How Come X-E1 IQ Lags Behind Many Others In Studio Shooting?

This is simply not true. Nor is it remotely basic. Its about how you tune the sampling radius according to subject. It does require a lot MORE processing, but it is by no means impossible as Fuji have proved. The ratio of colour to green photosites is very close to Bayer - certainly not enough to affect colour resolution. But the demosaiking algorithm is very different and can incorporate noise reduction, so you need to find a balance between detail and noise. Silkypix goes one way, LR another, but the JPEGs are in between.

The fact that DCRAW freeware can demosaic Xpro files puts a lie to those that say it's all Fuji's fault, or that it's impossible.

Fuji is not a "little company" its as big as Nikon.

But Fuji has less invested in the status quo. Why would Canon and Nikon bother innovating when the sheeple can be fobbed off with more of the same. The only difference between a D800 and a D700 is a new sensor by Sony that uses the same architecture as one made for the last 2 years. Zero innovation.

Why did Nikon and Canon take so long to make a mirrorless camera? Because they were still selling boatloads of boring consumer SLRS with cheap plastic lenses which looked exactly the same as the last model. Yawn!

In nearly all areas of technology innovation is generally done by smaller, more agile companies and sometimes this gets taken up by larger ones if it works. I suspect Nikon and Canon ARE looking at this tech and monitoring the reaction to Fuji very closely. After all they have nowhere left to go with Bayer that doesn't also impact storage requirements. Most people are finding 21MP P&S cameras a bit heavy duty for sharing.

You cannot compare lenses across cameras, especially with MFT that has a different aspect ratio and therefore more vertical resolution.

Look at the resolution figures on DPReview and compare them against other 16MP APSC sensors.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro1/18

Hype it is not. It is the first generation competing with Bayer in its 10th generation. Bayer is as about as good as it's going to get, random arrays are just started (and even the founder of the Bayer array was doing research into them).

As an owner of both D600 and Xpro1 and Xe1 I can tell you that there are very few times I find the D600 to be markedly superior. Perhaps highlight recovery and a little bit of resolution, but thats it. There is far more visible noise and it requires a far higher degree of sharpening to reach the same acuity level.

I don't know why these studio scene comparisons are as they are, but when USM is applied and contrast is equalised they look different. I am going by my real life experience, and I am seldom less than impressed with files I get from the X trans, which is why I sold my X100. It's not even in the ballpark.