Fujifilm X-Trans II film like qualities?

Threaded wrote:

I think if you’re going to go down the “filmic” old sensor rabbit hole then it’s generally accepted that the original X-Trans, principally in form of the X-Pro1, is the one to go for. In Fuji world that’s really the source legend of the whole film-like mythology.

X-Trans II was actually heavily criticised at the time for losing the fabled “organic” look and seeming too digital. In comparison to the X-Trans I JPEG’s, the results are a lot more polished in some ways, bolder, and less subtle. Someone on this forum once said it was as if X-Trans I produced matte prints, and X-Trans II glossy.

Of course that’s all subjective, but X-Trans II’s worst crime was what it (or at least the image processor in those second gen cameras) did to skin tones at higher ISO. At 1600 ISO or above, the XE2, XT1 etc all apply a very heavy handed noise reduction to skin tones which renders faces waxy and artificial looking - a deliberate “enhancement” which couldn’t ever be turned off even with the in camera NR setting turned down. X-Trans III and later cameras removed this, or at least reigned it in significantly.

For that reason, as a jpeg shooter, X-Trans II is by far my least favourite sensor and I was very glad to move on from it.

👆 this reply deserves to be in this thread twice.

I remember hearing nothing but complaints about the way that sensor rendered when it was the latest and greatest, so this new narrative about it being the lost holy grail of fuji sensors is baffling and hilarious.