Illka, "certain values"? I see that the x-t2 leads the D5 in DR in ALL values up to roughly 1200 iso. The x-t2 then slightly falls behind the D5 until we get to 32180 iso where the x-t2 once again surpasses the D5. For 1/3 of the iso range, a range most owners rarely use, the D5 has slightly better DR. For the remaining 2/3's, the D5 has worse DR than the x-t2. That's incredible for aps-c against a Nikon flagship and is far from certain values. Here is the chart we are qualifying our posts with: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Fujifilm%20X-T2,Nikon%20D5 I made newbie mistakes when I first started using the x-t2 and wasn't getting the optimal results that I am now. How fortunate for the internet that I didn't report those findings in the comment sections and then have others take them at face value. Setting the x-t2 up and using the AF can take a bit of a time. The AF performance also greatly depends on grip, boost mode, lens, and if FW is updated. My Fuji primes are slow yet my 10-24, 16-55 and 50-140 zooms are blazing fast. I've pegged "The Angry Photographer" as the Ken Rockwell of Youtube but he has valuable info and has saved me a ton of trial and error time setting up the AF. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tNMkGVSdAQ The only Nikon I know of that is better than the X-t2 is the D5/D500. Maybe the D750, but I have no experience with that camera. I'm not sure why you are using the shortcomings of the X100s (x trans II) to try and knock down the x-t2 (x trans III)? The infamous smudged greens and waxy skin hasn't shown up for me on the x-t2. A little bit of research would show the new x trans III has greatly improved results over that x100s sensor.