Got X-T100 as a sensor upgrade to my aging X-T1... Sticking with X-T1 :(

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
Garthom Regular Member • Posts: 160
Re: Got X-T100 as a sensor upgrade to my aging X-T1... Sticking with X-T1 :(
1

rwbaron wrote:

Garthom wrote:

rwbaron wrote:

Advent1sam wrote:

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

That's exactly what happened. I use X-Trans III generation as a category, as I described in the first post (though I should have clarified), because that's the generation that changed the colors from the previous generation. X-T100 doesn't even have an X-Trans sensor, but is within the X-Trans III generation of 24MP Fuji bodies.

Got to say, x-t100 colours are far better than anything I ever got from x-pro2, x-t2/20, xtrans 24 crunches the blacks and heavy shadows as well as the green cast. X-t100 is a much more neutral palleteđź‘Ś

There is absolutely no proof/evidence of any of the stuff you refer to. Controlled tests and technical measurements do not support your wonky perceptions.

The X-T100 is a nice camera and even a great camera for the money if one doesn't need tracking AF or video but having better IQ in any parameter than the X-Trans flagships is absolute nonsense.

Do these tests/measurements exist? By that I mean are there any reviews that make specific comparisons (with samples, measurements, etc.) between the X-T100 and the X-T2 or X-T20 in terms of IQ? I've used the studio comparison tool here, but you have the added variable of Adobe issues with X-trans, and also my main interest is any potential differences in IQ of distant subjects (ie. landscapes). I've done a couple quick Google searches but haven't come up with anything.

For all intents and purposes yes. The base silicon is identical with the only difference being the CFA. Using raw files from each camera processed with a converter that does the best possible conversion on both files will yield identical results for detail, color and dynamic range with a slight advantage to X-Trans for lack of moire'. The only real problem with X-Trans is that Adobe's ACR produces pedestrian results from the raw files but that's not to say they aren't usable or good enough for what most people do with them. It is ironic that many people on this forum obsess over minute differences at 100 and 200% on screen when all they ever do with their files is post them online or on social media platforms and for that no one will ever be able to see any disadvantage for Adobe's ACR.

How do you know this? I'm inclined to agree, but my question was where are those actual comparisons? I haven't seen side by side comparisons shot with the same lens, same settings, etc. I think I remember someone on here posting such a comparison of one scene, but there are so many variables in play that I'd like to see more.

And just to clarify, I happily own an X-T20 and I doubt I'll ever get an X-T100. My interest in this topic is pretty specific: I shoot landscapes almost exclusively, and even using X-Transformer I sometimes find the level of detail on distant scenes, typically with foliage, to be somewhat lacking. I suspect that this is probably a lens issue (I haven't decided if I'm sticking with Fuji, so I've been hesitant to invest in any of the higher end lenses so far), but I'd love to know for sure that a Bayer CFA wouldn't do any better. Given all the back and forth on Bayer vs. X-Trans, I'm surprised that there aren't more comparisons readily available. And yes, I know I could rent an X-T100 and test it myself. It just seems like these comparisons must be out there already somewhere.

To the OP, sorry for sidetracking this thread once again!

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