A recurrent motif of Fuji discussions is that a small but passionate group of Fuji fans prefer the Fuji cameras with the reg'lar plain old Bayer array sensors. Whether because of RAW conversion concerns or just because they like the way the pictures look, those folks don't care for the X-Trans sensors.
So I just thought I'd mention that the just-announced X-A3, which for the time being is only available for pre-order with the 16–50mm kit lens, has a 24-MP Bayer-array sensor, presumably with all the lovely Fuji colors and everything else you love about the non-X-Trans Fuji sensors. It's still a Leica X lookalike....
...with its sportif brown body covering, except the Fuji also comes in pink(!) and black. If you mind the fact that the little Fuji doesn't have a fixed lens, note that the new Fuji 23mm ƒ/2 comes in silver and is very close in spec to the Leica X lens. Camera, kit lens and 23mm lens from Fuji still comes in at a little over half the tariff for the Leica.
In the sic transit department, I took the picture of the church in the previous post with my cuddly Big Bear, the Sony A900. It's a big phlumph of a camera (that says CLACK-ACK!) and was the world leader in resolution when it came out back in 2008. Now it has poorish dynamic range (currently ranked 120th at DxOMark) and really pretty bad shadow noise at higher ISOs. Based on trials I ran recently looking at older FF cameras vs. new APS-C cameras, I'm going to guess that the APS-C sensor in the little X-A3 is going to outperform Big Bear's sensor in every way. My pennypincher soul is still mourning for the $2,700 I have sunk in the A900, which might as well be in a pirate ship under nine miles of ocean for all I can get to those doubloons again. The wee X-A3 costs $600 with a lens.
Anyway, if you're still in love with the Bayer sensor in the original X100 (lots of people are) and you've been hoping for a modern high-res update, the X-A3 could be for you.
Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Geoff Wittig: "I feel your pain. Every couple of generations digital SLR (and now mirrorless/ILC) cameras demonstrate such improvements in image quality that our 'old' camera, maybe all of 3–4 years out, looks distinctly antiquated.
"I still own the original Canon Eos-1Ds which is almost exactly 14 years old. It still takes photographs every bit as good as those I shot in 2002, but the game has moved on. Now its dreadful noise at any ISO over 200 stands out like a leisure suit in a hipster coffee shop.
"The only answer to galloping obsolescence is to shoot a lot with a new camera, to squeeze as much transient value as we can out of it before it too falls behind the curve...and to appreciate the virtues of what we have. I still make prints from shots I took with the 'old' 1ds, and they are actually better than they used to be because Photoshop has gotten better at raw conversion and processing since then. So have I. Now I'm going out to shoot a few sunset photos with my current 'middle aged' EOS-5DS R, already a year old, before it too seems outdated.
"Just joking about that last bit. The image quality from current cameras is just about miraculous compared to slide film 25 years ago. I couldn't be happier."
John McMillin: "My own Little Bear returned home today. After a couple years wandering in the congested, downsized forests of APS-C cameras, I got a Pentax K-1. How does it resemble my late, sainted Sony Alpha 850? Let me count the ways, starting with that wide, spacious viewfinder. Bigger is always better here. There's in-body stabilization, so I can use my motley collection of film-era lenses with stabilization, and with ultrawides and fast primes that Nikon and Canon users can't even imagine. The K-1 body bristles with buttons and dials, but my favorite is the AF button, located right by the thumb rest position where it was on the Sony. Both cameras are small for FF cameras, but both are oddly shaped. The Sony was wider than normal. The Pentax seems about an inch less wide, but a half inch taller. Combined with Pentax's long register lens mount, this makes it a squarish, boxy object a little like a Pentax 645, or even my first camera, a box Brownie.
"Overall, the K-1 feels and acts like the a900, updated by a decade. It could have been called the a1000, if only. Here's one big difference: thankfully, the Pentax shutter doesn't sound like a rat trap. But hopefully that means the shutter will last longer. The K-1's is rated for 300,000 clicks, and my a850's shutter was failing around 50,000."