If that is a problem consider an external USB drive. The disk space requirement in not that great for these programs. Unfortunately, the amount of HD space then available prevented that. I was looking at a RAW converter which does all the processes. Rawtherapee is a high quality free converter. The treatment of extreme highlights and shadows is often superior in software such as lightroom, capture one and DXO, to name a few. Examples would be image rotation to straighten a horizon, correction of chromatic aberrations, sharpening, interpolation, etc. First, corrections or adjustments you can make in the RAW converter are typically more accurate/effective than those after conversion to Tiff. Is that what Olympus Viewer 3 does?Īctually I am interpolating from your responses. Why do you say "rudimentary conversion to TIFF". Most of them have trial versions available, for example Corel AfterShot, CaptureOne Pro or DxO Optics. Lightroom isn't the only option, it might be worth checking some of the other programs as well to see which one works best for you. Downsized images nearly always will look significantly better.Īs Nathaniel said, getting good modern software for the conversion of your raw files can already be a huge step forward. I take it all photos end up on the web? Meaning all photos are ultimately resized to much lower resolutions, in the 2 to 3 megapixel size more or less (between 12 pixels on the long end)? This resizing should take care of a lot of the (perceived) noise as well as fringing already what you see when looking at 100% maginifications of the original file is not at all representative of the final result that way. I've got nothing useful to say on m4/3rd lenses (no experience with the system), but when you say: We need to ask the companies directly if their standard is really a standard, A standard is something to be valued and taken as verity, EM-1 should be testable and answer your concern Harold, Do some stationary tests and let us know. PS, When one says " I understand that.etc " it sounds a little loosely supported as a fact to be taken at face value. No problem from where I shoot.show me where manufacturers say they have not aced this one already.my opinion for what it is worth, Lumix zooms are costly and squeeze out optical distortions natively or not worth the moolah. My lenses are costly Lumix zooms and some day to day primes as well by both companies. Of course, Olympus is happy go lucky to see their lens product sold on their bodies as a mating couple. Not hard to come up with objects that press the limits.Īnd consider that any camera correction via software will perforce be mild, likely with wide angle lenses and at wide wide apertures to get rid of minimal distortion that such lenses incur re vertical, In short I trust my eyes over selected forum image posts. All colors in all sectors clean as a plucked chicken, When I see evidence-beyond anecdotal forum offering I will notaccept that some lens.brand discrimination is in order. All my lenses have great native correction and enough elements to make that likely, Until someone shows me evidence that one must buy a lens from one or the other I will judge it to be an urban myth, Or alternatively I am not bothered by CA or barrel or moire or other banshee effects, True, like Jay Maisel I am satisfied with JPEGs. I have no problem mixing and matching lenses across Lumix and OMD lines.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |