DPReview TV: Fujifilm X-T100 Review

Feeling pretty entitled, aren't we?

People keep saying there's an equivalent text review. Really? Please point me to the exact same review in text.

Oh wait.It doesn't exist. And the captioning sucks ( thanks to DPR for achnowledging as much and working on the issue).

So please don't say someone is feeling entitled when they are expressing that they would like to have equivalent access in written format.

i suspect its a less powerful version ... when chips are created like say an intel cpu ,its offered in speed bins like say , an i3...i5...i7 with higher clock getting higher prices .... but these chips are often identical and vagaries of manufacturing success allow some to run reliably at higher speed , thus offering higher performance .... but the ones that run hot or fail at higher can often be clocked slower and run perfectably well so a range of cpu prices can be in the marketplace

perhaps underclocked processor chips are in fujis lower price bodies
and cant do 4k faster than 15fps?? and\ or no heat sink on the sensor?

that engadget article is just another click bait article in order to please tech heads and guys asking to own the latest trendy equipment...

Alpha A7 III is a nice camera, but far from being perfect...
Mirrorless that, mirrorless this, bla bla bla, SONY über alles !

Only fanboy trash talking, only bashing Canikon for really bad reasons... Annoying and useless.
But if news sites continues to bash dSLR company, sure it will have to disappear from manufacturer catalogues because it will be percieved as bad reputation devices...

Plain stupid and archaic. Why theses stupid guys are not asking RED or ARRI to make proper cinecam but with 100Mpx sensor in order to catch 120fps at photo quality ??

@blink667

"If Nikon makes mirrorless, then there's no reason to buy Sony."

If only that were true...

One thing I really miss in DPRs reviews is the graph showing the dynamic range of the reviewed camera in comparison to other selected cameras in its competing market. The visual graphic was important since DR is an important issue when buying a camera body.

And testing the macro capabilities of fixed lens cameras.

Very weird. What makes the Acros simulation so special that it requires specific hardware? It's just a B&W preset...

Acros, and it’s grain effect, adjusts according to ISO so it’s not just a simple JPG curve.

@doug
Sony a6300 is only $800 and overall a much better camera. In fact it's not a budget camera at all but advanced entousiast camera. Faster, smaller, better system, better lenses. And still Sony offers less expensive options if you are on a budget.

@Woodyz: Acros is not just a simple B/W conversion. See:
https://fujifilm-x.com/ca/x-stories/the-newest-film-simulation-acros/

According to Fuji:
"Add ACROS to X-T1 and X100T", "Make it happen on the next firmware update!" We have had lots of request since Jan. 15th. But unfortunately this is very unlikely to happen.

The image design of "ACROS" is only achievable with the resolution of X-Trans CMOS III and the processing power of X-Processor Pro.
...
"The fine detail that ACROS achieves is only possible with the resolution power of 24MP. And the complex grain effect is only possible with the powerful X-Processor Pro engine. "

virtualreality. better lenses, lol
probably you should be renamed to alternative reality ;)

A6300 is a different price class as this camera

To me having the Bayer pattern is more important than 4K@30fps (don't need it) and Acros film emulation (sure, would be nice to have but not with X-Trans).

@virtualreality, then you buy Sony’s overpriced but inferior glass and then you defeat the purpose of this camera.

it‘s not laggy per se, it‘s the software that‘s messed up. To distinguish between touch gestures and af input, the af lags behind a bit.
While this isn‘t perfect, it‘s absolutly useable if you use the camera for more than a few days.
At least that‘s my experience with other Fuji cameras

uMad - huh, interesting take. That very brief segment of the video was damning, but I like your idea. I rented an X-T20 last year and while I dearly loved the lenses (18-55 and 23 f/2), I didn't see enough difference versus my Sony to switch, but now I'm routinely contemplating Fuji as my side-kick if (or sadly when) Nikon flubs their APC-S mirrorless cameras.

You nailed it. Fuji can fix it in firmware and Fujirumors and fan boys can tell us all how great Kaizen is.

Kaizen is pretty great, the fact that it annoys you is just a bonus. But I agree that laggy touchscreens are annoying, bring on the kaizen.

To be honest declaring this better or worse was a mistake. It goes both ways as we all know. The Canon has dirty cheap, super sharp stabilized plasticky STM glass, starting from a 10-18mm, something you'd pay alot to get on a Fuji if you're a landscape photographer. The UI is different but the DPAF with fully articul. Screen and menus make the m50 a joy to use.

The Fuji however is waay sexier, hard edges vs rounded, that "film" simulation "dial", just overal a great beast while being built high-end.

I had the XT20 and it was a great camera, but too small to hold and colors in raw were off. Also highlights all had a golden hue to them and not recoverable. Grass was all mushy too. I also had focus issues with the 18-55 when flash was mounted. So it went back. Fuji does have great lenses and Excellent for the money.

I have an M50 now and absolutely love it. Fast, comfy to hold, excellent colors in raw, great menu, fast touch screen, follow focus with eye detection. For pictures it kicks butt. Love it!

It’s 4k is double cropped and battery is small.

JordanDrake
Actually that isn't correct because the screen can be flipped under and faced forward for selfies. If mounted on a tripod then you would be correct but how many people take selfies that way? In fact how many people would use a camera like the A99ii for selfies when it's so easy with a smartphone? I have taken selfies with an RX100 which has a fixed LCD by using the widest angle and looking directly into the lens with 100% success. All that said I don't consider the ease of taking selfies a very good way to rate the articulation of the LCD screen.

One last thing, if you have a monitor mounted on the hot shoe why use the LCD screen at all?

@tbcass
We regularly use cameras with flip screens on tripods to film ourselves (as I did with the X-T100 in this very video).

It's extremely common to have an external monitor used in conjunction with the LCD, as a 'clean' signal is sent to the external monitor for clients to see, or to a monitor with an external recorder. The EVF & LCD are still necessary because they have all of the camera settings displayed.

Agree completely. I am sick of inaccessible (read: not properly captioned, as is the case for all DPR video content) reviews where I can't sit back and read leisurely but have to try and read tiny, often gibberish text.

Video is not superior to writing for technical reviews in any way, shape or form, unless you're two years old or illiterate. It's just something that's easier to do than writing a review which is why it's being done.

Adorama TV on the other hand bothers to properly caption a majority of their videos, which has been incredibly impressive to me and deserves recognition.

"It's just something that's easier to do than writing a review which is why it's being done."

Except that here on DPR, the video reviews are additional content. They don't replace the written reviews.

That 'easier' comment is borderline insulting to Chris' & Jordan's work tbh... But putting any thought before crotchety complaining about anything and everything is pretty much the average DPR commenter MO so...

"Video is not superior to writing for technical reviews in any way, shape or form"

Agree. I much prefer reading (well written) text, where one can re-read, study and consider printed specs, and properly digest information over any of the video content one finds on most sites. However, if one merely wants to be entertained, then video is your medium of choice.

"Video is not superior to writing for technical reviews in any way, shape or form, unless you're two years old or illiterate."

I disagree – i. e. when it comes to delving into certain aspects of ergonomics, a few seconds of video can tell way more than a ton of text …

I like videos, too! I plug in to DPReview Video. Turn it on. Raise up the volume. Listen while doing my chores or driving. Very good company when stuck in traffic.

This I admit, I still read magazines and newspapers the old fashion way (of course, I read newswebsites). It is relaxing. For DPReview I read it in my laptop DPR has no newsprint version. One day, my Grandma blew into town without telling me. She caught me in the hammock in the backyard reading old-fashion newspaper. She asked what I have in my hand. I told her, "THIS IS WHAT IS CALLED NEWSPAPER! "

Benefits to both. Video can show how things actually handle and work out. For example the cameras delay. There are still a lot of Fuji people out there who claim the touch interface used by Fuji is speedy. The video helps a lot to qualify what those people think is fast. Written text you can easily „quick read“ without skipping the information most important to you.

Just to clarify, the new DPReview TV videos are not replacing any content we currently product in written format. They represent additional content on top of what we're already doing, so you'll still get the same written articles. We'll have full written coverage of the X-T100 as well, but Chris and Jordan were able to get the video out pretty quickly.

We're aware of the captioning issues and are developing a workflow that allows us to provide fully captioned videos. We're only one month into the new DPReview TV episodes and there's still a lot going on behind the scenes.

Skip to the last minute or so.

These video reviews are an addition to our written content, not a replacement. We will still be doing in-depth written reviews on all these cameras. Stay tuned.

Well why do you want a written review of a camera you're "unlikely to buy"?
If you're not interested, what do you care what format it's in?

That's weird man, you must be having a bad day.
Hang in there.

Deaf and hard of hearing people don't get anything out of miserably captioned videos. And unless someone here is ignorant enough to say that one fifth of the US population isn't worth considering providing access to, there really isn't a good excuse not to do it.

For YouTube, it's as simple as providing a verbatim transcript in text form and uploading it with the video to allow Google to automatically set the timings ( which the creator can then tweak ).

And if you have the verbatim text already, might as well publish that as an alternative to video for those who prefer text. Make everyone happy.

I can't see a gallery on DPR at all. Could you please provide a link?

Agree.. The sample images are very soft. Is it because of the kit lens?

Yes, the correct pronunciation is Neekon, I think Matt Granger and Kai are the only 2 vloggers who actually get it right.

Or choose 2x to get it all in a tight package.

Very odd. Wonder what part of the country (USA) or world everyone else is from. Here in the US Northeast, he's quite normal as far as speed. Never even thought about it being fast or slow.

That dedicated video button is a Fn button you can’t use for anything else. I would rather two Fn buttons, either of which can be assigned video, than Fuji deciding which one should be video.

Ew. TIFF.

Is TIFF like the worse version of GIFF?

Sadly, the typical raw shooter is unable to understand that instead of mastering their camera, they've allowed the camera to master them.
At its most basic, raw is a crutch for people who lack the intellectual horsepower to learn how to set a custom white balance, meter correctly, and adjust their in-camera processing controls to create the look they've previsualized.
Adding insult to injury, not only must raw shooters spend hours trying to fix the lighting, exposure, and white balance mistakes they've made in the field, they have to pay Adobe hundreds of dollars a year in subscription fees for the privilege.

RAW Shooters: smelly unwashed JPEG shooters
Jpeg Shooters: snobby stupid RAW shooters
Film Shooters: I hate you all

Guys lets not berate those who have different preferences. Lets all enjoy photography, live and let live.

SmilerGrogan, sounds like someone's bitter about not being able to process RAW files. You couldn't be further from the truth on why someone shots RAW. You've probably said "I get it right in camera" a few times too.

Actually I really don't see why anyone would not shoot raw on Fuji camera since the Raw files are preserved with the presets intact and you can export as JPEG in camera with a single click, or go back and apply other film simulation (or other adjustment) as needed.

Personally I enjoy shooting in classic chrome and pretty much use that as my default setting. I also do very little post processing for my own pictures because, quite frankly, I am terrible at that.

As the editor at a business magazine, I occasionally have to double up as a reporter cum photographer during our busy period and the raw file allows me to export the file closer to what the work requires.

to say people who shoots raw are somehow inferior is to completely miss a point. when shooting for leisure, I am not too particular of the file type. but when my bread and butter is on the line, I much prefer to have the flexible of raw files

TIFF? GIFF? Sounds like someone is slightly MIFFED?

@SmilerGrogan
Firstly, while I agree to meter and set the camera properly before shoot, it is a bit unfair to suggest that RAW shooters are practicly studip.
Secondly, shooting in your backyard, or for social media, RAW probably isn’t needed, but for a big trip around Iceland (just an example) I would definitely shoot RAW and very happy to process the pictures afterwards.
And last, I recommend that you learn proper RAW handling and postprocessing so you can benefit from this, with a minor side effect -no more nonsense comments and less frustration towards RAW shooters.

In practice, TIFF is generally used as a lossless file format that uses no compression. Consequently, file sizes can be large, but retain their data, and subsequent quality.

@SmilerGrogan, for someone shooting portraits of cats looking into a camera, Jpeg might be the right choice ;).

Some people don't like the default noise (the type you can't get rid of) on Jpeg.

For cats, GIF is definitely the right choice. Source: decades of extensive research on imgur.

@SmilerGrogan - You need to watch some Dave Morrow videos on YouTube. You might learn what RAW is really about. He understands the things you say RAW shooters don't understand.

Suppose you're hired to shoot a wedding, and after shooting the whole thing in JPG, you realize you had left the white balance on florescent and sharpening was set too high. What are you going to do? With RAW, this is not a concern.

RAW does not have the limitations that JPG does. Does that make it a crutch? No! For one thing, it's insurance against mistakes, which we are all prone to make.

Are professional grade tripods a crutch? And prime lenses? And medium format cameras?

If you're the complacent type, fine, shoot JPG. That puts you in the "good enough" camp. But you ought not be so dismissive of people who find and exploit every available advantage to produce the best images they can.

"At its most basic, raw is a crutch for people who lack the intellectual horsepower to learn how to set a custom white balance, meter correctly, and adjust their in-camera processing controls to create the look they've previsualized."

Perhaps a bit uninformed. When I was shooting a Leica M8/M9, I shot exclusively in RAW because the cameras processed the files more rapidly, with DNG files were as easy to work with as JPEGs in PhotoShop.

In extreme low light situations I have found that Nikon and Fuji OOC JPEGs did not yield the quality of file that I could get with noise reduction plugins applied to a RAW file. Simple fact.

And sometimes, it's just a more effective workflow to get the basics right in the camera, and worry about the details in PP...You're going to be there anyway for cropping and adjusting verticals/horizontals. When I shoot RAW, all I need to worry about in the field is exposure, focus, and general composition. Shoot. Move on.

I do not think raw shooters are snobby. They are only better. ;-)

I haven't shot a JPEG image in almost 8 years. But I have shot probably 200,000 RAWs. Is that wrong? 🤔 Darnit. I may have to rethink my work flow.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

@smilergrogan that's... actually an interesting way of looking at it.

I envy the supporters of raw because they all sound like dear people still under the enchantment of youth who think they have all the time in the world ahead of them.
Unfortunately, I have reached an age where time has become my bitter enemy. I have to watch as aging friends go slowly blind, or contract relentless debilitating diseases, or just drop down dead. Unlike you young people, I know what my future holds, and it is going to be awful.
So forgive me if I work hard to avoid wasting time in front of a computer because I was too lazy to set the white balance or find the right exposure in the field. I just don't have that kind of time anymore.
And soon, neither will you.

Once AI NR becomes widespread, low light JPG shooters will cry rivers across the world.

"I was too lazy to set the white balance or find the right exposure in the field."

What happens when you underexpose intentionally to retain full highlight detail? JPG certainly won't know what you're trying to do. Or if you're shooting a concert/party with flashing multicolor strobes? Or just under terrible lighting in general with a bunch of different fluorescent bulbs in the ceiling? Or if your editing software comes out with significantly better color profiles (which Adobe did just recently)? Or if your taste in JPG settings change? Cameras still aren't smart or fast enough to accommodate all situations. Nor can they see into the future for improvements manufacturers or users never dreamed of. For all of that, there's RAW. Because JPG just won't cut it. RAW is timeless. JPG is set in stone.

@SmilerGrogan. If you don't want to waste time in front of the computer get Rawtherapee. It has a nice new option that will match the developed JPG to the embedded one in terms of exposure, contrast, colour etc so just run them all through on default then if something looks wrong later go back and re-edit.

@SmilerGrogan, with all respect... but you are an elderly hobby photographer shooting snapshots of cats (after watching your gallery). Nothing wrong with that, really (I also take snapshots with my phone). If jpeg is fine for you, go for it and be happy.
But having someone with that kind of "portfolio" judging about raw vs. jpeg is like having a colorblind talking about colors :).

To be fair, there are some amazing artistic photographs of cats...

"So forgive me if I work hard to avoid wasting time in front of a computer because I was too lazy to set the white balance or find the right exposure in the field."

@SmilerGrogan. I pity you. I've been shooting seriously for over 5 decades and going to the computer is like going into the darkroom, but I don't have to mess with chemicals.

That we could have the luxury of leisurely setting all these things for JPEG and magically never touching the image again. No cropping. No straightening. The in-camera noise reduction is always perfect. Wonderful lossy compression.

Even with JPEG, shooting soccer at dark high school pitches between 7 and 9pm I still have to go back into the files because as I pan the camera the lighting and color balance shift in that one pan, and over the course of 2 hours. 300 shots (no machine gunning) and every one is different. You can not set up each of those 300 shots in advance.

I'd rather get it right eventually, than get it wrong in my rush to death.

@Mariano Pacifico
'I agree with Chris. Those who shoot raw are snotty snob conceited and thought they are superior than those JPEG shooters. Thank you for putting that out in the open, Chris!'

I shoot RAW and JPGS I'm not a snob about it. JPEGS can be good (depending on the image engine) but RAW gives you more options. This kind of remark is inverse-snobbism.

I suspect that there's a few here who realise just how stupid this exchange is.

However, I would simply reiterate what ljclark stated, and suggest you go and look at Ansel Adams' series (The Camera, The Negative, The Print), and pause to consider that manipulation of a RAW file is synonymous with the manipulation of the negative.

I can't help but reflect with some amusement upon the prior comment "the typical raw shooter is unable to understand that instead of mastering their camera, they've allowed the camera to master them", and think that if we are going to start derisively drawing such petty and artificial tribal distinctions, then it would be fair to comment that the person who gives up a significant degree of creative control by shooting jpg is allowing their camera master them.

The thing is, cameras now have amazing tech built in like 1-shot and 3-shot HDRs, what Nikon calls D-Lighting that pulls shadow and highlight detail out of high-contrast images, level indicators so your horizons are never crooked, the only thing they really lack are localized adjustment capabilities, but that can be done with flags, speedlights, and concealer before you shoot.
And with all the money i've saved not having to upgrade my computer constantly to keep up with Adobe, my feline friends enjoy only the finest of cat food from silver (plated) bowls.

Bit depth. Do you know it bro?

Who am I kidding, of course you don't.

As to upgrading your computer, I still run CS2 and have no intention of upgrading.

Yup, it's Adobe's fault your computer still accepts floppies...

◔_◔

Let's hope not tho I think that's the way dpr is going to improve their revenue

DPReview has not ceased written reviews. We will soon be inundated by technical reviews of this camera. Sit tight.

We're still publishing written reviews. These videos are just additional content. However, sometimes it's easier to get the video out more quickly.

Thank Christ he's gone.

[humor]

As a non-American, I don't think it's a problem, considering that the majority of TV series and movies we watch are American or British. But I live in a country (Sweden), where TV and movies are usually subtitled rather than dubbed; maybe it's harder if you're not that used to hearing spoken English.

These videos are not a replacement for the regular written reviews. They are simply a supplement. So if you don't like the videos, just don't watch them! Just wait for the written review and read that! What's the problem?

First they don't want video on their cameras. Now they don't want video on their camera review sites... -___-

I wouldn't say it's boring. It's this YouTube style of making a lot of words no matter if each single word makes sense. Chris and Jordan are among the best YouTubers for camera reviews I'm aware of.

Sorry to say it but a video presentation couldn't be clearer and better articulated than this. If you still cannot follow it then it's simply not for you.

It's _additional_ content and not to replace any written articles, hence, no loss from your perspective.

I am German and I don't see your point.

I can perfectly understand their English as they have a very clear pronounciation. Plus I find these kind of videos informative and also a bit entertaining. I don't see why there should be anything wrong with it, especially since they don't replace the old-fashioned text-based reviews.

I am an American and it is really hard following the Canadians and UK presenters...if an American site can't use Americans, what good is it!! (Just joking)

Andre - that a video is boring to a non-american, and nobody else, now that is a bold claim. It suggests there is something wrong with being an american. I disagree with that. There's a lot of americans who find video reviews boring. And there's something wrong with a lot of non-americans too.

if you catch my drift...

OK guys. I didn't know these videos were a complement to the written usual review. My post is irrelevant. Apologies.

I'm not American and English is not my native language but I enjoy video reviews especially those like this one. Please do not assume what we none American's like or don't like.

You are not alone my French friend. That guy IS hard to understand and I am a native English speaker.
I think it's because Canadian English is quite different from American and not just in the way they pronounce words like "about" or say "eaves trough" instead of "gutter."
The problem here, I think is that Canadians put their stress on different parts of the words than what you hear on American or British television. They also tumble their words together in a way that makes them hard to understand.
It also sounds like they put their pauses in different places than Americans do.
Finally, Canadians have a much more European attitude toward life than do Americans which I think translates into the way they speak. They're not so anxious about getting to the point. They often just let their sentences go where they may.
So press on mon vieux, if I can learn to understand them, so can you.

KINDA like Merican ceptin ....you know ...sane

[full disclosure : post authored by an american .....lol]

@SmilerGrogan
"You are not alone my French friend. That guy IS hard to understand and I am a native English speaker. "

Well, as french, I do unterstand them good and even their humor :)

Another non-English and non-American viewer here. But I find these videos entertaining and well-made. They indeed speak very clearly and in an easy-to-understand manner.

I'm really surprised to read in some replies that even native speakers find it difficult to understand them because as a non native-speaker I have absolutely no problem with it.

I've watched some movies with thick Texan accent. THAT was hard, lol. But this video here is a piece of cake.

@SmilerGrogan

It's easier to understand Canadians than your southern states' accent! Talking as if ALL American speak the same!

watch the video .... its actually hilarious seeing jordans reaction
watch it carefully from 15:08 to 15:30 for a good laugh ....

jordan is a very funny guy .....

The two cases in the past year where there were huge complaints about 4K video were:

Canon 6DII. How can you say 4K video is not necessary in a $2000 Full-Frame camera in 2017?

and

Canon M50 - The issue here was Canon said the camera can do 4k video, but the crop is so severe with any non-specialty lens, the widest angle you can shoot is ~40mm equivalent, which is not wide enough for pertty much any general purpose use. Shame on Canon marketing for trying to sell this as a general 4k video capable camera.

Sure it would be nice to have 4K @ 24 or 30 fps, but do I really need it? No... I don't even use 4K on my phone and yes, I do have a 4K 55" TV but I hardly notice any difference to Full HD when I sit 4 meters away from it.

It's got more 4K than the EOS 6D mk II ;)

If this was a Canon product, comments section would be full of "Canon sells us old tech, no 4K video in 2018!".
When it is Fuji, same trolls are silent.

Because 4k is a new thing in Fuji world, and Fuji users arent really that hung up on 4k. They buy their cameras for different reasons. Fuji was, till recently really still oriented, and thats why almost all of their cameras were designed as retro film cameras. X-H1 kinda broke that rule making it look more like a modern dslr.
And anyway, no one expects 4k from an entry level cheap ass camera. That feature is mostly reserved for higher priced gear.
Canon on the other hand had 4k tech in their arsenal for a long time, and deliberately cripples even higher priced gear.

@MikeRan Et al....
Bit desperate to have a go at Canon in response to a review of a Fuji with sub-standard video?? As you pointed out however the M50 DOES shoot 4K properly - at least for its target market - and will sell super well. It’s unlikely I agree that Blue Planet 3 will be shot with it - but pro video users really won’t be using any of the non video specific cameras drooled over here....story to disappoint...

Desperate? I was responding to the original question as to why people object in some cases and are silent in others. And I stand by my statements. The 6DII should have had 4K, and as useless as the 4K is on the M50, it shouldn’t have been promoted like it was. Do you feel otherwise?

I guess I can say I haven’t seen any marketing by Fuji for this camera. If they are touting 4K then well, they should also be chastized for it, too.

I’m not desperate at all. I have a very capable 4K camera.

Canon deserved to be bashed for the 6DII... with the innovations and progress being made by other companies, Canon looks to be sleeping. I guess we will know when they announce their first FF MILC what they’ve been working on. I hope it’s competitive...

@MikeRan.
Use of ‘desperate’ as in ‘desperate to criticise Canon’ which it seems you are.. if Canon has made a mistake in 6D2 4K implementation it will show in sales and they will suffer - not sure why this offends you so much? Also the M50 DOES shoot 4K so of course Canon will market this.....if the crop is a problem to you don’t buy it
In response to Hellraiser I’m a Canon user and I couldn’t care less if all video capability was removed from my cameras - never even tried it....won’t use it on the M50 I have just bought either....

waxy colors in raw also, sorry to rain on your parade

Yup, turn on NR in Adobe software and the images become oversmoothed. Export to JPG and reimport, and NR works like normal.

the weather is fine , its your fuji bias thats all wet....

nope cosinaphile, my canon files look much better coming out of Capture One than fuji Xtrans files. I think you are fuji biased

RAW from the Fuji X-T20 and Canon 5d3 looks good here.. not real difference at low iso..

Never saw waxy skin nor worms..

1st move is to dump Adobe altogether. I did so over a year ago and have enjoyed much better results with all the cameras I've been using. ACDSee sends them packing altogether. DXO is also another great choice. NO waxy issues with those

Amen. Love ACDSee.

@SaltLakeGuy

"1st move is to dump Fuji altogether."

Fixed. Why should I change my entire workflow because one manufacturer is arrogant enough in their design to force me to? There's zero advantage to Fuji's sensors over other APS-C (minus Canon), so there's zero advantage to changing my workflow just for them.

I'm not so much supporting Fuji (had a couple and no longer do, went Sony) BUT what I AM supporting is moving away from Adobe. As for your precious workflow, get over it and move to the next step in improving matters. It most certainly isn't with Adobe in general. Talk about arrogant. Adobe thinks they rule the world....NOT. ACDSee and DXO as 2 examples run rings around them in shear speed AND end results.

i only use tide detergent ..... anyone who stupid enough to use gain is all washed up

Sadly as good as CaptureOne is (I've been there done that) it isn't nearly as flexible nor have as good NR as either of the other two mentioned.

@SaltLakeGuy

"As for your precious workflow, get over it and move to the next step in improving matters."

Honestly, since they improved their profiles across the board, I have no more complaints about Adobe. I can get any image to look the way I want/need with little work, and can get all of my cameras to match. Plus, their software runs the fastest of anything I've tried.

I was complaining on waxy look with my X-T20 + Adobe, until I learned of Iridient x transformer. It works both on PC and MAC, and it converts .raw to .dng with a PERFECT detalisation. You may continue then editing DNGs in LR, keeping your workflow and getting crisp, stunning images. If you compare what LR does with .raw to Irident's .dng, you will be surprised.

Not true Mark. Not true even a little. If it were true, or had even a hint of truth, Fuji would have killed XTrans years ago or gone out of business.
Pro photographers don't like waxy images.
Please see my thousands of XH-1, XT-2 and XT-1 images here and tell me if they are waxy.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

@Marksphoto. Since some mouths we mixed EOS 5D and Fuji camera on job, inclusive some portraits.

Pictures are good on both camera, and final result very good. No one can tell which pictures is taken by which camera..

On last job, some pictures are a little better on Fuji..

Not sure what's wrong..

whats wrong ? its called fanboyism.....lol