upload the good jpegs to Google photos. From there I can download on phone and reupload to wherever (not Instagram, I don't care about it). I have plans to put a section on my website for my favorite photos. So no I don't find x workflow to require a commitment to process. It's only slightly harder than just shooting on the phone. I disagree with others saying phone is good enough. Lens characteristics (shooting aperture priority to choose depth of field) alone is a good enough differentiator for me to justify carrying a camera. Luckily there are very portable solutions for those that want better than phone without dropping 2k and 500 on camera and lens. Old Fuji mirrorless are all basically phenomenal and only miss out by having lower rez sensor, slower autofocus, and maybe missing one or two film sims. I shot on an xe2 with the f2 23mm for years to great effect. I hear and see great things coming from Ricoh as well which is point and shoot and very portable, not sure price though. I think phones take phenomenal pictures but their sensors and lenses are quite tiny.

I also have an X-E3, which I recently took on an international trip. Its compact, but but a key feature is its low value which means its not especially precious. Its one of the best featured cameras where I wouldn't be upset if it was damaged or stolen; I could just buy another one. I adapt lots of lenses, even Leica M mount, but I like the Fujinon XC35mm f/2 which has the same optics as the WR version. I would like to see an X-E5 with the same control layout, but with IBIS.

I hate iOS color rendering though and I tried RAW. I ran the TMB (100mi in Alps) with phone and compact film camera and only 1 iPhone photo made the cut. The colors are too saturated esp the sky with the fake polarizer effect and the color transitions more abrupt. Everything looks way too cool in tone and muddy when I try to warm. And this is on a 13pro. My damaged film (noisy from X-rays at airport) was still far better with softer color gradations and better overall rendering. Fuji XE4 is also far better than phone. I hardly use my phone camera.

I admit to really liking the X-E3--though the X-E4 wasn't obviously an upgrade. But I might just have stuck with Canon (I have a 5Diii) if I were going mirrorless today. Fuji (although later getting into the X series), did pretty much what Kodak eventually did--mostly applying emulsion and chemical expertise in addition to legacy pro film business plus commercial printing--but, as you say, much smaller and much more insular. As I've written about in the past, Kodak gets held up as a classic example of "marketing myopia"--see any Marketing 101 textbook. But, for the reasons you cite, Kodak should just have pivoted harder into digital doesn't really hold up.

Fuji XEs are nice, small, relatively cheap bodies with interchangeable lenses. If youre looking for something small and know how to (or are willing to learn to) use a camera, thats what I recommend. If portability is not a concern, you can pick up used high end Nikon DSLRs and F mount lenses very cheaply right now. Nikon is going all in on mirrorless now so this stuff is "last gen" hence cheap. Otherwise, just avoid Canon. Theyre becoming increaingly scummy and you probably dont wanna get caught locked into their system.