I’d rather squat! 
The EOS M200 with the 22 mm the camera that’s with me if I don’t carry my Sony. I have not understood the obsession with pocket-fitting cameras. I have the smallest possible pouch hanging crossed over my chest at (almost) all times.
I have many bags and I like all of them. The second smallest camera I’ve owned was the X-T20, which does not fit in any of my smaller bags. Your 200M is still much smaller than that. The X-T20 needed its own holder or bag, it’d fit in my backpack, but not well in something smaller than 3L, which is what i tend to carry a lot.
If I could redo my decision, I’d never have gotten the X-T20 or X-T3 and would’ve gone with the GR III at the time. The lure of interchangeable lenses got me.
The paradox of always wanting interchangeable lenses and then never wanting to change lenses
Life’s full of detours, you can be happy now that you’ve found a camera that works for you. 
…but sometimes wishing you could clean the sensor 
Or that you had a different focal length… Which is sad because my fav camera to use is the X100V… Is this a logical reason to get the next x-pro? 
Well, you never know, since you did not perform the control experiment. Perhaps if you had the GRiii, you would have been thinking about the X-T… ever since. 
These decisions are difficult since cameras are what economists call experience goods: you won’t fully know if you like a particular one until you try it out. And people have very different preferences, some like flexibility and a good grip, some a truly pocketable little specialist powerhouse.
I think the best test is whether you are actually using a camera. If you are, it is at least a reasonably good match for you. If you are not, perhaps it isn’t.
I was recently been lured into the charm and small size of a Fuji xt20, then found that once was in a case with a standard zoom, it doesn’t take up that much less space in my bag than an old chunky dslr.
Still a very pleasurable camera to use, and a big plus for me is that in public places it looks less like a professional camera.
That’s a good category name! I had several years where I tried out loads of different cameras. For the longest time, I wouldn’t know beforehand how it would turn out. After a few years of this process, my preferences became clear, and I figured out what form factors and ergonomics I liked. Only then did it make sense to me to upgrade to a higher-end model of my preferred system.
That’s the consumer side of what I know from science as a wicked problem; a problem you have to solve yourself in order to understand its complexity.
These problems and products are also good fun to figure out, as they don’t get boring.
Yes, that’s the sensible approach.
That said, apparently some people do get stuck in hopping from one system to another, always expecting the new one to be the perfect solution. At some point one should conclude that this does not exist and learn with the compromises of one option.
For me, micro 4/3 was ideal for figuring out what focal lengths and apertures I prefer and how much weight I am willing to carry. Of course the ideal lens would be a zoom from 180° (rectilinear) to 1200mm FF equivalent, constant f/1.4 aperture, optically superb, smaller than a box of matches, and available for less than 100 EUR.
But since that is unlikely to pop into existence any time soon, I learned that my preferred range is 40mm–100mm (ff eq), I am willing to sacrifice a lot of aperture for smaller size/price, and I am OK with decent “sharpness” if the rendering is otherwise pleasing.
I find xtrans to be mushy in its look and I don’t like it. The X-T20 is now an IR camera, so the mushyness is more OK there, since IR generally isn’t that sharp anyhow.
By that measure I don’t like any of my cameras 
I haven’t been out in a while.
This is very true and a curse. Although I do have a certain amount of GAS, I don’t think it’s just a matter of constantly wanting to upgrade and/or looking for the perfect camera. Reviews and specs only tell you a small part of what to expect with a camera, and whenever you finally get it in your hands, there are dozens of little details and feelings that you would never have known beforehand. I’m currently experiencing this with M43. Some of the revelations are very positive, others not so much, and many of them only come with repeated use over a long time, so even renting equipment is not going to tell you everything (not an option for me anyway).
I am still in this stage, although I’m not a beginner and have a fairly good idea of what my preferences are. But as we know, there is no perfect camera, and I can’t be sure which brand/system I like best unless I’ve tried them all. Complicating this is the fact that I’m constantly trying out new genres and styles of shooting, and so my needs and wants change to a certain degree.
But as you say, other than the pain it causes to my wallet, I don’t see these shifting wants and my experimentation with different brands/systems as a problem. I enjoy it, and it’s all part of the hobby. I love the fact that there is so much to discover with photography. I just wish it was cheaper!
I have heard complaints from other users about the lack of microcontrast with Fuji cameras. I don’t know if it’s specific to the X-Trans sensor. I must admit that I did notice an immediate difference when I first got my X-S10, noticing that the images were considerably less punchy than my old Canon 500D. But as it was my first mirrorless and I was using a zoom rather than the prime on my Canon, I couldn’t be sure what the reason was.
And then when I got my OM-5, the contrast in my pictures seemed to return, even with an average lens. So, I haven’t done any rigorous tests, but my impression is that Fuji cameras perhaps do have less microcontrast out of the box. I also think this helps create the Fuji “look”, which is perhaps a bit more dreamy, filmic, retro than others.
I tend to view the difference between buying and selling as a rental fee of sorts. As long as you’re buying used gear, I rarely lost any significant amount of money (and occasionally even gained some).
True. It’s a definite demerit for Fuji X. Nowadays it’s well compensated by the ludicrous 40 MP sensor resolution. And frankly, I’ve learned that resolution is way overrated anyway. I have 1x1.5m prints of 16 MP files that look just fine. Still, everything else being equal, X-Trans is a bit of a nuisance. (I do expect that that’s more to do with the not-quite-as-good demosaicing algorithms than the sensor itself, but that’s a distinction without a difference)
I’ve not noticed it with the GFX, which is bayer and not xtrans. It probably didn’t help that my first fuji lens was the 16-50 kit lens (I think) and I also found the extremes of that lens to be soft, so soft ontop of soft I still made some photos that I really like on that camera though and that’s all that really matters.
Some people seem to think higher resolution is synonymous with better image quality. Just today I read someone on Reddit say that they want the A7RV instead of the A7V “for the better IQ”. Assuming you have a lens that can properly resolve the extra detail, that detail boost only becomes noticeable at certain zoom levels or when printing large, and it doesn’t necessarily mean you will see greater sharpness or cleaner noise (often the opposite).
But I can fully understand wanting the extra resolution if you anticipate cropping a lot, using the digital teleconverter, or using crop lenses on the body. It won’t necessarily get you better image quality, but you can have a more versatile kit and maybe fewer lenses for the reach you want.
The A7CR and A7R lines are on my radar for this reason, although I’m definitely coming around to the idea that I could still get away with 35-45MP and still have enough cropping room for my needs. In crop mode, a 33MP sensor produces 15MP images, which is probably plenty for me. After all, my phone only manages about 12MP, and I would still print those.
I think the problem was mostly lack of capture sharpening. I used to believe that Fuji was much softer as well, and even today saw a comparison from a famous youtuber of the X100VI vs the GRIIIx, where it showed the Fuji was worse while having 14 less MP and it left me wondering if that really was true.
I headed to dpreview studio comparison tool and lo and behold, the Fuji looks horrible there, all Fujis do. If you download the raws and compare them in darktable, it tells a complete different story where both cameras mostly look the same.
This is GRIII and X100V, which is which? IMO they look very similar.
X100VI and GRIV
For me the GRIV looks really good, better than the X100VI. Makes me want to get one… what a great lens. In fact, the X100V looks better than the X100VI for me. Did they change the lens with the new generation?
Printing billboards
Probably the kit 18-55, given your time line. I have one, and it’s easily my least favorite lens. Just…soft.
Yes that sounds correct. Soooffttttt though. Some nice color renderings though, as it usually is on Fuji.
Here we go
Cool that they replaced the ND with a red filter. That makes a lot of sense! But a monochrome camera is not at all for me. I think they mentioned that they’d add the electronic shutter to the base GR IV, so that’s cool.
