XCD 45P vs XCD 55v

[6X6Miles]

Thanks, the raw files are in there too. What is double profiling, never heard of it? The jpegs are from PS Adobe Camera raw, their standard lens profile. But I have used every tool imaginable and still get the same result. I did swap cameras and lenses with my friend's, same result. And to to your point about sharpening up nicely before F8, that is what I was expecting from a lens like this, same with the 38V and neither really do that.

There is just not enough beta out there on these yet, I reached out to Lloyd Chambers today, will see what he says. I had these damn things scheduled for rental from Lensrentals and when B&H got them both in stock, I went against my better judgement and bought them. Now I love using them in the physical sense and don't want give that up, but I am just not getting the MF image quality out of them I do with other glass and that includes adapted 100mm and 180mm CFi lenses.

It's a real drag but I think the reality is that I need to return them and just stick with my 45 & 65.

Double profiling is when you accidentally add a lens correction profile twice. For example if LR automatically adds a baked in profile (part of the lens exif data) and then you were to manually load a profile in the corrections tab in LR. You've now got two lens correction profiles fighting eachother. Weird shit ensues.....

You've tried Phocus and get the same results? Also, you may want to load DXO Raw (as a trial) and see how that goes. By far the best lens/camera profiles for the X2D, currently. Also the high ISO NR is remarkable.

I think your 45P may be better than mine ( I really dislike mine) and 55 not as good. You may be right, or have to try another copy of the 55.

Gordon

I use DXO PL6 / PR3 mostly for my drones as it cleans the problematic main cameras up quite a bit, but infrequently on other lenses. One of the first things I did when I spotted gooey corners was run the two lenses though the DXO programs to see if I could get it to clean up but they just look worse, like someone hit sharpen edges in PS multiple times in a row on the same file. It pushes the corners out a bit to try to fix the smearing but in the end, the lenses just don't give it enough to work with and in spending hours trying using different settings it did not move the needle in the right direction enough.

I was willing to keep the lenses if some kind of combo of focus zone choice, aperture setting and post production voodoo could get me usable images but after a solid week with these lenses, it's just not working. I can put on my 45P or 65/2.8, set the aperture, focus and bam! I am 90% there with the image and only need to spend a bit of time in post to make it print ready.

Can't say I did not try, that's for sure.

[SrMi]

Thanks, the raw files are in there too. What is double profiling, never heard of it? The jpegs are from PS Adobe Camera raw, their standard lens profile. But I have used every tool imaginable and still get the same result. I did swap cameras and lenses with my friend's, same result. And to to your point about sharpening up nicely before F8, that is what I was expecting from a lens like this, same with the 38V and neither really do that.

There is just not enough beta out there on these yet, I reached out to Lloyd Chambers today, will see what he says. I had these damn things scheduled for rental from Lensrentals and when B&H got them both in stock, I went against my better judgement and bought them. Now I love using them in the physical sense and don't want give that up, but I am just not getting the MF image quality out of them I do with other glass and that includes adapted 100mm and 180mm CFi lenses.

It's a real drag but I think the reality is that I need to return them and just stick with my 45 & 65.

Double profiling is when you accidentally add a lens correction profile twice. For example if LR automatically adds a baked in profile (part of the lens exif data) and then you were to manually load a profile in the corrections tab in LR. You've now got two lens correction profiles fighting eachother. Weird shit ensues.....

You've tried Phocus and get the same results? Also, you may want to load DXO Raw (as a trial) and see how that goes. By far the best lens/camera profiles for the X2D, currently. Also the high ISO NR is remarkable.

I think your 45P may be better than mine ( I really dislike mine) and 55 not as good. You may be right, or have to try another copy of the 55.

Gordon

I use DXO PL6 / PR3 mostly for my drones as it cleans the problematic main cameras up quite a bit, but infrequently on other lenses. One of the first things I did when I spotted gooey corners was run the two lenses though the DXO programs to see if I could get it to clean up but they just look worse, like someone hit sharpen edges in PS multiple times in a row on the same file. It pushes the corners out a bit to try to fix the smearing but in the end, the lenses just don't give it enough to work with and in spending hours trying using different settings it did not move the needle in the right direction enough.

I was willing to keep the lenses if some kind of combo of focus zone choice, aperture setting and post production voodoo could get me usable images but after a solid week with these lenses, it's just not working. I can put on my 45P or 65/2.8, set the aperture, focus and bam! I am 90% there with the image and only need to spend a bit of time in post to make it print ready.

Can't say I did not try, that's for sure.

IIRC, DxO tools often create images from raw files that are wider than they should be. I.e., while other processors create the correct FOV, DxO uses image data that other processors throw away to create a wider image than it should be.

[Andy Miller Photo UK]

IIRC, DxO tools often create images from raw files that are wider than they should be. I.e., while other processors create the correct FOV, DxO uses image data that other processors throw away to create a wider image than it should be.

Provide evidence to prove this claim or remove it.

Otherwise all you are doing is trolling.

I use DxO (PR3/PL6, LCR/PS, Phocus, Capture One) and see no geometric differences of the type YOU claim.

[SrMi]

IIRC, DxO tools often create images from raw files that are wider than they should be. I.e., while other processors create the correct FOV, DxO uses image data that other processors throw away to create a wider image than it should be.

Provide evidence to prove this claim or remove it.

Otherwise all you are doing is trolling.

I use DxO (PR3/PL6, LCR/PS, Phocus, Capture One) and see no geometric differences of the type YOU claim.

I use DxO (latest PL and PR) a lot, or at least I used it a lot until Adobe launched its AI Denoise. Nowadays, I use it occasionally. I would need to double-check, but I believe I experienced the mentioned effect with Leica Qs. I assumed it was common knowledge that DxO sometimes creates wider images. With m43, DxO generated images that were not 4:3 unless I explicitly says to preserve original ratio.
Yes, I am talking about my year long experience with DxO tools.
Maybe it happens mainly with lenses that require a lot of SDC where there is extra data that gets thrown out.

[flash]

Yep. It's a DXO thing, although I'm not certain it does it with the 44x33 sensor files. I haven't checked (I don't actually care). But the Q's and m43, definitely. You could also do the same in a few other raw processors by disabling the Q's corrections and manually cropping. DXO just tries to preserve all the usable pixels rather than force the crop like LR does.

It's not really a thing though, is it? A couple of extra pixel lines on the long edge? It can make horizon leveling a *tiny* bit better as you lose a bit less in the corner but any differences are so small that you'd have to pull a tape measure to see any difference in comparison prints.

So, no, you're not trolling. Maybe know it all Andy will apologise......

Gordon

[NickT]

I agree there is no evidence of trolling just a user sharing their knowledge which is what this forum is all about.

Andy please keep it civil.