Starter level camera with very confusing usability

Tom Schum 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?

Sorry for the delay answering. I don't use a smartphone so I usually check the DPR forum only every other day.

There was a thread about this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62986190

Gist of it seems that xtrans in-camera raw processor does some raw filtering on long exposures and the X-T100 does not.

This reduces the number of stars seen in images.

Here is a quote from the post linked above:

"Yes, the spatial filtering or slight smoothing is applied to RAW data in the camera and can not be prevented in exposures over 5 sec in the XT3 & 2 & probably all X-trans. It mainly impacts the smallest & dimmest stars in an image. The bright core of dim stars gets smoothed out so close dim star fields become muddy."

Interesting... I do a fair amount of astro work and have done so for years.  I've never noticed any discernible impact or difference between X-Trans and other sensors (notably Canon) with respect to this particular issue.  I'm going to guess that it's extremely subtle and I'd honestly have to question whether the degree of impact would be even discernible in many cases or at least sufficient to drive a different choice in cameras.  And, BTW, virtually all astro shots that I take are well over 5s... usually closer to 25s if we're talking about wide field images.