Should Fujifilm ditch X-Trans?

DPReview user, Terry Breedlove, thinks so. And judging by the number of likes his post has received (19 as of now), he is hardly alone. 

“The purpose for the Xtrans was to lose the AA filters the Bayer sensors used to combat Moire. Well since then we have learned that Cameras like the Nikon D7100 and other Bayer sensor cameras with higher Megapixels do not need the AA filters. So the Xtrans is a chip with no purpose anymore. Even Fuji’s own little Bayer sensor camera the Xa1 is making some really nice images as well. So why put up with mushy greens and plastic skin at high ISO . Why put up with poor output when processing Raw images when there is no need to. Why use off brand software when there is no need to anymore. I really like Fuji lenses and the way they support their cameras. I love The way Fuji has always produced colors especially skin tones. I want to buy into their system if it was better supported by Adobe. I just think that will not happen with the Xtrans because of its inherent faults. I love Fuji colors If Fuji could work their magic with a Bayer sensor I am in 100% . Also while I am here I would love to see a Fuji camera similar to the X-T1 in size but with modern controls. Something built for Pros shooting weddings etc.

This is my own personal opinion and not meant to offend anyone. I hope Fuji is reading and thinking about these issues. I believe that they will eventually ditch the X-Trans . I hope sooner rather than later.
Reply to thread”

Personally, I wish Fujifilm would away with X-Trans, but only because of the amount of time it takes my computer to process X-trans files vs. higher resolution Bayer files. That said, outside of images taken for review, I never use X cameras for my work.

Source: Fuji needs to ditch the Xtrans

DPReview: What is equivalence and why should I care?

DPReview essay how equivalence in both field of view, and depth of field, is important in describing lenses across incompatible mounts/sensors. The following comes from the third page:

“As you can see, the real-world examples bear-out the expectations to a pretty good degree - when set to ‘equivalent’ apertures, the background blur is very similar. It also helps illustrate the distinction between background blur and depth-of-field - the background dots have all been spread to a similar degree, suggesting the same depth-of-field, but the appearance of them varies, depending on lens design.

In this instance, the lens on the 1”-type sensor is producing more concentrated blur circles - making them appear darker. This suggests the lens exhibits lower levels of longitudinal chromatic aberration than the others, such that different colors are being focused at the same depth. This would explain why the blur circles are less spread out and why they appear black, rather than the more diffuse, green-tinged rendering the other three lenses are offering.”

If only DPReview had showed price/size variability between equivalent lenses, which rarely favours of small-sensor cameras.

Source: What is equivalence and why should I care?

Forbes: Fujifilm is the "Apple of the digital photography world"

If you read anything into Mike Sparrow's recent Forbes article beside what commenter, Fuzzy Optics, describes thusly: 

“...Fuji is the Apple of digital photography because they’re very meticulous about design and get widespread acclaim from critics and hardcore enthusiasts, but don’t have widespread market share, then I guess Fuji is like Apple in that respect.”

You have read in between the wrong lines. But it is easy to get off the path when summoning Apple, or Jobs, or the other guy in the digital camera world. In fact, the camera world is far more entrenched than the Windows/Mac/Linux world is. It is older, more storied, devoid of cross-platform standards, and rife with proprietary technology.

Mark Sparrow's quip that Fujifilm is the 'Apple of the digital photography world' is apt only as it pertains to part of the X system. Apple is a brand builder. Fujifilm, too, is a brand builder insofar as is has designed a few cameras and lenses that attract enthusiast attention, and that are instantly recognisable as part of the X system.

Unlike Apple, Fujifilm does not protect the prices of its products. I bought my X-Pro 1 for 800$ USD a year ago. That camera debuted at over 1600$ USD less than a year earlier. While that was good news for me, it is very bad news for resale value, and for the brand's premium leanings. One could argue that the market dictated the price fluctuation, but by the same reasoning, why are Nikon and Canon with similar MSRPs able to retain relatively high selling prices over the course of their market lives? 

Within the X world, Fujifilm has duplicated focal lengths, produced scaled-down cameras, and removed the aperture rings (one of the X-brand's key defining points), etc., and so on, in order to appeal to budget-conscious consumers. This is decidedly an un-Apple thing to do. Apple economise on size. There is no such thing as a non-premium Apple product. And Apple neither design nor manufacture products based on what the competition is doing.

Post-Forstall Apple is rapidly distancing itself from GUI skeuomorphism. Fuijfilm's X-brand is not. Its high-end XF R line of lenses attracts attention for sporting both focus and aperture rings. But neither is coupled to the lens itself. Instead, changes to focus and aperture are managed electronically. Versus true manual lenses with coupled apertures and focus helicoids, there is a physical disconnect. Part of this disconnect manifests itself in delay, part of it in feel. Focus rings grind unfamiliarly on stop-less and uncoupled tracks that squeak and jerk in and out when adjustmented. The aperture lacks the same tactile feedback and subtle inconsistencies inherent in true mechanical designs. While XF lenses perform well, they feel ordinary at best, sluggish at worst. An Apple-like Fujifilm would not economise on feel.

It isn't necessary for Fujifilm to be Apple-like. Fujifilm has a longer, richer history than Apple. But  unlike Apple, Fujifilm caters to market conditions rather than re-fashioning the market in which it competes.

I love what Fujifilm have accomplished, but I see severe problems in the way Fujifilm approach their brand. Some of these problems attack the brand itself; some of them merely weaken the aesthetic schtick Fujifilm were aiming for in designing the X brand. 

All of these problems are very unlike Apple. But in the current small-format digital camera atmosphere, Fujifilm expresses some similarities to the brand that Mike Sparrow offhandedly summons and which Fuzzy Optics qualifies. Like Apple, Fujifilm is "very meticulous about design and get widespread acclaim from critics and hardcore enthusiasts". And love the X series or hate, it, it is a polarising element in the digital camera world. But then again, so is any digital camera brand. Quite honestly, the single largest contribution hitherto Fujifilm X cameras have made to the mirrorless world is a slew of design conceits and skeuomorphisms. How future Fujifilm products are able to turn those conceits into marketable must-haves will determine their success in a post-dSLR world. 

And it will be done in a Fujifilm, not Apple way.