|
What's Fuji's point?
5 months ago
|
I remember when Fuji went SuperCCD. To quote DPR's review of the S3Pro:
It took a generation or two to fix the quirks, although the limitations of the design remained limitations, from DPR's s5Pro review:
I remember when EXR first came out, reading all the hype and studying the diagrams and claims, and it sounded really promising. But the initial cameras had colour issues (blue artefacts if I recall), and it took several generations before the promised benefits started appearing. Although again, the limits of the design still applied; you could have extra DR or nearly high resolution, not both.
And here we are again with X-Trans. And the first generations suffering from artefacts.
One aside from the point (which I'll get to in a second) is what message does this send to the developers of raw software? Don't bother investing in learning our latest sensor, they'll be a new one along soon? Will 2014 be the year of the EXR-Trans?
However, the thing that makes it really all so strange is the X100. I don't think I've ever seen anything other than outright praise for the X100's fantastic image quality. To quote that highly critical review site again:
With the X100 Fuji showed they are masters of squeezing the very best quality out of regular sensors. Why the hell go through all this faff and complication? Why not simply choose the best regular sensor and show the rest of the world how it should be done again!
Do Fuji actually have a point, and if so, like me, will they ever be able to get to it?
-Najinsky
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 months ago | |||
| 5 months ago | |||
| 5 months ago | |||
| 5 months ago | 1 | ||
| 5 months ago | |||
| 5 months ago | |||
| 5 months ago | |||
| 5 months ago | |||
| 5 months ago | 1 | ||
| 5 months ago |