I don't think that 3rd party lenses will have image stabilization though with anything but the A7II (which has in body OSS).
Re: fuji - I've heard very mixed things. Some people absolutely love them and I was very intrigued when I was buying my camera, but I decided against it for several reasons:
- Cost - both of the bodies and of the lenses. Sony is actually a fantastic value on the bodies and the lenses are pretty much $100 less across the line.
- Autofocus is supposed to be very slow and bad on Fujis
- Video is not supposed to be very good on fujis
- The ergonomics of the camera are not good - they look great, but from what I saw you basically have to add a grip to make it something you can comfortably hold on to. All of the sony camera have a nice fat grip built in.
- RAW processing from the X-Trans chip is hit or miss. LR is supposed to do a very poor job. Unless you're looking to use the jpgs it puts out (which are pretty much the primary appeal of the camera) I've read it's difficult to get consistent results out of the fuji RAWs. Irident is supposed to the be best though.
IS will work well, autofocus with EF lenses does work but it's unusably slow.
From my personal experience with Fuji, it's a nice camera if you're a methodical shooter. If you're used to shooting sports and events in a hurry with something like a 1DX, it's not the camera for you. On the x-e2 the autofocus is fine in good light. In very low light it hunts, keep in mind I've only used it with a f/1.4 lens, it starts slowing down at ISO>1600 . I believe the x-t1 is much better in that respect but the a6000 is much faster though apparently not always perfectly accurate. I have large hands and I find the grip is ok - the hand on the lens does most of the holding and it's such a light camera that it's not straining. I just dislike the shutter speed dial, you have to change your grip and need to fingers to spin it as it's quite stiff. Though in aperture priority where you typically need to work fast, it's fine. The aperture setting on the lens is nice, the exposure comp is well placed for the thumb and ISO is easy to change if you remap the wifi button to ISO. - This is obviously a very personal thing
Yes I have to agree with you that Sony has better value on the bodies. I wouldn't say Fuji is overly expensive as it's priced decently when compared to other manufacturers. It's just Sony that's selling the a6000 at a sweet price. That 16MPx sensor might be getting a bit old but the lack of AA filter helps it out a bit. The lenses are expensive but are great. It's not as affordable as the basic Sony lenses which seem to be solid performers but I'd rate them above the Zeiss lenses that are in the same price range.
Lightroom has gotten better at processing the RAW files, it now even supports the image profiles/film simulations on the camera. However, Lightroom/Adobe ACR is still the worst raw processor for Fuji files and lacks detail.
It's a quirky camera system. If you're a methodical shooter who just wants to own a few high quality lenses in a small package, it's a serious contender. However, I think Sony has a better all around product.
As for a possible a6000 replacement. I'm waiting this one out. Sony seems to release these cameras on a yearly basis and there have been a few rumours hinting to a release. While the "don't overthink it" moto is typically good when it comes to buying electronics as there is always something new around the corner, I find you can play the market a bit if you're not in a hurry to upgrade. IE I don't mind waiting a few weeks to see what comes up. If the replacement is similarly price and has some nice features like 4K I'll get it. Otherwise, the a6000 will be marked off. And if nothing comes up I still have a very serviceable camera and am not in a hurry.
