Adobe is NOT a specialized software developer for 100 cams out there plain and simple. It makes a generic software package ( Although well done) and turns on files that can be used with there program. It is not specialized by any means at the sensor level of development between back and software like Phase or Hassy does with there programs. Very simple fact here. I tested the P40+ when it first came out against my P30+ back ( maybe a year ago) and after some nice testing between the two systems and the P40+ files the color was heavily cyan and the noise levels , tonal range and color depth where just flat out not good at all with C1. A couple months later i tested it again on a workshop and a upgraded C1 and the files where so much better than the previous version. Point here is tuning. Phase in almost all of there latest revisions with C1 and the P65+ and P40+ backs there was always a new enhancement for the backs. Go back and read all there what's in this version package blurbs and it is noted improvements have been made to both the P40+ and P65+. Now after the last test against the S2 the files from the P40+ and latest 5.1 version I believe it was so good I actually bought the P40+ demo from Capture Integration that I used for the test right smack in the middle of the review. Finally it hit the mark of where I expected it to be, this is fine tuning between the backs and the software. Adobe is not doing this this at the sensor or build level. Look at C1 today how many color profiles do they supply for the P40+ back at least 6 from memory, Tungsten, daylight , flash and so on. The point being here is Phase and Hassy is working from the ground level of there sensors and building a compatible software/ sensor package that deals with the complete final output of those files. Now Nikon , Canon, Pana and all them may not be done to this level and sure they mostly get thrown out and not used because of many reasons mostly workflow. But we do know many Nikon shooters grind there teeth to use Nikon Capture since they feel they are getting better files from it, slow as shit and not a great working program but many comments that it does produce a better file. There is more to this than just making it work within the program. The S2 in C1 sucks and in LR3 a lot better . Just that fact alone means the cam is not designed for the program in C1 it see's it as a generic DNG file and has no clue on what to do with it from the sensor level for noise , artifacts, color and so on. Also even in LR3 the S2 files still needs a lot of work and is off and you can make presets and such for it. But all of this is not being done at the very very beginning of the process of fine tuning the sensor/build to the software. The question remains how much are we leaving on the editing floor as they say in the movie business. How do we really know if what you are doing in LR3 with a S2 file is truly squeezing the last drop out of it. I put more faith in C1 and Phocus of doing this better than anyone else since they have all the reason in the world to make there dedicated product simply the best they can do. Adobe has no reason to do that with 100 cams out there and spend millions of dollars in R&D on each and everyone of them out there. Hassy, Phase, Leaf and Sinar do as there preverbal neck is on the line to produce the best they can or no sales on there systems. Leica chose a path that I do not agree on and maybe for many folks it may not matter to this level of fine tuning and LR3 does a decent job of it but it is not coming from the build of the sensor/software package it is more a add on for lack of a better description. I'm not saying this is all bad but again to what level are we leaving on the editing floor and that is a very big question. Can we get that answer from all of the OEM's without marketing spin on it and from the science of building a system from there very beginning and how that all play's out. I'm sure Phase, Hassy, Sinar and Leaf will tell you this is a big deal and I believe they would be right.