A warning about the peculiar ergonomics of the X-H2S

robert1955 wrote:

you are formulating even the pro case in essentially negative terms. For me it is a big gain to have this on a physical control. The current Q menu system OTOH is worse than useless to me

Not sure where I implied that it was bad for everyone, or necessarily bad for anyone in particular. If it works for you then great. But then you’ve said the image processing isn’t relevant to you, so it’s inherently not a gain or a loss to you to conflate the image settings. (And I didn’t say anything about a physical control, only about conflating the two types of settings—one of which is of little relevance to your way of working. I’d like a physical control, too.)

but I do care about processing, which is why I do it at home

Yes, obviously everyone cares about processing, otherwise you’d just have a pile of 1s and 0s that you can’t do much with. I assumed given the context of camera settings it was obvious we were talking about processing in-camera, rather than processing outside of it, but I guess it wasn’t.

but if you’re not interested in the pasm style cameras, why come into a discussion about how to set them up?

Because I’m curious. Especially as the title suggested that the X-H2S might be different to the others, and also especially as the non-PASM ones are heading in this direction.

I shall crawl back into my hole and unsubscribe to the thread, though—no point having a meta-discussion about misunderstandings when the actual points have already been made 🙂