Image quality is extremely subjective. We don't shoot test patterns. We photograph the real world. And even within that ground, the basics of exposure (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) matter tremendously. The same subject, shot at f/2.8 and 1600 ISO, can look very different when shot at f/5.6 and 6400 ISO.
And if you're relying on "program mode" or "scene mode" to automagically compute your exposure for you, all bets are off. The sensor doesn't matter nearly as much as the decision-making software.
As a mostly-manual shooter, what matters to me is good ergonomics. One of these days, I'm going to bite the bullet and invest in a new Fuji rig, just for the superb manual-shooting ergonomics. But then I'd have to switch my brain from its familiar Nikon-shaped ruts...
This is one of the reasons I like DPReview over DxOMark. They have both sample images and a standardized studio image. The studio image lets you compare the same picture over multiple cameras, while the sample images give you a better feel of the camera in several scenarios. Pick the pictures that look better to you, because that's what you're going to be looking at after you use the thing!
I went in to buying a camera last year wanting a Fujifilm X100T. Not least of which because it reminds me of the Minolta camera I learned to shoot on. But I ended up with a Sony RX100 IV instead, based on perceived image quality and video capabilities.
I went through the same thing and ended up with the X100F. I noticed that the T was on sale and realized that the F was up for pre-order. I waited a while but it was worth it. I take it hiking with me all the time now, since it's small enough for that. I really wanted a full-frame DSLR, but the RX1R is expensive and others are too big for convenient travel (for me).
Yea. My main use case for it was my then-newborn son, so a compact was a good choice for me. I needed portability and quick pickup-to-use time, because image quality doesn't matter if you've already missed the moment. And 4k video really just sealed the deal. I would still probably pick the RX100 IV or V over the X100F for that alone.
And if you're relying on "program mode" or "scene mode" to automagically compute your exposure for you, all bets are off. The sensor doesn't matter nearly as much as the decision-making software.
As a mostly-manual shooter, what matters to me is good ergonomics. One of these days, I'm going to bite the bullet and invest in a new Fuji rig, just for the superb manual-shooting ergonomics. But then I'd have to switch my brain from its familiar Nikon-shaped ruts...