naturephoto1 wrote:
I have never worked in DNG file format before and I am a little concerned about RAW conversion and saving the files so that there is still an original unadulterated RAW file if I make a mistake in set-up instructions in LR.
Rich
converting to DNG does not require destroying the original raw. you can have a separate new DNG file created or you can embed the original raw in the DNG file. i usually create a separate DNG file and then delete the raw to save disk space only after i've decided that i'm happy with the corrected DNG.
philber wrote:
Charlie, how is it possible to correct for color shift but not vignette? I use Corernfix, and, to the best of my knowledge, it does pretty much both types of corrections in one go. Or am I wrong?
In Cornerfix: Options -> Image Correction Options
Turn the "Luminance" slider all the way down to zero.
A7 with Leica 90/4 Elmar-C (all three), f/4 & ISO 1600:
f/4 & ISO 8000 (!):
f/5.6 & ISO 1600:
Since Flickr has fucked up everything there are no links to the original files with description. You may email your opinions on that to Flickr. As if they would care.
Nice, so I can talk again he he.
Martin, nice colors. Why don't you go back to the 'normal' Flickr? The new layout is a beta, you're not forced to use it right now.
Jochenb wrote:
Nice, so I can talk again he he.
Martin, nice colors. Why don't you go back to the 'normal' Flickr? The new layout is a beta, you're not forced to use it right now.
Blab away everyone,
no hard feelings on my part
The thread served it's purpose, we all got to see a bunch of lenses on the camera, early on.
Now we are getting the camera and can post our own.
Gary Clennan wrote:
As are many of the other comparisons being posted I suppose…. People are correcting for color shift, vignetting, and also significant cropping.
Whether that is true or not, there is no denying that these cameras are extremely sharp, can produce a tremendous amount of detail and information and have huge DR.
Can I assume that I would get good performance with all the 35s, or are they risky too? I know the widest CVs will likely be tough to deal with. Of course I wouldn't refrain from buying just because the camera doesn't handle a 12mm well, but I would really like to low that 28s or at least 30s are good...
For 50 and above, I guess any will be ok, no?
I have seen some say that the A7 will be the best for wides, but I would like the extra res and lack of an AA filter on the r. And the offset lenses of the r seem to contradict the statement about the A7.
(Yes, I have looked at many of the samples out there, but many times they do not show detail or all exposure info so it is hard to make a judgement.)
you can asume any hotlink from me not my own is by express permission of the shooter, from this point on.
No one previously hotlinked has been anything but delighted when I let them know they had been in here.
It may take a week or two to fill in the links.
Jabberwockt implies any hotlink to any image not your own is unethical. This of course would include product shots, size comparisions etc, as almost all of these in fact are copyrighted. This site has thousands of images like this. He is saying: don't post them. Or do I misunderstand?
tennclay - From what I've seen there isn't much difference in smearing between the two cameras when using RF wides, but the A7 has less color cast. I am not sure where the threshold between "less" and "none" is, it can definitely have some color cast for things wider than 35mm.
It was a tough call for me, but given that I'm fine with 24Mp and would rather have less color cast to clean up, I switched to the A7.
Also, it's a bit of a hedge hoping that Sony (or someone else) comes out with a similar camera that really has no AA filter and does M9/240-well with the RF wides. I figure the A7 will lose less resale value than the A7R, as the premium on the A7R is pretty steep IMO.
I'm still not sure if the lens I want to use most on it - the 28 'cron - will need cornerfix or not.
