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

Bill Ferris said:

Canadianguy said:

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).

Click to expand...

Asking the question isn't surprising, to me. In fact, I'd say it's rather natural and normal to be curious about such things. However, when the differences in performance - if there are differences - require pixel peeping at 1:1 to be seen, that's when I suggest exiting the theater in an orderly manner and moving on to more relevant issues.

For example, I would never discourage a person from buying a Fuji camera built around a Bayer sensor, just because it's a Bayer sensor. I'd focus more on the fit of the controls, features, interface, etc. with the person's expressed photographic interests.

Click to expand...

Precisely — well said. All the hoo-hah over this has been, and continues to be vastly overplayed. The fact that it’s being discussed doesn’t necessarily mean it’s important (as some might imply). It’s more along the lines that it was, is, and likely will be controversial, and the perfect fodder for endless debate in forums like this. There are perhaps a few isolated situations where the CFA might really matter, but for the most part, the majority of camera users out there (and not just rank amateurs) are creating and enjoying some excellent images, regardless how the CFA has been designed.

I realize that this might be a bit of heresy to some people who’ve been happily debating this issue since time immemorial. But honestly, it’s JMHO, whether you happen to agree or not. And I suspect, I’m not exactly alone in this. I might have an academic interest in what Fuji’s next CFA design might be, but I’m pretty confident that will have nearly a zero impact on my photography. To me, in the scheme of things and lining up what’s REALLY important in a camera’s design, this aspect of it, is about the size of a gnat’s eyebrow in terms of overall importance.

OK... I’ve had some time to get my flame retardant gear on, so by all means, let ‘er rip.

stevo23 said:

Canadianguy said:

The Davinator said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Both can be true.

stevo23 said:

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).

Click to expand...

I think that voice isn't quite so loud.

stevo23 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

The Davinator said:

stevo23 said:

Canadianguy said:

The Davinator said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Both can be true.

The Davinator said:

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).

Click to expand...

I think that voice isn't quite so loud.

The Davinator said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

That was what I had in mind as well. I've never had a hint of it with my X-Pro2. But I've had it in abundance with my A7 and D600.

il_alexk said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Bill Ferris said:

Canadianguy said:

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).

Click to expand...

Asking the question isn't surprising, to me. In fact, I'd say it's rather natural and normal to be curious about such things. However, when the differences in performance - if there are differences - require pixel peeping at 1:1 to be seen, that's when I suggest exiting the theater in an orderly manner and moving on to more relevant issues.

Click to expand...

Well, if you can't see the IQ difference between two sensors without pixel-peeping, then may be IQ of X-trans is not different from Bayers one, what's the point of X-trans then?

Bill Ferris said:

For example, I would never discourage a person from buying a Fuji camera built around a Bayer sensor, just because it's a Bayer sensor. I'd focus more on the fit of the controls, features, interface, etc. with the person's expressed photographic interests.

Click to expand...

Nobody in decent mind is going to claim that X-A5 is a better camera than X-Pro3, so what you say is well agreed and accepted. But my original post was not comparing cameras, controls and AF. It was about the fuss made by Fuji about superiority their X-Trans sensor which seems to be a bit misleading today.

Their own OOC jpegs show that it's the other way around for OOC shooters. When it comes to raws Bayer is as good if not better than X-trans,

So I simply wonder now if Fujifilm X-Trans strategy still makes sense today or may be we should expect X-T5 to be with Bayer sensor.

Anyway, I do apologise if you find the images comparing capabilities of the two sensors offending. That wasn't my intention.

--
Cheers,
Alex

Erik Baumgartner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Haha, I thought the same when examining the two shots earlier when the post started, but dismissed that thoughts as I assumed f/5.6 would have enough DoF to not make a difference. You've just confirmed my suspicion, perhaps one camera focuses better than the other?

They claim to use manual focusing to ba as accurate as possible. And have fudged it up in the past and republished results when called on it.

sluggy_warrior said:

Erik Baumgartner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Haha, I thought the same when examining the two shots earlier when the post started, but dismissed that thoughts as I assumed f/5.6 would have enough DoF to not make a difference. You've just confirmed my suspicion, perhaps one camera focuses better than the other?

Click to expand...

X-A5 focuses better than XT3 and XPro3? You kidding, right...

Anyway, If you check the DPR studio you will see that Fuji Bayer cameras (Xa5,Xt100) perform better X-trans cameras (T3, T2, T30, Pro3, etc.).

Quite a coincidence, right?

il_alexk said:

X-A5 focuses better than XT3 and XPro3? You kidding, right...

Anyway, If you check the DPR studio you will see that Fuji Bayer cameras (Xa5,Xt100) perform better X-trans cameras (T3, T2, T30, Pro3, etc.).

