Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/06/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]X-rite has a number of products. I use the Colorchecker Passport and with it get consistent colour across all my digital cameras. It easily creates profiles from within LR, and stores them so they can be applied as presets or after the fact. The nicest thing is that for general shooting, you can create dual-illuminant profiles that I set up with one illuminant being daylight and the other a medium tungsten, say 2800 to 3000 degrees K. Below that colour isn't going to be correct anyway as there is too little blue content. Also, it's best to use two continuous spectra illuminants, rather than using CFL's or such. You can create specific profiles for specific light sources which are more accurate when needed. One of the best $100 you can spend! On 2012-06-16, at 1:10 PM, Richard Man wrote: > Henning, how do you profile your camera? I presume to use with the LR? > > I have a camera/back combo that I love to get a more accurate profile on. > > Thanks. > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Henning Wulff <henningw at > archiphoto.com>wrote: > >> I just got an OM-D. I've not had it long, but it looks good. In any case, >> I've handled but am not interested in the Fuji, because I have an M9 and >> focussing and shooting with the M9 is a lot easier and pleasanter for me. >> Of course, if I had a Fuji I'm sure I'd start to get used to it but I >> can't >> say I'm delighted with the viewfinder/focussing setup. Also, the range of >> lenses available is not really going to make me happy at this point. I >> know >> that many more are supposed to come, but..... >> >> I've had m43 for a while, and the OM-D definitely has the best image >> quality. Is it up to the Fuji? Not quite. Is the Fuji's quality up to FF, >> as they advertised? Not quite. It's still a matter of size, and FF trumps >> APS-C trumps m43. What is amazing about the OM-D is the dynamic range >> which >> is greater than that of almost all APS-C cameras, and the fact that the >> files are more forgiving than those of the Panasonics and earlier >> Olympuses. With the OM-D, I also have as backups the Panasonics. >> >> As for high ISO quality, the Fuji has about a stop on the OM-D, but then I >> have faster lenses for the OM-D than Fuji has available at present for the >> most and the OM-D has first class stabilization. For my purposes the OM-D >> wins in the low light area, and especially with the lenses I have vs. >> those >> I could get for the Fuji. Lens quality for the m43 format is at least up >> to >> the level of the Fuji's, which are certainly very good. >> >> As for colour accuracy, Olympus has been at the very pinnacle of colour >> accuracy for a long time, with their larger 4/3 cameras as well as their >> m43 offerings. In any case, I profile all my cameras so it becomes a >> non-issue. Processing for the web by various people is definitely an >> issue, >> and making comparisons on the web for colour is not going to actually get >> you anywhere. Do your own tests. Or profile everything; that's the only >> answer in the end. >> >> Bokeh is of course rather subjective, but that quality is in fact rather >> similar between the Fuji lenses and the majority of the m43 prime lenses I >> have (or tried). It seems a lot of companies are now paying attention to >> this. >> >> Resolution/detail differences can be seen on the web at 100% if things are >> processed optimally. The Fuji should have a slight advantage here, nearly >> to the extent of the difference of a 13x19 print compared with an 11x17 >> print. I haven't made this comparison, nor am I likely to, but to this >> point some 13x19 OM-D prints I've seen look fine. I'm unlikely to print >> larger than 11x14 myself, so I would have a little room for cropping. If I >> really intend to print larger, I'll use a larger sensor or stitch >> >> Summarized, my opinion is this: If you don't have m43 or an M9 and would >> like something 'M-like', have a look at the Fuji and see if you can get >> along with it. It's no M9, both in a good and bad sense, just different >> enough so that it really should be judged on its own. >> >> If you have any m43 items or would like immediate access to a fairly well >> developed system, don't hesitate about the OM-D. The issues you raised >> aren't real issues; only with respect to resolution can Fuji be said to >> have an advantage, and it's not really that big a one. Handling, features, >> size, price, how it fits in with your other cameras and a lot of other >> things are a log bigger factors. >> >> Finally, get the one you like! and go our and shoot! >> >> Henning >> >> >> On 2012-06-16, at 4:35 AM, Douglas Nygren wrote: >> >>> I've been studying the picture posted on the web and the lug taken with >> the Fuji Xpro and comparing them with others taken with the new Olympus >> OMD. >>> The Fuji looks better. The colors look better, the bokeh looks better, >> the images are sharper. >>> What have you all noted, if you have compared the two? >>> Gru?--Doug >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> Henning Wulff >> henningw at archiphoto.com >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > -- > // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > Henning Wulff henningw at archiphoto.com