flysurfer

Btw, habe a look at this multitarget comparison I put together: https://www.flickr.com/gp/25805910@N05/R7XtW8 It shows the same RAW file processed with 8 different converters with their respective standard settings. As you can see, nothing matches: colors, brightness, tonality, sharpness, noise, dynamic range, moiré, artifacts. It's all different. It's like 8 different cameras. Different converters show different kinds of moiré depending on the color of the Siemens star. So each demosaicing method seems to have problems with a different part of this image. If you want Capture One to win, just process a Siemens star in the color that C1 likes, then tell the world that C1 is great and LR sucks. Rinse and repeat if you favor a different converter. Nothing is standardized, even the brightness of the results varies. So much for ISO. They can't even agree on image size and the number of sensor pixels to process. Some use 16.3 MP, some 16.0. One uses even less.

My second X-T10 is finally on its way and I intend to use it for an assignment this weekend. Hopefully, I'll be able to gather new experiences. Next week, I'll be available for questions that my First Look in X-Pert Corner didn't answer. Of course, I'll also write a book on the X-T10 (German and English). It will be out rather sooner than later, hopefully no later than September.

Well, that may be your personal opinion based on your experience and how you perceive reality and the world around you. Fuji, test labs and my eyes usually tell me the opposite, at least concerning the first part of your claim. As for color accuracy and detail, I haven't encountered practical situations where X-Trans would have been a problem. For me. Here's the point: Your experience may be different than mine, and by all means: if it IS different (and it obviously is, why would you make it up?), why not move on and use one of the countless offerings with more detail, less artifacts, better color accuracy and more color detail? I mean: Isn't IQ the most important aspect of a camera system? Especially for someone who demands more than "usable" and more than "most people" in the IQ department? How can it now be a tiny factor? And if it's just a tiny factor, why are you (and many others, these threads pop up every week for years) complaning about it so passionately? So I guess it isn't that tiny after all.

But of course it does. Less color noise, for example. And less moiré than other AA-less 16 MP APS-C sensors. Are there actually (m)any 16 MP APS-C Bayer cameras w/o AA filter? Even the bokeh looks softer, as we remember Fuji's X-A1 vs. X-M1 presentation that I personally found a bit esoteric. But hey, everybody is entitled to some voodoo. Loudspeaker cables, anyone? The X-Trans "look" is different, though: somewhat cleaner. Some like that, some don't. Can't argue about taste, but if I didn't like it, I'd move on. I also have 3 Foveon cameras (and also several regular Bayer cameras, not to mention exotic SuperCCD and EXR sensor cameras), and they all have their unique sensor qualities and issues. Plenty of choices, even in my personal camera cupboard. Sure, the AA filter / moiré thing will become less important at 24 MP. But Fuji will keep X-Trans even then. A Fujirumors poll for us hardcore forum freaks showed that a clear majority of X users prefers X-Trans over Bayer. I reckon that the "less educated" crowd likes X-Trans even better, as they are more likely to believe the marketing speech in the brochures and on Fuji's website.

How can something be a perfectly fine result that is the result of something that doesn't achieve anything worthwhile? Sorry, I don't get it. The results are either good or bad. Mine are good (in my opinion), so I stick with X-Trans. If they weren't (in my opinion), I'd have moved on at least two years ago. My effort with X-Trans isn't higher than with Bayer. I'm using Lightroom and at least 7 other RAW converters for X-Trans and Bayer, so I'm not stuck with one particular software or a fanboy of a particular workflow that I need to justify to me or others. This is the fourth year of X-Trans. By now, we know its strengths and weaknesses. I also know that X-Trans isn't going away anytime soon.

Nah, just a simple university degree.

Nope, just quoting and applying logic: To revisit your food comparison, you consider yourself a gourmet above the fastfood crowd. You have higher standards, and X-Trans doesn't meet them. X-Trans is at fault for getting only "usable" results, and you want something better. I think there's nothing wrong with that, but if your IQ standards are indeed higher than mine (or "most people" – basically, you are saying most people can't see or don't care about the difference), and X-Trans is to blame for Fuji not meeting these higher standards, you should look somewhere else (assuming that you aren't inclined to masochism). Plenty of choices out there, because except for Sigma, pretty much everybody is using Bayer. It's contradictory to say that your IQ standards are higher than most others and at the same time saying that IQ isn't that important in the whole picture of things and that the X-Trans sensor is fine. Especially since you also say that X-Trans is at fault. So yep, I'm puzzled.

Why not? I guess we can revisit this X-E3 topic in about a year from now.

I'm not taking offense with your opinions, only with the way you voice them. Of course I have no idea why you are even using Fuji cameras if you fundamentally don't like X-Trans and blame it for pretty everything that (in your opinion) seems to go wrong in your workflow.

Quite amazing.

Haven't left any X forum so far, but a single one (that rules them all) would be more practical than 4 X forums with all the X-posting (pun intended), don't you think?

That's why I said vacuum bags. Vacuum cleaners can be a very emotional purchase.

It's the norm, it's reality in camera gear forums. If you can't see it, your perception skills are simply very, very, very bad.

No worries, I have already given up on Maurice and his "Vulcanian" non-manners. Anyway, no need to defend me, if I don't feel comfortable here, I'll just leave or open X forum number 5 myself.

When the X-Pro2 is new, the X-T2 will be just around the corner.

You know that I'm right here, don't you? Ooops, I mean: He certainly knows that I'm right here.

Been there, done that, as there have been plenty of threads about this in several forums. Not to mention my RAW converter blind test in XPC, where LR suddenly wasn't the worst in the list, but actually scored quite nicely (with a green grass picture!). I'm long over proving anything to anybody (why would I, I'm not the one who's selling presets), but I'll happily convert problematic RAWs from users in our workshops with different converters if they ask me to do so. There, we can see that every converter has issues with different things. For example, Lightroom sometimes has a color issue in the orange department. In the end, every converter is a compromise, and it can be interesting to spend an hour or two comparing different aspects using actual images.

I'll happily use the 35mmF2.

Yeah, right.

In camera and camera brand forums, cameras aren't "just tools". They are a hobby and a passion. This forum isn't about photography or art in general, it's about Fuji X series cameras, lenses and accessories, how to make the most out of them and how to enjoy them the most. It's about hardware most of us like or even love to use in our spare time, so of course many people are passionate about them. "Just tools"? Give me a break! This "cameras are just tools" speech is as like saying "horses are just a means of transport" in a horse lover forum. Heck, even cars aren't just "a means of transport" in a Porsche forum—they too are a hobby and a passion. To pretend that the vast majority in this forum are cool, emotionless pros who are buying cameras and lenses like a cleaning professional is buying vacuum cleaner bags ("just tools") is clearly off the mark.

There were plans for another (smaller) bridge with a 2/3" sensor, but those were scrapped, like a few other things. Of course, scrapped things can be revived when times are changing.

As I said: doubtful.

Sure.

What's new? Larger (less-compressed) JPEGs were part of the X30 and X100T (even X-A2, I think), so now they also come to the X-T10. Will the X-T1 also get them in firmware 4? Doubtful.

Nice comparison, but I don't understand their claim that the realtime EVF of the E2 and T10 are slower in low light. Also they mixed up a few things, should be quickly corrected, though.