Last night I was out shooting twilight landscapes, and it was demonstration of why the Fuji X cameras do so well.
I was using my 5DIII with a 24mm TSE II on a tripod with a set of Lee grads, plus the X30 in my pocket 'just in case'.
Got back and sorted out the images merged into the same Lightoom folder; I can tell which is which my looking at the image quality and checking the metadata.
I only realised one of the shots was taken on the X30 when I spotted my tripod lurking in the shadows; image quality was excellent, despite being hand-held well into the blue hour.
Viewed at full HD, it is quite hard to spot differences between the two sets of equipment other than the Fuji tends to be better exposed and has more natural looking colours
I only shoot RAW on the X30, so lets lay the RAW converter problem to rest... It was an issue on the X10, but the X20, X30 uses a different sensor arrangement and the Adobe RAW converter does a much better job.
Two of the shots in my ARPS panel were taken on my old X10, which did me great service for many years till being replaced by the X30. I love challenging people to try and guess which the two images are by looking at the A3 prints - it's really difficult!
While the X10 delivered the goods, it's handling was a bit quirky; the X30 is in a different league. I use the viewfinder nearly all the time and the control it offers is excellent.
The weird thing is that people always bang on about the small sensor size in the baby X-series. It's not a problem!
The image quality from the X30's bigger x-series siblings will be better, but I've never felt the need to upgrade...
So what's all the fuss about Fuji?
Great colours, accurate exposure, decent handling (current models) in a stylish compact body at a price point that significantly undercuts a comparable DSLR.