Only asking because no one here that I know of has mentioned this as an issue. Just noticed diglloyd posted this today as an issue he has run across. Do not know why, but often his issues come from extreme processing. Here he uses ACR,and noticed this at 200%. He used a 4x Breakthrough polarizing filter on the 80/1.7. Processed with shadows +100, highlights -65 , +19 whites and pushed about 0.5 stops. Comments.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
So has anyone experienced PDAF pimples on 100S files?
- Thread starter algrove
- Start date
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
The pimple issue he describes is present in my Leica SL2_S and its quite easy to see under the right conditions . (Yet I have never seen it reported ????) . It occurs when you have a very detailed background in bright sunlight at distance . Like trees at a distance . Its similar to a specular highlight but it has a oval shape with an inner ring . Shooting Little League Baseball ...I had well over 1000 captures before I had even one image with the problem . But once the conditions were right I had dozens of images with pimples in the tree area .
I think its much easier to see if the image is converted to B&W . I would not like this problem if I was shooting in the mountains like DL ...but for me its just a small irritation occasionally . DL illustrations show this issue without question on the Fuji 100S.
For my usage I just masked the area and pulled down the highlights . This keeps it from being distracting .
Every system I have ever used has had something unusual about how it renders . You learn the system and adjust to produce an aesthetic you like .
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Thats the whole point of reading DL reports . He tells you what he sees and under what conditions etc ....with examples . I have zero doubt that he is accurate 90% of the time in his findings . But the photographer has to use those findings as a guide for evaluating their own needs .
DL conclusions are extremely "self centered " based on his shooting requirements as he defines them . Ignore his conclusions and understand his findings ....then you can decide . Nothing I have seen in any of his detail tests of the Fuji 100S would concern me about image quality .
Anecdotal reports of "never seen that problem " are just that ....the observation of a single photographer on daily use tests .
I think its much easier to see if the image is converted to B&W . I would not like this problem if I was shooting in the mountains like DL ...but for me its just a small irritation occasionally . DL illustrations show this issue without question on the Fuji 100S.
For my usage I just masked the area and pulled down the highlights . This keeps it from being distracting .
Every system I have ever used has had something unusual about how it renders . You learn the system and adjust to produce an aesthetic you like .
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Thats the whole point of reading DL reports . He tells you what he sees and under what conditions etc ....with examples . I have zero doubt that he is accurate 90% of the time in his findings . But the photographer has to use those findings as a guide for evaluating their own needs .
DL conclusions are extremely "self centered " based on his shooting requirements as he defines them . Ignore his conclusions and understand his findings ....then you can decide . Nothing I have seen in any of his detail tests of the Fuji 100S would concern me about image quality .
Anecdotal reports of "never seen that problem " are just that ....the observation of a single photographer on daily use tests .
I have looked and looked but cannot see ANY of the anomalies Chambers has shown. I also used the 80mm lens. In his example it shows up with lighter backgrounds and I tried to replicate but couldn't see any pimples. It could be camera specific vs. a global electronic condition.
Victor B.
Victor B.
Last edited:
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Joe.
My example of the Sl2_S was intended to show that its an aberration that is easy to miss . No one complains about the SL2_S : it doesn t show up in any tests I have seen ....YET I found it and could easily show it to anyone that wants to see it .
Just because you can t find others complaining ..does not mean it isn t there . I am looking at the examples from DL on my iMac 5K and there are definitely pimples in his examples . Its not an opinion when its visible in the test results .
The opinion is when he calls this a major factor ...thats subjective ..in the eye of the beholder .
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The questions we should be asking ...
Under what circumstances and with what subjects are pimples actually visible ?
What I have seen in DL examples and with my Leicas is that pimples are most visible in very high contrast and detailed images . Like the pebbles in bright sun on a distant mountain .
Do pimples really result in an unacceptable rendering ?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
As to Jim Kasson ......I not sure when I read his tests that he would be even looking for "pimples " . Doesn t mean his tests are good just that they may not be designed to identify the issues described by DL.
Roger
Godfrey
Well-known member
Issues reported like this one are the reason I don't bother reading too many other people's reviews of equipment. There are maybe two, maybe three reviewers I read because they include useful, practical descriptions of what they find as they use the equipment in a manner that makes sense to me (because it's similar to how I use my equipment...).
G
G