I'm probably more like Christi, but I think I will give it a try. I have never shot a RAW file with the X Pro. I had the camera + lenses listed for sale but the only buyer backed out after leaving me a 1/3 deposit. I understood, it's an expensive purchase and to be honest I wouldn't buy one used unless the price was really low. Anyway, thanks so much for the encouragement. I'm going to keep the camera for a while + the X100. I still stink as a photographer, but it gives me something to do while the dogs are having fun creating havoc on the hiking trails. This AM they took off after a huge deer. Something tells me they didn't give too much thought to what they would do if they caught up with it.
Hi Stanley
Why did you think of selling them? I bought the X100 last year and just loved its so much that the Pentax K5 I had purchased earlier that year hardly got a look in. I have always been a RAW shooter but with the X100, after a lot of pixel peeping I decided that I could not do better than the JPEGs with any RAW converter. It was quite liberating - at last a company that knows how to produce great JPEGs 'out of the box'. No longer did I have to waste time faffing about with PP, and if I really needed to, the JPEGs were good enough to push around anyway.
When I bought the X-Pro, I assumed the same would be true - and it is true that the JPEGs are great. However, pixel peeping showed me that something a little odd was going on, e.g. distant foliage would maybe just be a little mushy. I know pixel peeping is bad - but the Fuji marketing promise of 'amazing detail' seemed to encourage it. I tried Silkypix but honestly couldn't match the JPEGs - perhaps I didn't give it enough time. Then RPP came along in beta and, wow, detail, real detail. Look closely and there are artefacts too - the odd colour noise, some 'zipper' effects. Everyone was moaning about lack of Lightroom support and then, when it came, it disappointed. Not always, not for every image but any with lots of detail in, it just wipes the detail away. I bet Adobe wish they had left it cooking with their developers a little longer ... I am sure they will fix it.
How much any of this matters, I'm not sure - I haven't printed any yet and do wonder how an A3 print of a scene in JPEG, RPP RAW and Lightroom RAW will compare for the level of detail visible - and even then at normal viewing distances would it matter? There's more to a good photo than detail-level rendering.
The JPEGs with auto-ISO, auto-DR are really great. Sometimes, though, I just prefer the RPP RAW rendering.
I don't plan on selling mine. In fact I sold my K5 and my K20D to partly fund the X-Pro and the 3 lenses. I wish I have had more time to play with it and enjoy it. I still have my X100 but it hasn't seen much action recently, though I really don't see myself selling it ever. I think it is a classic, more so than the X-Pro in a way.
In advising somebody whether RPP and RAW is worth it - if you have any landscapes with quite a lot of detail e.g. distant foliage, or rocks, or maybe stone walls etc - maybe the JPEGs look a little too 'digital', 'plasticky' - try the RAW version in RPP. Choose ' As Shot' White balance, VNG interpolation, maybe one of the TrueFilm simulations (such as K64), save as TIFF and open in Lightroom or whatever and compare with the JPEG at 100% and see what you think.
Enjoy the camera. None of the above may matter!
Lee