Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
From Merriam-Webster:
I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread where initial teething problems can be reported and discussed ... and those who want to have a chuckle and say, "I told you so!" can have their fun as well.
I'd just like to add that in spite of Leica's best efforts there were all sorts of problems with the M8 when it came out but people (mostly) worked through them and learned to love and respect it’s unique abilities none the less.
I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread where initial teething problems can be reported and discussed ... and those who want to have a chuckle and say, "I told you so!" can have their fun as well.
I'd just like to add that in spite of Leica's best efforts there were all sorts of problems with the M8 when it came out but people (mostly) worked through them and learned to love and respect it’s unique abilities none the less.
ferider
Veteran
bigeye
Well-known
oh no. I hope that is not so. This camera has fundamental limitations, but fuji makes great glass and I'd be surprised if this is true.
Keith: I don't believe that there is any malice towards this camera. It should be good for what it is. The buyers do seem to have rabies, but that's a separate issue.
- Charlie
-
Last edited:
antiquark
Derek Ross
You mean it's not a miracle camera, free of problems that afflict every other camera? Disappointed!
ferider
Veteran
It's pretty consistent when you look at flickr samples. Barrel along the long axis, pin-cushion along the short one.
Nothing that couldn't be corrected in firmware though, unless you believe in the ultimate raw digital capture
(which is a myth, anyways).
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's all a bit of fun ... and it's only a camera after all.
I've just been looking for an excuse to use that word schadenfreude ever since I first heard it years ago!
I've just been looking for an excuse to use that word schadenfreude ever since I first heard it years ago!
Last edited by a moderator:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I kind of like the effect. Square squares are far too static for me.
bigeye
Well-known
Searched flickr for samples; appears as you say. I didn't expect an architectural lens, but it's a bit more noticeable than I would have thought. Lens size and speed traded for photoshop (if it matters to you). Nikon is doing this with some new lenses, too. Most won't notice or care.
.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
Now I'm happy ... thankyou Nick!
It's all a bit of fun ... and it's only a camera after all.
I've just been looking for an excuse to use that word schadenfreude ever since I first heard it years ago!
Keith - that's my favorite word in the German language... perhaps any language, and I too find any excuse to use it. Remember, it's all about the schadenfreude... who can keep a straight face when an old lady with a bag of groceries slips on a banana peel? It's part of our nature... no escaping it.
Paul T.
Veteran
It is a good word.
I was very pleased to learn a few months ago that this Swedish have their own version of this word. It is skadeglädje.
NickTrop
Veteran
You say poe tay toe
I say pot tot toe
You say toe may toe
I say toe mot toe
You say schadenfreude
I say skadeglädje
I say pot tot toe
You say toe may toe
I say toe mot toe
You say schadenfreude
I say skadeglädje
gavinlg
Veteran
A zeiss 35mm ZE distagon f2 seems to have similar total distrotion as the x100's lens - I would not be worried.
NickTrop
Veteran
I'll bet you that the negligible barrel distortion is corrected by the X100 processor automatically - along with purple fringing and some other chromatic aberrations when you shoot jpeg, like how it is on my entry-level Nikon DSLR, but only appears for those X100 users who bypass that because they can do a better job with this kind of thing manually with their "one size fits all" 3rd-party RAW software than a sophisticated modern mini-processor and firmware that can process millions of bits in a nanosecond which is engineered and designed for this specific lens/sensor combination that's built right into the camera...
Cuz - you know, RAW is better...
It's the "digital negative"...
Last edited by a moderator:
saxshooter
Well-known
This is great, hope it knocks more people off the waiting list
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Last edited by a moderator:
NickTrop
Veteran
You're right... I take it back. Assuming it's not a monitor issue...
Last edited by a moderator:
tlitody
Well-known
I might just take that bet. Read what he says at his flickr site. He doesn't have a decent raw conversion tool for RAF files so the X100 image is jpeg from the camera. You lose. You can put the cheque in the post or I'll take PayPal. Now that's schadenfreude.
Last edited by a moderator:
willie_901
Veteran
It turns out LUMIX micro-4/3 RAW files include a non-proprietary data table of lens artifact corrections. This means any RAW engine that bothers to understand the table can automatically perform the same artifact minimization computed during the in-camera jpeg rendering. Nikon (and others I guess) choose to use a proprietary artifact protection scheme. However Adobe and DxO have empirically determined correction algorithms for Nikon's most common lenses and sensors. Adobe even provides detailed instructions and free software to create your own lens-sensor corrections. Nikons proprietary artifact correction strategy is pointless, Nikon just pretends it's not 2011.
Funny thing is: RAW may not be always be better because in the end a perfect exposure means an in-camera jpeg contains all the information required for humans to completely examine the image. But the RAW data is never inferior.
If the exposure is not perfect you need all the information recorded by the sensor to render an optimal image. I don't understand how having all the data recorded by the sensor is a bad thing. It's much easier to discard unneeded data from a RAW file than to guess what the real, but unknown, data missing from the in-camera jpeg might be.
Last edited by a moderator: