Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: spencerD on August 29, 2014, 04:50:03 pm
-
Hello all,
I'm coming from an Canon 40D and am looking for an upgrade and a camera to get me excited again and lighter would be nice.
I'm not giving up on DSLR's but not incline to switch makes and Canon's offering does not inspire at the moment. The 7D would be what Id lean towards but it's been out how many years? So at this point would wait and consider it's replacement.
I enjoy shooting Landscapes as well as travel pictures. When I have the time like using a tripod at base sensitivity, enjoying the moment and process never been a fast shooter. With the end goal of printing my few successes. At up to 13 x 19.
Is the Fuji up to that? Keep reading that some find detail, leafs, ect..
Smeared? I shoot Raw for the most part. Seems at some sites the Olympus EM-1 despite smaller sensor is sharper?
Like most nice to have a camera that can take quality images at higher sensitivities, but my focus is at base for my landscape and travel when possible.
Any thoughts or recommendations would be much appreciated.
Dave
-
Although I see many photographers talk online about preferring "real world" comparisons of cameras, I still think that comparisons should be done under conditions that are tightly controlled (light, subject, tripod, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, all the variables). For this reason, I do comparisons over at DPR:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/16
Pick the bodies you want to compare and select various parts of the composite scene and see for yourself.
I just picked the E-M1 and the X-T1, and it seems that the Fuji holds up very well and may even be sharper. But I only looked at ISO 100 under Daylight.
You could also compare a M43 to a FF of any brand (even a Nikon D810 with its FF Sony sensor - arguably currently one of the best).
Glenn
-
Hello Glen,
Thanks for the comments.
Did look at DPreview, the resolution chart clearly favors the Fuji, otherwise it depends on where and what you click on.
So call it a draw at base sensitivity. The Sony7r? has by far the highest resolution, but don't like the style more of a computer with a lens on it vs a real feeling and looking camera. My view only certainly.
Have the Sony RX100M2 it takes nice pictures but not so enjoyable to shoot with. My old Canon G10 and S90 far more engaging to shoot with and to me enjoying the process is almost as important as the end results, I'm not a pro so enjoyment counts a lot!
The reality for me anyway, is even at the relative low by todays standards of 10-14MP I have never nailed a shot and printed at 13 x 19, well more like 12 1/2 x 18 1/4 depending on camera and said Gee if only it had higher resolution!!
Dave
-
I made plenty of crisp 12x18" prints from Canon 20D files (8mp) back when that camera was my travel favorite. Found one of 'em a couple weeks ago that my dad had rolled up & stowed away in a filing cabinet. Still looks great. In my experience high quality 12x18" prints from the Fuji (I have an X-E1) & Olympus (E-M1) are equally possible.
-Dave-
-
Hello Glen,
Thanks for the comments.
Did look at DPreview, the resolution chart clearly favors the Fuji, otherwise it depends on where and what you click on.
So call it a draw at base sensitivity. The Sony7r? has by far the highest resolution, but don't like the style more of a computer with a lens on it vs a real feeling and looking camera. My view only certainly.
Have the Sony RX100M2 it takes nice pictures but not so enjoyable to shoot with. My old Canon G10 and S90 far more engaging to shoot with and to me enjoying the process is almost as important as the end results, I'm not a pro so enjoyment counts a lot!
The reality for me anyway, is even at the relative low by todays standards of 10-14MP I have never nailed a shot and printed at 13 x 19, well more like 12 1/2 x 18 1/4 depending on camera and said Gee if only it had higher resolution!!
Dave
I like the look of the Oly M1 and the Fuji X-T1. Maybe it's my age showing - I like the retro look because for more than forty years, that's what my cameras looked like (Pentax S and SV, Canon A-1).
I think what I like most about the X-T1 is having the dials on top where I can see them and twist them (again, probably my age as the Pentax S had two shutter speed dials).
Glenn
-
Is the Fuji up to that?
XT-1 vs old (pre E-M1 generation) E-M5 @ nominal ISOs (not Ssat ISO as DxOMark reports) = http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#OM-D%20E-M5,X-T1
as you can see past nominal ISO1600 Fuji switches to ISO-by-tag = an instruction for a raw converter to do a hidden (from you) expocorrection... nothing wrong w/ that - for example MFDBs do that a lot
-
Although I see many photographers talk online about preferring "real world" comparisons of cameras, I still think that comparisons should be done under conditions that are tightly controlled (light, subject, tripod, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, all the variables). For this reason, I do comparisons over at DPR:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1/16
I am sorry to rain on your parade about tight controlled anything there but to use dpreview comparisons means not to respect yourself - for examples shots from E-M1 were pre firmware update that introduced EFCS (and for example E-M1 ISO200 exposure was @ 1/80 - shutter shock zone) and no, they don't bolt a camera to a ton+ cinder block, so that matters... E-M1 syncs @ 1/320, X-T1 @ 1/180... that's the difference in how fast shutter blades are moving... just compare shots from E-M1 @ ISO200 and ISO1600 (where exposure time was 1/640 - safe for shutter shock zone) or even ISO800... dpreview execution quality is below any standards.
http://s30.postimg.org/gsobxxyzl/socalleddpreviewquality.jpg
(http://s30.postimg.org/gsobxxyzl/socalleddpreviewquality.jpg)
-
is it DP Review quality or is it OM-1 quality? I mean, if a camera has a shutter shock at 1/80, than it is the camera problem, not DPR. Besides, when compared with other cameras that also use the same speed, Oly at 200 looks softer.
-
is it DP Review quality or is it OM-1 quality? I mean, if a camera has a shutter shock at 1/80, than it is the camera problem, not DPR. Besides, when compared with other cameras that also use the same speed, Oly at 200 looks softer.
it is the review quality because E-M1 now has EFCS (and hence shutter shock is gone) and if you really want to shoot on tripod you are not using wobbling tripods like dpreview does...
-
Any thoughts or recommendations would be much appreciated.
what goes towards X-T1 ?
1) you might like Fuji's ergonomics
2) Fuji, albeit no Kodak, has a long history of dealing with colors - so you might like Fuji's colors (OOC JPG)
3) Fuji now has a good lens selection and you might like their lenses better
4) sensor is bigger (1.5 crop vs 1.9 crop of E-M1) - so, as there is no replacement for displacement, above deep shadows S/N is around 0.5 stops better, that simple based on a bigger light gathering sensor size - however in deep shadows (= DR) X-T1 does not perform much better (in fact noticeably worse that XE-2)...
5) sensor is bigger so things like DOF, etc are ~1/2 stops better
what goes towards E-M1 ?
1) you might like Oly's ergonomics
2) Olympus, albeit it has no history with films like Kodak or Fuji, still is not in the last place colors-wise
3) m43 has the biggest native mount optics selection
4) some people do like IBIS
5) flash, shutter & x-sync = 1/8000 & 1/320 (1/250 remote optical TTL), remote optical TTL exists, HSS naturally exists - while Fuji is 1/4000, 1/180, no remote TTL, unnaturally no HSS for Fuji...
6) Olympus does not have issues related to x-trans demosaicking
7) you can switch to Panasonic m43 cameras while keeping lenses & flash - may be you like video, there Fuji is simply a non player.
-
The fuji has nice color, more pastel out of camera, though we know most color is modified in post.
The em-1 is probably one of the most jewel like, solid cameras sold in any format. If you put a sony A7 series, a Fuji Xti and an em-1 next to each other and was asked which is the most expensive camera, hands down most people would say the olympus.
The em-1 sensor is good but at 4/3 the sensor is small, so you need fast primes. A 2.8 zoom is in reality a 5.6 zoom in full frame look, a 1.7 prime 3.5 etc. etc.
The menu of the em-1 and em-5 is one of the most confusing menus on the planet and honestly will take you 5 hours to learn to customize it to your liking, because when you perform a setting,
want to change it it reverts back to the start of the menu and since some of the functions has multiple depths of screens, you will need to sit down with a notepad as you set up the camera.
Once set up your fine.
All olympus em series has challanged track focus, though single focus it's as fast, or faster than any camera made.
The em-1 uses a panasonic sensor the predecessor em-5 a sony and the em-5 to me shoots a file much better than the em-1 as it picks up more colors and allows for more post correction, though the em-1 gives about a 1/2 stop improvement in iso and both cameras shoot way above their sensor size in quality.
I really wish olympus had gone apsc or full frame and believe if olympus made a full frame em-1 they couldn't keep up with the demand.
The em series is special, most of the lenses are only rivaled by leica in build quality and feel. It's a special little camera, but once again the sensor is 1/4 the size of full frame.
Actually I'd just be happy if the em-1 used the em-5 sensor, over the moon if it was full frame or at least apsc.
IMO
BC
-
Both systems are good and will serve you equally well I feel
It is all about personal preference really. Just hold them and try them out. Go with whatever one feels best.
I personally have a preference for Fuji and am selling my (older) m43 gear right now.
The Fuji glass is excellent and although there is definitely more m43 glass out there I don't really have the feeling I am missing anything.
The X-T1 is the best Fuji camera but personally I prefer the ergonomics and the simplicity of the X-Pro1.
It's all good!
-
The em-1 sensor is good but at 4/3 the sensor is small, so you need fast primes. A 2.8 zoom is in reality a 5.6 zoom in full frame look, a 1.7 prime 3.5 etc. etc.
I hope that we can all get our heads around crop factors these days. Personally I think that crop factor DoF is done to death on the net and is less of a real world issue than reading on line forums would have us believe, but it's a personal decision.
DoF wise you only "need" very wide aperture lenses with MFT if you are trying to match the thin DoF you get from a 35mm camera at f1.4-2.8. How often do we really need DoF that thin? It's a personal decision and personally with 35mm DSLR's I often find myself wanting more DoF not less and once you decide to select f2.8 or smaller to get deeper DoF you can easily match the DoF with MFT at f1.4 and of course there are very good f0.95 lenses available for MFT and the native AF lenses are often good at f1.4/f1.8-2.8 whereas some 35mm lenses are much less good at the widest apertures.
Personally I'd forget the crop factor when comparing MFT and APS-C cameras and I'd worry less and maybe not at all about trying to match 35mm format thin DoF with either MFT or APS-C. With any modern camera I'd think more about how big I want my images to be and how they are going to be viewed and of course, features, the lenses and accessories available and the kit in use.
-
... How often do we really need DoF that thin?...
Not at all indeed. Unless you are a portrait, people, or life-style photographer.
-
Hello everyone,
Thanks for the responses.
I have held both cameras and my take is for look and feel Fuji by a landslide (my opinion only)
Love my Canon G10 in part for the exposure comp wheel, just feels good.
The EM1 does seem easer to change settings, faster on the fly and touch screen is great!
Im at the stage that I'm wanting a camera that makes me feel good to look and hold, so am leaning towards the Fuji, with photo quality being equal or a tad better.
I have a Sony100 M2 and it blows away my Canon G10 at certain things high sensitivity certainly, but I feel pleasure holding and shooting with the G10 the Sony I feel little excitement it's just is there and does a good/excellent job. Crazy as it seems I enjoyed using my Canon S90 more than the Sony!
Question anyone do a lot of landscapes with the Fuji and make prints?
My standard how does a print look. Get/make a good print then I feel I have a success, so much looks great on screen but not so good in prints.
Dave
-
I can only speak to the X-E2 and the E-M5, having owned both of them. I found I could get more out of the Fuji files ultimately, but were trickier to deal with in post than the Olympus files. I shoot urban landscape, BTW.
-
Using the X-T1 (and X-E2 as a back up) mainly for landscape. Before that I had a system based around a Canon 5d-II.
I'm printing to 24 inches wide and I can't see anything wrong with the files. They are at least as good in print as the Canon. ("Good": meaning sharpness, detail, dynamic range, colour and malleability in post).
I still haven't worked out a uniform approach for raw conversion. In Lightroom I tend to turn off or minimise capture sharpening and use Topaz Detail instead as the first or second layer in Photoshop. By doing this I haven't seen the "watercolour effect". For files where detail is critical I use PhotoNinja for the raw conversion. Regardless, the Fuji images can take, and often need, more sharpening in post than those from the 5DII. The 5DII went crunchy quite quickly by comparison.
I think most cameras nowadays work well enough, I go for I can most easily make work in the field even when I'm cold and tired.
-
I have used Fuji X for a while, borrowed stuff from a friend:) I had the XPro and XE1, lovely cameras. They also have very good lenses, like the 14 2.8, 23 1.4, and 56 1.2.
I now use a couple of EM1's with 12 2, 25 1.4 (Panasonic-Leica), and 75 1.8. The Oly lenses are smaller, because the sensor is smaller. I mostly shoot landscapes, seascapes, and travel. The Oly system is very good, and IQ is up there with the best. The only caveat with the EM1 is that for long exposures, it is better to engage the LENR for the camera to subtract the noise using the dark frame. I have no problem with that, I can wait another 30 sec or a couple of minutes.
Oly are introducing very good PRO lenses: 7-14 2.8 and 40-150 f2.8 (2015), already have the 12-40 f2.8. I favoured the Oly vs Fuji in the end because the system is good enought for me, the EM1 and lenses are very robust, and in my country (Portugal) Oly support is much better than Fuji.
-
Thanks all, been helpful.
Really sounds like one can't go wrong with either system, as long as one is not sucked into the MP race.
Guess it's becomes how sharp is sharp? Unless one takes side by side pictures online or large side by side print, on their own each camera print will look sharp. MF is going to be higher resolution, does that mean all Dslr's and smaller are crap? Guess not.
Have compared my G10 14 MP against the Fuji XT-1 Fuji kills it, yet somehow I have prints up to 13 x 19 that are tact sharp, details everywhere, from old boat to reeds in the water, reflections, mist, even a local pro I know was impress.
Yet based on side by side the G10 vs Fuji is very soft!
Shows how good the EM-1 is that even with a smaller sensor it's neck and neck with fans of both, coming more down to ergonomics vs image quality. As which one is picked. Think Ill splurge on the Fuji as I unashamedly like the way it looks and feels and the big view finder is nice now that i need reading glasses dang it!
Unless others have another recommendation will go with the kit lens 18-55mm as I tend to prefer wide angle landscapes with perhaps the 10-16mm and possible the 70-200mm in the future.
On my Canon 40D my go to lens was the 17-40L with the occasional use of the Sigma 10-20mm.
Find the 70-200mm f4 L only suits my eye for occasional landscapes and concert, wildlife and street shooting, non of which Im, very good at.
Really just want a camera that is fun to shoot that happens to take good images! That holds up in prints as thats my yardstick of a successful shot.
When i purchased the Canon S90 I was amaze how much fun and the quality of (good to me) pictures I got with it and found I was using more than my Dslr for all put tripod shots. Again in prints looks very sharp yet side by side the Fuji kills it!
Dave
-
The grass is always greener on the other side.
When I got my XE-1 (now an XT-1) they did not have the EM-1 nor the Olympus pro zooms, only the Panasonic. With those I might have chosen the EM-1 but the ergonomics on the EM-5 were suboptimal and buying the extra grip kind of defeated the purpose.
You have more lenses and primes on m4/3, the Fuji has mostly good quality across the board for their XF lenses, no really bad lens. The XTrans is something I could have lived without, for me it's more of a nuisance than it's worth it, and the sensor it's not the best compared with top APS-C. Better than my D90 but not by much.
Shooting is pretty fluent, some settings take time to change and focus is not that fast still (I'm talking mostly about single shot), my D90 still feels faster. Quality is very good once you can live with the annoying postprocessing; some shots will likely require a different program than Lightroom which I still prefer because of familiarity and their Fujifilm simulations, Provia in particular is quite accurate and appealing.
Now I'm looking to see what the replacements are for the D7100 and if they bring any new better lenses and/or if they upgrade the EM-1 with a better sensor (similar to the EM-5 maybe). Meanwhile I can just use the Xt-1 as the likely limiting factor in getting all the shots that I want is not the camera anymore.
-
Forgot to say, don't know about EM-1 but on the XT-1 the EVF is very good, this is probably the future.
-
The grass is always greener on the other side.
The XTrans is something I could have lived without, for me it's more of a nuisance than it's worth it, and the sensor it's not the best compared with top APS-C. Better than my D90 but not by much.
Have read comments by others as well as you, regarding the XTrans Sensor.
Some say it gives excellent detail, others say not so much?
Is the complaints due to real limitations of the sensor or is it more due to only a few raw converters can bring out the best from the XtTrans Raw files? Understand that Adobe is getting better but far from the best raw converted for Xtrans?
For me never warmed up to adobe Raw coveter, have not used lightroom.
For Canon used their own Raw converter for basic converting and detail work in photoshop from Tiff files.
Only other converter I felt at ease using was a free software called Raw Converter, which was very good, to bad they sold out to Adobe I believe...
At the moment don't have a real set workflow been pretty much out of photography the last 5 years as far as real work and printing, so perhaps Id not be as bothered once I purchased a good Raw converter for Xtran files. In the past I have used for sharping my files Photokit Sharpener for capture and selective sharping and output sharping and printing from Qimage. Anyone use either or both of the above anymore? I really like the perceived automation of sharpening.Let software picked the best capture base on selective settings, let software pick the best output based on print size, paper, ect
With me doing selective sharpening to make certain areas pop. I take pride in good prints I can matt and frame, but don't claim to be up or good at all the fine points of enhancing images.
I likely work harder to get a print I like than most, lack of skill, but bulldog determination...
Dave
-
Right now I feel it's mostly a converter thing but even with a good converter I don't see it being better in the end, only just as good. On average, as it is slightly worse for green foliage stuff and slightly better for bw stuff where just luminosity is at play.
-
Forgot to say, don't know about EM-1 but on the XT-1 the EVF is very good, this is probably the future.
in FF terms (adjusted to FF sensor size) magnifications are
XT-1 = 0.77 x
EM-1 = 0.74 x
A7 = 0.71 x
all are 100% coverage.
so is XT-1 bigger, yes, indeed... by 0.03 or 0.77/0.74 = 4%.
-
Is the complaints due to real limitations of the sensor or is it more due to only a few raw converters can bring out the best from the XtTrans Raw files?
I would say the latter. And I would also add that "only a few" raw converters is no longer accurate. It was that way in the beginning though.
I use Iridient Developer and I have zero complaints. It is quite basic but it produces a good TIFF file and that is all I care about. Capture One IMO is a good second.
Iridient Developer, Capture One, Lightroom, etc all have trial versions. Try before you buy!
-
Thanks again, good to hear from XT-1 owners.
Better is always nice, but equal overall is just fine with me.
Point is, I do concentrate on landscape photography so quality needs to be good. With regards fine detail. Does it needs to be the highest resolution or detail of all available cameras in the price range no, as long as close/completive. There will always be better in the future.
I'm coming from a Canon 40D and for landscape and travel I would hope/expect the XT to replace it.
The 40D is old by todays standards, yet when I have nailed everything and have made 12 x 18 prints, I have never felt, gee if only it had more detail. Most people, (friend) including a Simi Pro neighbor are always impress with the detail of my best prints.
It's not like websites doing A/B side by side or looking at 100% of the same image.
So if the XT surpasses my old 40D at base sensitivity, I should be happy.
Dave
-
Point is, I do concentrate on landscape photography...
Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea then to take a look in the Flickr Fuji X-Pro1 and X-E1 Landscapes group:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/1909146@N25/
Should be fairly representative of what one can do with Fuji X and landscapes.
-
So if the XT surpasses my old 40D at base sensitivity, I should be happy.
I used a pair of 40D bodies for several years. If I go back and look at prints side by side, the images from my X Pro 1 sensor are better in just about every way. I'm very happy with 16x24 inch prints from the Fuji system, and 12x18 are a piece of cake. (Assuming good technique, but that's true for any camera.)
As I am not primarily a landscape shooter, this comment is worth what you paid for it :), but I do shoot a fair amount of architectual and landscape stuff along with the candid people and photo-J.
-
Hi JV, Bennett,
Thanks for the response, think I'm beginning to beat a dead horse!
Just going to order the dang thing and be done with it. Worst case have between 30-45 days to return, although never return camera equipment before, so odds of me doing so is small. Took a look over at Imaging resource side by side in order of sharpness low to higher
40D, G10, XT-1 IN some parts XT-1 shows big improvement other parts of images small. Think with the right Raw converter and workflow should be fine. I'm not just basting all on IQ, want a camera that feels good and is fun to use. I have a sony RX100M2 and good IQ but not exciting to use, had lots more fun and because of that better images with the Canon S90, even through in a side by side the Sony clearly is superior. Looking for something that inspires me to go out and take pictures.
Dave
-
I have a lot of fun shooting with my Fujis. They are different, and for me there was a long learning curve trying to figure out what the engineers were thinking :) The zooms are very good, and the primes are excellent (though I wouldn't choose the 18 for landscape work.) I do think they excel at street, candid, and photojournalism, but I have made some good photos on a tripod. Takes a little getting used to the user interface if you didn't shoot film cameras with aperture rings and shutter speed dials.
-
Learning curve, how long will that take!?
JUst stumbled onto this web site. Guy writes about moving from Canon full frame to the XT-1
Good read and he takes some very nice sea scape pictures.
benjacobsenphoto.com
Dave
-
Forgot, go to his blog and then to first tile called Fuji switch.
Dave
-
Learning curve, how long will that take!?
I think that depends on a lot of different factors. For me, picking up a new camera is normally a matter of setting a few things in the menus and shooting with it -- takes a couple of hours, tops. The Fujis took several months before I was comfortable shooting with them. I think part of that is they are first generation bodies, so they are much slower in autofocus and shooting/handling speed than the Canons. Another part is that I kept trying to use them like the Canons, instead of embracing them for what they are.
I expect the XT1 would be a smoother, faster transition.
-
On raw converters for the Fujisawa, check out Photo Ninja for the PC, 2-week trial available. Not as easy to use as LR for me, and more laggy on the sliders with sometimes glacial redraws, but in my experience delivers more detail then LR conversions without introducing artifacts. Danger is that it is easy to overdo in PN so photos look too "digital." That said, I find that on some images, LR gives equally good results, on others not so. A photographer named Thomas Fitzgerald has some good posts about his experience using Photo Ninja with Fuji files, I don't have the link but google will easily find his blog articles.
However, my dream is that Adobe will eventually pay some attention to its X-tran sensor algorithms so LR can always do justice to the Fuji files. Photo Ninja is a dog to use compared to LR plus missing stuff like local adjustments (so after initial processing in PN I finish up in LR).
-
You are in good company with Oly or Fuji. 13x19 prints are no problem for m4/3. On the other hand, if you can put up with the larger lenses, the Sony A7/r/ or even the discontinued NEX-7 will produce 24x36 prints that will stand any scrutiny.
-
Afairly,
Much thanks for the info, I understand about over doing it, time to time I have blundered and after printing realize I went over the top. Will check out that persons comments.
Dave
-
Bennnett,
Thanks, I was half kidding about how long it would take.
From an old joke about needing patients. The person replies , patients how long will that take?
I do get your point, a friend once loaned me his Fiji X10 for a day.
AS much as I liked the look and feel of it, I did not get on with it.
At some point I turned on the flash and it took me 30 min's to turn it off and I never figured out what I did to do so! Decided I know how to use an DSLR, if I can't easily turn a flash on and off, it's not the camera for me.
