- Location
- Jersey Shore
- Name
- Steve
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
Pretty scathing. Mostly about the lens and the X-Trans sensor. I didn't think the lens was that bad except under pretty extreme pixel peeping, but I guess that's what they're paid to do. The X-Trans is the same od set of complaints - either you like it or you don't. I don't love it but it's never been a deal breaker for me...
-Ray
-Ray
Crsnydertx
Top Veteran
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Name
- Chuck
Certainly threw cold water on my interest in the camera. Will soldier on with the Coolpix A.
SnapDawg
Rorschach Test Pilot
- Location
- Canary Islands
- Name
- Ken
To me it seems somewhat strange that they rated the RAWs below the jpgs in the scoring graph, from what I remember it's the first time they did that for an X-Trans camera and I can't recall any other of their camera reviews where they've done something alike. Like so often they've mentioned their issues with running X-Trans RAWs through their standard ACR routine, with the latest version still not being up on par with something like Photo Ninja, Capture one, Iridient and some other options, and applying the same software and demosaicing settings they're routinely using for Bayer CFAed sensors doesn't exactly help to show what the X-Trans combo can actually resolve. Anyway, the rest looks like a fair review to me and should give Fujifilm something to ponder over.
