|
Post
john ashpool fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Mar 19, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
john ashpool posted:So, the Fujifilm FinePix X100. Its not a compact, but its pretty drat small. My question is, how(if at all) would you focus with the hybrid viewfinder? It hasn't been really clear if the optical part is rangefinder coupled, but if you are viewing a live view out of the sensor, it could just magnify the middle like most manual focus cameras of this type. It could also project Xs or red squares in the frame and blink them when focus is achieved on the sensor under those marks. It's not 100% clear but I am fairly sure they will have a solution for both live view and optical viewfinder modes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 11:14
|
|
|
john ashpool posted:So, the Fujifilm FinePix X100. Its not a compact, but its pretty drat small. My question is, how(if at all) would you focus with the hybrid viewfinder? Yeah, this is the big unanswered question in terms of officially released information. I'd guess that they still haven't finalised how they intend to do it, and are still playing around with various solutions like the ones poopinmymouth mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 12:32
|
|
|
I got my S95 last week, I'm pretty impressed so far. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of indoor shots seem to have a yellowish cast to them, is this from not setting the white balance?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
qirex posted:I got my S95 last week, I'm pretty impressed so far. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of indoor shots seem to have a yellowish cast to them, is this from not setting the white balance? Indoor shots lit from normal light bulbs will always have a yellow tint or be "warm". It's a pretty quick and painless fix in post. Just use whatever adjustment sliders you have to "cool" the photo, which the exact process will obviously depend upon what software you are using. You can probably change it on the camera too, but honestly I never change my white balance settings as its easy to forget to change it back when you go outside. subx fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Nov 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 18:07
|
|
|
If you shoot jpeg you kinda need to get it right. If you shoot raw just give no fucks and fix them in a batch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
After about 3000 pictures my s95 started throwing a lens error; good thing it's under warranty! No regrets though, I'll get a case for the next one to keep it fresh and clean
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
Is the Canon software the only way to work with the S95's RAW files? I can't get 'em to open in Photoshop CS4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 03:34
|
|
|
Need to update your raw convert in CS4.. seems like 5.7 is the last version for cs4, but it does not support the S95. So you will need CS5/Lightroom with ACR 6.x.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
Actually, even the latest final versions of ACR don't support the S95 yet. Support is in the release candidate for 6.3, which is here: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cameraraw6-3/
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 03:55
|
|
|
I don't shoot in RAW and don't have Photoshop at home (barring :files:) - I didn't even know your computer needed the 'right' software to even read RAW from particular cameras...does GIMP or Paint.Net have RAW support, or should I just load the Canon software and convert it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 10:05
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:does GIMP or Paint.Net have RAW support Out of the box, nope. I think you can get unofficial plugins for popular models, but nothing particularly new. krushgroove posted:should I just load the Canon software and convert it? Pretty much this. RAW files are specific to individual camera models, so software has to be written to support your type of camera. In the case of the S95, you're stuck with Canon or the Adobe release candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 10:50
|
|
|
Ah OK - I've never shot in RAW before but might start very soon, the S95 is my first RAW-capable camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 10:58
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Ah OK - I've never shot in RAW before but might start very soon, the S95 is my first RAW-capable camera. As if that wasn't complex enough, there's also different types of RAW files - it's not one unified format. There's a semi-standardised format called DNG (Digital Negative) that's Adobe's baby and widely supported, but people like Canon and Nikon (if I recall correctly) have their own systems. My missus gets sent quite a lot of RAW files by pro photographers for her work, and she spent most of last week spitting venom about Nikon's system for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 11:26
|
|
|
I'd be curious to know why. On the raw issue: I just convert all my poo poo to DNG. 10 years from now I don't know there'll be good software to read my NEF files, but DNG will most likely be fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 12:19
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:Is the Canon software the only way to work with the S95's RAW files? I can't get 'em to open in Photoshop CS4. You should be able to use Adobe's free DNG converter and then open the DNG files in CS4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:I don't shoot in RAW and don't have Photoshop at home (barring :files:) - I didn't even know your computer needed the 'right' software to even read RAW from particular cameras...does GIMP or Paint.Net have RAW support, or should I just load the Canon software and convert it? I'd highly recommend using a piece of software to manage/edit your photos. If you're on the mac just use iPhoto and if you're on a PC I heard Picasa is good. Both are free and will read raws (though they may not be able to read S95 files just yet, they will very soon). If you want something more professional Lightroom is great and if you're on a mac you have the additional choice of using Aperture. These programs cost money but they're the best things out there for editing and managing your photos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 21:01
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:You should be able to use Adobe's free DNG converter and then open the DNG files in CS4. That's based on ACR and doesn't support the S95 yet. Support has to be individually written for every RAW camera you want to convert. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
So I bought my fiancée a Sony W390 (W380 in the US?). It has a tendency to over expose everything, especially when using flash. I did a few un-scientific tests against a very inexpensive Samsung, and even the Samsung managed to properly expose scenes and compensate for the flash. Is this a trait of most cybershots, or did I get a bad one? I'm definitely going to be buying an SD4000 after this I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I'd highly recommend using a piece of software to manage/edit your photos. If you're on the mac just use iPhoto and if you're on a PC I heard Picasa is good. Both are free and will read raws (though they may not be able to read S95 files just yet, they will very soon). If you want something more professional Lightroom is great and if you're on a mac you have the additional choice of using Aperture. These programs cost money but they're the best things out there for editing and managing your photos. I use Picasa at home to upload stuff to Google, so I'll give that a try, thanks  If it doesn't work I guess I can try out the Canon software, I haven't loaded it yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:So I bought my fiancée a Sony W390 (W380 in the US?). It has a tendency to over expose everything, especially when using flash. I did a few un-scientific tests against a very inexpensive Samsung, and even the Samsung managed to properly expose scenes and compensate for the flash. For what it is worth, I have always found that most P&Ss tend to over expose on flash for me. I now usually leave them all dialled in at -1/-2 stops flash comp. That said, I am not a big flash fan anyway and prefer to use natural light as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
john ashpool posted:So, the Fujifilm FinePix X100. Its not a compact, but its pretty drat small. My question is, how(if at all) would you focus with the hybrid viewfinder? Just got sent this from Fuji: With manual focus selected, focusing is achieved using the focus ring around the lens barrel. A distance indication bar enables you to pre-focus if required, or you can simply use the electronic viewfinder to focus accurately. There is, however, no rangefinder focusing capability. There's a few other minor detail updates there now too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 15:49
|
|
|
hairysammoth posted:Just got sent this from Fuji: Well that pretty much kills most of the appeal of the X100.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
HPL posted:Well that pretty much kills most of the appeal of the X100. For some, certainly. I'm not hugely surprised though. For me, the combination of a fast prime lens, APS-C sensor, fast operation, and that viewfinder is still enough to make it really stand out. If nothing else, I'm hoping it encourages a rash of similar products across the board - it's been a glaring gap in the market for a while now. I'm also hoping they manage to stick to the rumoured price point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
hairysammoth posted:For some, certainly. I'm not hugely surprised though. I think Fuji is making a major mistake here. You don't make a camera look like that and charge that much without having rangefinder focusing, even if it's just a simulated mode that uses the AF sensors for data. Sony or Samsung could easily release something very comparable stylistically and wipe the X100 off the map in a second. If the X100 were $500 I would say it's fine but if they're going to be getting up in the $1000+ territory, they had better be bringing something awesome to the table to compete with the other APS-C and m4/3 mirrorless camera systems otherwise they're competing against the likes of the GF1 with the 20mm f/1.7.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
HPL posted:I think Fuji is making a major mistake here. You don't make a camera look like that and charge that much without having rangefinder focusing, even if it's just a simulated mode that uses the AF sensors for data. Sony or Samsung could easily release something very comparable stylistically and wipe the X100 off the map in a second. If the X100 were $500 I would say it's fine but if they're going to be getting up in the $1000+ territory, they had better be bringing something awesome to the table to compete with the other APS-C and m4/3 mirrorless camera systems otherwise they're competing against the likes of the GF1 with the 20mm f/1.7. The reason I want this over the m4/3 is that it has a usable viewfinder. I am not sure if I'll use optical + AF overlay and trust it, or use the EVF mode most, but I am down for a preorder at the Icelandic dealer, and he says they should get them in same time as the US, so I'll be posting my review when I get it. I mean, I can't really verify focus has been achieved (purely based on what looks blurry vs not) with my 5D and it has a much larger viewfinder. When the AF square blinks, I trust what's under it is focused, and the x100 can be used exactly like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
HPL posted:I think Fuji is making a major mistake here. You don't make a camera look like that and charge that much without having rangefinder focusing, even if it's just a simulated mode that uses the AF sensors for data. Sony or Samsung could easily release something very comparable stylistically and wipe the X100 off the map in a second. If the X100 were $500 I would say it's fine but if they're going to be getting up in the $1000+ territory, they had better be bringing something awesome to the table to compete with the other APS-C and m4/3 mirrorless camera systems otherwise they're competing against the likes of the GF1 with the 20mm f/1.7. Ah, I read it differently - I took that to mean that there may be a simulated rangefinder mode in the electronic viewfinder, just no optical rangefinder built into the optical side of their funky hybrid system. It's still unclear how this will work. They say: "you can simply use the electronic viewfinder to focus accurately". They still haven't told us exactly how though... I do agree that a lot of people may simply go for an m4/3 system instead. Speaking for myself though (and I'd guess I'm not completely alone in this), the lack of interchangeable lens is actually part of the appeal of this camera. The competition for the X100 isn't the GF1 for me, it's the X1, a camera so far out of my practical price range it's no longer visible with the naked eye (and not actually that great by most accounts). I agree that Sony, Samsung et al. could very easily produce something along these lines, but people have been clamouring for them (or more usually, Canon or Nikon) to do just that for a while now, and they've all seemed singularly unwilling to. There have been rumours about one of the big dogs producing a proper digital rangefinder floating about for a few years - maybe Fuji catching the drop on all of them will encourage someone else to do try and follow suit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 18:06
|
|
|
I think some people forget the main draw of a rangefinder. It isn't the focusing accuracy, because all RFs have focusing errors all over the place with parallax and near/far inaccuracies. The main draws are: 1. small size/weight while still maintaining large film/sensor 2. only one side of your face is covered, rather than the whole thing, leading to a possibly less threatening and more intimate connection 3. quiet The x100 as it stands on paper fulfills all of these points.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 18:12
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:The main draws are: So does the Samsung NX100. You can get a hot shoe EVF for it. Like I said, it wouldn't take much for the competition to slap a built-in viewfinder on the corner of their mirrorless APS-C cameras to match the X100. I'll stand by my point that I think Fuji is making a tactical error. Either that or they're biting off more than they can chew.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2010 22:18
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I think some people forget the main draw of a rangefinder. It isn't the focusing accuracy, because all RFs have focusing errors all over the place with parallax and near/far inaccuracies. You're thinking of framing, not focusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 01:39
|
|
|
HPL posted:So does the Samsung NX100. You can get a hot shoe EVF for it. Like I said, it wouldn't take much for the competition to slap a built-in viewfinder on the corner of their mirrorless APS-C cameras to match the X100. I'll stand by my point that I think Fuji is making a tactical error. Either that or they're biting off more than they can chew. Er, no, a hotshoe EVF has the same face filling problems an SLR does. At least for me, hotshoe EVFs make the camera larger, clunkier and more fragile. A built in one would be ok, but having looked at the NX100 when it was announced, it doesn't draw me in at all, feature or design wise, whereas the X100 does. It's possible they won't succeed with the camera, but unless the sensor is a dog, I'm pretty sure it will be my 2nd camera for a long time. Pompous Rhombus posted:You're thinking of framing, not focusing. Oops, you're right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 01:55
|
|
|
1) I started playing with my S95 tonight and I noticed that it has a gazillion various scene modes such as beach, snow, portait and so on. As someone who's fairly familiar with the concepts of exposure from experience with DSLRs, should I be bothering with those modes at all? Basically, are they squeezing out some secret functionality from the camera that I don't have access to when shooting in the modes from grown-ups? 2) How much can I trust a S90/S95 to be smart for me? On a DSLR I would be manually adjusting ISO and White Balance and whatever else, but it's definitely more of a pain to do when you don't have dedicated buttons for those functions. Will I still get good results if I leave those on auto, or should I be crucified for even thinking that? DreadCthulhu fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Dec 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 08:23
|
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:2) How much can I trust a S90/S95 to be smart for me? On a DSLR I would be manually adjusting ISO and White Balance and whatever else, but it's definitely more of a pain to do when you don't have dedicated buttons for those functions. Will I still get good results if I leave those on auto, or should I be crucified for even thinking that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 08:33
|
|
|
Dongsmith posted:Watch your ISO personally on the S95, as the small sensor, despite being pretty decent for what it is, does not perform real hot at 800+ ISO. It takes two clicks to change ISO if I recall correctly (my s95 is in the shop). I'd say that this is the only caveat to using the auto modes. Apart from this, they are surprisingly good. Get the right mode set and it seems to do a pretty drat good job at getting the right exposure. Have a read through the manual and see exactly what each mode does, some of them are rather clever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 09:00
|
|
|
So basically try to avoid 800+ iso if possible, as the camera doesn't handle them too well?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2010 21:13
|
|
|
I have had further thoughts about the scene modes: I'd say that some of them I use and some do not. I strongly recommend reading through the manual and seeing what each one does, before you make the decision to use it or not. For example, I find that the Portrait and Landscape settings match what I would be setting the camera to if I were using it in Manual - so they are nice, fast modes for me. But the Foliage setting makes all the green over saturated and cartoonly (in my opinion), so I don't use that one. DreadCthulhu posted:So basically try to avoid 800+ iso if possible, as the camera doesn't handle them too well? I would say that 800 is where you start to see the grain appearing and is about the point where you become aware of it. but it is just about acceptable. Beyond this and it looks a bit too obvious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2010 08:42
|
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:So basically try to avoid 800+ iso if possible, as the camera doesn't handle them too well? How high you go with ISO with any camera is as much dependent on how good you are at dealing with it in post-processing as much as it is dependent on sensor quality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2010 09:58
|
|
|
plester1 posted:Actually, even the latest final versions of ACR don't support the S95 yet. Lightroom 3.3 with Camera Raw 6.3 is out now and includes S95 raw support among other things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
So how is burst speed of the S95 and shutter lag? I'm trying to convince a coworker out of buying a bridge camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:So how is burst speed of the S95 and shutter lag? I'm trying to convince a coworker out of buying a bridge camera. I don't know the stats (you can find them on review sites I'm sure) but I have a TON of photos of WRC rally cars on burst, maybe these will help: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/vgx7rYdgL89_mBUrcMRkwg?feat=directlink Also, as someone who was looking at the Lumix bridge cameras before I got the S95, really impress upon your coworker the size comparisons, specs and probably use. I think most people 'need' just an S95-level camera rather than a too-large bridge/hybrid/superzoom camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2010 23:17
|
|