Fuji Should Fuji make a Midrange Bayer Sensor Camera?

kyteflyer

~@¿@~
Location
Newcastle, Australia
Real Name
Sue
I still like the JPGs from the original X100. I have not shot RAW with that pretty much since I bought it. I’ve been tempted to sell it and get a later model but I’d have to give up that sensor. I dont need a bazillion megapickels, I do need a camera that behaves the way I want. Its slow as a wet week, its live view is woeful, but I still like it. I just use the OVF.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
Just curious. Which way to you think it would go, if people were just blindly choosing based on resulting images?
Pixel peepers will quickly note how the Xtrans images lack "crisp pixels" no matter how advanced demosaic was used.

Normal people won't notice I'm sure. But many photographers aren't exactly normal! :blush:

What comes to resulting images, Fuji is super good at making JPEGs whether the pixels come from a Bayer (XT100, X100) or a Xtrans sensor.
 

jyc860923

Top Veteran
Location
Shenyang, China
Real Name
贾一川
When I used Fuji I didn't dislike X-Trans sensor, the final images didn't suffer to a visible extent, but it's the extra conversion or limited software support that annoyed me, so I'd like to see bayer sensors in their cameras.

Don't get me wrong, every brand does things that only please their advertising departments, it's not ideal but I wouldn't see it as a disadvantage.
 
I think there is a perception that a majority of people dislike the Xtrans sensor because the complainers are always the most vocal. Combined with that wonderful thing which happens on the web. People who have never picked up a piece of gear repeat what someone wrote on some forum. It's been this way the entire time I've been on anything camera related on the internet. Having become really bad now with shills on youtube intentionally downing anything which isn't their sponsored brand. If the Xtrans was truly terrible, Fuji would have changed or went out of the camera business by now. Also, pixel peepers are gear heads first and foremost. Maybe they can make a good image, maybe not. But if the image is so boring that you're pixel peeping, then what's the point.
 
Please share your response to them! :clapping:We could all use cheering up!
The lens in question was on it's third owner with me. Still in 9-9+ condition, flawless glass, still performed as it should with AF and controls.

It started off with a message exchange, him asking me what I used the lens for. Which at the time was low light, higher iso stuff like bands in local bars. Then a very pretentious about how the guy is a "high end landscape photographer" who sells prints. And requires top performance from his equipment. My reply to this was, then why are you buying used lenses? Which didn't seem to sit well with him.

The next, very long winded pretentious message. Let me know that he would be doing some testing. Shooting a brick wall at different apertures. Then looking at 100% crops. That he would let me know the results.

Upon his review, I was told that the edge to edge sharpness was not up to his expectations. That he was demanding a refund. And get this, that I should also demand a refund from the person who I bought the lens from a year prior. He also informed me that if I did not give him a refund, he would use Paypal's satisfaction guarantee. At which point I was baffled, so I asked him if he was new to the internet. At which he sent a very long message which breaks down to, why was I being so difficult and simply not giving him his money back. For something which was exactly as described and worked flawlessly. But, as he put it, the left side of 100% crop of a brick wall was not as sharp as the right side of a 100% crop of a brick wall. So the lens was not performing as it should be.

Next I asked him if the lens arrived, well packaged, and in the condition described in the for sale ad. To which he replied yes. The lens was exactly as described. Double boxed, with a lot of packing material for shipping. I then copy/pasted Paypal's terms for forcing a refund. Which were not met as the item was as described, undamaged in shipping, and delivered and received at the correct location. I pointed out to him also that nowhere on Paypal does it say he has a year to return something if he is not satisfied. Which he some had the notion was a Paypal policy. I offered to buy back the lens for $100 less than he paid for it. Which he very unkindly refused. I then advised him, that as a "high end landscape photographer" I was surprised he wasn't a factory shooter for one of the camera companies. Or at the very least, buying his gear brand new with warranties from places with good return policies. Which was also met with some very unkind words. Despite my best efforts, I never got him flustered enough to say bad things about my mama.
 
I have dealt with people when selling on the used market who tried to force me to give them their money back. Because after serious pixel peeping they decided the lens didn't meet their expectations in image quality. 🤦‍♂️

I hope he was using a properly calibrated brick wall for his tests.

-R
I've got one to sell if anyone is interested! :clapping:
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom