Actually for that last one I shot RAW+F in Velvia mode, then processed the RAW to Provia in-camera. I think this is the version here. As far as I can tell, there are no differences between shooting some film simulation in JPG and creating one of the same later via in-camera RAW processing but this is something I may try out.Really like that last one camera's output seems wonderful! Is there a difference in end result between shooting straight jpegs as Velvia, and shooting raw and developing it to Velvia jpeg in-camera?
I currently have a Panny G1, Pentax K5, Fuji X100 and now X-Pro 1. Since getting the X100 last year the G1 and K5 have hardly been touched. This was partly due to my loving the form factor and that viewfinder but also because I do feel the IQ is as good, if not better. I honestly wasn't going to get the X-Pro 1 and can hardly justify it at all but my local dealer has one in stock. I made the mistake (on purpose) of going in and I couldn't put it down. I was fully prepared to be disappointed, thinking there won't be much difference in IQ between it and the X100 but when I opened the first Provia JPEGs on my computer I was stunned. I don't think web-sized versions here can do it justice. OTOH this might just be a honeymoon period for me and maybe I need to compare same shots with X100. Except I can't as they are different lens focal lengths and, anyway, life is too short.Very nice shots, but they could have been taken with a Pana G3, Oly EP3, Samsung NX200, Fuji X100, Leica X1, Pentax K-01, Sony NEX5 or 7 and others. These cameras are all "good enough" as far as file quality/IQ are concerned. So why should I/one buy a X-Pro1, what does it do to ones photography "lesser" cameras couldn't do already?
Yes, I'm trying to stir the pot a little.