galenapass Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
douglasf13 wrote:
The issue is that the best raw converter for X-trans depends on the scene, although the same could be said for Bayer, but the differences in artifacts and whatnot are more obvious between converters with X-trans.
I've read (too) many of these X-trans threads, and you'll see people swear by Capture One, Iridient, Photo Ninja, Aperture...some are even ok with LR, but I've yet to see any X-trans examples, at least at low to mid ISO, from any converter that I'd pick over a regular old Bayer file out of LR. Things to seem to be trending in the right direction for X-trans, though.
Galenapass' example of showing the same scene with the X-A1 out of LR and the X-E2 out of PhotoNinja still shows that "different" X-trans look. link...Show more →
That link is a good example of just how close PN gets x-trans to bayer output. Those were 100% crops and PN did a reasonable job providing bayer type output. In print I don't think anyone would would notice a difference. A few moths back my goal was to figure out how best to process my x-trans files, as Adobe continues to be deplorable. Consequently, I did a lot of pixel peeping of various scenes, comparing the X-A1 and X-E2. PN and Iridient get me > 90% there at 100% crops and I was not able to really find a scenario either converter could not handle.
Now I have zoomed out, look at my shots as a whole and forget about the less than 10% that is not really visible anyway.
|