Aliasing VS Moiré

Adam Kingston said:

Yes, if you switch to the 100MP sensor you'll see a reduction but not complete elimination of aliasing artifacts/moiré. You likely won't need to stop down as far to reduce aliasing with the camera rather than in post, depending on the lens you're using and other variables e.g. the nature of the scene, environmental factors etc. I found f13 often does the job.

I don't correct much of the aliasing I come across in the 50MP files because my clients have never noticed it. I deal with the very obvious stuff, but in terms of my workflow it doesn't seem burdensome and I rarely see it.

If you're already upgrading to the 100MP sensor then this is a bonus. The downside associated with that switch is the potential for PDAF stripes, which I've found are not correctable for the most part, but turn up about as often as un-correctable aliasing. Which is to say, very rarely. And IMO the weaknesses of the TS-E 24mm are more apparent with the 100MP sensor and are more important than aliasing.

Maybe it's worth noting that most of my clients have specifically asked me to stop sending huge files because they have no use for them, which means that in terms of the benefits of the 100MP sensor I'm left with the potential to crop (which I don't do) and having more scope to make minor geometric adjustments in post (which I try to make sure I don't have to do).

So to sum up, I'd have been perfectly happy continuing working with the 50S II but the 100S is doing the job and I've saved a few minutes here and there in post.

Here's the only example I have across several thousand frames of what I'd call un-correctable moiré from the 50MP sensor, and it wasn't client work in any case:


Moiré in the windows - some kind of patterned window blind material I believe


Moiré still evident toward the left edge of the frame even after working on it in post using a couple different approaches

Edit: I'd have stopped down and traded noise for less moiré had I known, but one of the reasons I'm not keen on EVFs is that they render moiré where it won't show in the file. The JPEG review does the opposite and often obscures it, even if you're saving a high-quality JPEG alongside the RAW.

Click to expand...

And following Erik's suggestion re: AI Denoise... I'd say this example sits somewhere between the two. Adding moiré reduction alongside AI Denoise doesn't help. How effective each approach will be clearly depends on the nature of the pattern and the extent of the aliasing.

Back in aliasing machine Kodak 14n days, this kind of thing and worse happened all the time. I controlled it by converting to lab mode, selecting the colour channels and using the dust and scratches filter. It worked most of the time. These days we have better tools but where they fail, the old method might still work.

Peter Brentlinger said:

I shoot architectural projects with a GFX 50R and Canon shift and a Pentax 645 35mm lenses mounted on the HCam DRS. On some occasions I get Moiré patterns which I remove in Camera Raw. Lately, I've been wondering if I am getting some false colors in carpet or other fabrics like the back of a chair etc...anything with patterns in addition to the moiré.

My question is if I upgraded to a 100 MP body like the GFX 100S or the 100II would these artifacts still appear? If so, which would you recommend keeping in mind that I don't care about auto focus, or IBS?

I'm attaching 2 versions of the same image both before and after using an adjustment brush in camera raw to remove moiré.

Suggestions or comments?

Peter

Click to expand...

My interpretation of your question is that you really want a new camera. You are trying to justify it. Then asking about the GFX 100S or Gfx100 ii as upgrade options.

I think you have some excellent responses about moire and mitigating it.

But not about your real question. If you can afford it and want to upgrade, if I were you I would catch the current sale on the GFX 100s. Because you state that you don't care about IBIS (I am assuming your on a tripod all the time) and autofocus (because you are mostly using tilt-shift lenses).

The Gfx100 ii has the exact same sensor as the 100 and 100S. So no image quality upgrades. The reason to buy it is IBIS improvements, Af subject recognition and video. If you don't think you need any of those attributes, than get a cheap 100S. If you want a better EVF, get a Gfx100. I have still seen some new ones at rock bottom prices. Used Gfx100 are crazy cheap.

Or think about not getting a new camera and get the new 30mm Fujifilm tilt-shift lens. It seem to be the best currently available tilt-shift lens. Would that improve your work flow and productivity?

The 30mm tilt-shift or a 100Mpixel camera are at about the same price points.

I'm coming from Sigma, so called 1:1:1 Foveon (actually the last modell SD1M) cameras. As far as I know, at those cameras the typical Bayer-moiré is unknown.

Amadeus21 said:

I'm coming from Sigma, so called 1:1:1 Foveon (actually the last modell SD1M) cameras. As far as I know, at those cameras the typical Bayer-moiré is unknown.

Click to expand...

Timely mention, this. I recently acquired a Sigma SD15 (4.6MP). Here's a shot from yesterday. It's a picture of artificial flowers. These have a woven texture.



Have a look at the area I marked (just examples, you could choose almost anywhere). Click the original file link.

Of course, there is no colour moire, this doesn't happen with Foveon. But the sensor is less that 5MP and has no low pass filter. And luminance aliasing happens.

Can you be sure exactly what parts of the image are correctly rendered and which parts are aliased false detail? In fact, can we be sure that any of the texture is actually correct? Perhaps the entire image consists of different kinds of aliasing.

Sometimes aliasing can be an advantage because it puts some kind of texture is areas that would otherwise be blurred, and sometimes that false texture looks kind of plausible. But not always, it's a lottery.

--
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2022 - website rebuilt, updated and back in action)
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

dbateman said:

Peter Brentlinger said:

I shoot architectural projects with a GFX 50R and Canon shift and a Pentax 645 35mm lenses mounted on the HCam DRS. On some occasions I get Moiré patterns which I remove in Camera Raw. Lately, I've been wondering if I am getting some false colors in carpet or other fabrics like the back of a chair etc...anything with patterns in addition to the moiré.

My question is if I upgraded to a 100 MP body like the GFX 100S or the 100II would these artifacts still appear? If so, which would you recommend keeping in mind that I don't care about auto focus, or IBS?

I'm attaching 2 versions of the same image both before and after using an adjustment brush in camera raw to remove moiré.

Suggestions or comments?

Peter

Click to expand...

My interpretation of your question is that you really want a new camera. You are trying to justify it. Then asking about the GFX 100S or Gfx100 ii as upgrade options.

I think you have some excellent responses about moire and mitigating it.

But not about your real question. If you can afford it and want to upgrade, if I were you I would catch the current sale on the GFX 100s. Because you state that you don't care about IBIS (I am assuming your on a tripod all the time) and autofocus (because you are mostly using tilt-shift lenses).

The Gfx100 ii has the exact same sensor as the 100 and 100S. So no image quality upgrades.

Click to expand...

I thought I read there was a minor improvement to corner sharpness with the 100 II sensor.

dbateman said:

The reason to buy it is IBIS improvements, Af subject recognition and video. If you don't think you need any of those attributes, than get a cheap 100S. If you want a better EVF, get a Gfx100. I have still seen some new ones at rock bottom prices. Used Gfx100 are crazy cheap.

Or think about not getting a new camera and get the new 30mm Fujifilm tilt-shift lens. It seem to be the best currently available tilt-shift lens. Would that improve your work flow and productivity?

The 30mm tilt-shift or a 100Mpixel camera are at about the same price points.

Click to expand...

Amadeus21 said:

I'm coming from Sigma, so called 1:1:1 Foveon (actually the last modell SD1M) cameras. As far as I know, at those cameras the typical Bayer-moiré is unknown.

Click to expand...

All sorts of other well-known aliasing, false detail and false colour issues though.

I like my Foveon cameras but if Foveon is the answer I can't imagine what the problem is. Workflow for a commercial architectural photographer using a Foveon sensor would be the thing of nightmares.

Amadeus21 said:

--
Johannes

Click to expand...

Adam Kingston said:

Erik Kaffehr said:

Adam Kingston said:

Peter Brentlinger said:

Thanks for the comments. The aperture was not recorded because I used the Canon 24 TSE II on the hCam adapter. They were shot at F11, which since I can't control the aperture without connecting to a Canon body is always at f11. I'll try F16 on a few shots and see if that helps with the moiré, without negatively affecting sharpness too much.

Click to expand...

Obviously I'm not familiar with your workflow but I couldn't imagine not being able to control aperture. This would frustrate me more than the few minutes I spend in post dealing with moiré. Are you using the HCam because you need the use of an additional Y-axis?

Click to expand...

The HCam allows for movements with a lot of lenses, using the Canon EF mount, but it does not have electronic controls for the lenses. I think that Peter uses the HCam also with the Pentax 645 35 mm lens, I would wonder which of them.

I use both the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII and the Pentax 645 35/3.5 A.

Neither lens is what I would regard as very good, at least regarding my samples, but I have seen aliasing on the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII on my Sony A7rII, so I would expect aliasing on the GFX 50 models, but not on GFX 100, which is more like my Sony A7rIV. GFX 100 uses a larger version of the sensor used in the Sony A7rIV, so aliasing should be the same.

Best regards

Erik

Click to expand...

Not sure about the Pentax as I haven't used it with a digital body but the TS-E 24 definitely aliases unless stopped down quite far, and as you suggest is also generally quite weak on this system. My priority in this scenario would either be better lenses or going the tech camera route rather than worrying about megapixels/aliasing.

Click to expand...

Both better lenses tech cameras may make things worse. The only cause of aliasing is that the lens outperforms the sensor. So, if there are issues with aliasing, a better sensor is needed, not a better lens.

On 24x36 mm, the lens/sensor missmatch is normally handled by an antialiasing filter, which applies some blur on the image before it is passed on to the sensor. Stopping down to f/11 or f/16 lets diffraction do the blurring.

With view cameras, there is another problem. Wide angle lenses for view cameras are often symmetrical, which means that they have large beam angles. Those beam angles increase both vignetting and optical cross talk. The solution is often using Lens Casting Correction. See here: https://support.phaseone.com/knowle... cast is a result,vignetting) as well as dust.

With a backside illuminated sensor, like the one used in the GFX 100, the photodiodes are much closer to the CFA (Color Filter Array) and to the microlenses, which pretty much reduces those problems.

The GFX sensor is simply a much more modern device than the GFX 50 sensor. The extra 50 MP may be seen as a fringe benefit.

Best regards

Erik

Adam Kingston said:

Yes, if you switch to the 100MP sensor you'll see a reduction but not complete elimination of aliasing artifacts/moiré.

Click to expand...

I can see some aliasing on test targets at f11 with my sharpest lenses, but I've never seen it with real-world detail. f11 has been safe at 100MP.

Member said:

If you're already upgrading to the 100MP sensor then this is a bonus. The downside associated with that switch is the potential for PDAF stripes, which I've found are not correctable for the most part, but turn up about as often as un-correctable aliasing. Which is to say, very rarely. And IMO the weaknesses of the TS-E 24mm are more apparent with the 100MP sensor and are more important than aliasing.

Click to expand...

Are you actually seeing PDAF stripes? I haven't heard reports of them on the 100s and later. I haven't seen them myself even when photographing pure noise.

The TS-E 24 won't actually perform worse on a higher resolution sensor. Not at the same final print size / screen image size.

paulraphael said:

paulraphael said:

If you're already upgrading to the 100MP sensor then this is a bonus. The downside associated with that switch is the potential for PDAF stripes, which I've found are not correctable for the most part, but turn up about as often as un-correctable aliasing. Which is to say, very rarely....

Click to expand...

Are you actually seeing PDAF stripes? I haven't heard reports of them on the 100s and later. I haven't seen them myself even when photographing pure noise.

Click to expand...

Lloyd Chambers has been vocal about it:

https://diglloyd.com/blog/2021/2021...-banding-horizontalStrips-PatriarchGrove.html

I have yet to see any from my GFX 100S. At any rate, the raw converter I use most of the time - Raw Therapee - has an adjustable line noise filter.

Yes, I use the hCam DRS to allow horizontal shift with the 3 main lenses that I use, the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII, the Pentax D FA 645 35/3.5 and the infrequently used Canon 17/4 TSE. I keep the shift mechanism of the lenses in the vertical position (what we used to call rise and fall) and on the Canon's make sure that the tilt adjustment is set to up and down, not left and right. This last bit is important because if it is set the other way, any slight miss adjustment can make one side of an image softer than the other. Rather than the ceiling/sky or foreground. I have a Canon body with me if I want to change the aperture, but I rarely do this as I just want to find the sweet spot between sharpness and diffraction. So, most shots are at F11. I understand that f16 may be better to allow diffraction to reduce moiré. I'll give that a try.

I see a lot of comments that the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII is not good on GFX. I must either have a great copy and/or have good focusing technique. I understand that there is field curvature and (I believe from an article that Jim wrote) that better results can be had by focusing to the side of an image rather than in the middle. I also read Jim's article on using focus peaking on the GFX and that has helped out a lot. Sure, there is some softness in the corners with more shift, but I'm still able to use small amounts of rise/fall and even use the hCam DRS to shift the camera horizontally to stitch two frames together.

The Pentax D FA 645 35/3.5 is a great focal length for what I do. My copy is quite sharp and I use it with a Canon adapter with shift built in. This gives me left right/up down with the hCam DRS. I frequently stitch two horizontal frames this way which I prefer to just cropping an image taken with the 24. Yes, it has mustache distortion which I correct using PT Lens. To make it easy I just take a shot with the lens centered, this then indicates the position of the shifted image on a larger canvas for PT Lens to do its work.

I was really excited about the new 30mm Fujifilm tilt-shift lens, but then disappointed to read this lens while extremely sharp also has some distortion that needs to be corrected. As I won't use Capture One (which I understand can correct this) the last thing I need In my workflow is another lens that can't render lines straight, IE. non-rectilinear. Maybe Adobe will add this functionality, but I won't hold my breath.

I appreciate all the comments, and as to upgrading to a 100 MP body, I'm less inclined to do so now. As mentioned, clients are not asking for larger files and there seems to be no real improvement in dynamic range. So, I'll live with the occasional moiré issues. Try the suggestion to stop down more and remember that a 100 MP body won't make me any more money!

Erik Kaffehr said:

Adam Kingston said:

Erik Kaffehr said:

Adam Kingston said:

Peter Brentlinger said:

Thanks for the comments. The aperture was not recorded because I used the Canon 24 TSE II on the hCam adapter. They were shot at F11, which since I can't control the aperture without connecting to a Canon body is always at f11. I'll try F16 on a few shots and see if that helps with the moiré, without negatively affecting sharpness too much.

Click to expand...

Obviously I'm not familiar with your workflow but I couldn't imagine not being able to control aperture. This would frustrate me more than the few minutes I spend in post dealing with moiré. Are you using the HCam because you need the use of an additional Y-axis?

Click to expand...

The HCam allows for movements with a lot of lenses, using the Canon EF mount, but it does not have electronic controls for the lenses. I think that Peter uses the HCam also with the Pentax 645 35 mm lens, I would wonder which of them.

I use both the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII and the Pentax 645 35/3.5 A.

Neither lens is what I would regard as very good, at least regarding my samples, but I have seen aliasing on the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII on my Sony A7rII, so I would expect aliasing on the GFX 50 models, but not on GFX 100, which is more like my Sony A7rIV. GFX 100 uses a larger version of the sensor used in the Sony A7rIV, so aliasing should be the same.

Best regards

Erik

Click to expand...

Not sure about the Pentax as I haven't used it with a digital body but the TS-E 24 definitely aliases unless stopped down quite far, and as you suggest is also generally quite weak on this system. My priority in this scenario would either be better lenses or going the tech camera route rather than worrying about megapixels/aliasing.

Click to expand...

Both better lenses tech cameras may make things worse. The only cause of aliasing is that the lens outperforms the sensor. So, if there are issues with aliasing, a better sensor is needed, not a better lens.

Click to expand...

It won't make things worse unless you're hyperfocused on an aliasing issue that has minimal impact on workflow in practical terms. IMO aliasing is the least of your worries if you're using the TS-E 24 in a commercial architectural context, although Peter appears to have a better copy than those I've used. The corners are poor at moderate shift on the one I kept. At least there's no aliasing in the corners, courtesy of the smeared detail.

There are plenty of people using tech cameras and the sharpest GF primes with that sensor who aren't concerned about aliasing. A slight inconvenience in post at worst but I rarely do anything with the files.

Peter Brentlinger said:

I shoot architectural projects with a GFX 50R and Canon shift and a Pentax 645 35mm lenses mounted on the HCam DRS. On some occasions I get Moiré patterns which I remove in Camera Raw. Lately, I've been wondering if I am getting some false colors in carpet or other fabrics like the back of a chair etc...anything with patterns in addition to the moiré.

My question is if I upgraded to a 100 MP body like the GFX 100S or the 100II would these artifacts still appear? If so, which would you recommend keeping in mind that I don't care about auto focus, or IBS?

Click to expand...

The IBIS enables pixel-shift, which seems like it would work well at eliminating the color aliasing in examples like you posted (i.e. what appears to be pretty static subjects).

SelrahCharleS said:

Peter Brentlinger said:

I shoot architectural projects with a GFX 50R and Canon shift and a Pentax 645 35mm lenses mounted on the HCam DRS. On some occasions I get Moiré patterns which I remove in Camera Raw. Lately, I've been wondering if I am getting some false colors in carpet or other fabrics like the back of a chair etc...anything with patterns in addition to the moiré.

My question is if I upgraded to a 100 MP body like the GFX 100S or the 100II would these artifacts still appear? If so, which would you recommend keeping in mind that I don't care about auto focus, or IBS?

Click to expand...

The IBIS enables pixel-shift, which seems like it would work well at eliminating the color aliasing in examples like you posted (i.e. what appears to be pretty static subjects).

Click to expand...

In theory but not so much in practice. I doubt any commercial photographer has time to introduce this step into their workflow and then deal with the resulting artifacts, which are plentiful unless the conditions are perfect, which in my experience is almost never.

Oren Grad said:

paulraphael said:

Adam Kingston said:

If you're already upgrading to the 100MP sensor then this is a bonus. The downside associated with that switch is the potential for PDAF stripes, which I've found are not correctable for the most part, but turn up about as often as un-correctable aliasing. Which is to say, very rarely....

Click to expand...

Are you actually seeing PDAF stripes? I haven't heard reports of them on the 100s and later. I haven't seen them myself even when photographing pure noise.

Click to expand...

Lloyd Chambers has been vocal about it:

https://diglloyd.com/blog/2021/2021...-banding-horizontalStrips-PatriarchGrove.html

I have yet to see any from my GFX 100S. At any rate, the raw converter I use most of the time - Raw Therapee - has an adjustable line noise filter.

Click to expand...

That guy has a knack for complaining about problems no one else can reproduce.

paulraphael said:

Oren Grad said:

paulraphael said:

Adam Kingston said:

If you're already upgrading to the 100MP sensor then this is a bonus. The downside associated with that switch is the potential for PDAF stripes, which I've found are not correctable for the most part, but turn up about as often as un-correctable aliasing. Which is to say, very rarely....

Click to expand...

Are you actually seeing PDAF stripes? I haven't heard reports of them on the 100s and later. I haven't seen them myself even when photographing pure noise.

Click to expand...

Lloyd Chambers has been vocal about it:

https://diglloyd.com/blog/2021/2021...-banding-horizontalStrips-PatriarchGrove.html

I have yet to see any from my GFX 100S. At any rate, the raw converter I use most of the time - Raw Therapee - has an adjustable line noise filter.

Click to expand...

That guy has a knack for complaining about problems no one else can reproduce.

Click to expand...

It's difficult to reproduce if you set out intending to because the issue's heavily dependent on conditions (seemingly the intensity of light and the angle at which you're showing the sensor to the sun but there are people better qualified to explain that). Well unless you have an IR converted camera, in which case you're getting lines more or less every frame.

I've only seen un-correctable banding in the sky a handful of times, and on concrete several times where I'd made some moderate adjustments in C1 or LR, but it was more or less indistinguishable once I pulled back those sliders to default.

When I bought the 100S I knew about the potential for banding but didn't think I'd ever see it because I have a very low-intervention approach in post, so was surprised that I've had to dump a few files. That said I still think it's overblown by some and not a huge issue. Much like all the aliasing chat.

Peter Brentlinger said:

I was really excited about the new 30mm Fujifilm tilt-shift lens, but then disappointed to read this lens while extremely sharp also has some distortion that needs to be corrected. As I won't use Capture One (which I understand can correct this) the last thing I need In my workflow is another lens that can't render lines straight, IE. non-rectilinear. Maybe Adobe will add this functionality, but I won't hold my breath.

Click to expand...

Besides older Schneider tech cam lenses, have you seen a shiftable lens with less distortion than the the Fuji TS? I haven't.

Also worth noting: it looks like simple barrel distortion; most wide angle retrofocus lenses produce moustache-shaped distortion that's much harder to correct.

For someone doing architectural photography, and who doesn't want to monkey around much in post, this might be the best lens ever made in its focal length.

paulraphael said:

Peter Brentlinger said:

I was really excited about the new 30mm Fujifilm tilt-shift lens, but then disappointed to read this lens while extremely sharp also has some distortion that needs to be corrected. As I won't use Capture One (which I understand can correct this) the last thing I need In my workflow is another lens that can't render lines straight, IE. non-rectilinear. Maybe Adobe will add this functionality, but I won't hold my breath.

Click to expand...

Besides older Schneider tech cam lenses, have you seen a shiftable lens with less distortion than the the Fuji TS? I haven't.

Also worth noting: it looks like simple barrel distortion; most wide angle retrofocus lenses produce moustache-shaped distortion that's much harder to correct.

For someone doing architectural photography, and who doesn't want to monkey around much in post, this might be the best lens ever made in its focal length.

Click to expand...

It isn't moustache-shaped but nor is it simple barrel distortion, it's somewhat complex, strengthening towards the edge of the frame. Nothing can be done natively in LR, but the profile in C1 deals with it fine and the resulting files are very good.

The Mamiya 43mm N is an example with practically no distortion and there are others with simple, correctable barrel distortion.

paulraphael said:

Peter Brentlinger said:

I was really excited about the new 30mm Fujifilm tilt-shift lens, but then disappointed to read this lens while extremely sharp also has some distortion that needs to be corrected. As I won't use Capture One (which I understand can correct this) the last thing I need In my workflow is another lens that can't render lines straight, IE. non-rectilinear. Maybe Adobe will add this functionality, but I won't hold my breath.

Click to expand...

Besides older Schneider tech cam lenses, have you seen a shiftable lens with less distortion than the the Fuji TS? I haven't.

Click to expand...

I have not either. With wide angle lens design, retrofocus means distortion. This is true even on the extremely expensive Rodenstock technical lenses. The fact that the Fuji 30mm TS only has mild barrel is an amazing accomplishment.

paulraphael said:

Also worth noting: it looks like simple barrel distortion; most wide angle retrofocus lenses produce moustache-shaped distortion that's much harder to correct.

For someone doing architectural photography, and who doesn't want to monkey around much in post, this might be the best lens ever made in its focal length.

Click to expand...

The Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digitar 35mm f/5.6 L-88 I've started using is effectively distortion free. But there's lots of monkeying around during shooting, and in post.

I don't have to worry much about lens cast on a GFX 100S, but light falloff is strong with this lens. Shooting an LCC frame with every exposure is a must. If I forget, I can get to a decent result in Lightroom by applying radial gradients, but it's usually always preferable to start with an image created using flat field correction.

Flat field correction is not problem free though. If I do it in Lightroom, the DNG that is created sometimes has a greenish cast in the area where it fixed light falloff. I can clean that up with a radial gradient... but that's more monkeying around in post. This seems to be a Lightroom problem because flat field correction RawTherapee leaves me with a nice clean image. Having to use RawTherapee to do flat field correction is a lot of monkeying around I don't need. Fortunately Lightroom doesn't always have this green cast problem; I haven't figured out yet why it happens and how I can avoid it (if I can).


1. RAF from camera, 8mm rise. 2. LCC frame with 8mm rise; notice the strong shading at top. 3. DNG created in Lightroom with flat field correction; notice green shading in areas that are dark on the LCC frame. 4. TIF created by RawTherapee using flat field correction; there's no green shading.

Importantly, I can only shift this lens 8mm. Mine is the version with the smaller image circle (88 degree angle of view), but I can only shift it 8mm anyway on an F-Universalis because the rear cell is inside the camera mount. The XL-102 variant of the APO-Digitar 35mm can shift 15mm with on a 33mm x 44mm sensor, but that requires a Hasselblad CFV 100C (on an F-Universalis) or a technical camera. On the CFV 100C, people are getting the nasty horizontal lines, which Hasselblad has not yet fixed.

Long story short, there's no such thing as a free lunch when shift is happening, but the Fuji GF 30mm t-s is as close to a free lunch as I've ever seen.

Rob de Loe said:

Long story short, there's no such thing as a free lunch when shift is happening, but the Fuji GF 30mm t-s is as close to a free lunch as I've ever seen.

Click to expand...

Have you worked with one? It's a great lens with clunky handling that I wouldn't describe as a free lunch while you have to complicate your workflow with C1 until Adobe get their act together, thanks to the characteristics of the distortion.

If the masking tools were better in C1 I'd happily make the switch just to use this lens pain free, because it's that good.