X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Thanks mr moonlight
In reply to mr moonlight, 6 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guitarjeff
Contributing MemberPosts: 867
Like?
Re: Moire problems ...
In reply to rovingtim, 6 months ago

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!!!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Do you have anything to say on topic ?
In reply to JasperD, 6 months ago

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dotborg
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,488
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to nick_webster, 6 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

It's largely a marketing gimmick.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sal Baker
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,681Gear list
Like?
Re: Waiting for Mac OS update as well
In reply to nick_webster, 6 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 ?

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
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?
Thanks Sal,
In reply to Sal Baker, 6 months ago

I didn't realise the 5DMkII was so far behind the newer sensors, especially APS ones.

I've only had about 15 minuted with the X-T1 and apart from a niggle or two ergonomically - especially the hard to use 4-way controller - it is probably my 2nd favourite digital camera to use. My favourite is an Oly E-1 circa 2003

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Westmill
Regular MemberPosts: 379Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to nick_webster, 6 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 are certainly differences. Firstly it is possible the images were the same because the lens was not using the whole of what the sensor can actually resolve. Sticking a lens on the Fuji like the 60mm and it creates astounding detail. Exceedingly sharp ! The drawback is the watercolour effect which is often very evident in landscapes. This can be cured using better programs that do a better job than my lightroom 4 does. Although sharpness and detail are fine, as are most subjects. I have yet to see any moire, so that certainly works. Moire in my D7100 is a different story and I wish they had used an AA filter. The Fuji seems to have a quality all of its own. It seems to render lovely tones that appeals to me. So its hard to say which is best. Just down to personal taste at the end of the day. Fuji designed the Xtrans to reduce moire. That works without question.

 Westmill's gear list:Westmill's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC APO OS HSM Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,463
Like?
NEX 5n and X-E1 side by side ...
In reply to nick_webster, 6 months ago

In my testing Sony NEX5N in most cases produced sharper images with better colors and contrast in good light than Fuji X-E1. In poor light Fuji has a heavy red-brown tint, while Sony has yellow-green tint. Both cameras need serious color correction. Fuji has also poor red reproduction, it's even visible on test charts, in real life reds lose detail and turn color of fresh blood. Fuji also produces discoloration of small details, but sometimes even relatively large image fragments get wrong color, I've had one image of yellow wooden chips on red pavement turned red on Fuji images. Fuji is typically 1 stop behind in sensitivity, requiring 2x ISO for the same exposure, so after adjusting pictures for brightness, contrast, and color the noise is pretty much equal on both cameras (after all they use the same sensor), though the structure of noise is different.

Here are some side by side images: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4489424077/albums/fujifilm-x-e1-vs-sony-nex5n

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Charles2
Senior MemberPosts: 2,088
Like?
Re: Waiting for Mac OS update as well
In reply to nick_webster, 6 months ago

nick_webster wrote:

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 )

Then best to think of Fuji Raw File Converter as something like SPP - except easier. Use RFC just to adjust exposure on the neutral image and set an approximate white balance if needed. Export a TIFF to your favorite post-processing program.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dennis
Forum ProPosts: 13,366
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to mr moonlight, 6 months ago

mr moonlight wrote:

There's only a handful of RAW processors that do very well with Fuji's RAW files and Aperture isn't one of them. ... 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.

Sometimes I read hear that the raw issue is overblown (like in the memes and trolling thread), and yet this seems like confirmation of what I've read in the past that would give me pause over buying into it. Not an issue, because I'm not shopping. But hopefully it will all get straightened out at some point. It's amazing that Fuji can put such a competent jpeg engine in firmware, but not provide the algorithm to 3rd party raw processors.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boinkphoto
Contributing MemberPosts: 923Gear list
Like?
Honestly? It doesn't matter...
In reply to nick_webster, 6 months ago

What matters is you like the images you get out of the camera. "better" or not, a lot of us are very happy with the results we get.

As pretty much all cameras produce excellent, if not slightly different, results, the constant need to say X is better than Y is just distracting cock-strutting from what really matters: the art and enjoyment of taking pictures.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
historianx
Contributing MemberPosts: 885Gear list
Like?
Re: Waiting for Mac OS update as well
In reply to nick_webster, 6 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 ?

Nick

So you refuse to use the In-Cam RAW converter?  It is slow and tedious on the x-E1 but i like the results.

 historianx's gear list:historianx's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Fujifilm X100S Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus E-5 Fujifilm X-E1 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aethon
Regular MemberPosts: 309
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to mr moonlight, 6 months ago

mr moonlight wrote:

There's only a handful of RAW processors that do very well with Fuji's RAW files and Aperture isn't one of them.

I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong.

Every comparison I have seen puts Aperture up with the leaders in RAW processing, and my own experience backs that up. Almost every Mac user I know uses Aperture for X-Trans files because the gains from using PN or Iridient are trivial and you have the benefit of Aperture's simple workflow and asset management.

Do you actually use Aperture?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aethon
Regular MemberPosts: 309
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to Dennis, 6 months ago

Dennis wrote:

mr moonlight wrote:

There's only a handful of RAW processors that do very well with Fuji's RAW files and Aperture isn't one of them. ... 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.

Sometimes I read hear that the raw issue is overblown (like in the memes and trolling thread), and yet this seems like confirmation of what I've read in the past that would give me pause over buying into it. Not an issue, because I'm not shopping. But hopefully it will all get straightened out at some point. It's amazing that Fuji can put such a competent jpeg engine in firmware, but not provide the algorithm to 3rd party raw processors.

Good grief. This is the Zombie Idea that WILL NOT DIE!

The RAW issue is overblown at this point. Lightroom's processing was poor but is now absolutely fine. Aperture is actually superb.

C1 and Iridient may offer a teensy-tiny improvement (a technical term, obviously) but at the expense of a more complicated workflow in exchange for minimal gains. This is exactly the same way that some people also use those same processors for Bayer files. It's a matter of taste.

Again: Fujifilm RAW processing is no longer an issue. And Aperture processing X-Trans files extremely well.

Die, zombie. DIE!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sal Baker
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,681Gear list
Like?
Re: X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?
In reply to Dennis, 6 months ago

Dennis wrote:

mr moonlight wrote:

There's only a handful of RAW processors that do very well with Fuji's RAW files and Aperture isn't one of them. ... 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.

Sometimes I read hear that the raw issue is overblown (like in the memes and trolling thread), and yet this seems like confirmation of what I've read in the past that would give me pause over buying into it. Not an issue, because I'm not shopping. But hopefully it will all get straightened out at some point. It's amazing that Fuji can put such a competent jpeg engine in firmware, but not provide the algorithm to 3rd party raw processors.

You don't need any of us to tell you what you like. Do what I did a couple of months ago. Download a decent RAW file for the X camera of your choice form the Internet, and download a free demo of any of the major converter programs. Look at the results and decide for yourself. Fuji RAWs convert just like any other RAW files so there's no learning curve.

LR5 would be fine for me if I didn't need to print at large sizes. For that Iridient or Capture One are even better, just as they were slightly better with my 5DII files.  Aperture will probably be excellent too but it doesn't yet support my X-E2.

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
Graham Hill
Senior MemberPosts: 1,355Gear list
Like?
Re: Moire problems ...
In reply to rovingtim, 6 months ago

rovingtim wrote:

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.

Very well said.  The X-Trans sensor is a very real technology that does exactly what it was designed to do.  But it is of such minor, insignificant importance in real world shooting that virtually NO ONE would ever notice it.  That is why Fujifilm needs their hyped up marketing campaign and their super "sexy" X-Trans name.  Without the gimmicky marketing name, no one would even know about it.

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

Absolutely.  It's beautiful.  And it has NOTHING to do with the X Trans sensor.  Fujifilm colors are there, in spades, in their tiniest compact cameras up to their SLR's.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Graham Hill
Senior MemberPosts: 1,355Gear list
Like?
Re: Waiting for Mac OS update as well
In reply to historianx, 6 months ago

historianx wrote:

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

So you refuse to use the In-Cam RAW converter? It is slow and tedious on the x-E1 but i like the results.

Yes, the results from the in camera converter are excellent!  But Fujifilm really muffed up the design and has yet to fix it for their earlier cameras.   It is staggering how poorly Fujifilm programmed the in-camera converter.  Clearly they never tested it!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mcshan
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,316
Like?
Good sensor but not magic.
In reply to Sal Baker, 6 months ago

I think the initial hyperbole got a bit carried away. It is a good sensor but certainly not magic.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nick_webster
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,660
Like?
Thanks everyone,
In reply to nick_webster, 6 months ago

Thanks to everyone who replied and kept it a nice civil discussion.

It looks as if some people see some small differences and others, like me, don't perceive a big enough difference to notice. At least it makes me feel as if I'm not missing something obvious

Nick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JasperD
Senior MemberPosts: 2,662
Like?
Re: Do you have anything to say on topic ?
In reply to nick_webster, 6 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.

The first paragraph of your initial message. I´m not misreading anything IMO, I just reacted on that. If anything, you are misinterpreting my reaction. I did react on topic though, twice. I´ll leave it at that, you can continue writing all you like about it AFAIC, I will not respond to it anymore; it´s indeed not worth it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads