X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?

Started Feb 21, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
nick_webster
nick_webster OP Veteran Member • Posts: 5,322
Thanks Brad,

Your experience seems the same as mine, though it will be interesting to see if others are seeing some advantages to X-Trans in their photography,

Nick

nick_webster
nick_webster OP Veteran Member • Posts: 5,322
Hello bojo70

If you look at this thread you might find your answers -  http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53072307

Hope this helps,

Nick

Dorkington Regular Member • Posts: 355
Re: Moire problems ...
1

nick_webster wrote:

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

The difference between AA and non AA is pretty subtle. Most likely to see it in very small details. X-Trans just mitigates *some* of the moire risk due to the CFA layout, but otherwise, it's theoretically the same resolution as a non AA Bayer CFA.

Advantage of non AA: sharper details

Disadgantage of nin AA: moire risk

Advantage of X-Trans CFA: less moire risk

Disadvantage of X-Trans CFA: weak RAW support

If you're seeing the same results between AA and non AA, then either you aren't looking hard enough, or have a sharper lens on the AA'd camera. But seriously. It's subtle. It's pixel peeping. It's really not a big deal.

I notice a difference, but it's far from what makes me happy with my camera(s).

 Dorkington's gear list:Dorkington's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
SaltLakeGuy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,194
Got rid of my Sony Nex

because I noted that at mid to higher ISO's a blue sky was mottled and had noise in it. I tried and sold off a Oly EM1 for the SAME reason. FINALLY the X-T1 has NONE. Only the FF Canon 6D provided this so I'm sticking with the X-T1.

 SaltLakeGuy's gear list:SaltLakeGuy's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R II Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM +2 more
Daniel Lauring
Daniel Lauring Veteran Member • Posts: 9,033
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?

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

With the availability of the X-A1, which uses a Bayer array, there has been the ability to do direct comparisons.  The result's shown in extensive testing is that the differences are very small.  The concept makes sense, from a Physics standpoint, but the reality is something considerably less dramatic.

X-A1 vs. X-M1 shootout.

Len_Gee
Len_Gee Veteran Member • Posts: 8,892
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?

Dorkington wrote:

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.

Which non-Adobe converter do you use or recommend?

Thinking of acquiring XT1 kit and X100s as my travel cams.

 Len_Gee's gear list:Len_Gee's gear list
Fujifilm X100T Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II
nick_webster
nick_webster OP Veteran Member • Posts: 5,322
Thanks dorkington

It was the same lens with the same aperture - I'm not quite stupid enough to not try and remove as many variables as possible

Thanks for your thoughts - it may well be that I'm missing some subtle differences,

Nick

nick_webster
nick_webster OP Veteran Member • Posts: 5,322
Not seen that myself,

But I don't use higher ISOs - especially when there is enough light for the sky to be still be blue

Of course the best blue skies come from using an Oly E-1 at base ISO

Nick

Dorkington Regular Member • Posts: 355
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?

Len_Gee wrote:

Dorkington wrote:

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.

Which non-Adobe converter do you use or recommend?

Thinking of acquiring XT1 kit and X100s as my travel cams.

Personally, I export a TIFF using Iridient for high detail work (such as landscapes), then use Adobe for final adjustments of that TIFF. And for everything else I do the whole process through Adobe (since it's good enough in those instances, and I like the tools presented).

I've also seen Capture One, Photo Ninja and even Fuji's own RAW converter eek out better details than Adobe's.

That all being said, Adobe is fine for a good portion of things I shoot, and the tools Adobe has in it's converter (ACR or LR) are top notch.

 Dorkington's gear list:Dorkington's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
Dorkington Regular Member • Posts: 355
Re: Thanks dorkington

nick_webster wrote:

It was the same lens with the same aperture - I'm not quite stupid enough to not try and remove as many variables as possible

Thanks for your thoughts - it may well be that I'm missing some subtle differences,

Nick

Could also be the lens isn't quite sharp enough to take advantage also. Or, it might not be a big enough difference to be noticeable for you, and it's all moot haha.

 Dorkington's gear list:Dorkington's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
mr moonlight Senior Member • Posts: 1,781
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?

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

There's only a handful of RAW processors that do very well with Fuji's RAW files and Aperture isn't one of them. Sony's Bayer sensors are pretty standard, so while your default settings may not be ideal or to your taste, you can still pull out optimum files. With Fuji's X-trans RAW files, unless you're using the likes of C1 or Irident, your not maxing out what you can achieve with the X-trans RAW files.

