X-Trans

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
7:46 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
What are the major differences between the Bayer sensor used in the majority of digital cameras and the Fuji X-Trans sensor? Fuji claims greater resistance to moire patterns even though the sensor does not use an anti-aliasing filter. The problem with that claim is that a growing number of cameras that use a Bayer array do not use an anti-aliasing filter and don’t seem to suffer in any extraordinary way from moire. Indeed, the newer Fuji sensor pattern seems to demand more complex demosaicing. In any case, those setting up imaging programs have much more experience with the Bayer array than the Fuji array. The very popular Lightroom initially had problems with the X-Trans forcing many folks over to Capture One, which did a better job and didn’t share some of the limits and peculiarities of the program furnished by Fuji. Lightroom has improved in performance, but Iridient Developer, PhotoNinja, and Capture One, among others, still do a better job with some images. Still, I do not find the Fuji sensor superior to those using a Bayer array. Comparing modern ASP C, I find the Bayer sensors and the Fuji sensors pretty much the same - with the Fuji sensors sometimes needing image processing with programs outside of the ever popular Lightroom to achieve best results. In other words, look at the camera system, the body designs, the lens quality, e.t.c., not the sensor array when choosing a system. I think the Fuji system is very good, but not because of the X-Trans sensor. Your thoughts?
 
In order to help me with a purchase decision, I have been comparing Web images of two Fuji cameras that differ basically only in the sensor: The X-A1 with Bayer sensor and the X-M1 with Trans sensor. After having looked at hundreds of images, to me it comes down to color rendition. The Trans sensor images look warmer, with a special something to them that you either like or don't. They could be said to sometimes exhibit a brownish cast to the colors. The images from the X-A1, with Bayer sensor, look like regular digital images without noticeable color cast. More neutral, if you will. Again, the results from the Trans-sensor equipped X-M1 have more of an individual "character" to them, whether that's good or bad depends upon one's individual taste.
 
It's the lenses. As apsc systems go fuji lenses are tops.
I enjoy the ergonomics of the bodies as well. Controls are in the right places.
I don't think the sensor has a great advantage or disadvantage from bayer sensor cameras at this point.
CO7, LR, aperture all do a nice job. The Xtrans files I have color issues with are the same situations that Bayer has trouble with (red tone gradation in particular).
 
I shoot B&W only, or at least for anything I spend any effort on. I don't have the technical knowledge to explain why the output from my X-Pro1 and X-M1 appeals to me more than that of most digital cameras I've owned. But I would say it looks more natural and less digital than the rendering of most others. The term "organic" is probably overused but seems apt in this case. I've been through quite a few digital cameras looking for B&W rendering I like and the X-Trans output is partiicularly pleasing to me.

John
 
johnwolf said:
I shoot B&W only, or at least for anything I spend any effort on. I don't have the technical knowledge to explain why the output from my X-Pro1 and X-M1 appeals to me more than that of most digital cameras I've owned. But I would say it looks more natural and less digital than the rendering of most others. The term "organic" is probably overused but seems apt in this case. I've been through quite a few digital cameras looking for B&W rendering I like and the X-Trans output is partiicularly pleasing to me.

John
Click to expand...

Agree - especially so at higher iso's. I like x-trans rendering for my club shooting, couple examples at 6400 with an x-t1:


20141210-023-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr


20141210-011-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr

Very malleable files, nice to convert in LR5 with my Elixir presets and a few tweaks to crush the blacks ;).
 
these are some excellent points and an interesting discussion topic. in the end, like much of photography, it really comes down to subjective decisions. ive had the x100 and x10 non xtrans sensor and the xp1 and x20 xtrans sensors. ive also had many othe ff, apsc and m4/3 digis. in the end, my subjective conclusion is i fully dislike the xtrans sensor as compared not only to the 'original' fuji sensor, but pretty much anything else ive ever used. i find xtrans muddled, lacking in sharpness detail and microcontrast. the greens are flat out awful, imo. i just flat dont like the look, and i use 'flat' specifically as a multiple meaning word.

this was a major disappointment to me as i'm a big fuji fan, from film days, and i loved the innovative x100 and x10. to me the x100 still stands up against many newer offerings from many other companies. but i stress, this is an 'opinion', its not right or wrong, and neither is the counter opinion.
 
I find xtrans quite sharp, but I don't use LR, I use Aperture. I find the files very 'malleable', I usually shoot to get some minor blown highlights and bring them back in post. This makes for great shadow detail.
 
My opinion is that the "X-Trans" sensor is a marketing gimmick pure and simple.

Fuji knew that they needed to differentiate themselves from the other players when they introduced the X-Pro 1. So, having lots of experience with funky and non-standard filter arrays, they took a standard Sony 16-MB sensor, placed a custom 6x6 color filter array over it, and voila, the magical X-trans sensor was born! Too bad it didn't play nice with existing image processing software, but Fuji didn't seem too concerned about that deficiency.

From a technical and image quality standpoint, I don't see any compelling argument for the "X-Trans" sensor. But from a marketing standpoint, there is no denying that the "X-Trans" has been, at least, marginally successful.
 
gustavoAvila said:
My opinion is that the "X-Trans" sensor is a marketing gimmick pure and simple.

Fuji knew that they needed to differentiate themselves from the other players when they introduced the X-Pro 1. So, having lots of experience with funky and non-standard filter arrays, they took a standard Sony 16-MB sensor, placed a custom 6x6 color filter array over it, and voila, the magical X-trans sensor was born! Too bad it didn't play nice with existing image processing software, but Fuji didn't seem too concerned about that deficiency.

From a technical and image quality standpoint, I don't see any compelling argument for the "X-Trans" sensor. But from a marketing standpoint, there is no denying that the "X-Trans" has been, at least, marginally successful.
Click to expand...

Not really.

Look. Fuji built a complete and comprehensive system that competes very well in the market.
The lenses are what photographers want at prices they can justify.
The bodies are well designed for use, robust, inexpensive, and getting better with constant hardware and firmware improvements.
It's a system that goes far beyond "a gimmick" or whatever derogatory thing unhappy former adopters or unexperienced "experts" comment.
There were some rough patches with editing continuity early on... sure.
Those issues have been mostly overcome.
A bit of patients learning to use the editing tools available pays off and will unlock the performance available. IQ is excellent.
There are legitimate issues with af speed and performance that for me eliminate this system for some projects.
No other mirrors has completely overcome the same issues.
If one shoots sports or long lens work... get a reflex!
For Portraits, street, and other more deliberate work close in,... the fuji way is great.

If you don't like it fine! However, dismissing what Fuji has accomplished and has delivered to users with this system as a marketing gimmick of some sort sounds like sour grapes and frankly...absurd!
 
f16sunshine said:
Not really.

Look. Fuji built a complete and comprehensive system that competes very well in the market.
The lenses are what photographers want at prices they can justify.
The bodies are well designed for use, robust, inexpensive, and getting better with constant hardware and firmware improvements.
It's a system that goes far beyond "a gimmick" or whatever derogatory thing unhappy former adopters or unexperienced "experts" comment.
There were some rough patches with editing continuity early on... sure.
Those issues have been mostly overcome.
A bit of patients learning to use the editing tools available pays off and will unlock the performance available. IQ is excellent.
There are legitimate issues with af speed and performance that for me eliminate this system for some projects.
No other mirrors has completely overcome the same issues.
If one shoots sports or long lens work... get a reflex!
For Portraits, street, and other more deliberate work close in,... the fuji way is great.

If you don't like it fine! However, dismissing what Fuji has accomplished and has delivered to users with this system as a marketing gimmick of some sort sounds like sour grapes and frankly...absurd!
Click to expand...

Huh? Please re-read the thread topic, which only concerns the sensor, not the system, upon which I cast no dispersions.

That being said, I stand by my opinion that the primary "advantage" of the "X-trans" processor is marketing, not technical.
 
I'm mainly a film shooter but I like to have in my bag a small digital camera (actually a Leica x1) for when I need different iso, like when I have 100 film and need to shoot some interior at 800 or more. Looking for a more versatile small digital than the one I have I'm thinking to buy an xt1 fuji, not so much for the sensor but for the small size, weight and interchangeable lenses.
robert
 
johnwolf said:
I shoot B&W only, or at least for anything I spend any effort on. I don't have the technical knowledge to explain why the output from my X-Pro1 and X-M1 appeals to me more than that of most digital cameras I've owned. But I would say it looks more natural and less digital than the rendering of most others. The term "organic" is probably overused but seems apt in this case. I've been through quite a few digital cameras looking for B&W rendering I like and the X-Trans output is particularly pleasing to me.

John
Click to expand...

Though I do shoot some color, this is my take on it as well. The output feels closer to film (especially in B&W), and that to me is a desirable characteristic. At least in my case, I can isolate the sensor as the determining factor, as I use the same LTM lenses on my X-E1 that I use on my Canon rangefinders.
 
