tashley
Subscriber Member
So, many of us have had the camera for a few months and managed to shoot a number of frames on a small variety of lenses. It seems that most of us have enjoyed the experience and appreciated the results.
But we still don't have the GPS unit and we still don't have the firmware update and we still don't have lens corrections in LR.
The first and last of those are not biggies: GPS is rarely of much use to me and whilst I might sometimes want it, I'd rarely need it - and LR doesn't do a great job with the files. It's not terrible, but it p***s away highlight detail and so for files that really matter I always run them through Phocus anyway. That's a bit boring (Phocus is far from terrible but it's not up to LR or C1 standards for workflow) but it's not the end of the world.
But the FW thing really does matter, for several reasons. One is the bugginess. On my recent trip to Spain I had endless and countless lockups requiring the battery to be removed, plus some weird focussing lockups too. More important however is the Auto ISO performance.
If the sensor was ISO invariant, it would be easy to get round this in Aperture Priority mode merely by using exposure compensation to underexpose until one got the shutter speed one needs. However, it is pretty clear to me that shooting at the 'right' ISO gives better results. Better to shoot at ISO 800 if that's what the scene requires with the aperture and shutter speed one desires than to shoot at ISO 100 and push in post.
So what that does mean is that it really is quite important, really quite often, to be able to set a minimum shutter speed either in absolute terms or as a multiple of 1/focal length.
Returning from Spain and looking at a lot of low light shots that looked good on my craptop, I see that there is in fact a two pixel blur on a lot of the frames shot at 1/f. I'd generally like to be able to set the 30mm lens not to shoot at less than 1/60th and the 90mm lens not to shoot at less than 1/180th but I can't. Instead, I either have to manually shift ISO, or do the 'exposure compensation' thing.
How do others feel about this? Hasselblad seems to have gone quiet, no?
But we still don't have the GPS unit and we still don't have the firmware update and we still don't have lens corrections in LR.
The first and last of those are not biggies: GPS is rarely of much use to me and whilst I might sometimes want it, I'd rarely need it - and LR doesn't do a great job with the files. It's not terrible, but it p***s away highlight detail and so for files that really matter I always run them through Phocus anyway. That's a bit boring (Phocus is far from terrible but it's not up to LR or C1 standards for workflow) but it's not the end of the world.
But the FW thing really does matter, for several reasons. One is the bugginess. On my recent trip to Spain I had endless and countless lockups requiring the battery to be removed, plus some weird focussing lockups too. More important however is the Auto ISO performance.
If the sensor was ISO invariant, it would be easy to get round this in Aperture Priority mode merely by using exposure compensation to underexpose until one got the shutter speed one needs. However, it is pretty clear to me that shooting at the 'right' ISO gives better results. Better to shoot at ISO 800 if that's what the scene requires with the aperture and shutter speed one desires than to shoot at ISO 100 and push in post.
So what that does mean is that it really is quite important, really quite often, to be able to set a minimum shutter speed either in absolute terms or as a multiple of 1/focal length.
Returning from Spain and looking at a lot of low light shots that looked good on my craptop, I see that there is in fact a two pixel blur on a lot of the frames shot at 1/f. I'd generally like to be able to set the 30mm lens not to shoot at less than 1/60th and the 90mm lens not to shoot at less than 1/180th but I can't. Instead, I either have to manually shift ISO, or do the 'exposure compensation' thing.
How do others feel about this? Hasselblad seems to have gone quiet, no?