If you want to see the differences between AA vs. non AA, take a look at type. On a traditional Bayer sensor with and AA filter you will see a very thin halo around the letters. This halo actually adds a bit to the perceived sharpness, but is not actual sharpness. It's the equivalent of outlining letters to make them stand out. With Fuji's sans AA filter X-trans, there's no halo and you get a clearly defined edge when looking at type.

bavarius6 Contributing Member • Posts: 573
Re: That's interesting

nick_webster wrote:

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

I think it's important to remember that an X-Trans sensor isn't just a differently patterned version of Bayer.  It actually contains considerably more green pixels compared to Bayer. This not only makes an X-Trans sensor have slightly higher sensitivity to light (green pixels are the most light sensitive) but could be a factor in the different colour response or 'look' of the X-trans sensor.  That said, it's probably a subtle difference at best.  I think most people on the Fuji bandwagon are more drawn by the body design, lenses and first class support/updates from Fuji than they are the CFA design.

Pat

rovingtim Veteran Member • Posts: 8,587
Re: Good luck with your choice

nick_webster wrote:

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

A big plus for Fuji is the ergos (imo). The extra stop of DoF control from sensor size is a key plus, IMO.

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

No long zooms though, and I like long zooms. On the other hand, m4/3rds have no good long zooms (at the moment). The good ones m4/3rds is planning to sell look large to me. So it is a wash for size.

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.

I'm mobile. Size is a big deal for me. Love FF IQ. Hate the size. FF mirrorless lenses will be too big for me. Normal FF lenses are far too big (for me).

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

I've been watching ...

nick_webster
nick_webster OP Veteran Member • Posts: 5,322
Sigma 100-300 f4

I love this on my D300 and it has a real aperture ring so it is fully useable on mirror less. Not sure how practical MF is going to be, but I might have some fun trying

Nick

JasperD
JasperD Senior Member • Posts: 2,662
Re: Yes, let's keep it simple

Preference for travelling, that´s a stretch methinks, your opinion and conclusion on what I´m saying. Assuming most of us here will put highest priority on IQ, less so on weight, you could have understood that for everything else than stated, I consider X-Pro1´s IQ (same as X-E1) to be better, or I would still be travelling with the Photo Trekker. 

Difficult to keep it simple, eh?

nick_webster
nick_webster OP Veteran Member • Posts: 5,322
Thanks mr moonlight

It looks as though any differences are slight and for my workflow and type of photography ( no text ) it might well be there isn't any advantage.

That said I'll reiterate that I'm very happy with both the Fuji and Sony files - prefer the Fuji body and prime lenses,

Nick

guitarjeff Senior Member • Posts: 1,127
Re: Moire problems ...

For me, the x trans X-E1 is far beter image quality than my 5D MKII was, and really, it's not even close to me.    Open a 5D2 raw cr2 file and turn sharpening all the way off.  When I first did this I was shocked at how much smearing the AA filter does.  That is not blur from the lens and sensor, they are DOING THAT ON PURPOSE!!!    And then trying to minimize the damage with software sharpening.

For me, I see a HUGE difference in sharpness with the X trans.  It is in some way, REAL sharpness, not phony sharpness that tries to undo damage that has already been done to the image by using software sharpness.  For me the difference from the 5D2 is shocking and wonderful  I will NEVER buy another body with an AA filter again, NEVER!!!

nick_webster
nick_webster OP Veteran Member • Posts: 5,322
Do you have anything to say on topic ?

This thread is about any differences between X-Trans and Bayer APS sensors - I'll state that again as you seem to have difficulty understanding this rather simple point.

You have yet to provide anything useful, can you manage it 3rd time lucky ?

Nick

dotborg Veteran Member • Posts: 8,250
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
2

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

It's largely a marketing gimmick.

Sal Baker Veteran Member • Posts: 9,347
Re: Waiting for Mac OS update as well

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 ?

Nick

No pattern shadow noise at low ISOs, generally less noise, very little shadow noise, much more range in recovering highlights and lifting shadows, better jpegs with much better WB, and more detail.  The 5DII has a strong low pass filter that smooths fine details which need more USM to look like the X-Trans detail with minimal sharpening.  AF is much more accurate with the outer AF points which cover much more of the frame than the 5DII outer AF points.  Plus, the X-E2 is an incredibly fun camera to use IMO.

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Ricoh GR Canon EOS 5D Mark II Fujifilm X-E2 Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads