X-E1 vs Canon 5D Mark III - continued

My opinion is that X-Trans images are not better or worse than Bayer images. They are different, just like low ISO images from Foveon are different.

Let me give some details. First of all, I think screen observation at 100% or 200% is not the best viewing option for an image (any image). I think the final judgment is made on the final result. For me it's eiher a print or a magazine or book print. I will judge only the printed image, and inspect high enlargements on screen only to get certain that there was not anything terribly wrong in my workflow, like miscalculation of depth of field, too much sharpening, trembling hands or things like that.

How different are X-Trans images? In my opinion they are in three fields.

First and foremost, the rendering of colours is different. Even in jpeg form, the X-Trans is able to detect differences in tones that the other sensors have difficulty to deal with. All the shots I made of foliage, when the season was friendly to this activity, made the images I shot with other sensors look metallic green and artificial in comparison.

The second difference is in the shadows. Now I can open up shadows without fear of noise, colour shift or other phantom effects. Up to ISO 1600 (I have little experience of higher sensitivities) my headroom in shadows is higher. The decision about how much can be seen is up to me, not to technological reasons.

The third difference is the one that shows up in prints. With my X-Pro1 I can apply just a bit of unsharp mask. The little bit that enhances the image, and nothing more (of course, as a final step I will also apply an unsharp mask tuned for the printer. But that is a fixed factor, that depends only on print size and printer resolution, not on the origin and workflow of the image). I think this is a vital factor in print quality. A strong sharpening process increases perceived acuity of the image, but destroys the subtle passages of tones. The image seems curved in stone, but it loses delicacy and subtle hues. I think that's the limit imposed by AA filters. What I like of my X-Trans images is that they replicate my MF film experiences of the past, which was based on sweetness of passages between tones.

I don't think targets are a good subject for those values. They will tell which lens/sensor combination is better at shooting targets, or if a lens has a fatal flaw, like the extreme corners of the 18mm Fujinon (ahem) but not much more. What I call MTF design of lenses, for example, has given us a generation of brave optics with excellent microcontrast, sometimes to the corners, but reduced capability to draw different out of focus planes. Now I find my X-Trans images have a good balance between contrasting factors. The fact carrying about the camera, a suitable (and lighter) tripod and a few lenses does not remind me how old I am, as FF DSLRs tend to do, is a plus factor.