Raw Converters - Lightroom versus Capture One Pro

In my constantly evolving mission to see whether I should be a 3 system photographer, I venture into the RAW files produced by my Fuji X-T1. Before I turn this into another one of my reviews, I will say that when I first opened the raw files in Lightroom, I was taken aback by how smudgy some of the details look at 100%. I have heard reports about how Lightroom version 5.4 (and higher) has done a better job with their demosaicing of the Fuji X-Trans RAW files, but to my eyes it was just shy of being great.  Now don't get me wrong, I still like the files produced by the X-T1 paired with the 56mm f/1.2, but I want to be sure I get the most out of my files even if it means using a different RAW converter.

My initial search for a new converter led me to Iridient Developer. From what I have read online it is one of the best, if not the best converters for Fuji RAW files. The biggest problem - I don't own a Mac computer. ID would have been the perfect tool as it would have integrated with Lightroom seamlessly. As I continued my search, the name Capture One Pro (which I will  now refer to as C1P) kept popping up. I figured it wouldn't hurt to try it out since they offer a 30 day free trial. I am only days into my testing and immediately, I can tell you I have found a difference in the amount of detail and sharpness in my files. I generated a TIFF file from C1P and synced the image in Lightroom to do a one to one comparison. Exposure and color aside, it is pretty clear Capture One Pro is the winner - the screen grab will not do it justice.

Note: all of the screen grabs below have not been edited. All files are at their default setting. 

FujiFilm RAW X Trans File Comparison

RAW file converted in CP1 on the LEFT and RAW file converted in LR on the RIGHT.  Looking at the fur on the top of the squirrel's head it is clear C1P has far more contrast, clarity and detail. I initially thought I had misfocused, but upon viewing the file in C1P it was clear to me that LR was the "problem"

This immediately sparked my interest and made me consider the differences  in how LR converts my Sony and Olympus files. The results surprised me because I heard the root of the problem was how Adobe products dealt with this files produced by Fuji's unconventional sensor layout. I won't pretend to know coding and/or the demosaic process, but I could only imagine how the arrangement of the blue, red and green pixels could pose a problem. I found a very interesting blog post by ChromaSoft that goes into great detail about the topic if you want to read more about it (I can't comment on the accuracy of the article but it is compelling nonetheless). Otherwise, I will just provide samples from both Sony and Olympus RAW files. 

Traditional sensor layout vs. Fuji X-Trans

Sony Alpha A7 RAW File Comparison

RAW file converted in LR on the LEFT and RAW file converted in C1P on the RIGHT. Like the Fuji files, I noticed far more contrast and clarity with C1P's conversion. The eye shadow and pupil has a lot more punch and the fine details in the skin are more pronounced. Even the rendering of colors are slightly different. From a sharpness standpoint, Capture One Pro is the clear winner

Olympus OMD E-M1 RAW File Comparison

RAW file converted in C1P on the LEFT and RAW file converted in LR on the RIGHT. Given the results I have found with my Sony and Fuji X Trans files, it wasn't a surprise C1P brought out the most detail. In fact, I am inclined to bring down both the Clarity and Contrast sliders in touching up this particular headshot.

RAW file converted in LR on the LEFT and RAW file converted in C1P on the RIGHT. I decided to throw in clothing to show how both are rendered. 

Although I am only a few days into testing Capture One Pro, to me it's clear who has the better raw converter. However, in the next three weeks, I will see which software offers the best user experience. At the moment there are a lot of features I like, but there are other aspects that seem a bit backwards or counter intuitive to me. I'll chalk it up to growing pains for now. Expect a report about my one month trial period in the coming weeks. Only then can I truly say if I find the "upgrade" worth the price. Thanks for stopping by.  

