mortyb wrote:
^ Wow, that looks awsome.

+1
super jealous.

sebboh wrote:
mortyb wrote:
^ Wow, that looks awsome.

+1
super jealous.


+2, what amazing scenes. I wish I was there.

sebboh wrote:
mortyb wrote:
^ Wow, that looks awsome.

+1
super jealous.




Winter and winter photos in perfection! Absolutely beautiful!!

I originally come from Bavaria, but in Berlin where I live since long we have neither snow right now nor mountains (right now and probably also in quite a forseeable future

Bernie

nibutto wrote:
some fun


@nibutto - are these Pro or XE? Lens?

Here's one from this past weekend for a client. I'll have the rest of the set up soon.


Kayla Kilby by ChrisG Photography, on Flickr

Thanks everyone! It's fun knowing people get a kick out of the photos.

Southern Bavaria in general is a gorgeous place throughout the year. I'm thrilled with the IQ-- quirks aside-- from such a small package as the XE... no more lugging my 5D2 + 35L out just for fun. Though the XE can't replace my Canon for paid work.

And Bernie: I bi nua a Zuagroasda Bierdimpfe aus n'USA.

Damn, I've gotta step up my game if I want to keep up in this thread, the work just seems to get better and better.


Storm Trooper - Fujifilm X-Pro1 w/ Zuiko 42mm f1.2 by brodyl.91, on Flickr

Part of what I'm really enjoying about this thread is that with a pretty narrow range of gear we're all producing pretty high quality stuff with totally divergent styles, tones, stories.

Good stuff!

Lots of mama cows calving right now ... out the truck window with the CV 15mm

It was too stormy to go out the other day so I was farting around in the bathroom with my new love interest, the 35mm f/1.4;

Just doing some thinking,
If I used the Adobe DNG converter, would I still have the same issues with the resulting DNG as I would with the RAF file?

Yes, exactly the same.

monkeycolonel wrote:
Yes, exactly the same.

What would be another program that would have the same batch version?
I want to start switching all my files to DNGs.

Hi guys. Nice photos everyone.

I Recieved x-e1 yesterday and im super excited. Just won a contax g28mm 2.8 off eBay. I have few questions and I tried to Google it. Couldn't find any answer.

Does it have smearing or color shift issue on x-e1? If yes how should I correct it, I have light room 4 heard it doesn't work well with Fuji sensors.

Which adapter is best solution? Someone recommended metabne. I believe u can't swap lenses on metabone. Is there any alternative in case I want to add more contax g lens and don't have to buy another adapter?

Thanks in advance.

Brody LeBlanc wrote:
monkeycolonel wrote:
Yes, exactly the same.

What would be another program that would have the same batch version?
I want to start switching all my files to DNGs.

I wouldn't do this unless you also store the original RAW inside the DNG (should be an option for this). This will make your files quite a bit bigger, of course.

X-E1 with TS-E 90mm

Manual focus is very hard on the X-Pro1, since when you click the magnification wheel, it enlarges way too much (10x?). You have to sit down when you do this.
I never really liked the peak-thing on the NEX, it is all over - I prefer doing it with the 4x magnification (9x is too much - I use this for tripod work). Same with the canon, manual focus using live view is doable with 5x, 10x is for tripod. What do you guys think? Very frustrating!!!!

I find the magnification options on the X-E1 work very well, and if on a tripod, the higher mag. absolutely lets you see the in-focus zone move across the image (I was trying out the 50/1.4 Rokkor on the X-E1). From memory, the lower power option is 3x on the X-E1, too (someone correct me here, please).

X Pro 1 with 35 and CV 15 - Real Estate Job

Dave McGaughey wrote:
I wouldn't do this unless you also store the original RAW inside the DNG (should be an option for this). This will make your files quite a bit bigger, of course.
What would be the reason for not doing this? [changing to DNG without original RAW]

Brody LeBlanc wrote:
Dave McGaughey wrote:
I wouldn't do this unless you also store the original RAW inside the DNG (should be an option for this). This will make your files quite a bit bigger, of course.
What would be the reason for not doing this? [changing to DNG without original RAW]

If you do this, you may not be able to process the RAW (now DNG files) in non-Adobe programs. I'm pretty sure CaptureOne, for example, can't read the X-Trans when in a DNG format.