NST

"As a general rule of thumb, the XP1 produces slightly lower contrast images, the roll off into light and shadow is smoother (to be fair the pixels are bigger on the XP1) and my HUNCH is that this is where the ‘more organic looking’ rhetoric comes from" - that's my Hunch too, I think the roll off and less punch is exactly where this 'fuji magic' has originated from. Fuji did it beautifully right out of the gate on the early X series cams. Thanks for taking the time with the considered answer, much appreciated! Also, your final point about the manual focussing on the Xp2 being better is indeed an important one - I use EVF mostly, so focus peaking on a higher res viewfinder is probably a wiser choice over the Xpro1. Still have such heartstrings though for the Xpro1, it will always be a fantastic camera. Ho hum. Use the best tool for the job eh. Cheers!

For anyone who has used the X-Pro1 and 2 (and processes in Capture 1 ideally) ..... Ignoring completely the whole SOOC fuji magic debate between the Xpro1 and 2 (I only ever shoot Raw) is there really any discernible difference between the unprocessed Raw files from both these cameras? By unprocessed I mean how the file appears brought straight into Capture 1, LR etc...without any processing applied. Does the extra data in the Xpro2 Raw's (boosting detail, contrast, tonal gradation) REALLY produce a totally different looking RAW file to the Xpro1? or are Xpro2 unprocessed Raws pretty much the same looking as the Xpro1? And I'm talking about basic shooting, so not using lenses with an obvious signature and using available light. I don't mind if answers are vague and subjective! It would just be interesting to know if there genuinely is a noticeable visual difference between the unprocessed Raws of both cameras - I work in fashion, so key to my image making is the general aesthetic/signatures that different sensors create. I've used an X100f since it came out, but I'm now looking to use vintage glass on an Xpro body, so I'm just figuring out if it would be worth having the extra data 'there' available in the Xpro2 to give me more latitude to play with in the files, or if the Xpro1 can create even more visually pleasing/interesting? (subjective I know) Raw files right from the get-go. Thoughts anyone?