A evening with the Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 105mm f/2.8 and the Sony Alpha A7

I don't know if it is luck or a depreciating market, but I was able to score the Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 105mm f/2.8 m42 mount lens for approximately $60 on eBay. I wanted to find a decent telephoto prime to take over my second copy of the Olympus OM 135mm lens which has been somewhat of a disappointment to me. It's quite possible I picked up a bad copy but it is the only Olympus OM lens I own that I might just let sit on the shelf. A couple of bids later, I take delivery of a clean, fungus and haze free screw mount lens.

Tomasina with a bit of vintage flare

With our wedding coming up in exactly 4 weeks today, Heather and I decided to take a mini break from all the prep work and go to Disneyland for half the day. I brought my tripod, Sony A7 and a handful of glass, including the Super Takumar, with me on this trip. Luckily for me, Tomorrowland Terrace was featuring Tomasina, a band whose lead singer is colorful, animated and great to photograph. The lighting on this stage was unpredictable, constantly changing and colorful, so I had to ride the ISO wheel on the A7 constantly.  Going full manual is always a challenge but a good one nonetheless.   

All the photos of Tomasina were shot in RAW and processed in Lightroom 5 using some VSCO presets. Among my favorite are, you can guess it, the Fuji VSCO versions

For most of these shots, I was working in the high ISO range of 2500 and above. I was pleasantly surprised with how much detail I was able to retain. Having read only a handful of user reports on forums regarding how "amazing" this prime lens is, I was skeptical to say the least. While it's too early to come to any reasonable conclusions, the initial results are rather promising. All of these concert shots are taken at f/2.8, its widest aperture.  

Even with extreme back lighting I was able to recover a ton of detail 

We didn't spend much time in Tomorrowland Terrace and wanted to catch a couple of rides and shows. Towards the end of our trip, as guests decided to vacate the park, Heather graciously and ever so patiently gave me free reign to set up a tripod for some low ISO, small aperture, long exposure shots. I wanted to see how this lens would resolve stopped down and in my opinion did a great job. 

From the Story Book ride: Monstro from Pinocchio - The Super Takumar 105mm f/2.8 at f/5.6

Sword in the Stone in Fantasyland - Super Takumar 105mm f/2.8 @ f/5.6 

Another angle of Excalibur with Sleeping Beauty's Castle in the background. The background compression is what I love most about using these longer lenses. 

One thing I found very similar with all of the vintage glass I have used is that they exhibit very similar polygonal shapes as you close down the aperture. For this particular reason, I am quite interested in using a Pentacon prime, commonly known as a bokeh monster for it's 15 aperture blade system, while my Takumar lens only has 6 blades. In the photo below, you will notice even wide open at f/2.8 the bokeh is still showing its less-than-round shape. I know some find it rather distracting, but I personally don't mind it.

Overall, I am having a great time using this lens. Unlike the common focal lengths like the 85mm or even the 135mm, I find this lens is neither too short or too long. The moment I slapped this on the A7, I immediately knew I would like the field of view. It is far too early to say whether this lens will have a permanent spot in my gear bag, but the initial results are truly promising. I look forward to spending more time with my new-to-me lens. Thanks for stopping by. 

Thoughts about Full Frame and Micro Four Thirds/Cropped Sensor Cameras

When I published my post regarding my full frame, Sony A7 camera versus the Olympus OMD E-M1 (a cropped sensor, m43 camera), I knew it would gain some traction, but I didn't realize how much of a response it would elicit. Many have been asking me follow up questions like what I prefer and if I could only buy one which one would I get. While the quick answer is the Olympus OMD E-M1, I believe this requires a qualified response since I have been gearing my business towards more studio and portrait work with off camera lighting. 

A studio headshot taken with the OMD E-M1 - Oly 75mm @ f/5.6

Let's get the technical stuff out of the way first. The Olympus OMD and other micro four thirds cameras have a crop factor of 2. Let's assume I am using a Canon 5D Mark II (a full frame camera I had used this past weekend) with a 50mm prime lens. If I decide to mount a Canon lens on my OMD, the field of view will change to  ~100mm. The crop factor also applies to the depth of field (not light gathering potential). While you will hear a lot of people saying that the strength of full frame cameras is being able to capture an image with a shallow depth of field, I say the strength of m43 cameras is the fact that it has such a great depth of field. Imagine shooting at f/2 on a m43, that's equal to a depth of field similar to f/4 on a full frame camera. 

When shooting groups this extra depth of field truly comes in handy. Not only will I be able to shoot at a lower aperture and still ensure that all people are sharp and in focus, I can as a result bump down my ISO for a cleaner image and/or raise the shutter speed to prevent shutter shock/motion blur. This becomes especially helpful in low light conditions like events and or weddings.

While not really a group shot, the extra depth of field I got when shooting at f/1.4 with the Panasonic 25mm and OMD really helped bring context to this image. 

This is another shot taken from the Rise of the Jack O Lanterns at the Descanso Gardens. Both shots were taken at ISO 800 below 1/30th of a second (hand held).

Full Frame vs. Micro Four Thirds (m43): Sony A7 vs. the Olympus OMD E-M1

The mirrorless world is full of options and I am happy that it is progressing as quickly as it has. I have been fortunate enough to own both a mirrorless full frame camera from the Sony A7 series and what is arguably the best micro four thirds camera out in the market today, the Olympus OMD E-M1. I wanted to challenge all of my fellow mirrorless shooters to see if they can tell the difference from the two cameras under controlled, studio settings. I will post which camera I used in a couple of days.

I think immediately you will notice the difference in skin tones. I purposefully picked these two wonderful ladies as they share a very similar color (I even posed them similarly). In processing the shots, I made sure to use a similar white balance and hue to demonstrate the rendering of both the Olympus OMD and the Sony A7 files. I will let you decide which you like best, but to my eyes it is hard to tell which is which especially when you have good light.    

Initial Impression Review - Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens

Update: To see more photos taken with this lens, see the following blog post(s): DAY & NIGHT

Not too long ago, I dove into the deep end and purchased my first mirrorless full frame camera, the Sony Alpha A7. Spoiler Alert! I am extremely happy with the camera and I am happy I waited as long as I did to upgrade for the price alone. I have owned a handful of telephoto zooms in the 70-200 range and noticed (and documented in prior posts) that adapted lenses with AF tend to have unpredictable performance. While I loved adapting the Olympus 50-200mm four thirds lens to my E-M1, I noticed it would hunt in low-light conditions or sometimes back/front focus (a common but easily fixable problem with phase detect AF systems). I decided that moving forward, I would invest only in native AF glass for both my Sony and M43 cameras with exception to vintage and manual focus only lenses. So with the purchase of the A7, I also bought the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens. This is similar to purchasing a 35-100mm f/2 lens for a M43 camera in field of view and depth of field (not light gathering) respectively. 

My first in studio shot using this lens and I am extremely happy with the focus accuracy and image quality

Although I like to do a more extensive review after using any photographic equipment for longer than 6 months, I think this lens warrants at least a small write up. I've been asked by a handful of people what I think about this zoom and whether or not I would recommend it. It is always hard to answer this question without getting to know what kind of photographer you are, so hopefully this semi-short initial impressions review will help you decide whether or not you want to spend $1,500 on this lens. Short answer is it fits perfectly in my collection and is here to stay. 

A weekend with the Sony A7 and the Olympus OM 50mm f1/.4 - Breathing new life to an old lens

Features

• All metal construction weighing in at 230g (per my research)
• 49mm filter thread
• Close focuses down to 0.45m or 1.47 feet. 
• 180 degree focus ring throw
• Manual aperture adjustments in full stop increments from f/1.4 to f/16
• Optical construction of 7 elements in 6 groups
• Cat eye bokeh wide open with hexagonal shapes closed down

Pros

• Sharp at the center even wide open
• Inexpensive to adapt to most mirrorless cameras
• Light weight, all metal construction that maintains heft and appearance of quality
• Covers a full frame sensor
• Focus ring has just the right amount of throw from near focus to infinity
• You can get fairly up close and personal with your subjects

Cons

• Noticeable vignetting at f/1.4
• Soft along the edges. Improves at around f/2.8
• Manual focus only (I don't know if I can qualify that as a con, but I understand it may be to some)
• Back lighting or direct sunlight into lens occasionally yield soft, washed out images. 

A very quick snap of the Olympus 50mm  f/1.4 on a battle tested Olympus OM 40 film camera. For a fast 50, it is quite a small lens. 

The search for a new camera - deciding between the Fuji XT-1 and Sony Alpha A7

This camera had to go to justify purchasing my new toy. Which one did I get? Read on

The desire to purchase a new camera usually boils down to one or a combination of the following: GAS (gear acquisition syndrome), status symbol, the need for better image quality and/or to fill the hole in a lens system. As for me, image quality is further down the list of reasons why I wanted to "invest" in a new camera. In fact, there isn't a camera out there that will make me want to sell my OMD E-M1. So why the heck am I in the market for a new system. Simply put, I just want it. 

So here's my oversimplified criteria for a new camera:

• You can adjust the exposure triangle (ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture) without taking your eyes away from the EVF. 
• A huge plus if you can change the focus points without taking your eyes away from the EVF
• APSC or larger sensor
• Must be mirrorless interchangeable lens system - so it boils down to Sony or Fuji (sorry Leica, you're out of my league)
• The available glass must fill a hole in my current system

Countless days of research, consultation with friends and physically holding cameras at brick and mortar shops led to two cameras that seem to fit my needs: the Sony A7 and the Fuji X-T1. In Fuji's favor is their lens line up. In my opinion, Fuji rivals the micro four thirds system in the prime glass department, but not so much in the zoom department largely due to the variable aperture aspect. Sony's existing line up of primes and the newly released 70-200mm constant f/4 G lens had me drooling. Not only are the sample pictures found online incredibly impressive, it's also white like Canon's =). All jokes aside, the 70-200mm lens will fill 90% of my photographic needs and WILL be an immediate purchase if I go the Alpha route. 

As far as the body goes, the XT-1 feels most like the E-M1, which to me is an ergonomic dream. My biggest gripe is the dial placement and button feel. For my taste, I would have switched the ISO dial with the exposure compensation dial and made the directional pad more tactile and less squishy. Changing the aperture on the lens is neat and all, but not my preferred method. Overall, good, but not OMD good. With the Sony A7, I was initially taken aback at how unconventional the grip and feel was especially with the vertical battery pack. My finger placement for the shutter release was a lot more forward with other cameras, while the A7 was pushed back towards the top of the body. Holding the camera in front of you to compose with the rear screen contorted my wrist in a strange way, but as soon as you bring the camera to your eye, it felt right. It seemed the engineers designed the camera to be held this way. If I could design the A7, I would have raised the Custom 1 button as I found it difficult to feel for, place the front dial flush with the front grip and made the control wheel have more resistance. Other than that, the A7 strangely felt very familiar. It's so easy to nitpick at the smallest things, but at the end of the day both cameras are functionally/ergonomically sound and I could easily learn to adapt to each body with enough practice.

The tipping point that eventually made me purchase the A7, besides meeting the above criteria, was price. Believe or not, B&H's trade in promotional deal specifically for Sony was too appealing [trade in your camera and receive 15% off of the A7(r/s) and accessories/lenses, plus the value of your camera]. At the sacrifice of my Pen E-P5, I was able to purchase the A7 & vertical grip for well under $900. I couldn't believe I essentially purchased a full frame camera for a price point lower than my E-M1. I look forward to spending some quality time with my new toy and reporting my findings to you all.  

Who do I run excitedly to with my new camera...of course my fellow photographer
and brother. This was taken with the 70-200mm f/4 g lens @100mm. BOKEHLICIOUS

So say we all,
Dino