Re: new Fuji X Pro1 camera (formerly called "new camera")
Just because a feature isn't for me doesn't mean that I think it's useless or silly for a company to include in. It seems to me that you think it's Fuji's waste of time in a camera in this category, but I am pointing out that pretty much every manufacturer, including with high end models, does care about JPEG modes and that there are reasons for it. Normal conversation.
I welcome any corrections to any misinterpretations.
- Raist
I am not taking it personally. I am merely pointing out it seems kind of silly to knock the Fuji on that aspect and why. Note that I have been consistently saying that I think it's fine that you don't care about the JPEG film simulations.I have shot with many of Fuji's films (Gifted away the last few cartons of Velvia a long while to a friend) under various conditions. If I "deride" and equipment/tool, it is my prerogative based on my own experience. If you or anyone else take that personally, it is not my problem!
Once again, I said it was cool and not an issue. I am focusing on the statement itself and yes, I think knocking down the Fuji on an aspect you don't use nor don't care when the camera doesn't seem to get in the way when you don't care about that aspect is kinda silly. That's just an opinion on yours, not "taking things personally."Again, I post for myself and if you choose to interpret what I post according your taste, I can not do much about it. But, I do not think it is kosher to post something interpreting what I posted.
Just because a feature isn't for me doesn't mean that I think it's useless or silly for a company to include in. It seems to me that you think it's Fuji's waste of time in a camera in this category, but I am pointing out that pretty much every manufacturer, including with high end models, does care about JPEG modes and that there are reasons for it. Normal conversation.
I welcome any corrections to any misinterpretations.
- Raist