I did answer your question, I said I think you are not seeing the forrest for the trees. Quite simply, I said I can say 7 great things about this camera all of them true, and one bad thing also true, and guys like you will ONLY see the negative. They will focus on that one thing and say I never see CA/PF in my images, or the CA is so small as to be unnoticeable. Almost every tiny detail of digital imaging can be quantified with standard, repeatable test methods. When you test system A and system B, you can now make comparisons as the the differences in these two systems. This site tests 50 systems a year and uses a very thorough and very well respected methodologies. So when they say they have measured the CA and it is worse than most of the other systems they have tested, I believe them. I see the results posted by some of the fine photographers here and I see many excellant images as well as few not so good ones. Some of the excellant images exhibit varying degrees of CA and some of the bad ones do as well. This is to be expected as there are certain situations which are prone to producing this problem and some that arent. None of this makes this camera a bad camera, I and many others (I'm sure they would be on your evildoers list) have stated ad infinitum that this camera is quite good, its easily capable of producing excellant results. I take issue with the occasional poster who seems to insist that they have not seen any CA in any of their images, this has been said a hundred times and I would think you would have read such posts yourself. All I can say is, if you havent seen any CA in any shots, you are probably not looking, or don't know what to look for. My only problem with your original question and resulting follow up posts was there never seemed to be a real question, you asserted that many people are trashing this camera, but never cared enough to challenge the subject of that supposed trashing. To be more clear, you saw/see a number of people making an issue of the chromatic abberations present in this camera, and see that as "trashing". Then you go off on a rant about people commenting on image quality without owning the camera (as if that has any bearing at all) but never comment on the actual presence of CA in the camera; seemed rather silly to be quite frank. I have stated any number of times, I think this camera is far and away the best bridge camera on the market, DPReview has given it a pretty good review and an accurate review. They chose not to give it as high a reccomendation as it really deserved because I think they are simply astonished that once again Fuji has turned out a superb camera with a big flaw. Its like buying a shiny new car with one door painted a different color. If Fuji had handled the CA issue in camera, this camera would have gotten their highest rating.
Now, wether or not the CA issue is that big a deal really depends on how you want to use it. For 90% of the world it should be just fine, maybe even 95% of the world, but lets not try and obfuscate the facts simply because they dont matter to us personally. When someone comes here, they expect to get fairly honest, and fairly thorough information, in order for that to occur it will require some opinions from all sides, let the buyer decide which issues are important for them.
And, for the record, its not JUST non owners who have mentioned having issues with CA/PF, many owners have brought that same subject up and most have already begun the search for editing software that will help them slay that purple/green beast. If its such a "non issue" why then all the interest in software to fix it?
I appreciate your response, and I do apologize if you took/take my comments as a personal attack, I dont know you so would be ill informed as to your character, I simply comment on what you say, as you obviously do me.
Ted
Ted, here is the thing: Youre either misunderstanding me OR youre
just one of those guys who has to be right all the time and put
others down while doing it. Try reading more than a sentence this
time, PLEASE!!!
Youre right, I dont know much about photography, thats what prompted
me to ask the question originally as an honest question. Ive visited
this site a few times throughout the years looking for info but never
posting because I felt as though I had nothing to add. This winter I
became in need of a new, better camera so I came back here, read
threads for a while, looked over the database, etc., and finally made
an account so I could post questions. I thought my question
regarding why people trash this camera while owners seem to love it
and post great pics was a valid question as one who doesnt know much
about cameras or photography but was interested in this camera among
others. Apparently you misunderstood what I was asking OR you didnt
care, didnt read it and just decided to make it into something it
wasnt. I was asking a legitimate question from my standpoint as one
who doesnt know much. You probably know 100 times more than me if
not more. I was asking an HONEST question, not one with some
underlying message/cynicism. Maybe you took it for what it wasnt,
maybe not, only you know. I still never received any kind of answer
as to why people seem to think the camera is bad when Ive seen pics
from it that are as good or better than a lot of pics in magazines.
My eye isnt trained in photography so I dont know. So is this a case
of you mistaking what I was asking, or are you just one of those
forum bullies I should steer clear of? In other threads you seem
like a decent, helpful guy so Im guessing you mistook my question,
but maybe you just dont like people who are new to photography and
new to this forum asking what they think are legitimate questions.
--
http://photobucket.com/albums/y260/tdkd13/ 
