Why are the X-Trans sensor based cameras so popular?

[--]

It may come across as exactly that (for which I excuse up front) but I am not opposed to Fujifilm:
-Being a long time user of Velvia
-Having owned two Xpans (had to give up when my old eyes could not focus them any more)
-Constantly cherishing my GA645zi
-Adoring my X100 (although not very sharp wide open and very poor from f:11 onwards the shooting experience is wonderful)

But after having bought, tested and returned the X-T1 I simply do not get the X-Trans sensor’s popularity???

It started really well.The X-T1 with 18-55 kit lens I bought had very few cons: The aperture ring on the lens was awful since it was always spinning like a politician, the EVF (like most) difficult to see in harsh sunshine (but otherwise gorgeous), the menus sometimes still inexplicably locked. Small change really. There were lots of pros with handling and (I assume - the kit lens definitely was the best kit lens I have ever owned) high lens quality across the board.

But the image quality when viewed on Lightroom’s as well as Capture One Pro’s standard size window from my camera was quite simply appalling. I would not normally consider myself a pixel peeper and obviously I was not expecting anything like Sigma DP Merrill quality from the X-Trans sensor; would not be fair really. With the X100 the IQ is perfectly adequate and I expected something on par with that or slightly better. But my €369 used similarly sensor sized Nikon Coolpix A blows the X-T1 away as if the Nikon sensor was a decade newer.

The much dreaded water colour effect was not only present in my X-T1 specimen but surprisingly intrusive and effectively ruining the pictures and it did not make a huge difference whether shooting jpegs or raws. It was particularly unbelievably bad in landscapes, but cityscapes were not much better and portraits were left with a plasticky wrap like someone on Dexter’s table…

It could easily be attributed to user error, but (although still not statistically significant) a fine sample of the problem can be seen in picture 19 (raw formats) from photographyblog’s review and Steve Huff’s review shows the same. So at least it exists in three cameras.

I am left somewhere between seriously perplexed and totally flabbergasted with a sprinkling of slight sadness - I expected so much from this camera and want Fujifilm the best. And I am old enough to remember the sensor in the S5 Pro so I know Fujifilm can make really great sensors.

So I have a few questions:

1) Did I get an extra acid laden sour stuff injected monster lemon specimen or is this water colour effect IQ the norm?

2) If indeed this plasticity is the standard why has Fuji’s X-Trans sensor cameras gained such popularity - is it all about the shooting experience - just like with Lomo shooters?

3) Or do you primarily print (I very rarely do) and is the problem gone then?

In every way but the IQ it seemed like the perfect camera to replace a DSLR. I surely hope the X-Trans 2 sensor will provide different output so that I can help supporting Fujifilm without feeling being let down by the IQ.

Although a great fan of the cutest troll ever (Krølle-Bølle of ice cream fame in the Northern corner from which I hail) I am genuinely interested in getting owner’s/user’s feedback. If the draw is the handling I totally get it (I still love my Coolpix 4500 for exactly that reason), but maybe someone out there has a magic wand that can better the IQ in post processing?

I would love to come back to an X-Trans 2 sensor but I assume that this cannot be bettered by software tools but resides within the camera and firmware.

Cheers
Xpanded

 

[kanzlr]

I think that has to do with the Software you use. Try opening the RAW in Silkypix 🙂

I understand that you are not using JPG, but RAW, right?

 

[--]

I think that has to do with the Software you use. Try opening the RAW in Silkypix 🙂

I understand that you are not using JPG, but RAW, right?

Thanks kanzlr - I will try Silkypix. I have shot both jpegs and raws side by side.

Xpanded

 

[YYV_146]

I can relate to your un-satisfaction about the Fuji X-trans bodies. I was also an earlier user of the X100 and had a X-E1 for almost a year. I also bought a demo X-E2 but sold it because I didn't see any improvement over the X-E1 where things mattered to me (IQ, EVF refresh rate, battery life).

I consider myself someone who is willing to use different types of equipment to plug each others' gaps, and can work around major issues as long as I like the results or the experience. So I don't think this is just me being picky...

1) Did I get an extra acid laden sour stuff injected monster lemon specimen or is this water colour effect IQ the norm?

The water color is the norm. Funny, mushy greens, weak blues, not quite oversaturated but weird reds. But all cameras have color issues, and the X-trans line is by no means the worst offenders.
I tried upgrading ACR several times and using silkypix, which did improve over the original lightroom support, but I suspect the watercolor and greens is part of the sensor CFA design, and software interpretation can only do so much.


2) If indeed this plasticity is the standard why has Fuji’s X-Trans sensor cameras gained such popularity - is it all about the shooting experience - just like with Lomo shooters?

