indergaard Posted February 9, 2015 Share #21 Posted February 9, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Adobe seems to have made some progress with Fuji's X-Trans files. Here is what Ming Thein wrote recently: *He ended up selling the X-T1 apparently because its "mechanical dials run backwards compared to my Nikons", but his comments on ACR processing are interesting nevertheless. And, of course, what applies to ACR also applies to Lightroom. See also Photography Life's Oct. 2014 analysis of Fuji X-E2 files in Lightroom, which concludes in part: You can still provoke some paint-like effect if you over-sharpen, but pretty much any pic from any camera looks bad if you over-sharpen. Capture One Pro 8 still gives noticeable better raw file rendering than Lightroom 5.7.1 from my experience, but yes, Adobe support has improved too. The biggest difference is the end user, though. The X-Trans CFA requires a completely different approach to sharpening and general processing than Bayer CFA's. But people seem to be sticking to their old habits, and rather just complain about changes to their workflow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Hi indergaard, Take a look here The M240 as a high quality value platform ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dant Posted February 16, 2015 Share #22 Posted February 16, 2015 OP, Leica is a poor value for the $ if you go by IQ. The ONLY things I like about Leica are durability, shutter speed dial, small size, simplified manual controls and rangefinder. If the Japanese made a Leica knockoff for $2500 I sell off my 4 Leicas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 16, 2015 Share #23 Posted February 16, 2015 OP, Leica is a poor value for the $ if you go by IQ. The ONLY things I like about Leica are durability, shutter speed dial, small size, simplified manual controls and rangefinder. If the Japanese made a Leica knockoff for $2500 I sell off my 4 Leicas. Well, I would say, that the thing I like most about Leica is the glass. The camera is nicely built, too, but it's overkill for the digital age when the electronics will fail or be outdated before the leatherette needs to be replaced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share #24 Posted February 16, 2015 Well, I would say, that the thing I like most about Leica is the glass. The camera is nicely built, too, but it's overkill for the digital age when the electronics will fail or be outdated before the leatherette needs to be replaced. I disagree I love using a metal camera and dislike plasticky Using it dictates whether I can be bothered to pick it up at all Best rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tookaphotoof Posted February 16, 2015 Share #25 Posted February 16, 2015 Would never sell my film Leicas, but as far as the M240 concerns if there was another manufacturer with a digital rangefinder for half the price... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 16, 2015 Share #26 Posted February 16, 2015 I've avoided posting in this thread mostly because what I wanted to say wasn't very constructive but I do, at the moment, have a more constructive perspective. I believe the M9 truly was a high value, high quality platform. I think the M240 certainly added a whole heap of value with new features, but none that I personally need or want (I know others are happy though). I'm not sure how I feel, though, a couple years down the line. I can't quite be sure if Leica is good value right now though. But then, I'm not sure it's best to put Leica into the value category. It's more a heart thing, right? It's about passion which tends to blind. One thing I can say is I love the picture quality these cameras output, in some senses more than any other camera (or lens as the case may be), and this, to me, makes value sort of irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 16, 2015 Share #27 Posted February 16, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I disagree I love using a metal camera and dislike plasticky Using it dictates whether I can be bothered to pick it up at all Best rgds I agree. But there are many types of metal out there. I would in all honesty prefer a significantly lighter full magnesium alloy body, like the Sony RX1, Fujfilm X100T, etc. than the rather heavy brass build of the current M. If I want a heavy camera, I can just pick up a DSLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share #28 Posted February 16, 2015 I agree. But there are many types of metal out there. I would in all honesty prefer a significantly lighter full magnesium alloy body, like the Sony RX1, Fujfilm X100T, etc. than the rather heavy brass build of the current M. If I want a heavy camera, I can just pick up a DSLR. Funny you should mention those two cameras I regard the RX1 as exactly an example of how to make a camera. All metal. Solid and purposeful buttons, great handling, great menus. However the X100T I don't like, things like the rear wheel and certain buttons are just cheap and the plastic coated top finish is horrible. I say this as a great admirer of Fuji and owner of an X-T1. I was really hoping the X100T was an upgrade in quality over the X100s. But here is the rub, if you added a full metal top to the X100T I suspect that would be another £500. You get what you pay for. Fuji were right to design to a price. Someone has to hold no compromise standards. And that someone is Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted February 16, 2015 Share #29 Posted February 16, 2015 I have too many cameras including many of the ones mentioned in this thread. They all have strengths and weaknesses. But I use my Leicas more than any of the others. For me, that makes them better value. I don't buy cameras to re-sell them. I buy them to use them. And that means no cotton wool so my cameras don't have the resale value others might expect. I have spent ten times on my Leica kit what I have in Sony A series. If I divide the number of shots taken on a system by the cost of the system (or is that the other way around?) the Leica is better value, per shot. Plus, None of my other camera give me a smile when I pick them up. Currently only my Leicas do that. Worth every penny. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 20, 2015 Share #30 Posted February 20, 2015 OP, Leica is a poor value for the $ if you go by IQ. The ONLY things I like about Leica are durability, shutter speed dial, small size, simplified manual controls and rangefinder. If the Japanese made a Leica knockoff for $2500 I sell off my 4 Leicas. Well, the general quality of sensors, even of those in cheap cameras, is so high nowadays that it is more than sufficient for 95% of photographers. 5 % may be so advanced that these developments really make a difference, for the rest of us they amount to the Princess on the Pea syndrome. The things that really diffentiate camera systems are basic concept, ergonomics, focusing systems, durability and build quality, lens quality, etc... Did I hear somebody whisper Leica ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Bedford Posted February 20, 2015 Share #31 Posted February 20, 2015 I certainly didn't buy the Leica M solely for its sensor and if that's all you want out of it, then you're probably investing in the wrong camera. The Sony sensor in the Nikon D810 is mind blowing and Leica would have an absolute digital killer with that sensor inside. I came from the Fuji X100s and Adobe's lack of improvement in their X-Trans rendering (it still frankly sucks) was a small reason for the shift. I want to be able to use Lightroom because I use VSCO for my colour and black and white raws. These are the main reasons why I switched to the M and a Summarit 35mm (and why my bank account mysteriously vanished for a while): The camera feels nothing like the X100s. It's beautiful and solid and is an actual rangefinder. 24mp Bayer sensor with decent low light, higher resolution, normal debayering. It's the most modern digital M so it'll last me a while. A Leica in the hand is nothing like a plasticky X100s, as much as I love that camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted February 21, 2015 Share #32 Posted February 21, 2015 Deciding on Leica is very simple. How those who want a DSLR manage to choose between the thousands of minute differences is a thing of wonder to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.