X1D first thoughts and sample images

[hcubell]

Two images shot with X1d and 90mm lens. Wanted to post these to show that there is a difference when processing via Phocus and Adobe until Adobe Camera Raw gets the end corrections added. The 90mm lens does render the face taller and narrower than the 100mm, but it does need the correction to make it look as it should. Also shot separately with the H4x/IQ140 and 100mm(those aren't posted). Very interested to get the XH adapter to do a direct comparison. Just did a quick process, so did't try to match color/exposure exactly.

top image is processed with Adobe for each sequence.

What "end corrections"? Lens corrections? That would not account for the quite different color rendition.

 

[rmatthews]

If you change the profile in lightroom to embedded instead if adobe standard the colour is a lot more pleasing I found

 

[JoshMerwin]

Yes, I mentioned the top of each was processed in Adobe at defaults for a quick review for selects, the bottom was processed in Phocus. I will go back and process now that we have gone through all the images and have about 30 selects from the shoot. I just didn't have time to do color adjustments and this was not meant to be a color test. Just wanted to show there was a difference in distortion when not processed in Phocus. Honestly, for most things I don't think the non lens correction will make a difference, but for portraits, I think it does. Especially with closer shots of the face.

 

[JoshMerwin]

What "end corrections"? Lens corrections? That would not account for the quite different color rendition.

Yes, LENS corrections, apparently I didn't have time to fix the auto correct either... Sorry! :banghead:

 

[Geoff]

Interesting observations. "Travel camera" meant for traveling with family or out of town, trying to get the best tradeoff of quality, small form factor, easy enough to use, and flexibility to do serious landscape or urban work, as well as slightly more casual shooting. Yes, like your 10 day Iceland trip, although if I were going there, I'd want some more serious gear if possible.

The A7R is certainly capable, but somehow, these days, he is looking for a bit more color rendition. After using view-camera type lenses and MFDB, its hard to go back. X1D might do the trick nicely.

I am not sure what you mean by "travel camera." The X1D surely is capable of serving the needs of many photographers for their most serious, slow, deliberative, shooting. If I were headed out on a 10 day trip to, say, Iceland for serious photography, I wouldn't hesitate to have it serve as my primary system. If you mean the X1D is a camera that you could put the 45mm lens on and use it to walk comfortably around a city while traveling where the principal purpose is not photography, yes, you could do that as well. I have recently used a Sony A7RII wit the 24-70mm f/4 zoom for that role. I am not sure which I would choose now. The Sony is still significantly lighter, and the zoom gives you more flexibility.

 

[hcubell]

Interesting observations. "Travel camera" meant for traveling with family or out of town, trying to get the best tradeoff of quality, small form factor, easy enough to use, and flexibility to do serious landscape or urban work, as well as slightly more casual shooting. Yes, like your 10 day Iceland trip, although if I were going there, I'd want some more serious gear if possible.

The A7R is certainly capable, but somehow, these days, he is looking for a bit more color rendition. After using view-camera type lenses and MFDB, its hard to go back. X1D might do the trick nicely.

What would you take to Iceland for more serious work? For me personally, there is nothing that an X1D can't do that my H2/IQ180 can do, just with a bit less resolution. In fact, with live view, it can do some things that the H2/IQ180 can't do like achieve perfect focus. And it's weather resistant to boot.

 

[Geoff]

What would you take to Iceland for more serious work? For me personally, there is nothing that an X1D can't do that my H2/IQ180 can do, just with a bit less resolution. In fact, with live view, it can do some things that the H2/IQ180 can't do like achieve perfect focus. And it's weather resistant to boot.

That sounds quite positive. Not having shot (or held) an X1D, its good to hear. As to other gear... probably something with movements, but that's not so travel-friendly!

 

[hcubell]

That sounds quite positive. Not having shot (or held) an X1D, its good to hear. As to other gear... probably something with movements, but that's not so travel-friendly!

Yes, the X1D can't replace a technical camera with movements. I am not sure how the tech camera would fair in the elements in Iceland, where I was usually shooting in very strong, wind driven rain. My H2/IQ180 died after 3 days of it.

 

[tbullock]

Thanks Tim for the thoughts and images. At this resolution it's hard to see the distinctive quality, but having used an X1D for a few days, I can imagine the files are great.

I'm curious whether you see a significant difference in the files from the X1D vs uncompressed A7RII, if you happen to have taken the same shot with both. I wasn't able to compare the two outdoors much due to an untimely flu spell during my rental, so don't have tons of confidence in my own analysis.

One feverishly exciting afternoon indoors with a tripod and test charts, I saw how amazing the lenses can be. Really exceptional. However I found diffraction, and at close distances, focus shift, to sometimes be resolution equalizers. Looking at both indoor tripod and outdoor handheld shots, I could see a difference at 200% in some of my test photos, but not many. At 100%, probably my largest print size, I don't see enough of a difference. I can imagine many shots, however, where the large apertures, stabilization, light weight, and/or silent operation of the Sony would allow me to get a great shot/video.

With that said, I did like the camera, the intuitiveness, and many of the features a lot, and wish I had more time with it. If only it were half the price, or twice the game changer, or someone had two comparison RAW files that makes me see the light.

 

[tashley]

Thanks Tim for the thoughts and images. At this resolution it's hard to see the distinctive quality, but having used an X1D for a few days, I can imagine the files are great.

I'm curious whether you see a significant difference in the files from the X1D vs uncompressed A7RII, if you happen to have taken the same shot with both. I wasn't able to compare the two outdoors much due to an untimely flu spell during my rental, so don't have tons of confidence in my own analysis.

One feverishly exciting afternoon indoors with a tripod and test charts, I saw how amazing the lenses can be. Really exceptional. However I found diffraction, and at close distances, focus shift, to sometimes be resolution equalizers. Looking at both indoor tripod and outdoor handheld shots, I could see a difference at 200% in some of my test photos, but not many. At 100%, probably my largest print size, I don't see enough of a difference. I can imagine many shots, however, where the large apertures, stabilization, light weight, and/or silent operation of the Sony would allow me to get a great shot/video.

With that said, I did like the camera, the intuitiveness, and many of the features a lot, and wish I had more time with it. If only it were half the price, or twice the game changer, or someone had two comparison RAW files that makes me see the light.

Sorry about your flu!

I'm not going to do that comparison for the good reason that I've been online for long enough to know that it would be equivalent to handing guns to a firing squad whilst strapping a blindfold on myself... however one qualifies a post like that, some people will ignore the limitations of validity one expresses, and get angry and nasty. So, no: no methodology wars for me! Sorry!

But I will say that my gut feeling is that the X1D files feel less digital, more organic, as if the textural and tonal gradations have more chance to breath and relax. I never look at files at more than 100% because on any screen, that's not mapping pixels to pixels and so it won't replicate a print at the same resolution. In any event most screens these days seem to be at somewhere between 140 and 220 PPI (I have both) and so even 100% on screen means nothing particular unless you print at the same resolution as the screen.

One thing to add: I have been surprised at how little diffraction there is even at F12. It is certainly there but only the must particular eye would notice it even in a large print and so I have been shooting a lot at F11 just to get the DOF I want. It's a tradeoff I'm happy to make.

 

[algrove]

But I will say that my gut feeling is that the X1D files feel less digital, more organic, as if the textural and tonal gradations have more chance to breath and relax.

Tim
Your comments bring back fond memories of owning the Pentax 645Z whose images evoked similar comment from many. These newer files should have an even more organic feel than the 645Z.

I see these same similar looks exhibited in early GFX files too even using the Silkypix software which I know nothing about.

It must be that 50MP Sony sensor speaking to us.

 

[MGrayson]

Tim,

That's actually why I suggested f/11. When I used a tech cam, I seldom went as open as f/8, using f/11-f/16 for almost every shot. The detail with those stupidly sharp lenses was still superior to anything else I've seen. Of course, they're bad at AF, which is why I don't currently use that system.

Best,

Matt

(What's the pixel size on the Fuji? (opens calculator) 5.4µ. On the IQ160? ... 6µ, so diffraction would show up more on the Fuji. I'm glad it's not an issue)

 

[tbullock]

Sorry about your flu!

I'm not going to do that comparison for the good reason that I've been online for long enough to know that it would be equivalent to handing guns to a firing squad whilst strapping a blindfold on myself... however one qualifies a post like that, some people will ignore the limitations of validity one expresses, and get angry and nasty. So, no: no methodology wars for me! Sorry!

But I will say that my gut feeling is that the X1D files feel less digital, more organic, as if the textural and tonal gradations have more chance to breath and relax. I never look at files at more than 100% because on any screen, that's not mapping pixels to pixels and so it won't replicate a print at the same resolution. In any event most screens these days seem to be at somewhere between 140 and 220 PPI (I have both) and so even 100% on screen means nothing particular unless you print at the same resolution as the screen.

One thing to add: I have been surprised at how little diffraction there is even at F12. It is certainly there but only the must particular eye would notice it even in a large print and so I have been shooting a lot at F11 just to get the DOF I want. It's a tradeoff I'm happy to make.

Ha! Well, having also been around long enough to see these sorts of questions play out I understand completely. I get it and appreciate the response!

Imaging resource now lets you compare the A7RII, GFX, and 645z, which gives me a decent starting point, but as you have probably seen, even their carefully repeated methods are questioned.

Perhaps it's best if I do the work myself with another rental, or, ugh, purchase.