MattMaber Posted April 20, 2014 Share #61 Posted April 20, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) That... And you are conceding to Fuji's interpretation of the final image. Which, for me was a bit over saturated and at higher ISO - over done with noise reduction. Well Fuji's in camera RAW converter would most closely match their 'vision'. I only ever shoot JPEG on my X100 and I really like the way the camera renders them. As for over saturated, well RAW is RAW so you can saturate it as much or as little as you like if you're doing it on a computer from the RAW file. I like my X100s JPEGs then I have one very subtle VSCO based preset I use in Aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 Hi MattMaber, Take a look here Fuji X vs MM...here are my test shots.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kdriceman Posted April 20, 2014 Share #62 Posted April 20, 2014 Well Fuji's in camera RAW converter would most closely match their 'vision'. I only ever shoot JPEG on my X100 and I really like the way the camera renders them. As for over saturated, well RAW is RAW so you can saturate it as much or as little as you like if you're doing it on a computer from the RAW file. I like my X100s JPEGs then I have one very subtle VSCO based preset I use in Aperture. I think you mis-understood the context of my comment. I was supporting Jaap's comment about a previous post which stated JPEGs out of camera should be better than Adobe processed raw files. So, to clarify, the jpeg out of camera being better than a file processed in ACR is simply a matter of subjective taste, specifically Fuji's interpretation. But, back to the original point of the comment, the jpeg image should not be expected to be "better" than a file processed in ACR... Unless, of course, you favor the Fuji interpretation of the image and can't replicate it in the raw convertor. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 20, 2014 Share #63 Posted April 20, 2014 Not necessarily, the early x100 RAW converter of ACR was way worse than that in camera, with smearing and what not. AFAIK its better now though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted April 20, 2014 Share #64 Posted April 20, 2014 Not necessarily, the early x100 RAW converter of ACR was way worse than that in camera, with smearing and what not. AFAIK its better now though. It is better now. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2wk Posted April 20, 2014 Share #65 Posted April 20, 2014 Why? That is opposed to common knowledge. The reason being that the processing power of a full computer will enable more elaborate algorithms. I tested both raw and jpeg. I mention JPEG because then people would blame adobes algorithm for the result. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2wk Posted April 21, 2014 Share #66 Posted April 21, 2014 This is what I was talking about. X Vario @ 35.6mm f5.6 800iso leica by phi.design, on Flickr X-Pro @ 35mm f5.6 800iso xpro by phi.design, on Flickr Looking similar. Now for 100% screenshots... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2wk Posted April 21, 2014 Share #67 Posted April 21, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) X Vario Screen Shot 2014-02-09 at 4.40.03 PM by phi.design, on Flickr Xpo1 Screen Shot 2014-02-09 at 4.31.11 PM by phi.design, on Flickr This is, pretty much a torture test. But imagine the dots being trees, blades of grass, or windows on distant buildings etc. It would be noticeable on a large print. It is apparent in both raw & jpeg. Also, it looks like I need to dust my stereo! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted April 22, 2014 Share #68 Posted April 22, 2014 Starting with a side note, it is a funny comment about not realizing that words are spelled differently in different languages. For me, the MM represents perfection and simplicity in photography. The focus of the kit is on one thing, shooting. All decisions are left to the shutter clicker. It can be used in most every situation. It the most understated camera you can buy. No name, no red dot. 99% of people think you are shooting with an old school clunker. It attracts zero attention. You can pre-focus and capture just about any where at any time. The files are enormously flexible. The high iso files are usable throughout the full range available. This camera has been refined down to one concept - staying out of the way so you can focus on your vision. Like many people here, I have many cameras from many formats different manufactures. They all offer many benefits. I shoot from 8x10, 4x5 film, digital mf, 35mm film, dslr, sigma, small sensor ricoh and the wonderful digital harinezumi. The perfection of thought however, as represented in the MM just works for me. It is my go to camera when I'm headed out the door. It is enormously expensive but well worth the engineering and IP costs that went into its development. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted April 22, 2014 Share #69 Posted April 22, 2014 Its about choice though of course. No Matt it's about the Rangefinder of course If you don't want one, then choosing an M (or MM or M9) is Madness If you DO want one, then a Fuji X-T is madness. Hey - in the last 6 months - I've been using: Fuji X100 Ricoh GR1 Olympus E-M1 Sony A7 Sony A7r Fuji X-T1 Leica MM Leica M there are so many variables which will make cameras suit one person or the other . . but if you want a rangefinder then all these splendid and creditable mirrorless cameras are so much fluff . . . and none of them shoot M lenses like M cameras . . really Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 23, 2014 Share #70 Posted April 23, 2014 I'm sure that's true. I still like my M6 for film experience and X100 for digital, its a great combination. I can't personally justify that money for what comes down to a decent digital camera and consumer product. I think you have to look at digital differently to film, the turnover of the tech is so rapid Mattmaber.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted April 24, 2014 Share #71 Posted April 24, 2014 I have recently bought an X100s to cover macro and improve on my older GF1 for a point and shoot solution for my partner. Whilst it is good it's not a replacement for my M9-P in any way, I will at some point have an MM too. The one thing I cannot replicate with the X100s is capturing the moment, I guess this could come with manual focus familiarity and using the digital viewfinder to replace the glass viewfinder, but I feel remote from the scene. There is also something special about the M9 files in my opinion with good glass that you don't need pixel peeking to appreciate. At the end of the day if you bond with a camera that's key and getting the picture is everything and I have bonded with the M rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted April 24, 2014 Share #72 Posted April 24, 2014 Use the optical viewfinder. Keep to manual focus (I prefocus) and manual exposure if you're comfortable. Treat it like a film M and you can't go wrong. Mattmaber.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archi4 Posted April 24, 2014 Share #73 Posted April 24, 2014 Sensor designed to the lenses, better build, ergonomics that suit me, general Gestalt, need I go on?Yes I take better photos with a camera that I am happy with. After using leica's for over 40 years, up to 2 m9's I agree about everything except build and quality control on the last lenses and bodies. All, and I mean all were misadjusted new out of the box - 2 M9 rangefinders, summicron 28mm, summilux 50mm asph, summicron 50mm, summicron 35 asph. The consolation was that Solms' service thanks to Andrea was perfect! The rangefinders I adjusted myself and after that all was perfect! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archi4 Posted April 24, 2014 Share #74 Posted April 24, 2014 The sensor is designed for the lenses in all cameras surely? And the M8 and M9's sensor is definetly nothing special. Hey, Im not shooting you down for buying one, Im just saying I find their digital prices hard to justify. If I had the cash would I buy an M240? Probably not. Id rather get an X-Pro1 and spend the spare cash on a holiday. In the film world I can see how leica's are special but in the digital world, especially with their all in one even more ridiculously priced offerings and panasonic link ups I think they've devalued their brand. The M8 and M9 CCD sensors rendered beautifully and in my opinion are unsurpassed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Pandorf Posted April 24, 2014 Share #75 Posted April 24, 2014 I think you have to look at digital differently to film, the turnover of the tech is so rapid Mattmaber.com I think this is a trap that many photographers have fallen for, especially those that have purchased hardware that was not designed to last. The "ancient" sensor in my Leica M-E still exceeds my capabilities. At base ISO (which I consider the light to be the best for making 99% of photographs) is still superior to most any other sensor out there. Add to it the "hardware" surrounding the sensor and you have a very durable piece of gear. Plus the simplicity of the controls to operate the camera is the icing on the cake for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lecycliste Posted April 27, 2014 Share #76 Posted April 27, 2014 The sensor is designed for the lenses in all cameras surely? And the M8 and M9's sensor is definetly nothing special. Actually, the sensors in the M8 and M9 are special. Their microlenses make it possible to use M-lenses without excessive vignetting, focus-smearing or color shifts in the corners, especially the sensor in the M9. Adapt a 28mm or wider M-lens to a full-frame Sony A7R (for example) and you'll see heavy vignetting, color shifts and focus smearing in the corners.The A7R's sensor isn't designed for M-lenses with their short lens-to-sensor (backfocus) spacing. Sean Reid's reviews verify these effects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lecycliste Posted April 29, 2014 Share #77 Posted April 29, 2014 About the red dot aura, I guess it's like the Apple aura? It works for me, but I have to defend myself to people who don't own it themselves. At the same time you'll have people that are so much sucked into the brand, it makes me want to sell it all. Apple designs products that usually work out of the box, are easy for most IT departments to maintain, and are an easy pleasure to use. I use both OS X / iOS and Windows 7 / 8.1 on a regular basis. While it takes Microsoft awhile to get it right, there is a wider selection of software running in Windows that does what I want, and the hardware is much less expensive. The iPhone and iPad Mini filled a need when we were moving out of state and the other machines were packed away. I had a chance to get a 2012 MacBook Air cheap, so I bought it to replace an aging 2006 MacBook Pro for presenting at photo workshops I teach. I buy what's needed to do a job, to augment what I have on hand, and what I can afford. That's why I use Canon EOS, Fuji X-E2, and Leica M (M3 since 1969). Sometimes I'm ready to throw the M8 or the X-E2 out the window, but the Canon EOS stuff is so heavy... Here's a mix of shots from Leica M8 and Fuji X-E2 (with Fuji M-mount adapter), using only M-mount lenses - <br> A Trip to the Chicago Area Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.