Clearing a few things up.
1) X-A10 is APSC not MFT
2) theoretically on-sensor PDAF would reduce IQ because these PD pixels don't contribute to the final image so it's purely interpolated data at those possitions. In reality, I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference. CDAF and off-sensor PDAF have no bearing on IQ other than their ability to aquire focus.
3) CDAF by definition, require contrast so low light or flat light makes it difficult to aquire focus. However, it can be more accurate than (off sensor) PDAF and doesn't require the user to calibrate every lens.
4) CDAF trades speed for accuracy. Even in good light it can be slower than PDAF but as long as it locks on, it will be pin sharp (excluding motion blur, limit of the lens resolution, diffraction at small apertures)

I quit letting reviews influence my decisions a long time ago. For one, you have people that write postive reviews who are either fanboys or paid reviewers and then of course you have people that write negative reviews because they do not how to properly use the product. I do enjoy dpreview, but I never let their reviews determine which camera I purchase. I find most of the time that my experience with a camera is quite different from theirs and often their sample galleries are shockingly different from when I use the camera myself.

Those conflicting comments may reflect a given user's experience (or lack thereof) with various cameras and lenses better or worse than the camera/lens being reviewed.

"you have people that write postive reviews who are either fanboys or paid reviewers and then of course you have people that write negative reviews because they do not how to properly use the product."

Not on DPReview, you don't!

X-trans better/Jpeg better/Composition/etc These are not bad things to have in a conversation nor something to be cynical about, it's straight forward OPINION SHARING, which is what the internet and DPR give us for FREE, to write, read or not. It's called FREEDOM.

You people (sorry if it sounds racist) from the west, or wherever freedom of speech is secured, have no idea how it means to others, and how it's something we're still, to this day in 2017 are fighting for. Fighting to simply freely share our opinions on facebook without fear of criminal jurisdiction. You come here, on boards such as DPR, and it's FREE, not only of money no, but also of hand-tying authority.

You come to see all those opinions, both sides, the good and the bad, and you make up your own mind. And reviews are guides, to help YOU make up YOUR own mind, nothing more. If it's forcing an "opinion" on you, then move on to another one...

well said! :D

Fair point. I get that.

BUT, when you can have an identical painting yet with higher detail, why wouldn't you? It's just better. And there are much higher detail cameras that can produce this "painting" just in higher detail on inspection, including cameras from Fuji. That's where the critisizm comes from.

But agreed. As a when we take a step back and don't inspect the details, this camera certainly seems to produce uniquely good images. It can be used or most applications in today's web-based world.

You are no doubt a screen pixel peeker and that's fine, but for us who actually print large, they should come out fine. I've shot many landscape images with my dslr's and at 100% they show lots of fine detail, but that fly's out the window when it comes to printing out to 16x20 or 20x30 when compared to my m4/3 cams. Standing 6' away one cannot see any lack of detail.

Sactojim, why would you even waste paper and ink on an image you will not be able to see the fine detail? Is 6 feet your typical viewing distance? Why not use a cell phone?

Ahh, little cyber Ricky has gone all nasty. Medium format! Wow, impressive..but only by you. My photo books and prints will be around for ages and seen by many while your's are but a piece of data that's forgotten on the cloud.

X-Trans is Fuji's marketing hype and actually it renders colours strangely unnaturaly compared to Bayer's. If it was that much better then Bayer cfa, GFX should have it. Fuji made a few big mistakes including last X-E3 announcement that has no tilt LCD in 2018, that got tiny EVF from X-30 with x0.62 magnification and worse eye point then X-E2 and has terribly narrow eyepiece without eyecup - truly a 'point-and-shot' type, and Fuji also ditched 5 Fn buttons that were so important for direct and fast access to features/settings and brought instead touched LCD that slow shooting. It's not XE-2 successor at all but a cam for "smartphone' users who love to play with LCD and shot with LCD. And native 200iso in 2018 is a joke. Not saying about 2/3-1 EV iso cheating.

Seems like that BIG FF CAMERA is too much for you :).
It's OK. No worries. Some people prefer a fresh juicy piece of RAW meat and cook it perfectly to their taste, while others don't. They'd rather be killing themselves with a fast food diet, than take care of their own stomachs. Well, that's life. And it's fair more often than not.

When you say "dated Bayer technology" do you mean the one that is used in 99% of modern cameras as opposed to "advanced X-trans technology" that is "controversial" on the remaining 1%?

It's not even a different technology, just a different layout of the colour filter array, and therefore a different interpolation algorithm is required to demosaic the raw files. Same technology done differently.

@Sezano - His verdict is that the X-trans is better with mixed lighting and skin tone pictures than Bayer. He says that the X-trans smears detail in landscapes and similar photos.

I personally like xTrans .... but the hype is just hype, and the marketing and fan (or anit-fun) boys make a too much big deal out of it.

I have an old canon, and old xTrans, and a newer m43 camera ... the truth is that if i shoot today (and edit the RAWs in LR) with my 7-9 years old APS-C Canon, the result (to my eyes, at pixel-peeping level) look still better than the images shot with the "modern" and much praised by the fan-boys M43 sensor.
In the same way (pixel-peeping details), i find the my xTrans (i have an X-E1) better than my old canon (it is a newer sensor, slightly larger sensor 1.5 vs 1.6 in canon, not a big surprise) ...

On the other side, setting the jpeg engine to my taste, the little m43 olympus outputs the best looking JPEGs in natural light ... better that the fuji, better then more modern canon DSLRs i tried...

In the end it really matters what you want, what you need and what different tools offer to you, not to blindly believe marketing, and forum fan-boys...

Petak: Most people use gasoline engines in their cars, does that means it's better technology compared to alternatives such as electric ? It's used by 99% of the market simply due to convenience. There has been a number of demosaic algorithms on the market for years that are well respected for delivering better results compared to Bayer, but sometimes it is easier to stay the course instead of moving forward.

@LV-426
Well, dynamic range and sensor size are like entirely different dimensions. You cannot trade one for another. Canon has less data in the shadows, but larger sensors will always have some advantages over the smaller ones. Most people do not understand what the "image quality" actually means. Which is why there is so much nonsense, confusion, superstitions and pseudo-science floating around. Nicer color (or the color you prefer) has nothing to do with image quality. Only the CORRECT color has any value, while most of it is about the amount of correct information in the image.
IMHO, Canon has better color and tones by default, but I think it is possible to calibrate whatever camera to produce what you want. So it doesn't really matter, because different people prefer different color profiles. Not all fast food is bad for you, but ... let's be reasonable.

P.S. Weird thing is that Apple people and Fuji people are often the same people :). There's something suspicious about that :)

Petak - Well said. It is what I have been trying to say on this forum about products for some time. It is sometimes called confirmation by consensus.
A sample of 1, one persons experience, does not much in totality.

Petak wrote: "Yes, if 99% of the people use gasoline cars that means internal combustion in its current state of développement Is perceived by most people as the "better" (whatever that means for each one of them individually) technology."

No, some people can't afford what they believe to be the best technology. For other people, the lack of a charging station at their apartment complex, forces them to choose an internal combustion vehicle -- even though they perceive EVs to be a superior drivetrain technology.

Petak wrote: "If 99% of the people perceive one technology as better than the other it means it is."

That is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Popularity.

@LV-426: About the color issue: there are at least 2 very basic things (for a given base sensor)

1 - the RGB filter (not matter if it is bayer, xTrans or other).
It can (and usually is) tuned for a client (that is one of the main things in the "designed by nikon sony sensors" thing). It can have stronger colors (stronger filter and perfect separation between colors) - which will render colors more accurately, but this will block more light, so it will affect high iso performance. Or the other way around.
Also the colors themselves can be tuned for certain look.

This is (i think) the main difference between manufacturer-colors. It is a very core difference, and that is why there is no easy way to tune in raw editing software the colors of one camera to match perfectly the colors from another. It can be done for an image, but applying the same recipe to another will not work.

fmaxwell: "No, some people can't afford what they believe to be the best technology. For other people, the lack of a charging station at their apartment complex, forces them to choose an internal combustion vehicle -- even though they perceive EVs to be a superior drivetrain technology."

I would very much like to know what forces people not to use X trans cameras - most certainly not price or unavailability? But I will play along anyway. I have a simple!e question: If you need to go somewhere and you have an internal combustion engine vehicle and an electric one that you can not charge, which one is better for you? .

@Petak:
"If you need to go somewhere and you have an internal combustion engine vehicle and an electric one that you can not charge, which one is better for you? "

A better technology for a specific circumstance doesn't mean that it's a "better...technology" overall. When someone trades in a Honda Civic for a Nissan Leaf, is the Civic's technology better on the way to the dealership and the Leaf's better one on the way home?

"It is a fallacy if you use it as an argument to prove facts that might be objectively measured or proved. Something being "better" is completely abstract and subjective. "

It's fallacy if cited as proof of a subjective quality such as "better." Suppose you had written any of the following:

"That's a more popular menu item, so therefore it tastes better."
"That speaker is more popular, proving that it sounds better."
"Most amps we sell use bipolar transistors, so that's a better technology than MOSFETs."

All that popularity proves is popularity.

@Petak:
"I would very much like to know what forces people not to use X trans cameras - most certainly not price or unavailability?"

Compatibility with their existing lenses, brand loyalty, ergonomics, styling, and features are just a few examples I could think of right off.

@MyReality: "The population serves as a filter: Only the best drops thru the filter. Look up surveys done on the best cameras, cellphones, cars, speakers, and hamburgers in the US. You will find Canon and Nikon,, Toyota and Honda..."

Most of what falls through the filter is what's affordable, practical, inoffensive, and a good value for the money. Ask Toyota and Honda drivers what their dream car is and I bet that you find it's seldom the car, or even brand of car, they drive right now.

"...the top two in speakers vary more often..."

That's because most consumers are idiots when it comes to evaluating audio. Some of the most popular speakers sound atrocious and some of the finest are all-but-unknown to the unwashed masses at Best Buy.

"...you will not find McDonalds in the top ten."

And, yet, McDonalds probably sells more meals than any other restaurant chain, which disproves the theory that one can determine what's "better" based on what it the most purchased.

Not surprised bouvier said that #predictable...

Bouvier- not what I see but ok :-) Having an AA filter takes a toll on detail, let alone 16 MP to 24 MP with a new sensor that has better ISO performance.

#20 wasn't taken with that "kit" lens and
needed 6400 iso at f2.8 with all those lights?!

If you guys want it cheaper, just get a Fujifilm X-A1, the A10 shouldn't be really (much) different - it's the same 16 MP Bayer APS-C Sensor.

One also can get as Alternative the X-A2 way cheap, the Dials here are made out of Aluminium, instead of the all-plastic build quality from X-A1(0).

I've seen the A1 for as low as around 100 bucks, but personally, dislike the "plasticky" build quality. My entry is (and was) into the Fujifilm X-System - the Fujifilm X-E1, with 16 MP & X-Trans Sensor (CFA).

I've read rumors onto Fuji Rumors, that Fujifilm would release possibly a X-T100 called X-T20, should be the same, but with (just) ordinary Bayer CFA, not X-Trans System, and not (partial) Alu-Magnesium Body.

It could be 100-200 bucks less - but i'd go for a mint-like X-T10 instead of a shiny new X-T100....then. Build quality and haptics matters for me - the Pixels, not so much. 16 MP is way over the top what i do personally need, i am way fine with 12 MP...but your milage may vary. :-)

Arguably, most people in the target market for an entry-level camera like this, will only look at the images on a smartphone, since social media is where all their images will be displayed. And in that case, how the images look when pixel-peeping them on a "proper" computer, doesn't matter much at all.

Agree, that has been said by many people at different times, on different sites. The only IQ advantages of X-trans are in mixed lighting and skin tones.

Opposite way around guys...bayer feels digital while X-trans more natural...
Stop stealing my sayings...I was one of the first to say bayer "more digital" then you guys twist it falsely the other way...

@webber 15 - If "natural" means smearing and less defined, I agree. I did not say more digital, I said what is was and was not good for. Check out what Ken Rockwell has to say about the X-trans sensor.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4208901/60181759

Yeah...whatever you say...an awful smeary mess...
Like the rest of us who are comfortable with X-trans, we know what we're doing...

I never look at samples...they don't provide anything...

I've nothing against bayer...but much against those who spout rubbish about X-trans...

@weber15 - Do a side-be-side comparison between the two at large magnification or large print size. This is what Ken Rockwell did. Or maybe you are just inclined to believe whatever you want to believe(dogmatic).
That was a dumb thing to say about samples, they do not provide everything, but they provide something.
I never look at pictures, because they don't show anything. ---What?

@PhotoUniverse that's my only complaint and even then it's entirely my personal opinion and nothing more. There's many amazing cameras I don't buy. I just currently prefer a Lightroom only workflow. I know the files are compatible but to get the most out of them I'd need other software.

@The Fat Fish
Fair enough!

It does, that's true. The issue is the way is manages the X-Trans files is a bit odd. I know there are options before Lightroom like Iridient but I love to simplicity of being able to get the most out of my images by just using one piece of software.

I have been there... I fully agree