Fuji X-Trans Vs Bayer

It’s different (xtrans). Fantastic jpegs made the most of by film sims which I thought were a gimmick but which I was pleased to be wrong about and raw files I can manipulate to my taste.

But if you are dependent on PS/LR there’s every chance it won’t be for you.
 
Really, i dont think the xtrans makes the jpegs any better. Especially on the first 2 gens of Xtrans, i kept reading comments on hownthe jpegs werent quite as good as on the original x100; things seem to have improved with the 24mp gen3 sensors, but afaik thats more down to computing power than anything else. I'd be perfectly happy to see Fuji drop xtrans alltogether.
 
Love XTrans. As somebody who resents every second spent faffing with PS sitting at a desk, I find the Fuji file outputs liberating.

I’m so tired of post-processing that I have thought about going back to a film workflow. But then one has to scan the film and process the files, so that’s even worse. Plus, there’s the expense of the film and the processing lab.

Fuji jpgs are great!
 
The bayer sensor is cheaper to produce. And requires less processing power.

It's probably more expensive because of the lower volume of the X-Trans CFA, but personally I can't believe the material and ink costs between a bayer pattern CFA and an X-Trans one would be much (if any) different

It's basically the difference between using the same printer and the same paper (sic) to print two different patterns
 
It's probably more expensive because of the lower volume of the X-Trans CFA, but personally I can't believe the material and ink costs between a bayer pattern CFA and an X-Trans one would be much (if any) different

It's basically the difference between using the same printer and the same paper (sic) to print two different patterns

??
 
Back
Top