I don't think Fuji can figure out the characteristic color of Fuji X camera images either given how much it's changed from the original XTrans which is a pity. Fuji just trying to please all of the people all of the time.

Could.

Or could not.

If they've done it with other models why don't they just do it from the beginning.

Why should I send Fuji any letter? They are the ones who want something from me (my money) so they'd better give me a flawless product.

Software can't improve hardware.

Fuji has objectively improved their AF over time through software updates. So while the hardware hasn't physically been improved, the software's ability to make use of the hardware has.

Precarious because consumers may vote with their feet for bayer sensor based top end cameras Ideally there would be a choice but market forces may dictate otherwise

No it don’t.

Sure does

Fuji, if your listening, give us more high end aps-c bayer options at very attractive price points, the market is there for your taking, x-t100 sensor and image output is impressive :)

You guys are so ridiculous. The % of camera buyers who give a damn about bayer vs. Xtrans is tiny. It's a nerds-only argument. They use Bayer arrays in these cameras because they're cheaper, that's it. Want to buy one to take pictures of trees because 'no worms'? Go for it, Fuji will thank you for the $$$. But make no mistake, Xtrans is a differentiator for them when it comes to most other types of photography where critical sharpness is less important.

I have Fuji cameras and I really, really like them, but X-Trans is a hassle in processing. I'd rather have Bayer. This camera is missing too many controls to really be viable, but I wouldn't be made if the X-T30 was Bayer, though I don't expect that to actually happen.

#blue swan. Just think what better value you could give them with pictures from a larger sensor not to mention the increased presence you would have with the 5d iv which is the usual wedding camera. I had to dump all my Olympus gear because they are too stubborn or thick to respond to what people want. I’ve nothing against Fujifilm for casual use but chaps at the camera club with xt2 xh1 have horrendous colour cast with studio flash canon always does a better job

an entry level model must have one thing special to lure people in the brand ecosystem

An entry level model must offer value. That is the one special thing that will draw people to the brand. The camera with the kit lens appears to offer that. Some modest discounts along the way will get the job done.

You won't see anything "special" in DPR gallery images of any camera. I can say for sure, that having owned an X-T1 and now owning the X-T100, that the output from the X-T100 is far nicer. Comparison images from this camera with the X-T3 have shown that the images look virtually identical in colour and tone, but the X-T100 doesn't suffer from the bleed and mush that X-trans causes. It's probably the best camera in the Fuji X line-up in terms of image quality, and it's an absolute bargain now.

Both raw and jpeg. The X-T100 is a wolf in sheep's clothing, the XC-15-45mm is excellent too.

Yes, regarding NR, Fuji behaves totally idiotic imo, as you cannot turn it off for JPGs. Have to shot RAW, or better: buy another camera.
Testing the cam with excellent glass makes a lot of sense, because the kit lens - although decent - cannot completely show the quality of in camera JPG or RAW processing.
It is also not uncommon that people replace the kit lens immediately with a prime, e.g. for street or landscape photography. The lens is the deciding factor for iq, not the body.

Testing with the kit lens and a higher end lens because both beginners and advanced users, looking for a backup body, will be interested.

What is a "semi-pro lens?"

Posting RAW images might be a better idea...

I don’t use LR.
Also the images from my old XE1 looked way nicer than these flat, soulless samples that look like any other basic dslr output.
Frankly I don’t care what kind of sensor pattern filter is used, but quite simply my xt2 would have yielded nicer results of the same images, I am quite sure of that.

Tom it could be the lens

How did you arrive at those conclusions??

This has been debunked, the X-Trans is not sharper, and the X-Trans is just a Bayer with a larger filter pattern. It does no better at aliasing, just moves it to different frequencies and offers no real advantages in sharpness or colour and many RAW converters can't demosaic it that well.

Fuji's colours and contrast are more down tho their profiles than any magic form the sensor filter. This has been a trademark of theirs going way back before X-Trans, which is really mostly a gimmick.

@THX. Amazing, every word in that sentence is wrong.

@THX, I think I've misworded my comment. I wanted to say that there's a "perceived" sharpness in Fuji's X-Trans images, from my own, subjective view. I'm aware that how these are "debunked" or proved false.

