IanW writes:
>The apple aperture conversion betters the Lightroom, however for most
>cases or normal use it is not an issue and LR4 does just fine, maybe I
>don't pixel peep enough but I only shot jpeg a little at the beginning
t>o try and see why I shouldn't shoot raw, I then switched to shooting
>raw as the post processing options far outweighed any disadvantages of
>the raw conversion - to my eyes.
Thanks for that. Always appreciate trusted list members experience
with actual use .
Certainly the update to ACR mitigated most but not all of the issues.
You may recall this:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1550547764/adobes-fujifilm-x-trans-sensor-processing-tested
I see other examples posted but is no biggie now, IMO. I loved the
handling of the XE-1 but with the OM-D
in my other hand, the speed of AF difference was dramatic. I was
prepared to be smitten too and still like the overall images produced.
A 200% display of the improvement:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/64/779464.png
Seems the X-trans sensor inherently may have bit less chroma noise at
high ISO but also less chroma detail at base ISO then NEX (or even
OM-D).
Even some regions of fine color detail can go monochrome.
This may be predicted from two nearly identical sensors (NEX) with
different color filter arrays. The Fuji optimizes high ISO over low ISO
performance with the CFA choice . This will suit some very well . The
differences are not very marked however, and both are right answers for
many given the absolute excellent IQ of both.
Too much pixel peeping, not enough image production, Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
