Herco

Generally that is very true. However, with the X100-series it's a bit different. The adapter ring fits onto the lens by removing the front ring of the lens and replacing it with the adapter ring. This is a bayonet lock. The adapter ring then holds the filter and lens hood (through a bayonet). There are also lens hoods that screw-in. These can't be connected to the adapter ring but have to be on top of the filter instead. That's inconvenient because when you loosen them, you often also unscrew the filter.

Third party options of adapter ring that screw onto the lens combined with a good UV- or protection filter work just as good. I believe JJC has a good one. Make sure the optional lens hood works with a bayonet. That's easier than a filter thread screw-in one.

The X-Trans sensors are amongst the best APS-C sensors on the market. The X-H1 is no exception. Obviously, the IQ is exactly the same as all other models with the 24Mp sensor, but IMO there’s also no visible difference with the newer 26Mp sensor. Perhaps except for marginally less noise at high ISO. Which is something to avoid in landscapes anyway... The IBIS in the X-H1 can be an advantage when not using a tripod but that’s just about the only difference with the 24Mp siblings.
Having said that, the most important factor will be the lens. Not all Fujinon’s are equal in this. For landscape I can recommend the 14/2.8, the 16/1.4(esp.), 23/1.4 and the 10-24/4. The 16/2.8, 18/2, 18-135 and the 23/2 are less ideal for landscape and architecture. They all suffer from softness and a lack of contrast in the corners and edges. Worst wide open, but also stopped down never reaching the level of the aforementioned. The Zeiss 12/2.8 is very good too. Both standard zooms (the 18-55 and the 16-55) are equally good for landscape. I have no experience with the 16-80 and the 8-16.
Another factor is post processing. I prefer Capture One for this. I think it’s superior over all other full-feature solutions I’ve tried incl. Lightroom. Esp. in landscape, you need good details without artefacts, nice contrast and pleasing greens. When using the in-camera jpeg engine, dial-down the sharpening to at least -2 if not more. Fuji tends to have a very agressive sharpening, that esp. affects landscape with small details. It can become unnatural sharp in standard settings.
I’ve tried many camera’s as a semi-pro but IMO the only way for landscape to get a better IQ is to go to medium format sensors (e.g. GFX) or to high-resolution fullframe sensors (e.g. A7RIV, Z7, SL2 or S1R) with the best possible glass for that mount. We’re talking about totally difference price points though. Moving to standard resolution fullframe sensors offers only a small improvement in IQ. In fact, a friend of me owning an EOS RP prefers my X-H1 for (urban) landscape. That’s how good the x-system cameras are. 

I tried the X-T3 for a couple of days, but I prefer the X-H1 because of the build quality, the grip, the shutter and IBIS. The X-T4 is probably a closer call (IBIS, similar shutter and larger battery), but in terms of IQ there’s virtually no difference between the three. AF is better though on the X-T3 and esp. the X-T4. The 80 is a fantastic lens. Razor sharp and great micro contrast. It handles well on an X-H1 with it’s bigger grip. The 16-55 is pro quality and very all-round but should you have some budget left, buying a separate 16/1.4 for (urban) landscape is a great investment. It is visibly better than the 16-55 @16. By the way, a 16-55 combines very good with IBIS on the X-H1 or X-T4. For that lens IBIS is a real benefit (for me at least).

Hi Jazz1, 
I have both the x-pro2 and the x-h1. Despite the same sensor/processor inside, these are very different cameras. Also in terms of lenses that match best. The H1 is a very universal camera in true DSLR-style. I use it mainly for studio portraits, fashion and landscape (tilting LCD on the tripod). It easily accommodates the ‘larger’ lenses like the 16-55, the 56 and the 90 and in case of landscape the fast 16 and 23. The Pro2 is much smaller and most of the lenses mentioned above feel very large on the Pro2 and they obstruct the OVF. For that camera I have the f2 primes (23, 35 and 50) as well as the 14mm. I use the Pro2 for street and travel. Of the two it’s my favourite. I’ve always loved the ‘rangefinder-style’. Even though it is sometimes limiting. In that sense they complement each other. The Pro2 invites you to a slower style of photography.
I did take a brief look at the Pro3. Technically, the main difference is the more consistent and reliable autofocus (which is the main feature of the 26Mp sensor/processor). Functionally, I have a few problems with the Pro3 compared to the Pro2. The main issue for me is the single magnification of the OVF. That makes it very hard to use the OVF with anything wider than 23mm or longer than 35mm. The Pro2 in OVF mode has a dual magnification that enables anything between 16mm and 56mm. Overall the VF of the Pro3 is better in terms of brightness, size and eyepoint (for people who wear glasses), but the magnification for me is a dealbreaker. Note that if you wear glasses, the H1 viewfinder is generally easier to view as it is bigger and brighter. Another issue for me is the hidden LCD. It’s an extra effort to go into the menus for me. I would have loved an LCD as on the X100V. The small sub screen to me is a useless gadget as there’s no backlit feature like on the H1.
Talking about the X100V, I’m tempted to switch my Pro2 for an X100V. It might actually be a better match with the H1. Even less overlap. The main issue of the H1 (apart from battery life) is portability. It’s actually even bigger than a full frame Sony A7. In that sense the X100V might be the best complementary camera to an H1...

My God this was eye opening. I just so happened to be one of those YouTubers. I try my best to be as objective as possible in my reviews but must admit that to survive on YouTube and actually make it on the platform, Youtubers eventually get too tempted by affiliate links and the like. As a person doing this from the other side I would strongly advise all of you to not expect a whole bunch of objectivity from a YouTuber with a great deal of success. Why? Well basically all YouTubers start with good intention and realize at one point that giving away info does not pay the bills. If the Youtuber is paying the bills really well? . . . You do the math.  I am not offering an excuse for us, I am just making the observation. Also, just putting this out there, look for videos about the process and less about the gear. When I look at my stats and see that my video on gear has gotten 20,000 views and my video about a natural light photo shoot with the X-T3 has only gotten 400 views. . .  You can guess what the next video is going to be about. You guys should not be looking at YouTube for your next gear choice and more as a way to be inspired and motivated to go out and shoot. I will not change YouTube nor do I claim to have the best channel out there but the answer to this question all depends on what you want to get out of the channel. Cheers....Now go out and shoot!  

Welcome to the forum, Herco.  I'm replying because I'm much older, yet your concerns are mine, and better stated than I might have been able to write.  A couple of your phrases might be a clue as to what could be happening to Fujifilm cameras:
"All stills photography, almost no video."  Me too, but I think there are only two or three other Fujifilm stills shooters left in Western civilization, and a half-dozen traditional photographers will not sustain any camera company.  I believe the camera-market fashion has moved to "video", and cell-phone features (i.e.;selfie touch-screen).  
You also give your age at 57 years.  I've read that the historic success of the X-100 and X-Pro1 was because they were designed and marketed by "photographers".  I believe that most post-modern companies are now run by people under 35, and I've got to believe that if they happen to be photographers, "camera" means cell-phone, "view-finder" means selfie, and "photography" means video ~ and their plan is to market their products to their own demographic market (under 35 years of age).

i think there are still many more pure photographers out there (only interested in photos, that is) than hybrid shooters
however, the latter are quite vocal and the platform they're on - youtube - is encouraging video rather than photo shooting whereas photographers have many platforms on which to show their work but none are even at half the level youtube is at, meaning monetisation, encouraging originality, dealing with fraud and so on
that is why, in my opinion, all camera companies have to and will embrace video features to be able to sell their products (forget leica, they are too niche)...we who don't care about video just have to suck it up

Let me first introduce myself. 57 years and amateur photographer since the age of 12, although with intervals. My passion lies with portrait, fashion, street and urban landscape. All stills photography, almost no video.
I started with an Olympus OM1 (which I still have and occasionally use) but have been around the block: from Olympus to Nikon to Pentax to Minolta to Canon and Leica. I took a few years off of photography, until someone lend me his X-Pro1 for a day. It reminded me of my M6 and M8. The X-Pro1 was far from perfect. However the camera grew on me and the image quality was so beautiful that it kept me wanting to shoot more.
When the X-Pro2 came along I immediately upgraded and after a year or so I added an X-T2, which later on I swapped for an X-H1. The X-H1 is a bit big for Fuji standards, but after the EOS 5D its a breeze. In the meanwhile I own 9 XF lenses. Mostly primes, but also the 16-55 (hence the X-H1 for its IBIS). 90mm is the longest focal length I need (and have).
For me the X-H1 also marks the transition point of Fujifilm. From this point onwards Fuji started to lose me. Let me explain.
First of all next to the X-T10/20/30 Fuji launched the X-T100/200 line rendering the beautiful X-E line redundant and from what I hear, repealed soon. I understand the commercial viability of video capabilities and a DSLR-style over a rangefinder-style, but speaking of crowded market segments...
Next to that Fuji launched the X-T3 only a few months after introducing the X-H1. I would have understood this if the hybrid X-H1 had the 26Mp sensor soon followed by the X-T3 with a similar sensor. But cannibalizing a flagship model within half a year or so, dramatically drop its price and discard of any meaningful firmware update for more than 1.5 years, is an insult to buyers. That kind of corporate behaviour is what we previously accused Nikon, Canon and Sony for, but they’ve bettered their lifes. 
It seems that history is repeating itself with the new X-T4 versus the X-T3. In a few years Fuji went from “video as an after-thougth” to “video-first”. There’s little progress in the X-T4 when it comes to stills. You could even say some degress: the fully articulating screen is not for stills photographers. Occasionally ‘killing your darlings’ is part of progress, but this almost feels like leaving a group of customers behind.
In the meanwhile Fuji also launched the X-Pro3. I can dig dropping the d-pad and the reversed tilted screen. The titanium top- and bottom plates are a nice touch, but add little to the quality of the camera. What I can’t understand is getting rid of the dual magnification for the OVF. That renders any lens wider than 23mm or longer than 50mm useless in combination with the OVF, which is the main attraction of the X-Pro3. Leica already understood this decades ago...
Probably Fuji’s best matured camera is the X100V. The style, new lens and tilted screen has defined today’s ultimate street camera. In fact I even consider swapping my beloved X-Pro2 for an X100V. The X100V shows that clearly defining a product line and improve and innovate on a regular basis is a better strategy than creating new and mixing existing product lines. It also makes it easier to maintain a stable pricing strategy.
My hope is now on the X-H2 to restore ratio in Fuji’s product line-up and break with the recent ‘video-first’ mantra. However, considering the X-H was meant to be the hybrid stills/video camera, I fear the worst. I guess I’m part of a dying breed but Fuji please don’t make me want to buy an A7R...

My shortlist: Chris and Jordan from DPReview, bigheadtaco, Denae & Andrew, Dustin Abbott, Ted Forbes (Art of...) and grandmaster Hugh Brownstone (3bmep). For inspiration I turn to Ted Vieira... not so short list after all and the common denominator is that they refrain from "awesome", "epic" and "I have more gear than God"... 😉 adding Gordon Laing to my long list...

1. DxO refuses to have anything to do with X-Trans sensors. Until very recently, they refused to have anything to do with Fujifilm at all, even their Bayer-sensored cameras.
2. Fujifilm -- along with Olympus, Panasonic, and Ricoh/Pentax -- honors the traditional "18% gray" brightness target value. That brightness goal was set during the days of B&W photography, and we've learned that color photographs tend to look a bit "underexposed" at that brightness level. For that reason, Canon's DSLRs derate the ISO number, so that you get about one stop brighter image -- about 35% gray. Sony does the same, and Nikon changed over about a decade back. So the "Big 3" manufacturers all use an ISO rating system that produces images about a stop brighter than those produced by Fuji/Oly/Panny/Pentax.
What is measured as ISO 200 on the old "18% gray" plan is now being marked as ISO 100 by the big brands. In fact, when NIkon made the change, people commented about how Nikon DSLRs used to only go down to ISO 200 but now were going down to ISO 100. To get 18% gray on one of the big guy's cameras, you need to meter at twice the ISO that the camera is set to. [By the way, Canon tried the 18% gray target in the Rebel XTi/400D DSLR, and people complained about how dark its pictures were.]
When using in-camera metering on Fuji, the multi-zone metering runs about a stop brighter than the "dumb" metering modes. That way Fuji produces the same bright color images that the Big 3 manufacturers do -- in Multi metering mode. But the difference in brightness between in-camera metering modes catches a lot of people off-guard.
Personal opinion: the days of "18% gray" are behind us. Canon, Nikon, and Sony have long abandoned that standard, and virtually nobody has complained. It's probably time for Fuji/Oly/Panny/Pentax to make the change, too.

I'm working with both now to find out if ON1 can do all that I need. The difference between older versions of ON1 and C1 where much greater (in favour of C1) but the ON1 2020 edition has improved a lot esp. for Fuji shooters.
So far I think C1 is still better in color editing, the Fuji film profiles (quite a bit better), b&w controls and still somewhat better in sharpening and noise reduction. ON1 has a better digital asset management (importing, culling, keywords, managing raw+jpeg...), some very nice effect filters and is easier to use. However, note that presets and filters in ON1 can easily become a bit 'too colourful' and 'over-edited'. You have to hold back a little bit and apply the opacity slider generously.
With 'easier to use' I mean that in ON1 some adjustments are combined in handy filters you can apply, whereas in C1 you need to combine multiple tools to achieve the same results.
In general: C1 is IMO more aimed at professionals and high-end users, while ON1 is aimed at enthousiasts. I don't use pano stitching and HDR so for me there's no clear winner yet... but if I would do pano and HDR I would definitely download the trail version of ON1 and have a very close look at it.