flysurfer

Serious issues are quite rare. I'm entertaining Fuji workshops that are pretty intense (they go over 2 days), so there's plenty of time to talk about any serious issues delegates may have with their cameras or lenses or workflow. While there is plenty to learn, there aren't many things that are seriously broken. If there were, my delegates would surely mention them.
 
Forums are cesspools of discontent. Instead, just go to a real-life meeting with actual Fuji users (I'm hosting one this Sunday here in Schwabach, as folks asked me to see and try the X-T2), and you'll feel a very different and constructive vibe.

Serious issues are quite rare. I'm entertaining Fuji workshops that are pretty intense (they go over 2 days), so there's plenty of time to talk about any serious issues delegates may have with their cameras or lenses or workflow. While there is plenty to learn, there aren't many things that are seriously broken. If there were, my delegates would surely mention them.
 
Forums are cesspools of discontent. Instead, just go to a real-life meeting with actual Fuji users (I'm hosting one this Sunday here in Schwabach, as folks asked me to see and try the X-T2), and you'll feel a very different and constructive vibe.

There is no crop factor on Fujifilm XF lenses, because these lenses have been designed for X-Mount and APS-C. So they are perfectly "full-frame". You'd have to adapt XF lenses to MFT cameras (or smaller) in order to achieve any crop. The new Hasselblad lenses for the new Hasselblad medium format camera are full-frame, too, as they are specifically designed for the 44x33mm sensor inside this camera. However, adapting Hasselblad H series lenses on this camera will result in a crop factor, because the H series covers a larger image circle.
 
So crop factors become relevant in systems that support more than one sensor size (like the mentioned Hasselblads, pretty much all legacy (D)SLR systems, but also Sony's new mirrorless system that features a mount that's used for APS-C and 24x36mm sensors).
 
When you adapt a lens that was made for 24x36 film on APS-C, you only use a cropped portion of the actual image circle, so there is a crop factor to describe that portion and the resulting image impression based on the larger (aka full-frame, uncropped) image circle. That's why we have focal reducers like Speed Booster Ultra or Lens Turbo II, which let us use 24x36mm lenses on APS-C in a way like they would perform on a full-frame camera (and with one stop of additional brightness, hence the Speed Booster name).
 
Referring to "full-frame" as a synonym to 24x36mm cameras is basically a lazy relict of the past, based on the fact that many legacy users only know and used that format. That's why they use it as a reference point for everything, which results in crazy stuff like "crop factors" below 1 for medium format lenses. All this will probably vanish when the current regime of "old farts" will be replaced by the "smartphone generation" who couldn't care less about such relicts. 

Modern camera makers could simply use angle-of-view and T stop to describe their lenses. That would be state-of-the-art and useful as we could quickly compare lenses across various systems with different sensor sizes, be it 1", APS-C, APS-H, 35mm, 44x33mm or larger.
 
Sadly, most camera makers consider many of their customers old-fashioned and resistant to learning current stuff, so they don't dare to change a thing. Fujifilm, for example, are disqualifying themselves by mentioning the "35mm equivalent" in pretty much every lens description, acknowledging that their core customer base consists of old men who have been socialized with 35mm film and don't know anything else. They also stick to nonsense like "ISO sensitivity", as if the sensitivity of a digital camera sensor would/could ever change. Nobody dares to speak of "ISO amplification", which would be the correct description of what's going on.

Modern camera makers could simply use angle-of-view and T stop to describe their lenses. That would be state-of-the-art and useful as we could quickly compare lenses across various systems with different sensor sizes, be it 1", APS-C, APS-H, 35mm, 44x33mm or larger.
 
Sadly, most camera makers consider many of their customers old-fashioned and resistant to learning current stuff, so they don't dare to change a thing. Fujifilm, for example, are disqualifying themselves by mentioning the "35mm equivalent" in pretty much every lens description, acknowledging that their core customer base consists of old men who have been socialized with 35mm film and don't know anything else. They also stick to nonsense like "ISO sensitivity", as if the sensitivity of a digital camera sensor would/could ever change. Nobody dares to speak of "ISO amplification", which would be the correct description of what's going on.

There is no crop factor on Fujifilm XF lenses, because these lenses have been designed for X-Mount and APS-C. So they are perfectly "full-frame". You'd have to adapt XF lenses to MFT cameras (or smaller) in order to achieve any crop. The new Hasselblad lenses for the new Hasselblad medium format camera are full-frame, too, as they are specifically designed for the 44x33mm sensor inside this camera. However, adapting Hasselblad H series lenses on this camera will result in a crop factor, because the H series covers a larger image circle.
 
So crop factors become relevant in systems that support more than one sensor size (like the mentioned Hasselblads, pretty much all legacy (D)SLR systems, but also Sony's new mirrorless system that features a mount that's used for APS-C and 24x36mm sensors).
 
When you adapt a lens that was made for 24x36 film on APS-C, you only use a cropped portion of the actual image circle, so there is a crop factor to describe that portion and the resulting image impression based on the larger (aka full-frame, uncropped) image circle. That's why we have focal reducers like Speed Booster Ultra or Lens Turbo II, which let us use 24x36mm lenses on APS-C in a way like they would perform on a full-frame camera (and with one stop of additional brightness, hence the Speed Booster name).
 
Referring to "full-frame" as a synonym to 24x36mm cameras is basically a lazy relict of the past, based on the fact that many legacy users only know and used that format. That's why they use it as a reference point for everything, which results in crazy stuff like "crop factors" below 1 for medium format lenses. All this will probably vanish when the current regime of "old farts" will be replaced by the "smartphone generation" who couldn't care less about such relicts. 

There is no crop factor on Fujifilm XF lenses, because these lenses have been designed for X-Mount and APS-C. So they are perfectly "full-frame". You'd have to adapt XF lenses to MFT cameras (or smaller) in order to achieve any crop. The new Hasselblad lenses for the new Hasselblad medium format camera are full-frame, too, as they are specifically designed for the 44x33mm sensor inside this camera. However, adapting Hasselblad H series lenses on this camera will result in a crop factor, because the H series covers a larger image circle.
 
So crop factors become relevant in systems that support more than one sensor size (like the mentioned Hasselblads, pretty much all legacy (D)SLR systems, but also Sony's new mirrorless system that features a mount that's used for APS-C and 24x36mm sensors).
 
When you adapt a lens that was made for 24x36 film on APS-C, you only use a cropped portion of the actual image circle, so there is a crop factor to describe that portion and the resulting image impression based on the larger (aka full-frame, uncropped) image circle. That's why we have focal reducers like Speed Booster Ultra or Lens Turbo II, which let us use 24x36mm lenses on APS-C in a way like they would perform on a full-frame camera (and with one stop of additional brightness, hence the Speed Booster name).
 
Referring to "full-frame" as a synonym to 24x36mm cameras is basically a lazy relict of the past, based on the fact that many legacy users only know and used that format. That's why they use it as a reference point for everything, which results in crazy stuff like "crop factors" below 1 for medium format lenses. All this will probably vanish when the current regime of "old farts" will be replaced by the "smartphone generation" who couldn't care less about such relicts. 

I don't see any distortion here. Just volume deformation. 
 
As our friends at DxO put it: "In practice, the principles of optical geometry dictate that it is impossible to maintain both straight lines and volume consistency."

There is no crop factor on Fujifilm XF lenses, because these lenses have been designed for X-Mount and APS-C. So they are perfectly "full-frame". You'd have to adapt XF lenses to MFT cameras (or smaller) in order to achieve any crop. The new Hasselblad lenses for the new Hasselblad medium format camera are full-frame, too, as they are specifically designed for the 44x33mm sensor inside this camera. However, adapting Hasselblad H series lenses on this camera will result in a crop factor, because the H series covers a larger image circle.
 
So crop factors become relevant in systems that support more than one sensor size (like the mentioned Hasselblads, pretty much all legacy (D)SLR systems, but also Sony's new mirrorless system that features a mount that's used for APS-C and 24x36mm sensors).
 
When you adapt a lens that was made for 24x36 film on APS-C, you only use a cropped portion of the actual image circle, so there is a crop factor to describe that portion and the resulting image impression based on the larger (aka full-frame, uncropped) image circle. That's why we have focal reducers like Speed Booster Ultra or Lens Turbo II, which let us use 24x36mm lenses on APS-C in a way like they would perform on a full-frame camera (and with one stop of additional brightness, hence the Speed Booster name).
 
Referring to "full-frame" as a synonym to 24x36mm cameras is basically a lazy relict of the past, based on the fact that many legacy users only know and used that format. That's why they use it as a reference point for everything, which results in crazy stuff like "crop factors" below 1 for medium format lenses. All this will probably vanish when the current regime of "old farts" will be replaced by the "smartphone generation" who couldn't care less about such relicts. 

