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

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.

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.