C1 with Fuji X cameras
For the last 3-4 years I have been working exclusively with Fuji-X cameras, viz T1, T2, Pro2, E1 and 100F.
Before that I worked for over 10 years with Canons, 10D and all the 5Ds. I want to continue to have the ability with C1 to work with the Canon files as well.
Which version should I acquire? Capture One Pro Fujifilm or Capture One Pro?
I am trying out C1 at the moment. The file I am working on recognises the ICC in my Base Characteristics as "Fujifilm X-T2 Generic". The photo was indeed take with a T2, but what does "Generic" mean? Is that referring to the lens type? C1 doesn't recognise it?
In the Lens Correction tab when I pick my "Manufacturer Profile" as Fujifilm (it is not automatically set), the only lenses I see are GF lenses, but no X. Does this mean there are no profiles for the X lenses? Or are they in the Pro Fujifilm version.
As you can see I'm a little confused, so some help understanding this before I make a decision to buy would be helpful.
Thanks, Menachem
Before that I worked for over 10 years with Canons, 10D and all the 5Ds. I want to continue to have the ability with C1 to work with the Canon files as well.
Which version should I acquire? Capture One Pro Fujifilm or Capture One Pro?
I am trying out C1 at the moment. The file I am working on recognises the ICC in my Base Characteristics as "Fujifilm X-T2 Generic". The photo was indeed take with a T2, but what does "Generic" mean? Is that referring to the lens type? C1 doesn't recognise it?
In the Lens Correction tab when I pick my "Manufacturer Profile" as Fujifilm (it is not automatically set), the only lenses I see are GF lenses, but no X. Does this mean there are no profiles for the X lenses? Or are they in the Pro Fujifilm version.
As you can see I'm a little confused, so some help understanding this before I make a decision to buy would be helpful.
Thanks, Menachem
0
-
Hi Menachem,
If you want to work with your Canon files you will need the Pro version.
Fuji Pro has all of the Pro features but for RAW files works only with Fuji (and modern Phase cameras as I recall.).
Plus jpgs.
For RAW covering all supported camera manufacturers you need the full Pro version.
The "Generic" parts of the Profile name is used for the "Standard" profile for the camera identified. Usually a Capture One created profile.
Standard manufacturer profiles - certainly in the case of Sony and now Fuji - where available will show 'Manufacturer'. In some cases both may exist. With the manufacturer special relationships for Sony and now Fuji there will be some cross-over with old, pre-relationship models and new current and future camera body and lens releases.
You can choose either. Phase would suggest that what they offer addresses some aspects of the sensor data conversion and matching to Capture One that the camera manufacturer profile would not be able to do and therefore represents a better option as the default profile. However it should be possible to set the Default to a different profile if you wish to change the default Base Characteristics.
The Help information for the Base Characteristics tool provides the details you may need.
https://help.phaseone.com/CO12
Or use the '?' icon in the tool.
How the manufacturer specific relationship may become is as yet unknown - especially to we who are users of the software and not Phase employees.
Employees will not be permitted to tell us unless the information is already publicly available and formally announced.
This is especially true for the Fuji system since it is a fairly recent relationship and probably has room to develop, especially in terms of lenses.
The Film Curves and the way they relate to the in-body settings is also a special feature of the Fuji 'ecosystem'.
For the Lens identification I think, from memory, Phase has always used the Manufacturer provided correction data although there are a couple somewhat more "Generic" generic adjustments available. This is probably because, in common with many of the 'post mirror years' digital camera bodies the entire processing chain can rely on digital 'correction' of the optics from the design stage onwards.
There is one non-GF lens on the list in V12 - for the X100.
The GF lenses are a different matter and aimed very much a the higher end of the photographic market and as such are probably much more likely to benefit from subtle tweaks (or major correction!) that the Capture One lab team can define. At any rate it does seem that Fuji and Phase have agreed that making the profiles is worth the effort for whatever reason(s) there may be.
I have just checked (V12 full Pro) a sample file for the GF using a GF250mm lens that I downloaded and there is a clearly visible difference to the image when changing from the default Generic profile to the Manufacturer profile. Whether it is enough to be something that would persuade one to make a decision for one preference over another is difficult to say - at least is is for the sample image which subject matter that is likely to succeed or fail based on a lens profile.
There is at least one post in the forum that indicate some of the things that the Phase profile can address that manufacturer profiles cannot. I don't have a readily available link for it but someone else here might have such a link.
There may be other places in the Support pages where the subject is discussed in more detail. I'm not sure but other may be able to point to additional resources to help you.
Grant0 -
Thanks Grant.
I used DxO with my Canon equipment for lens correction. It did an amazing good job, considering how bad the barrelling is on Canon lenses. What I understood from them was that their works was all based on their own testing, and not on information from the manufacturers.
Unfortunately they have a problem doing anything with non-Bayer transforms. ☹️
Cheers,
Menachem0 -
Hi Menachem,
My Canon lenses show great results with C1 but I have never looked at DxO so cannot compare.
C1 also do their own testing but that originated from a time before the Micro4/3, mirrorless, smaller and lighter and less costly developments for quality equipment came to the forefront of development some years ago. I don't there is any way that most companies could justify the resources required for testing every single lens and adapter combination against a business plan calculating the cost benefits. Or lack of cost benefits!
I think if you have access to the manufacturer data and run a few spot tests then discover that the manufacturer data are fit for purpose - especially if some lenses are designed with quite extreme adjustment in mind from the start - then there would seem to be little point in duplicating that effort for minor advantages in an area of the market where those advantages may not even be recognised (or needed) by the majority of users.
I would assume that recently designed lenses that are capable of transmitting their own correction values by some means are probably pretty accurate in terms of the info they provide. Probably better than the early attempts. So only the upmarket lenses are likely to be regular testing candidates ... perhaps. Just my thoughts based on what I have seen.
Grant0 -
Hi Menachem,
My Canon lenses show great results with C1 but I have never looked at DxO so cannot compare.
C1 also do their own testing but that originated from a time before the Micro4/3, mirrorless, smaller and lighter and less costly developments for quality equipment came to the forefront of development some years ago. I don't there is any way that most companies could justify the resources required for testing every single lens and adapter combination against a business plan calculating the cost benefits. Or lack of cost benefits! They may, however, choose to produce profiles for lenses that are popular, espcially if they are popular with their clients.
I think if you have access to the manufacturer data and run a few spot tests then discover that the manufacturer data are fit for purpose - especially if some lenses are designed with quite extreme adjustment in mind from the start - then there would seem to be little point in duplicating that effort for minor advantages in an area of the market where those advantages may not even be recognised (or needed) by the majority of users.
I would assume that recently designed lenses that are capable of transmitting their own correction values by some means are probably pretty accurate in terms of the info they provide. Probably better than the early attempts. So only the upmarket lenses are likely to be regular testing candidates ... perhaps. Just my thoughts based on what I have seen.
Grant0 -
Thanks.
The good news is that in general Fuji's lenses show far less distortion than Canon's (and I believe Nikons too). But that's not based on recent experience.
Also you are correct. DxO is probably the only company to take on extensive testing of camera/lens combinations, and I'm certain it takes a lot of resources.0 -
[/quote]
I would assume that recently designed lenses that are capable of transmitting their own correction values by some means are probably pretty accurate in terms of the info they provide. Probably better than the early attempts. So only the upmarket lenses are likely to be regular testing candidates ... perhaps. Just my thoughts based on what I have seen.
Grant[/quote]
Just to clarify the manufacturers lens data is embedded in the RAW file metadata at the time of taking the picture. You can look at this data with a comprehensive metadata display tool, the data displayed in Capture One is a subset of the full data, it is this metadata that Capture One (and Lightroom) use when they say they are using manufacturer's data. Some Fuji prime lenses are so well optically corrected that they do not need such data.0 -
Thanks Dave.
Yes the Fujinon lenses are pretty good.0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
7 Kommentare