One thing to note,
the digital teleconverter only works with jpegs,
and this feature is not available when using with the raw.
Cheers!
--
..Cheers, John..
We all needs a little cheering up.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
X100v teleconverter MP
- Thread starter Woodman100
- Start date
the digital teleconverter only works with jpegs,
and this feature is not available when using with the raw.
Cheers!
--
..Cheers, John..
We all needs a little cheering up.
Woodman100
Well-known member
Yes, and I have no idea why that is. The camera has enough processing power and cameras like the Q2 save Raw data and Lightroom will recognise the crop.
R_U_Q_R_U
Senior Member
Here is an article about the x100F (24MP) Digital Teleconverter:
"The 50mm option uses 16 megapixels of resolution from the sensor, which is still plenty (the X100S and X100T had “only” 16 megapixels). 16″ x 24″ prints are no problem, and, if you have a good quality file, you can make nice looking 2′ x 3′ prints. Unless you are pixel-peeping or making poster-sized prints, you’ll have a hard time distinguishing the 50mm Digital Teleconverter images from full resolution files.
The 75mm option uses 12 megapixels of resolution from the sensor, which is still plenty for most people and most uses (the original X100 had “only” 12 megapixels). 12″ x 18″ prints are no problem, and, if you have a good quality file, you can make nice looking 16″ x 24″ prints. Unless you are pixel-peeping or making large prints, nobody will be able to tell that you cut out half of the picture."
Using the same ratios on the 26 MP X100V sensor:
50mm = 17.33 MP
75mm = 13 MP
--
Sometimes the light's all shinin' on me,
Other times I can barely see.
Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.
Last edited:
Yes, not sure why.
And the thing is, if select to shoot using raw+jpeg, the teleconverter feature is also not available.
For me, because I'm mostly a jpeg shooter, so it's fine.
But for those that shoots raw, this can be a hindrance.
Cheers!
John Gellings
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,472
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 9,345
It’s because they choose to use interpolation instead of a straight crop... seems clear to me. Is there a way to access the straight crop without interpolation?
--
https://www.johngellings.com
Instagram = @johngellings0 and @nycrandomjg
Last edited:
Mark Hollister
Leading Member
OK. This sounds like the same thing that happens in a Nikon system, where when you attach a APS-C lens to a full-frame camera, the lens focuses the light only on the center area of the sensor, then that APS-C sized area gets upscaled (which includes interpolation, which gives zero increase in resolution) to the same pixel height and width as a full frame image. The end result makes a lot of people think that putting an APS-C lens on a full frame camera gives them extra real reach. It doesn't, it's a simulated zoom by means of enlargement. Again, you can accomplish the same thing in post by cropping your FF lens & FF camera's image to the center area and then upscale. No telling how many Nikon shooters have wasted money buying an APS-C lens so they could get extra reach when they could have skipped buying the lens and simply cropped and enlarged in Photoshop or Lightroom or some such program.
So I have to wonder, (the context is now back to Fuji) why buy a TC at all if you can crop and upscale in post and get the same result? There must be more to this, because if there isn't, the glass in the TCs isn't doing anything at all. And that makes no sense.
The other option, which makes more sense to me, is where the glass in the TC does play a role by optically enlarging (zooming). But then no upscaling is necessary, because the lens has just done the enlarging for you. Also, cropping is unnecessary.
So, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around what's actually going on with these Fuji TCs & X100 series cameras. The bottom line is, I don't want to buy a TC if they aren't going to give me optical zoom.
The End
Mark Hollister
Leading Member
I just gave it some more thought, and I think the TCs must be doing optical zoom, because there is no circuitry involved - the TC is simply screwed onto the end of the prime lens and the camera itself doesn't know there's a TC attached.
So that leaves me with this - there must be no in-camera cropping or interpolated digital upscaling, because the lens is enlarging the image by means of actual optical zoom, the entire sensor is filled with this zoomed image, so no cropping is necessary either. If I'm wrong, somebody please let me know.
So that leaves me with this - there must be no in-camera cropping or interpolated digital upscaling, because the lens is enlarging the image by means of actual optical zoom, the entire sensor is filled with this zoomed image, so no cropping is necessary either. If I'm wrong, somebody please let me know.
Erik Baumgartner
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,235
- Solutions
- 39
- Reaction score
- 14,241
Unlike the crop and upscale digital TC, optical screw-on TCs use the entire sensor and require no upscaling - you will get 26MP of actual resolution, not lower resolution made bigger.
Mark Hollister
Leading Member
OK, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.
Last edited:
Keithpictures
Leading Member
What I’d like to know is why LR doesn’t understand the use of this feature. It doesn’t even read the lens info at all (or is it just me?). I’d love to document my frequency of use by sorting the 35mm equivalencies in my library. It can’t tell me any of them. Why not?
Keithpictures
Leading Member
Hey, I actually have EXIF Tool installed (I think) and I still don't see this.
Doesn't EXIF Tool run in the background? I have jf Focal-Length Sort and jf Data Plot, but neither recognize the X100V - I think Jeffrey Friedl hasn't added it yet.
So how do I use EXIF Tool on its own?
silverVolt
New member
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
If you read the comments on that article you’ll see one of the commenters offer some corrections to the calculations in the article which are essentially the same as Erik’s calculations above. The author responds by saying math isn’t his strong suit.
notchy
Leading Member
Once installed you can run exiftool directly on the command line on Macs, Windows and Linux. The specific command I generally use for individual images (assuming the target image is in the current directory) is:
exiftool -a -u -g1 DSCF1234.JPG
This should list all metadata, including duplicates and unknown tags, and group them according to their tag "family".
Although I edit my raw files in Capture One on Windows, I do my image selecting on Linux and use the Cinnamon desktop's (colour managed) image viewer before transferring my images to my file server. I have the above command and its options assigned to a short bash shell alias in order to avoid having to type it in each time I need it. I also pipe its output to the program "less", which loads the returned output in to a buffer, enabling you to scroll back and forth, use basic movement and search operators, etc. In the bash shell that command is:
exiftool -a -u -g1 DSCF1234.JPG | less
Have fun
Last edited:
notchy
Leading Member
It was my comment actually
I dragged an image editor's crop mask over the original uncropped image until it matched the frame areas of the two 50 and 70mm equivalent crops. I'm just repeating what I wrote above, but the resulting approximations came out at:4356 x 2904 for the 50 crop
3134 x 2089 for the 70 crop
This means that the two crops respectively are based on approximately 12.5mp and 6.5mp frames from the original 26mp image.
Edit: Oh, I've just seen NotANumber's post above. The size approximations in that post are much closer to those I calculated using the mask technique. Perhaps that's the post you were referring to...?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum