Toothwalker wrote:
To me, the X-E2 image in that link is a disaster. It looks more like good old aliasing than artifacts due to demosaicing specifics alone. Statements that X-Trans does not need an AA filter are plain marketing gibberish. There is no cure for aliasing, only symptomatic treatment of color moiré. PN cannot heal the jagged blinds in the window.
Color moiré aside, I had not noticed the blinds. Interesting, thanks for pointing that out.
Sal Baker wrote:
The improvement of X-Trans over my 5DII files is subtle but satisfying, particularly when camera ergonomics are taken in to account.
Sal
I can't speak for Canon, as I've not owned any of their sensors, but, as a long time Sony CMOS user, I wouldn't trade their Bayer aps-c sensors for X-Trans, let alone their FF sensors.
douglasf13 wrote:
I can't speak for Canon, as I've not owned any of their sensors, but, as a long time Sony CMOS user, I wouldn't trade their Bayer aps-c sensors for X-Trans, let alone their FF sensors.
I can only speak for the the 5DII not all Canon FF sensors. The X-E2 was an improvement, less detail smearing and much cleaner flexible blacks/shadows. Also, not thrilled with the Canon lenses compared to Fuji. My 16-35 f2.8 L II never looked even "good" at 28mm. It continued to burn me after a trip to the shop.
Sal Baker wrote:
I can only speak for the the 5DII not all Canon FF sensors. The X-E2 was an improvement, less detail smearing and much cleaner flexible blacks/shadows. Also, not thrilled with the Canon lenses compared to Fuji. My 16-35 f2.8 L II never looked even "good" at 28mm. It continued to burn me after a trip to the shop.
Sal
Yeah, I've read a lot about how bad the 5Dii's shadows can be. Sony has had a leg up on them for a while in that regard (X-trans sensors are apparently just Sony sensors with a unique cfa.)
Yep, as a 5DII owner (soon to be ex-owner) the X-trans in many ways is a step up, or at least a step in the right direction. The lack of shadow noise, banding, and so-so dynamic range of the 5DII is not missed. Don't get me wrong, the 5DII has been, and still is, capable of fantastic images it's just the sensor is getting a little long in the tooth and the 5DIII is only marginally better.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
Can you do a comparison with a non fuji lens? Doesn't fuji also mess with lens correction. I'm not sure if it's xtrans related or not.
On Fuji's newer/ better lenses, such as the 23/1.4 and I believe the 14/2.8 as well, Fuji is one of the few manufactures to actually take care of corrections optically (unlike say Leica or even Zeiss with their APS lenses). Zooms are a different story though. One can run the Fuji files through an alternative raw converter (besides Lightroom/ ACR) to easily confirm how much automatic correction is applied.
