X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Thanks Brad,
In reply to Brad Evans, 10 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Hello bojo70
In reply to bojo70, 10 months ago

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

Hope this helps,

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dorkington
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
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.

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 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
SaltLakeGuy
Forum ProPosts: 10,666Gear list
Like?
Got rid of my Sony Nex
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

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
Epson Stylus Pro 3880
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Daniel Lauring
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,283
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

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Len_Gee
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,598Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to Dorkington, 10 months ago

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
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wyldberi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,762Gear 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

Can't say that I have tested cameras back to back. I do know that Nikon is producing at least one model of their cameras without an AA filter as an option. The purpose of this was to provide for recording greater detail in the subject. When I inquired how Nikon was getting around the moire effects the filters are designed to combat, I was told they use software correction when it arises.

Fuji's method was to use the non-standard, non-Bayer color filter array on the sensor. Different solutions; similar results. As others have pointed out, the effects are subtle and can easily go unnoticed if you don't go looking to figure out which is which. To be honest, I don't worry about it.

Besides the knobs that I like, and the Menu layout Fuji came up with, the thing I like the most about the Fuji cameras has been the company's dedication to flushing out their new system with a large range of top quality lenses. These go a long way toward producing the sharp, detailed images the cameras capture; far more than the act of removing the AA filters.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Thanks dorkington
In reply to Dorkington, 10 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Not seen that myself,
In reply to SaltLakeGuy, 10 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dorkington
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to Len_Gee, 10 months ago

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 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
Dorkington
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks dorkington
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

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 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
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
I'm not worried either,
In reply to wyldberi, 10 months ago

Just curious if others are seeing something I'm not

I too have gone with Fuji for their knobs and lenses - their menus seem much like everyone else's, YMMV of course.

Unfortunately I'm stuck working this weekend so won't be able to go and play with my new toys until next week ;-(

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
OldDigiman
Senior MemberPosts: 1,937Gear list
Like?
X-e2 and e-M5 looked the same
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

I did head to head tripod test against Oly, 18-55 on Fuji and Panny 14-42 pancake on Oly both around 35mm equiv at f4, and after developing Rawls in latest Lightroom, tweaking exposure for exact match and applying optimal sharpening for each, they were neck and neck.  Bear in mind that the Oly is supposed to have a very weak AA filter.  I'm switching to the Fuji for reasons of form factor and handling, not IQ.  Oh, I also uprezzed to 16.5" high at 360 dpi using my usual Photozoom settings and applied some output sharpening which is my usual workflow for printing on a 3880 and again, neck and neck.  Forgot to mention the Fuji had a little less noise at base iso which is where I tested.  Couldn't really assess dynamic range with the scene.  BTW this was an outdoor shot, not a studio test setup.

-- hide signature --

___________________
ODM
www.ahfairley.com/gallery/index.html
www.olmstedactupuncture.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Thanks OldDigiman
In reply to OldDigiman, 10 months ago

I'm adding, not switching, for other reasons than any marginal increase in detail rendering. I just thought I'd see if I could see any differences since I had both cameras

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mr moonlight
Senior MemberPosts: 1,589
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

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bavarius6
Regular MemberPosts: 449
Like?
Re: That's interesting
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rovingtim
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,234
Like?
Re: Good luck with your choice
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

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 ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Sigma 100-300 f4
In reply to rovingtim, 10 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JasperD
Senior MemberPosts: 2,662
Like?
Re: Yes, let's keep it simple
In reply to nick_webster, 10 months ago

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?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wyldberi
Senior MemberPosts: 2,762Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to mr moonlight, 10 months ago

mr moonlight wrote:

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.

Interesting observation.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads