Xpro1 RAW: what's the story?

Here's how I see it (others' results may vary):

• OOC as mentioned is very good.
• Silkypix is at least as good if not better.
• ACR/Lightroom has some major flaws though for most uses (particularly people shots) is perfectly fine. In can fail pretty badly though on some leafy shots.

Pixel peeping on OOC and Silkypix to my eye you can still see a tiny bit of hard to quantify, though not offensive, oddness. At normal viewing said oddness is completely gone. I suspect if downsampled to 12 mp it would be completely gone, but I'm guessing.

For the most part the same is actually true for ACR/Lightroom. At normal viewing it is hard to distinguish any error introduced by ACR/Lightroom. That said, I have seen a few cases where, again to my eye, normal viewing looked off with foliage. Certainly when pixel peeping, depending on the subject, there can be quite a bit of "oddness". Again, this varies greatly depending on scene (and I rarely saw it).

I haven't heard any feedback (might have missed it) on what all this looks like printed (whether that be say OOC or ACR). I would be interested to hear. My guess is it will not be visible in most cases but it would be good to see (I could get off my lazy butt and do it myself).

Certainly I would say for standard web sizes it is significantly more than good enough.

The ultimately question, which you ask (paraphrasing), "Is it good enough for the class of camera it is?" I think it's a fair question which I don't know the answer to. It certainly is good enough for me, but I'm undoubtedly biased as an owner.

Finally, to be clear these are my opinions - please don't flame me, just kindly correct me if you disagree. I don't claim to have the final answer here.

--
Matt Fahrner
http://boinkphoto.com