idwilson

Noise is related to the physical size of the light gathering unit in the sensor, so your statement is only correct for two sensors with the same number of pixels. If the APS-C sensor has half the number of pixels as the full-frame sensor, then the noise is likely to be very similar. In other words, it's the size of the pixel which matters, not the size of the sensor as a whole.
 
Ian.
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You probably have a fixed ISO value. The EC dial can only have an effect if it's allowed to change something; and, if you've set the aperture and shutter speed manually, the only possible adjustment available to the camera is the ISO setting. In manual mode, the "EC" value in the viewfinder actually becomes a light meter reading: the fact it reads -3 implies that your combination of shutter speed, aperture and ISO would result in any shot being at least 3 stops underexposed.
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You probably have a fixed ISO value. The EC dial can only have an effect if it's allowed to change something; and, if you've set the aperture and shutter speed manually, the only possible adjustment available to the camera is the ISO setting. In manual mode, the "EC" value in the viewfinder actually becomes a light meter reading: the fact it reads -3 implies that your combination of shutter speed, aperture and ISO would result in any shot being at least 3 stops underexposed.
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You've hidden the critical bits of the import dialog! At the top there are three options: Add, Copy and Move. It looks like you're importing files in place (i.e. they already exist on disc, rather than coming from a memory card) In which case you need to choose the "Add" option. If you select the "Copy" option, another part of the dialog on the right hand side comes into play: namely the target location where the files will end up. By default, files are copied into "Pictures" on a Mac ("My Pictures" on a PC), and I suspect that this is what's happening. Check the options at the top and the right hand side, posting screen grabs if necessary, and I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of this.
 
Ian.
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As a short post-script, there are two ways of judging Adobe's "film simulation" profiles.  The first is to ask how closely they match those implemented by Fuji on the cameras themselves, and I can quite understand if some people are disappointed by the differences.  As someone who shoots exclusively RAW, however, a much more important question is: Are the film simulation profiles better than "Adobe Standard"?  The answer to this question is a resounding "yes"; in fact, I've yet to use any camera where "Adobe Standard" is worth using.  On my Canon cameras I always use "Camera Standard", "Camera Neutral" or a custom profile made with an X-Rite Colour Checker Passport.  I tried using custom profiles for my Fuji cameras, but found that "Camera Provia/Standard" was head and shoulders above them.  If Adobe improve these colour profiles as a result of the X-Pro2 being released then great, but personally I'd prefer them to put their efforts into sorting out the well-documented X-Trans demosaic problem.
 
Ian.

Slight confusion here. What you're talking about is a colour profile, which only affects the way in which your RAF file's colours are rendered. It doesn't change the processing of the files in any other way, and the "Provia, Astia, Velvia, etc." settings are simply Adobe's (very good) attempt to match Fuji's film emulation. It certainly isn't a "Fuji Process", although better rendering of the X-Trans files is long overdue.
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk