Fuji X100
- Thread starter soma
- Start date
- Status
Resized the JPGs straight out of the camera without any post processing (not evening sharpening). Either in Provia or Velvia.
Yet to examine the raw file... waiting for support from LR.
awesome!
thanks for sharing....
(pre-ordered mine in IT show but yet to receive any news for collection.)
wilswong
Member
Out of camera jpegs. I do have the RAW but the EXR do make a good conversion so I left it as it is and test it like what a normal guy would do without much hassles and see the picture as it is without conversion.
at 1600, that 'quite a bit of a noise' if compared to some contemporary DSLRs in use now, it is actually comparable and even exceed some of the cameras I have used.
If we want to scrutinise, the steering wheel do have noise, it is basically covered up by the bokeh.
As for blowing up to 100%, I think to give the camera some fairness, for a camera that has a much smaller lens than a conventional DSLR lens, to render that level of sharpness is already quite impressive. So the question to oneshelf is this...what do I base my judgment of an equipment on?
As I said to some of my club members: the film camera will always trump the digital camera just because of this: Digital camera still need anti aliasing to give the impression of line smoothness and AA will always produce softness in an image. So what's left is to accept a level of compromise one needed to get in terms of quality for that little bit of digital convenience.
If one wants convenience with that film quality...it ain't gonna happen...unless the sensor provides the same level of resolution as the eye....which is 576+ megapixels (according to clarkvision.com) with Dynamic resolution at 25 stops.
Even film have at least an estimated 20 megapixels worth of resolution. Plus analogue do not need AA and definitely will show a line as a line and hence sharpness in every sense.
With the above thinking, after going through computer upgrades getting Pentium I (that is after 486 systems) systems at 6K then to getting the latest gadgets, I decided pixel observation ain't getting anywhere in terms of sanity.
What I am looking nowadays is general focusing sharpness, without CA and also ISO noise...once these three are acceptable , then I think the camera is already good for a lot of things. As a rule, I usually would stick to 1250 at most if I am being forced to. 800 would be my general settings level.
So conclusion for me after bringing this camera to cover the event is that I can save some load by not bringing the DSLR if I am not the main photographer...I can just concentrate on the event itself and yet able to bring back some photos good enough for publication.
wilswong
Member
I second that..good set.
there are digital sensors with no Anti Aliasing
wilswong said:
A bigger lens does not equate to better quality. Lens design matters alot. A leica 50mm summilux asph, zeiss 50mm planar being smaller than canon 50L is sharper than canon.
As you mentioned, I agree that sharpness is not everything for a lens quality. Other factors such as OOF transition, CA, vignetting are important as well.
These are very wise words. People seem on a mad race for technical perfection in their cameras, but that is not what will make great photographs.
Technical competence should be one thing, quality of pics is another.
I tabled this because I want to know if the shots could have been cleaner in RAW because the camera is CAPABLE of it. Whether I choose to run it OOF or grainy for a more creative effect should be a decision on my part, not the result of a technical limitation. There's a difference there.
I tabled this because I want to know if the shots could have been cleaner in RAW because the camera is CAPABLE of it. Whether I choose to run it OOF or grainy for a more creative effect should be a decision on my part, not the result of a technical limitation. There's a difference there.
- Status
Similar threads
