Tony Rowlett

Wishing the entire readership of this forum a Very Merry Christmas! Many thanks for another fine year of

Leica/RF knowledge, experiences, and pictures.

Very cool thread.

I think you should download the converter again from Adobe. Oh, and by the way, don't have Bridge or Photoshop open while you're doing a conversion... just for starter, that is. Want to eliminate variables.

Amy, I only used it once so far, and it seemed to just work. I pointed to the directory that has all my .RAF files, told the program to use the same directory for the resulting .DNG files, punched the button, and it just worked. And fairly quickly, too. I'm not at my home machine now, but I will take a look when I get home this evening.

 

Since my original query (which, by the way, was posted in the Leica/RF forum, thus my question concerning the cateogories; I was only refering to the ones in that forum), I have downloaded Adobe Lightroom 3.5 for evaluation, and it works with the X100's native .RAF files just fine. I'm thinking that THAT is the way to go, except for such large file sizes. Good grief. At this rate, then, I'm tempted to shoot in .JPG (Fine) mode as a rule of thumb, and just use the Raw button to occaisonally capture a photo in raw.

Some of my answer may be contained in this thread over in the Digital Darkroom forum:

 

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00ZAq9

 

I'm already thinking that for at least a few of my pics, I may want to preserve the original .RAF files and use Fuji's raw converter. It appears to be one crappy program, though.

I am using Adobe DNG Converter 6.5 to convert raw files from the X100 (.RAF) into the more standard .DNG files

for use with other Adobe products. My first question is, I notice that the Fuji raw files are all roughly 20

megabytes, yet the converted files all appear to average only 10MB. I want to delete the originals, but is that

a mistake? (At this point, I'm using CS4 and its ACR, but I am looking to buy Lightroom soon.)

 

My next question is, I couldn't find a good category to place this post in. Should we update our categories?

Ouch. I do know what it's like.

Great idea!

What a gem these threads are. Fantastic photography, all.

I want one of these so bad. But that price. Wow. I've said this before, but when my dad first got me into Lecia, he told me that he really wasn't doing me any favors. LOL.

 

Speaking of 1/8000th, I am really liking that on my M8. It's a great ingredient for wide aperture, low ISO, shallow DOF during the long days of Alaskan summers. I'm afraid that would be one feature that I'd miss, at least a little bit.

That is great, Alex. I am envious. Can't wait to see some of the pics.

I'm in the "no filter for protection" school. I once was all fussy about the protection factor but realized that a lens hood during use, and a cap after use, is all that is needed. Why invite unnecessary veiling flare with another reflective surface?

This has happened to me, too, recently. I thought for awhile that if I charge for only a couple of hours, enough to charge fully but not to let it fry on the plug, then they work better. Hmm..... Why does the $24 battery for my Nikon D700 last for, like, two months worth of shooting while, during shooting, my M8 batt. lasts for, say, half a day? (I exaggerate only slightly) I have to say, though, that I've had a battery in my M8 since November of 2010 and have just recently picked it up with 3/4 charge. Dig that?

The way I look at it, I don't want to buy one of those filters for each of my lenses. So, for any pics I like

whose black clothed subjects appear magenta------ just process as B&W and be done with it. Who needs color

anyway. Thoughts? (besides splashing for the 9)

Thanks, James.

If you're using an M9 and also have experience with the M8 (in other words, if you're wealthy beyond belief!...

just kidding), how does the battery life of the M9 hold up compared with the M8? I'm suspecting that since it's

basically the same mechanism, that they'd be about the same. Correct?

Jim, I'll be sure not to mention your name to my wife after I buy this camera! :-)

Bob, I don't think anyone is "bitching" per se, only discussing. I think for the money it is reasonable to have some doubts especially after reading such mixed reviews everywhere.

Seems OK to talk of it here. That it is a rangefinder-styled machine makes it fit in.

 

I'm excited about it and am contemplating trying one, but along with triggering a few raisings of my eyebrows, dpreview's take also makes me cringe. I agree with Marc in that the pictures I've seen don't knock my socks off (yet).

As automatics go, the Baretta M9 is an excellent choice. But it won't take a Noctilux. And neither will the Rolex.

hmm... is that campy components, too?? Looks like it. Nice stuff.

Get it. I really love my D700. I am simply amazed at how easy it is to use. It is an amazing camera.

i think I'd pick the 35/2, but remember that it is still a wide-angle lens, and your pictures with it will show the wide-angle characteristics. If you're a purist, then, I'd pick the 50/2. Between those two, it's a tough choice, really.

Tiffany, beautiful.

No, the link won't be deleted. Too useful! Thanks for posting.