phancj Posted January 24, 2011 Share #21 Posted January 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am intrigued and impressed by the level of professionalism in these modifications, but will not do it to my X1 coz I bought it for it size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Hi phancj, Take a look here Lens Tube+UV-filter=failure. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Douglasco Posted January 29, 2011 Share #22 Posted January 29, 2011 My Adapter and lens hood Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/142139-lens-tubeuv-filterfailure/?do=findComment&comment=1572934'>More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2011 Share #23 Posted January 29, 2011 nice,i like this combination:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koizumi13 Posted February 1, 2011 Share #24 Posted February 1, 2011 Hey Douglasco, I've got the same setup as you. Do you have a lenscap that fits the hood? I have a 49mm snap cap but it doesn't fit the hood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglasco Posted February 1, 2011 Share #25 Posted February 1, 2011 Hi Koizumi13, I do not have a lens cap, I do not have one for my Digilux 2 either and I have not had any problems without one. I have put a uv filter on the adapter so that should protect the lens a bit. all the best Doug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted February 1, 2011 Share #26 Posted February 1, 2011 I wonder whether the modification is justified? In an attempt to add a filter and hood the whole camera quickly ceases to be a compact camera! I have to agree... it just seems ridiculous. That said, it isn't my camera so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koizumi13 Posted February 1, 2011 Share #27 Posted February 1, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you, Doug! The UV filter as a sorta cap is a great idea. I'll give it a whirl. Surprisingly, the Kiwi Adapter isn't very large in person. The size difference over 'stock' is minimal & does not change how I carry my X1. I have noticed a nice side effect to using the Kiwi Adapter: the ability to hold the camera very stable! The adapter is the perfect place, along with the Leica grip, to grasp the camera firmly. My handheld night shots are way sharper with this setup. Another thing to note is that the X1 is what I deem a "sedentary" camera. It's frankly too slow to catch any real action. As such, using it for daytime non-moving landscapes is quite suitable. And being able to use a polarizer is an absolute must for daytime landscapes! Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hektor6644 Posted February 17, 2011 Share #28 Posted February 17, 2011 Hi: I also got the Kiwi lens adapter, because I had no choice. The following photos that I took, under a bright sunlight, were affected by the lack of UV filter. They all had a like a haze type of "film" on them. I was able to minimize the effect in Post Processing applying some of the filters from Nik Color Efex Pro. However, in many of them, the haze is still there. http://www.hektorsphotos.com/LeicaX1/X1-My-Neighborhood/X1-South-Coast-Botanic-Gardens/15737285_gUnd8 I got the B+W 49mm UV MRC 10 filter and the B+W 49mm wide angle (up to 28mm) collapsible rubber hood. In my next time out, the filter worked great but the hood was a problem. Firstly, the photos came out too dark. It is obvious that the hood reduced the amount of light. Lastly, it partially blocked the 35mm Voigtlander external viewfinder. I ordered the hood ($8.00) with the slits or cutouts from Honk Kong; I’ll get it by mid-March. I do not think that I need the hood, though. X1-Wayferers Chapel - Hektor's Photos | SmugMug I had a lot of PP to recover the shadows. Has it affected the size of the camera? It is funny. When I had the D-Lux 4, I tried to keep it as compact as possible – no accessories. I cannot make the X1 big enough. :)However, the main reason I got the X1 was not because of the “Red Dot.” I got it because it is an affordable (for me) Leica camera with the Leica Colors. Size is not an issue for me. What do I mean by “Leica Colors?” The link bellow will illustrate it: Leica X1 Photography by Jim Radcliffe I’m not happy with the results I’ve been getting. Up to now, I have shot in DNG (I might be doing something wrong, but do not know what.) However, yesterday I started shooting with JPEG superfine and 12.8 MB. I’m getting closer to the colors I’m searching: I do not think that LR3 does a very good RAW conversion (I might be wrong.) I’m letting the camera do the conversion from now on. Yes, I know that JPEG degrades every time it is modified and the changes saved. I’m treating the JPEG files as my digital negative. I send the images straight to CS5 in TIFF 8-bit format and is the TIFF files that I modify. Best regards, Hektor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielsan Posted February 17, 2011 Share #29 Posted February 17, 2011 What about one of those ? Any experience with those kind of UV-fitlers? Maybe i will order one