Wow, where do I even begin? This video is an absolute gem! From the well-researched information to the seamless flow of content, it's evident that you've put a lot of time and effort into creating this masterpiece. I've been on a journey of self-improvement lately, and your insights have resonated deeply with me. Your authenticity and genuine passion for the subject shine through, making it all the more enjoyable to watch. Thank you for sharing such valuable wisdom with us!
Hudson, thanks for the lens reviews. I am using the Viltrox 13 on my Z50 for low light and night sky. Would love another wide aperture option that goes wider for DX. And would be keen to have a lower cost wide prime(Viltrox 20mm) for ff when i buy back into that. Will be interested to hear your longer term impressions.
Been using FW 5.0 for a couple of Weeks. I haven't found anything worthwhile in it. Well, the change to the Card Formatting, makes a bit of Sense. It does also appear to Lock the Camera up, requiring removal of the Battery to unlock it. Back to 4.1
Hmmm, about 15,000 frames without a lockup. I LOVE the new playback control customization options and improved birds in flight acquisition. To each thier own.
Not if you're using hybrid handoff in conjunction with rescall shooting functions hold. Cycle is slow and clunky as can be in comparison. I have zero use for it. It's a waste of a button. For action work I use wide area and hand off to AF-On plus 3D framewide with a hold of the lens function button. Fn 2 is recall shooting function hold to flip between dynamic small and wide area for odd cases where subject detection fails. Either hands off to framewide 3D tracking with a hold of the lens function button. I need nothing else for action and would not burn a button to waste time cycling trough to get them. In my landscape and astro banks it's afs pinpoint always. In my knockaround standard bank it's 3D always. Nope. No need for that.
Very helpful video Hudson, specially regarding LRC super resolution! Thank you. And, BTW, do you have any experience using screen protectors on the LCD of your camera? Any experience you may share, positive or negative? Thank you!
I used them through the D810 or so. Kind of like phones though, the screens seem to have gotten more durable and I like the touch screen feel better without a protector. I put one on the Leica Q3 just because that camera is out on my side so much and likely to last in my kit a very long time. I just spent some time on Amazon looking for the one with the best reviews and got a tempered glass one that works well.
Interesting results. I haven't been impressed with the up sampling results from Topaz Gigapixel or Luminar AI upsample. I'd be interested to see a comparison of these with the LrC. Also, have you heard of DxOPureRaw? It makes my m43 photos noise free. Maybe makes all the sensor shift features unneeded.
This is quite revelatory for many, I think. Super resolution (and even better, Topaz Gigapixel AI) keep improving every year, whereas the built-in pixel shift is a fixed proposition from the factory. These AI software-based solutions add new life to older, lower resolution cameras, and certainly provide enhanced capabilities to 24MP bodies, especially ones like the Zf that start with very clean files to begin with. As long as you get your focus and exposure nailed in camera, you can get fantastic results with this new post-processing software. (And no worries about artifacting if subjects in your frame are moving, either.) Almost mitigates the need for ever higher megapixel cameras.
Indeed. I disagree about topaz vs Adobe however. I'm not a fan of the topaz workflow or results. You might try them back to back on the same image. Adobe's result is just superior and the process much more streamlined. The resultant dng is also superior from an editabulity standspoint. A true raw demosaic process.
Yeah, I was a big On1 resize Ai guy. It evolved from Genuine Fractals after all. It's still great, but it's tough to beat Adobe once they put a few dozen or more engineers on a project.
@@HudsonHenryPhoto No doubt about it, Adobe has the mega resources. What would make for an interesting experiment would be to shoot a night scene using both the Z8 (or 9) and the Zf, with ISO somewhere between 1250 and 1600 on both cameras. Then apply super resolution to the Zf files, equalize them to the native size of the Z8/9...and see how the results from both cameras compare. Meant to ask: Are you applying your developing edits before up-resing with Enhance, or after?
Maybe it's my monitor but the super version from LR looked quite a degree softer than the pixel shift. Easier ,yes but quality...not convinced. I'll stick to pixel shift when there's no wind.
Has anyone tested to process a pixel shift file in the latest DXO PureRaw 4 yet? Not so much for the denoise but for the enhancement of texture and detail and the outstanding optical adjustments by DXO. If that’s not possible how about converting the pixel shift file into a DNG and then open it in DXO? Is that possible?
You'll find lots of issues amplified when you try that. Also, Adobe's process is just better at this point. Not to dissuade you, but mark my words. ;-)
Because pixel shift images are incompatible with any of the advanced Enhance features Adobe offers (denoise and super resolution included). Straight raw files only. Even if that weren't the case there's an element of garbage in, garbage out. Super resolution will magnify poor image quality and pixel shift has a bit of inherent softness, artifacting and chromatic aberration when zoomed over 100%. Those traits magnified would get very ugly fast.
I feel that AI based upscalers such as gigapixel AI and Adobe super resolution is not really being true to the art of photography. According to information theory, you can't add any information that is not originally there when the image was captured. So all it's doing is using its learning to fill in the gaps (so what it is doing is using other photographer's data from its learning to fill in your pixels). I would rather use pixel shift over those AI tools. But that's just my preference.
You'll get a far lower quality result. Were darkroom enlargers somehow not true to film photography? Whether a panorama, higher megapixel sensor, pixel shift or Super Resolution the only that matters to me is capturing and printing the highest possible image quality. Super resolution is the far better of choice between it and pixel shift in any objective test.
