X-T30 - Printable Version +- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com) +-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Fujifilm (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=9) +--- Thread: X-T30 (/showthread.php?tid=4583) |
RE: X-T30 - thxbb12 - 12-04-2019 (12-04-2019, 10:25 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:(12-04-2019, 10:08 AM)Klaus Wrote: I'd always prefer compressed RAWs for sure. IMHO RAWs are primarily about superior color depth. The minor bit of extra info (if anything) in uncompressed file ... well ... Lossless compressed RAW files are better than uncompressed in almost all scenarios. The primary advantage is obviously disk space. A RAW converter won't give worse results with a compressed RAW vs an uncompressed one. It's either the converter is able to decompress the file or it's not. There is no in-between. If it supports the format, then the rendering will be identical to an uncompressed file. RE: X-T30 - Brightcolours - 12-04-2019 (12-04-2019, 11:11 AM)thxbb12 Wrote:Card space! ;-)(12-04-2019, 10:25 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:(12-04-2019, 10:08 AM)Klaus Wrote: I'd always prefer compressed RAWs for sure. IMHO RAWs are primarily about superior color depth. The minor bit of extra info (if anything) in uncompressed file ... well ... RE: X-T30 - thxbb12 - 12-04-2019 (12-04-2019, 12:05 PM)Brightcolours Wrote:(12-04-2019, 11:11 AM)thxbb12 Wrote:Card space! ;-)(12-04-2019, 10:25 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:(12-04-2019, 10:08 AM)Klaus Wrote: I'd always prefer compressed RAWs for sure. IMHO RAWs are primarily about superior color depth. The minor bit of extra info (if anything) in uncompressed file ... well ... Indeed, card space and disk space ;-) RE: X-T30 - Klaus - 12-04-2019 You still have disks? ;-) RE: X-T30 - mst - 12-04-2019 Actually, yes... in a NAS, SSDs would be overkill, wouldn't they? Update on the X-T30: I finally received a shipping note today, seems I will have it until the weekend. (12-03-2019, 07:38 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: Once you get your X-T30 and a bit of time for informal testing of the lens, will you mind sharing your impressions? I am honestly curious how it performs, too. So far, however, I haven't used it at all, so not much to report from my side, other than feedback on the physical size: [attachment=67] As could be expected, the lens is bigger and heavier than the XF 18-55, but less bulky than the XF 18-135. However, I had hopes it would turn out a bit more compact, to be honest. It's roughly the same size as the Nikkor AF-S DX 16-80 VR (as long as you don't include the hoods in the comparison, the hood delivered with the Nikkor is huge) However, the Nikkor is one stop faster at the short end. So, based on the specs the Fujinon could maybe have been designed a bit smaller. [attachment=68] |