greypilgrim
New member
Off topic, but absolutely one of my favorite videosHow is the cat cooked?
Sorry - it was a joke. I am owned by two cats and they would laugh. Actually, this is perhaps appropriate: Sad Cat Diary - YouTube
Doug
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!
Off topic, but absolutely one of my favorite videosHow is the cat cooked?
Sorry - it was a joke. I am owned by two cats and they would laugh. Actually, this is perhaps appropriate: Sad Cat Diary - YouTube
HI ToddBut then I brought the jpg shots home to look at and wasn't really impressed. No green grass as it was inside a store, but instead blown highlights that I couldn't recover in LR. By contrast, the raw files of the same scene from the A7r held up just fine. Part of that is just physics I guess. I used to shoot my Oly at -0.3 or -0.7 to preserve highlights - maybe that is necessary with the XT1?
I'd really love to love this camera, as the 18-55, 55-200, and 56/1.2 would be a great general purpose system. But I fear I may have been spoiled by the Sony FF files...
Well, I'm going to go ahead and get one as I don't think 10 min in the camera shop is enough. I've made my peace with the A7r as for certain things I love the files. But it isn't really a "walkabout" cam in my hands. The RX1r actually is probably the best performer (quiet, great glass, great files) although that may be the one that gets replaced by the Fuji due to flexibility and lack of an EVF. I think the 55-200 could end up getting a fair amount of use.HI Todd
Well, it's a completely different sensor - one which is not loved by LR (which might of course be a reason not to try it).
I had an A7r, and couldn't stand the 'stamping on a tin can' shutter - but that's just me. I like the A7, which seems more controlled. The colour on the Fuji is lovely - the small lenses for µ43 are great - the limited dof with FF is splendid, the increased dof with µ43 is really useful - you pays your money and you makes your choice. But if you're used to Sony files, then maybe a quick look at the X-trans files isn't enough - certainly they've caught me snapping!
All the best
Well, it's good to give them all a try - A7 sounds very noisy next to the XT1 - darling camera - just getting to grips with how to deal with the files.Bah - too many good choices. Paralysis by analysis...great to read your travails though as a reference point.
oh, that's easy:Btw, if anyone comes across the perfect camera please let us all know :chug:
Still looking ...
I always figured that it was just the NEXT one ... :ROTFL:oh, that's easy:
A7r with a silent leaf shutter, 5-axis IBIS, Fuji colors, 21/24/35/50/85 f1.2 primes that are the size of the Oly 45/1.8 and f2.8 zooms that are the size/weight of the Panasonics.
I'll get busy with the Dremel tool...
The real fact here is that this is all very old news and has been fixed already. This discussion has already been had many times over when the XPro-1 came out, and it's a done deal by now. What remains is- does the RAW converter that you use for your daily workflow supports the Xtrans well or not- that's a deal breaker for some.Jon,
Not that you started a flame war but you seem to be relatively new here so a few facts....
[]
Jono has called out a problem that may be a deal breaker for a lot of folks....hope it can be resolved but I assume this can be done without disparaging others as we resolve it.
Regards,
Bob
I will paste the Iridient settings I used. I actually screen-shotted them but forgot to upload. I am not at home now but when I get home I will paste it.Ricardo, may I ask you which settings you have used in Iridient? I have tried myself and with the default settings I get a lot o reddish/purplish artifacts on the bark of the tree and very few also on the grass; to remove them completely I have to push to the far right the ChromAdaptive slider and a bit also the Chromalogic (5) recovering then some sharpness with RL Deconvolution (0.4 - 16). I am sure there are also better combinations but this is what I found in 10 minutes.
Thank youI will paste the Iridient settings I used. I actually screen-shotted them but forgot to upload. I am not at home now but when I get home I will paste it.
Whilst I agree with you about the E-M1, I don't think the argument in general holds. I've been using Leica M cameras for 7 years now, no filter - and the number of shots where Moire was a problem are very very few - and fixable in Aperture - colour artefacts in specular highlights is another issue . . . but then the Xtrans suffers from that as well.A few more words on the whole Bayer/Xtrans thing-
-----------------------------------------------
snip
But if you use an AAless Bayer, you risk color Moire and there's no free lunch here. For example Olympus mentions in their specs of EM1 there's no AA filter, but the shots and JPEGS I am seeing do not seem to have the sharpness or bite that I would expect from a good/pure AAless Bayer (a good comparison may be those Ricoh GR files). Why is that? Because they are doing post processing on the image to get rid of color Moire- and I am sure if you use iridient on it or other raw converters you can get more detail than the Jpegs- but now you have to deal with color Moire.
Well, I really agree with you about the colour - which is why I'm here frankly (together with the lovely design of the XT1Xtrans *can still* get color Moire but is much more rarer than an AAless Bayer. And because as I mentioned Xtrans is richer in green, black and white conversions actually work better for Xtrans vs Bayer designs, due to that being the color our eyes are most sensitive for luminance.
With the right raw converter Xtrans detail is somewhere between typical Bayer (with AA filter) and Foveon- more so in B&W.
I'm sorry - I really dispute this - I've shot lots of weddings with the M9 and the M, and it simply isn't an issue. Whatever Thom Hogan might say!A pure AAless Bayer should capture in color more detail overall but then you will have to often nuke detail because color moire shows up. And if you hare shooting say a wedding with 250 shots (assuming you are that good to nail almost every shot), imagine having to look for color moire on every single shot.... all those dresses, clothes and veils.
It's what Thom Hogan said once- Fuji changed some artifacts for others when doing the Xtrans sensor and to me the tradeoff works for the bigger gain on most cases.
Well, I'm still holding out for Aperture to be good enough for most circumstances - I looked at their processing for previous Xtrans sensors and it looked okay. nice to have Iridient up one's sleeve, and of course I do also have LR and Capture one 7 (although I don't like either very much)But this required a whole re-thinking of RAW converter algorithm (it took Fuji themselves 2 years to do the math for their JPEG engine after all) and RAW converters have had years and years of experience with the Bayer color filter array pattern. It's only natural that out of the gate most raw converters would have issues.
If you want the cheapest solution, grab the SilkyPix included- Fuji worked with them to do a new rev of their algorithm and if you know how to use the right settings it works reasonably well.
Capture one 7 for me is overall the best one. Iridient is pretty good, particularly when pursuing pure detail though it has more color artifacts. But again- will this really matter to your overall image printed or shown on a web page? The image still has that extra bite of micro contrast for not having the AA filter.
Clearly this is directed at me, so I'll answer for me. I use my M cameras for most things, certainly everything where I'm producing work for other people and of other people.And that's pretty much it. The world doesn't end and a lot of you quite frankly seem to me buying this camera when you already had a -so you have said- a fantastic camera, so I don't get it.
Why the "need" to buy greatest and latest when the domains of shooting for the tool overlap with the one you have which you said you love so much?
Anyway
Which part of the bark of the tree? I mean, I posted the tree and I didn't see any. I saw some hints in some areas of the branches, but that can be easily tweaked and it was pretty minor.Thank you Ricardo.
I prefer a less aggressive sharpening (something like 0.4/ 15), but this is a matter of taste and subject.
More critical in this particular picture were for me many quite evident reddish artifacts specially on the bark of the tree which I could remove only playing quite aggressively with the Chroma sliders. Not a big deal since the increased softness is easily controlled with the sharpening tool.Didn’t you see anything like that?
I am not saying your post isn't useful. But look at the context in which it was posted- "oh noes, camera doesn't seem to work, I may have to return." ;-) And it all piled on all of it. So yes, I think it's useful to know what works and doesn't, but I just thought the initial context of some of what was posted was a bit too alarmist for a story that has been played already.HI Ricardo
Whilst I agree with some of this, I don't agree with all of it.
As far as your 'done deal' post - whilst I don't disagree, if it was a done deal 2 years ago, then people buying into the camera now won't know about it - in which case this post is relevant and useful I'd say.
Sure thing (on the Iridient Settings).Thank you
The frequency with which you will find color moire is going to depend a lot of how sharp the lens is at the moment you shoot with it and what you are shooting with. I can say right now, with the Ricoh GR I have found a share of situations where color moire shows up - but then the Ricoh GR from what I see has a very sharp prime lens. It's not every single shot, but there are "danger areas" that I already know what to look for - like vertical blinds, I just got some last weekend on a radial metal thing that was on the ground, etc.Whilst I agree with you about the E-M1, I don't think the argument in general holds. I've been using Leica M cameras for 7 years now, no filter - and the number of shots where Moire was a problem are very very few - and fixable in Aperture - colour artefacts in specular highlights is another issue . . . but then the Xtrans suffers from that as well.
