Maurice

Nothing actually, you lose a stop, it only creates more distance between you and the subject.

Of course the many webinars available for CO8 still apply as a good starting point for many questions. Complete playlist here on Youtube. For example:

Yeah, a bit too soon imho. New features are great, but the software is not cheap even with upgrade or other discounts. The contrast algorithm was definitely one of its lesser performing tools, way too strong for me and affecting too much of the image that it shouldn't. It's way better now, possibly better than LR, as it does just that (and only) what it's supposed to however far you push it. Most notably it doesn't affect saturation anymore. They did the same thing with the Curves tool called Luma (for obvious reasons), which is something unique to CO so far as i know, and can now be applied locally as well! It's amazing really how fast they're improving. The difference between 7 and 8 was big, and just a year later another noticeably big bump with 9. That's one advantage of a fast release cycle .. About your questions. 1) Of course, it would really defeat the purpose of a library if you couldn't do such basics. But yeah these things are always confusing between different programs. Maybe this helps: 2) You can draw local adjustment masks and sharpening is among the available tools if that's what you mean. If you mean sharpening edges without sharpening finer details like noise then use the Threshold slider, it's always been there and enabled by default. Don't worry that's completely normal with C1, but it has some really powerful features once you get the hang of it. Not all roses and sunshine though. Found that the 'manufacturer profile' for lens correction of at least one particular lens didn't correct properly, where LR did perfectly. The new 35mm F2 to be exact, using the RAFs from dpreview's sample gallery. It creates very subtle mustache distortion that can be visible on some images with (supposedly) very straight lines. :-(

Most noticeable at close range, but really at any focus distance the X100 doesn't come close to the XF23 when shot at F2 and even F2.8. It bugs me all the time with 'real' shooting, in fact i didn't even do a test chart. *Don't have the XF23, but everything i've seen clearly looks much better. Mirrorlessons did somewhat of a comparison too: http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2013/10/28/the-fujinon-xf-23mm-f1-4-hands-on-comparison-with-the-x100s-2/

It's unlikely that you need F1.4 for street unless you like to shoot at dusk(?), and the size of the 23/1.4 would scare away some people. It's better to look like a tourist than a pro .. perception can be everything. I think that even the Graphite X-T1 would be best because that makes it look more fancy than professional, making people curious instead of nervous .. just thinking out loud here. As you've seen, the image quality of the 27mm is impeccable. The X-T10 looks harmless as well in both colors i guess, it's tiny (too tiny for some hands). The main reason to get the X-T1 over the X-T10 is the larger viewfinder, but that's just a luxury .. as are most of the other small differences. As for the focal length, read this: http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2014/11/storytellers-kit-daniel-schaefer/

Of course, it's their signature feature. But xtrans is just the color-filter layer that they stick on top of the sensor of choice.

You have to do that for numerous things ... that doesn't mean it couldn't be put to good use. Offering the option is extremely simple and hurts no-one.

Well, i guess we can relax now the rest of the year. Even Patrick can .. gordonrussell has it covered.

We know, only a small bug was fixed, the actual promised xtrans improvement is still to come. And have you tried installing Iridient on Windows? I bet flysurfer did in his version. Indeed 'it helps' ..

Pez, FYI 1.200px × 1.393px is anything but low-res for a web image. Whatever happened to it has nothing to do with resolution. I don't know if maybe your monitor is set up in a weird way that you don't see it, but it is enormously distracting from 'the art'. Of course i agree that when you're just trying to show something it doesn't have to be a masterpiece, i wouldn't mention it if it was a snap with your smartphone (though even then it would not be normal), but for an image with the 60mm this was just too obvious of an issue to ignore. We are here to learn and progress are we not? I most definitely was not around when the Atari was, and like i said i was offering to help by mentioning it. What is a shame is that you seem to prefer to ignore the problem at this point. My original post was a contribution in progress but milandro intervened before it could be of any use to anyone, and now you apparently i am saddened to read have chosen to waste it entirely.

Problem with wides is that they are not wide anymore on apsc, so you basically need what was considered super-wide and those don't fall under 'reasonable cost' very often and/or have a slow aperture. There are some 24mm lenses that are F2.8 or even F2 if you're lucky that can be pretty good like Olympus OM, but of course that is still only 35mm equiv on apsc. Costs skyrocket for anything beyond 24mm. If you're looking for manual focus wide i'd want one made for apsc specifically like the Samyang 12mm F2. At that price with great performance it is a no brainer really, and don't even need an adapter!

Not at all, it doesn't have a EVF.

Absolutely no chance ... that it will have the same 16MP sensor again.

Hey, i didn't ask for this.

Well thank you, takes one to know one, i'm sure Pez appreciates you setting that straight.

And we are blessed with that informative opinion filling the page of this topic near top to bottom because i have the superiority complex ?

And calling him severely optically challenged is what, the pinnacle of positive suggestion ? Sarcasm is used by everyone every day, it brings a little light humor to bringing somewhat bad news, and that .. is the opposite of negative. So i was direct about it, let's say to rip off the band-aid .. you like to do it slow, i do not. But taking offense or assuming one would is on you, not me, especially since this was not about you. The one creating a unnecessary negativity here now is you. Fact is that being made aware of an obvious problem like i said is simply step one, and it is as helpful with sarcasm as it is with a bow on it. I would have wanted to be made aware of it, and i would have joked about it afterwards. I was curious of how it could have happened, and i was willing to help fix it, but i'm doing this instead .. some help you've been.

Curious .. anyone with a X-E2 or X-T have that happen ?

Which is why i asked. Step 1 is always noticing. I suppose he did NOT notice, or he either would fix it before doing so, have noted the situation, or be asking about it. Resolution or "weight"(?) are fine, as has been suggested through my superior knowledge something went wrong with the bit depth. The final image does not seem to be the error, probably because the forum simply converted it back to 'normal' for him, but of course the damage was already done. So there's nothing we can do here until he provides us with information on the situation.

You did notice that image looks like it would on a 8 bit Atari computer ?

Obviously you can already do that. The point is to fix a multiple of settings at once, temporarily. Clearly the new name is just as horrible as the old one, probably even more !

Exactly, that is common practice, lots of people like to work that way. And i do too on some occasions when i just don't need it to keep re-focusing for every shot. Landscape for example when trying different compositions or when you are waiting for the right moment, you can 'prepare' by presetting the focus and it's great knowing it won't change unless you tell it to! It even saves battery power not to activate the AF for every shot when it isn't necessary.

This would be nice. I wonder if it actually consumes power at all. In (mostly-)analog film cameras it's about the only thing that did consume power, but now when the EVF is already active, would it even make a difference if you could set it to just keep metering? Since you're already looking at a live-view image anyway .. ! Maybe use a color for active metering, and have it fade to grey after a few seconds. Or maybe not even that, because the only way it wouldn't be accurate is if you change metering mode or position of spot metering, but that shouldn't really matter either because since it's active the metering would just change along with it!

I vote calling it Discreet Mode.

Exactly, i don't see why so many people have such a problem figuring this out. They could have named it better in the first place, but come people it wasn't that big a mystery. I like Museum Mode. That would have been a curious one, but it would get ones attention to get those brains running, which apparently is necessary, and it's a fun phrase to easily remember. Anyway, Discreet Mode would have been best and would have prevented a lot of confusion, since that is exactly what it is plain and simple!