dengx

Lives in Poland Poland
Joined on Apr 16, 2011

Comments

Total: 76, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (486 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boris F: OMD EM-5 is look better on the studio comparison. Take, for example word "IRISH" from the scene.

This is because the EM-5 output from Adobe is quite sharpened by default. X100s Adobe defaults on the contrary is like a watching something via a muddy window.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 17:32 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (486 comments in total)
In reply to:

geejay101: In the studio comparison the x100 raw files look better that the x100s raws. But in jpeg the x100s looks much better. Either the raw processing software was sub-optimal with the x100s or the in-camera processing of the x100s is very good.

It seems with this camera one must shoot jpegs.

Again - this is due testing procedures of dpreview and the default unsharpened output of Adobe products.
In real life you can use other RAW converters like Aperture, C1, dcraw or just sharpen the output and it looks much better.

Just download the trial of C1, the RAF files from dpreview and see for yourself.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 17:29 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Review (486 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bamboojled: I looked at the Image quality compared to in Raw...
Am I missing something, or are all the samples from the FujiX100s super soft in all ISO's by comparison to the Ricoh GR and the Coolpix A?
Please somebody compare the different cameras in Raw and tell my that I am mistaken, because even the Fuji X100 is muuuuch sharper.

It's Adobe's default output.
It looks much, much better in other RAW converters like C1 or Iridient or dcraw.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 06:38 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: May I ask if lens correction is available?
Only in the pro version?

Both.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2013 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

John McCormack: Downloaded a Trial version of the Express version and it crashes whenever I try to edit an image.

That one may be a help:
http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=13326

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2013 at 21:31 UTC

They still have a promo for the Express version - EUR 34,50

Even with the features cut down - it's a steal really.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2013 at 21:30 UTC as 13th comment
On article Leica announces X Vario zoom compact with APS-C sensor (756 comments in total)

I can see people at Fujifilm and Sony celebrating today...

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 15:10 UTC as 288th comment
In reply to:

SunnyFlorida: $900 for a Manual Focus 32mm F/1.8 ??? Good Luck!

Direct link to full size samples:
http://dunkelkammer.co/blog/entry/hands-on-x-mount-fuji-vs-carl-zeiss-touit

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2013 at 23:32 UTC
In reply to:

SunnyFlorida: $900 for a Manual Focus 32mm F/1.8 ??? Good Luck!

You have to remember that these lenses are not the top-notch ZF lenses but only their smaller and younger brothers.

http://www.fujirumors.com/zeiss-touit-vs-fuji-xf-sample-images-and-feedback-pch-store-brussel/

There are full size samples.

Crop them the same, do a blind test and it's hard to tell what is what (not looking at the busy bokeh of Zeiss).

Slightly different microcontrast (in favour of Zeiss, but only a notch), slightly sharper (in favour of Fuji) and subtle colour differences (hard to tell).

Then it's busy donuts (Zeiss) versus more creamy Fuji.

Good to have a choice though.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2013 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

21s: There is no reason to buy these lenses for FUJI users :>

@Guidenet
I don't think that these lenses are better optically than already top notch Fujinons XF14 and XF35. The differences so far are hardly noticeable and some in favour of Fuji and some in favour of Zeiss.

Then it all comes down to the focal lengths (12 vs 14 and to some extent 32 vs 35) and their unique renderings (microcontrast, bokeh, colours).

Some will like Zeiss more, some will like Fujinon.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2013 at 12:45 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Fuji must be following the Microsoft business plan.

They seem to be very fond of marketing products full of bugs, then releasing lots of firmware upgrades ("Service Pack 2?).

Does "Version 1.05" mean that this is the fifth firmware upgrade for this relatively new camera? If so, it makes you wonder why they didn't do a better job testing the camera before release.

Marty, the consequent new firmwares add automatic correction and the proper handling for the new lenses.
It couldn't be done a year ago because XF55-200 exsisted only on the paper.

This is also the very same thing that Nikon did a few days ago for D300, D300s, D700.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

kinglau711: Mr Butler,

Why are the RAWs of the X-E1 and X-Pro1 less sharp than the RAWs of any other camera like the Olympus E-M5, Canon 5D markIII, Sony Nex-7 or Nikon D7000, at 3200 ISO ?

Thank you.

Because it's not sharpened enough.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2013 at 17:16 UTC
On article Adobe releases Lightroom 4.4 and Adobe Camera Raw 7.4 (50 comments in total)
In reply to:

shutterdragon: Awesome news for those who use LR and X-Trans based cameras! But when is Adobe going to support the XF lenses?

Lightroom automagically corrects raw files for XF lenses because the metadata for the correction is in the raw file.

You cannot disable it in the Lightroom though.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2013 at 06:12 UTC
On article Just posted: Our Fujifilm XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens review (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

vodanh1982: I don't see it is sharp at f/2.8.

That's only one sample, there are many others in the sample gallery and on photozone.

And of course it's softer at f/2.8 than at f/4, it's pretty unrealistic to expect something different.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 23:07 UTC
On article Just posted: Our Fujifilm XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens review (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

vodanh1982: I don't see it is sharp at f/2.8.

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/807-fuji14f28?start=2

Here you have some samples at f/2.8 and you can judge the sharpness from these for yourself.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 22:40 UTC
On article Just posted: Our Fujifilm XF 14mm 1:2.8 R lens review (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

p5freak: A brand new f2,8 prime lens for 799 and it is soft in the center wide open ? Thats disappointing. A Tamron 2,8/17-50 for 299 is sharper in the center wide open.

It's not.

Tamron 17-50 VC on D7000 (16mpix):

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/642-tamron175028vcdx?start=1

XF14 on X-E1 (16 mpix):

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/807-fuji14f28?start=1

Non-VC was better but still nowhere the XF14.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 20:15 UTC

"The good news also is that future upgrades will be included for free :)"

Hmmm

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2013 at 20:06 UTC as 80th comment | 2 replies
On article Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review (517 comments in total)
In reply to:

Syktasy: Why on the same ISO (6400) and the same aperture (F8) every camera has time shorter than 1/1600 and on Fuji is 1/1000? I don't like this. I have to increase ISO to have the same time like on other camera? ISO is not a standard?

Actually nixda is right.
ISO in the digital cameras allows the manufacturer to come with whatever that manufacturer says is "right". And it still conforms to that standard then.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2013 at 09:26 UTC
On article Just posted: Fujifilm X-E1 Review (517 comments in total)
In reply to:

ogl: Relax, guys!
DPREVIEW is not independent reviewer for many years already.
They just help to sell camera of their owners. It's business and nothing else.
Dpreview is sold to Amazon on 2007.

"He who pays the piper calls the tune".

ogl, Fujifilm doesn't earn a cent running photo/camera business so they can't really fail if X system will not sell good.

Last time their imaging solutions segment provided income was the 2004.

So why do they still produce cameras? Why do they still operate in that segment that provided them loses for the consecutive 8 years?

It's Japan, they do not run photo business with great profits in mind (that is not saying that they do not care about profits at all) but because it's their company roots and pride and withdrawing it/closing it/selling it to another company would put them into bad light/shame.

And as for Fujifilm marketing - they are pretty much like a blind man in the dense fog, suggesting that they are throwing money at Amazon is pretty much good laugh.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2013 at 13:30 UTC
Total: 76, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »