Starter level camera with very confusing usability

Jerry-astro wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Tom Schum wrote:

Others have pointed out that it is much better for astro photography than the Xtrans models (X-T100 sensor is Bayer).

Maybe I've missed some of the other posts on this, but I've love to see an explanation as to why this is the case. I've used my X-H1, and previously an X-T2, for astro work for years now with very satisfying results. Both sensors are X-Trans based. Can you perhaps summarize the issues that people feel they are having with this particular usage?

Well, no response, so I’ll just categorically state my opinion that X-Trans is perfectly fine for astro work, having done plenty of my own over the years. I think I’d want to see some supporting data or expert input before giving any credibility to this particular opinion. BTW, I’m not here to defend X-Trans... some of its issues are well documented in this forum and elsewhere. However, IMHO, this doesn’t happen to be one of them.

I believe that Kiwi2's astro work using his X-T2 from his home in New Zealand (some even with the X-T100 that he also has) is beyond stellar (pun intended). I even went out last night to try and get some longer exposure star/night sky images with my X-T2 and 16-55 and found my X-Trans body up to the task. Nothing I would want to post as I am just now starting out with this type of imagery - in anticipation of a trip next year.