Alright, I see where he marked them, after all.
I would still stand by the case that both those shots ought to have been clean of 'art filters' in order to recognize the real things the camera can capture.
PA160129, on the other hand, seems not to have a filter, but combines field depth defocus and wind apparently so that there is not one non-blurry item in the image.
I love, in general, art. I grew up with Seattle-like light, and can appreciate its beauties and challenges, not to say potential for expressionist qualities. I would be more interested to see the camera reckon those, than to face arty thoughts. Especially when trying to decide about a camera, thank you. Plenty of fora on Dpreview for the rest.
Yes, it's nice to have interest, and this is one that has that and shows off the camera.
What really displeased and lost value for your images is where 'art filters' have been applied, and the photographer gives no notes that he has done this.
Frankly, their use spoiled several shots which are necessary to understand this camera. At the least, the 'high contrast and murk downtown with Space Needle' What we need to know far more is how the XZ-2 actually handles that hard-lit rainy Seattle scene, and we can't see that now.
And what really got to me was the residences near the curved tank. There, we could have seen depth of field used in a very nice way, and understood the camera. Instead, focus target was missed (should have been that nice central window with curtains and knickknacks), and the rest of the image was spoiled by a blur top-and-bottom filter! The only thing really in focus (and showing depth of focus) was the curved tank.
Please next time use better judgement, thanks.
Gotta say... Really appreciate the greater emphasis recently on taking better / more interesting sample shots.