X-Trans advantages - fact or fiction ?

Started Feb 21, 2014 | Discussions thread
mr moonlight Senior Member • Posts: 1,789
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


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.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow