Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
X-T30
#21
(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 ...

Same here. Also, it's often a question how the RAW converter can handle the files. I can imagine there are converters around which prefer uncompressed RAW or give better results - but since Fuji is recommending C1 and working together with Phase One (there are specail Fuji versions available) I have not the slightest doubt to get the results I want. The X-E2 files edited and exported out of C1 were better than the Silky Pix stuff.

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.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#22
(12-04-2019, 11:11 AM)thxbb12 Wrote:
(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 ...

Same here. Also, it's often a question how the RAW converter can handle the files. I can imagine there are converters around which prefer uncompressed RAW or give better results - but since Fuji is recommending C1 and working together with Phase One (there are specail Fuji versions available) I have not the slightest doubt to get the results I want. The X-E2 files edited and exported out of C1 were better than the Silky Pix stuff.

Lossless compressed RAW files are better than uncompressed in almost all scenarios.
The primary advantage is obviously disk space.
Card space! ;-)
#23
(12-04-2019, 12:05 PM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(12-04-2019, 11:11 AM)thxbb12 Wrote:
(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 ...

Same here. Also, it's often a question how the RAW converter can handle the files. I can imagine there are converters around which prefer uncompressed RAW or give better results - but since Fuji is recommending C1 and working together with Phase One (there are specail Fuji versions available) I have not the slightest doubt to get the results I want. The X-E2 files edited and exported out of C1 were better than the Silky Pix stuff.

Lossless compressed RAW files are better than uncompressed in almost all scenarios.
The primary advantage is obviously disk space.
Card space! ;-)

Indeed, card space and disk space ;-)
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#24
You still have disks? ;-)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#25
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 see it as the perfect travel lens, but I'm worried it might perform pretty poorly at short focal lengths (< 20mm). Thus, I don't feel like paying almost $900 on a fairly crappy lens :-(

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:

.jpg   IMG_8333.jpg (Size: 251.95 KB / Downloads: 9)

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.

.jpg   IMG_8336.jpg (Size: 285.49 KB / Downloads: 7)
Editor
opticallimits.com

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)