One last X-Trans Vs. Bayer comparison

lewiedude2 said:

You always conclude the same thing. Glad you have qualified your OPINION now and it hasn’t changed. So, you are Bayer and Bayer is you. Sell your Fuji gear and move on. That’s my opinion.

Click to expand...

I have more Fuji lenses than many here, 12 Samyang, 18,27,35,56, Fuji primes, 10-24,15-45,18-55,55-200,100-400 zooms plus 1.4x tc! Let’s see what C1 12 brings, it looks more promising for xtrans. X-t100 remains the biggest camera bargain of the last 10years, no m43 sensor is even close, xtrans requires no end of processing to get to an equivalent iq, FF milc, really only A7iii/A7riii in real world applications will show meaningful improvements, that’s some achievement for $500 body

Greg7579 said:

Oh Man Erik... Now you've gone and done it. Just what we needed. Another XTrans is not worth it thread.

I started to write a long response to this, but I'm going to let it go.

I have not read any responses yet and probably won't unless I get sucked into a flame war right before this gets locked and people get banned.

So let's start a new thread on what the Over / Under is for how long it takes for this thread to get locked. I say about 5 more hours.



Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Click to expand...

Sorry folks, my intent was to point out that while there are subtle differences, when each is well processed that they BOTH produce good results and that neither is as horrible as the other’s proponents make it out to be. I failed.

..."X-Trans vs. Bayer" comparisons? We already know (well, for those of us who have experiences using both sensor types) that Fuji produces cameras (at all price levels) that perform superbly. I've been absolutely satisfied with how the Fuji Bayer sensored cameras perform (IQ-wise). I'm able to elicit superb sharpness levels from my X-A or X-T Bayer model cameras. Likewise, I can get great results from my X-Trans models.

But why the constant comparisons as if to imply that somehow one is better than the other? I can see if we're comparing Fuji camera IQ results to other brand camera IQ levels - but why this inter-Fuji scenario?

Or, could it be solely to post stuff for the purposes of posting something? ;-)

Just curious...just sayin.'

--
Life can be good - if you allow it!
Bernd ("Ben") Herrmann
Fuquay Varina, North Carolina USA

Advent1sam said:

Powerdoc said:

if you look at both pics, you will see more details in the X trans pic

Getting rid of the AA filter give a small but real advantages for the rendition of the finest details

• 
  
  
  the fine lines of the "old time" family engraving are more precise

Click to expand...

Then why is xtrans incapable of rendering foliage and flat surfaces on rocks, buildings and letters correctly? If it was so precise why do I continue to see this? Left x-h1 from Erik, right x-t100 from me? Also, look at the lines on the wheel, so glitchy, it is a weird phenomena I agree, on the one hand these test charts so a benefit to xtrans, but if you look closely it all falls apart. Thankfully I don't go around taking images of engravings!


x-h1 erik left, x-t100 right

Also on the note,


x-h1 erik left, x-t100 right

So, I agree some areas are better with xtrans, but texture and fine detail is masked by xtrans, especially on grass, tree foliage etc which is very very obvious at not only large sizes but small too. If the demosaic could solve this I would go for x-h1 but at the moment the glithcy nature of xtrans is very concerning, especially for landscape and nature where I just so see a natural output.

Click to expand...

With good demosaicing, sharpening and NR, X-trans produces the same excellent results out in the natural world as demonstrated in these images. Adobe's demosaicing really can make mess of distant foliage, but IXT can absolutely correct this without ugly artifacts just as it does with the green fuzzy stuff in this test image. X-Trans does sometimes have issues with rendering fine text, but at a normal viewing magnification it actually sometimes appears to look crisper and subjectively better than the technically superior Bayer rendering. You are absolutely head over heels in love with your X-T100 and that's fine, but you've seen bad results with x-trans (which, unfortunately are easy to produce) and you are clearly biased against it. The point here was to demonstrate that BOTH sensors (CFA's, actually) can produce very similar and excellent results. In my opinion people who shoot RAW, but who don't want to use IXT or Capture One etc. or who don't want to spend the time sorting out how to get the best from X-trans would likely be getting better results in Lightroom if their camera was sporting a Bayer sensor.

Ben Herrmann said:

..."X-Trans vs. Bayer" comparisons? We already know (well, for those of us who have experiences using both sensor types) that Fuji produces cameras (at all price levels) that perform superbly. I've been absolutely satisfied with how the Fuji Bayer sensored cameras perform (IQ-wise). I'm able to elicit superb sharpness levels from my X-A or X-T Bayer model cameras. Likewise, I can get great results from my X-Trans models.

But why the constant comparisons as if to imply that somehow one is better than the other? I can see if we're comparing Fuji camera IQ results to other brand camera IQ levels - but why this inter-Fuji scenario?

Or, could it be solely to post stuff for the purposes of posting something? ;-)

Just curious...just sayin.'

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with which is better. It's typical Internet forum male ego stuff driven by the need to have one's purchasing decisions validated. "I stand by my decision," "I never looked back," Camera XYZ blows everything out if the water," etc. are common phrases here. And when these decisions are challenged, sparks fly.

I say that it's a male thing because even though there are many female photographers, you rarely see them here, and never hear them go into angry rants about brands.

Car forums, large screen TV forums, and computer forums (Mac vs PC) are pretty much the same IMO.

Yet, here I am.

Sal

ms18 said:

57even said:

ms18 said:

I already explained X-Trans is not something I want to leave Fuji. But just because I love Fuji I don't need to defend every thing they do and act like I enjoy every thing

Every system has their pro and cons. In my opinion only downside of Fuji is X-Trans for me. But I still use X-Trans camera. And will keep using it. Because Fuji eco system has way more compatibly to me except this petty issue.

Click to expand...

So you 'hate' it, but it's only a 'petty issue'.

Click to expand...

I don't hate Fuji eco system. I hate X-Trans. Because in my opinion X-Trans does not give any advantage only incompatibility.

mahidoes said:

Sorry, but you make no sense. If it's only a petty issue for you, then let the rest of us enjoy the advantages and stop worrying about it.

Click to expand...

The advantage you talk is only in Fuji website. Not proved in real life or testing

Click to expand...

It has several benefits and a few complications. For me the benefits are worthwhile. If you don't understand what they are, I can't help you.

mahidoes said:

What I'm asking you is don't be a person who either defend every stupid thing a manufacturer make or keep a blind eye on it.. I do enjoy Fuji and for me Fuji is the best ecosystem available for me. That doesn't mean I have to keep quiet about some thing I don't like even if it is petty issue. I can critisise it and still enjoy taking pictures.

Click to expand...

I will defend whatever works for me. It is not stupid just because you don't like it, and it is not useless to everyone just because you don't have a use for it.

If you want a bayer camera, get one. Where else can I get an Xtrans camera?

Ben Herrmann said:

..."X-Trans vs. Bayer" comparisons? We already know (well, for those of us who have experiences using both sensor types) that Fuji produces cameras (at all price levels) that perform superbly. I've been absolutely satisfied with how the Fuji Bayer sensored cameras perform (IQ-wise). I'm able to elicit superb sharpness levels from my X-A or X-T Bayer model cameras. Likewise, I can get great results from my X-Trans models.

But why the constant comparisons as if to imply that somehow one is better than the other? I can see if we're comparing Fuji camera IQ results to other brand camera IQ levels - but why this inter-Fuji scenario?

Or, could it be solely to post stuff for the purposes of posting something? ;-)

Just curious...just sayin.'

Click to expand...

If you'd read the post, the purpose was to demonstrate that both produce excellent and very similar results. It apparently didn't work out that way, but hey. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Erik, I'm sure you're already regretting posting this and probably feel that you've stepped into a minefield. I guess many folks new to the forum have to learn the hard way that this discussion has no possible good outcome. It's been debated more times than anyone can possibly count here with precisely the same result every time. The issue being discussed is subtle and not necessarily visible to everyone. What's more, many people (I'll include myself in this group) prefer not to spend endless hours pixel peeping their images, looking for extremely subtle defects in demosaicing, processing, or anything else. Others obviously feel differently.

The problem is that these threads often tend to devolve into arguments over minutiae and the fact that the issue is so subtle complicates things even more. Many people don't see it, other do and don't care, and a very few like to obsess over it. Personally, if it were my decision to make, I'd lock these threads from the start and avoid the inevitable thrash, unpleasantness, and arguments over what is, without question IMHO, a very subtle issue in the realm of pixel peeping. However, censorship is not our role here, in spite of the temptation. I'll simply ask (as always) to keep things civil, do my inevitable eye roll when the next "worms/Adobe sucks/Bayer rules/etc." thread hits the forum, and wait for this to be discussed for the umpteenth time again.

Hopefully you'll get something useful out of the discussion and perhaps this one might make it to the end without having to be locked. However, I am sort of an optimist

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

The resolution difference when switching from Adobe demosaicing to Iridient or Markestijn 3-pass is much more apparent with X-Trans files than when going from Adobe to AMaZE for the regular Bayer files. Everybody has to decide for themselves if it's worth it to change their workflow based on these findings.

Whether Bayer or X-Tran, I like your attitude. Likewise, pick up an X-Ti body and most any Fuji lens and immediately I like Fuji regardless of sensor. After all, we're all chasing the light.

PetaPixel (Debunking 6 Myths About the Fujifilm X-Trans Sensor, Feb 2, 2018) delves into this controversy and outlines several workflow solutions.

Disclaimer: I've never shot Fuji and have followed several favorable blogs over time. I expect to have an X-T3 and a lens or two in house RSN.

My view is this:

There’s almost nobody who would not buy a camera because it’s got a bayer sensor. There are plenty who would not buy a Fuji because it’s X-Trans.

Because of this, why not appeal to a bigger audience by offering higher end bayer models? I’d love a bayer X-T3 but it’s unlikely I’d buy the X-Trans one.

Fuji has many selling points like design, video features, colour, dials and ergonomics, size and APS-C lenses. I want all of that but not enough to use X-Trans.

I really liked my X-E3 and enjoyed shooting with it but as soon as I went to post process I despised it.

X-Trans isn’t much of a selling point and few would buy a camera just for it. I’m not saying get rid of it but please give us some X-T3 class bayer cameras.

This is not directed at the OP. I think sometimes folks on this forum think we are using microscopes instead of cameras. I have read through every post up to this point. Same old tired arguments. The biggest question is why does it matter to YOU? No one seems to be using their cameras to take images or sharing images that definitively show the problem in question. They are also less apt to take sage advice from those more successful at solving said problems.

In the instances where processing seems to be an issue, there are alternatives that solve the problems laid out here. Some folks like to argue for the sake of arguing. What a buzz kill.....

--
I am an enthusiast, not a hobbyist.

Thanks for this Tom.

To me it appears the default sharpening is quite high for the X-T100 as I see some sharpening artifacts throughout the frame.

As these are presented I prefer the X-T3 overall.

Bob

Tom Schum said:

I developed the raws using the free Fuji/Silkypix raw developer v3.0, all at default settings. This software is available here:

http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/myfinepix_studio/rfc/


X-H1


X-T3


X-T100

Click to expand...

--

Sal Baker said:

lewiedude2 said:

You always conclude the same thing. Glad you have qualified your OPINION now and it hasn’t changed. So, you are Bayer and Bayer is you. Sell your Fuji gear and move on. That’s my opinion.

Click to expand...

His Fuji gear is Bayer, and he seems quite happy with the camera he has. No reason to sell it.

Sal

Click to expand...

Perhaps it’s the seemingly never ending Bayer/X-T100 sales pitch that tends to wear thin. No question that he’s entitled to his opinion, but I can see why the fact that it shows up any time this comes up it might be wearing a few people down over time. Just my humble opinion as a forum participant rather than any sort a moderation issue (at least at the present, anyway).

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

Hi Jerry-Astro,

Thank you for your very competent volunteer work as Mod's! The Forums need people like you, and your comments are sensible and balanced.

I'm greatly attracted to the Fuji system. I'd recommend it without hesitation to someone who has a big-time computer, and who doesn't have a significant collection of legacy lenses.

The first time I picked up an X-T2, the ergonomic similarity to my beloved Nikon FE2's gave me goose bumps! With great lenses, perfect size, and great support, it's a wonderful system.

But in reading a number of these Bayer-versus-X-Trans threads, I haven't seen the issue of processing load mentioned.

I recently downloaded the latest Fuji X-Trans files supported by my aging Adobe software; I also downloaded the comparable Fuji Bayer files.

My aging PC could do the raw conversion on Bayer in a couple of seconds, which works for me. But the X-Trans conversion had to struggle for 10 to 20 seconds, which seemed like an eternity.

If I got a state-of-the-art computer, and the current best software, these numbers might improve by a factor of ten. Then I might see 0.2 seconds for Bayer, and 1 or 2 seconds for X-Trans. That difference wouldn't bother me. But after such a computer and software upgrade, I wouldn't have enough money left to buy new camera equipment. :-(

It's this issue, not tiny differences at pixel level, that discourages me from jumping on the X-Trans train. Therefore, I'm another of those who hope for more Bayer options in the Fuji X system.

-Ed

Old Ed said:

Hi Jerry-Astro,

Thank you for your very competent volunteer work as Mod's! The Forums need people like you, and your comments are sensible and balanced.

I'm greatly attracted to the Fuji system. I'd recommend it without hesitation to someone who has a big-time computer, and who doesn't have a significant collection of legacy lenses.

The first time I picked up an X-T2, the ergonomic similarity to my beloved Nikon FE2's gave me goose bumps! With great lenses, perfect size, and great support, it's a wonderful system.

But in reading a number of these Bayer-versus-X-Trans threads, I haven't seen the issue of processing load mentioned.

I recently downloaded the latest Fuji X-Trans files supported by my aging Adobe software; I also downloaded the comparable Fuji Bayer files.

My aging PC could do the raw conversion on Bayer in a couple of seconds, which works for me. But the X-Trans conversion had to struggle for 10 to 20 seconds, which seemed like an eternity.

If I got a state-of-the-art computer, and the current best software, these numbers might improve by a factor of ten. Then I might see 0.2 seconds for Bayer, and 1 or 2 seconds for X-Trans. That difference wouldn't bother me. But after such a computer and software upgrade, I wouldn't have enough money left to buy new camera equipment. :-(

It's this issue, not tiny differences at pixel level, that discourages me from jumping on the X-Trans train. Therefore, I'm another of those who hope for more Bayer options in the Fuji X system.

-Ed

Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind comments. I can certainly see where the computation load issue can seriously impact some folks doing post processing work on their PC/Mac. I have to admit that my Mac is pretty up-to-date and the processing load for X-Trans conversions has not been a burden, or even really noticeable. However, for those using somewhat older processors, those delays can go well beyond being a simple inconvenience. Perhaps using Iridient to batch preprocess the files and then bringing them into LR might make processing the images faster, though admittedly at the price of disk capacity. Fortunately, adding a fairly inexpensive drive or replacing a hard drive ends up being simpler and far less expensive than doing a hardware upgrade.

These are all factors that have to be considered, which is why there probably is no right or wrong here... just different approaches to the same problem.

rwbaron said:

Thanks for this Tom.

To me it appears the default sharpening is quite high for the X-T100 as I see some sharpening artifacts throughout the frame.

As these are presented I prefer the X-T3 overall.

Click to expand...

The default sharpness in Fuji/Silkypix does appear way too high for the X-T100 which needs little extra sharpening. But I think most people who bother to shoot in RAW have no issues with changing a few settings. In my testing, all current 24mp Fuji's can be made to look the same when shooting RAW. Best to pull down those images a convert them to taste at home.

Sal

Bob [QUOTE="rwbaron said:

Tom Schum, post: 61910039, member: 210862"]
I developed the raws using the free Fuji/Silkypix raw developer v3.0, all at default settings. This software is available here:

http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/myfinepix_studio/rfc/


X-H1


X-T3


X-T100

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Jerry-astro said:

Sal Baker said:

lewiedude2 said:

You always conclude the same thing. Glad you have qualified your OPINION now and it hasn’t changed. So, you are Bayer and Bayer is you. Sell your Fuji gear and move on. That’s my opinion.

Click to expand...

His Fuji gear is Bayer, and he seems quite happy with the camera he has. No reason to sell it.

Sal

Click to expand...

Perhaps it’s the seemingly never ending Bayer/X-T100 sales pitch that tends to wear thin. No question that he’s entitled to his opinion, but I can see why the fact that it shows up any time this comes up it might be wearing a few people down over time. Just my humble opinion as a forum participant rather than any sort a moderation issue (at least at the present, anyway).

Click to expand...

Fuji implementation of bayer (x-t100) is different/better imo than all current comparable aps-c bayer milc offerings, there aren't many, and many FF too. Actually its not about detail, although x-t100 is excellent at that too! Although it doesn't have quite the measurable dr of say an a7 iii, it uses what it does have very effectively by having fabulous shadows, it's obvious to see in the various dpr lattitude/iso invariance tests and because it has a good amount of dr at iso200 it shows the limitations of FF if you want speed (shutter) in low light and good recoverable dr.

Lattitude











iso invariance









So really its nothing to do with detail or Erik's musings, its the overall iq that impresses with the x-t100, the detail just adds to the package.

Ben,

As Davinator said, X-Trans punches above its weight. Fuji believes in it. I have had many conversations with Fuji reps about it at events and in various ways and means.

They sincerely believe that it gets their smaller sensor (the APSC Digital Sweet Spot) closer to FF in several technical areas. They believe that it offers serious advantages. X-Trans is difficult and expensive to execute. It is not a marketing gimmick. It would be easier for them not to do it. But they do it because it works.

The reason the subject is so ripe for trolling is because the FF industry (which is now almost everyone else but Olympus), is very sensitive to claims by Fuji that they can get close to negating the advantages of FF while magnifying the many advantages of APSC.

This can result in seemingly emotional counter-attacks by people who are in fact not emotional at all.

They are professionals doing a job.

That is why these threads get locked down quickly.

Me saying this won't help because there are people who watch what I write about X-Trans on these many threads. They pounce quickly. It won't take long.

Watch what happens now....

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Greg7579 said:

Ben,

As Davinator said, X-Trans punches above its weight. Fuji believes in it. I have had many conversations with Fuji reps about it at events and in various ways and means.

They sincerely believe that it gets their smaller sensor (the APSC Digital Sweet Spot) closer to FF in several technical areas. They believe that it offers serious advantages. X-Trans is difficult and expensive to execute. It is not a marketing gimmick. It would be easier for them not to do it. But they do it because it works.

The reason the subject is so ripe for trolling is because the FF industry (which is now almost everyone else but Olympus), is very sensitive to claims by Fuji that they can get close to negating the advantages of FF while magnifying the many advantages of APSC.

This can result in seemingly emotional counter-attacks by people who are in fact not emotional at all.

They are professionals doing a job.

That is why these threads get locked down quickly.

Me saying this won't help because there are people who watch what I write about X-Trans on these many threads. They pounce quickly. It won't take long.

Watch what happens now....

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Click to expand...

What are those technical areas X-Trans brings closer to full frame? As someone who has owned the X-E3, I couldn't see them.