Indeed: the lower the end, the more state-of-the-art the concept. Lower-end cameras like the X-A1/2, X-M1 offer custom settings that allow users to store a complete camera configuration and quickly switch between pre-configured settings. The higher up you go, the more manual switching is necessary.
 
Fujifilm's cameras are strange that way. They are like Boeing building a new high-tech aircraft without a modern glass cockpit. Instead, Boeing would install a retro cockpit with 30 year old clock dials that requires 2 pilots and 1 flight engineer to operate. No airline in their right mind would buy such a plane. And yet, when we ask Fuji users why they chose Fuji X over other brands, the typical answer isn't that they bought the camera despite its outdated retro controls. No, they say that they bought it because of them.
 
Obviously, those who buy retro cameras like retro controls. But this puts Fujifilm in a niche. The issue is: What about the majority of users who don't appreciate retro controls, but who would still like to own an advanced mirrorless APS-C system with a full range of high-quality lenses and superior image quality? So Fujifilm might want to think about ways to satisfy both groups: the retro loving niche and the majority of other users. How? By implementing smart options that allow users to bypass the manual retro controls and use X cameras like other modern cameras. 

Capture One doesn't really support the X-Pro2. It's irresponsible to call the current situation "support". C1 can only open a handful of several thousand images I took with this camera, because it still can't decode compressed RAWs. Even these images aren't fully usable because of the digital distortion correction issue. And even the few remaining images still can't be rendered (lossless or not) with Acros (which is what this thread is about), because C1 doesn't support any Fujifilm film simulations. Never did, never will. AFAIK, there still isn't any third-party (aka user generated) profile for Acros.
 
Even Silkypix and AccuRaw now support the compressed RAW files, so do Lightroom/ACR, Iridient and PhotoNinja. Also, the problems wrt lens corrections are unique to C1. In any case, Adobe and Silkypix support all four Acros profiles. Iridient told me that they will add the new film simulations in the future.

I don't see any distortion here. Just volume deformation. 
 
As our friends at DxO put it: "In practice, the principles of optical geometry dictate that it is impossible to maintain both straight lines and volume consistency."

Honestly, with Fuji, forget Capture One. It's a great program with Leaf/Mamiya products. It's great with Sony. It's pretty good with Nikon and Canon, as far as tethering goes, but it's no better for their raw files than any other program. For Fuji it's downright atrocious. Shaky raw support. No tether support. The standard controls aren't well suited to non-bayer files.

There's honestly, honestly no reason to use Capture One if you shoot Fuji. There just isn't. At best it's a little behind Lightroom, and it's not like Lightroom is particularly great, either. For every other brand, Capture One is nice. Not Fuji.

I will only buy the Hello Kitty version.

I will only buy the Hello Kitty version.

It's so much worse. 
 
There's a button on the touch-screen that you can touch to turn it off or change the mode. 

With Auto-ISO set to a ceiling of 12800, it most certainly does.

I will only buy the Hello Kitty version.

I'm quite happy with flat-compactness of my X-E2 and a single NP-W126 is enough for my whole day, so I dont like all mirrorless cameras be L,M or N shaped. Thanks a lot but NO.

I rarely use regular menus during shooting. It's counterproductive. Instead, I put everything I need on Fn buttons (ISO, DR, AF mode and frame selection, face detection, Natural Live View, sometimes white balance) als also use the Q menu to quickly change stuff like shutter mode, OIS mode or flash exposure compensation. In the X-Pro2, I am also using the new My Menu to change more frequently used settings.
 
I use eye-detection most of the time, but may switch to LCD only when the camera is on a tripod.

I will only buy the Hello Kitty version.

I will only buy the Hello Kitty version.

Normally, Exp. BKT should always use CH. At least it does on my X-Pro2. With this camera, it's a great way to quickly get two handheld RAWs with 4 EV exposure difference in quick succession (only 1/8s lag between the two). Using the ISOless sensor and merging the 2 RAWs in Lightroom to form a HDR DNG, this method leads to RAW files with up to 7 stops of additional DR, which pretty much solves every "normal" exposure problem.
 
Sadly, the X-T1 doesn't do ± 2 EV bracketing (only ± 1 EV), so this method is limited there. 

Mine does.

Unlikely, since my X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 already have automatic OVF magnification level switching.