Here you're talking about shallow depth of field which is desirable for portraits. But show me a camera that will have in JPG the dynamic range that you have in a smartphone by default? Show me a camera that will have as LARGE depth of field as smartphones have thanks to their small sensor.
These are all pros and cons depending on the scenario, but a phone has one advantage - it's small and you have it always with you.
Yes, if someone's goal is to learn photography and they're also interested in it from a technical point of view, then these are definitely cameras worth considering. My main point is that if someone just wants to "take nice photos" they should seriously think about whether to buy a good phone instead.
This is not true. Yes, these are characteristic color grading profiles, but if you want your photo to actually look proper, you still need to process the RAW file and you can add the Fujifilm profile as an extra on top of that.
There's NOTHING special about these profiles. It's a matter of taste. If you're buying a mirrorless camera, it means you have ambitions to take photos at a reasonably high level. Nobody who wants to be at a high level will shoot JPGs.
I own 4 Fujifilm cameras and personally, I'd recommend being VERY careful and thinking hard about this purchase. This isn't the same Fujifilm as it used to be. The company was once known for its "Kaizen" approach, which has long since disappeared. Prices are now inflated because they're riding on popularity. Autofocus in Fuji is simply weak.
The question is whether you actually need such a camera for anything. With a new smartphone that has multiple lenses, out-of-the-box photos will turn out MUCH NICER than from a camera, because initial processing is built into the software. Digital cameras don't have this. You need to take RAW and work pretty hard on it to make the photo look as good as what a smartphone delivers right away.
In tourist destinations, you can often find middle-aged guys running around with huge cameras when in reality most of their photos are quite poor. Because they don't realize that with a regular phone, their pictures would be much nicer.
I'm not sure what causes the terrible RAF handling in Lightroom, but it's a fairly well-known issue. Lightroom produces so-called "worming" and apparently this is related to the X-Trans sensor which requires a different decoding algorithm. On my end, I can recommend Capture One - the handling here is perfect, though you do have to get used to the UI unfortunately
I recently discovered that Apple has something called "Pages" and "Numbers" - simple apps that serve as alternatives to Word and Excel. They're so straightforward and intuitive that they require no learning curve. They just work.
It seems like things like this are no longer possible for Microsoft. They keep producing clunky tools which, although functional, always come with a horribly frustrating UX (as usual).
I've been working within the Microsoft tech stack for around 25 years now (mostly SQL Server). I used to be a huge fan of their products because they were one of the best companies when it came to developer experience (developers! developers!). Unfortunately, that was a long time ago. Things are very different now. Of all the things I once liked, only SQL Server really remains (ironically, it's a technology they acquired - it used to be Sybase). I still think C#, F#, and PowerShell are great, but I actively discourage people from using most of their so-called "products" because the quality is just appallingly low.
Even something like Visual Studio is better replaced with Rider + LINQPad. Their GitHub repositories are full of open issues that have been dragging on for years. There's virtually nothing left of the old Microsoft that I still respect or admire.
That said, I have to admit that most other corporations aren't any better - there's a general trend of maximizing profit while offering the lowest quality that customers are still willing to tolerate. If I were starting IT studies today, I would go 100% down the open-source path.
The sluggishness of the system on new hardware is an accurate observation, but I think the author should also take a look at macOS or popular Linux distros, where it's significantly worse