Fuji X-A1 superior image quality to X-M1 (and X-E1 and X-PRO1)?

If you have an XPro1 or XE1 then the XM1 makes sense from a post processing point of view. There will be a consistancy between the cameras. If you have nothing then the XA1 seems like better value. Yep. There's a place for both and blanket statements are, as usual, wrong. How surprising.

noting that people will purchase either camera and then come to this place, words that can be misread, like "sane" might be best avoided. The ego, after all, is fragile like fine porcelan.

Gordon

Gordon
 
Very wise points, Gordon.

I have the X100 and if I were to make the move to an interchangeable lens system, I believe I might well go with the XA1. I like the X100 the way it is...so I'm sure I'd like the XA1. Whether or not I'd miss the EVF is another question, however it is not one that I have to address at this juncture since I'm not going to go this route at this time. However, if I didn't care about that - I'd go with the XA1 sans Xtrans due to my happiness with all things X100. I like to believe I am sane.:wink_old:
 
I don't think that Fujifilm has invalidated X-Trans by coming up with an excellent bayer filter sensor, no more than you could say that Sony, Samsung, Ricoh, Olympus, Panasonic, et al, already have with the sensors in their own cameras. What Fujifilm has done is put a price on the X-Trans sensor. You makes your choice and you pays your money.

I am well and truly in agreement with the assertion that the X-A1 is the better value-for-money proposition, but what that camera lacks is the unique selling point of the X-Trans sensor, however large or small the differences might be, and regardless of whether it is better or worse in absolute measures of image quality.
 
Rico, thanks for your replies on this thread. My immediate reaction to the original post was that it was comparing apples to oranges. I have long since run out of patience dealing with specious convoluted logic such as that. You possess much more of that rare commodity than do I.

Thanks again.
 
Quick question - does anyone know what the (eventual) `body only' price of the x-a1 is expected to be?

I'm still looking for a compact-single focal length-carry-everywhere camera, but I would really like that focal length to be in
the 40-50mm equiv. E.g., x-a1 + 27mm...

Thanks!
 
Right now, the X-A1 is generally available with the 16-50mm kit zoom for $599. Amazon.com has the X-M1 available with the same lens right now for $727 - a $128 difference. What do we think about the value proposition between the two cameras now? I mean this as a sincere question.
 
Just read it -- nice work, Rico.

Bottom line appears to be that there isn't a dimes worth of real difference between these two cameras -- and that still will stimulate controversy. I don't think your article quite explains why the A1 is $200 less.

But it's nice to see a REAL comparison. I just don't think it resolves the issue for Fuji.
 
For me, regardless of the fine points of difference between the X-A1 and the X-M1 I still can't see the marketing logic of two cameras that are practically identical apart from the CFA used being sold in that price range but with a 25% price difference.

Assuming that the point of the A & M models is to expand sales by appealing to the non-enthusiast market the fine nuances of sensor design will be totally lost compared with the price differential. If they had done something similar at the X_Pro / X-E end of the range then possibly people considering spending that much on kit designed for users with some knowledge might be expected to take an interest in the choice of sensor.

I doubt if many X-A1 or X-M1 buyers are going to be interested in using RAW and fine-tuning their settings. Of course there will be the likes of members of this forum who may want a second camera, but that's a tiny part of any market for cameras like these.

Final question: does it really cost that much less to build a Bayer sensor camera than an X-Trans?
 
Final question: does it really cost that much less to build a Bayer sensor camera than an X-Trans?

I doubt it, but since Fuji has to recoup their X-Trans R&D with every X-Trans sensor they sell within a pre-defined time frame based on sales forecasts, I assume it's that what makes the X-Trans so much more expensive, not the isolated manufacturing process at Sony. Don't forget that a difference of 20 or 30 dollars of manufacturing costs (in order to recoup R&D) quickly translates to 150 or 200 dollars for the end customer. We all know how little it really costs to actually build an iPhone (there are studies about it on the net).
 
For me, regardless of the fine points of difference between the X-A1 and the X-M1 I still can't see the marketing logic of two cameras that are practically identical apart from the CFA used being sold in that price range but with a 25% price difference.

Assuming that the point of the A & M models is to expand sales by appealing to the non-enthusiast market the fine nuances of sensor design will be totally lost compared with the price differential. If they had done something similar at the X_Pro / X-E end of the range then possibly people considering spending that much on kit designed for users with some knowledge might be expected to take an interest in the choice of sensor.

[...]

Look at it this way: potential customers who are only interested in the cheapest option in the lineup will buy an X-A1. Enthusiasts who want a second or third body, or like the feature-set of the smaller body but still want X-Trans, buy the X-M1. Either way is profit for Fuji. Heck, I can even see the logic in using the polarizing psychology inherent in choice to push group A to buy the X-A1 by perceiving it as a value, and encouraging group B toward the X-M1 by perceiving it as a performance leader over the other.

As I've said before in this thread, either case equals more sales for Fuji, at absolutely minimal R&D and tooling/manufacturing outlay for producing two nearly identical cameras. I have trouble seeing this as anything other than a win/win.
 
But the question remains: if IQ is so similar, other than because you're already shooting X-Trans Fuji cameras, why not choose the conventional Bayer sensor, since it's a little less expensive and (more importantly) is probably better supported by most PP software packages?
 
Back
Top