Fuji has the potential to be aps-c supremo?

Gavin Stapleton said:

There's no AA filter on the X-T100, so probably not on the X-A5, either. Both of them are no worse than any other 24MP Bayer CFA camera for moire, but better than the a6500 at least.

Click to expand...

Ed B said:

Advent1sam said:

But not with x-trans I fear, it is a mixed bag and the recent samples of the x-a5 and now x-t100 point to a brighter future with bayer. If Fuji is producing such great results with MF and bayer then there is no reason to hold back on aps-c. Go for it Fuji, give us an x-pro2 b (bayer), x-t2 b and x-h1 b, and beef the sensor further to 30+mp too. X-trans is complex, expensive and unnecessary!

Also, consider a new mk2 10-24 2.8-4 along with a 16-100 2.8-4 and a 100-300 2.8-4!

Click to expand...

Bayer vs. X-Trans has been discussed since the day Fuji came out with the X-Trans filter array but I don't think Fuji has any intention of putting a Bayer sensor in their top-tier cameras.

Some people new to Fuji or people you've never owned a Fuji seem to think the X-Trans sensor is inferior to the Bayer sensor but the majority of long time Fuji owners disagree.

Not 100% sure who's right but when I see images like this I think Fuji may be right sticking with X-Trans.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4292022

Click to expand...

Tom Schum said:

Tom Schum said:

Advent1sam wrote:For now I'll settle for Fuji aps-c, bayer x-t100 and their wonderful lens line and wonderful color science, see, were all happy now!

Click to expand...

This is the Fuji edge.

With the X-T100 we have the lowest cost entry to the Fuji camera system that has an EVF. This EVF means old camera guys with not so much money will like it. Funny how X-A3 and X-A5 haven't seemed to do so well (is it because these have no EVF? It is for me.). Sample shots from the X-A3 and X-A5 have been nice though. Must be the lack of EVF...

So, (1) low price 24mp images, (2) Fuji lens line, (3) extensive third party lens and accessory choices, (4) EVF, (5) now a Bayer sensor, and the sky is the limit.

No more controversy about X-trans vs Bayer, no more issues with raw processors, and it comes with the entire Fuji lens line. It blows Canon mirrorless out of the water just because of the Fuji lens choices, not to mention third party suppliers such as Samyang and Mitakon.

Same goes for micro four thirds, but they retain the advantage in ruggedness. Fuji can't match that.

It has a built in flash and uses the same battery as the X-E1. Holey moley! Not even the X-E3 has a flash!

Will Fuji update their MF line with an X-trans sensor? Probably not. Where is the leading edge of Fuji imaging science now?

--
Tom Schum
Copper: Mankind's favorite electrical conductor

Click to expand...

Gavin Stapleton said:

When you handle a X-A camera and X-T100 they are worlds apart in build, but the price point isn't. But I would say the X-T100 is very rugged - Vistek dropped his onto hard sealed road/pavement three times and only left some minor marks. Unless by rugged you mean weather resistance? Then yeah, you can almost go swimming with Olympus. But in this price segment the only thing with WR I can think of is the Pentax K-70?

Click to expand...

photolando said:

Does the A5 have and Antialias filter? That would be the reason why you see no moire. I don't think Fuji figured out any magical way to deal with it besides that. Well they did, it's called an X Trans sensor.

And since the A5 more of a consumer type camera (vs pro-ish, high end) I'm sure they felt there was no need to NOT use one.

--
Mike

Click to expand...

The Davinator said:

XTrans does a great job with moire.

Click to expand...

sluggy_warrior said:

Brian P Smith said:

I agree, X-Trans really isn't needed anymore and I'm afraid Fuji is going to hold on to it too long because of pride and the big deal they made out of it. At 24mpx +, Moire isn't a big issue and if it shows up (rarely), the moire removal tool in LR/PS does a decent enough job that you're not going to notice it. In a shrinking market, the burden of X-Trans may be something that Fuji needs to seriously consider dropping. Very, very few people come to Fuji for X-Trans; it's for other things like ergonomics/size/value etc.

Click to expand...

ah, people talking about X-Trans like expert with no real experience in tweaking/playing around with its RAW ... sigh ...

Click to expand...

sluggy_warrior said:

One of the most obvious advantages is chroma noise, a lot better than the 24MP Nikon D5500, at least under the same denoise combo in Darktable.

Click to expand...

sankos said:

sluggy_warrior said:

Brian P Smith said:

I agree, X-Trans really isn't needed anymore and I'm afraid Fuji is going to hold on to it too long because of pride and the big deal they made out of it. At 24mpx +, Moire isn't a big issue and if it shows up (rarely), the moire removal tool in LR/PS does a decent enough job that you're not going to notice it. In a shrinking market, the burden of X-Trans may be something that Fuji needs to seriously consider dropping. Very, very few people come to Fuji for X-Trans; it's for other things like ergonomics/size/value etc.

Click to expand...

ah, people talking about X-Trans like expert with no real experience in tweaking/playing around with its RAW ... sigh ...

Click to expand...

I admit I don't have much experience with converting X-trans raw files, but...

Click to expand...

sankos said:

sankos said:

One of the most obvious advantages is chroma noise, a lot better than the 24MP Nikon D5500, at least under the same denoise combo in Darktable.

Click to expand...

A methodological issue here: darktable's profiled denoise filter is not comparable between cameras. Ideally you should noise-profile both cameras under the same circumstances but the default profiles (I assume that's what you used, right?) do not guarantee that, so there will be differences. See e.g. this thread at the pixls.us forum on how to noise-profile a camera.

Run the test without any NR (and with as few filters applied as possible) to have a valid comparison between those two sensors. Also important: don't apply any CA/PF removal and lens corrections.

Click to expand...

John Gellings said:

sankos said:

sluggy_warrior said:

Brian P Smith said:

I agree, X-Trans really isn't needed anymore and I'm afraid Fuji is going to hold on to it too long because of pride and the big deal they made out of it. At 24mpx +, Moire isn't a big issue and if it shows up (rarely), the moire removal tool in LR/PS does a decent enough job that you're not going to notice it. In a shrinking market, the burden of X-Trans may be something that Fuji needs to seriously consider dropping. Very, very few people come to Fuji for X-Trans; it's for other things like ergonomics/size/value etc.

Click to expand...

ah, people talking about X-Trans like expert with no real experience in tweaking/playing around with its RAW ... sigh ...

Click to expand...

I admit I don't have much experience with converting X-trans raw files, but...

Click to expand...

Ok, I have a lot of experience processing Fuji RAW files

John Gellings said:

John Gellings said:

One of the most obvious advantages is chroma noise, a lot better than the 24MP Nikon D5500, at least under the same denoise combo in Darktable.

Click to expand...

A methodological issue here: darktable's profiled denoise filter is not comparable between cameras. Ideally you should noise-profile both cameras under the same circumstances but the default profiles (I assume that's what you used, right?) do not guarantee that, so there will be differences. See e.g. this thread at the pixls.us forum on how to noise-profile a camera.

Run the test without any NR (and with as few filters applied as possible) to have a valid comparison between those two sensors. Also important: don't apply any CA/PF removal and lens corrections.

Click to expand...

BUT I have no idea why I'd ever want to waste my time doing this...

Click to expand...

sankos said:

John Gellings said:

sankos said:

sluggy_warrior said:

Brian P Smith said:

I agree, X-Trans really isn't needed anymore and I'm afraid Fuji is going to hold on to it too long because of pride and the big deal they made out of it. At 24mpx +, Moire isn't a big issue and if it shows up (rarely), the moire removal tool in LR/PS does a decent enough job that you're not going to notice it. In a shrinking market, the burden of X-Trans may be something that Fuji needs to seriously consider dropping. Very, very few people come to Fuji for X-Trans; it's for other things like ergonomics/size/value etc.

Click to expand...

ah, people talking about X-Trans like expert with no real experience in tweaking/playing around with its RAW ... sigh ...

Click to expand...

I admit I don't have much experience with converting X-trans raw files, but...

Click to expand...

Ok, I have a lot of experience processing Fuji RAW files

sankos said:

sankos said:

One of the most obvious advantages is chroma noise, a lot better than the 24MP Nikon D5500, at least under the same denoise combo in Darktable.

Click to expand...

A methodological issue here: darktable's profiled denoise filter is not comparable between cameras. Ideally you should noise-profile both cameras under the same circumstances but the default profiles (I assume that's what you used, right?) do not guarantee that, so there will be differences. See e.g. this thread at the pixls.us forum on how to noise-profile a camera.

Run the test without any NR (and with as few filters applied as possible) to have a valid comparison between those two sensors. Also important: don't apply any CA/PF removal and lens corrections.

Click to expand...

BUT I have no idea why I'd ever want to waste my time doing this...

Click to expand...

I've no idea why you felt my post was addressed to you.

Click to expand...