Biggest differences over the Fuji when actually capturing an image are that the zooming capability is incredibly limited (the enormous zoom range of that camera was a powerful tool for creativity) and that depth of field is significant in a way that it almost never is with a compact except when shooting macro. But everything is falling to hand, and having spent a couple of hours fiddling, thinking & re-fiddling I *believe* I know most of the capabilities of this camera in terms of manual and semi-automated operating.
The EVF isn't as good as an OVF in bright sunlight, and it has already made me long for that to be available, but as soon as ambient light levels drop it is a huge boon. The rear screen also seems pretty bright, and that may alleviate some of the hassles composing through a dim viewfinder. Autofocus also seems reasonably reliable, and I've set both that and metering to 'spot' in order to manually control exposure and focus position through viewfinder assessment.
The .jpeg images produced seem generally richly coloured, if a little low in contrast, and the 20Mpx sensor provides a lot of detail. I've been shooting using just the standard 50mm f1.7 Minolta lens (=roughly 80mm on this camera) for a modest telephoto effect and decent degree of sharpness. At some stage I need to try the kit lens too - reputed to be a step above the previous and most other typical kit lenses - though it's probably not really going to be so great compared to the prime, and doesn't have that ability to reduce depth of field to a fingers breadth.
I need to investigate RAW processing a bit more, as the images come out really dull, grainy and with heavily skewed colours through DigiKam. I did have a play in RawTherapee, but without producing sufficient improvements, and have since downloaded RPP as a possible alternative to run on the Macbook.
So for now I'm working in .jpeg format.
This has some possible advantages, in that there is programming for the camera to create HDR images internally, taking 3 bracketed images and combining them, but this is available if you save in .jpeg ONLY. And for now there's no need to use RAW because the low iso .jpeg files are really very clean indeed, and have that lovely smooth tonal gradation and fine detail that doesn't come from 1/2.3" sensors and cheap short focal length optics.
Some examples.
And for the purposes of comparison, here's one I prepared 'earlier' using the Samsung:
Nice images and glad to see you out using your new camera.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I am only ever really happy shooting RAW & processing later. Even when you get the jpeg conversion working well in camera (all mine can produce really nice jpegs) the results with RAW are better.
Although setting the camera to jpeg can be nice, from a creative/simplicity point of view. One exercise I really like is to set the camera to full manual mode, jpeg, black & white, square frame and image review off. Then go for a walk and shoot a "roll" 12, or 24 images, without looking at them till I get home. Actually, you can go for any setting really, the point is just to work on working the camera.
Thanks Fern.
ReplyDeleteI can see why you would use RAW, because some of your images may end up being very large, but mostly I expect to just publish to the www. However even at 900X600 I can see a difference in image quality between the Sony and the Samsung, just as I could see a difference between the Samsung (with a 1/1.7" sensor) and the Fuji (with 1/2.3" sensor).
But I wonder sometimes about our pursuit of image quality - certainly mine. There's a chap had his work featured in GIMP magazine who was talking about how .jpeg format degraded his images, and it was all reasonable. However when I saw his work it made me wonder how it could possibly make a difference at all, because his images were all so softened, filtered, doctored and generally degraded. Maybe it's a little like guitarists and favourite gear - most of the difference is in the mind of the tog.
Your exercise of shooting a roll is a good one, and I should do that. I may also go a little further down the prime lens route, partly for the sake of image quality, partly for the discipline of working a situation to find the best in it.
One myth I'd love to debunk is the one about using a prime lens and moving rather than zooming. An image is so often about perspective that by moving, the perspective is destroyed and the image that captured the imagination is lost. Certainly one can be lazy and remain still if one has a 30X zoom on the camera, but that misses the point of what an incredibly creative tool a superzoom can be. It's one thing I REALLY miss on a SLR, and is a situation I shall look to amend before we travel again.