I keep wondering whether the X100F at $799 is better than an X100V at $1399. Certainly a better value but the V has a number of substantive improvements. I wonder whether I - or most of us - would miss those.
I think the AF is going to be the biggest noticeable difference. But I don't know if it's the huge difference like between the X-Pro2 and X-T3. @Lou Tingle has both the F and V and could tell which is the better value for the money. Or if the differences are worth the price difference.
I purchased an X100V in May only because we got the $1200 stimulus checks and there was nothing else that I was interested in. It took me weeks to really put away the X100F and shoot only with the X100V. Now I can tell you that unless you must have a flippy screen and a new film simulation, stay with the X100F. There is hardly a difference you will notice between lenses. Yes, images from the X100F at below F/2.8 are definitely softer for macro shots, but really, do you shoot macro with an X100 below F/2.8? Besides, at portrait distances, the wide-open softness is slight and can be considered a plus. There are two reasons I can justify the X100V for. I'm old, have a bad back plus arthritis so I do use the flippy screen but not very often. I had a NIB X100F that was purchased at a great price as a backup so I wound up giving that to Bobby as a thankyou for things he has helped me with.
