Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
@hepcat: "Unfortunately, no camera natively "knows" what you want YOUR images to look like. I was one who never left my b&w negatives with a printer because I wanted the prints to look the way I wanted them to look... not that a printer couldn't have done that, but I'd spend more time explaining what I wanted than doing it myself. With digital images OOC, you're allowing a programmer to decide how your images should look. If you're ok with that, then good on ya."
If we're talking B&W I might agree. But I work in colour. So it's a little like saying shooting Kodachrome was letting a chemical engineer decide what your slides would look like. Clearly, it's not. Yes, there's a difference between Velvia and Kodachrome just as there's a difference between Nikon and Canon etc but it's just the starting point.
We learned how to manipulate transparency film by choosing light, exposure compensation, exposure compensation, exposure compensation, did I mention exposure compensation?, point of focus, etc....we overshot and bracketed with slide film because we didn't have the darkroom as a step in process.
Software, or the writer thereof, only has the merest input into what your pictures look like. So you pick the film stock you like and work with it.
If you're a B&W man and you dig the darkroom then that's part of the process. Two of us could go to the same thing and shoot it with the same camera and the photographs will look very different.
This trope has been long debated but the debate was settled nearly as long ago: there are too many variable to make the transparency film or the jpeg engine definitive.
If we're talking B&W I might agree. But I work in colour. So it's a little like saying shooting Kodachrome was letting a chemical engineer decide what your slides would look like. Clearly, it's not. Yes, there's a difference between Velvia and Kodachrome just as there's a difference between Nikon and Canon etc but it's just the starting point.
We learned how to manipulate transparency film by choosing light, exposure compensation, exposure compensation, exposure compensation, did I mention exposure compensation?, point of focus, etc....we overshot and bracketed with slide film because we didn't have the darkroom as a step in process.
Software, or the writer thereof, only has the merest input into what your pictures look like. So you pick the film stock you like and work with it.
If you're a B&W man and you dig the darkroom then that's part of the process. Two of us could go to the same thing and shoot it with the same camera and the photographs will look very different.
This trope has been long debated but the debate was settled nearly as long ago: there are too many variable to make the transparency film or the jpeg engine definitive.
al.ert
Newbie
slr/dslr vs RF
slr/dslr vs RF
For me, only SLRs and DSLs could be called responsive as for AF quickness or shutter lag issues. With RFs there's always a bit of a compromise.
Having said that, I consider Fuji X100 and the X-Pro1 suitable for the kind of photography I'm into... Whenever precise focus or absolute responsiveness are a must though, I resort to my Canon 5D when going digital, or to my Olympus slr.
al.ert
slr/dslr vs RF
For me, only SLRs and DSLs could be called responsive as for AF quickness or shutter lag issues. With RFs there's always a bit of a compromise.
Having said that, I consider Fuji X100 and the X-Pro1 suitable for the kind of photography I'm into... Whenever precise focus or absolute responsiveness are a must though, I resort to my Canon 5D when going digital, or to my Olympus slr.
al.ert
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I work in color mostly as well. The M9's RAW color palate is very close to what I like, but it's the only camera I've owned that hasn't taken significant tweaking in Lightroom to get what I want out of the images. My finished .jpgs and those straight OOC look VERY different. I suppose that if I took the time, I could figure out hot to tweak the settings on the .jpg engine to approximate what I want, but frankly I just don't care. The OOC .jps are fine for proofs and that's really all I need them to be.
Transparency film was, at least, consistent from roll to roll and camera to camera. It was a constant (if properly developed.) .jpg engines are at the whim of the software developer, and vary tremendously from model to model, even in the same brand.
