Latest Fuji X-trans vs Bayer, has X-trans lost it already?

biza43 wrote:

As already pointed out, no conclusions can be drawn about the default JPEG output, until said default parameters are spelled out for each camera.

I understand that these are the conclusions X-trans proponents would like to keep, however this is what was discussed at this thread, so these are the conclusions from what was really discussed.

• Fuji X-A5/X-T100 OOC jpegs are "more contrasty and higher perceived sharpness"
• Fuji X-A5/X-T100 OOC high ISO jpegs have more chroma noise, but still show significantly more details and contrast. I definitely prefer OOC Jpegs of X-A5 over X-Pro3
• Some users here tend to agree that Bayer and X-trans provide a similar IQ, with differences so minor that choosing a winner wouldn't make sense. I see this as an acceptance of the fact that the days of clear advantages of X-trans are over.
• There are claims that moving to a proper raw processing SW would change the balance in favour of X-trans, yet no proof has been given.

My personal problems with the last claim are:

• There is a fundamentally incorrect assumption that X-trans sensor will benefit from proper RAW processing more than Bayer, it will show more details with better colors and less noise. C1 is quite good for processing Bayer sensors too, just in case anyone missed it.
• There is a fundamental assumption that Fuji Raw Studio can't show any advantages of X-trans over Bayer, yet C1 or RT or Iridient will somehow magically do it. Please do keep in mind that if you process raws in Fuji Raw Studio you are very likely to end up with a similar demosaicing results as with OOC jpegs.
  If anything I can accept that LR handling of Xtrans raws is not good, but it doesn't mean that C1 can beat Fuji or LR or even C1 with Bayer raws.

Another problem with the last claim is that nobody bothers to prove it. It sounds like a mantra to me, and I personally don't believe in it, but hey, why wouldn't someone take DPR raws and use Iridient, C1 or any other SW and try to show the magical advantages of X-trans sensors.

So here is the challenge.

Take these raws and show what you can do with your best RAW engine. If you can beat fuji's OOC X-A5 Jpegs, I promise to do the same with X-A5 raws so we can see if there is any advantage for X-trans or how significant it is.

Rules are:

• All settings must be applied to the whole image, no local adjustments (except for demosaicing)
• Just a basic demosaicing, moire, contrast and denouncing are allowed
• Standard Fuji profile, WB "as shot", no messing up with custom LUT/contrast tables, let's keep vibrance/saturation under control, so we can compare apples to apples rather than our creative skills.

1. Low light, high ISO

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xa5&attr13_1=fujifilm_xpro3&attr13_2=fujifilm_xt100&attr13_3=fujifilm_xt30&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.6202582464220795&y=-0.15956978761016444

2. Good light, low ISO

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xa5&attr13_1=fujifilm_xpro3&attr13_2=fujifilm_xt100&attr13_3=fujifilm_xt30&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&attr126_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.21297495298157976&y=-0.6218702714186282

Anyone? Let's see how much your beloved X-trans is better than Bayer today.

P.S. It is Iridient, not Iridium:)

Thanks, my fingers can't type this, the Iridium automatically comes out when I type it. At least it's not Polonium