I think it made more sense when the xtrans was originally brought out since back then manufacturers hadn't got into the habit of taking AA sensors out of their cameras and so it did offer a genuine advantage. Now AA filters are weaker, mechanical (e.g. Pentax/Ricoh) or left out entirely, the xtrans doesn't really seem as relevant as before, especially considering the tradeoffs. And in spite of the claims, in my experience I never actually found xtrans files that sharp. They don't seem to have that crispness I've seen from APSC DSLRs or the crunchy sharpness from smaller sensor cameras - but I actually quite like the files anyway. I think they upscale nicely, the colours are good, plus I like the grain from the RAF files at high ISO (but NOT a fan of the JPEG noise reduction).

I've figured out how to use xtrans files in a way that satisfies me so I will keep using these cameras for a while yet, but I'm quite unsure about wether it makes sense for fuji's next cameras to keep the xtrans. Rumours regarding the XP2 are that the camera is designed but they're waiting on a new sensor/processor, no doubt future fuji's will use something a bit different from what they have now.
 
I too find the XE1 xtrans to produce slightly less saturated colors (mostly in the red zone) and slightly less shadow darkness (can't find the right word there) than the XA1 Bayer sensor.
Hard to compare the X100 because the lens is unique.

Straight out of the camera, I prefer the XA1 JPGs, but similar XE1 JPGs are possible with in-camera tweaking, if you desire.

However the build quality of the XE1 (and the X100) is much more robust than the XA1. So I do wish that Fuji produces a few designs sim to the X100 with an XA1-like (Mp) sensor.

IMO what Fuji brings to the party are it's lenses and body designs. The sensor issue isn't driving their market share way up or way down (again, IMO).
 
Can't say enough good things about the Fujifilm X cameras - or the lenses. A well thought-out and performing system, all around. And when Fujifilm updates their firmware... It never disappoints.

FYI, Iridient Developer just got a rev, and added two new sharpening routines. Haven't had a chance to check it out much yet, but from what I've seen so far - it's intense! Probably the best solution (or perhaps C1) for X-Trans files.
 
The x-trans sensor is physically different (size and arrangement of the color cells), but from a pure performance standpoint, I don't find it to be a significant improvement over traditional bayer sensors. I like the system, but not specifically for the sensor.
 
daveleo said:
I too find the XE1 xtrans to produce slightly less saturated colors (mostly in the red zone) and slightly less shadow darkness (can't find the right word there) than the XA1 Bayer sensor.
Hard to compare the X100 because the lens is unique.
Click to expand...

i agree dave about the 'flat' colors, and i in particular find the greens muddled as well.

however contrary to your post it is quite easy to compare the x100, in fact thats the easiest comparison, because the original did not have an xtrans sensor, while the x100S and T do. same with the x10 vs the x20. its in these kind of 'apple to apple' fuji vs fuji comparisons where imo the xtrans 'deficiencies' in output become so obvious. but as i said earlier, thats my subjective take on it. the pre xtrans output really suits my eye and the xtrans output couldnt be further from what i like. these are not 'system' comments, just 'result' comments based on sensor output differences and how my eye interperts them.
 
I should really be a Fuji system owner as so much about what Fuji is doing appeals to me. Timing and the X-Trans, however, have prevented that from happening.

X-Trans shooters do seem to rave about some of the image qualities the sensors are capable of producing. These assertions often appear subjective to me. Note that subjective is not a bad thing. I have trouble seeing the same.

When I was contemplating buying a Fuji I was turned off by the problems in demosaicing. These problems are well documented and the "turning point" if you will came when I saw a print by a photographer I know. The demosaicing problems often encountered with vegetation were clearly present. Also, it appeared at the time that Fuji was overstating ISO and, therefore, one of the other oft touted benefits of the X-Trans (better than bayer high-ISO performance) was not what it seemed.

So in the end I took a pass on Fuji. I don't know if these two key issues have been overcome yet as I don't follow the cameras.

One thing I find interesting is the original X100. This camera, to my eye, produces lovely IQ. And users speak highly of it. It suggests to me that Fuji (in line with the company's history in sensor development) is/was capable of producing an excellent bayer with, shall-we-say, some subjective pixie dust.

I tend to agree with gustavoAvila above that the X-Trans is mostly marketing. But it's marketing that may have backfired. I don't think anyone is buying Fuji systems because of the X-Trans, yet the X-Trans issues have likely turned some potential buyers away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom