Like many, I've been very much attracted to the Fuji jpg engine - great detail and sharpness, and all of those splendid options.
BUT having really tried, and done lots of comparisons, I've realised that RAW is still (as always) the way to go.
Sky colour is a real bugbear of mine, it's why I didn't go Canon when the 5D came out, and it's always been a real plus point for Sony, Leica, and now Pentax.
This example shows what I mean; the first is shot in the default jpg mode on the X100, the second shot is RAW - there is no more processing in either of them.
Now - many might contend that the jpg shot is more attractive, but it's not right, there is definitely too much cyan in the sky colour
So I thought - what about the HDR function - that must be worth trying:
Sorry for the quality of the shots.
This was a pretty dark barn, with splashes of sunlight - seemed to me to be a perfect situation to use the 400% HDR option - so I did.
I also shot a RAW file.
Here are the results - I spent 30 seconds adjusting the shadow and highlight detail on the RAW file: You can see that the HDR jpg (first shot) has done a grand job of recovering the highlights (better, perhaps than the RAW file)
But the beams are horrible in the HDR shot - lots of false noise and that nasty brown look.
Of course, had it been worth it, one could have spent more time with the RAW file to improve things further (or done some exposure overlays).
all the best