ZHNL Posted March 15, 2019 Share #41 Posted March 15, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 14 minutes ago, thighslapper said: M lenses work but are not recognised ..... which if you think about it logically is unsurprising ..... Panasonic has no incentive to include the firmware to recognise the 6 bit coding generated by the adapter or a table decoding what it means. You just get a pop up choice of what focal length you want the lens to be coded as. I suspect you will have to rely on LR lens profiles to correct any issues. SL lenses seem to function exactly as on the SL .... with the appropriate exif data. As there is no LR RAW converter as yet it is difficult to be 100% sure that processing is exactly as expected ...... unfortunately Silkypix is a complete dog of a program so I am stuck with OOC JPG for now. Both JPG and TIF conversions only call up a list of lens profiles in LR which are clearly meant for drones and mobile phones .... Do you need go into manual to enter the lens information? (I ask because you mentioned a "pop up") i assume once you changed Lens, you need manual enter it again. S1R will not remember the lens you already entered next time you put back on? That is not a good sign. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 15, 2019 Posted March 15, 2019 Hi ZHNL, Take a look here Panasonic S1 & S1R available next week. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
caissa Posted March 15, 2019 Share #42 Posted March 15, 2019 (edited) Maybe you know already, but just in case: I have not tried it, but with adobe DNG converter it should be possible to convert RW2 to DNG. And also photoshop elements should be able to open RW2 files. Or XnViewMP (a free software for private use). Edited March 15, 2019 by caissa 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted March 15, 2019 Share #43 Posted March 15, 2019 2 hours ago, caissa said: Maybe you know already, but just in case: I have not tried it, but with adobe DNG converter it should be possible to convert RW2 to DNG. ... I downloaded a sample S1R raw file from https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-s1r/panasonic-s1rA7.HTM . Adobe DNG Raw Converter version 11.1.0.112, which I believe is current, does not work on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 15, 2019 Share #44 Posted March 15, 2019 (edited) Maybe this is the solution ? https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2255607 Only single click on the folder, then convert. 🤞 Edited March 15, 2019 by caissa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdmesa Posted March 15, 2019 Share #45 Posted March 15, 2019 If Leica is not including IBIS on the SL2, this is great sign they listed to feedback about the size of the SL body. The SL2 could very well be nearly-M, nearly-Q2 in size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 15, 2019 Author Share #46 Posted March 15, 2019 (edited) Nope ...... none of the current RAW converters (tried LR, PS, Luminar, ON1, Alien Skin) or Adobe DNG converter work ....... even converting to TIF from silkypics will not process ..... it shows the embedded preview in LR but trying any processing at all results in a multicoloured screen of mush. Nor does Preview with the latest Mac OS work. I will have to wait till Adobe provide support. Trying to do any meaningful comparisons between RAW SL files and OOC JPG's from the SR1 is a bit pointless. Using an M lens all you will get in the exif is the focal length you chose when you fixed the lens on. I'll try some R lenses but I suspect it will be the same ..... unless there is something squirrelled away in the RAW EXIF that doesn't show up on the JPG's. If you wan't full compatibility and the convenience of full exif info and guesstimated apertures, then sticking with a full Leica system is the only way to go. Personally I hardly use any M & R lenses now ....... just the occasional go with the 280/2.8 with the teleconverters and the Nocti 0.95. All the Leica L mount lenses seem to work exactly as on the CL and SL. For me it's not an issue. It does however show just how far Leica have gone with the SL to ensure full compatibility with almost everything they have ever produced..... which is quite remarkable really. Edited March 15, 2019 by thighslapper 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 15, 2019 Share #47 Posted March 15, 2019 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) A more experimental approach (for lovers of unknown flying objects 😎) could be gimp and UFRaw ( http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/ ). It can be used standalone or as a gimp plug-in. (No, I have not used it with rw2. Not yet.) Edited March 15, 2019 by caissa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 15, 2019 Share #48 Posted March 15, 2019 I found another solution. With XnViewMP I was able to open the .rw2 files from the S1R, that I downloaded from photographyblog. And there is also a converter program. It is again free for private (non-commercial) use. (still need to test the batch converter) The raws: https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_s1r_review/sample_images The software: https://www.xnview.com/en/xnviewmp/ I hope it will also work with the original files directly from the S1R. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 16, 2019 Share #49 Posted March 16, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, CharlesL said: I downloaded a sample S1R raw file from https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-s1r/panasonic-s1rA7.HTM . Adobe DNG Raw Converter version 11.1.0.112, which I believe is current, does not work on it. There is version 11.2 available. https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/16064/adobe-dng-converter In the list of supported cameras I cannot find the Lumix S cameras, but the Q2 is there. But I cannot test it (I need to update the OS first). RW2 is not mentioned in the upgrade description, but maybe it works. Currently I use XnViewMP. Edited March 16, 2019 by caissa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 16, 2019 Author Share #50 Posted March 16, 2019 (edited) Hello folks ....... another quick update from a few hours testing ..... and I'm afraid it may not be particularly good news ...... I think you will find that M lenses under 90mm are going to give significantly worse peripheral performance than on the SL ... and the wider you, the worse it gets. Even the WATE is not completely immune. I tried the following this morning, Voigt 10mm, Voigt 12mm (old version), WATE, MATE, 21/3.4, Zeiss 35/1.4, Apo 50/2, Noct 50/0.95, 75/2, 90/4, wide open (f2 for the Nocti) The Voigt 10mm and 90/4 are perfect and all the rest have varying degrees of often fairly obvious peripheral smearing..... even the Apo 50/2 seems to be affected. On the worst it starts within the outer 1/3 of the frame. The R and SL lenses are unsurprisingly fine ...... I did have initial concerns about the SL 16-35 wide open on the S1R in the periphery ......but I think this was due to slight differences in location of the focal plane and the fact that the increased resolution shows up OOF areas more easily. This may also be a factor in making the problem more obvious on the M lenses. This is from JPG only ..... but I doubt RAW conversions are going to be much better. Peripheral colour casts are not particularly evident although there is vignetting. The only caveat is that it is blowing a gale still and the photos I took in the garden have some subject movement .... but there were enough static elements to be fairly confident in the results. I'm not bothering to post them as I can't be bothered to process/crop/label etc etc. The last time I did this I got in a right old muddle. Bear in mind these are fairly rough and ready quick tests ...... but the fact that appearances of the files is fairly consistent throughout the whole group makes me reasonably confident I am not imagining things. I'll do a selection of tripod based SL 16-35/24-90 based direct comparisons when the weather improves tomorrow. If performance of the 16-35 is not as good as on the SL then the camera is going back. The timed 60sec limit on exposure makes use for landscape a nuisance ..... having to use Bulb, extrapolating the exposure and then manually timing things is hardly 21st century photography. The only definitely compatible remote release is a crappy one like on the SL and equally overpriced. LENR is active up to 60 sec in Leica fashion but can be disabled .... I will have to check what the difference is in terms of image quality. Quite what happens beyond 60 seconds using bulb is unclear ..... . More testing to do. Edited March 16, 2019 by thighslapper 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted March 16, 2019 Share #51 Posted March 16, 2019 12 hours ago, caissa said: There is version 11.2 available. I downloaded 11.2.0.135. It does not work on S1R .rw2 files. Presumably XnViewMP, although a fine viewer program, does not understand these raw files. In this regard it would be just like Fast Stone, another fine, donation-only viewer program. Fast Stone will find and display the JPG that the camera embedded in the .rw2 file. But when you ask Fast Stone to demosaic the raw data ('A'), it displays the same pink noise mush displayed by other programs that are not yet ready for these .rw2 files. If you have an S1R and would like to help, please see https://raw.pixls.us/ and submit raw files that you shot per their instructions. They will then make Raw Therapee able to process these files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted March 16, 2019 Share #52 Posted March 16, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, thighslapper said: If performance of the 16-35 is not as good as on the SL then the camera is going back. +1. Waiting for your finding(s).... Edited March 16, 2019 by helged Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron777 Posted March 16, 2019 Share #53 Posted March 16, 2019 (edited) Thighslapper's M lens results are disappointing , although not entirely unexpected. But, like others, I rarely if ever use my M lenses, since their focal ranges are covered by SL zooms which, although heavier and bulkier, are more convenient to use for a host of reasons. So if the range of SL lenses work well with the S1R I will either sell my M lenses, or keep the SL body for their exclusive use. My aging eyes have precluded the continued use of my M bodies. Therefore, I too await the SL 16-35/S1R results. Edited March 16, 2019 by ron777 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted March 16, 2019 Share #54 Posted March 16, 2019 1 hour ago, thighslapper said: If performance of the 16-35 is not as good as on the SL then the camera is going back. Out of curiosity, on what grounds would you be able to return the camera (assuming it was not purchased on 'try it out' basis)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted March 16, 2019 Share #55 Posted March 16, 2019 17 minutes ago, Keith (M) said: Out of curiosity, on what grounds would you be able to return the camera (assuming it was not purchased on 'try it out' basis)? As someone with a background in consumer protection, I would be curious to know the basis for a claim against the retailer. Unless you have an agreement with the retailer or the camera is not working to specification (or as described) a refund would not normally be warranted. William Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 16, 2019 Author Share #56 Posted March 16, 2019 20 minutes