X100 ... reported problems and schadenfreude thread.

[Keith]

From Merriam-Webster:

SCHADENFREUDE: enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others.

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]

🙂

How about distortion, like here: http://flic.kr/p/9pLkD7 ?

 

[bigeye]

🙂

How about distortion, like here: http://flic.kr/p/9pLkD7 ?

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

-

 

[antiquark]

You mean it's not a miracle camera, free of problems that afflict every other camera? Disappointed! 🙂

 

[ferider]

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.

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]

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! 😀

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I kind of like the effect. Square squares are far too static for me. 🙂

 

[bigeye]

It's pretty consistent when you look at flickr samples. Barrel along the long axis, pin-cushion along the short one.

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.

.

 

[NickTrop]

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.]

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.

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]

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

 

[gavinlg]

A zeiss 35mm ZE distagon f2 seems to have similar total distrotion as the x100's lens - I would not be worried.

 

[NickTrop]

A zeiss 35mm ZE distagon f2 seems to have similar total distrotion as the x100's lens - I would not be worried.

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"...

 

[saxshooter]

This is great, hope it knocks more people off the waiting list 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

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"...

Dear Nick,

Well, the colour correction on your portrait doesn't look too good...

(Insert smiley as needed.)

But I'm not sure that it's easily possible to design a lens with barrel distortion on one axis and pincushion at right angles to it. Either this is created in software, or someone's monitor is deceiving them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[NickTrop]

Dear Nick,

Well, the colour correction on your portrait doesn't look too good...

(Insert smiley as needed.)

But I'm not sure that it's easily possible to design a lens with barrel distortion on one axis and pincushion at right angles to it. Either this is created in software, or someone's monitor is deceiving them.

Cheers,

R.

You're right... I take it back. Assuming it's not a monitor issue...

 

[tlitody]

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"...

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. 😀

 

[willie_901]

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"...

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.

 

[bigeye]

A zeiss 35mm ZE distagon f2 seems to have similar total distrotion as the x100's lens - I would not be worried.

I wouldn't whitewash it. There are straighter 21s than this...

 

[ferider]

Roger's comment on the distortion is spot on. Looks like it's created by soft/firm-ware (and therefore can be improved with the next firmware release).