radfilm Posted September 19, 2010 Share #1 Posted September 19, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello I have spent a lot of time looking at the differences between Capture One 5 Pro and Lightroom 3 and now that the M9 comes with Lightroom I am a little confused... Is Leica not endorsing Capture One anymore? Does Leica believe Lightroom is a better Raw converter than CO? or is it because LR is cheaper and offers a little more in the terms of workflow. Interested in everyone's take on this.. and also I love this forum.. I spend hours reading post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 19, 2010 Posted September 19, 2010 Hi radfilm, Take a look here Why does M9 come with Lightroom not Capture One. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hoppyman Posted September 20, 2010 Share #2 Posted September 20, 2010 Hello. One reason that the M9, the S2 and the X1 now come with a Lightroom licence instead is because the Capture One folks market digital 'medium format' products that compete against the S system. If Capture One was provided, it would amount to the same as handing over a complete list with contact details of all of Leica's customers to the competitor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
radfilm Posted September 20, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted September 20, 2010 Yes that make sense.. thanks for the thoughts... Very sound as usual.. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted September 20, 2010 Share #4 Posted September 20, 2010 Hello. One reason that the M9, the S2 and the X1 now come with a Lightroom licence instead is because the Capture One folks market digital 'medium format' products that compete against the S system.If Capture One was provided, it would amount to the same as handing over a complete list with contact details of all of Leica's customers to the competitor. Hi Geoff, but Phase One had always made cameras and surely Leica knew, with the S2 development, there would eventually be some conflict of interest no? Not that it matters much anyway, companies marry and divorce all the time for all sorts of reasons or none. My only gripe (small one) is ending up with both C1 and LR, which I paid to upgrade to v5 and 3 respectively because I was unsure which was 'better'. Still is, in fact! So, to answer the OP's question on which has the better raw converter. I have C1, LR, RPP and ACR. Other than ACR, I use C1, LR and RPP depending on the image for raw conversion. I find C1v5 and LR3 produce very similar results. Maybe it's me, but it seems LR3 converts flesh tones more naturally, C1v5 renders them a little too 'yellow' for my liking. But colors with C1v3 appear to be richer, more saturated, which I like with everything other than people. RPP outputs the most under exposed images of the three. The rationale is to save as much highlights as possible and lets the user do the necessary 'pushing'. It also produces the most muted colors, which I use if I wanted to convert certain images to B/W with 'softer' effects. Of course, all of the programs afford the user some manual control so the image could end up looking the same! In the end, I don't know which is better. I don't think any one is, really, it's subjective to personal preferences. That said, if I could only choose one, with the M9, it'd be LR3 for now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted September 20, 2010 Share #5 Posted September 20, 2010 Hi efftee. I am of course just quoting Stefan Daniel. He has also said that there is nothing wrong with C1 either, it was simply that competition aspect that forced the change. I actually have both too but am very happy to use LR3 (and Photoshop) for all of my needs. It is also what I am used to, I understand the interface and getting LR3 for free was a nice bonus (I already had been using a retail copy of LR2). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 20, 2010 Share #6 Posted September 20, 2010 From the user point of view this is not a bad thing. C1-5 used to be my preferred RAW converter, but with ACR6 I find myself using the Adobe product (CS5) except for skin tones. I think it is a game of leapfrog. No doubt C1-6 will surpass LR3 again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted September 20, 2010 Share #7 Posted September 20, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) From the user point of view this is not a bad thing. C1-5 used to be my preferred RAW converter, but with ACR6 I find myself using the Adobe product (CS5) except for skin tones. I think it is a game of leapfrog. No doubt C1-6 will surpass LR3 again. You mean, from the manufacturer's pov, it's not a bad thing. That way, we keep upgrading all the software just to get the incremental benefits... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.