 |
opticaloptimum
Lives in
United Kingdom
Joined on
Oct 25, 2009
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Adobe's plan is like the state forcing people to rent their homes rather than owning them.
Imagefoundry: How I wish that this nonsense with Lightroom would just cease already. Version 7.4 still doesn't work with xtrans, it just doesn't work in a slightly different manner. Talk about procrustean bed....
Using LR output to compare camera brands amounts to partisan tactics, in my honest opinion. Its demosaicing engine is as bad as the user interface and color controls are good; and the output from different cameras is wildly inconsistent.
I don't care what other people use. I just want to use what's best for me. Because something is popular it does not mean it is the best, just that its followed by a lot of sheep.
Capture One is much better here than ACR. Look at the area in the test scene at the bottom of the Martini bottle between the battery cells and the paper clips. In ACR there is a lot of smearing of the red 'A' (in 'Produce of ItAly') into its triangle, and from the red background into the white letters of Fujitsu on the cells. Both of these are negligable in Capture One.
Further, the mottling in the gold background to the 'Produce of italy' text is much clearer in Capture One.
All of the conversions show a little moire in the lady's face.
Capture One re-wrote their interpolation algorithms especially for the 6x6 cell of Fuji's X-Trans sensor so it is not surprising that Capture One is so much better than Adobe.
A definite win for Capture One in my opinion.
DPReview should have put 'Top 10 Photos' in the title in quotes - its only some people at Time Magazine who think these are the best.
danstern: this also sparks my curiosity of what the X-Pro2 will offer( being they are so close with the exception of the hybrid OVF and size) and when the XP2 will be announced......
Why poochpie do you want a full frame version? There are already some excellent full frame cameras from Nikon, Canon, Leica, etc. A full frame Fuji would be much bigger than the XP1 or XE1 and would need a whole new set of big Fuji lenses to cover the big sensor. Yes, FF can give a shallower depth of field, but the Fuji 35mm, f1.4 gives a depth of field that is plently shallow enough for me. Also, of course, image quality can be better with FF but unless you are going to print huge the difference is unlikely to be noticed.
@Rusticus
Before you buy a Fuji X-Pro 1 I suggest you check out the sharpness of its wide angle Fujinon lens.
Those making negative comments about Leica nearly always overlook the superiority of Leica lenses.
I would love an M9-P. I am prepared to accept the limitations to get the superb Leica lenses. Just look on Fred Miranda reviews to see all the comments about having good or bad copies of Canon lenses (even their professional L series lenses).
A secondary advantage over most DSLRs is the small size of the Leica bodies and lenses.
I am very excited by the Fuji X-PRO1 - it may well be what I have been waiting for as long as the lenses are up to expectations. I like the size as it is substantial enough to hold steady. Very promising all round.
Geoff-san: I don't really see the point. The M9 is not particularly large as it is and Leica has had a hand in m43 for some time. If they really want to jump into a smaller MILC system why not make a m43 body and more lenses? I guess I can answer my own question - who in m43 land would pay a massive premium for minimal body-based image improvement, just to have a red dot on it? Well probably a few people. A new system is not needed IMO though will probably appeal in small numbers to those after a prestige product.
its not the red dot people are after! Its the wonderful lenses, sharp corner to corner even wide open.
ivan364537: The only nice thing about Leicas at this point is the absence of the aliasing filter. I was a huge fan of Leica and I used to own a large M6 system but since Photoshop and especially after the world went completely digital, the cameras matter much less than before. For my travels I'm getting a little Olympus E-P3 which will record beautiful images and if it gets stolen or damaged, I'll simply buy a new one.
What about the wonderful lenses? Sharp corner to corner even wide open!
digby dart: Don’t be surprised to see Fuji associated with Leica system somewhere along the line, Fuji’s industrial might would be a fine association for camera sensor and lens manufacturing.
A format between aps-c and full frame makes a lot of sense especially with Fuji’s announced plans to take on Nikon for market share, something Leica would be keen to capitalize on.
Fuji has shown Leica what the x1 should have been by producing the x100, that would certainly not have gone unnoticed by Leica. Both parties would bring a lot to the market in a new venture. Time will tell.
The appeal of Leica to me is the very high quality of their lenses. If the new lenses are not made by Leica and to the same quality as their M-series lenses then I see little point in buying the proposed new camera.
opticaloptimum: The sad thing is that software cannot fix the X100's main weakness: that the lens is very soft when wide open, especially when focussed close. This is stated clearly in the DPReview review and is evident in the review's photo of a little girl, whose face is not sharp even though in the centre of the picture. What is the point of having a f2.0 lens if it cannot take sharp pictures? The main use of f2.0 for me would be portraits where the face is sharp but the background is out of focus. In my opinion the X100 fails in this respect. It seems that Fuji gave keeping the lens small priority over being sharp.
Thank you gava. This is helpful to me and I expect to others as well.
opticaloptimum: The sad thing is that software cannot fix the X100's main weakness: that the lens is very soft when wide open, especially when focussed close. This is stated clearly in the DPReview review and is evident in the review's photo of a little girl, whose face is not sharp even though in the centre of the picture. What is the point of having a f2.0 lens if it cannot take sharp pictures? The main use of f2.0 for me would be portraits where the face is sharp but the background is out of focus. In my opinion the X100 fails in this respect. It seems that Fuji gave keeping the lens small priority over being sharp.
I am sorry if I offended. As a said, I love the concept and want to love the implementation but have been concerned about the statements I read in the DP review and elsewhere about the lens being soft in some situations. Yes, my comments are not based on personal experience, but are based on what I take to be a reputable review. I am pleased that some here are disputing DPReview's findings as I want the camera to be a success.
opticaloptimum: The sad thing is that software cannot fix the X100's main weakness: that the lens is very soft when wide open, especially when focussed close. This is stated clearly in the DPReview review and is evident in the review's photo of a little girl, whose face is not sharp even though in the centre of the picture. What is the point of having a f2.0 lens if it cannot take sharp pictures? The main use of f2.0 for me would be portraits where the face is sharp but the background is out of focus. In my opinion the X100 fails in this respect. It seems that Fuji gave keeping the lens small priority over being sharp.
No, I haven't bought one but I love the X100 concept. I agree that we would not normally use 35mm equivalent for head only portraits. I am talking of environmental portraits (please take a look at the example of the little girl in the DP review).
A technical point. DOF depends on image size. The depth of field with a 35mm lens is the same as that with a 90mm lens if the camera to subject distance is changed so that the subject occupies the same fraction of the image. So the depth of field at f2.0 can be made the same as that with a f2.0 90mm by moving close enough to the subject. I agree of course this may well make the nose too prominent.
The sad thing is that software cannot fix the X100's main weakness: that the lens is very soft when wide open, especially when focussed close. This is stated clearly in the DPReview review and is evident in the review's photo of a little girl, whose face is not sharp even though in the centre of the picture. What is the point of having a f2.0 lens if it cannot take sharp pictures? The main use of f2.0 for me would be portraits where the face is sharp but the background is out of focus. In my opinion the X100 fails in this respect. It seems that Fuji gave keeping the lens small priority over being sharp.