The wedding example is something I said, not him. What Thom Hogan commented was that Fuji changed a set of artifacts for another. As for the Leica again, if the moire is not showing up that much, it's because it's not being shot at the sharpest. In that case the lens is acting as a mild AA filter (it's what happens most of the time with the Q).Well, I really agree with you about the colour - which is why I'm here frankly (together with the lovely design of the XT1
I'm sorry - I really dispute this - I've shot lots of weddings with the M9 and the M, and it simply isn't an issue. Whatever Thom Hogan might say!
I find Aperture pretty decent for handling color, just not the best DR or sharp. To me (my personal take) it all depends what I am shooting- if I am shooting a portrait I really don't care all that much for max detail as long as there's a bit of micro contrast bite. If I was shooting a landscape (which I normally don't) then I would like to get the max.Well, I'm still holding out for Aperture to be good enough for most circumstances - I looked at their processing for previous Xtrans sensors and it looked okay. nice to have Iridient up one's sleeve, and of course I do also have LR and Capture one 7 (although I don't like either very much)
To be certain and precise, not just you I see a group here that seems to upgrade to whatever is the latest. Of course, just an observation, it's not my money. In the end we only live once.Clearly this is directed at me, so I'll answer for me. I use my M cameras for most things, certainly everything where I'm producing work for other people and of other people.
I'll have to agree with some of that. It's true, reviews- a lot of them are not really all that good. I still think pushing oneself with one model one finds at certain point one likes may be better for photography but I can see with ever changing technology why check out something new.However, I do lots of walking, skiing, travelling, and for this personal work I like to have a camera with a good zoom lens which is reasonably robust and good to use. It needs to do close up and landscape and have reasonably snappy AF.
Mirrorless is a godsend for me, because it allows me to do this with something small and perfectly formed. However, I want to know what's best for me, and I'm questioning whether µ43 (which I've been using since the EM5 arrived) is still the right answer. First I tried an A7r (didn't like it and returned it). Now I have an A7, an E-M1 and the X-T1, - I want to know which is the best way forward, and I can't find that out from reviews.
I honestly don't see why you picked an A7 if you didn't like the A7R. I guess the AF but was that the reason? (genuinely curious). If you ask me if Aperture is that key I would give a good workout of some extreme files you would like to see or expect a certain result with the XT1 on Aperture, and then decide there. I think if you would like to use Aperture mainly, maybe the EM-1 is better.At some point over the next month or so I'll make a decision on what I'm going to use (and write it up), then I'll sell everything else - these days with ebay it's much cheaper and more satisfactory to buy a camera and keep it for a couple of months than it is to rent.
This way I can work out whether I can fit the camera into my Aperture workflow (this is not negotiable incidentally - I've learned that lesson at least). I can work out how to process the files for me, what's good and what's bad - other people's files just don't do it.
I agree a lot with this. I would say that some ergonomics can be objectively criticized on some angles as better or worse. Not all of it, but some. I really think that Olympus E-3's introduction of the button + mode change by wheel was a step back from the E-1 design. (just one example).Ergonomics are also very personal and extremely important.
I understand that part but picture this. Not so long ago you seemed pretty happy- er. no, ecstatic with the Em-1. What changed? Did the camera become worse? I propose that the amount of time spent researching a possible "greener field" takes away from learning more photography.For the A7 and the X-T1 I only have the zoom lens - because that's what I'll use it for most. If I decide to go for Sony or Fuji then I'll get more lenses when I sell the µ43 kit.
So Ricardo - perhaps now you understand - others are in a similar position - right now there are a lot of new options on the table, and it's a good time to be deciding which direction to jump, and I'd rather do it with the right information at my fingertips . . . wouldn't you?
I see them at the base of the tree, mainly, and some on the grass. But as I said is not a big deal to control them.Which part of the bark of the tree? I mean, I posted the tree and I didn't see any. I saw some hints in some areas of the branches, but that can be easily tweaked and it was pretty minor.
- Ricardo
Actually Ricardo - this is a real misrepresentation of how I started the post, which was like this:I am not saying your post isn't useful. But look at the context in which it was posted- "oh noes, camera doesn't seem to work, I may have to return." ;-) And it all piled on all of it. So yes, I think it's useful to know what works and doesn't, but I just thought the initial context of some of what was posted was a bit too alarmist for a story that has been played already.
Nothing about returning the camera, nothing alarmist, an admission that I didn't know the right settings and asking for help.HI There
I'm sure someone knows the best settings for jpgs.
I've been using various settings but I've found greens (grass especially) to be rather smeary in the jpgs.
I've turned off noise reduction - but I'm not sure which is the best jpg setting to use, and whether there is a way to stop this.
Of course, I'll shoot RAW later (when it's supported by Aperture), but in the meantime I'd rather not resort to DNG conversion and Lightroom.
Any ideas what the best settings would be?
Thanks in advance
Last wedding I shot was mostly with the 50 Apo Summicron . . . no moire - sharp - indeed.The frequency with which you will find color moire is going to depend a lot of how sharp the lens is at the moment you shoot with it and what you are shooting with. I can say right now, with the Ricoh GR I have found a share of situations where color moire shows up - but then the Ricoh GR from what I see has a very sharp prime lens. It's not every single shot, but there are "danger areas" that I already know what to look for - like vertical blinds, I just got some last weekend on a radial metal thing that was on the ground, etc.
Actually, I think it's really tough in LightRoom - I said Aperture - which seems to do a much better jobYes, you can clean it up in LightRoom, but usually that involves zapping out some detail.
I'm sorry - I STILL disagree - I understand all about weddings and workflow (which is why Aperture is non-negotiable incidentally) - I certainly don't have to look at every shot *just in case*Now, if you had to shoot a wedding- the wedding example- that is workflow a killer, if you just have to look for every shot *just in case* the color moire showed up- since you now have a client, and it's a wedding, and etc. etc. etc.
Aperture seems to be much more 'hands off' in terms of processing, I do agree about DR and sharpness (and noise reduction too) - there are better solutions for all of these, but if I can get a decent A2+print for landscapes then that's okay for me.I find Aperture pretty decent for handling color, just not the best DR or sharp. To me (my personal take) it all depends what I am shooting- if I am shooting a portrait I really don't care all that much for max detail as long as there's a bit of micro contrast bite. If I was shooting a landscape (which I normally don't) then I would like to get the max.
I realise that it wasn't *only* directed at me, but it turns on a lot of people, and as you say - it's not your moneyTo be certain and precise, not just you I see a group here that seems to upgrade to whatever is the latest. Of course, just an observation, it's not my money. In the end we only live once.
I do personally find changing systems and cameras a lot hurts photography and I have had my share of this too.
Well, I agree with this.I'll have to agree with some of that. It's true, reviews- a lot of them are not really all that good. I still think pushing oneself with one model one finds at certain point one likes may be better for photography but I can see with ever changing technology why check out something new.
I REALLY disliked the double clang shutter on the A7r, I actually bought it with the intention of using Leica M and R lenses handheld, and that first clang made it quite impossible without using 3x shutter speed. Added to which most of the M lenses wider than 50mm simply didn't work properly (colour shift, smudgy corners). So it was a non-starterI honestly don't see why you picked an A7 if you didn't like the A7R. I guess the AF but was that the reason? (genuinely curious).
I will decide in Aperture - as I said before, I was hoping that the legendary jpg engine on the Fuji would do the trick until RAW support comes - which turns out to be only partly true, but at least I can use Iridient to produce .tiffs where necessary.If you ask me if Aperture is that key I would give a good workout of some extreme files you would like to see or expect a certain result with the XT1 on Aperture, and then decide there. I think if you would like to use Aperture mainly, maybe the EM-1 is better.
Out of curiosity, what is not "making it" for you in m43rs that you are questioning it?
As I say - just a good time to take stock - I still think the EM1 is great - and especially that lovely 12-40 zoom.I understand that part but picture this. Not so long ago you seemed pretty happy- er. no, ecstatic with the Em-1. What changed? Did the camera become worse? I propose that the amount of time spent researching a possible "greener field" takes away from learning more photography.
Ah yes, the Pentax - I loved my K5 - but I couldn't get a decent zoom to go with it (maybe I was unlucky). Anyway, I don't want to go back to a dSLR, however good it is.To come forward with a disclosure- I am also thinking long and hard at the moment what's next, because I am realizing that I really am not using cameras that at this point do not have either a leaf shutter or an electronic shutter option. This is why I knew the XT1 wasn't for me- but if I was shooting a wedding a month (at least) that's most likely what I would pick up.
Either that or a great Pentax K-5ii which is now ridiculously cheap here ($650 USD? For a semi pro DSLR with weather sealing? Wow).
- Ricardo