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

il_alexk wrote:

Thanks... Not sure if I my eyes can see any advantages of X-trans, but the conclusions for me are simple.

In good light, X-trans is outresolves Bayer on areas with horizontal and vertical lines, Bayer is better pretty much everywhere else.

I wonder if you can do the same experiment with the Low-Light High ISO tests. This is where I can see in my tests significant advantages of Bayer in terms of color accuracy and resolutions. Just curious if you can squeeze more details with IXT than I can.

I probably could have done a better job here, but I did this quickly. My opinion remains the same, Bayer looks a little better here, X-Trans looks a little better there. A lot of this has as much to do with variables that have nothing to do with which CFA your sensor is sporting. While they try to maintain controlled conditions, these images are shot sometimes years apart and the conditions aren't always exactly the same. With these X-A5 images, which do indeed look great, I think someone just got the focus a little bit better where you are choosing to make comparisons - look at the feather and green stuff in the upper right hand corner of the X-A5 image, and the right side in general, it's significantly softer, and just like elsewhere where the X-Trans image is softer, neither discrepancy probably has all that much to do with which sensor was used. Both CFAs have their pluses and minuses, but IQ wise, IMO it's pretty much a toss up between the two. Anyone can produce nice looking images with either.

X-A5, ISO 6400

X-H1, ISO 6400