Kit Laughlin wrote:
....to Mitch: what software do you use to do your initial selections? I can see myself using Aperture as I do (raws on remote storage HDDs), for a 'Q&D' (do you folk use this expression?) and a sort/select, and once the customer has made the selection, run the same Raw files through RPP...
Kit, I import the DNGs into Aperture to make the initial selection, then developed in RPP, export the TIFF file to Aperture in which I make the final adjustments, sometimes also using the Viveza 2 plugin. When exporting form RPP, I use the option of "Optimize image for post-processing on Save", on which here's a quote from the manual:
This is a special option under the File menu for advanced users. When enabled, the text 'Save' on the Save button becomes blue to remind you that the option is active. This option causes the image, when saved, to be compressed over its entire range to leave 5% empty space in both the shadows and highlights (10% total) and to have its saturation decreased by 10%. The image saved this way will look different from the way it looked in the RPP preview; it will be duller and less colorful. This option helps eliminate one step during post-processing when compression becomes necessary to prevent curves or other tonal/color operations from causing highlights or shadows to clip. So while this compression could be done in an external image processor, it is better to do it in RPP, which can accomplish the task with higher precision and less loss. This is a global option that affects all saves, including those in batch mode.
Mitch, thanks for this. A workflow q., if I may: once you make your selects in Aperture, how do you develop in RPP? Do you have RPP set as the external editor, then Export Masters (in which process Aperture makes a copy of the DNG file)? And are the exported-from-RPP TIFFs easily distinguishable in Aperture, or do you make a separate folder for the RPP output files and re-point Aperture at this folder?
And I will read that highlighted part of the manual, too.
I am pleased that you use Aperture in the workflow; I do not have Lightroom (tho' a lot of folks over at GetDPI do) and I am used to the way Aperture works and I find it efficient for the select process.
Well my tests are done, and for me there is a lot of like,... but no love, and my lust is over for now.
There were a lot of features to like, but for me, I will be staying with the Nex 5N for now.
Image quality was the same to slightly better than the 5N, but not a quantum leap forward when tested using CV 15, and the Zeiss 25ZM and 35C ZM.
I can't believe I am saying this, but the accessability of a broad range of lens, was a positive for the Nex 5N, verses the M mount module on the GXR. The Nex kit lens and 18-200mm are actually pretty good, and the 3 M mount lenses that I have behave quite nicely on the 5N.
I did see the the clarity in the GXR that many have commented is like removing layer of wax paper, especially when pixel peeping on screen. The visual difference disappeared in print form.
I like the GRX enough that if/when a 16 MP M mount unit comes out I will buy one. I just could justify keeping 2 systems for teh small improvment of the 12 MP verses the 16M Nex 5N.
I will be back in a few months when the A 16 is out.
Kit, although there is a batch method of working with RPP I haven't use it because I'm not in a "production situation, but you may wish to have a look at that. What I do is very simple, I:
—copy the name of the file from the Metadata tab in Aperture (i.e. the original number of the DNG file),
—open the file in RPP by pasting in that file number,
—when saving the file in RPP add to the original file number "-RPP-K64-opt",
—import the saved file from RPP into Aperture, and
—"Stack" the imported RPP TIFF with the original DNG file.
After I do the last step in Aperture, I can see which file is which because, if the name of the original file ("Version" in Aperture) is "_0012837", the name of the file (Version) imported from RPP will be "_0012837-RPP-K64-opt", which tells me it that came from RPP, that I used the K64 film preset and that I saved it using the option of "Optimize the image for post-processinf on Save".
BTW, I tried the latest version on Lightroom recently and found that, while it produces somewhat better colors than Aperture — but not as good a RPP and without the improved resolution — ultimately I had the same feeling as I had when I first tried it a few years ago, preferring the user interface of Aperture: indeed, I find the Lightroom controls, on Curves for example, to be fiddly in comparison.
That is so helpful, Mitch: thank you. I will investigate the batch mode in RPP, too; there are times when I need to get through a lot of images. Thanks again.
Kit, I'll be interested in your reaction to RPP. Don't hesitate to asks questions if you have any problems. I don't know whether you participate in the Rangefinder Forum, but you may also wish to post your reaction in the RPP thread there, since quite a few RPP users follow that thread, although I don't know whether anyone will respond.
I wanted to mention that this was the first time I gave the GXR a workout—and did not have the L-bracket yet, so forgive the converging verticals. And the image Lloyd chose was from the 15/4.5 (the 12/5.6 had not arrived yet); and the camera was set to Raw 4:3—so the EFOV is narrower than the APS-C equivalent of 15. Since getting the 12, the 15 has not been on the camera. Another great aspect of the 12 is that is comes with a 77mm filter ring—and all my Cokin grads fit on—with zero vignetting. This is one disadvantage of the 15; I cannot see you to put filters on it.
