Jump to content

bholst

Members
  • Posts

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    bholst reacted to darknj in Is Fuji still committed to the x100 line? Still worth it?   
    That's partially true, I still have an old Nikon D5000 in the house and anything above ISO 800 on the camera is just a smudge of pixels, which would happen a lot indoor. You would still need to pay decent money for something that would be able to hold ISO 3200 decently plus price of the lens, but you would get a better AF speed.
     
    If I were to pick something for myself now, I would either go with the Nikon D5500 or the much older Nikon D300S but neither solution would be smaller than X-T1 plus 23mm lens.
  2. Like
    bholst reacted to Larry Bolch in My favorite Photography Quote is...   
    “The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don’t know what to do with it.” – Edward Weston
  3. Like
    bholst reacted to graflex in Lightroom CC 2015 1.1 is still horrible bad with Xtrans files...   
    It is not possible. The root of the problem is Adobe's demosaicing of the X-Trans CFA. They do a poor job of rendering the finest detail compared with the competitive converters. The problem can't be "Bridgwooded" away because it's ultimately not due to sharpening (or noise processing). Various procedures like Bridgwood's or Fitzgerald's etc. are methods to avoid exacerbating the problem -- they don't correct it as it is not user correctable.
     
     
    It is an Adobe problem in dealing with the X-Trans CFA. Most of the other raw converters do a better job of rendering fine detail. If the problem is apparent in an LR conversion and you can't make adjustments to correct it while the problem is not apparent in 5 other conversions from 5 other raw converters simple logic points to Adobe.
     
    If you're wedded to LR and not happy switching or using a supplemental raw converter then you: 1. keep waiting for Adobe to improve, 2. move on and sell the Fuji, 3. take the blue pill and convince yourself it's gotten better.
     
    Personally I love my Fuji and I'm keeping it -- wonderful camera. I encountered the "Adobe" problem the very first time I used the camera. For me the solution was easy, no more Adobe.
     

×
×
  • Create New...