Reid Reviews test: Fuji RAF X-Trans Files Converted In Three Current Programs

[Stephen McCullough]

Hi All

For those of you roiling through the X-Trans RAW processing news, there is a new comparison available. This guy does very in-depth, technical reviews. It is a paid subscription...

I hope to get time to read through it tonight.

Welcome to ReidReviews

 

[Pete Askew]

You beat me to it Stephen. I was just about to post this - I guess we got the email from Shaun at the same time!

 

[Stephen McCullough]

You beat me to it Stephen. I was just about to post this - I guess we got the email from Shaun at the same time!

I've been practicing my typing...

I'm skeptical of most reviews. I am not convinced the reviewers are actually photographers in a sense that is meaningful to me. I suppose that sounds mean and harsh. I simply find too much emphasis on things that don't help me achieve what I am trying (and mostly failing) to achieve. I usually get a lot more from, say RPF, than I do from most reviews.

Anyway, he is a photographer, and whether or not I agree with his conclusions, they are thoroughly laid out.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

So what were the conclusions?

I have a bad habit of not wanting to pay for my information!

 

[Pete Askew]

It was fascinating and had all the information you'd need to get even more deta


Damn, would you believe it, my keyboard has run out!

 

[Pete Askew]

Overall he favours CaptureOne Pro 7. Close behind was the latest version of the Fuji software. He also mentions, but has not yet tested, AccuRaw (https://sites.google.com/site/accuraw/beta-download).

I generally like his reviews and think the subscription to them to be worth the money. The X-Trans 'review' was quite in-depth and a lot of work went into it and it was interesting to see the side-by-side comparisons. I'll be logging back in again later to read the latest medium-size sensor camera comparison as I'm till quite interested in the DP2 Merrill.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Ta muchly Pete

 

[Stephen McCullough]

Just finished digesting it. I agree with Pete's summary.

I would add that he feels very impressed by the sensor overall, especially with the C1 conversion.

The only other thing I would note was that the tests were (sensibly) mostly focused on foliage etc. where we know the smearing is most common. I would have liked some tests of other subjects. In my experience LR does a good job of many subjects. Though perhaps C1 is indeed better overall.