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

stevo23 wrote:

Canadianguy wrote:

The Davinator wrote:

In many ways, it is better than Bayer. Fuji has been clear that for high mp cameras like GFX, it is t necessary. That doesn’t mean XTrans is bad

Jerry and Bill just stated that Bayer vs X-Trans doesn’t matter in the whole scheme of things and you say they are spot on.

Then you go and tell us that X-Trans is better than Bayer in many ways – LOL.

Both can be true.

To me – there is no absolute advantage on either side – for some scenes – Bayer will be “better” or if you use a different raw developer – X-trans maybe “better”. There are too many variables in play to say outright that X-Trans is “better” than Bayer in all situations.

But my point is that its Fujifilm marketing that is telling us it matters. Buy my X-camera because it has an X-Trans sensor (Fujifilm has gotten the general public to believe that X-Trans is a sensor tech and not just a CFA on top of the same Sony sensors as many other cameras).

I think that voice isn't quite so loud.

Its Fujifilm's marketing messages that is driving us to have these discussions over and over again.

Maybe. But I don't think it's been selling cameras, the rest of what they do is what gets people interested. It's just a differentiator that may or may not have been a good idea.

I think it was a great idea as I noticed it for photographing weddings and dealing with moire on fabrics.  XTrans beats Bayer hands down in this regard.