Maybe 😀 I've noticed a higher concentration of Fuji users at RFF and among Leica circles in general. I can see people from the film days relating to the layout and manual controls, and you have to admit, the cameras look gorgeous.
This plus the somewhat (undeserved) negative reputation of Fuji's biggest rival in the ILC game, Sony. Personally, as much as I didn't like the X-E1's files' processing latitude and overall look, I would have kept the camera as a special high-ISO use body if not for the EVF, bad peaking implementation and shutter lag.

3) Or do you primarily print (I very rarely do) and is the problem gone then?

No. I print, and couldn't print the Fuji files as large as the files from my NEX-7 without getting serious issues with green detail. But the NEX-7 does have higher MP count, so I don't know - maybe the other 16MP cameras are even worse than the Fujis?

 

[bobbyrab]

can you post some sample pics of what it is you're unhappy with?

 

[nongfuspring]

I haven't used one of the second generation x-trans sensors much, I've only had experience with my X-E1. I've read some say that the xtrans1 is better than the xtrans2 in regards to the watercolour issue.

Jpegs look alright 1600 and below, but above that I'd far rather use raw files - even at lowest noise reduction setting I find raw files look vastly different (and better) to jpegs in terms of noise from 1600 and up. Having said that though, I can't really complain about this watercolour/plasticky skin effect since I haven't really noticed it. Maybe I'm less attentive than many others, but since I rarely shoot high ISO in jpeg maybe I am not producing the conditions for it. I use silkypix, I recommend you try it out and see how it goes.

On the whole the xtrans IQ exceeds my needs and gives me plenty to work with in PS. My main issue with fuji cameras is actually the build quality rather than the IQ, a lot of reviews raved about how the cameras felt "crafted" etc., but while they certainly look the part I can't help but feel them to be quite fragile and plasticky, similar or worse than comparable cameras from sony/olympus/etc (though perhaps the xt-1 is an improvement and the x100 isn't so bad). In particular I'm not crazy about the thumb wheel at the back which seems wobbly and cheap or the ergonomics. I appreciate the lenses being made out of metal, but like you say the aperture ring isn't great. My 35mm 1.4 feels sandy, loose, uneven, and I often slide it in and out of auto by accident. Maybe my opinion is also coloured by the fact that my focus selector switch stopped working about 2 months ago and since I travel so much I haven't had a chance to get it fixed which is very annoying. Perhaps a freak incident but it doesn't really fill me with confidence, the guys at the service centre were helpful though so I guess fuji deserves some points for that.

I could talk more about my disappointments surrounding the x-e1's user experience, but I'm not sure how much it would be relevant to the topic given the x-t1 seems quite different in that regard. Also I'm probably coming from quite a different place to fuji from most, since I'm not really a long time RF user.

 

[Bobfrance]

Hi Karsten,

I never got along with the sensor on the X100 I owned briefly, there was nothing wrong with it, I just didn't like the way it rendered a scene. I found it micro-contrasty and fussy to my eye. However I agree that the draw of the Fuji is strong and I have picked up an X20 to take on holiday with me next week. I'll let you know how I get on. 🙂




.

 

[rybolt]

I love these discussions. I'm a long time Leica, Nikon, Hasselblad and Makina shooter. Back when I shot film I very rarely just looked at my negatives and didn't print them. Now, apparently, that's the way things are done. You shoot a picture and look at it on a monitor that may or may not be calibrated and make a decision on whether a camera is taking a decent picture.

I'm shooting X Pro 1 cameras and I have great luck using raw files with Lightroom and printing them out on various printers. My system is completely calibrated except for the Ipad and one Macbook pro and I can assure you that the X Trans sensor does a very nice job.

 

[Paddy C]

I'm shooting X Pro 1 cameras and I have great luck using raw files with Lightroom and printing them out on various printers. My system is completely calibrated except for the Ipad and one Macbook pro and I can assure you that the X Trans sensor does a very nice job.

Except when it doesn't. I've seen prints made from X Pro raw files and could notice the watercolour effect at viewing distance in some. And these were made by a photographer I know to be good and very knowledgeable. He admitted there were some issues in certain photographs with the x trans.

 

[rybolt]

Except when it doesn't. I've seen prints made from X Pro raw files and could notice the watercolour effect at viewing distance in some. And these were made by a photographer I know to be good and very knowledgeable. He admitted there were some issues in certain photographs with the x trans.

I certainly can't argue with that. Not every roll of Tri-x I ever shot was perfect. I think I even had a roll of Kodachrome that disappointed me once.

Any sensor without an AA filter is going to be a problem under some conditions. It's a matter of being able to fix the problem in post before anyone else gets to see it.

 

[Aristophanes]

The Fuji "watercolor" discussion was going on before X-trans. I remember discussions on DPR about the F30 and F40 SuperCCD "watercolor" issues with Fuji as compared to Canon or Sony. That goes back almost 8 years.

Maybe the Fuji ADC is at fault. Fuji is aggressive about trying to tie their IQ to their legacy film look and brand.