To each, his own of course. But I'll just stick to shooting RAW, and developing those shots I'm interested in keeping.
hlockwood
Well-known
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Yeah, to each their own. Absolutely. That's why I ditched the GX1 after liking the GF1. Something went sideways between models. Nikon and Canon are very consistent with their JPG engine, so far as I can tell. Over the course of models I've used I've not detected a significant difference. Refinements, yes, particularly in the area of WB and incandescent light. There have been a couple of missteps with regard to LCD screen colour accuracy on some Nikon models. We sent them back and had them replaced. You don't mind working the raw files, I'd rather turn to the raw file only when the jpeg fails. I'd rather shoot with a consistent system as though it were slide film. I also prefer seeing if I'm getting what I'm looking at. That's what I shoot. That is one of the powerful aspects of digital, obviously. Since we made the transition from film, we've all noted that we shoot fewer frames.I work in color mostly as well. The M9's RAW color palate is very close to what I like, but it's the only camera I've owned that hasn't taken significant tweaking in Lightroom to get what I want out of the images. My finished .jpgs and those straight OOC look VERY different. I suppose that if I took the time, I could figure out hot to tweak the settings on the .jpg engine to approximate what I want, but frankly I just don't care. The OOC .jps are fine for proofs and that's really all I need them to be. Transparency film was, at least, consistent from roll to roll and camera to camera. It was a constant (if properly developed.) .jpg engines are at the whim of the software developer, and vary tremendously from model to model, even in the same brand. To each, his own of course. But I'll just stick to shooting RAW, and developing those shots I'm interested in keeping.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Yes. Absolutely.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
I work in color mostly as well. The M9's RAW color palate is very close to what I like, but it's the only camera I've owned that hasn't taken significant tweaking in Lightroom to get what I want out of the images. My finished .jpgs and those straight OOC look VERY different. I suppose that if I took the time, I could figure out hot to tweak the settings on the .jpg engine to approximate what I want, but frankly I just don't care. The OOC .jps are fine for proofs and that's really all I need them to be. Transparency film was, at least, consistent from roll to roll and camera to camera. It was a constant (if properly developed.) .jpg engines are at the whim of the software developer, and vary tremendously from model to model, even in the same brand. To each, his own of course. But I'll just stick to shooting RAW, and developing those shots I'm interested in keeping.
BTW, We wound up getting very good results with the M9 DNG and Aperture of all things. Lovely camera. Just didn't fit.
willie_901
Veteran
Of course they would and do "survive". With rare exceptions people print JPEGs and even then a very low percentage all printers actually use 100% of the JPEG information content.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
I think our first Nikon DSLR was 2.1 mp. We, and a lot of others were making 12x18" prints from those files with no problems.
By the time we got past 6mp the issue was a non-issue.
Landberg
Well-known
I must confest, the M9/M-E is S H I T! The IQ is great but the camera it self does not feel like a flim leica, the shutter sound is so terrible. The sensor attracts more dust than the floor under my bed. I think i had to make me love it because it was my dream. But i hated it, really hated it. I sold it and bought a Ricoh GR, the greatest digital camera i have ever used. I also bought a mint+++ M2, my favorite film camera. Now i'm happy again!
(this is just my opinon, you may love the M9)
Ps. my thougts on Fujis has not changed!
(this is just my opinon, you may love the M9)
Ps. my thougts on Fujis has not changed!
adamjbonn
Established
In situations where shutter lag is a problem on Fujis, set preview dof to a Fn button.
From what I've READ (not 1st hand experience) the M240 also has lag if used in any metering mode that's not centre weighted (because just like Fuji, Sony et el, the shutter has to close then open then close)
The newer fujis, with the ISO dials are able to tell you at a glance what the ISO/SS/A is, without turning the camera on. Some seem to think that this is a Leica only feature
The Fujis also retain the last set focus distance too, even if you change the battery
Those of you struggling with backlit subjects and Fuji AF (which is everyone) try spot mode, that can help
There are a lot cameras out there, made by a fair few different companies, wouldn't it be boring if we all liked the same ones?
If an image is great, no one cares what camera was used...
From what I've READ (not 1st hand experience) the M240 also has lag if used in any metering mode that's not centre weighted (because just like Fuji, Sony et el, the shutter has to close then open then close)
The newer fujis, with the ISO dials are able to tell you at a glance what the ISO/SS/A is, without turning the camera on. Some seem to think that this is a Leica only feature
The Fujis also retain the last set focus distance too, even if you change the battery
Those of you struggling with backlit subjects and Fuji AF (which is everyone
) try spot mode, that can helpThere are a lot cameras out there, made by a fair few different companies, wouldn't it be boring if we all liked the same ones?
