I completely agree, and maybe I should have chosen a different word than “perfection”, but I would add that in high ISO/low light situations, the ~1 stop better performance of FF vs crop or ~2 stops vs M43 can make a big difference. You can trade that 1 or 2 stops for 2 or 4x the shutter speed or 1-2 stops more DOF, and depending on the situation, that can make the difference between a usable and an unusable shot. In some cases, It doesn’t matter how good the photographer is - you can’t make usable indoor sports shots at 1/60 with an M43, but you can with a FF at 1/250. All depends on what you like to shoot.

Cheers

What do you like to photograph? As a general purpose zoom, the XF 18-55 f2.8-f4 kit lens is a very well regarded bargain. A step up is the XF16-55 f2.8. For a wider zoom range (but slower), the 16-80 or 18-135 are candidates, and if you don’t mind the weight, the XF 50-140 f2.8 is excellent (the crop equivalent of the widely used FF 70-210 f2.8). Personally, I’m investing in the primes for speed and IQ. The XF90 f2 (135mm FF equivalent) is a great portrait lens, and I’m going to purchase the XF56 f1.2 (the rough equivalent of the classic 85mm FF portrait lens) next.

Don't know about the G10. The symptom was you could half press ok, but when trying to take the picture with a full press, nothing would happen and everything would lock up (thinking the G12 thought you were still half pressing the shutter release). Only thing to do was to power off, then on. Sometimes power cycling worked to clear the problem, other times not. Now I'd taken 20k+ pictures with it, so the release had definitely gone through a lot of cycles, plus all those times you didn't take the photo but still half pressed...

I probably could have gotten it repaired, but took the opportunity to buy a more recent camera.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2997541

Modern cameras produce excellent final output images but with some critical caveats.

I also shoot mostly with my Fuji cameras and Fuji has devoted considerable effort to making both excellent output JPEGs as well as offering a wide range of choice to moderate those images. You can spend a very long time exploring all of the various film simulation and tone adjustment options in your Fuji camera that provide nearly an unlimited variety of possible outcomes.

The critical caveats. Even given the wide range of current control options in a camera like your XT-3 the camera JPEG is always a one-size-fits-all solution. In other words your camera will apply a gamma correction tone curve to your image. Will it be a best fit to your lighting condition? Would more than one curve be better? Would a slightly different curve be better?

You note shooting raw + JPEG. If you're at all interested in those JPEGs then you're exposing to get good JPEGs. Caveat: Most modern cameras hedge the exposures that create good JPEGs. In other words they tune their camera's metering systems and JPEG processors to steer pretty clear of the clipping threshold of the sensor. Sounds like a good thing but in the case of your XT-3 Fuji is hedging that bet by nearly 1/2 of your sensor's recording capacity. Short and simple: If you expose to get a good JPEG your raw file is under-utilizing the sensor by a substantial amount. It may not matter much and then again depends on what you like to shoot.

To do a really good job with those JPEGs you need to pay some attention to what you're doing up front -- set highlight tone, set shadow tone, pick a film sim, get the right WB -- seriously get the right WB! Life can pass you by while you're thinking about that stuff. Shooting raw I only have to nail the exposure.

So yes, excellent JPEGs from modern cameras, but given the caveats I will always produce a better final image from a raw capture and I'm better prepared to get that raw capture under pressure.

Joe

Greetings to all. I’d like your comments on the quality of JPEG today. I’ve been using digital cameras since 2001 and there is no doubt that image quality makes a quantum leap year after year. I started shooting RAW about 9 years ago and with post-processing, one has total control of the outcome one desires. I generally set the cameras on RAW/Fine and save both RAW and JPEG on my memory cards. I alternate between a Nikon D-850 and a Fujifilm XT-3. Lately, I’ve been carrying more often the Fuji — maybe because of portability. Most shots are about nature and landscape — there’s a county park behind my house and I go for a brisk 4-mile walk just about every morning, with the Fuji in tow, and stop whenever something catches my eye. I post most of the photos on Instagram and Facebook. I generally go through all the JPEG shots to see which are “keepers’ and what I should discard. Then, work the RAW files with PS, LR Classic and/or Luminar 4. Well, this past Sunday I worked some RAW files and compared my finished product with the original JPEG file out of the Fujifilm XT-3. Honestly, in some cases, I can’t say that my “worked” RAW file converted-product was that much better than the original out-of-camera JPEG. Of course, not in every case. In some photos, I wanted a certain effect and used the tools that LR Classic offers — e.g., dodge and burn, etc. But my thoughts are that in many cases, in the interest of saving time, I could go with an out-of-camera JPEG file to Instagram and Facebook (possibly with minor adjustments). I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on this and the current state of out-of-camera JPEG image quality. Thanks, Val