ago, Keith (M) said: Out of curiosity, on what grounds would you be able to return the camera (assuming it was not purchased on 'try it out' basis)? ....... it will be purely if the alleged full compatibility with L alliance mount lenses doesn't come up to expectations ..... and my dealer has had many £10's of thousands of my cash over the years ..... and he will be welcome to keep current payment as a deposit on an SL2 . In fact I think Leica L lens performance on the SR1 will prove to be fine ..... the increased resolution tends to magnify any slight differences .... so despite some grumbles about a few things I think the benefits will outweigh the downsides and I will be keeping it. It's a pity no RAW conversion is available except with Panasonics own awful, impenetrable program, which I have no option but to try and tackle. OOC JPG's are very good but do have some chroma noise in the shadows even at iso 100. I would hope this would be absent in converted RAW's. Some other interesting points ...... presumably combined IBIS and lens OIS only works with Panasonic lenses ...... as with SL lenses you can choose OIS or IBIS ..... so 5 stops (if your lucky) is the best you will get. Both seem equally effective. With manual lenses it obviously defaults to IBIS and works very effectively. Peaking seems better, more accurate and more usable than on the SL ...... with the 75/2 wide open you have a very bright narrow strip that marches in and out when you focus manually. The shutter is quiet but very sensitive ..... it requires only a tiny bit of extra pressure from half depression to activate it..... so it is not for the heavy handed. The histogram implementation is good ..... white when correctly exposed ...... orange if over or under...... and you can locate it anywhere you like on the screen. You also have a pick list for the 'lock' button ...... so I have it set to disable the touch screen. Lots of good configurable stuff..... most of which I doubt I will ever use. More to check and test tomorrow. I have a list of questions for the Panasonic guys at the NEC Photo Show when I am there on monday. 4 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron777 Posted March 16, 2019 Share #57 Posted March 16, 2019 (edited) 45 minutes ago, willeica said: As someone with a background in consumer protection, I would be curious to know the basis for a claim against the retailer. Unless you have an agreement with the retailer or the camera is not working to specification (or as described) a refund would not normally be warranted. William If you were to purchase from one of the two largest USA resellers, they offer from a 30, and in some instances 60 day no questions asked return policy for cameras and lenses. But glad to hear the more positive impressions arising from Thighslapper's investigation. Edited March 16, 2019 by ron777 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willeica Posted March 16, 2019 Share #58 Posted March 16, 2019 29 minutes ago, ron777 said: f you were to purchase from one of the two largest USA resellers, they offer from a 30, and in some instances 60 day no questions asked return policy for cameras and lenses. But glad to hear the more positive impressions arising from Thighslapper's investigation. That is a US thing. Sale of Goods legislation is more or less as I described in Europe, unless the retailer decides to offer more, which can happen. If Thighslapper wishes to argue that the Lumix camera does not work according to specifications with L Mount lenses that is one way to go. The use of an adapter can, of course, add complications, but the camera should work with all L Mount lenses. If this is a question of degree as regards one sensor v another sensor this could add to the complications. The thing to do is raise any issues with the retailer in a calm and documented fashion. William Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 16, 2019 Share #59 Posted March 16, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, CharlesL said: I downloaded 11.2.0.135. It does not work on S1R .rw2 files. Presumably XnViewMP, although a fine viewer program, does not understand these raw files. In this regard it would be just like Fast Stone, another fine, donation-only viewer program. Fast Stone will find and display the JPG that the camera embedded in the .rw2 file. But when you ask Fast Stone to demosaic the raw data ('A'), it displays the same pink noise mush displayed by other programs that are not yet ready for these .rw2 files. If you have an S1R and would like to help, please see https://raw.pixls.us/ and submit raw files that you shot per their instructions. They will then make Raw Therapee able to process these files. How could I find out if XnViewMP works with the real raw data or just with the embedded jpgs ? What would be the size of these jpgs ? Is it possible to extract them and just leave the "real" raw data in the .rw2 file ? The downloaded rw2 files are 69 MB in size (e.g. 69.9 or 69.7). Assuming the embedded jpgs are about 20 MB (20.5) this leaves about 49 MB for the real data. Is this possible (and does it fit to the image parameters ?) ? By the way, the images look a bit soft, so I thought they could really be raws. But now I am rather puzzled ... photographyblog.com has clearly two different download areas for jpgs and for raws. Why would they add an embedded jpg (or is it mandatory) ? (causing double downloads ?) Edited March 16, 2019 by caissa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 16, 2019 Author Share #60 Posted March 16, 2019 spot the difference ...... 16-35 at 16mm, f9. 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/294926-panasonic-s1-s1r-available-next-week/?do=findComment&comment=3703744'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now