Curious, why do you think that it shouldn't merge images when the developer is adding it due to demand?? I would rather have software with features that I don't use (but might) than have software that is missing something that I want to use on a regular basis.
This was a throw away line I shouldn't have thrown away :-(
Capture One started out as an alternative to ACR, before Lightroom existed and its focus was on producing the best possible raw conversion in preparation for editing files in Photoshop. Although there are some nuances to this (linked to Phase One cameras and tethering), the reason people paid for C1 was the quality of the raw processing.
As C1 added new releases, it improved on the raw processing quality, added features that made sense to have available before moving to Photoshop, and improved the round tripping to Photoshop. When Lightroom (and Aperture) was released there was a small move towards competing with LR, but there was still an obvious underlying philosophy of it being a raw processor you used with Photoshop. A feature of C1 tutorials was they would nearly always mention when tasks would be better done in PS (or more recently Affinity Photo).
With Adobe going subscription and C1 making a better job of Fuji files than Adobe (several of the C1 engineers were Fuji users, and all the C1 staff were keen photographers), there was an obvious big increase in C1 users from Adobe refugees. Suddenly the forums were full of people who wanted C1 to become some sort of Lightroom clone, rather than a limited feature, but tightly focussed, raw converter/processor to be used with Photoshop.
Since this change, technical support has gone from being absolutely excellent, to all but collapsed, core raw processing features such as noise reduction and sharpening has fallen behind the competition, and bugs and minor, but important, user interface issues haven't been addressed, specially in terms of the database. It "feels" as if, for many of us, the core reasons behind why we paid a premium price to get c1, are being abandoned to appease new customers who seem to want C1 to become a LR clone.
Obviously C1 needs a product that will attract new customers and they need to respond to what customers ask for. They also have a new R&D department set up in Greece which haas massively increased their development staff, so maybe the new features haven't impacted as much on improving old features, as much as some of us think. And, in truth the new features are nice to have, it's just I would rather they refined and fixed, the existing features before adding new ones. Polls on a C1 face book group in terms of the Panorama, HDR and focus stacking features suggest that around 50% of users (based on a obviously limited poll) would rather c1 improved existing features, rather than add new features. But that doesn't make for good marketing, and my guess is the vast majority of the people wanting existing features improved are long term users unlikely to move back to LR.
As regards the Pano feature, I round trip to Photoshop (it isn't as easy to round trip toAffinity Photo) on the occasions I've been experimenting with Panos. I've also experimented with the trial of PTGui and I find the results from PTGui to be so much better than PS or AP that unless C1 models their algorithms on PTGui, any serious pano work would force me into buying PTGui anyway. Having said that it could just be that I still have more to learn on using PS/AP for making Panos.
Sorry for how long this is, as I said it was a throw away line I shouldn't thrown away !
Same goes to Lightroom Mobile but I wouldn't call using certain presets a deep editing, that's why I don't really talk about it or recommend it.
