Joining the EX1 club - first foliage

Thank you!

I'll get around to sharpening, eventually, but I think I'll save that for raws. I'm just pleased that the camera delivered such a nice and accurate color response under difficult conditions in jpg, since I've read the EX1 does jpegs badly. This is actually usable, at least at web sizes.

MGJA wrote:

I got it with a three-part split-on-lens-extension cap, which makes a world of difference in usability, too. Not having to deal with the cap makes it a very comfortable walk-around. Highly recommended.

I really hated the EX1 at first, all down to that screw on cap, after about six weeks or so I replaced it with the try-cap, it was like having a brand new camera all over again, wouldn't change it now except perhaps for an EXII if it ever appears.

In case you are not aware there is a hidden bonus at the wide end if you shoot raw. Samsung's raw is not supported by Aperture so I convert them to DNG with Adobe's free converter and if you compare the field of view of the jpeg to the raw there's a lot more included in the raw file. I understand this is something to do with lens distortion correction in the in-camera software. Looks fine to me but then perhaps I'm not picky enough. I don't know if this happens if you use Samsung's supplied raw conversion software.

Enjoy.
--
CD

Chris Dennehy wrote:

MGJA wrote:

I got it with a three-part split-on-lens-extension cap, which makes a world of difference in usability, too. Not having to deal with the cap makes it a very comfortable walk-around. Highly recommended.

I really hated the EX1 at first, all down to that screw on cap, after about six weeks or so I replaced it with the try-cap, it was like having a brand new camera all over again, wouldn't change it now except perhaps for an EXII if it ever appears.

In case you are not aware there is a hidden bonus at the wide end if you shoot raw. Samsung's raw is not supported by Aperture so I convert them to DNG with Adobe's free converter and if you compare the field of view of the jpeg to the raw there's a lot more included in the raw file. I understand this is something to do with lens distortion correction in the in-camera software. Looks fine to me but then perhaps I'm not picky enough. I don't know if this happens if you use Samsung's supplied raw conversion software.

Enjoy.
--
CD

The difference in cropping of the RAW file depending on software is a bit odd.

I use the supplied Silkypix as well as RawTherapee. By default Rawtherapee does not apply any distortion correction, and gives a somewhat wider angle of view. But, even when the curved lines are straightened using the lens distortion correction in Rawtherapee, the angle of view is still a bit wider than silkypix.

But - it turns out that Silkypix too can give access to some of the extra pixels around the edges, by tweaking the cropping settings. I don't know why this isn't done by default.

Within Silkypix, one of the buttons in the cropping tool (pair of scissors) is titled: "Enable all data including invalid area in RAW data", and this allows access to the full image - but of course there is still the loss due to distortion correction.

Regards,
Peter

Thanks for the info about wider raw, folks. I had no idea, and you can never hive too much wide angle...

Glad to see others who enjoy the automatic cap too - I seriously couldn't enjoy a camera where I had to fiddle with it for every shot.

You're off to a good start. Nice detail in your shot, too.
--
All the best,
Jim

Photographers take pictures; the camera is only a tool.

Thank you!

Here are two pictures showing the camera with the auto-cap, for those wondering how it works. The blades flip out when the lens extracts and flib back in closed when it retracts. No fiddling to do, everything automatic, and the camera is always ready to go. Gotta love it.

MGJA wrote:

Thank you!

Here are two pictures showing the camera with the auto-cap, for those wondering how it works. The blades flip out when the lens extracts and flib back in closed when it retracts. No fiddling to do, everything automatic, and the camera is always ready to go. Gotta love it.

Actually you are right about the lens cap, it's a good idea.

But putting it into perspective, I have an old camera from another brand which reacts badly to power-on with the lens cap attached. It makes whirring and grinding noises, then emits a series of loud beeps (which cannot be turned off), then whirs, clicks and grinds some more, beeps several more times and then shuts down. The whole sequence lasts nearly thirty seconds, and can be triggered either by the shoulder-strap hitting the on-off switch, or similar when putting the camera into a case or pocket.

Ok - rant over.

But it does make me see the EX1 as positively civilised by comparison, and so I don't see it as a problem.

Regards,
Peter

sherwoodpete wrote:

The difference in cropping of the RAW file depending on software is a bit odd.

I use the supplied Silkypix as well as RawTherapee. By default Rawtherapee does not apply any distortion correction, and gives a somewhat wider angle of view. But, even when the curved lines are straightened using the lens distortion correction in Rawtherapee, the angle of view is still a bit wider than silkypix.

But - it turns out that Silkypix too can give access to some of the extra pixels around the edges, by tweaking the cropping settings. I don't know why this isn't done by default.

Within Silkypix, one of the buttons in the cropping tool (pair of scissors) is titled: "Enable all data including invalid area in RAW data", and this allows access to the full image - but of course there is still the loss due to distortion correction.

Regards,
Peter

It's interesting to note that other RAW converters get the extra wide area as well, as MGJA said you can never have enough wide. I only new it happened when converted through DNG to Aperture.

I have a feeling that the RAW files are slightly warmer in colour than the jpeg.

The original tri-cap was developed by Ricoh for their GX100/200 series cameras on which I have always suspected the EX1 was based. Somebody in China realized a good thing when they saw it and the rest is history. The thing about the tri-cap is to get the tension on the springs just right so it will not impede the lens motor.
--
CD

What similarities are there between the Ricoh and EX1?

Chris Dennehy wrote:

sherwoodpete wrote:

The difference in cropping of the RAW file depending on software is a bit odd.

I use the supplied Silkypix as well as RawTherapee. By default Rawtherapee does not apply any distortion correction, and gives a somewhat wider angle of view. But, even when the curved lines are straightened using the lens distortion correction in Rawtherapee, the angle of view is still a bit wider than silkypix.

But - it turns out that Silkypix too can give access to some of the extra pixels around the edges, by tweaking the cropping settings. I don't know why this isn't done by default.

Within Silkypix, one of the buttons in the cropping tool (pair of scissors) is titled: "Enable all data including invalid area in RAW data", and this allows access to the full image - but of course there is still the loss due to distortion correction.

Regards,
Peter

It's interesting to note that other RAW converters get the extra wide area as well, as MGJA said you can never have enough wide. I only new it happened when converted through DNG to Aperture.

I have a feeling that the RAW files are slightly warmer in colour than the jpeg.

The original tri-cap was developed by Ricoh for their GX100/200 series cameras on which I have always suspected the EX1 was based. Somebody in China realized a good thing when they saw it and the rest is history. The thing about the tri-cap is to get the tension on the springs just right so it will not impede the lens motor.
--
CD

sherwoodpete wrote:

But putting it into perspective, I have an old camera from another brand which reacts badly to power-on with the lens cap attached. It makes whirring and grinding noises, then emits a series of loud beeps (which cannot be turned off), then whirs, clicks and grinds some more, beeps several more times and then shuts down. The whole sequence lasts nearly thirty seconds, and can be triggered either by the shoulder-strap hitting the on-off switch, or similar when putting the camera into a case or pocket.

Not a Panny, by any chance? Describes mine to a T.

But it does make me see the EX1 as positively civilised by comparison, and so I don't see it as a problem.

Indeed, there is no problem. None whatsoever with the EX1 and the tri-cap. Fast, silent, smooth. A match made in heaven.

I've already stopped turning the screen in against the body. I reserve my coat pocket for the EX1, so there's nothing to scratch it. And with this cap, I can snap a picture instantly by pulling the cam out of the pocket and just framing. Street shooter heaven.

Or at least it will be when I get around to reading the manual and finding out how I can manual focus lock at infinity or at the hyperfocal distance.

So I managed to drop my original EX-1 into the sea some years ago. And went around missing it. And missing it some more.

And then, one shows up on my local craigslist for close to nothing. It is delightful to play with it again. Such a glorious little fun thing.

Yes, getting down for the low-angle. I had missed that with my NX1000...

MGJA wrote:

So I managed to drop my original EX-1 into the sea some years ago. And went around missing it. And missing it some more.

And then, one shows up on my local craigslist for close to nothing. It is delightful to play with it again. Such a glorious little fun thing.

Yes, getting down for the low-angle. I had missed that with my NX1000...

nice

Yes, it is. There are many better cameras, but none that is quite so much fun to shoot with, at least for me.

That looks very attractive. My problem is that when we start to talk about that sort of money, I'm finding ILC:s kinda irresistible. My NX1000 with the 30 or my NEX-6 with the kit are no larger, really, and they seem so much more flexible.