Tried out my R-D1 today

jlw said:
Maybe I've just been missing out because the R-D 1 is the first digital camera I've ever owned that has both a b&w mode and a raw file option!

The Olympii (C2020 and then C4040) had b&w, but no raw. The Nikon D100 has raw but no b&w.

So this is my first chance to see "how the other half lives..."
Click to expand...

If you do more research, you can find the other digital cameras that offer the B&W + RAW option. My Canon 20D, for example, handles B&W + RAW the same way the R-D1 does--B&W jpeg with color RAW (if I have both B&W selected as the color option and JPEG + RAW selected as the file-write option). I don't do much preview or reviewing on the LCD screen though, so currently I just use RAW-only (no JPEG) to save memory space and convert to B&W later. IMO Photoshop can do a better job at B&W conversion than any in-camera algorithm can.

Still saving my pennies for the R-D1 so that I can join in the fun! :)
 
DaShiv said:
If you do more research, you can find the other digital cameras that offer the B&W + RAW option. My Canon 20D, for example...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's an -- ick! -- SLR...
 
[quote[Yeah, but that's an -- ick! -- SLR...[/quote]

I know how you feel!! I feel the same way when a Ferrari passes me while driving my MiniVan......

ick!....its a Ferrari :D :D
 
Originally posted by jlw
Maybe I've just been missing out because the R-D 1 is the first digital camera I've ever owned that has both a b&w mode and a raw file option!

I believe all P&S digitals withe a RAW file option can also do B&W. As for DSLR's, I think only the newer 20D and Pentax *ist DS offer a b&w option.

As for thinking differently in b&w, that's true for me also. I haven't been able to "think" or "see" in b&w with my DReb yet. It's still FP4+ or HP5 for b&w for me.
 
I know the Fuji S2 DSLR offers B&W .Jpgs and obviously in raw mode. There are a couple other DSLR's, but I don't remember off hand which ones they were.
 
I worked all Sat with the Canon 10D and all today with the R-D1 (both for black and white pictures) at ISO 1600 in RAW mode in difficult existing light. The Epson files look better and the B&W workflow is much easier to deal with - much more fluid. I'll reiterate what I said in the review that the Epson recipe for B&W is beautiful. I used a 24/2.8 on the Canon and the Voigtlander 21, 25, 28/3.5 and 28/1.9 on the Epson.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, the R-D1 files stand up better to "push processing" during RAW conversion. The Canon can shoot at ISO 3200 but the files look terrible. I shot both cameras at 1600 and then pushed the ISO in RAW conversion to anywhere between about 2400 and 3200 ISO. The Epson files held up better to that abuse, probably because there noise is mostly luminance and not chrominance.

Sean
 
In the raw images, you'll find that most of the noise is in the blue channel. Its very typical in video cameras as well. If you eliminate the blue channel during conversion, the results are much better.
 
Yes, I know but I like to keep information from all of the channels. Thanks for the tip, nonetheless.

Cheers,

Sean
 
I was mostly throwing that out there for those that are not aware. I save the blue channel info by cleaning it up separately and adding it back to the others, typically at a reduced level. I find I usually reduce the bluce channel when I use the channel mixer for conversion anyway, so its just as good that all the high frequency noise resides there! I wish I could do that with video, but rarely is video shot in B&W :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom