Fujifilm X-Trans Sensors – enough pixels?

I see some people are lamenting what they see as the X-Trans sensor’s lack of pixels and / or non full frame-ness (“I’m not getting one till they’re full frame – harumph!” etc.).

Not quite the same thing, but with DP Review’s very recent X100s review, there’s all that “These files suck” stuff going on in the comments too.*

Hmm…

There’s no denying it. In terms of actual photographic activity, as in, producing something you can hold in your hands or hang on a wall, pixel count is the single most important thing in digital photography.**

Without enough pixels, you simply can’t make a good print. End of story.

How many pixels are enough? Well, it depends on how large you want to print, expected viewing distances, etc.

The question here is, for typical uses, do the X-Trans sensors have large enough pixel counts?

The below photo is a jpeg version of an actual print work file. In other words, of a file worked up for printing from, with all the noise reduction, micro contrasting, resizing, output sharpening, etc. that this entails. Thus it probably looks a bit messy here, webified – it looks messy as a TIFF onscreen too. However, rest assured, it prints very very nicely at A3 nobi ( the Japanese term for A3 + / Super A3). It looks great too, well framed on a wall. I’ve sat back and watched people come up short while passing, to look long and hard at one where it hangs on a restaurant wall in New Zealand (he says, ever so smugly).

It was taken in March 2006 on a circa 2004 APS-C 6 megapixel sensor dSLR.

Now, does that answer the original question?

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

Typed while digesting the swirling semi-psychedelic Homemade Traditional Electric Jam of The Bevis Frond.

* Both quotes fictional representative approximates, not real, like say, this one: “I looked closely at every single sample image and they are terrible.”

** ;-)

About these ads

18 thoughts on “Fujifilm X-Trans Sensors – enough pixels?

  1. Pingback: Fujifilm X-Trans Sensors - enough pixels? | Dea...

  2. Yes,
    The Fuji X´s are the worst ever …
    To small
    To big
    Not a dslr.
    Not a video cam.
    Not a Canon 5D Mlll
    Not a Nikon D800 E
    Not a full frame.
    Bad AF.
    Bad sensor.
    Bad batteri life
    Bad EVF.
    Bad everything.

    Advise: If You don´t like it – don´t buy it.
    Get a Canon EOS M :-)

    Enough pixels?
    I have seen fine A2 prints from Nikon D1X back in 2001
    Thanks
    Kjeld

    • I love the length a troller will go! If your knowledgeable about the Fuji’s AF system then you know its 10x faster than the EOS M. I have used the EOS M and in my testing the camera is about as fast as a Canon elph SD1300……

      The Eos M is tiny, has no EVF, a clunky dial system and very crappy touch screen. It only has 2 lenses…. yes you can adapt Canon lenses via the AF adapter but then that defeats the purpose of a CSC

      The Opinions expressed in this comment are mine and are not the same as the company I work for.

      • Hiya!

        Thanks for the comment. I think the person above (Kleld) was writing tongue in cheek and making fun of the sometimes contradictory complaints levelled against Fujifilm X series cameras. Hence the smily.

    • Completely idiot statements. The FF’s mentioned have also a lot of issues and problems, but not always revealed, or far less brought in the media than what we see with Fuji. I’m not even so overwhelmed by the Nikon or Canon DSLR AF speed. A lot of the Fuji-bashers know precisely why they want to drive the X-series into damage, not every camera has an APS/C sensor that can withstand any comparison with a lot of FF-brothers.

      • Hi there.

        Thanks for the comments.

        Now, I might be wrong, but I believe the person above (Kled) was being sarcastic and making fun of the typical complaints one hears, not actually making these complaints his/herself.

  3. Good thoughts. Personally, I like the 16MP file size of the X-Trans. The RAF files are 25Megs! Larger files are fine, but the size gets difficult to deal with and needs more and more computer “horsepower” to address. Storage becomes a problem. So, for now, I like the file size.

    I do have to say that my very first digital camera was a Nikon CoolPix with a massive 1.3 megapixels. That camera was terrible in so many different ways. My second digital camera was a Nikon D100 with I think 4 megapixels, and I only used it to shoot Jpegs (didn’t understand the advantages of RAW at the time). I could easily print 8X10 images from the D100 without problems. With the X-Pro1 shooting in RAW, I could print poster size images without problems. I just takes understanding the sensor, shooting in RAW, exposing to the right, etc. No worries in the end.

    • Hiya!

      Hiya!

      Thanks for the comment. Yes, my ageing Mac Mini struggles a bit with the X-Trans files.

      I think my first ever digital camera was 1.3 megapixels too, except an Olympus.

  4. Pingback: Fujifilm X-Trans Sensors - enough pixels? | Fuj...

  5. The x-e1 has MORE THAN ENOUGH pixels. I’ve printed over 24″ wide with it and they are super uber clear and sharp. Heck, I’ve got 13 x 19 prints from my panasonic LX5! It’s all in the technique. tripod, remote, blah blah. I have 30″ x 20″ gallery prints in my main Living room from a 6megapixel Fuji S2Pro that, when i took in to be framed, I was asked by the staff if it was a poster laser print! So, that argument is bogus. Technique reigns supreme over megapixels up to a certain size. I also shoot with a D700, and a D800 so pixels and I are very well acquainted. For convenience, portability, fun, low profile, and OUTSTANDING image quality the FUJI’s trump the big guns of mine. Of course, when i know I’m going to be shooting to go bigger than 36″ say — which is rare, I’d rather have the more pixels in the D800 which replaced my medium format gear. But, that’s just me.

  6. Please mind the RAW conversion. In the case of the Fuji X, it is due to the special bayer layout so very important. And Lightroom is NOT the best solution for this camera, it eats up resolution effecting in a moderate sharpness and introduction of artifacts. Go Aperture or C1, or when you don’t get nervous very quickly, Silkypix.

    • Very true. My Nikon files are processed in LR 4.4 & Capture NX2 when needed.
      My X Files, if I plan on processing the raw file (which I do less and less as athe jepgs are amazing) I use Aperture. Aperture just rocks the X files — much better than Silkypix, and Capture which I’ve used extensively.
      J

  7. Hi,
    My comment just extracts of cons from different “review”s.
    OH, I forgot one important feature:
    The X´s are missing FACEDETECTION. It´s a dealbreaker for many people.:-)
    I don´t like to upset people, so this is my last post here.
    Thanks
    Kjeld
    Fuji X100 – Fuji X-E1 – Fuji X Pro1
    14mm- 18mm- 35mm- 18-55mm – 4 Voigtländer M lenses 21-40-75-90
    and all the old Nikon hardware.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s