Through the years friends and strangers would ask me how to turn a flash on and off on any ca,era and it was always to me self evident, not with that Fiji!
I get your point about not treating or trying to use the Fiji as if it were a Canon.
That will likely be a challenge for me. I'm not happy my Sony 100M2 does not work like my Canons, laughing..
Dave
-
Hi Herbc,
Thats good to know. My printer only goes to 13 x 19 and even if I replace someday don't see going wider than a 17 inch printer. The EM1 is very impressive per resolution test at Imaging Resource it is equal to or tad higher 2400 for the Oly 2300 for the Fuji. IR says no gain in resolution using Raw files but they were using an early version I think of Adobe. Hope other Raw converter will pull more out of Raw. Either way the Fiju seems typical resolution for the MP it has. The Oly with same MP on smaller sensor and equal plus resolution is very impressive, see why people like that camera so much. Some claim color and 3D look from the Fuji is slightly better, assume thats more personal than factual. Either way understand one can't just go with resolution numbers it's a guideline to use, but other factors are important in similar resolution cameras. Now clearly if camera A has a Res of 2300 and camera B is 1800. We are talking two different levels but 2300 vs 2400 or 2500 Id think other factors will weigh in.
Dave
-
Hi all,
Wanted to thank you for the responses and advise.
JUst ordered the XT-1 in Kit form, along with B+W KSM MRC Pol and corresponding UV MRC filter.
If all works out and I click with the XT-1, then the 10-24Mmm is in my near future ;D.
A question regarding Raw converters, of which I will down load and start trying, but is there a consensus which ones work faster, redrawing and such. In the past have tried some that were so slow, it took all the joy out of it. I like quick A/B comparing of my image and when the re-draw is so slow comparing to me is hard at best impossible at worst.
I'm use to fairly fast responses.
Getting Kinda excited!
Dave
-
A question regarding Raw converters, of which I will down load and start trying, but is there a consensus which ones work faster, redrawing and such.
I just use Lightroom for everything. Like any camera, there is some controversy over the "best" raw converter, but LR works for what I need.
-
A question regarding Raw converters [...] is there a consensus which ones work faster, redrawing and such.
Assume you're using Lightroom as your go-to converter, you owe it to yourself to try Iridient Developer. (Addition not instead of..). They're enough reviews and comments on this site that attest to it's excellence - it also integrates with Lr easily so you're not limited to an either/or decision. Here's one review (http://fstoplounge.com/2014/05/fuji-x-tran-raw-processing-done-right/) and a download link (http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper_download.html).
-
No, my software is old, was out of it for about 5 years so still running Photoshop3.
Need to gradually update my software. AS well as my monitor and calibrator. Monitor is failing and calibrater is the original Spyder.
BTW im leaning towards the NEC PA 272W anyone use or have feelings one way or another?
Also some seem to be touting the new HD monitors like the Dell 24 inch.
My current monitor is a 24 inch Samsung forget the model numeber was rated pretty good in it's day, Now about 6-8 years old.
Dave
-
Photoshop 3 or Photoshop CS3? Quite a difference :)
An older version of Photoshop is usable since I run Lightroom as my raw converter and image catalog. But it's not ideal if one edits frequently in Photoshop. I had CS4 for a while while running the latest Lightroom.
You may qualify for the $10/month Adobe cloud subscription for photogs, which gives you both LR and PS in their latest versions which play well together. Went for that last fall, and I've been pretty happy so far.
-
You are correct it's CS3
Going to take me some time to get software and all up and running.
When I started I just added a little at a time and one forgets all you have or how long it takes if you try and do it all at once!
I had to build a new PC as my old one was outdated and failing and many of my programs and ICC profiles would not transfer due to different registry so need to contact each company to re download if they will permit. Some of my software is so old by todays standards no longer supported so likely need to buy upgrades assuming software is even still relevant. I was perfectly happy with what I had and the workflow, but now being forced to come into the 2014's!
Dave