To me it is the complete opposite. The judge at least knows the law, whereas the jurors have to make a best guess based on their gut feeling.

If the judge makes the wrong call, you can still appeal the decision.

Coincidentally my country does not have jury trials (and nor do I think they are very common outside of the anglosphere?)

That almost surely depends on what you are accused of, the evidence against you and, obviously, whether you did it.

If it's something where the fallibility of humans can be exploited, or there is obvious government overreach that people would hate, a jury is probably your best bet.

Look at all the recent grand juries in the US refusing to even indict people for things that, on paper, are illegal. Prosecutorial overreach is one reason juries exist as a check on the system. Jury nullification is a check on the system. Yeah you might have done it, and everyone may even agree that you did it, but your peers have decided what you did was justified, or shouldn't have even been illegal in the first place.

If it's a very technical issue, and an average person is unlikely to understand small nuances that make the difference, you probably want a bench trial. Have the expert determine your guilt based on the specifics that matter. Don't rely on 12 average people having to be taught about a technical legal matter, or understanding very specific wording in a law, especially if that wording excludes the exact situation you are in. Legalese is written for specific accuracy, not average readability.