RX-100 Raw capture with LR4.2RC

[artington]

Early days yet but first impressions using the Lightroom 4.2RC Raw converter for Raw files from the RX-100 are that the images arenoticeably sharper than the 20Mb Fine jpeg's. The latter tend to show softness at 1:1 which is not generally apparent with Raw files. It may be that the fine jpegs are softened by NR application in the jpeg engine. This is good news because I had previously put it down to focusing inaccuracy. Of course, these are only my observations in the field and not the lab. Others may take a more (or less) critical view. Personally, I am very pleased. I should say that I have not done strict raw vs jpeg comparisons because for some reason the jpegs from the Raw+Jpeg setting on the camera do not show up in LR as associated images - only the raw files appear, although the files must be linked because neither the raw nor jpg files were readable in LR 4.1 when using the raw+jpeg setting.

[bakubo]

What are your other impressions of 4.2 RC compared to 4.1? I saw the list of bug fixes and changes and there was nothing that affects me, but I wonder if you have noticed any performance improvements or anything else? If there is nothing I need or can use then I will just wait until 4.2 to get it.

[artington]

My only interest in 4.2RC is the raw conversion for the rx-100, with which I am very happy. Had it not been for this I too would have waited but the public update will not be available till November, which is too long a delay for me to have this utility.

[bakubo]

My only interest in 4.2RC is the raw conversion for the rx-100, with which I am very happy. Had it not been for this I too would have waited but the public update will not be available till November, which is too long a delay for me to have this utility.

Other than RX-100 support have you noticed any changes worth mentioning?

[artington]

No, but then I haven't looked for them

A list of new cameras supported and bugs fixed appears here:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/ligh ... ils#tabTop

[bakubo]

Thanks, yes, I saw that list yesterday. I was mostly wondering if you have noticed any performance improvements.

[artington]

Haven't noticed any speed improvement

[agorabasta]

It may be that the fine jpegs are softened by NR application in the jpeg engine.

The more obvious reason is that 'xfine'-quality JPEGs at 20Mp would be too large, larger even than that 20Mp compressed raw.
That's also the reason for somewhat smeary JPEGs you may get from Nex7.
Having such huge files is not really a problem for the storage, it's a problem for the battery capacity and heat dissipation, as driving the memory interface fast enough requires too much power. (E.g., Nex5/5N drive card interfaces much slower, and they record far more detailed JPEGs.)

I should say that I have not done strict raw vs jpeg comparisons because for some reason the jpegs from the Raw+Jpeg setting on the camera do not show up in LR as associated images - only the raw files appear, although the files must be linked because neither the raw nor jpg files were readable in LR 4.1 when using the raw+jpeg setting.

Are you sure it is so even with 'Treat JPEG file next to raw files as separate photos' option checked under preferences?

[artington]

Are you sure it is so even with 'Treat JPEG file next to raw files as separate photos' option checked under preferences?

Yes

[agorabasta]

Are you sure it is so even with 'Treat JPEG file next to raw files as separate photos' option checked under preferences?

Yes

Shurely shome mishtake; but it's so normal with the ever so self-confident Adobe boyz...

They have never corrected the Lr3/4 inability to work on full raw picture if the EXIF data commands a crop while the file still contains the full pixel range.

This time it seems to be yet another case of too much 'intelligent' reading into the cam-supplied metadata.

P.S. Try unchecking the 'Don't import suspected duplicates' at the import page. Chances are, the EXIF data is too much the same in both the JPEG and raw files, so that Lr considers them as 'duplicates'.

[artington]

Tried manually importing (rather than automatically detecting card) and presto, both show up. Subsequently works correctly on auto detect as well. Very strange, not aware of having altered any prefs. Thanks for your suggestions.

[UrsaMajor]

Thanks, yes, I saw that list yesterday. I was mostly wondering if you have noticed any performance improvements.

I have not downloaded LR 4.2RC yet, so I cannot offer any first-hand comments. However, a couple of people on the net have done some testing on large files to check the speed of specific functions, and claim to have seen the time required drop from ~10 seconds to ~4 seconds.

Personally, I find that the speed of LR 4.1 is quite acceptable with my A700 files, and I have not encountered any bugs with the current version, so I am going to hold off for a while before updating.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[agorabasta]

Just got me the rx toy, finally... Had to wait till they were abundant at the brick&mortar shops. Was choosing between three copies, two at one place plus one at the other. The first two had some severe side softness problems, first on the left side at infinity, second - at both sides; that's even after trying MF exactly there.
The one that I finally got is able to focus both sides at infinity symmetrically, but the centre is then focused somewhat beyond; still an f/6.3 aperture delivers good enough DoF for landscapes in the centre too. That's the only copy I've seen able to shoot remotely decent landscapes, despite the stupid field curvature of the lens. (Btw, the results can be somewhat improved if the scene may accept some added barrel distortion which may nicely even-out corner unsharpness intro'ed by the forcefully prescribed lens correction and then add even more barrel to make corner blur symmetric/isotropic.)

All in all - great sensor married to an ugly lens. And I really mean ugly for the far field; the close field is often very-very nice. But then the problem is that close enough it gets only at the wide end... I hate this lens!

[alphaomega]

(Btw, the results can be somewhat improved if the scene may accept some added barrel distortion which may nicely even-out corner unsharpness intro'ed by the forcefully prescribed lens correction and then add even more barrel to make corner blur symmetric/isotropic.)

This comment by agorabasta reminded me of an old discussion about whether the RX-100 lens started at 24 or 28mm. As I recall David K. suggested his measurements indicated that with Jpegs the lens was basically 28-100 (because of the inbuilt Jpeg only lens correction) whereas when using RAW only the lens became more like a 24-100 model. I wonder if this view has been confirmed by other technically orientated observers.
I am basically interested in this because if Sony should offer incentives here in UK I might buy one, but not if solely restricted to 28-100 mm lens reach. As I have now acquired LR 4.2, RAW conversion would not be a problem.