• hackerwacker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t really understand what’s so great about Fuji cameras. Sony did everything better with the RX1 a decade ago.

    • jace525@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the jpeg with film simulations… :( I got into Fuji a few years back. I work in IT and spend all day on the computer, I game quite a bit…on the computer. I did not want another hobby that required more hours on the computer! So, with film sims, I can “pre-process” my shots. I think about all the colors in the location I will be and choose a tone that I like before I go on the shoot. I’ve been pretty impressed with what I have been able to capture just with jpegs. There are times when the film sim is a complete bust for a shoot, so I do record RAW along with JPEG and probably end up editing 15% of what I take. It works for me! That’s all I’m saying.

      • hackerwacker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        But eg. RawTherapee has film simulations built-in, and you can save profiles and then apply them in bulk. It’s only a bit more work than jpegs but a lot more flexibility.

    • Bahalex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      From what I can piece together it’s the retro look and the built in fuji film emulations for jpeg. Don’t know if it’s a lens thing too, but if there is any interest in RAW format the popularity is non consequential- unless you’re deep into the Fuji universe and suddenly everything is super expensive.

        • Ciryamo@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve payed more than that for my Canon and while I do save all the RAWs I barely ever use them.

          Why go through the hassle of developing the RAWs when the Jpegs look good already?