|
Maybe post the actual ooc jpg
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
rio posted:Maybe post the actual ooc jpg I didn't shoot jpegs that day. I'm perfectly content with the results I get from lightroom. Some days I shoot jpegs if I know I want to beam them over to my phone but often times I don't. Fuji's jpegs are great, yes. Fuji's raws are great too though and I'm comfortable with a lightroom workflow where I just batch process the raws on import and then do some minor adjustments as needed. My point with all of this is stop the pixel peeping, nobody complained about the image so why does it matter if you just use the jpeg's straight OOC or you edit Raw in lightroom, capture one, or other? The results are fantastic regardless, lightroom isn't ruining anyone's files. If Adobe has trouble with a new camera's sensor I can almost guarantee it'll be resolved in a release or so, they are after all the industry leader and their reputation is on the line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
The results are good from LR but I won't use it again with xpro2 files because it's crazy slower than capture one on my machine. It was fine with the XT1 files but the new ones not so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
So I shot a bunch of video with the a7 over this weekend, it's a really solid camera (and this 30 dollar basic mic helped a lot. It is a really good camera and great camecorder though I wish there was a G-MASTER 16-35
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:The results are good from LR but I won't use it again with xpro2 files because it's crazy slower than capture one on my machine. It was fine with the XT1 files but the new ones not so much. I couldn't see any issues with the few RAF files I put through LR, but the amount of latency was ridiculous when editing, so I stick with jpegs. I just snagged capture one though so that may change. I messed with it a bit last night and I think once I get use to the controls/flow, I might like it better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:Sorry guys, I'm a bad person, it was a trick. They were both the same raw file just processed two different ways in Lightroom. First was the Provia profile albeit with a healthy saturation bump, second was the Velvia profile. Lightroom's raw processing of Xtrans .RAF files works just great, neither of these took more than maybe 20-30 seconds of processing to get the results I wanted. Don't pretend like Lightroom's handling of Fuji raws should ever be a factor in making a camera buying decision. If you like using a workflow that includes captureone or importing tiffs or whatever then great, by all means keep doing it, but stop pretending like Lightroom struggles with Fuji raw files. It handles them just fine. The biggest issues are with foliage, which your shot didn't really include. If someone cares about corner performance wide open, or color fringing, or whatever and factors those things into lens purchases, I'm not sure why they'd leave quality on the table for their RAW processor. It's just another pixel-peeping issue that people are concerned with but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not like any of the people that acknowledge there are some minor issues with LR demosiacing in certain conditions are asking to stop talking about it and then going to the trouble of creating fake comparisons to prove their point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
Small details like foliage, or even the dogs fur to an extent get wrecked or turned into this weird painterly smudge by LR's sharpening in a way that doesnt happen with other raw files. That and the very long time it takes to do anything are the only issues I have with LR now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Saros posted:Small details like foliage, or even the dogs fur to an extent get wrecked or turned into this weird painterly smudge by LR's sharpening in a way that doesnt happen with other raw files. That and the very long time it takes to do anything are the only issues I have with LR now. I basically do landscape and fine art stuff with an x100t and once I figured out the detail thing I've never had an issue with processing raw files: http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2014/10/x-trans-sharpening/
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
I've seen that before but it doesnt seem to work for me  anyway i'm trying to figure out capture one now, does anyone know where I can find the equivalent of Lightrooms 'blacks' and 'whites' sliders? Nothing seems to match and I don't want to have to fiddle with the curves unless I have to.
Saros fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Sidenote - where does everyone like to get prints made online? Specifically, 8x12s. I used to use Costco (because color profiles are available from Dry Creek and Costco's printers are excellent and their 8x12s are super cheap), but here in Miami none of the Costcos have valid profiles from Dry Creek.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Sidenote - where does everyone like to get prints made online? Specifically, 8x12s. I used to use Costco (because color profiles are available from Dry Creek and Costco's printers are excellent and their 8x12s are super cheap), but here in Miami none of the Costcos have valid profiles from Dry Creek. I have been very satisfied with prints and photobooks through Adorama. Here are their color profiles. accipter fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Saros posted:I've seen that before but it doesnt seem to work for me You are gonna have to use levels or curves to adjust the black or white points.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
I recently bought an olympus m10 Mk 2 coming from a panasonic gf6. Waiting for the camera and googling a bit I've red something about the more or less hidden superfine setting. Is it worth it to use that when I'm shooting raw + jpeg or is it just a waste of space?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
Just do it, the size difference from fine is rather small and super fine sounds super good in my book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
Lots of new Fuji body and lens firmwares out now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Lots of new Fuji body and lens firmwares out now. Hey, even my old X-E1 gets a small update.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Unh the XF 16mm's filter size is 67mm? It should have the same filter size as 23mm/1.4 and 56mm/1.2 so I am encouraged to buy all three! Fuji better make the 23mm/2 share filter size with either 35mm/2 or 35mm1.4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
I picked up the 16mm and so far it rules. One question: how much vibration/noise should there be when it's focusing? The only other lens I have to compare it to is the 18-55, which is much quieter. It seems to be working/focusing well, but just wanted to double check if the noise and vibration is normal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
grahm posted:I picked up the 16mm and so far it rules. One question: how much vibration/noise should there be when it's focusing? The only other lens I have to compare it to is the 18-55, which is much quieter. It seems to be working/focusing well, but just wanted to double check if the noise and vibration is normal. You are probably thinking about the aperture shifting noise. XF lens change aperture constantly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
My main issue with the 16mm, and it's a very big one is the coma. A 16/1.4 ought to be astonishing for astrophotography but it's unusable for that. I switched to the Samyang 12mm for landscape + astro. Fuji is rumoured to be working on a 8-16/2.8. Hopefully that's rectilinear and doesn't have coma issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
I have been running into resistance with the XT-1 and concerts. I was thinking about getting a 27mm pancake, but I think security folks that don't know much about cameras, will still consider it a "professional looking" camera. What would you guys recommend for this? I was looking at the ricoh gr and the sony rx100, but they have a nice price tag with them. I was considering an x100, but fear I might run into the same issues I am with the XT1, and it's also pricey. I just discovered the x20/x30 and thought it might be decent. I need something that will look inconspicuous, takes good photos and does relative well in low light.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:I have been running into resistance with the XT-1 and concerts. I was thinking about getting a 27mm pancake, but I think security folks that don't know much about cameras, will still consider it a "professional looking" camera. what kind of lens do you have on it? around here smaller venues don't care and larger venues only care if they think it's a big telephoto.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:what kind of lens do you have on it? around here smaller venues don't care and larger venues only care if they think it's a big telephoto. Been taking the 35 f2. No problems at small venues with it. Ran into an issue at Cage the Elephant (not a fan, friend asked me to go) cause the dude argued it was a dslr. I wasn't about to check it, so wasted 25 minutes taking it back to the car.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:Been taking the 35 f2. No problems at small venues with it. Ran into an issue at Cage the Elephant (not a fan, friend asked me to go) cause the dude argued it was a dslr. I wasn't about to check it, so wasted 25 minutes taking it back to the car. Try a different entrance into the venue, or tell the guy it's not a zoom lens, just a wide angle, or ask a female friend to carry it in, or just don't take it to the show because the venue has jerks for security.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Anarkii posted:My main issue with the 16mm, and it's a very big one is the coma. A 16/1.4 ought to be astonishing for astrophotography but it's unusable for that. I switched to the Samyang 12mm for landscape + astro. Fuji is rumoured to be working on a 8-16/2.8. Hopefully that's rectilinear and doesn't have coma issues. This is pretty much unavoidable in this class of lens. Every full frame 24mm f/1.4 lens suffers from terrible coma at F/1.4. The Otus 28mm lens (which is about as good as it gets in lens design) is only slightly better WRT coma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Panasonic announced the Leica 12mm f/1.4, due out in August for $1299 http://www.43rumors.com/press-release-panasonic-lumix-g-leica-dg-summilux-12mm-f1-4-asph-lens/ It'd better be as good as the 42.5mm Nocticron, given that you can get the Fuji 16mm f/1.4 for almost half the price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
surrender posted:Panasonic announced the Leica 12mm f/1.4, due out in August for $1299 Neeeaaaat
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
20% off at Olympus's refurb store with code LOVESUMMER. The 7-14 Pro and 12mm are already sold out, but you can get a 12-40 Pro for a bit over $500
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
surrender posted:20% off at Olympus's refurb store with code LOVESUMMER. The 7-14 Pro and 12mm are already sold out, but you can get a 12-40 Pro for a bit over $500 Yeah, they have those nice 25mm f/1.8 lenses too and i'm tempted to snag one
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
drat graymarket 40-150 pro is cheaper than the recon + 20% off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:drat graymarket 40-150 pro is cheaper than the recon + 20% off. Link?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
tax dependent http://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-M-ZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-40-150mm-f2-8-PRO-Lens-for-M4-3-M43-S5428-/201226346392?rmvSB=true
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
I still can't say enough good things about the 40-150mm f/2.8, and may finally be able to pull the trigger on the 300mm f/4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
The Hassy medium-format mirrorless just leaked: http://imgur.com/6aDSLdi Exact sensor size unknown, but the mount definitely snugly fits it. $9k for the camera, two lenses available, a $2,300 45mm f/3.5 and a $2,700 90mm f/3.2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
It's gotta be the same Sony CMOS 50 mp used by Phase One, Pentax and Hassy. 44mm by 33mm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:It's gotta be the same Sony CMOS 50 mp used by Phase One, Pentax and Hassy. 44mm by 33mm. Almost certainly. Which is why it strikes me as strange that they've sized the mount so tightly; it precludes them from going up to a 645 or larger sensor size in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
I think they could have made a better starting lens selection. I'm 35mm terms, they've got a 32mm and a 63mm. Too close, IMO. They need a portrait lens. (>85mm effective) That being said, I think this is gonna be a good system for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
thetzar posted:The Hassy medium-format mirrorless just leaked: holy poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Yeah, they have those nice 25mm f/1.8 lenses too and i'm tempted to snag one The 25mm and 45mm both rule and I have little desire to pick up the 12-40 Pro, although having the 12mm focal length would be nice
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
surrender posted:The 25mm and 45mm both rule and I have little desire to pick up the 12-40 Pro, although having the 12mm focal length would be nice If you have a couple primes in that range then yeah you likely don't need the 12-40, unless you really want the sealing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 20:06
|
|