BozillaNZ
Lives in
Auckland, New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a
Software Engineer
Has a website at
flickr.com/photos/bozillanz
Joined on
May 16, 2012
|
Comments
 |  |  |
| Sproing! by BrassGlass from My Best Photo of the Fortnight | Roman snow globe by Surfwalker from Lens Ball Challenge III | _MG_2302 battersea 2 1500 by Pavel Kohout from Remains |
Preparing to sell my Canon collection, keep the 24-70, 70-200 and buy this baby. Canon I've been waited long enough, I don't want to wait anymore. This will be done in two weeks time. You had your chance and you blew it too many times. Bye~ Oh, while I'm at it, I might as well grab an A6000 for crop motions!
tomtom50: I think Richard Butler goes off-track when he understates the usefulness of APS-C lenses on FF bodies.
The 36MP sensor has a completely useful 16MP APS-C crop. The FF sensor doesn't make the body much larger (Isn't an a7R smaller than an E-M1?).
So as soon as 36MP FF sensor prices drop enough so the price isn't enormous FF bodies make all the sense in the world. For a long time many claimed FF sensors would always cost way more, but do we still believe that as FF bodies edge ever closer to the magic $999 body price?
Butler makes the case that buying FF lenses before you have a FF body distorts decisions. Correct. But how about the opposite: buying (smaller, lighter, cheaper) APS-C lenses that you will happily use on FF makes a lot of sense, and it is an upgrade path rather than a big jump.
@ tomtom50: Yes LP/mm can be lower on the FF, but when you look at it the other way: LP/IH (LP per image height) is actually higher, and that it what counts using the same output/viewing size.
Limbsjones: There is very little difference in image quality going from M4/3 to APS-C...i don't see why people are flocking to fuji...fuji have a larger uglier bulkier system with lenses that are just growing in size, and they are trying to match the speed and quality to what Olympus and Panasonic are putting out...it's insane really...go full frame or go m4/3...aps-c is still this awkward middle.
Fuji user states that APS-C is far better than M4/3 since the sensor is a "LOT" BIGGER! Yet they say difference between APS-C and FF is negligible. I guess love is blind...
(unknown member): Nice, possibly well-made. Are its electrical circuits using proper tin/lead solder, or will it stop working like all the others do?
Come on it is 2015 and I think it is about time that photographers equipment became again as long-lived and reliable as it was before the EU and others decided to RoHS everything we spend money on, forcing us to repurchase over and over again. My kids are in their teens now, but in their lifetime they will have to replace their DSLRs and lenses 7 or 8 times unless something is done, killing the planet and exhausting natural resources in the process, not to mention the west becoming utterly dependent on those of China and Taiwan and Japan in the most unhealthy way.
The will die in 10 years that's for sure, otherwise where will those company get money from? It's consume consume consume era!
km25: A Canon 24-70 wt is 805g, 1.77 lbs. The Fuji only is 655g, 1.44 lbs. All fast and wide lens are goinr to large, but this is a one lens for just about everything. Remember, the X-PRO is APS-C and some cameras like the Nikon 7000 series is nearly as big as nomal FF Nikon. The lens factor is 50% less, the wt factor will about the same. Did you exspect an 16-55mm F.95 should only wiegh as much as an 35mm F/1.4. They make other lens that cover this range that lighter, buy one of those. This a Pro level and they work for a living.
FF 2.8 and APS-C 2.8 is not the same sh!t! Otherwise my iPhone has a f2.5 lens which makes it faster and better than your 16-55 2.8 right?
This is almost as big and as heavy as the Canon's FF 24-70mm 2.8 II (and no OIS too!), well done Fuji, you pushed your gear another step towards a full frame DSLR, in terms of size and weight!
Another over processed HDR crap
Zorak: 1/80s, 200mm, handheld I presume ?
Impressive, as is the picture of the man walking at 12800 iso... I don't think my A7 can put off this result, I'm quite surprised... Have they changed anything on the sensor or internal processing, or is it just my eyes?
Same can be said for any kind of image stabilization. If you want to shoot moving objects, either larger aperture or cleaner high ISO will be more useful to IS of any kind.
Zorak: 1/80s, 200mm, handheld I presume ?
Impressive, as is the picture of the man walking at 12800 iso... I don't think my A7 can put off this result, I'm quite surprised... Have they changed anything on the sensor or internal processing, or is it just my eyes?
With the 70-200 2.8 IS II, I can hand hold 1/10s at 200mm. I wonder if the IBIS can achieve this kind of stabilization?
Morpho Hunter: Presumably, in return for the superb IBIS, Olympus will get a superb sensor for the E-M5 replacement from Sony....?
11-axis of course, one for each of our (meta) physical dimensions to capture the strings in its full glory!
Phase detect AF for phones, hehe, as if phones need to focus at all.
graybalanced: That sensor is so sensitive, you have to be careful what you say around it.
Look at the bottom of the image, it's already blushing!
Sidath Senanayake: I think my RX100 (version 1) does considerably better than the samples here. And that's with looking at 20MP at 100% rather than 12MP.
I was hoping that the image quality in this camera would justify it's noticeably larger size (compared to the RX100 series). Sadly it looks as though that isn't the case :(
Well HowaboutIPhone since that's what people take with them on holiday? Then what's your purpose here?
mick232: Once people start getting laughed at because they are shooting with Canon gear, the alarm bells should be rining.
Why the f#%k do I care what you think about my gear? Get a life!
BozillaNZ: ePhotoZine has published more photos, the first one has raw:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-sample-photos-26312
And I've downloaded the P1050403.RW2, converted to CR2 using my project CR2Pana, and developed it using Canon RAW Image Task, the result is here:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=49920817883891967283
The color and sharpness is very good! It's funny that Canon's software helped this camera to unleash it's potential but neverless it's doable and I will finish the CR2Pana's LX100 support by the time it's on the market!
Those black spots are dead pixels, easy to remove if I want to. And you know what, I have a fetish on over-sharpened image. I like them and that's my style. Feel free to disagree. The image quality this camera can provide satisfies my standard and I will buy it. Noise in the sky? yes, that's typical M4/3, all M4/3 does that. and a compromise I can accept for ease of use, for the times I don't want to take the full FF system.
ePhotoZine has published more photos, the first one has raw:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100-sample-photos-26312
And I've downloaded the P1050403.RW2, converted to CR2 using my project CR2Pana, and developed it using Canon RAW Image Task, the result is here:
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=49920817883891967283
The color and sharpness is very good! It's funny that Canon's software helped this camera to unleash it's potential but neverless it's doable and I will finish the CR2Pana's LX100 support by the time it's on the market!
dethis2: RAW conversion with Rawtherapee ..
Looks like LX100's sensor is very much alike GH4's regarding color filters and raw white level.
You need to add the following paragraph in RT's camconst.json file
{ // Quality X, preliminary support
"make_model": "Panasonic DMC-LX100",
"dcraw_matrix": [ 7122,-2108,-512,-3155,11201,2231,-541,1423,5045 ],
"ranges": {
"black": 16, // 16 is BL offstet calculated from exif data.
"white": [
{ "iso": 100, "levels": 2700 },
{ "iso": 125, "levels": 3100 }, // gh4 data
{ "iso": [ 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, 500, 640, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600, 2000, 2500, 3200, 4000, 5000, 6400, 12800, 25600 ], "levels": 4080 }
]
}
},
jpeg
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0NqktTgc54sa1JCWGhWNXM1dWc/view?usp=sharing
Settings
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0NqktTgc54sYmxmU2ZKbEh1Um8/view?usp=sharing
From my experience the LX-100 sensor more resembles GX7's sensor than GH4's. As I've tried color matrix of both and the GX7's looked better.
BozillaNZ: I've got a developed raw image of the studio shot from Image Resources. This file is converted to Canon CR2 format using my own developed tool and then converted to JPG using, hold on to your seat, the Canon RAW Image Task. The color rendition is a lot more Canon-like and the sharpness is very good.
LX-100 SOOC:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-lx100/LX100hSLI00200NR1.HTM
LX-100 to Canon CR2, developed in RAW Image Task:
http://bozillanz.minus.com/i/y3rkp5ZGXXBY
Without noise reduction, ISO 3200 actually doesn't look half bad. Yes there is noise, but the detail is also good. IMO it is better than in camera JPG's watercolor painting.
Keep in mind this is without NR (because RIT doesn't support and NR): A dash of chroma NR and it will look even better. ISO 3200:
http://bozillanz.minus.com/i/bmcF0dulR752l
Another I find is the complete lack of distortion and CA in the tele end of the lens. I don't have any wide end raw shots so don't know whether the lens is good at the wide end too.
BozillaNZ: I've got a developed raw image of the studio shot from Image Resources. This file is converted to Canon CR2 format using my own developed tool and then converted to JPG using, hold on to your seat, the Canon RAW Image Task. The color rendition is a lot more Canon-like and the sharpness is very good.
LX-100 SOOC:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-lx100/LX100hSLI00200NR1.HTM
LX-100 to Canon CR2, developed in RAW Image Task:
http://bozillanz.minus.com/i/y3rkp5ZGXXBY
Yes but currently it is still under heavy development... I will create a more descriptive website and share it very soon. Current result looks really promising as it gives Canon rendition to all Panasonic M4/3 models!
I've got a developed raw image of the studio shot from Image Resources. This file is converted to Canon CR2 format using my own developed tool and then converted to JPG using, hold on to your seat, the Canon RAW Image Task. The color rendition is a lot more Canon-like and the sharpness is very good.
LX-100 SOOC:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-lx100/LX100hSLI00200NR1.HTM
LX-100 to Canon CR2, developed in RAW Image Task:
http://bozillanz.minus.com/i/y3rkp5ZGXXBY