Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I don't think there would be anything wrong with using the X100 sensor. I suspect though that as clark mentioned, Fuji have an eye on the future. They are not a big player, but are moving into a very large market segment. They need differentiation. Ideally of course, they need differentiation that works. So they have taken some risks. Good design, very good lenses, careful marketing. A great number of people are happy with the camera and its output. There are risks with innovation, and risks with early adoption.>I do not know why the X-PRO1 was released without a good RAW developer.
The problem that it is hard to do. The blue and red patches are wide spread out.
Actually my question is more what can the X-Pro1 sensor do that the X100 could not. Fuji claims to fight moire but the X-P1 images show more moire than other cameras I used.
While I am not familiar with what Canon is recommending and what you say may be true, I still find it difficult to believe that Canon is recommending the 6D over 5D Mark 3 because it has a newer sensor design.I I know that Canon's 6D is doing that. Cannon recommends buying the 6D instead of the 5D mark 3 because it will have a new sensor design.
I believe what Fuji is trying to say in relation to moire is that the pattern of color sensors on the the X-Tran sensor allows them to ditch the low pass filters while maintaining a resistance to moire similar to what a low pass filter would provide on a traditional Bayer sensor (minus the resolution penalty).Fuji claims to fight moire but the X-P1 images show more moire than other cameras I used.