I had both full frame and APS-C cameras and on the internet you can see all the people harp on about how full frame is 10000X better. You can see now on a lot of Fuji reviews comments on how Fuji is APS-C and its dead,because Canikonsonysonic haz muh full frame,100x better AF,etc(yet none of them seem to talk about the Fuji GFX system). I remember a Hexus forum member who used APS-C Pentax gear because of its weather sealing and got mocked by their local camera club because they were not using full frame Canikon a decade ago. They ended up winning international awards for their work.
As a person who started with film cameras you were lucky to be able to use above ISO800 colour print film, and slide film had very narrow DR,so some of the measurebating comments make me laugh. Cameras had very few AF points clustered around the centre of the frame.Even the AF of something like an X-T5 is leagues better than cameras 5~10 years ago. Yet nearly a decade ago,with my entry level D600 I was using it to take pictures at airshows using a non-stabilised lens.
But as you touched on in the last point,Fuji has great out of camera results,whereas some of the competing systems need you to fart around editing RAW files. Sony had the same issues with JPEGs a decade ago when I was using their old Alpha system.
The problem is people are approaching digital cameras like they do computers,ie,my spec sheet is better than yours. Fuji is nearly as old as Kodak and one of the few imaging companies that make film,printers,etc even on a commercial level. They know what they are doing WRT to "colour science" and image processing.
The reality is that any of the decent cameras from the big companies,whether it's micro 4/3,APS-C or full frame are capable of excellent results. It's more dependent on the photographer knowing how to use the strengths and weaknesses of their system. But a superior spec sheet does not mean you get a better camera for your particular photography style.
If that is the case Minolta would have won in the 1980s.