 

[--]

No. I print, and couldn't print the Fuji files as large as the files from my NEX-7 without getting serious issues with green detail. But the NEX-7 does have higher MP count, so I don't know - maybe the other 16MP cameras are even worse than the Fujis?

Thank you for the long and detailed response. I get much better pictures from my Nikon Coolpix A and from my E-M5. Admittedly the lenses I use on both these two "bodies" are much better than the kit lens from Fuji.

Cheers
Xpanded

 

[--]

Not until after the weekend but will then.

 

[--]

The Fuji "watercolor" discussion was going on before X-trans. I remember discussions on DPR about the F30 and F40 SuperCCD "watercolor" issues with Fuji as compared to Canon or Sony. That goes back almost 8 years.

Maybe the Fuji ADC is at fault. Fuji is aggressive about trying to tie their IQ to their legacy film look and brand.

Could indeed be that. Good point.

 

[--]

I love these discussions. I'm a long time Leica, Nikon, Hasselblad and Makina shooter. Back when I shot film I very rarely just looked at my negatives and didn't print them. Now, apparently, that's the way things are done. You shoot a picture and look at it on a monitor that may or may not be calibrated and make a decision on whether a camera is taking a decent picture.

I'm shooting X Pro 1 cameras and I have great luck using raw files with Lightroom and printing them out on various printers. My system is completely calibrated except for the Ipad and one Macbook pro and I can assure you that the X Trans sensor does a very nice job.

Hi rybolt - thanks for you input.

Regarding the printing thing. I was not much into film shooting ever. I preferred the much higher quality from transparencies - for me viewing on screen is the same as viewing a transparency from a projector. That is one part of the reason I (and I suspect many others) judge the camera's performance on screen.

The other part is surely inability to create a workflow that results in prints that are satisfying. I am not saying that millions of other photographers cannot obtain that - just that I cannot 🙁 I am positively convinced many others can.

I would love the hear how you calibrate your systems to obliterate the water color effect? What do you specifically do in LR to circumvent it?

Thanks
Xpanded

 

[--]

However I agree that the draw of the Fuji is strong and I have picked up an X20 to take on holiday with me next week. I'll let you know how I get on. 🙂

.

You do realise the X20 is not a Medium Format camera that allows you to get 20 exposures on a roll, right 😉

Have a nice vac

xpanded

PS: I am sure your dad laughed his BEEP of on 27 April. We will never win again :bang:

 

[--]

My main issue with fuji cameras is actually the build quality .

I understand your sentiments. My first X100 had dust somewhere in the EVF and my second X100 had dust on the sensor (well, has) right from the factory. The X-T1 did seem to work properly though. Maybe production problems are a thing of the past?

Xpanded

 

[gavinlg]

The fuji files are 'smoother' than bayer files. I don't find there to be less detail, but the smoothness and the colour rendering is more like film than a bayer sensor camera is (to me).

Sharpening needs to be done carefully and skilfully or you can make the files look like **** very quickly.

Personally, I love the 'look' from the x-trans sensor.

 

[MCTuomey]

So I have a few questions:

1) Did I get an extra acid laden sour stuff injected monster lemon specimen or is this water colour effect IQ the norm?

2) If indeed this plasticity is the standard why has Fuji’s X-Trans sensor cameras gained such popularity - is it all about the shooting experience - just like with Lomo shooters?

3) Or do you primarily print (I very rarely do) and is the problem gone then?

#1 - I don't know whether you got a lemon or whether the water color effect is the norm. I do get the sense that the water color effect, whatever it's objective nature, doesn't seem to be a problem for everyone, probably due to differences in workflow and perception.

#2 - I don't believe the plasticity is "standard" since there are users who aren't bothered by it, again, probably due to differences in workflow and/or perception. In my case, my shooting experience with the x-t1 is very positive. Which helps the "keep v sell" decision on the keeper side.

#3 - I print. It's early, but my impression is that fuji files print well at medium sizes. I can't say the "problem" is gone since you see it differently than I do. I can say I don't see the plasticity or smoothness in what few prints I've made. There is a kind of "lightness" to my fuji prints when I compare prints from my M-digitals, but I'll reserve judgement until I have much more experience and refine the fuji workflow further.

The way I see the sensor side of the x-cameras is that I'm trading high iso ability and x-t1 AF for the file quality of my M-digital and dSLRs at lower iso. I'm not going to get into the "film-like" subjectivities, although I do like the x-trans color, especially with skin, and will say that detailed, low iso x-trans images seem more than adequate for what I do. Again, I just acquired the camera a short while ago, so I haven't concluded anything fully other than the camera is delightful to shoot.

 

[gavinlg]

To answer the original thread question, People buy the x-trans cameras for form factor -> ergonomics -> lens range -> special sensor characteristics in that order.