because i dont like the large tubus and the camera dosnt fit in the ever ready case with the tubus attached.I found those on US american Ebay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted February 17, 2011 Share #30 Posted February 17, 2011 Hi: I also got the Kiwi lens adapter, because I had no choice. The following photos that I took, under a bright sunlight, were affected by the lack of UV filter. They all had a like a haze type of "film" on them. I was able to minimize the effect in Post Processing applying some of the filters from Nik Color Efex Pro. However, in many of them, the haze is still there. X1-South Coast Botanic Gardens - Hektor's Photos | SmugMug I got the B+W 49mm UV MRC 10 filter and the B+W 49mm wide angle (up to 28mm) collapsible rubber hood. In my next time out, the filter worked great but the hood was a problem. Firstly, the photos came out too dark. It is obvious that the hood reduced the amount of light. Lastly, it partially blocked the 35mm Voigtlander external viewfinder. I ordered the hood ($8.00) with the slits or cutouts from Honk Kong; I’ll get it by mid-March. I do not think that I need the hood, though. X1-Wayferers Chapel - Hektor's Photos | SmugMug I had a lot of PP to recover the shadows. Has it affected the size of the camera? It is funny. When I had the D-Lux 4, I tried to keep it as compact as possible – no accessories. I cannot make the X1 big enough. :)However, the main reason I got the X1 was not because of the “Red Dot.” I got it because it is an affordable (for me) Leica camera with the Leica Colors. Size is not an issue for me. What do I mean by “Leica Colors?” The link bellow will illustrate it: Leica X1 Photography by Jim Radcliffe I’m not happy with the results I’ve been getting. Up to now, I have shot in DNG (I might be doing something wrong, but do not know what.) However, yesterday I started shooting with JPEG superfine and 12.8 MB. I’m getting closer to the colors I’m searching: I do not think that LR3 does a very good RAW conversion (I might be wrong.) I’m letting the camera do the conversion from now on. Yes, I know that JPEG degrades every time it is modified and the changes saved. I’m treating the JPEG files as my digital negative. I send the images straight to CS5 in TIFF 8-bit format and is the TIFF files that I modify. Best regards, Hektor Hektor, I had similar feeling when I first bought the X1. LR appears incompetent particularly with the color red for whatever reason. Certain tones were lost in that color. What I think may be Leica is unwilling to share with adobe the "magic of leica" colors hence less than perfect integration without true dedicated profiles. But I learnt to live with it given the more pliable DNGs. But at the back of the mind I know the X1 DNGs are capable of better colors with more competent software. CJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbonedeedo Posted February 17, 2011 Share #31 Posted February 17, 2011 Hektor, are you using the Adobe profile, or the embedded profile? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hektor6644 Posted February 17, 2011 Share #32 Posted February 17, 2011 Hektor, I had similar feeling when I first bought the X1. LR appears incompetent particularly with the color red for whatever reason. Certain tones were lost in that color. What I think may be Leica is unwilling to share with adobe the "magic of leica" colors hence less than perfect integration without true dedicated profiles. But I learnt to live with it given the more pliable DNGs. But at the back of the mind I know the X1 DNGs are capable of better colors with more competent software. CJ Hi CJ: I agree with you. I was surprised that Leica was using LR as their RAW converter, because the thing that sets Leica apart are the “Leica Colors,” imho. Maybe, as you said, they do not share their secrets and the reason the colors are better with JPEG. In other words, the camera does the RAW conversion. Best regards, Hektor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hektor6644 Posted February 17, 2011 Share #33 Posted February 17, 2011 Hektor, are you using the Adobe profile, or the embedded profile? Hi: Thanks for your response. I have used both and I did not find any difference between them. There is another issue here. I believe that it would be better to use ACR in CS5 than to do the RAW conversion in LR. Even though LR uses ACR, it might not be as good or as powerful as the “real” ACR. People that shoot in DNG and use ACR in CS seem to obtain better results. However, this raises a whole new set of issues. Regardless, I have to try it, sooner or later. Best regards, Hektor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted February 17, 2011 Share #34 Posted February 17, 2011 Hektor, I use Adobe RAW in Photoshop CS4 or CS5 (depending on which machine I'm at), and the DNG conversion is much better than what comes out of the camera. However, I almost always have to manually tweak the white balance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hektor6644 Posted February 18, 2011 Share #35 Posted February 18, 2011 Hektor, I use Adobe RAW in Photoshop CS4 or CS5 (depending on which machine I'm at), and the DNG conversion is much better than what comes out of the camera. However, I almost always have to manually tweak the white balance. Hi JE: Thanks. I just began using CS5 ACR and Bridge with the photos I took. I have to integrate it into my workflow. I have no idea at this time if it would involve LR, though. It is my library management program, which I also use to publish and synchronize my photos. Best regards, Hektor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted February 18, 2011 Share #36 Posted February 18, 2011 What about one of those ? Any experience with those kind of UV-fitlers?Maybe i will order one because i dont like the large tubus and the camera dosnt fit in the ever ready case with the tubus attached.I found those on US american Ebay. There was a report (never looked deeper) from a member a while ago that said the paint would come off the lens when it was removed. ymmv Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phancj Posted February 18, 2011 Share #37 Posted February 18, 2011 Hi: Thanks for your response. I have used both and I did not find any difference between them. There is another issue here. I believe that it would be better to use ACR in CS5 than to do the RAW conversion in LR. Even though LR uses ACR, it might not be as good or as powerful as the “real” ACR. People that shoot in DNG and use ACR in CS seem to obtain better results. However, this raises a whole new set of issues. Regardless, I have to try it, sooner or later. Best regards, Hektor There IS a difference between the embedded and adobe standard profile. To my eyes the embedded appears better. As for DNGs by LR or PS yes the files are more pliable than the leica jpegs for sure raw being raw but we are talking about the colors. If you care to look you will see that certain shades are eradicated with the adobe converters but the jpegs from the X1 has better tones and graduations for sure. I have learnt to ignore this so as not to be too anal but there are some compromises with using adobe. In any case jpeg is so compressed finer details are lost. I just wish leica will have their own raw converters like canon/nikon. If I use capture nx I get better conversion too than sending to adobe direct. So I convert by NX and then do adjustments in LR and/or PS for images that matter. I think adobe being the monopolistic juggernaut (almost) means camera makers are wary and unlikely to share fine important secrets with them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielsan Posted February 18, 2011 Share #38 Posted February 18, 2011 . There was a report (never looked deeper) from a member a while ago that said the paint would come off the lens when it was removed. wow, ok thank u because i wanted to place my order for it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
h00ligan Posted February 18, 2011 Share #39 Posted February 18, 2011 here's the permalink.. you can hit the discussion from there.. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-x1-forum/125349-has-anyone-tried-acmaxx-lens-armor.html#post1342877 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hektor6644 Posted February 18, 2011 Share #40 Posted February 18, 2011 There IS a difference between the embedded and adobe standard profile. To my eyes the embedded appears better. As for DNGs by LR or PS yes the files are more pliable than the leica jpegs for sure raw being raw but we are talking about the colors. If you care to look you will see that certain shades are eradicated with the adobe converters but the jpegs from the X1 has better tones and graduations for sure. I have learnt to ignore this so as not to be too anal but there are some compromises with using adobe. In any case jpeg is so compressed finer details are lost. I just wish leica will have their own raw converters like canon/nikon. If I use capture nx I get better conversion too than sending to adobe direct. So I convert by NX and then do adjustments in LR and/or PS for images that matter. I think adobe being the monopolistic juggernaut (almost) means camera makers are wary and unlikely to share fine important secrets with them. Hi: I’m using the embedded profile and the main reason is why not? I really do not see the difference with the Adobe Standard profile, which is the generic one. I also use NX2 as the raw converter for the D700 and D7000. I spent part of the day yesterday working with CS5 ACR and Bridge. I am a RAW shooter until now, because I’ve decided to go the JPEG route with the X1. LR3 is my main software and cannot easily incorporate it in the workflow. I select the photos, manage the libraries, upload to SmugMug, and print from LR3. In addition, there is no way I can get away from TIFF files because all the CS5 plugins, which include all the Nik Software programs; Viveza 2 is my main PP program. Best regards, Hektor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.