X-E1 vs Canon 5D Mark III - continued

nixda wrote:

This is sort of a continuation of the previous thread about a comparison between X-E1 and the Canon 5D Mark III. Specifically, I had linked to the review of the X-E1 and comparison with teh 5DIII by Martin Doppelbauer here:

http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/foto/fujixe1/index.html

and his remarks here: http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/foto/tippstricks/aliasfilter/index.html

BillyInya wrote in the previous thread:

"It amazes me that the image quality coming out of such a small compact camera with an APS-C size sensor could ever seriously be compared to a monster full frame camera costing near three times as much. Not exactly a fair and level playing field, but then again, the Fuji has the X-trans! [Billy]

I am still amazed at the sheer image quality Fuji's X-Trans can deliver from an APS-C format. Image if Fuji made a full frame X-Trans, pro's would feel justified to compare it to medium format maybe. Amazing." [Billy]

Billy, I love my X-E1, but for the sake of some objectivity: what do you say to some of Martin's other statements:

"At first sight the picture on the left [X-E1] may actually look higher resolved than the one on the right. In reality, however, the visible structures inside the colored artifacts are just sampling errors and not real image detail."

"To omit an alias filter in front of a digital image sensors is like building a sports car with no brakes. Of course, the car accelerates a little faster due to the lower weight and the cornering ability is also better due to the smaller unsprung weight - but ultimately it lacks an essential functional element."

or harsher:

"Digital cameras without aliasing filters are cameras with a built-in design flaw!"

Also: "Regarding resolution: It is to be noted that the EOS 5D Mark III (with its low-pass filter) records visibly more details than the X-E1 (without the filter), even though the pixel count of the Canon in horizontal and vertical axis is just higher by 18%. Obviously the omission of the alias filter does not help the X-E1 to increase resolution much."

There is much more. Read his "Verdict" and you'll get a lot more, sobering impression. Most notably, Martin's gripe about what he calls "cheating" regarding ISO performance, and particularly "Fuji's marketing babble". Now, that one had me chuckling quite a bit.

To be fair, Martin writes, paraphrased, that the X-E1 is a great camera, and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

But he also writes that it's not necessary for Fuji's marketing team to put out such "babble".

Oh man, if there ever was a statement I agreed more with, then I don't know.