Quite a coincidence, right?

Click to expand...

I didn't pay attention to which models have better focus, and not sure how they shot the studio scene so I didn't draw any conclusion.

Heck, even on the same X-T20, BBF works fine with my 18-55 lens but completely messed up with the 18-135:

il_alexk said:

Bill Ferris said:

Canadianguy said:

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).

Click to expand...

Asking the question isn't surprising, to me. In fact, I'd say it's rather natural and normal to be curious about such things. However, when the differences in performance - if there are differences - require pixel peeping at 1:1 to be seen, that's when I suggest exiting the theater in an orderly manner and moving on to more relevant issues.

For example, I would never discourage a person from buying a Fuji camera built around a Bayer sensor, just because it's a Bayer sensor. I'd focus more on the fit of the controls, features, interface, etc. with the person's expressed photographic interests.

Click to expand...

Nobody in decent mind is going to claim that X-A5 is a better camera than X-Pro3, so what you say is well agreed and accepted.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, not in an absolute sense but, if we're debating which camera is the better fit for the brand spankin' new photog seeking their first ILC, I'd listen to you or someone else making the case for the X-A5. I might even be in that camp.

il_alexk said:

However the whole Fuji fuss about superiority their X-Trans sensor seems to be a bit misleading. Their own OOC jpegs show that it's the other way around for OOC shooters. When it comes to raws Bayer is as good if not better than X-trans.

Click to expand...

Other way 'round for OOC JPEGs. As I demonstrated, the heavy-handed in-camera sharpening of the X-A5 and X-T100 produced more disagreeable artifacts.

il_alexk said:

So I started this thread with the only goal to understand if Fujifilm X-trans strategy still makes sense today.

Click to expand...

If current and new owners list X-Trans as a factor in their decision either to stay with or purchase Fuji, I'd argue, yes. Some folks seem to swear by X-Trans' ability to handle fine detail and avoid moire. Personally, I have no experience one way or the other on that factor.

I suspect Fuji will stay with X-Trans as long as two things are true: sales are good and X-Trans remains an element folks strongly identify with the Fuji brand. I realize this may seem like punting on the question of which is actually better. But, as a business, Fujifilm, Inc. will make product decisions based on their opinion of what's best for business.

Rational or not, this may be the equivalent of "Mad Men" character, Don Draper, selling Lucky Strikes above the tagline, "It's toasted." It works because it differentiates the product.

Bill Ferris said:

...

Click to expand...

Bill Ferris said:

I suspect Fuji will stay with X-Trans as long as two things are true: sales are good and X-Trans remains an element folks strongly identify with the Fuji brand. I realize this may seem like punting on the question of which is actually better. But, as a business, Fujifilm, Inc. will make product decisions based on their opinion of what's best for business.

Rational or not, this may be the equivalent of "Mad Men" character, Don Draper, selling Lucky Strikes above the tagline, "It's toasted." It works because it differentiates the product.

Click to expand...

That's the whole point of this thread and others like it. I see this thread maxing out at 150 and someone else will start another one next week.

Is X-Trans just a marketing gimmick or does it improve the overall image quality?

A bunch of people say yes - its just marketing - they see no difference or Bayer looks better.

A bunch of other people say no - X-Trans is a real game changer - they can really see an improvement with X-Trans photos.

Canadianguy said:

Bill Ferris said:

...

I suspect Fuji will stay with X-Trans as long as two things are true: sales are good and X-Trans remains an element folks strongly identify with the Fuji brand. I realize this may seem like punting on the question of which is actually better. But, as a business, Fujifilm, Inc. will make product decisions based on their opinion of what's best for business.

Rational or not, this may be the equivalent of "Mad Men" character, Don Draper, selling Lucky Strikes above the tagline, "It's toasted." It works because it differentiates the product.

Click to expand...

That's the whole point of this thread and others like it. I see this thread maxing out at 150 and someone else will start another one next week.

Is X-Trans just a marketing gimmick or does it improve the overall image quality?

A bunch of people say yes - its just marketing - they see no difference or Bayer looks better.

A bunch of other people say no - X-Trans is a real game changer - they can really see an improvement with X-Trans photos.

Click to expand...

As I was using Fuji XTrans for weddings where moire on fabrics poses an issue, we can clearly see that moire is reduced with XTrans as opposed to the rainbow on the Bayer. Painfully visible...painfully obvious it is not just marketing. I would question the eyesight of anyone who claims both shots appear the same.

The Davinator said:

Canadianguy said:

Bill Ferris said:

...

