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

The Davinator wrote:

Canadianguy wrote:

Bill Ferris wrote:

...

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.

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.

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.

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.