宾得的片子想直出的效果好些的话，只能是旗舰了。因为到如今，宾得始终没有在机子的【色彩模式】调节项里的【对比度亮度】和【对比度阴影】给下放给入门机。而这2项，正是决定片子直出时的画面细节的关键所在。

虽然宾得的入门机可以在后期利用DCU5去‘补回’机子里没有的【对比度亮度】和【对比度阴影】，但已经不是你所期望的直出了。

前些日子，理光的发言人不是说‘K-33'已在路上了么？而且还说‘今后的机子会把【混合对焦】系统给用上’的。如果你不是急着要换新机，还是耐心的等等呗。反正宾得的百年纪念在即，怎么也该会有些硬货让用户高兴一下的。

http://thephotofundamentalist_com/fujifilm/fujifilm-x-trans-iii-vs-bayer-texture-detail-comparison/

X-Trans III vs. Bayer: The Grand Conclusion

There are differences, yes. However, the differences are small in both directions. The photos are here so that you can form your own conclusions.

What I have personally concluded is that when a top quality 24MP Full-Frame sensor and the 24 MP APS-C X-Trans III are compared using vaguely comparable lenses, the results at low ISOs are very close indeed when using Adobe Lightroom CC.

The AA filter free Fujifilm X-Trans III produces noticeably more bite in the native RAW files, but the scope for greater sharpening of the A7 II’s files brings them closer. The X-Trans III retains a very slight advantage in edge contrast throughout. The end result is typical of what we see when comparing similar Bayer filters, with and without an AA filter. However….

The larger Sony A7II sensor does retain an advantage with fine green details when they are right on the edge of the sensor’s ability to resolve said details and we pixel peep. The same advantage is also true of fine red details. However, fine tracery of branches is not always clear cut. Sometimes the Bayer does better due to the layout of its filter array and sometimes the X-Trans does a touch better due to the lack of an AA filter.

There are of course a number of APS-C cameras out there without an AA filter, which should theoretically remain free of AA filter induced softness, while not suffering any of the negative aspects of the X-Trans filter array.

What this comparison has done is look at one single aspect to X-Trans rendition, but one I know is very important to many of you. In the larger comparison, we must also take note of some of the key claimed advantages of the X-Trans that are above and beyond the simple absence of the AA filter. These are 1) reduced moiré and 2) more organic looking noise at high ISO (not to mention a possible high ISO advantage). I cannot yet comment on the high ISO advantage, but in this short test if was already clear that moiré appeared in the A7 II file while being absent from the X-Trans file. Overall, I would say it is well recognised that the X-Trans generates much less moiré and this may matter to those photographing subjects that include fabrics.



It is my intention to print some of these files at various sizes to see what the results are here. Nobody looks at files online at full resolution and at 100% for pleasure. Online, we take in people’s portfolios in the form of much smaller resolutions where none of these differences would be visible. Therefore, in my view, making actual prints is the most important next step in understanding what ‘real image quality’ differences there are. From these tests, I feel that X-Trans cameras are good to go for critical work using Lightroom and I hope to explore other developers in due course, to see if the X-Trans III’s results get meaningfully better.

The dedicated landscape photographer may feel that a Bayer camera is still the best overall proposition, but lenses, size, weight and cost all impact such decisions. From where I am standing, I do not see any other mirrorless system that offers the lens quality and all round package of the X-T2 or X-Pro2, for example. Sony has several superb APS-C cameras, such as the A6000, A6300 and A6500; however, the lens line up is very different and so is the handling. Where the X-Trans III has weaknesses, it has strengths elsewhere and it’s for you to weigh up what’s right for you.

Would I use the Fujifilm X cameras for important work?
Yes, I would. I have rolled out these tests to methodically illustrate the impressions I formed quite quickly when first using the X100F and X-T2 quite a few weeks ago. However, those initial tests resulted in me purchasing two X-T2s and a X100F from the great team at London Camera Exchange, Chester (using my very own and very real money). It has been a complex decision for me and I will talk through this decision, and what equipment I will be waving goodbye to, in another article.

Suffice to say, I am very impressed by the latest Fujifilm X-Series bodies, but would not dream of trying to convince any of you that it is all a garden of Eden. In some of the equipment that I will let go, I will lose some qualities I like a great deal. However, in overall terms I strongly feel that Fujifilm has provided me with a liberating solution to many of my generalised photographic needs. I want to cut down on equipment, reduce financial liabilities, cut down on weight and maximise utility. Ensuring that I was content with the rendering of X-Trans files in Lightroom was the most critical step of all. It ain’t perfect, but what is?

谷歌翻译为：

X-Trans III与拜耳：大结论

有区别，是的。但是，这两个方向的差异很小。照片在这里，以便您可以形成自己的结论。

我个人的结论是，当使用模糊比较的镜头比较顶级品质的24MP全画幅传感器和24 MP APS-C X-Trans III时，使用Adobe Lightroom CC时，低ISO下的结果确实非常接近。

AA滤光片免费的Fujifilm X-Trans III在原生RAW文件中产生明显更多的咬痕，但是更大幅度锐化A7 II文件的范围使它们更接近。 X-Trans III在整个边缘对比中保留了非常轻微的优势。最终结果是我们在比较类似Bayer滤波器时看到的典型特征，有和没有AA滤波器。然而…。

较大的索尼A7II传感器确实保留了优良的绿色细节优势，因为它们正好处于传感器解决所述细节和像素窥视的能力的边缘。优良的红色细节也是如此。然而，精美的分支图案并不总是清晰的。有时Bayer由于其滤波器阵列的布局而表现更好，有时由于缺少AA滤波器，X-Trans的触摸效果更好。

当然，还有许多APS-C摄像机没有AA滤波器，理论上它应该没有AA滤波器引起的柔软度，同时不会受到X-Trans滤波器阵列的任何负面影响。

这个比较做的是看X-Trans演绎的一个方面，但我认识的一个对于你们许多人来说非常重要。在更大的比较中，我们还必须注意到X-Trans的一些关键优势，超出了简单缺少AA滤波器的优势。这些是1）减少波纹和2）在高ISO下更有机看起来噪音（更不用说可能的高ISO优势）。我还不能评论高ISO的优势，但在这个简短的测试中，如果已经清楚地知道莫尔在A-X II文件中出现，而X-Trans文件不存在。总的来说，我认为X-Trans产生的波纹少得多，这对拍摄包括织物的拍摄对象可能很重要。

?

我打算以各种大小打印这些文件中的一些文件，以查看结果在这里。没有人以全分辨率在线查看文件，并且以100％为乐。在线上，我们以小得多的分辨率形式接纳人们的投资组合，这些差异将不会被看到。因此，在我看来，制作实际的照片是理解真实图像质量差异的最重要的下一步。从这些测试中，我觉得X-Trans相机很适合使用Lightroom进行关键性工作，我希望能够在适当的时候探索其他开发人员，以了解X-Trans III的结果是否更有意义。

专门的风景摄影师可能会觉得拜耳相机仍然是最好的整体建议，但镜头，尺寸，重量和成本都会影响这样的决定。例如，从我所站的地方来看，我没有看到任何其他无反光镜系统可以提供镜头质量和X-T2或X-Pro2的全面包装。索尼有几台极好的APS-C相机，例如A6000，A6300和A6500;然而，镜头排列是非常不同的，处理也是如此。如果X-Trans III存在弱点，那么它在其他地方就有优势，这对你来说是衡量什么是对的。

我会用Fujifilm X相机做重要的工作吗？
是的，我会。我已经推出了这些测试，以便有条不紊地说明几周前第一次使用X100F和X-T2时我形成的印象。然而，这些初步测试导致我购买了切斯特伦敦摄影交易所伟大团队的两个X-T2和一个X100F（使用我自己非常真实的钱）。对我来说这是一个复杂的决定，我将通过这个决定进行讨论，以及在另一篇文章中我将挥手告别什么设备。

我只想说，最新的富士X系列机身给我留下了深刻的印象，但是不会试图说服任何人认为它都是伊甸园。在我放弃的一些设备中，我会失去一些我喜欢的特质。然而，总的来说，我强烈地感到富士胶片为我提供了解决我许多广义摄影需求的解决方案。我想减少设备，减少金融负债，减轻重量并最大限度地提高效用。确保我对Lightroom中X-Trans文件的渲染满意是所有最关键的一步。这并不完美，但是什么？

==============================================================================

不就是【去低通滤镜】么？宾得在K-5iis已经搞起来，到了K-s2，连入门机也普及化。富士却用它来把机子分成三六九等，凸显各不同价格的机子有档次方面的尊严。。。。 本帖最后由 小树下 于 2018-5-7 22:51 编辑

富士明锐悦目，宾得柔润通透，看个人喜好或题材吧。 本帖最后由 chobo 于 2018-5-7 21:38 编辑

大家有没有宾得群？求加入
本帖由安卓客户端发布

个人觉得富士的好,宾得的红全都偏紫

p家用的k7，已经出掉了。。。。。我坛子里找找看偏红或者说偏品，我这样形容不一定最贴切，但是可以看个意思。

我的感受是富士的基本上直出不用怎么改。我这人懒。。。。。

XA系列应该不会给X-Trans CMOS的。

。。。。。直出还出什么raw啊？直接jpg啊！
另外其实还可以注明一下：宾得的什么模式下的直出，富士的什么模式下的直出。

我倒是都用过，觉得还是富士的更好一点。就是富士下面的几个模式已经基本够用了，我后来都很少留raw。。。。。。。。而宾得，还是要修修改改的，特别是红色偏梅（一种比较难形容的颜色倾向。。。）

我不是在推荐，因为富士这款新套机，与我在用的K-70/KP相比，各有利弊，可谓一言难尽。

甭急着入手，请你先仔细看看这张前天我在一个小型发布会上拍的片子，数一下片子里有那些表现方面与宾得器材（尤其是你在用的K-01) 之间有较为明显的大不同：制造商 :FUJIFILM
型号 :X-A5
光圈 :f/3.5
曝光时间 :1/60
ISO感光度 :250
焦距 :78/5 本帖最后由 小树下 于 2018-5-7 12:15 编辑

楼主是p图高手，色彩调教的好。
上半取小树资的，下半楼主的。只抓，裁。 本帖最后由 aqiwx 于 2018-5-7 10:46 编辑

用那种阵列再加上焦平面相位点，难怪死贵

富士公司还是诚实的，XA5的宣传里面没有任何一句说它带了X-Trans阵列的cmos。本来富士的产品线就很清晰，XM是起步，XE是中端，Xpro是专业，至于XA姑且就算玩具吧

支援两张宾得两张富士
宾得K1
富士Xpro1

所以贵有贵的道理，触摸屏，对焦快，处理软件，都是要算钱的