Comparative Moose writes:
For all but very large, perfectly executed display sizes, there's no
practical difference. From a processing standpoint, I find the Oly
files easier to get right.
Indeed a very nice analysis--hats off to CM--thanks.
One other thing that I think has been mentioned of why Bayer files can
be easier to get right:
Color filter arrays (CFA) have trade offs by nature. Xtrans designed
so the "green" raw channel has more coverage but less positional
symmetry than in a Bayer sensor and as a direct result there is less
high-frequency luminance "miscalculations" in the interpolation, giving
lower noise in raw conversion-(thus placing a premium on performance at
high ISO's over base ISO). The larger B to B and R to R distances
necessitate a large chroma smoothing radius resulting in "watercolor"
effects or artifacts--balance seems different with different
converters. Accuraw allows one to adjust the balance though have never
used it and have not looked into this issue for well over 6mos.
https://sites.google.com/site/accuraw/
That be said the ergonomics and appearance of the Fuji's are often
wonderful and the lenses usually have superb rendering as well.
Wish I were smitten by Xtrans, Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|