I suspect Fuji will stay with X-Trans as long as two things are true: sales are good and X-Trans remains an element folks strongly identify with the Fuji brand. I realize this may seem like punting on the question of which is actually better. But, as a business, Fujifilm, Inc. will make product decisions based on their opinion of what's best for business.

Rational or not, this may be the equivalent of "Mad Men" character, Don Draper, selling Lucky Strikes above the tagline, "It's toasted." It works because it differentiates the product.

Click to expand...

That's the whole point of this thread and others like it. I see this thread maxing out at 150 and someone else will start another one next week.

Is X-Trans just a marketing gimmick or does it improve the overall image quality?

A bunch of people say yes - its just marketing - they see no difference or Bayer looks better.

A bunch of other people say no - X-Trans is a real game changer - they can really see an improvement with X-Trans photos.

Click to expand...

As I was using Fuji XTrans for weddings where moire on fabrics poses an issue, we can clearly see that moire is reduced with XTrans as opposed to the rainbow on the Bayer. Painfully visible...painfully obvious it is not just marketing. I would question the eyesight of anyone who claims both shots appear the same.

Click to expand...

So Bill & Jerry were not spot on? That the difference is only visible when pixel peeping at 100% or more and it isn't important in real life situations - that there are essential no differences in real world viewing between Bayer and X-Trans.

And now we are comparing Fujifilm to Sony cameras? What even happened to comparing Fujifilm to Filmfilm with Bayer and X-Trans?

If X-Trans was a game changer for your work - that's great - more power to you but then you are not in agreement with Bill & Jerry.

Canadianguy said:

Bill Ferris said:

...

I suspect Fuji will stay with X-Trans as long as two things are true: sales are good and X-Trans remains an element folks strongly identify with the Fuji brand. I realize this may seem like punting on the question of which is actually better. But, as a business, Fujifilm, Inc. will make product decisions based on their opinion of what's best for business.

Rational or not, this may be the equivalent of "Mad Men" character, Don Draper, selling Lucky Strikes above the tagline, "It's toasted." It works because it differentiates the product.

Click to expand...

That's the whole point of this thread and others like it. I see this thread maxing out at 150 and someone else will start another one next week.

Is X-Trans just a marketing gimmick or does it improve the overall image quality?

A bunch of people say yes - its just marketing - they see no difference or Bayer looks better.

A bunch of other people say no - X-Trans is a real game changer - they can really see an improvement with X-Trans photos.

Click to expand...

To answer your question, it wasn't a marketing gimmick back when the X-Pro1 was the first model to be released with the X-Trans sensor. Fujifilm's marketing message was that it was comparable to full frame quality.

However, bayer sensor technology has improved significantly since 2012. IMO, the X-Trans sensor has outlived its usefulness. The Fujfilm GFX pretty much guarantees that (and it has moire problems as well).

Tim C.

Jerry-astro said:

Bill Ferris said:

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.

Click to expand...

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]

Click to expand...

So the entire start of the fuji xtrans apsc was mubo jumbo? Is that what you are saying?

BTW my XF1 beats my X30 at every IQ point.

How many people outside of these types of forum actually care or even know if the camera has an X-Trans or Bayer sensor?

On my part when buying a Fuji as a JPEG user it would not affect my decision at all which was in it. I have had an X-T100 and a XT20 and you really have to dig to see much difference if any. Fuji JPEG results are truly excellent and if X-Trans helps them towards their specific look then that justifies it alone.

Their is a bit of an ingenuous idea that super fine detail at microscopic level must always give a better image at normal viewing sizes which is not necessarily the case.

Canadianguy said:

The Davinator said:

Canadianguy said:

Bill Ferris said:

...

I suspect Fuji will stay with X-Trans as long as two things are true: sales are good and X-Trans remains an element folks strongly identify with the Fuji brand. I realize this may seem like punting on the question of which is actually better. But, as a business, Fujifilm, Inc. will make product decisions based on their opinion of what's best for business.

Rational or not, this may be the equivalent of "Mad Men" character, Don Draper, selling Lucky Strikes above the tagline, "It's toasted." It works because it differentiates the product.

Click to expand...

That's the whole point of this thread and others like it. I see this thread maxing out at 150 and someone else will start another one next week.

Is X-Trans just a marketing gimmick or does it improve the overall image quality?

A bunch of people say yes - its just marketing - they see no difference or Bayer looks better.

A bunch of other people say no - X-Trans is a real game changer - they can really see an improvement with X-Trans photos.

Click to expand...

As I was using Fuji XTrans for weddings where moire on fabrics poses an issue, we can clearly see that moire is reduced with XTrans as opposed to the rainbow on the Bayer. Painfully visible...painfully obvious it is not just marketing. I would question the eyesight of anyone who claims both shots appear the same.

Click to expand...

So Bill & Jerry were not spot on? That the difference is only visible when pixel peeping at 100% or more and it isn't important in real life situations - that there are essential no differences in real world viewing between Bayer and X-Trans.

And now we are comparing Fujifilm to Sony cameras? What even happened to comparing Fujifilm to Filmfilm with Bayer and X-Trans?

If X-Trans was a game changer for your work - that's great - more power to you but then you are not in agreement with Bill & Jerry.

Click to expand...

Whoa there, Sparky. Nothing I've written is at all inconsistent with or opposed to what Davinator is saying. As a wedding photog who values the way a camera renders fine detail, he's in a niche customer segment. The vast majority of us Fuji owners aren't shooting weddings, paid portrait sessions or fashion shoots with our gear. To acknowledge that X-Trans vs Bayer isn't what sells the majority enthusiasts among Fuji customers is not contrary to there being a customer segment who value not having to address moire in every formal attire photo.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ

Canadianguy said:

Bill Ferris said:

...

I suspect Fuji will stay with X-Trans as long as two things are true: sales are good and X-Trans remains an element folks strongly identify with the Fuji brand. I realize this may seem like punting on the question of which is actually better. But, as a business, Fujifilm, Inc. will make product decisions based on their opinion of what's best for business.

Rational or not, this may be the equivalent of "Mad Men" character, Don Draper, selling Lucky Strikes above the tagline, "It's toasted." It works because it differentiates the product.

Click to expand...

That's the whole point of this thread and others like it. I see this thread maxing out at 150 and someone else will start another one next week.

Is X-Trans just a marketing gimmick or does it improve the overall image quality?

A bunch of people say yes - its just marketing - they see no difference or Bayer looks better.

A bunch of other people say no - X-Trans is a real game changer - they can really see an improvement with X-Trans photos.

Click to expand...

I think we've well demonstrated that x-trans is a good solution when trying to deal with moire inducing subjects. It was, if I'm not mistaken, one of Fuji's claims and I can say it's been true for me. That is an example of a situation where x-trans has an advantage.

A discussion like this will tend to descend into black and white statements about polar opposites - "it's best/it's not best" or "this is better than that". But that is unfortunate because like so much of life, rarely are things so well laid out.

As many of us have said, there is much more to Fuji cameras than the type of sensor.

If Fuji sold an x-trans version and Bayer version of every camera they make, would they sell more... Never mind, they don't so it's a moot point.

No way I'd buy a camera that DxO Prime noise reduction will never support.

As mostly a Linux user, I will probably never buy DxO PhotoLab, but I want the option.

perry rhodan said:

So the entire start of the fuji xtrans apsc was mu,bo jumbo? Is that what you are saying?

BTW my XF1 beats my X30 at every IQ point.

Click to expand...

XF1 was EXR, X30 was X-Trans, correct?

I had an XF1 but the lens on-off mechanism failed. Never had an X30.

For the purpose of this discussion, Bayer sensor is used here in the sense of "Bayer sensor without or with a very week AA filter. It is also assumed that the rest is the same, number of Mpixels, the underlying manufacturing technology, same generation of Sny sensors, etc.

X-trans wins:

• X-trans outresolves Bayer sensor without AA when you shoot patterns with very dense horizontal and vertical lines
• Bayer generates moire in this area, it is easily fixable in PP, but the resolution does not match X-trans

Bayer without AA wins:

• Bayer outperforms X-trans pretty much everywhere else - images are cleaner at high ISO and it resolves more details both at high and low ISO

Unproven:

• There are some claims that X-trans handles green patterns better than Bayer, I I simply don't see it in the posted images.

Additionally, I've been shooting with cameras without AA for at least 5-6 years and do not see moire to be affecting than 1% of my photos. Fabric, skins, eye-lashes, bricks, whatever it is, the moire is either invisible or is fixed by color noise removal. It doesn't show up. But I must admit, I never shoot objects with B&W horizontal lines.

Conclusion:

Modern Bayer sensor technology is better for 99% of practical cases.I am happy to admit that X-trans will handle better the remaining 1% cases If your photography requires you to primarily shoot horizontal and vertical line, than this number can be higher for you.

So, answering my original question which started this discussion, Yes, for most practical cases X-trans has lost it's superiority to Bayer without AA.

It is really not clear why and if Fuji will keep X-trans cameras in their product line. I suspect the time of X-TXX and X-ProXX with Bayer sensors are not that far away.

PS.

There is nothing to worry about though, the great X-trans cameras that you have today will continue to take beautiful pictures, they will beat X-A5 in terms of AF, handling, quality of the EVF/OVF and will offer more SD-Card slots, etc.

--
Cheers,
Alex