Kit, when you say XE-1 you mean X-Pro1?
Thanks.

Kit, but as the Merrills RAW limited workflow, is it true that thereīs problems with the Fuji X-pro1 RAW; i.e. once their X-trans sensor are finally worked out in the decoding of the Raw converters like Adobe and Capture One it will be capable of rendering quite unique files. How good will they be vs the Merrills?
My english makes sense ,-)?

Luis Cunha wrote:
Kit, when you say XE-1 you mean X-Pro1?
Thanks.

Same sensor, same lenses, same processing, same image quality...as far as I know. XE-1 is EVF only. E-Pro1 offers optical and EVF, though the EVF is of lesser quality than the one in the XE-1. I had the X-Pro1 for a short while.

I did not care for the ergonomics of the X-Pro 1; I handled one for a while in a shop in Torino when they first came out. And I had an X-100, so was not convinced re. the virtues of the hybrid finder, either.

So, the X-E1, with the same sensor, smaller, lighter, and EVF only ticked all the boxes for me.

@ Luis: I am only shooting JPEGs presently from the X-E1: and they are amazing, as many others have said. Nothing I am doing at the moment has archival value, so I am not even shooting raws in anticipation of the day raw processors can handle these files. (Of course, I will if the opportunity/necessity arises; I retired from commercial shooting this year.)

My sense/feeling is that the Merrill files will still be the sharper, with finer microcontrast/details, than the X-E1 files, even processed through a decent raw converter, but if I find that's not the case, I will be even happier. All I have wanted is a single system for years now.

Luis Cunha wrote:
Is there such thing as "right color"?

This is not an easy question to answer as colour does not exist in nature as a physical entity. It only appears in our brain as perception. Now, if you were talking to a printer or screen manufacture the answer would be "Absolutely" but if you talk to people then the answer will be more heterogeneous as we interpret THIS particular colour in a slightly different way.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yes & Yes ,-)
So, maybe:
Sigma=better image quality; simple object and one lens. Low investment.
Fuji=better camera features and more flexible with lens; gorgeous object. Higher investment.

Colour with cameras=always a translation.

I only shoot RAW; I work with images, so the RAW workflow is fundamental for me. Both brands are with problems... .-(
Also (just to remind my own case) this must work as my outdoors system for street/travel work.
The investment must be as low as possible.
I canīt gave up on my FFrame DSLR because I do macro indoors and I canīt either support (afford) the Leica M FF alternative as a second system neither as the only system for portability and studio macro simply because rangefinders arenīt ok for macro. And I canīt carry for hours anymore a DSLR. Too heavy.

And I go back to black and white. How good the Merrill can be in B&W vs others, especially non-AA filter cameras, even Leica?
When I think about a camera I think about sensor(of film) and lens. The rest are conveniences and most of the times I donīt need or use them. The best sensor and the best lens I can afford. My present system is a body and three lenses (one just and only for macro) and I worked two years just with one 50mm lens. I tend to be minimal.

I will always need two bodies or I will not be able to do part of my work.

P.s. anyone subscribing the Reid Reviews? Iīm not but very curious. Worth the money?

Luis Cunha wrote:

P.s. anyone subscribing the Reid Reviews? Iīm not but very curious. Worth the money?


I'm currently a subscriber to Reid Reviews. Sean really likes the DP2 Merrill's image quality at low ISO. Nothing else about the camera's usability or ergonomics really stand's out for him but he considers the foveon sensor, and it's ability to utilize every pixel location to record color, as a stand out capability which sets the camera apart from anything else (he considers the color detail and subtlety achievable at low ISO to be equivalent to 46MP's).

Well worth a read if you are not able to use/ try the camera before purchase, though Sean's followup comparison with other bayer based cameras has not been posted yet.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Luis Cunha wrote:

P.s. anyone subscribing the Reid Reviews? Iīm not but very curious. Worth the money?


I'm currently a subscriber to Reid Reviews. Sean really likes the DP2 Merrill's image quality at low ISO. Nothing else about the camera's usability or ergonomics really stand's out for him but he considers the foveon sensor, and it's ability to utilize every pixel location to record color, as a stand out capability which sets the camera apart from anything else (he considers the color detail and subtlety achievable at low ISO to be equivalent to 46MP's).

Well worth a read if you are not able to use/ try the camera before purchase, though Sean's followup comparison with other bayer based cameras has not been posted yet.

Thanks Tariq.
So, for Mr. Reid, DP2M is a good/distinct sensor with a good lens matched together .-)
Iīm really considering the subscription, Saw the index content and there are more than just gear reviews I think...
Is there any info about which bayer cameras for future comparison?

A bit off the topic; I must search for info about Foveon JUST for B&W capture. If itīs possible in theory (or just a stupid idea of mine).
The Monochrome case is the use of an existing bayer sensor without the color transition/translation/transformation(?). A back to basis without further more work to make "color appear".
What would be needed for a Foveon sensor to behave the same way?

Yakim Peled wrote:
Luis Cunha wrote:
Is there such thing as "right color"?

This is not an easy question to answer as colour does not exist in nature as a physical entity. It only appears in our brain as perception. Now, if you were talking to a printer or screen manufacture the answer would be "Absolutely" but if you talk to people then the answer will be more heterogeneous as we interpret THIS particular colour in a slightly different way.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


Yes Yakim, but still you have to have some sort of way of reproducing color as true to the original as possible, regardless of using perceptual, relative or absolute colorimetrics. If you do not agree with how your camera sensor interprets colors as you see them you need to adjust either your own preference or tweak the results.

The "right" color for me is the one that is as close to my recollection of the actual color as I saw it. Some sensors do it better than others but I am not sure of any single sensor does it perfectly as I can't judge all colors and claim that I know which ones are right or not unless I could compare the scene and output instantly and in fixed/invariable light during the process.

Iīm even more concern with sharpness than color accuracy (also due the nature of color). Also because I tend to alter/edit the color as I like to achieve the "image" I like or need. And because I work a lot with B&W or monochrome images.
The usual bayer lack of sharpness is another theme. That I donīt like. Unless I search for blur which I do sometimes.

Dutch cliché.

The questions of what the Merrill sensor can deliver touches some more fundamental questions I keep asking myself since a while. I am also attracted by the Sigma cameras, but so far I am not fully convinced.

Luis Cunha wrote:
The usual bayer lack of sharpness is another theme. That I donīt like.


This is - in my opinion - exagerated. I have looked at the question of detail and sharpness through many samples, dp2 merrill and the cameras I have been using during the last years, amongst which the 5d II and the Nex-7. Used with good lenses (in my case a few Zeiss ZF) and good technique all of those can deliver very good detail resolution and sharpness except where the size of the smallest details comes close to pixel size.

In larger objects both techniques (Bayer and Foveon) deliver easily a good image which displays detail far beyond the reach of the human sight. For example in distant trees one can identify single leafs or structures in the bark of trees, or letters on distant traffic signs, billboards etc.

What both technologies have in common is that from a certain point and smaller, a sensor cannot render an object in a way that shows it's real exact shape anymore. A face rendered by let's say 30 or 40 pixels (just a random number) is no longer realistic. Foliage at a certain distance becomes too small to show each single leaf. Through a Bayer sensor with AA filter, this smallest detail tends to get slightly blurred into a veil of undefined texture (one could say "like for the human eye").
With the Sigma/ Foveon sensor, it is not blurred, but remains sharp. Nevertheless it does not show the real shape of the objects because they are too small. Mini details show up as blocks and structures, which seem sharp but nevertheless they suggest a precision that is not there. This sometimes leads to a hyperdetailed look of photos that - in my impression - distracts from the photo as a whole.

The way a photo displays a scene is after all different from looking at the scene in reality. Lets stay with the nature + trees example: When you look at a number of trees in a landscape, noone can simultaniously identify single leafs or even branches, brain would be flooded with information and would be left in total visual confusion, whereas a normal sized print shall display all of them, according to a popular ideal of digital photographers.

I don't pretend to have definitive answers to those questons, but right now it seems to me that further improvement of the Bayer tech which means more pixels with good or even better DR is probably a good direction for further evolution. A regular grid of pixels will never be totally natural, the ideal thing would probably be a random order of very small photo sites, not a regular grid, something like molecules of a film emulsion, but I suppose this is technically not possible in a forseeable future. The best sensor might very well be fine grained large format... eh - film.

:-)

Cheers and happy new year to everyone.

Bernie

alba63 wrote:
A regular grid of pixels will never be totally natural, the ideal thing would probably be a random order of very small photo sites, not a regular grid, something like molecules of a film emulsion, but I suppose this is technically not possible in a forseeable future. The best sensor might very well be fine grained large format... eh - film.
Bernie

Nice reply Bernie ,-)
I think Fuji is doing exactly that with the X-trans sensor (X-E1 and X-pro1). Only we cannot extract the full potential from the RAW files of those cameras. A bit like the Merrills cripple workflow ,-(

sculptormic wrote:
Dutch cliché.

By the way, Iīm only recently on the market for my compact, high quality image, light and affordable camera and only now noticed these Sigma Foveon and Fuji X-trans models (the most interesting sensors). I donīt understand why after so many months there are still Raw workflow problems.

Are these models for Pro and serious amateurs or for "tourists"?

http://www.flickriver.com/groups/969824@N20/pool/interesting/

A river of good examples; Foveon for monochrome work.
Sometimes the ISO 1600 and looks to me like film grain.
Nice ,-)

Luis Cunha wrote:
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/969824@N20/pool/interesting/

A river of good examples; Foveon for monochrome work.
Sometimes the ISO 1600 and looks to me like film grain.
Nice ,-)


Just tried your link. No Photos showed for me.
Morrie

Try copy and paste the whole link:
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/969824@N20/pool/interesting/

I have not had the DP2M very long and am still learning how to use it. This is a shot from a few days ago.
Thanks for looking
Morrie

Looks like the DP2M is in good hands with you Morrie, very nice scene, typical west coast.

Here are a few from today from Golden Ears Provincial Park in BC. All shot with my DP2M planted firmly on my tripod.

A mossy tree spotlighted by the sun...