Brand dislikes..

Function over form sort of thing, then! Interesting take on it. :th_salute:
Yes, and for aesthetics I have Leica M8 (marvellous camera by the way, and the sound of shutter release: boiiiing 🤣) and Nikon Df. For practicality (easy to carry) Sony RX-100M4. But as said almost all the time grabbing Canon to shoot. Muscle memory or something which releases mind to only photographing. But the tank itself, not so pretty and brand, eh 🙄
 

jyc860923

Top Veteran
Location
Shenyang, China
Real Name
贾一川
Most of the simulations aren't actually made to look like a film stock, they're just designed for a similar use case as the film stock they're named after and consequently share some of the broad characteristics (shadow / highlight contrast, general saturation, skin tone saturation). They're much better suited for these purposes than the equivalent film stocks ever could be, since they're not dependent on chemical reactions anymore and simply consist of digital manipulations.

Only the "Classic" simulations (Chrome, Negative and Nostalgic Negative) are supposed to really look like film. My guess is that, by the time Fuji decided to make actual film simulations, they had already used up a bunch of their own film stocks (and Classic Chrome emulates Kodak film so that always needed a different name. Hence, confusingly, the film sims with a film name in them don't actually try to look like film, while those without a film name do...

As for the ISO: I'm a bit rusty on the exact details of this, but there're several ways to measure the sensitivity / ISO value. Fuji uses a different method, that is equally valid as the other manufacturers (and iirc even a bit more accurate from a theoretical point of view). Point is, they're not cheating, just using a different ISO definition. But yes, ISO 3600 on Fuji is similar to ISO 2400 or so for the other manufacturers.
Hi thanks for the film sim background, I now understand it better.

I feel that ISO values on digital cameras could be a bit meaningless as there's no ISO with them, only different interpretations of gain (on-chip, or post processing), and with the Fuji, I measured about 2.5x "cheat" compared to Canon/Sony, like 100=250, 2000=5000. I admit it's been all digital for too long to remember what real ISO look like.
 

William Lewis

Veteran
Location
Hayward WI
Real Name
William Lewis
Hmm. My only really major brand dislike has nothing to do with photography. Rather I have found over the years that I really don't like Colt revolvers but far prefer those made by Smith & Wesson. Silly details but that's how much of this is. In this case I don't like the spring used for the hammer by Colt, makes double action feel "weird" to me. S&W feel "right".

My wallet agrees with this because I don't want a Python or Anaconda or any of the other really expensive pony guns :eek-54: :laugh1: :2thumbs:
 

agentlossing

All-Pro
Location
S. Oregon Coast (the Northernmost-Cal of them All)
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
Hmm. My only really major brand dislike has nothing to do with photography. Rather I have found over the years that I really don't like Colt revolvers but far prefer those made by Smith & Wesson. Silly details but that's how much of this is. In this case I don't like the spring used for the hammer by Colt, makes double action feel "weird" to me. S&W feel "right".

My wallet agrees with this because I don't want a Python or Anaconda or any of the other really expensive pony guns :eek-54: :laugh1: :2thumbs:
I'm really partial to the Taurus 85 that I own, plus the others I have used. Again, lighter on the wallet!
 
I’ll be the odd man out here. Not having a brand dislike.

I find all camera brands equally annoying with their quirks!


cat-looking-right-and-left.gif
 
Hmm. My only really major brand dislike has nothing to do with photography. Rather I have found over the years that I really don't like Colt revolvers but far prefer those made by Smith & Wesson. Silly details but that's how much of this is. In this case I don't like the spring used for the hammer by Colt, makes double action feel "weird" to me. S&W feel "right".

My wallet agrees with this because I don't want a Python or Anaconda or any of the other really expensive pony guns :eek-54: :laugh1: :2thumbs:

I'm really partial to the Taurus 85 that I own, plus the others I have used. Again, lighter on the wallet!
I prefer Ruger for my wheel guns. But I love that we have the variety of brands to choose from. Also, it’s great how Taurus turned themselves around and are making great firearms.
 

agentlossing

All-Pro
Location
S. Oregon Coast (the Northernmost-Cal of them All)
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
I prefer Ruger for my wheel guns. But I love that we have the variety of brands to choose from. Also, it’s great how Taurus turned themselves around and are making great firearms.
It seems like I own Ruger everything else (in fact that's true: PC Carbine, Mark II .22, LCP .380), but just the Taurus for a revolver. Though of course I'd love to dive into Ruger wheelies, gun G.A.S. is the worst kind of G.A.S. I try to stop it before it starts.
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Real Name
bart
Oh, just thought of one, but it afflicts several manufacturers. Panasonic, Olympus and Canon all use only fully articulated screens on their higher end bodies. I much prefer my screens tilting, as do many other stills-only shooters. It annoys me that they seem to assume that every enthusiast is now a hybrid stills/video shooter, and I really hope that Fuji won't forget the stills only shooters (their 2 most recent higher end ILC bodies had fully articulating screens), and leave us tilty lovers with only Sony, Nikon and Canon to choose from - incidentally the three largest players on the market... So far only Fuji and Sony offer high end bodies with both options, that should be the norm IMO.
 

mike3996

Hall of Famer
Location
Finland
Oh, just thought of one, but it afflicts several manufacturers. Panasonic, Olympus and Canon all use only fully articulated screens on their higher end bodies. I much prefer my screens tilting, as do many other stills-only shooters. It annoys me that they seem to assume that every enthusiast is now a hybrid stills/video shooter, and I really hope that Fuji won't forget the stills only shooters (their 2 most recent higher end ILC bodies had fully articulating screens), and leave us tilty lovers with only Sony, Nikon and Canon to choose from - incidentally the three largest players on the market... So far only Fuji and Sony offer high end bodies with both options, that should be the norm IMO.
Don't forget Panasonic. S1 and S1R are their highend bodies and have good screens.
 

bartjeej

Hall of Famer
Real Name
bart
Adobe - not PS/PR/Camera Raw but the Creative Cloud Desktop App. Where do I start?
Does that also include LR?

I hated the subscription model when it was released, but got it anyway for the mobile app and cloud storage, and I must say I'm really enjoying it. My raw editing has become much more minimalist over the last few years, and most of the edits I do can be done equally well on the desktop as on the phone, with a final check on desktop when it's for a print. But the subscription program and its associated cloud storage is what allows me to do 90% of my photo edits in the train on my way to and from work.

Any image quality differences between LR and DxO Lab or Capture One are so small as to hardly ever matter to my use case, especially now that LR included more advanced color edits. DxO's Prime Denoise looks awfully nice but I think at most 1% of my images are so low light that I would really benefit from it.
 

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
Does that also include LR?

I hated the subscription model when it was released, but got it anyway for the mobile app and cloud storage, and I must say I'm really enjoying it. My raw editing has become much more minimalist over the last few years, and most of the edits I do can be done equally well on the desktop as on the phone, with a final check on desktop when it's for a print. But the subscription program and its associated cloud storage is what allows me to do 90% of my photo edits in the train on my way to and from work.

Any image quality differences between LR and DxO Lab or Capture One are so small as to hardly ever matter to my use case, especially now that LR included more advanced color edits. DxO's Prime Denoise looks awfully nice but I think at most 1% of my images are so low light that I would really benefit from it.
Does that also include LR?

I hated the subscription model when it was released, but got it anyway for the mobile app and cloud storage, and I must say I'm really enjoying it. My raw editing has become much more minimalist over the last few years, and most of the edits I do can be done equally well on the desktop as on the phone, with a final check on desktop when it's for a print. But the subscription program and its associated cloud storage is what allows me to do 90% of my photo edits in the train on my way to and from work.

Any image quality differences between LR and DxO Lab or Capture One are so small as to hardly ever matter to my use case, especially now that LR included more advanced color edits. DxO's Prime Denoise looks awfully nice but I think at most 1% of my images are so low light that I would really benefit from it.
No it doesn’t include LR which I always liked as it’s never been prone to file corruption like the Apple Aperture software back in the day. Just the creative cloud desktop app.
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom