Since some folks are getting it and apparently feel it necessary to argue that we DON'T need it -- which is senseless anyway and part of what's wrong with forums like this -- I'll provide a concrete example of why readjusting the camera just doesn't cut it.
I've never licensed an HDR shot from Fuji to anyone yet -- but from my Nikon's and Panasonic's I have. In fact, just last month licensed a shot to a marking and branding company startup in Switzerland called Allaleen who will be marking lines of watches by (perhaps among others) Molarity Watch. They will be marking an "industrial" line and paid to use one of my industrial shots -- from the LX7 and it's an HDR shot. This is the one:
Panasonic LX7 Test: Ladles Under Maintenance by
Entropic Remnants, on Flickr
Now, that was done very quickly, using handheld brackets aligned after the fact. In order to get the necessary dynamic range with the Fuji, I'd have to adjust the controls with the camera to my face or take it down. Either way, keeping the alignment of the shot would be difficult to hold within the alignment limits of the software, or the scene might change.
In fact, I consider the LX7 to have been the only reason I got this shot: I set exposure brackets with a twist of a dial, and grabbed a series of shots very quickly. The crane was starting to move again as I took the camera down from my face. This shot would have been missed if I'd had to fool with the camera.
There are tons of reason with todays techniques why Fuji's bracketing is just plain dumb considering what the competition offers. That's the end of the argument for me. Those of you who seem to think there's something to be said about why Fuji doesn't need to do this can continue on -- but you're being silly
Again: FUJI GET WITH IT.
So conversely: the LX7 in this case, with a simple software feature that is COMMON, was a money maker. With the Fuji, I'd have missed the shot under extreme and fleeting industrial conditions.