I usually do shoot interiors with 4:3 if it's available, though, because floor and lighting treatments are important for these clients. I think the aspect of the GXR I like the most is the titling EVF: as I mention on the blog, the camera is sitting in the corner of the room—and this really maximises any FOV.
Kit, I don't recall the exact procedure and I am not in front of the stationary computer at the moment but batch processing in RPP is a breeze. Basically you can pick a folder and apply the correction to the first image and the rest will follow suit.
I haven't tried out the 12mm and the shop where I ordered one fell through, they can't deliver
and have no idea of when they can so I pulled the plug on my 35mm and 12mm order. With the 15mm Voigtländer vs the Zeiss ZM 18 I like both. The VM 15 is very dynamic and sure is sharp enough. The Zeiss ZM is more neutral and the lack of distortion and terrific sharpness across the frame makes for a superb lens, but it can also look a little flat compared to the VC 15. But, it can also work to the ZM's advantage.
I would love to try out the 12mm in 1:1 format on the GXR, it would be like a mini Superwide.
I totally get you, the IQ difference is very small. I ran both cameras myself and went the other route. The GXR simply suits me better.
I am looking forward to the next incarnation of the GXR and will without hesitation grab a M mount A16 if/when they hit the market. If the rumors hold true that the A16 will happen, as well as a GXR body with articulated LCD I am set.
After going through my GXR files I came to the conclusion that I won't bite on the Fuji X-Pro 1. I find that the main advantage with the X Pro 1 would be high ISO and faster frame rate, none of which are deal breakers for me. Also I feel I am quite sure I would not enjoy the M lenses as well on the Fuji body as on the NEX5n or the GXR. Since I am fairly accustomed to Fuji menu systems I am sure it will be a far cry from Ricoh and not better than on Sony. Also, I am not sure I like the Fuji color rendering, I think I prefer both Sony and Ricoh in that field.
I really think the X Pro 1 will be a great camera, not just great enough to warrant dumping the GXR (or the NEX5n if I had it). The Fuji is (IMHO) a little overpriced. I would be more interested in the Fuji if the price was _significantly_ lower as I don't see it as a camera that would replace my other cameras. And I decided not to buy any more complementary cameras but try to find a long term solution. My stop gap into that long term solution is the GXR, and it is a very fine stop gap solution being a great little system of its own.
If no full frame alternative (other than the M9) arrives in a few years I might be looking into how Fuji's mount/system has developed and jump into it then. Perhaps Ricoh will have developed something that will keep me in the GXR loop, time will tell and in the mean time I am quite happy where I am.
That sounds like a reasonable course of action Henrik. I am quite content with the GXR and even more content to allow the industry to make its next moves and let others do the trial of new equipment.
I wonder if it might have a leaf shutter, which would be interesting for flash sync possibilities and very silent operation... couldn't see any mention of it in the spec (both on DPR and Ricoh's site), but the one photo on DPReview of the front of the lens seems to show a leaf shutter...
I spend several days using both of them. I primarily used the 50 f1.4ASPH and APO75 f2.0 lenses, although I did take a few shots with the Noctilux f1.0 and 28mm f2.0. The GXR-M actually made images at f1.0 look very sharp. That fascinated me, because usually they are fairly soft and creamy.
The GRX-M was easy to focus quickly and accurately. I used the magnified focus aid rather than the black and white focus aid - if I had more time I would have experimented more with the black and white contrast mode. The peaking color is white and as far as I could tell, there was no way to change its intensity or color, but that aside, the system was quick and effective to use, even when I was using the magnified image. With the NEX-5n and 7, I have to turn the peaking off to focus accurately with the magnified image. I’m sure part of this is my fault for not spending more time learning the setup options, but I had to go into the menu too often to search for things I needed to change. One thing I never did discover was how to move the rectangle that gets magnified around the viewfinder. That was only an issue when I was taking comparison images with the GRX-M and NEX7. After the 5n, the NEX7 was a joy to use because everything was readily accessibly via external dials.
The GRX-M images are exceptional. The resolution and micro-contrast are very impressive and quickly made me decide, given the choice (think D800) of a camera with or without an AA filter, I would take the sans AA option. I’ve seen references to the fact the NEX7 has a very weak AA filter, but I don’t know if this is accurate or not.
The micro-contrast made the same scene taken with the GRX-M and NEX7, look like the GRX is the sharper image most of the time. I’m viewing them at different magnification levels and a real comparison is difficult because of this. Where the NEX7 runs away is with the detail contained within the 24mp image. I would like to know how much of a factor, in addition to no AA filter, the micro-lenses on the sensor add to the resolution and micro-contrast I see in the images from the GRX-M. Given I used 50mm and 75mm lenses, did it play any role, or is it only a factor with wide angle lenses?
rsolti13 wrote:
Alright, for you GXR people, I have a few questions.
1. The VF-2 viewfinder, how is it? Does it have any lag? Does the focus assist work with it?
2. flash - is it a regular hot shoe allowing me to use my Nikon SB-800? I don't want to have to buy more flash units
3. With lenses that have focus shift (like a ZM 50 Sonnar), using live view, is that shift pretty much eliminated?
To answer your second question, I've used my Nikon SB-80DX on the Ricoh in auto aperture mode with good success. It is a bit awkward to handle, but is really the only option as the popup won't clear many lenses (at least my adapted F-mount lenses) even for fill. I believe the SB-800 also has an AA mode. Of course you could use it in manual as well. I tried it in SU-4 mode as well, but couldn't turn down the pop-up enough to get rid of the shadow cast on the subject.
uscmatt: maybe you can add a little card/thingy to deflect the pop up flash / block it from casting a shadow on the lens/image.
Bill H: wow, nice catch with the dog "in flight". Also cool to see a shot with the APO 135/3.4. I have been wanting to shoot with this lens. The last shot with the APO 75 is VERY crisp. Nice post pro on all, thanks for sharing.
In my opinion the GXR M sensor is one of the best when it comes to bringing out the true lens character, regardless of it is wide angle or telephoto lenses. I think the GXR does well on some of those tricky lenses which _might not_ come to life on AA-filter fitted sensors.
I find that lenses I thought were "ok" are actually slightly better with the GXR M than the other platforms I have tried, difference in MP aside.
uscmatt - thanks for the heads up. will give the SB-800 a try and report back once I do. i always bounce flash....so shouldnt be a problem for me.
Bill - very nice report and great shots! When comparing the GXR and NEX-7, I agree, the lack of AA filter and ability to use UWA lenses definitely won me over. The fact that I can use my existing Nikon flash is just a bonus
I sure hope that new 16mp sensor comes in the m mount soon
Bill: that shot of the dog running towards you is spectacular: did you have many misses in the process of getting this one? I know how hard these are with MF lenses... Or did you pre-focus just in front of the log?
@ uscmatt: I use a business card to stop the popup putting any light on the subject; and a low power (1/8) will trigger the studio strobes.
@ rsolti13: only if it's better than the GXR M! (It should be, but the M is just so damn good!).
I have been playing with the A 12 50 module for snaps here and there, and it's good too (not as sharp as the M, but the macro mode is definitely handy and the AF works).
I am thinking about starting a GXR vs NEX 7 vs XPro1 from my needs POV (I have one of the Fujis on order). Would these thought be useful here, rather than starting a new thread—what do you think? This is a very civilised thread!
Kit, I think if you're going to do a three-way comparison, a new thread would be better only because more people will see it. I suspect this thread isn't going to register for most who are interested in the NEX or Fuji.
I received a used Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 and did a few quick handheld comparison shots of it against the 50 Lux ASPH, primarily concentrating on wide open performance/characteristics.
Here are my preliminary thoughts:
I've had mixed feelings about the 50 Lux on the GXR. The files don't have the same 'magic' that I see on the M9 and to me feel flat and a bit blah. I'm still leaning this way, but am learning that what I've seen appears to be quite dependent on shooting distance. The Lux seems to soften in sharpness and contrast towards near minimum focusing distances. The CV50 seems to have better contrast at near distances, at equal LR settings is maybe around 300K colder and wide open around 1/3 of a stop slower. The Lux exhibits much smoother background blur and holds sharpness better to the edges (and this is just on APS-C). The CV50 might have some field curvature and seems to have a sweet spot at wider apertures. Between f/1.5 and f/2.8 the Lux is better towards the edges, but at f/2.8 and beyond the CV50 seems sharper in the central zone (I wonder about my Lux...). The CV50 exhibits some purple fringing at wider apertures in areas where there is high contrast transition and I find the focusing ring a bit too stiff. Who knows, this one seems hardly used, so maybe it will break in a bit more. The 50 Lux isn't effortlessly smooth either, but is better and seems to have a bit longer throw so it's easier to fine tune focus. I still like the ZM 50 Planar the best out of my 50s for focusing feel.
These are all wide open and LR settings are the same except for exposure where I tried to get them fairly close. First image is the CV50, second is the 50 Lux ASPH:
