Return to Index  

I like that article

December 3 2012 at 6:10 PM
K T  (Login lanatir)
Photography forum moderator

Response to Yes, the more I see,

and can relate to the points given.

I think the error of Fuji in this case is not being able to provide an in-house RAW converter that can reproduce the exact same results as the in-camera converter. If that had happened, people would be a bit more tolerant. Silkypix can be a bit vague and the in-camera converter is also a bit cumbersome to work with. Though it's a bit unfair to expect Fuji to provide a solution where it's NOT Adobe and yet would act like Adobe.

At the moment, I am not using Adobe. And to be frank, I've yet to come across a situation where I had shot a JPEG and wished I had the RAW file with me as well (I haven't printed larger than A4 size in years). I actually turned off the RAW+JPEG saving option on the camera recently (though I may start playing with it again in future). This could be a residual effect from my film days when I simply had to trust my lab to do the best job that FITS my requirements (I used to only insist on one particular lab in the whole city to do my processing and printing).

I think, if anything, Fuji's main 2 problems are the RAW issue and the AF which still needs work (slow is ok but refusing to AF at times is kinda annoying especially when contrast looks sufficient for AF lock).

That said, I really am loving the camera and really enjoying my time with it. I'm anxious about the 14mm!


 Respond to this message   
Responses Home Page