Just a Photographer: One of the best RAW converters for Fuji X-Trans sensors.
C1 Pro has a bit of a learning curve and the editing part might be a little intriguing if you come from LR. But the results are fully worth the switch.
Much more detail, sharpness and much better highlight and shadow recovery that it leaves LR in the cold.
I'll love it!
Re-tried C1 after reading a tip about drastically reducing its noise reduction. Better. Pretty close to the good ones in resolution, tree branches getting acceptable (but not as fine as PN and RT).
For proper rendering using RT (dcraw), it is important to activate the 3 pass X-Trans algorithm and to move the slider 'False color suppression' all the way to 5. I do not use deconvolution with RT because I find it too harsh.
"Completely wrong" when you dispute one converter over the 3 I suggest. I'm afraid you slightly exaggerate :)
On the other hand, I looked again at C1 8.1 and really find it horrible for everything that contains fine tree branches. On those things it has a rendition that is pretty close to that of ACR/LR, actually. And on those things, LightZone is better.
I have not tried anything in portraiture, street, etc...
C1 is better than LR for X-Trans, but is far from the best. Very far. Photo Ninja, Raw Therapee and LightZone all have much better X-Trans decoding than C1.
joe6pack: Or you can just buy generic ones from eBay for 1/4 of the price right now. There is no lens on these things. And given they are extension tubes, the thickness does not even need to be accurate.
The difference is not in length precision, but in the tolerances for the parallelism between both faces. Errors there ruin optical performance.
StephaneB: Hilarious to see comments here from people who obviously have no idea of what Eggleston brought to photography.
Seeing just a picture of a tricycle here is like saying the Grand Canyon is just another valley. And a bad one at that, there isn't even a bridge.
Well, then, all I can suggest to you is to go out, take those easy snaps that require not talent anyway and start offering them around. Start with museums, they are suckers for mediocrity, as you seem to think Eggleston has proved.
For one thing, Eggleston made colour photography respected as Art.At first sight, most of his pictures look like snapshots of mundane, trivial, ordinary scenes. That can be observed with many other photographers like Henry Cartier Bresson, Robert Frank, Willy Ronis and others.All those photographers, Eggleston included actually capture special bits of the ordinary. They have that power of vision. Eggleston included color and if you really look at his pictures, you'll see the colour harmonies he found in everyday scenes, as cen be seen here:http://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/william-eggleston--september-27-2012/exhibition-images
He is also a master of composition like all those great masters, of course. I don't think Martin Parr photography would be the same if Eggleston had not paved the way before.
But I am no good at explaining those things. It is much better explained here:http://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/william-eggleston--november-09-2011
Hilarious to see comments here from people who obviously have no idea of what Eggleston brought to photography.
Denton Taylor: Hopefully 5Dmkiii comes right behind...
Not so. I used to have an EOS 3 (yes, film) and its AF was the same as the EOS 1v, allowing AF at f/8.