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

Jerry-astro wrote:

Bill Ferris wrote:

I would argue it is largely a academic pursuit. I didn't buy my X-T20 because it has an X-Trans sensor. I bought it because of size, weight, controls, user interface, features, the quality of the kit lens and value. If anything, considering all the hullabaloo over processing RAFs in Lightroom, the X-Trans sensor may have been a net negative in my case. Who wants that drama

On the whole, I would personally describe the X-Trans vs Bayer debate as far removed from factors that are relevant to the decision of which camera to buy. It's about as big a nothing burger as the whole Lightroom kerfuffle. X-Trans or Bayer, Lightroom or the field...none of these is stopping anyone from making an excellent photo. Yes, there are a few folks who will give these issues significant weight in their buying decision. Fortunately, most folks know better.

Again, just one photographer's opinion.

Gosh, Bill, do you think we could just frame your post and put it up on the forum wall (if there were such a thing). The debate has raged on since I took home an X-T1 years ago and has only let up a little since. It continues to be pointless and more and more in the realm of micro pixel peeping. — all but irrelevant. However, that will continue and will be the subject of yet more discussion and debates for the foreseeable future, I would imagine. It’s part of the fuel that keeps the forum alive.

In my case, it’s never influenced my buying decisions, and I don’t see that changing. There’s a lot to like about Fuji gear, and you put it, X-Trans is pretty well a “nothing burger.” It’s neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. There are so many approaches to dealing with whatever minor issues it might have that it’s all but a moot point.

That said... guaranteed, fast forward a couple of years and we’ll have revisited the topic regularly and it will still be the subject of a lot of discussion within the forum. JMHO. [sigh]

Its Fujifilm that has made a big deal about it.

They are the ones who made all the claims about it being better than Bayer – they are the ones putting their marketing machine into overdrive pushing X this and X that and using it as a market differentiation tool when it was first launched.

Why is anyone surprised when people start to questions the claims made by them – especially when they started to move back to Bayer for their top tier and lowest tier products instead. (GFX and X-T200).