Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Fuji X-Pro 1  (Read 10778 times)
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1739



WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2012, 04:29:57 PM »
ReplyReply

It will make us all wish the M10 will scale a sensor of this quality out to FF size (ie: 35-40MP) to really USE the Leica glass.

I should add that I share your dream.

 
Logged

markd61
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2012, 05:11:01 PM »
ReplyReply

This preoccupation with precision overlooks the fact that errors are in all these systems and that the accumulated error erases any possible nuance that one believes one is getting.

This has been compounded in the digital age by the belief in absolute numerical accuracy of electronics. I truly believe that we are not going to "leave light on the table" if we do not micromanage every quantifiable step along the way. The profoundly small adjustments that can be made both in LR and PS will completely obscure these slight differences in exposure. Moreover, as MR and others have maintained, the real proof is in the print which introduces another level of variability of it's own.

I like thinking in terms of music where the notes are starting points for the artist. No two violinists will use their bows in the same way. I am not advocating sloppiness in technique but I do believe we lose sight of the art when we focus on the numbers.
Logged
image66
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2012, 05:20:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I consider this camera to be a "rangefinder formfactor" camera as opposed an "SLR formfactor" camera so calling it a rangefinder is just fine. A bit of genericization of terms is fine with me. Otherwise we really start to go down the road of having to come up with a new category every time a tiny bit of technology gets updated.

As to the holdover of "stops" in exposure, I totally disagree with the OP. These numbers mean things. There is a very specific relationship between Apertures, Shutter-speeds and ISO's. I remember about 13 years ago I was buying a new flash meter and another photographer was in the store buying one too. He was all upset because the granularity of the digital meters was only 1/10 of a stop. His concerns were bogus and the shop owner proved it to him by asking him to try and meter the scene exactly the same way twice.

ETTR for maximum dynamic range and noise control is great with SOME cameras (Olympus and Panasonic are exceptions due to the way the pixels combine), but almost without exception when you get within 1/3 a stop of clipping in the histogram you've already clipped sensels. This is especially true with the derived colors like yellow, cyan and magenta. With Oympus/Panasonic files, increase that margin a bit more.

As a portrait photographer I am most interested in skin tones. So far, from the samples I've seen, Fuji has done very well in this regard. But some serious hard comparisions would be nice. In the world of landscape photography we really aren't overly precise in things. We always fix stuff in post. But for the majority of working pros, having a camera that nails things down in camera is critical.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609


« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2012, 06:27:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Fuji tend to do well on skin tones (and other subjects), but they should do as they have a lot of experience in this area (it's subjective but still a valid point)
As for this model it looked very interesting, until I discovered Fuji had gone for "focus by wire", this dated relic of camera experimentation got dumped decades ago because it basically sucked v mechanical focus. That alone is a deal breaker for some.

Maybe I'm overly fussy, but whilst Fuji seemed to be tuned into "photographers" for many of their newer releases, clearly the "awful focus by wire" missed someone's brain at Fuji HQ as it did for some of their previous offerings.



Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1477



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2012, 08:54:41 PM »
ReplyReply

"Am I the only one who cringes when he calls this a "range finder?"  Over and over again. "


It's all arguing semantics really and will probably confirm to michael exactly what he thinks about internet forums ;-) but here goes anyway...

... a "rangefinder" is presumably any device that allows you to determine the distance to something. So whether that be achieved by parallax, by sonar, radar, contrast detection or a measuring tape, it's still pretty much rangefinding.  I've always been happy to think of the Contax G cameras as rangefinders even though they use an AF system rather than optical parallax methods, but that's just me. On the whole I agree it can be confusing for techies when people use very specific terms in a looser sense. So, yes, let's not call the Fuji a rangefinder, let's give it a more accurate name. How about:

"a direct view, optical tunnel viewfinder cameras, with switchable LCD information overlays and switchable alternative EVF option that focuses automatically using an electronic rangefinding system with the option of manual focus by eye using a magnified EVF view".

There you go, much better than "rangefinder" which should be reserved for Leica, Zorki and FED. Confusion all cleared up ;-)

D


1.  Well ya..   You didn't really say that did you?

2.  All I know about Michael and how he feels about forums can probably be summed up by knowing this is his forum.   You did it again...  Shocked

3.  A yardstick would be a "range finder" by this definition.. so no.. not really.  We all know what "range finder" in the context of cameras means.  Well, except the author of this article. 

4.  Humor is good. 
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1477



WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2012, 09:03:11 PM »
ReplyReply


 
@Steve (etc). I'm profoundly amused by the rage provoked by my calling this a rangefinder camera. Sean Reid called me to set me straight on this already.  Yes, I know it does not possess a rangefinder mechanism.  I will talk about this interesting (but ultimately pointless) semantic debate in my next installment. The main reason I resist caving in and calling it something else is that RF has come to mean more than 'a camera which focuses through image triangulation'. There's only one production digital camera left that does that, the Leica.  There will likely be no more.  But the term persists. Manual rangefinding was invented as a way to focus back when there was nothing better. While I love RF cameras, it is not for the way they focus. It is for their size, shape, sound and view-finding way of seeing the subject.   

To me, continuing to use the term "rangefinder" to describe cameras which have all of those attributes, save-and-except for the eponymous, and deeply annoying, method of focusing, is logically consistent and communicationally effective.  But I remain open to the opposite view...

Cheers,

- N.   


     

1.  I'd be amused by someone feeling rage over the issue too.

2.  Good for Sean Reid.   Roll Eyes

3.  Since when and to whom?   Why am I always the last to know such things..

4.  Well heck, if that's the criteria we don't have to fear the demise of the range finder.  Seems to be a lot more of them than I knew about just yesterday..  Cheesy

5.  That's good.  I like to think I'm open minded too.  I'm probably not, but I like thinking so.

It will be interesting to read how you address this in your next installment which btw I'm looking forward to.  Great information and fun reading.  I haven't yet decided if I'll get mine, but articles like yours help us all make such decisions.  Thank you.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2012, 08:32:35 AM »
ReplyReply

ETTR for maximum dynamic range and noise control is great with SOME cameras (Olympus and Panasonic are exceptions due to the way the pixels combine), but almost without exception when you get within 1/3 a stop of clipping in the histogram you've already clipped sensels. This is especially true with the derived colors like yellow, cyan and magenta. With Oympus/Panasonic files, increase that margin a bit more.

Are you really sure you know what you are talking about? 

What is it about the "way the pixels combine" in Olympus and Panasonic "files" that makes them not "great" candidates for ETTR?

Logged
bobtowery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2012, 09:17:49 AM »
ReplyReply

For those of us with digital speedometers:

Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291


« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2012, 09:35:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Well said.  This quest for some imaginary perfect exposure reveals a misunderstanding of exposure.  The correct exposure is the one that feels right; no further precision is needed.

There isn't a quest for a perfect exposure, rather for an exposure to be correct according to our desires.

In some instances, that desire means over exposing the image to a point just before that where detail that we care about is over exposed.

In other instances, it can mean something else.

The problem is that even though we've got modern tools, they're still imposing antiquated limits and boundaries on how we achieve an exposure that feels right. In effect, for those that like to shoot raw and ETTR, the tools are not providing us with what we need to obtain an image that has been exposed how we would like it to be. The tools are capable of giving us much greater freedom than we have today in choosing parameters for the exposure that feels right to us.

As much as digital photography has advanced the art, some aspects of it appear to be well and truly welded to the past. To me, if a camera is going to be branded as a tool of the 21st century then it needs to be prepared to break those bonds.

The Lytro Light Field Camera is perhaps the first real example of a 21st century camera.  It challenges a great many of the existing preconceptions of what is required to take a photograph. In comparison, everything else is pretty much a case of "lets replace film with a digital sensor."
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 12:42:39 PM by dreed » Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2012, 09:46:01 AM »
ReplyReply

"I once read about five monkeys that were placed in a room with a banana at the top of a set of stairs. As one monkey attempted to climb the stairs, all of the monkeys were sprayed with jets of cold water. A second monkey made an attempt and again the monkeys were sprayed. No more monkeys attempted to climb the stairs. One of the monkeys was then removed from the room and replaced with a new monkey. New monkey saw the banana and started to climb the stairs but to its surprise, it was attacked by the other monkeys. Another of the original monkeys was replaced and the newcomer was also attacked when he attempted to climb the stairs. The previous newcomer took part in the punishment with enthusiasm. Replacing a third original monkey with a new one, it headed for the stairs and was attacked as well. Half of the monkeys that attacked him had no idea why. After replacing the fourth and fifth original monkeys, none had ever been sprayed with cold water but all stayed the fuck away from the stairs.

Being here longer than me doesn't automatically make your adherence to a rule, or the rule itself, right. It makes you the fifth replacement monkey. The one with the weird red arse and the first to point and screech when anyone approaches the stairs. I would be the sixth monkey, at home in bed trying to come up with a viable excuse not to spend another fruitless day locked in a room with five neurotic monkeys."

http://www.27bslash6.com/timesheets.html

Logged
image66
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


« Reply #30 on: March 11, 2012, 10:39:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Are you really sure you know what you are talking about? 

What is it about the "way the pixels combine" in Olympus and Panasonic "files" that makes them not "great" candidates for ETTR?



Not enough time at the moment to go into detail here, but Olympus/Panasonic sensors utilize two different greens. It is vital that during raw conversion all for pixels are combined properly otherwise you get artifacts and color shifts--especially in the highest exposure values.

When you look at the histogram in RGB mode, you think that all theee colors are safe, but what you are looking at is a converted image, not the sensor data. The information you are looking at is two steps removed from the sensors actual A-D conversion. First step is passing through the built in demosiac algorithm and the second pass is the breaking down of exposure values of the three primary colors.

But consider what happens with a derived color such as yellow. You are combining greens and reds. To achieve an ETTR exposure with yellow, the green sensels are usually OK even though you have blown out the red sensels. When you look at the RGB histograms the red looks fine because it is a post conversion view of the damaged image. This usually isn't a problem when the scene is made up of pure red, blue and green colors.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #31 on: March 11, 2012, 11:38:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I like monkeys, I had one, once, for about a night.

I was fifteen, and bought the thing in Madras whlilst spending the day there awaiting a train connection home. It seemed quite friendly when the guy handed it over in exchange for some rupees, but after some hours perched up on the luggage rack in the compartment, its happy demeanour turned sour and all that it seemed disposed to display was teeth.

I realised that taking this thing home hadn't been my brightest idea; I also realised that I'd probably be both bitten by the monkey and that neither of us would greeted with a lot of enthusiasm at home. So, I passed ownership (what a fond concept!) on to another kid moving further down the line... I often wondered where the monkey ended up. Other than confused, I mean.

But I still like monkeys, and their behaviour re. steps is quite intelligent; note they seldom buy cameras, even though I'm sure they could easily learn how to operate them. We have much to learn from our cousins.

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1739



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 11, 2012, 12:34:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Paracetamol, Rob, paracetamol.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #33 on: March 11, 2012, 04:13:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Paracetamol, Rob, paracetamol.



Don't dare to take it, Keith; it clashes! (I assume you're not suggesting it for the monkey?)

Fake coffee works a bit, but only as long as I don't remember that it's fake.

;-(

Rob C


Bracketing etc.

I think folks might be looking at this thing the wrong way around. Think horses for courses.

If you want a camera that allows all the multiple functions of an slr, then buy an slr. If this camera is, indeed, modelled on the M concept of photography, why should it provide bracketing, which implies a tripod at the very least? Cameras of this ilk are supposedly street-wise instruments, light and convenient machines that can provide the discretion and speed that slr bodies simply can't. You want to make a statement, carry a huge slr; you want to be cool and quick and, preferrably, not noticed, carry a "rangefinder", which I am perfectly happy to consider this particular camera to be, regardless of semantic punctiliousness expressed within these pages. I am totally prepared to accept that there are basic camera types: rangefinder, slr, tlr, field, monorail and even process. Is it hard to guess where this one fits, does one even have to guess?

As for needing more than a third/quarter stop control... never in my life, and that included heaps of Kodachrome and Velvia. But then, I was always interested in the image I was making; the technical birth pangs were of no consequence at all. As someone mentioned, the moment you go into PS or whatever, all bets are off; you might as well have stayed within a third of a stop and enjoyed your shoot. Unless, of course, it is the splitting of hairs that makes your day.

I would love to have my D700 sensor inside a light, small and convenient body that doesn't cripple me after half-an-hour of walking. Yes, I am old and decrepit, but some day, with luck, you will all be, so don't knock the requirements.

There never has been and probably never will be the perfect, universal tool; for me, the closest it got was the Nikon F. But I was young.

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 04:55:42 PM by Rob C » Logged

jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2012, 06:46:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Not enough time at the moment to go into detail here

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291


« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2012, 06:55:00 PM »
ReplyReply


...
I think folks might be looking at this thing the wrong way around. Think horses for courses.
...
I am totally prepared to accept that there are basic camera types: rangefinder, slr, tlr, field, monorail and even process. Is it hard to guess where this one fits, does one even have to guess?

As for needing more than a third/quarter stop control... never in my life, and that included heaps of Kodachrome and Velvia. But then, I was always interested in the image I was making; the technical birth pangs were of no consequence at all.
...
As someone mentioned, the moment you go into PS or whatever, all bets are off; you might as well have stayed within a third of a stop and enjoyed your shoot. Unless, of course, it is the splitting of hairs that makes your day.
...

Why does the way in which photography is performed need to be forever wrapped up around how it was practised in the 20th century using film?

For those of us that shoot raw, every photograph requires us to go into PS or whatever and I suspect that what those of us that shoot raw would like is for the camera to make it easy to maximize the information that PS is given so that we can go back to just caring about the image.
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2012, 07:00:15 PM »
ReplyReply

As for needing more than a third/quarter stop control...

All I know is, nobody will ever see my images exactly as I intend unless they are looking over my shoulder at my monitor, or viewing the print under my lights.

Control and accuracy (as opposed to precision) are important, but at a certain point these becomes meaningless.

Paul
Logged

kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2012, 09:12:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Help me understand, please.
You're saying that you need exposure compensation finer than 1/3 stop increments? You're saying that having shutter speeds in 1 EV increments is a problem?

I wouldn't claim to personally need exposure compensation finer than 1/3 stop increments or that shutter speeds in 1 EV increments have ever been a problem for me. However, I do (very humbly, being no kind of engineer) wonder whether, if there are technologically advanced civilisations on other planets that also do digital photography, they necessarily do exposure, shutter speed and sensitivity exactly the same way we do, or if we did the (thought or material) experiment of redesigning a digital camera from scratch without regard to current practices but taking maximum advantage of current technology, we would come up with what we have now. If speed, aperture and sensitivity can be made continuously variable, why not allow them to be? Of course it is useful to have some sort of equivalence between the impact on exposure of changes in each variable, but the current numerical conventions as to how changes are measured are hardly optimal for that purpose - they are just what we are used to. If perfect, or significantly improved, precision is difficult to achieve, and benefits no-one, then sure, don't bother. But if it could be done with current technology, and has practical benefits for some photographers, then why not?
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #38 on: March 12, 2012, 04:13:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Why does the way in which photography is performed need to be forever wrapped up around how it was practised in the 20th century using film?For those of us that shoot raw, every photograph requires us to go into PS or whatever and I suspect that what those of us that shoot raw would like is for the camera to make it easy to maximize the information that PS is given so that we can go back to just caring about the image.


IMO, because it's still exactly the same exercise: the placing of a measured quantity of light onto a surface, making the most of the two variable factors that control it to the greatest extent - brightness and duration of exposure. So far, that doesn't depend on the number of the century.

Your second point, about 'going back to just caring about the image' sort of implies that you enjoyed that condition during an earlier period - which can only mean the time when you used film... If the controls were sufficient then to allow absorption of the self by the creative aspects of the medium, why see a problem with the same (though it's actually better) situation today?  Yes, I can understand perfectly well that there might be some theoretical value to 'perfect' control of parameters, but from a practical point of view, it means zilch when we are already able to be so very accurate. It's akin to thinking that if we don't breathe a precise quantity of air with each breath, and a given number of such breaths per minute that we shall suddenly die. Life is a very flexible concept and photography no less so.

Anyway, on the well-proven Ferrari/Lamborghini principle it would all end up making cameras even more expensive and prone to breaking down.

Rob C
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291


« Reply #39 on: March 12, 2012, 05:56:25 AM »
ReplyReply


IMO, because it's still exactly the same exercise: the placing of a measured quantity of light onto a surface, making the most of the two variable factors that control it to the greatest extent - brightness and duration of exposure. So far, that doesn't depend on the number of the century.

Your second point, about 'going back to just caring about the image' sort of implies that you enjoyed that condition during an earlier period - which can only mean the time when you used film... If the controls were sufficient then to allow absorption of the self by the creative aspects of the medium, why see a problem with the same (though it's actually better) situation today?  Yes, I can understand perfectly well that there might be some theoretical value to 'perfect' control of parameters, but from a practical point of view, it means zilch when we are already able to be so very accurate. It's akin to thinking that if we don't breathe a precise quantity of air with each breath, and a given number of such breaths per minute that we shall suddenly die. Life is a very flexible concept and photography no less so.

Film photography is a different activity to digital photography.

They may both be photography and use similar equipment but they're not the same.

Now just how accurate is photography?

If you use thirds and your shutter speed is 1/30 then it is possible that the camera has rounded up from 1/28 or down from 1/35.
If it is rounded down from 1/35 then the 1/30 shot is over exposed by 17%.
That is huge and I don't know how anyone could consider it to be "accurate."
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad