Mescalamba wrote:
But unless you look really close, it doesnt matter.
This implies that with certain pictures we can't print as large as to take advantage of an AA-less sensor ... In other words, we use an AA-less camera to resolve tinier details that can't be seen neither in small prints (due to the small size of the print) nor in large prints (because artifacts become visible)
Or it means that for most people and their print size, they won't be able to tell the difference between detail resolved by the 16MP Xtrans and a 12MP first gen m4/3.
The accuraw does seem to do a better job, though I still see the maze-like false detail from grid structure. Is it mac only though?
Ripolini wrote:
This implies that with certain pictures we can't print as large as to take advantage of an AA-less sensor ... In other words, we use an AA-less camera to resolve tinier details that can't be seen neither in small prints (due to the small size of the print) nor in large prints (because artifacts become visible)
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Or it means that for most people and their print size, they won't be able to tell the difference between detail resolved by the 16MP Xtrans and a 12MP first gen m4/3.
This suggests that the new X-Trans sensor with its 6x6 matrix array and no AA filter is just a marketing hype, i.e. something to convince people they can take pictures with higher quality than other APS-C 16 Mpix sensors (D7000, Nex, etc.) and with the same quality as a full frame camera (neglecting how much important the size of the sensor is from a photographic point of view) ...
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Or it means that for most people and their print size, they won't be able to tell the difference between detail resolved by the 16MP Xtrans and a 12MP first gen m4/3.
The accuraw does seem to do a better job, though I still see the maze-like false detail from grid structure. Is it mac only though?
1. Only in closed beta testing (more slots will be available when the next beta comes out)
2. Mac only (I think it'll be released in the Mac App store only)
The AccuRaw isn't perfect, but it does a lot better than C1 in this image and even the JPEG. What this illustrates (I think) is that X-trans doesn't magically eliminating moire - it just has moire in different types of repeating patterns.
Ripolini wrote:
This suggests that the new X-Trans sensor with its 6x6 matrix array and no AA filter is just a marketing hype, i.e. something to convince people they can take pictures with higher quality than other APS-C 16 Mpix sensors (D7000, Nex, etc.)
It is true, experiences so far indicate that this new sensor is currently not resolving better than the stock Sony sensor with normal Bayer pattern array.
The reason however for buying in to the Fuji X system is not detail, but noise performance and useability over a wide range of light situations in a relatively small packet with low weight and great optics, and, for many the unsurpassed Fuji colours.
There is something in Fujis color balance/ palette that speaks to me. Not necessarily in every image, but in many, and when I see it it is almost causing me shivers down my spine. Fuji images can have a strong emotional impact, or "character". If I had this with my Canon, I'd forget about the XP1 or the X-E1, but so far I only see this with Fuji.
Detail rendition is generally overrated, the Sigma dp2-merrill samples even suggest (to me) that too much small and smallest micro detail can almost destroy the general impact of an image.
I tested the X-E1 today in a shop. My impressions were that the AF (camera apparently still had not the latest firmware) is better than it's reputation, the EVF while flickering at times (inside the store with artificial light) is of good quality. The files had - as far as I can tell from the 20 samples made in crappy light - good colour and sharpness (specially the skin tones of the sales person under artificial light came out gorgeous!!), but detail is certainly not better than my little Nex-5n, maybe even slightly lesser.
Does that devalue the camera for me? Not the least bit. Marketing is what it is, and Fuji marketing has become much better than what it used to be in the days of the S3pro and S5pro (which I still have and which deliver - inside their limitations, gorgeous files with lovely colours!). This camera delivers very photogenic images with strong colour and a strong emotional impact when used right. That alone grabs my attention and makes me wish to buy that camera...
For a min I thought "did they really have that cool maze pattern?", then I checked the 800E file, nothing destroy aesthetic more than reality
By the way can someone try the accuraw with the imaging resource's samples? I think those are even more demanding than the ones on dpreview. The raws are here:
Ripolini wrote:
If C1 beta is the best raw converter currently available for the X-Trans sensor, I'll not buy any Fujifilm camera with that sensor inside.
Of course you are free to buy what you like, but with a step back one may recognize that so far, every single approach of sensor technology has it's advantages and disadvantages. The new Fuji makes no difference, I probably would prefer a wide 3rd party support by using a regular Bayer pattern, but if you want the film- like colours the Fuji offers in a high quality camera, I do not know of any alternative right now apart from the Fuji X- series.
Why don't you try and find out yourself? Have a look at the images threads. You're obviously not interested in the X-Trans sensor, and you expect people to tell you about the differences between the cameras?
The only obvious fact is that you are not following (again).
I wish to remind you what I've written: Ripolini wrote:
I would love buying the E-X1 so I'm trying to get as much info as possible. Therefore I'm grateful to you for sharing your experience.
I'm 'obviously' interested in the Fuji E-X1, that's why I'm following this thread. I can't understand why you (don't) answer a question I asked to alba63.
Anyway, if you have both E-X1 and X-100, you can ship'em to me so I can compare by myself. Contact me by PM and I'll give you the shipping address.
P.S.: if you have meaningful examples showing good raw conversion, I'll be glad to look at them.
Ripolini wrote:
If C1 beta is the best raw converter currently available for the X-Trans sensor, I'll not buy any Fujifilm camera with that sensor inside.
Well, good luck in your search for information. I've used a lot of different cameras, and I think the X-E1 with the 18-55 and 35/1.4 are up there with the best. I print max A3+, and about any camera will do detail-wise IMO. But Fuji has some really nice colors and tonality IMO and this is one of their strong cards. Again IMO. BTW, I'm happy with the jpgs for my use and output.
In the sense that if I have a tool which can provide 12- or 14-bit files I don't see any reason to not use all the info it can get. In this sense I'm Italian ...
Probably in Norway you like to drive a Ferrari no faster than 50 mph
That "maze" is part of demoisacing which isnt possible to avoid, goes with different CFA. I think this series will be probably shorter than Sx series of dSLR..