Fuji's X-Trans is not "Bayer with a larger pattern". It's a different, larger pattern with the same RGB ratio of Bayer.

Some of the Fuji's colors come from their film simulations, but some of the coloring character also comes from demosaicing process. Below are two articles from PetaPixel which talks about the skin tone, and percevied sharpness. The articles also show how demosaicing affects output colors.

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/x-trans-vs-bayer-sensors-fantastic-claims-test/
https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/

The article states that the demosaicing algorithm is proprietary, so he cannot replicate it. There's no hidden catch. Also the computer and image science works with synthetic images, and that's fine. I bet even Fuji is developing their algorithms on synthetically mosaiced images. This is how image science works. You need to minimize the number of variables to generate something general, then introduce variables back to optimize further.

Also, it's worth noting that, the writer can replicate the coloring behavior of the Fuji X-Trans JPEGs (See the images in the second link, they are OOC images). So, his other article and methods gets credibility from the camera itself.

I'm not here to bash Fuji. I love their sharp feeling images, but they are not perfect.

I would like to know what you chose instead.

I am super sensitive to rubbish menus and bad firmware. It is one of the reasons I left Sony.

Since being a Fuji shooter I have not had much to complain about. So your comments are completely the opposite of my experience.

Someone more astute than I also mentioned in another thread about Fuji firmware updates that if the camera(s) was/were so bad to begin with, that doesn't say much for the intelligence of a person who buys the camera AS IS and then later complains when it's improved.

I am using a Canon EOS M5. Canon gets grief for not being innovative and so forth but in my experience their bodies do what Canon says they are supposed to do. The issue with that system is a lack of lenses, of course. I had a full-frame DSLR system but found I didn't use it any more, it was just too big and heavy compared to mirrorless APS-C.

@Autriche78, I have had 6 Fuji bodies and gone through updates on all of them. The final straw was having an X-T20 and using it alongside the EOS M5. The Fuji touch screen, AS IS, was nowhere. The Fuji touch screen, AFTER UPDATES, was still nowhere. The Canon touch screen makes the Fuji implementation look like it was designed by a couple of kids as a school project. It may not say much for my intelligence, but I don't know how to find out how things actually work, in detail, without using them. Fanboy internet reviews don't cut it. What comparisons have you done?

@bdbender - To answer your questions, I've not done any reviews. What I did do is pick Fuji, from the XM-1, XE-1, to the X-T10 and X-T20, and I bought them because I liked each of them for what they do for me AS IS. Consequently I don't understand how people criticize updates that improve aspects of performance or add features that weren't in the original, if that was already good enough for them to buy.

Mind you, I'm not a Fuji fanboy. They certainly have their quirks ( I'm aggravated by the variability in lens quality ) and I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying that if you buy a 2WD car and then the company comes up with a update that makes it AWD, that's a nice bonus and I daresay that here in four season New England, the company would be heaped with praise. Fuji similarly deserves kudos.

You're always free to not install an update, too, if you don't like it.

Maybe just confirmation bias? (It would help if you described this X-Trans magic in quantifiable terms, not just some 'je ne sais quoi.')

You do know that magic is not real, right? Magic tricks are used to fool people. The only magic X-trans has is smearing detail.

@myreality, I am talking about the x-t100 magic, I am not defending x-trans, been there done that, no thanks.

@Advent1sam: I don't use LR and the images are out of focus, blurry, call it what you like, but how exactly does Lighroom "fix" those technical errors?? Could you please point out an image where Fuji has "nailed it"? In what way? I use Capture One by the way. Thanks.

I shoot X trans and my details are not smeared. I moved from Sony. I genuinely dont know what you are going on about.

Smeared details? No and I think X-Trans has great contrast and colour purity, it seems more filmic to me than Beyer sensors. I'm hooked anyway.

If people are having,”smearing detail” problems with X-Trans then they don’t know how to take photos or don’t know how to post process. It’s eitheir one or the other or both.

@RM: I use Capture One but have also used LR since Rawshooter Essential days. I have also use an enchillada of Bayer cameras including D600 & D800 Nikons and Canon 5D II & III, plus various Olympus and Panasonic cameras.
Add to that the fabulous RX1 and the RX1r and you pretty much have where I am standing.
If you like, check this out (with samples):
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61329464
Deed

I've been waiting for a compelling Bayer Fuji for ages. The X-T100 isn't ideal with it's unusable 4K video but it's a big step in the right direction. I know people rave about Fuji JPEGs but I could never bring myself to spend more than £500 on a camera a not shoot RAW.

I'm certainly very interested in Fuji now. I'd love a Bayer X-T2.

The colors are saturated and noticeable. They can compete with Canon colors. I am considering this camera as my street carry everywhere camera.

Agreed, so reddish and waxy colors on the hype of great 'Fuji' colors.

I don’t think you are a real person either, but you are welcome to check out my gear profile, Mr. Fanboy.

Sounds like you had a rare duff copy of the 18-55mm. Mine is very sharp. In fact, all my Fuji lenses are very sharp from wide open. The only odd one out (for me) is the 16-50mm cc which has quite a bit of (corrected) distortion at its widest setting and some abberations.

What things?

For mono work and lack of moire issues...XTrans still beats Bayer.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9932828572/photos/3768379/fullsizerender-4

davinator
so, it's better in 1% cases?

For mono, it's just a little better. The best is no CFA at all. Not only does it reduce noise by increasing the light that reaches the sensor, it also turns the sensor into what basically amounts to a Foveon sensor. This drastically increases the detail and improves tonality by using individual data from each pixel, instead of interpolating data from around each pixel. Better to scrape the CFA off than just use X-Trans.

If you only want more detail in 1% of your photos...then you may be right. As about 2/3 of my work is b&w, I prefer the XTrans. The same issue hold up for color by the way...so 1%? No.

One of us has provided photographic proof...the other has just provided a vacuous opinion. Guess which one you are.

@The Davinator

Better ditch the X-Trans then. You're losing out.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1538426/3#14427996

I posted photographic proof...discussion ended there. Bayer lost. I dont really care about links to other forums where people like you spread misinformation....because it has nothing to do with Xtrans. Show my your raws processed where Bayer outresolves XTrans. Until, pipe down.

@The Davinator

Whoa now, keep your v@gina hat on! If you looked at the link instead of assuming, you'd see I was continuing my end of the conversation. X-Trans AND Bayer are inefficient at B&W. See here:

https://www.monochromeimaging.com/technical/resolution/

And yes, there are RAWs... ◔_◔

@The Davinator
The X-Trans is soft, it makes moire issues impossible by definition. And then it produces wormy artifacts (fake detail) instead of moire. Fantastic! (<-sarcasm) It is programmed to produce this kind of textures, because that's "the nature of the beast". Just look at the sample images. Bayer is worlds better.
Your studio comparison snap image itself looks terribly soft, because you scaled it up like 5 times. Using larger, higher-res sensor is a much better solution. But Fuji lovers are stuck with APS-C, so you just keep repeating your mantras.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xh1&attr13_1=sony_a6500&attr13_2=sony_a7r&attr13_3=sony_a7riii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.6679635887521734&y=0.09023797932454966

R.I.P., not entirely. X-Trans is better in mixed lighting. Look at Ken Rockwells comparisons.

@eka84....the discussion is about Fuji Bayer...not the Sony. Pay attention.

They are both made by Sony.

The fact that the underlying sensor is the same is irrelevant....the CFA will make the difference.

Yeah, and the X-Trans inherently resolves less detail. Fact.

THe photo I linked shows it resolves more. Discussion over

Yeah, yeah Dave, and you know I addressed your faulty conclusion. The way the X-Trans works inherently causes it to resolve less detail overall. I say overall because if you look at certain examples where there would be less color moire from the X-Trans then you would see more detail. That said, and assuming all other things being optimal, like a sharp lens and a sharp Bayer sensor without a blur filter, then the Bayer camera results will show obviously superior overall detail.

I’ve tested a lot of RAWs from different X-Trans cameras and they all suffer from that soft overall look, lacking that biting detail you see from say the Sony a6X00 series. I think it looks awful, and that‘s not even considering the different artifact issues the X-Trans sensor suffers from.

They don’t. It is you. Nice try though.

Yeah, just like it is just me that digital beats the crap out of film.

Here's your favorite tune again, Dave.

https://youtu.be/N_y8ITF2EpY