X-Trans 2 vs 3 vs 4 in raw

Marco Cinnirella wrote:

I noticed recently I currently have X-Trans 2 (X-T1), 3 (X-H1) and 4 (X_T3) series cameras in my inventory and on a recent vacation shot all of them in raw. Looking through raw images in both LR and C1, I have to say that while I like using the newer cameras due to improved functionality, such as AF, my subjective assessment is that I find the raws most pleasing in the order 2 then 3 then 4, which is frustrating as the order is reversed in terms of my shooting enjoyment.

I have an X-Trans, X-Trans3 and X-Trans4 and I agree with you.

The original X-Trans is my favorite and I'm not sure how different the X-Trans2 files are - I know Fuji added PDAF but I'm not sure how much they changed the original RAW/color formula other than this.

I know raws in theory can be pushed and pulled to look like whatever we want, but certainly in terms of colors I find I have to work harder to realise my vision with v4 of X-Trans than previous incarnations. It's certainly not, in my experience, easy to batch process in the same way a bunch of shots from say X-Trans 2 and 4 cameras from the same shoot using the same raw recipe, even if lighting was the same.

RAW files can, in theory, be pushed but there is an inherent character to them, and it's my opinion that the relatively few calibration points offered by a color checker or similar don't QUITE make up for the character of the sensor such that you can simply calibrate to a color checker and expect the same results.

There are also the shadow / highlight characteristics of each that can't quite be simulated.

Also if you prefer the camera colors - why would you want to use a color checker to reduce them?

Similarly, Adobe attempts to reduce the differences between cameras and likely uses way more datapoints than we do, but does not truly eliminate differences between sensors.

Now I've seen some wonderful images from X-Trans 4 cameras so I'm not saying it can't be done, it's just hit me how the images look different to me because I have been shooting simultaneously with three generations of X-Trans cameras. To me X-Trans 2 especially hit the mark in terms of having a kind of filmic nostalgic look even to the raw starting point in LR or C1, whereas for me X-Trans v4 in particular sometimes seems bland when first opened up in a raw editor by comparison to v2.

Again I agree.

The older X-Trans sensors seemed to have a different goal from the newer ones.

As far as colors - the older sensors seemed to aim for more of a balance between warm and cool. Newer sensors seemed more warm and the newer film sims cooled off that warmth.

The "same" film sim on newer cameras is warmer and more saturated than older cameras with the "same" film sim. And each new introduced film sim is cooler and less saturated. It's like Fuji know that each new generation sensor / film sim warms up the photos, so they purposefully introduce new film sims that desaturate and cool down the colors.

And each new film sim is celebrated as looking good - but there's a difference between a well balanced photo and a photo that was first overly saturated and then desaturated. IMO.

And newer cameras seem to have a different demosiacing and sharpening algorithm that makes things seem less filmic to my eyes. I don't know if it's just the jump from 16 to 24, but newer cameras have a different "dimensional" look to them that I attribute to demosaicing and then sharpneing.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts - divergent or otherwise. I am sure that these sensors on paper have become better in terms of DR, high ISO, resolution etc, back side illuminated, on sensor phase detect pixels etc etc, but there's something I like so much about X-Trans v2 (and v1) that I am actually thinking about re-buying an X-E2 and even an X-E1 for X-Trans 1.

There's more to cameras than the specs. Or rather, there are specs we don't bother to measure.

For example - if you weaken the color filter array, you get may better high ISO performance (less noise at high ISOs). This is because more photons reach the sensor / a stronger CFA by definition reduces the number of photons that reach the sensor.

So you can optimize for better color separation or better ISO performance (at the CFA) but not necessarily both. Though Phase1 has shown that a stronger CFA can result in lower high ISO noise (at least on the Chroma scale).

This is of course a vast over simplification of the actual tech involved.

I don't think it's just nostalgia as I can easily look through my LR catalog and see that to my eyes I really think v1 and v2 had something that set Fuji images, even in raw, apart. Even when first opening up a raw I could say, oh yeah, that's a Fuji raw right there (I also shoot Sony).

Would be interested to know if you have tweaked your raw recipes and approach, those of you, who, like me, have been with Fuji long term and moved through the X-Trans itertations.

Personally - I'm looking to buy another X-Trans1 sensor camera and maybe an X-Trans2 (PDAF for faster autofocus) camera to see if it's got better AF performance and at least comparable colors.

PS - check the Camera JPG Portrait Shootout link in my sig - I've compared numerous cameras and the original X-Trans wins hands down for skin tones, at least in SOOC camera JPGs. Both in studio lighting and natural lighting tests.

PPS - I still shoot with all of the above cameras and for turning over video or finished files to clients where autofocus is a factor - the newer Fuji cameras win out. But for my personal shooting - it's the original X-Trans all the way.