Fuji Would You Buy an X-Ex Camera With a Bayer Sensor?

Biro

Hall of Famer
Location
Jersey Shore
Real Name
Steve
My X-A1 doesn't get as much use these days now that I have the X100t. But I must say there are certain situations when I might prefer the Bayer sensor to Fuji's X-Trans sensor. I know other people feel the same way. But I really want a viewfinder in my cameras and don't think I'll be buying many more without them. Now, all of that said, would you buy an X-E2 (or its replacement) with a Bayer sensor? I really don't know what the sales of the X-A1 have been like versus the X-M1. But if the ratio were a reasonable one, I think might be quite easy for Fuji to offer a bayer variant in the X-Ex series. Would you buy one? I think I might.
 

RT Panther

All-Pro
In the big picture of things, no other company that I know of is in a rush to copy the X-Trans sensor. Now of course I'm biased because my X100 is the original...
 

ean10775

All-Pro
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Real Name
Eric
I prefer the look of the files from the bayer sensor, but appreciate the high ISO performance of the X-Trans sensored cameras. If they could somehow merge the two that would be my preference, but if I have to choose between them, I'd go with the X-Trans as I tend to shoot a lot indoors in low light.
 

MrPhotoBob

New Member
Yes, I would purchase a XE-2, I just sold my XE-1 and replaced it with a XE-2 a few days ago to back up my XT-1. I mainly shoot with my XE-2 on a tripod and some times I use a hand meter with a gray card in order to photograph an image. I guess that I am kind of old school and enjoyed using a rangefinder camera.
 

flysurfer

Hall of Famer
The X-Ex series is more focused on enthusiast users, hence it is X-Trans (and will most likely stay X-Trans until Fuji drops this concept altogether in exchange for something even better).

Bayer (especially with AA filter) generally doesn't deliver the same performance. Of course, each concept has its pros and cons.

With the X-A2, Fujifilm is still offering a Bayer alternative for X-Mount, targeting entry-level users and amateurs who heavily rely on ease-of-use and automation. The X-A2 qualifies for this segment, but it's a tough sell to those who demand enthusiast features such as high video frame rates, tracking PDAF, Kelvin white-balance, exposure preview in manual mode or a real-time viewfinder. Heck, the X-A2 doesn't even feature an electronic level.
 

Kay

Veteran
I prefer the look of the files from the bayer sensor, but appreciate the high ISO performance of the X-Trans sensored cameras. If they could somehow merge the two that would be my preference, but if I have to choose between them, I'd go with the X-Trans as I tend to shoot a lot indoors in low light.
From what I see (and tried) the X-A is about on par with X-Trans in low light performance. Now, if Fuji would omit the AA filter in the successor the resolution would possibly match that of their more expensive X-Trans models at the risk of possible moiree, their major and maybe only valid sales argument for X-Trans. Film look? Bullsh.t! Artifacts. Tons of 'em. Dang, more and more Bayer based cameras come without AA filter and people continue to buy those models. I would trade the X-Trans sensor in my XP1 against a Bayer version without AA filter in a heartbeat if I could and I'm not alone.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom