Just a couple follow up comments. Curiously (perhaps not) I did the
same calculation when looking at Fuji with Xtrans in
regards to ACR and DXO--my two fave converters. ACR at the time was
terrible with the files but has since improved. C1, Photoninja
and my previously linked converters are better than ACR and allow for
some degree of control of balance of more detail with the odd chroma
smearing "water color effect" or less chroma noise with less detail.
Here is one illustrative example I found--hope the link is OK.
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/PNmoire.jpg
That be said, this is pixel peeping at high mag and does not appear to
effect most modest sized prints(reportedly print very nicely) or most
web images. This issue seems baked into the Xtrans design, though we'll
see if the software evolves enough to make it less an issue. DXO in
their forum stated they had no stomach to invest the time necessary
to totally redo their software which in no way supports Xtrans. They
made a business decision that at this time it has not been worth the
substantial time investment to rewrite their software. Personally I
don't have time to learn to optimally use a new converter (that might
not be around) if other easier/reasonable options are present.
The Moose is well known to be more adaptable with cam ergonomic
challanges than most--not a bad thing. The nice mechanical controls
for the most used adjustments just make Fuji 's pleasant to use, IMO
even with my limited handling of them. One can at least get a good
idea of the rendering of the lenses looking at enough high res images
on the web and pixel peeping. I certainly don't know the nuances of
the strengths and weaknesses like with BigFoot, or the CV 180 Apo
Lanthar or even the Z 85/2 for examples. The Fuji 56/1.2 looks like
a real corker as does the MFT equivalent, the 42.5 Nocticron--perhaps
the bokeh King of MFT--not everyones cuppa given the size/price. I
should let the Fuji users comment more
on this though.
http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-56mm-f1-2-vs-panasonic-leica-42-5mm-f1-2-nocticron/
Mike
On 1/18/2015 7:42 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
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.
And thank you for saying so. :-)
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.
I'm afraid none of this was in my thinking when I said that. What you
say could
indeed explain the overall softness,
although I'd no go so far as 'watercolor effect'. My comment was far
more
empirical. Using deconvolution to 'recreate'
details just seemed like more work than using NeatImage to push down
noise and
resharpen a little. Could be as much
about my personal experience as anything.
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/
The whole converter business seems confusing to me. As I understand it,
Fuji
cameras come with SlikyPix, which gives
pretty good detail, but doesn't reproduce the JPEG color/contrast/etc.
qualities
FujiFans like so much. Then Adobe has
worked closely with Fuji to match the desirable JPEG characteristics,
but don't,
at least according to some, resolve as
much detail.
I've tried recent SilkyPix that came with my Pannys. Reasonably
capable, except
for highlight recovery, but quite
different than what I'm used to and a little cludgy seeming, to me.
Then again,
highlight recovery can be a big deal,
and it seems the XTrans sensor systems allow a lot of it. Phillipe's
sample Raw
image required either -100% Highlights
or - 3 stops of exposure to recover the highlights in ACR, but they
came out
quite nice, no odd grays or obvious false
color.
Fussing around with minor players seems a lot of trouble. Even if
inexpensive,
one uses a lot of time developing
expertise in using them. Then will they be around long? Not a big deal
with some
kinds of programs, but with new cameras
coming along unendingly, a favorite app could become obsolete.
Windoze Moose couldn't use Accuraw. I wasn't wowed by Capture One when
I last
tried it, and it's not cheap. Then my
second favorite converter, DxO, stays out of XTrans.
Sorta makes me glad I've not gone Fuji XTrans.
That be said the ergonomics and appearance of the Fuji's are often
wonderful
and the lenses usually have superb
rendering as well.
I seem to have a bit of both a difference in ergonomic preferences and
a
flexibility in practice, from the average. All
those buttons and wheels just don't seem all that big an advantage to
me. I do
like two control wheels for some uses.
Otherwise, if I can easily change aperture, EV comp. and switch MF on
and off, I
mostly don't need anything else for the
vast majority of my shooting.
OTOH, I used the E-PM2 on our trip, and I still like the option of no
mode or
other wheels to get bumped off my
settings, touch screen turned off and the one little rear control wheel
disabled. Put it in and out of bag or pocket,
handle clumsily, and so on, and it's still set where I want it. In that
configuration, it does the three things above
handily. I was recently shooting out airplane windows. With some
occasional
turbulence, some quite severe, and all the
other stuff, I more or less tossed it into and grabbed it out of my bag
under
the seat in front of me many times. Never
lost a setting.
How can anyone know a lens has 'superb rendering' until they use it
quite a bit?
What does that mean? I know different
lenses have different characteristics beyond the clearly measurable,
but surely
different people prefer different qualities.
Wish I were smitten by Xtrans, Mike
Glad I'm Not
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
| 