"If the purpose of buying the medium format is to take photos within uncontrolled lighting then it is pretty spectacular."
Any DR numbers to back that up? My suspicion here is they are talking about high DR camera like the Pentax 645z but, as far as I know the DR numbers for the Fuji shouldn't be as good because of the smaller pixel size.
What images do the reviewers claim are worse than the Fuji?
You do understand that Dynamic Range is measurable, and that without DR comparisons with other cameras, that statement that this camera his better is better is hollow. However, those of us who have followed these things for years, know that before mirrorless, Canon cameras were the worst for Dynamic rage, and by a considerable margin. So, I'm willing tog to concede, that if you shot Canon in the past, this camera may be better. If you shot, Pentax or Nikon, probably not. IN any case, it's larger pixel sizes that produce more dynamic rage, not more pixels, and not a larger sensor size. We're talking physics here, not opinion.
The purpose for buying a Medium format camera would be larger prints, and that is really only useful for landscape and city scapes. Never agree with reviewer images, unless they show the same image taken with another camera, so you know to which camera you are referring and you can see the difference.It is quite possible my 14 year old K-5 is better for the images you describe than this Fuji.
Those of us who made point of buying high DR cameras for years, and mainly use nothing but, will find it hard to accept a camera with such a high pixel count will have better DR.but. I'm willing to look at any lab work available on teh topic. That's how you change mymindd. Not a few talking heads blathering on ,on a YouTube video.
I understand where you are coming from, I'm not convinced this camera does what you say it does.
Here's good explanation, by guys who don't have Fuji execs sitting beside them My favourite long term reference site.
The Fujifilm X100 series has a cult following thanks to the camera's compact form factor,
www.imaging-resource.com
Having been engaged in this kind of research for more than 15 years, Imaging Resources is the only company of this type I trust. Their testing is consistent, and best in the business. When everyone else was trashing Pentax auto-focus, IR was the company who actually ran the tests, and reported that in some ways Pentax AF was better than the others. They don’t spout popular opinion. The publiish accurate and iformative test results. IN instance like this, I always say “Let’s wait until the Imaging Resources testing is done, before we start championing dogmatic postions."
But quick calculation, the Fuji is 4 times the size, of a APS-c K-5 (or Nikon 7100). But it’s 6 times the number of pixels. That would mean a half stop less dynamic range all other things being equal. SO until Imaging Resurces tests and shows FUji is doing some kind of magic inside the cmera, that’s what I’m going with. However, it theoretically might be better than an early Canon camera,or any Canon camera before thie mirrorless camers had a measurable increase in DR.