Fujifilm X-A3 Review

I don't know what "requires RAW" has to do with anything. Even a child can push Import button in Lightroom and get great results. Also, people often have multiple cameras. You can take this one to any social gathering without anybody thinking about you as a dork or a creep if you bring a large camera or glass.

I dont think you get the requirements for general entry level photography in 2017. People want convenience and instant quantity - not to spend hours or even minutes with “Lightroom”. That idea of “darkroom” tracking is going the way of the dodo, same as dedicated stereophiles etc

Osa25 - I'm glad you're qualified to speak for every photographer in 2017. It's a heavy weight on your shoulders, but you wear it well.

@Androole. What part of his "Personally I think..." and "I dont think" comments makes you say he was trying to speak for all photographers? Sad that the comment section has gotten to the point that even when someone obviously is speaking for themselves they still get accused of speaking for everyone.

No, X-E3 with this sensor would be a perfect camera ;)

Unfortunately, X-E3 will have hyped and overrated X-Trans that renders colour unnaturally and artifically. X-A line does it much better.

A Bayer sensor will always deliver more organic files than the X-Trans. Just as the old 12mp X100 was better than the S and T versions.

That's not true of some subjects though, like finely textured fabric, distant architectural details etc. X-Trans generally renders both subjects much more 'organically' than Bayer.

What's your definition of "organic" in this context? I thought that label applies to food :)

I would say more real, more film-like.

Besides, when I had an X-E1 the files always look flatter than those from my Leica X1, especially the BW conversions. (BUT maybe it was my mistake).

I bought a Panasonic GF7 with the 12-32 kit lens for 370 Euros (new) about 2 years ago. Beats cell phone cameras for very well under 600 bucks. Other than that, it's pretty similar to the GX850 listed above, just without the 4K video.

Do you want to switch out of Canon and go to Fuji? Difficult to tell who is here just because X-Trans is an easy target and fun to knock. I am not sure why you have such trouble and grief and get so excited about X-Trans if you do not shoot it.
It is interesting how scathing people are about those that are not having any trouble with it.
Methinks you protest too much.

I shoot Raw
I'm fine with Fuji, TY

Try being critical of things you care about.
I'd like to switch to something better than Canon, but I can't find any reasonable candidates. Fuji is not even on the list and it will never be (with Fuji's attitude and without a FF). I did work on hundreds of xTrans RAW (RAF) files. Nothing spectacular there. It's just a quirky APS-C crop with overpriced optics. No advantages. None.

I beg to differ. A canon full frame is a thing of beauty - for some kinds of work. My Fuji gets me street and concert, journalistic etc shots where discretion or inobtrusive handling is vital.
Its recording moments.. thats not in the files.
If you do landscape etc.. by all means. use Canonikon!

Well, it doesn't matter what I use, if the tool works fine for all the tasks. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc. What I'm talking about is the system. Canon, as a system of tools, is really good, while considerably cheaper than the competition in my segment of interest. Of course there are bad things to say about Canon. And others do some things better, some things worse. I'm just allergic to lies and dishonesty, which became synonyms to Fuji, in my opinion. There are no personal truths for everyone. Truth is not something that you like. It's the objective fact, which, these days, nobody cares to check or test.

Lost me there. Its a maker of cameras. Academic discussions about
Thruth have no room in this post.

Ecka...you really are showing everyone that you are clueless...

Olympus e-m10 mark ii is as well.

However the A6000 still defines a line at that price level.

I take DXO's megapixel ratings when they test cameras with a large pinch of salt. It's has always looked like pseudo science to me. Looks like their lens testing is the same. A company born of the web that had an idea that now people treat as gospel. Has anyone ever subjected their testing methodology to scrutiny?

The fact they won't test lenses on x-trans (I never knew that before as I don't go looking for tests on their site) shows their methodology must be flawed.

I mean if you can't test a Sony G-master on a Nikon how the hell do you know it's a brilliant lens? Unlike the days of film you can't stick a role of Kodachrome 25 into the cameras and so have a "sensor" that is neutral. Testing in-camera means you test the lens AND sensor.

That said lens testing can be done independent of cameras so the lack of Fuji lens tests seems very odd.

Maybe they can come up with the X-E3 in Bayer and redefine it as upper entry level. I would be happy (if AF and performance is right).

So to be more precise: that sensor but with PDAF capabilities.

@TRON: Acutally, does X-Trans offers better and clever image quality: less moiré, better noise performances, etc.

X-Trans makes the differences towards Fuji..

Because this camera does not feature X-Trans, one would prefer hight-end body, especially landscape/archi

"X-Trans makes the differences towards Fuji.."

Exactly. X-Trans is plain great. No Bayer crap in future Fuji bodies please.

The marketing tripe obviously works.

xTrans is crap. Not any better, but with extra quirks and BS.

I use Fuji xtrans for 3 years now and I see a lot of troubles not being worth it. In addition I am stuck at 16MP xtrans for the next 3 years because of the the purple grid issue in the 24MP xtrans sensors which really is totally annoying for my everyday wide angle work.

To me PERSONALLY xtrans makes the difference AWAY from Fuji ESPECIALLY for landscape and architecture.

I understand that other people have a different view on this. I hope that these people can accept that I do have 3 years of experience with xtrans and my own photographic applications and I have my own experiences.

I use adobe but I have a lot of experience with about 6 other tools for Fuji RAF development alone. For several reasons I have to and I want to stick to Lightroom. To me (and that is purely my personal opinion) xtrans is not worth the trouble. I was willing to implement all kind of workarounds for Fuji however the purple grid issue much more present in the 24MP xtrans generation is a massive showstopper for my kind of work. Again, that is my experience for my kind of work.

Since I learnt these things the hard way, I am invested into Fuji and I like the system in general I would like to keep using it but being limited to 16MP sensors for the next years is a lot of compromise to me.

I do not want to start a heated discussion. I understand different perspectives on this topic. As explained above I would very much like an upmarket Fuji with a Bayer sensor. I guess some will agree and others don't (with a pretty good chance that xtrans will stay). That's fine.

Btw. I do not agree that xtrans defines Fuji. The Fuji Bayer has the Fuji colors as well. It's image quality is great. And the Fuji cameras have a certain style and user interface which is unique to Fuji. These are much more defining values to me. YMMV.

Sensor doesn't make colors. Software does. Adobe can do Fuji colors too (with proper presets). And these sensors in Fuji cameras are not Fuji, they are Sony. But, yes, the in-camera color processing is programmed by Fuji. Imaging sensor's job is to gather data. More correct data - better image quality. The rest is just BS, superstition, folklore myths and marketing propaganda. You can shoot Sony and have Fuji colors, no problem. Actually, even less problems than shooting Fuji colors on Fuji cameras :)). Plus you can have FF for the same price and adapt Canon lenses too.

@ecka84: Different cameras have different CFA and collect different data about the colors. The rest is BS, superstition, folklore myths and marketing propaganda.

Good luck getting Fuji color with a Sony.

@J A C S
Thanks, but I don't care about Fuji colors and the rest of their BS.
xTrans CFA is crap. Different CFA puts your generated colors in different places, wrong places in the case of xTran. Which is why there are problems with it.
"... getting Fuji color with a Sony" - ironically, that's what Fuji cameras (which are based on Sony sensors) are all about :)).
I shoot Canon, but I don't worship it like fujivangelists do with their toys. Get over it. I'm not a fanboy.

I do not like X-trans, either but this is a separate issue.

Fuji (and Nikon, etc.) sensors a Sony based but their CFA 's are not.

Torn/Bouvier/Ecka ➡➡➡ three people whose opinion should not be taken seriously...

Basically, a Triplet of clowns who escaped the circus...

I was actually going to remove Torn from this list, but then I read this ⤵⤵⤵

"I understand that other people have a different view on this. I hope that these people can accept that I do have 3 years of experience with xtrans and my own photographic applications and I have my own experiences."

There is "to much" evidence out there by pro's & enthusiasts alike to show that X-Trans is worth it...

I've used bayer apsc, bayer m4/3s & 4/3s and X-Trans...

The only gripe you can possibly have was the issues of p.p. in lightroom...

I have experienced the purple grid flare...but...only shows up with the sun in the frame plus you have to crop the balls out of it to see the grid...it really is no biggie...
When you crop the life out of all images across differing sensors you will find all soughts of defects...you just enjoy bashing X-Trans...

I understand TORN. I have similar experience with Fuji XTrans. I use a XT10 because I like the Fuji lense lineup and usability of their cameras but I don't buy the XTrans marketing. XTrans strength has a lot of weekness. No RAW converter is able to eliminate the artefacts that the XTrans sensor produces. It produces false detail that could be clearly seen in small texts. The resaon is simply the interpolation that is needed by the RAW processors to render an image from the scattered color pixels of an XTrans sensor. Bayer needs no interpolation, so no false details and no backed in chroma noise reduction.

I would like to see a AA-less Bayer sensor from Fuji. I think moire is no real issue. The amount of detail compared to XTrans is equal. Compare for yourself the RAW images of a Sony A6500 (weak AA-Filter) with a X-T2 RAW (with a converter of your choice). The A6500 wins this battle.

Many will disagree with you there RM...
Plenty of evidence out there that those who know what their doing produce gorgeous images from X-Trans, in fact - a real feel look without that "digital feel" you get from bayer (sony especially)...

I said the same as TORN. This sensor inside an X100 body: Perfection.

@RMGoodLight LOL "Bayer requires no interpolation" - you have no idea how RAW processing is done, do you?

I would be bad for business (xTrans business).

@ecka84
Never ending circles. :) I sometimes feel that the mainstream in DPR is I only want stuff made the way I like it. Lets ban anything else. I actually enjoy the differences between the particular way everything is done. It is impossible to say which is better as X-Trans will have its plus features and Bayer its advantages. People just nit pick the bit they like and argue it.

@KeepCalm
How is that Fuji retro style and old film colors seem innovative and "refreshingly" different to you? I don't get it.
I don't want to ban anything except dishonesty. I just want the truth. Fuji propaganda like - "APS-C is better than FF" or that "xTrans is superior to Bayer" - is absolute BS. I just don't trust them anymore, not a single word of what they are trying to preach. It is very sad that there are so many "blind" people in photography, promoting overpriced luxury toys, instead of asking for better tools. These artsy-fartsy hipster trends are throwing us back on technological scale. It's like that silly Pentax camera with LEDs on the handle. Pointless, useless, crazy ... Like the new 6D2 feature of shooting 4K time lapse videos. Jeez, I can shoot 5.5K RAW time laps videos on my old 6D with a bit of effort. They really think we are idiots. Unfortunately, they are not wrong, they are 90% right. Because, metaphorically speaking, 90% of consumers are mindless zombies.

Astia and Pro Neg Soft are what I use. I changed to Fuji for weddings from Canon and Nikon because of the superior color right out of camera.

Yes, Richard, I was. The reviewer still seems to blame the camera without foundation. For zone focus too, the user positions the zone. The Exif for the JPEG in the Conclusion states:
AF Point Set : Unknown (256)
Focus Pixel : 3491 1641
It appears that the part of the pillar as well as the face were both in the focus zone. The pillar just to the left of the face is sharp. The fact that the grass came out sharp too is incidental to what happened. If the user includes areas at different distances in the focus zone, how can the camera know which one is desired?
The worst you can say is that in zone focus mode the camera does not discern and choose the shortest distance in the zone. That is hardly a blanket condemnation of the auto focus system.

I wouldn't want the lower quality sensor here over the X-Pro2 sensor

Since we're talking about bodies (so, lens are set aside), there's only three things that affects image quality: color depth, dynamic range, and noise performance.

I have no doubt the D810 would wipe the floor with the X-A1 in high ISOs, but on lower ISOs I do believe APS-C cameras can compete with FF cameras nowadays. Were you shooting in good light in your vacation?

Also, I would guess you were shooting in RAW? (In JPEG I'd be surprised if you can't tell D810 apart from X-A1, if only from the colors.)

@GOVA: I have used X-A1 for years. I bought my first X-A1 in August '15 and my 2nd X-A1 last year. When comparing images from it with ones from D600 I can say that yes, outdoors shots have almost identical image quality. When shooting indoors the situation is very different. D600 just excels there. Also, X-A1 does some "baking" of RAW files leading to softness at higher ISOs. Otherwise they look excellent:

"Fujifilm X-A1 - Is this the best low light camera for under $1500? (even though it only costs $499?)"

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/10/fuji-x-a1-the-best-low-light-camera-under-1500?utm_content=buffer19eb9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Mirrorless, by definition, do not have a prism and mirror which moves. They were a reaction to DSLRs. The first one had an optical rangefinder viewfinder and the ones which followed were half with and without viewfinders.

An EVF does not define mirrorless since the Sony SLT cameras have a mirror and EVF.

In regards to Fuji, since the XA is the same mount as any of their viewfinder cameras it is fair to call it a mirrorless camera.

No, a term "mirrorless" is not dependent on EVF or OVF. It's any ILC where the light path has a straight shot to the image sensor without a reflex mirror in the way.

We all know that m4/3 is a "mirrorless" system. And Olympus's first m4/3 camera did not have a viewfinder.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1

The only "provision" for a viewfinder was a plain old fixed-field-of-view optical viewfinder that fit onto the hotshoe, not an EVF.

https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/4833551011/images/whatsnew/vf4.jpeg

Nevertheless, that was still a "mirrorless" camera.

Maybe you are confused with the EVIL cameras (electronic viewfinder interchangeable lenses)?

Everyone - Thank you for your input, it's greatly appreciated! So, now I am going to go out and shoot my Leica M3, since it has even more appeal as a modern mirrorless camera.

The term "mirrorless camera" began to be used after the introduction of the m4/3 system, and referred to ILCs with no mirror in the light path between the lens and sensor. Whether they use an eye-level EVF or just the screen on the back, doesn't change the fact that they are electronic live view cameras with no reflex mirror, which is what is usually meant by "mirrorless". And basically all review sites, not just DPR, use this definition. I have never seen anyone exclude, say, the A5100 or X-A3 from the mirrorless category.

Even though digital rangefinders existed before m4/3, they weren't called mirrorless cameras back then. They have been included in that category afterwards. And I think that very few people extend the category to include film rangefinders.

@WGVanDyck

Humor is a tricky thing in internet forums. I've tried it myself a few times, but rarely with success.

In what aspect are they better than the X-trans sensor cameras?

I know for a fact that the low light performance is still better on the X-Trans (for RAW files, at least - for JPEGs the difference is less visible due to Fuji's heavy handed noise reduction).

Please don't say Lightroom demosaicing issues.

@both of you... the Sony A6000 and kit lens puts the Fujifilm X-A3 to shame with its features (EVF, video, superior IQ, etc...) and its kit lens for any price. Sorry Fuji, but this is one very low budget IQ type camer/lens combo, no matter what the cost is. Not an impressive camera release.
Why would Fuji even release such a worthless POS camera?!
BTW, that is a great link from Ken Rockwell, a very good review, thanks!

style = appearance

Whether this camera had an evf or not, it would look the same from the front. And from the front it basically looks like a rangefinder (Nikon S1, Ricoh 500, Zeiss Ikon) and not a dSLR (Canon AE-1, Spotmatic).

That's all "rangefinder style" means: a brick-shaped camera with a notched top plate, classic lines, and traditional dial placement.

The two main reasons why X-A3 got a bad review are poor AF and hard to see LCD. If not those two issues the X-A3 would have been my most used camera. It does surpass any other Fuji in image quality though.

Again Father Bov...trying to be funny not your best trait...

Ohh...lay of the drink to before you enter the internet...