Capture One tests



More and more photographers tested the new Capture One 7.0.2 ($300, trial available). Since neither Apple’s Aperture nor DxO Labs’ Optics Pro do yet support the X-Trans format, this is an important choice to consider.

I tested the Capture One Pro beta about 2 weeks ago, and I am pleased to report that its raw conversion algorithm improves the color artifacts from the X-Trans sensor in Fuji X camera, but the offensive artifacting remains there plain to see.” Read more at diglloyd.com.

Here is Thomas Fitzgeralds first look at C1. “It’s not completely perfect. There are still some weird de-mosiacing artefacts, but it’s substantially better than what Lightroom was producing… Anyway, I’m delighted that someone has finally unlocked the true potential of the X-Trans sensor.” Read all and see his converted images here.

frontallobbings: “There’s still issues with Capture One and the details. Moire seems to be an issue that causes an unusual maze like pattern to appear in specific textures and still some smearing of details happens. However the great news is that it smears at a much higher detail rate over Adobe’s implementation of these files… I’m hopeful these minor issues will be resolved in the next version of Capture One, but for now, it’s very nice to have a professional RAW processor that at leasts matches the output quality of the JPG files out of camera, with far more flexibility found in RAW processing.Click here to read more and see his comparison images (Lightroom vs C1).

Capture One 7.0.2 and the X-E1 short words at skullfilmsproductions: “Well It is a good software, I will give them that, the RAW is alot better supported!.. However for me coming from Lightroom and everything set up to work.. this experience has been.. not horrible but CaptureOne is slooooow to work in.. as.. well I dont know what is this slow.”

Here are the French lemondedelaphoto pics converted with C1 (translated version)

And here another Lightroom / CaptureOne comparison at seriouscompacts. “The biggest differences I noted between C1 and Lightroom are that C1 has higher local and increased color saturation. I also think C1 handles high ISO noise reduction better, while Lightroom is slightly more able to recover highlights.

Love my work and want to support me? Do it for free :)
Whenever you want to purchase something just click on those links and buy whatever you want and I will get a small commission for it without you having to pay one single penny extra: Amazon.cn, DigitalRev.



  • I tested CaptureOne pro, but it is way too slow. I have a 2011 MacBook Pro (4GB), not state of the art, but not a dog either. I see some advantages w.r.t Lightroom, but no way these advantages can overcome the speed problem.

  • I tested Capture One 7.02 the last weeks and while it is the best RAW converter for X-Trans yet, I was surprised to still see some Moire p.e. in fine strutures like winter trees.

    The Fuji JPG while having lower resolution doesn´t show these moire and is also better corrected for CA.

    My wish would be: A Fuji Pro Studio Software with the camera jpg-conversion build in and the filmprofiles “Astia” etc.

    That would rule.

    • Resolution is the same. You mean sharpness or details.

    • Hi Christian
      I agree with you. C1 7.0.2 has to much color saturation, less details and moiré! It is not my raw-converter.
      Silkypix Developer Studio Pro 5.0.31 is much better and the details is so good, even better then the JPEG-OOC!!
      But, I do have to learn how SP5.0.31 works!

  • @ Some bloke

    I mean resolution – in lines. It´s not the same for jpg vs. raf: like in “resolution jpg is around 2000 lines while resolution RAW file is 2200 lines vertical and horizontal”…

    @ jeanpierre

    I got a little more resolution out of my RAFs with C1 in the end and think that the High ISO noise reduction has better colors that SP. But both are very good!

    • Really? I never knew. You got a source for this information?

    • The resolution difference is probably caused by you choosing a different dpi than the jpeg. So in lines it will be different. In terms of pixels it will be the same.

  • I’ve been itching to buy an X-E1 (or maybe the future X100s), but have been waiting for a suitable raw converter. Since I don’t yet have an X-camera I don’t have any X-trans raw files, but I downloaded capture 1 anyway to give it a spin thinking that if I found it useable I’d just go out and buy an X-E1 ASAP. But I’m sad to say that it didn’t pass muster because the processing was just too slow for me. I use Lightroom all the time on a MacBook air without any problems (I travel a lot for business and always have my Air with me), but Capture 1 had some serious difficulties. It took forever to load images and do routine processing. Now, MacBook Airs are no slouches processing-wise. For my job I do very heavy computational work with Mathematica and my Air handles that just fine. So I don’t know what’s up with Capture 1 (my guess is that the algorithms are inefficiently programmed), but unfortunately it isn’t suitable for my lifestyle and thus I cannot yet buy into the Fuji X-system.

  • Unfortunately, it sounds like the Fuji X – Series cameras have too many problems. If they don’t resolve the AF issues (introduce the new sensor in upgrades to x-E1/x-pro 1) and the raw conversion issues, it will sadly be a no go for me. Either the’re is a problem with the raw conversion algorithms, or the image quality really isn’t as good as they claim. I have been waiting patiently for them to iron out the kinks, but now I am wondering if that will ever happen. Unfortunately, these are the only small cameras that I am considering, as there is nothing else close to full frame quality (please don’t say the OM-D, as I tried that and did not like it at all, and I don’t like the size of the sensor). So, if they don’t resolve these issues, I may not be able to replace my DSLR, which is disappointing, to say the least!

  • @ Bloke an Theo

    Dpi? :) You are joking, right? Of cause jpg and raw files have the same dimensions pixel wise.

    No – the resolution capability of a Sensor or camera is measured in lines.
    Just take a look at a X-Pro 1 review on dpreview.com or imaging-resource.com…


    • With pixel dimensions the same, resolution is the same. Both JPEG and RAW are 16MP in resolution. What you’re referring to is the maximum amount of detail in the CHART’s resolution the camera is able to reproduce.

      • Theoretical resolution is the same for all 16MP sensors, but why do you think all review sites test resolution, if it is the same for all 16MP cameras?

        Because we are talking about detail resolution measured in LPH (lines per picture height) and cameras have different resolution powers: some have strong aa filters, some have bad jpg processing… So even the Raw files of 16Mp cameras do not all show the same resolution or as you call it detail.

        So, capture one pulled out more LPH from the raw, but at the cost of some Moire that is not present in the camera jpg – that’s all.

  • Check the paragraph: resolution 😉


Leave a reply