If an image is great, no one cares what camera was used...
Fraser
Well-known
I must confest, the M9/M-E is S H I T! The IQ is great but the camera it self does not feel like a flim leica, the shutter sound is so terrible. The sensor attracts more dust than the floor under my bed. I think i had to make me love it because it was my dream. But i hated it, really hated it. I sold it and bought a Ricoh GR, the greatest digital camera i have ever used. I also bought a mint+++ M2, my favorite film camera. Now i'm happy again!
(this is just my opinon, you may love the M9)
Ps. my thougts on Fujis has not changed!
I think thats a bit strong. I think the M2 is S**T! it just doesn't feel like a digital Leica
Ruffmeister
Member
I do have a lot of praise for the Fuji X system. I use an X-T10 with the 18mm, 35mm and 56mm lenses. All deliver great results, especially the 56mm.
They do have quirks but you soon get used to them.
Since getting an M8 however, I do find that the X lacks a certain soul. The results are still there don't get me wrong, and liveview with a flip out screen has it's uses for me.
Perhaps it's the CCD sensor and the fact of working fully manual. While you can do this with the Fuji, it doesn't work in the same way for me. MF with Fuji lenses is terrible. Manual focus ones, ok - it's a doddle with focus peaking.
I treat the M8 the same as a film M. The screen pretty much stays off. For me, both give the same pleasure to shoot with.
It wasn't something I expected either. The M8 was a bit of an impulse purchase following some GAS and to scratch an itch of curiosity. If I didn't like it I knew I had 14 days to return or I could later sell on and get good £££ back. It's a purchase I don't regret.
Now all I keep thinking about is going 'full fat' and chopping the M8 in for an M9!
They do have quirks but you soon get used to them.
Since getting an M8 however, I do find that the X lacks a certain soul. The results are still there don't get me wrong, and liveview with a flip out screen has it's uses for me.
Perhaps it's the CCD sensor and the fact of working fully manual. While you can do this with the Fuji, it doesn't work in the same way for me. MF with Fuji lenses is terrible. Manual focus ones, ok - it's a doddle with focus peaking.
I treat the M8 the same as a film M. The screen pretty much stays off. For me, both give the same pleasure to shoot with.
It wasn't something I expected either. The M8 was a bit of an impulse purchase following some GAS and to scratch an itch of curiosity. If I didn't like it I knew I had 14 days to return or I could later sell on and get good £££ back. It's a purchase I don't regret.
Now all I keep thinking about is going 'full fat' and chopping the M8 in for an M9!
airfrogusmc
Veteran
You could also look at the M-E. You can find really good ones for 3K or so.
trondareo
Established
I use Fuji XE1, M3 and M4-2 They all get to share lenses. Manual focus only.
I think focusing is more difficult on XE1 but zone focus is fine. Ergonomics are much worse on Fuji. I have tried hand grips, built and bought ones without finding a favorite. The Fuji shines in the dark with the EVF.
I fluctuate between jpg and raw. Finding the jpg quality good enough, with creative flexibility in camera. If money was no object I might change to Leica digital for the consistent handling. But I do like those Fuji jpgs.
But it is the film M's you will have to pull from my cold stiff fingers.
I think focusing is more difficult on XE1 but zone focus is fine. Ergonomics are much worse on Fuji. I have tried hand grips, built and bought ones without finding a favorite. The Fuji shines in the dark with the EVF.
I fluctuate between jpg and raw. Finding the jpg quality good enough, with creative flexibility in camera. If money was no object I might change to Leica digital for the consistent handling. But I do like those Fuji jpgs.
But it is the film M's you will have to pull from my cold stiff fingers.
35photo
Well-known
I 100% agree with this comment. To get the most out of a digital camera you have to shoot RAW and process the the files in a whatever RAW processor program you choose...