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.

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.