X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
10 months ago

I used a NEX 5n and X-E1 the other day back to back and I have to say I didn't find any real difference between the RAWs proceeded via Aperture. Lack of AA filter is supposed to provide more detail - but I don't see any. It it weren't for the EXIF data I doubt if I could tell one from the other.

I don't shoot much that would show moire so can't fairly compare that aspect.

To be clear I find both excellent - if not identical in output

Has anyone else seen any differences compared with other 16MP APS sensors - in RAW, I'm not talking about each manufacturer's jpg engines.

Not trying to stir up hard feelings, I'm genuinely curious. It might be that Aperture isn't best optimised for Fuji's RAWs, but then the same may also be said for it's renderings of Sony's cameras

Nick

Fujifilm X-E1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Dorkington
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

For me, it's fact.

Lack of AA filter often results in moire, but the X-Trans CFA minimizes that in my experience. It still happens, but less than a bayer layout sans AA filter.

That being said, it does require you to use a non Adobe converter to really see that detail, as Adobe has chosen a bit of a sloppier algorithm.

 Dorkington's gear list:Dorkington's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sal Baker
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,872Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

nick_webster wrote:

I used a NEX 5n and X-E1 the other day back to back and I have to say I didn't find any real difference between the RAWs proceeded via Aperture. Lack of AA filter is supposed to provide more detail - but I don't see any. It it weren't for the EXIF data I doubt if I could tell one from the other.

I don't shoot much that would show moire so can't fairly compare that aspect.

To be clear I find both excellent - if not identical in output

Has anyone else seen any differences compared with other 16MP APS sensors - in RAW, I'm not talking about each manufacturer's jpg engines.

Not trying to stir up hard feelings, I'm genuinely curious. It might be that Aperture isn't best optimised for Fuji's RAWs, but then the same may also be said for it's renderings of Sony's cameras

Nick

I much prefer the X-E2 RAW files over files from my FF 5DII.  I use Iridient and Capture One now, but I'm looking forward to seeing how the new upcoming versions of Aperture and LR handle X-Trans.

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 350D Fujifilm X-E2 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Moire problems ...
In reply to Dorkington, 10 months ago

As I said I don't photograph much with clothing in it which is, I guess, the main source of moire.

Have you done any back to back testing against the X-Trans or are you just going on experience ?

I'm not seeing any more detail which makes me curious whether that is just down to the rendering from Aperture, or whether there really isn't a real life difference with or without one.

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Waiting for Mac OS update as well
In reply to Sal Baker, 10 months ago

I have a spanking new X-T1 sat in front of me, but no way to process the RAWs yet

I refuse to use any other RAW converters because dealing with one set of software engineers' foibles is more than enough aggravation for me ( with the exception of SPP for my Sigma files as nothing else works, to my great regret )

What is that you see in your X-E2 files that you don't get from your Canon ?

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tesilab
Senior MemberPosts: 1,992Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

It is very difficult to do a controlled test. Did you use the same lens/aperture/exposure on both cameras of the same subject at the same distance/lighting?

Using the same lens would require adapters, and that would also call all but center of the image in question, provided they were both carefully focused.

Then the next issue is that there is no truly neutral rendering with no sharpening, no noise reduction, etc. the specifics of the demosaicing algorithms influence this whether it's Bayer or Xtrans.

Color profiles and tone curves may also play a role in perceived sharpness, I guess.

The bottom line is that even with controlled parameters, you are still stuck with tweaking the output from each image to see what is the best that you can get from each, which is subjective. It's no wonder that reviewers throw in comparisons of default jpegs.

Have you wondered why DXO doesn't test Xtrans sensors or lenses with XTrans? This might explain it:

 tesilab's gear list:tesilab's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sigma 19mm F2.8 EX DN +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
57LowRider
Senior MemberPosts: 2,679Gear list
Like?
Re: Waiting for Mac OS update as well
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

nick_webster wrote:

I have a spanking new X-T1 sat in front of me, but no way to process the RAWs yet

I refuse to use any other RAW converters because dealing with one set of software engineers' foibles is more than enough aggravation for me ( with the exception of SPP for my Sigma files as nothing else works, to my great regret )

What is that you see in your X-E2 files that you don't get from your Canon ?

Have you tried editing the EXIF data to say X-E2 or X100S?

 57LowRider's gear list:57LowRider's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Red5TX
Senior MemberPosts: 1,586
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

High ISO X-Trans files have a very distinct look.  I love it, particularly at realistic viewing sizes. Much more supple than brittle high ISO Bayer files.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JasperD
Senior MemberPosts: 2,662
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

Let´s keep it simple, I have X-Pro1 with 4 primes; I also have Sony A900 and over a dozen lenses for it. The X-Pro1 gets far more usage. The A900 is only used now where it really fits better, UWA, Macro, long(er) tele, DOF. It certainly is not doing touristic duties on travelling anymore, nor do I expect it to in the future.

However, if you don´t see the difference, stick with your NEX I say. Why waste time and money on something giving you the exact same results?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rovingtim
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,231
Like?
Re: Moire problems ...
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

nick_webster wrote:

As I said I don't photograph much with clothing in it which is, I guess, the main source of moire.

If you check DPReviews test image in the moire traps, you will see that all the no AA cameras react rather dramatically. The main difference between the X-trans and the Bayer is the colour of the strongest response.

Bring up the Fuji XM1 or the Oly EM1 and examine the traps while comparing other cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-m1/9

(moire traps are in the bottom central pane)

In non AA cameras, I see colour distortions all over the place. I recently took a shot of an increasing frequently fence with an older AA equipped camera and it took me a while to notice why it looked different from images from modern cameras. The answer was that there were no aliasing colour distortions.

Have you done any back to back testing against the X-Trans or are you just going on experience ?

I'm not seeing any more detail which makes me curious whether that is just down to the rendering from Aperture, or whether there really isn't a real life difference with or without one.

The X-Trans advantage reminds me of the telecentric advantage: real but marginal and easily overwhelmed by other factors.

That said, I really like how Fuji processes colour and tones.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mr Gadget
Senior MemberPosts: 1,846
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to Red5TX, 10 months ago

Red5TX wrote:

High ISO X-Trans files have a very distinct look. I love it, particularly at realistic viewing sizes. Much more supple than brittle high ISO Bayer files.

Supple? Brittle? do you mind explaining the use of these terms? images to compare?

Strange choice of words to describe image files.

-- hide signature --

Conrad
---------------------------------------------------
Show Low, Arizona

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
X-E2 not supported either
In reply to 57LowRider, 10 months ago

Not sure about the X100s without looking at the RAW support page.

I'm a bit busy to have a play with the camera at the moment and I'll be working nights this weekend so it will be the middle of next week before I get the chance to put it through it's paces

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Telecentricity ...
In reply to rovingtim, 10 months ago

Many a post about that in the old 1022 forum days

Nice to hear from you again and thanks for your insights,

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Testing wasn't that scientific :-)
In reply to tesilab, 10 months ago

I used the same lens and aperture on both cameras, lighting was very hit and miss on the day with the sun coming in and out. I've not noticed any issues with any of my many adapters and I'm looking at the centre of frame after magnified focussing.

As I said in my OP it might be that Aperture isn't getting the best out of the X-E1 files, so I was curious to see if anyone is seeing differences that I'm not.

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
That's interesting
In reply to Red5TX, 10 months ago

I don't use high ISO much and the tests I've done were all at base ISO.

Can't see any reason why the X-Trans sensor should be any better than a similar sensor with a Bayer CFA, perhaps Fuji's processing is better ?

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Brad Evans
Contributing MemberPosts: 576Gear list
Like?
Re: No advantages seen here...
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

>>> Has anyone else seen any differences compared with other 16MP APS sensors - in RAW, I'm not talking about each manufacturer's jpg engines.

I have not seen any real/consitent differences in processing my RAW files in Lightroom 5.3 from both X-E2 (X-Trans sensor) and X-A1 (Bayer sensor) cameras.

Here's a set of photos, from both cameras, intentionally mixed together.

............
Brad
Urban photoblog: http://www.citysnaps.net
.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Yes, let's keep it simple
In reply to JasperD, 10 months ago

If you read my post properly you would see that I was asking if people are seeing any differences between the X-Trans sensor and other 16MP APS sensors.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion apart from stating your preference for travelling with with the X-Pro1 ?

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rovingtim
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,231
Like?
Re: Telecentricity ...
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

nick_webster wrote:

Many a post about that in the old 1022 forum days

Nice to hear from you again and thanks for your insights,

Nick

Hi to you as well. The 'old guard' is spread out a bit.

I'm over here because I am weighing whether the m4/3rds or the x-trans is going to be my next main system. It is interesting to see the same arguments in a different flavour.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Good luck with your choice
In reply to rovingtim, 10 months ago

I've gone with Fuji just because the APS sensor is a better "fit" for my old MF lenses and although I've been very happy with the quality of files from my NEX I have struggled with its interface. The X-T1 and to a lesser extent the X-E1 have old fashioned knobs and I was brought up fiddling with knobs

Also Fuji do some very nice lenses. Overall bigger than the m4/3s system but not enough to trouble me.

Sorely tempted by the A7 or 7r as it would be even better to use my MF lenses at their native focal length, but have resisted so far - plus I don't need anywhere near that many MP for my modest prints.

SaltLakeGuy has just jumped ship from m4/3s and I seem to remember him being pretty happy ...

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bojo70
New MemberPosts: 6
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

Hello gays, this is me first post, also my English is not very god so apologizes.

I am Fujifilm x10 user and I love it.

I have question to all Fuji users and non-users. Lets go to sample images new studio scene comparison tool. Select x-e 2 and any camera with the same or almost the same sensor size like: Nikon d7100, Canon 70d, Sony nex 6, Panasonic gx7. Select 1600, 3200, 6400 iso and check image information data (bottom right under every comparable image). Way Fuji select lower speed at the same f stop and the same iso compared to other cameras?

Thank you

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads