|
Internet Explorer posted:Could you explain or point me in the right direction to read about why a smaller sensor (m43 is a MFT sensor?) is better for landscape than a FF? You're correct about an "upgrade path" but just hold onto an equivalent lens for crop/m43/FF and you'll see why it doesn't matter. Those lbs add up. I'd advise against looking on the internet for various sensor comparisons as they'll all be obsessed with DoF equivalence and bullShit. You simply don't need full frame until you can articulate why you'd need it.
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
I found two articles that are super helpful so far. Not too far over my head and good information. http://www.switchbacktravel.com/best-cameras-hiking-backpacking http://www.switchbacktravel.com/lenses-focal-lengths-landscapes [Edit: Thanks again for all the help so far. I think you guys got me pointed in the right direction.] Internet Explorer fucked around with this message at 22:30 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Yeah the reasons to upgrade to FF are dwindling more and more as the years go by. There is really no harm in investing in an APS-C system, other than the nagging "what if"s. And Fuji is really good with providing new features to older camera models via firmware updates, as long as the hardware supports it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Thank you. A lot of what you're saying is over my head, but that's alright, gives me some reading to do. I do not pack a tripod but I was thinking about trying to use a walking pole with a camera mount. If you're doing serious hiking (and already carrying hiking/camping gear), then your primary requirement for a camera is going to be 'smaller and lighter'. That's not a feature set that's common on full-frame bodies. So crop sensor bodies (including mirrorless systems) have a big advantage before you start to factor in the actual performance of the camera. There are a few reasons that full-frame is better than crop sensor, but none of those reasons apply to landscape photography. Generally, full-frame is better in lowlight and usually full-frame cameras are aimed at the professional photographer so offer better autofocus, faster burst shooting and so on. None of which is going to make the slightest bit of difference to your photos of mountains and forests. As far as lenses are concerned, in the Nikon and Canon ecosystems where mounts for full-frame and crop sensor cameras are mechanically identical, you can fit any lens to the crop sensor body but only full-frame lenses onto a full-frame body. This is because the image circle thrown by a crop sensor lens is big enough to cover the smaller sensor but not the larger one. Obviously for systems that don't offer different sensor sizes like micro-4/3rds, that's not something you have to consider. Full-frame lenses aren't automatically better, but they are, again aimed at the pro photographer so they often have better weather sealing. They'll be bigger and heavier though. Don't worry about an 'upgrade path' unless you can really see a use case for a full-frame camera that isn't possible with your smaller sensor. It used to be the case that if you were getting serious about photography, you'd buy a full-frame body eventually, but the rise of really good systems with smaller sensors has largely made that decision irrelevant. Even in DSLR land, the practical difference for most photographers between a good crop sensor body and a full frame one will be zero in general use.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
I no longer wish to hike with full-frame glass, as much as I loved some of those lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
I will say birding is very hard on a rangefinder style body. Wish I considered that before switching from a slr. I hope it's less of an issue or I just get better by air show season.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Alright, so I did some more research and I think I have it narrowed down to the a6300 and the X-T20. On the camera body side, the costs are similar. The big differentiators seem to be that the a6300 is weather resistant and has no touchscreen where the X-T20 is not weather resistant but does have a touchscreen. From what I understand if I'm going to be doing photos in the rain I'd need a protective cover anyways and if the lenses themselves aren't weather resistant then it doesn't much matter if the body is weather resistant. So I'm not sure if weather resistant is make or break and I highly doubt the touchscreen is either. Then I used this site to list all the different lenses available. I was fairly surprised that the a6300 seemed to have many more lenses to choose from (62 to 33), but that's only half the picture and wanted to get an idea on price. So I went ahead and went through the lists for both and tried to pick similar lenses from each category. I tried to stick to only first-party lenses for fairness sake.  If I were to buy a lens in each category, the totals would be about the same (~$5,800). I know I don't need a lens for each category, so I went ahead and picked 3 lenses that seemed to give me the most flexibility and highlighted them green. The cost for buying each of those were fairly similar as well (a6300 $2,342, X-T20 $2,518). I understand there is a lot to be said for prime lenses and I am sure at some point I will pick some up. Even starting off, I'd likely just get 2 lenses and work from there. My next step is to look at lens reviews, focusing on the lenses I highlighted in green, to make sure there are not huge differences for either camera. Probably research into the 3rd party lenses as well to see if there are any better picks I ignored. Does this seem like a more sane approach? I know this is over-simplifying, but anything obvious I am missing? I did read a bit about sensor crop factors and understand that to get the real focal point on a lens using an APS-C sensor on a mirrorless camera means I need to multiply it by 1.5 to get the real focal distance, which was informative. Internet Explorer fucked around with this message at 23:54 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Don't buy the XC 16-50. Buy an XT-20 kit and recalculate your budget. I'd honestly just start with the kit and see which direction in the focal range you find yourself wishing you had more of before going all in on covering 10mm to 230mm.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Before you order anything, go to a photo store and fondle all the cameras. Ergonomics are way, WAY more important than any technical specs for how much you will enjoy your camera. The a6300 has great specs but it is a usability nightmare. I can't imagine ever using a camera without a touchscreen ever again. Sony also has issues with their battery capacity, you don't really want to carry around 5 extra batteries. Your Fuji selection looks like a good start. You probably want to replace the 16-50 with the 2.8 version that everyone here keeps praising. If you haven't sworn off MFT you could also look at the Olympus E-M 1 or E-M5 II with the Olympus 12-40 mm. That is probably the best combination of image quality, weight/size and weather sealing you can find. The only downside is that really wide weather sealed MFT lenses are pretty expensive. Edit: There is also a pretty decent 40-150mm tele for MFT that costs <$100.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Popelmon posted:Before you order anything, go to a photo store and fondle all the cameras. Ergonomics are way, WAY more important than any technical specs for how much you will enjoy your camera. That's a pretty good idea on the holding it in my hand aspect. Plus if I can get the gear for a similar or slightly higher price locally, I'm okay with that. I haven't sworn off MFT, just seems like APS-C is more modern or at the very least those Olympus cameras are a bit older. I guess I should do a similar comparison with one of those included. Star War Sex Parrot posted:Don't buy the XC 16-50. Buy an XT-20 kit and recalculate your budget. That sounds like a smart plan. Just to make sure I understand, you mean this kit that includes the Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS Lens? And that kit lens is better than the similar Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Zoom Lens that comes with the a6300? Or basically you just mean get either with the kit lens and go from there? Does anyone else have any super strong feelings on the a6300 vs the XT-20 or on the weather resistent / touchscreen aspect? And again, thanks so much for being patient and holding my hand here. Internet Explorer fucked around with this message at 00:15 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
The Fuji 18-55 is literally the best kit lens ever produced by a camera company. Also, Sony is really bad. Pretty much you're going to buy that body and then they're going to announce that they're abandoning all of their current mounts and doubling down on that "lens for your camera phone" failure of an idea they had a couple years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
If you're already worried about upgrading, just get the xt2 kit, the 55-200, and pick a wide angle that's weather sealed and be happy. The kit lens is an asskicker.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:pick a wide angle that's weather sealed
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:That sounds like a smart plan. Just to make sure I understand, you mean this kit that includes the Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS Lens? And that kit lens is better than the similar Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Zoom Lens that comes with the a6300? Or basically you just mean get either with the kit lens and go from there? If I were you, I'd probably be deciding between Fuji and Olympus.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
In that case, it sounds like I'm going with Fuji. I think I'm comfortable with that decision. I'll do the rest of my due diligence and then post whatever terrible first photo I take as
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Don't forget about Panasonic! They're like Olympus with a better interface. And now they're competitive on IBIS too.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
I'm the only person in the world who likes the A65, so I was looking at the Sony A7ii or A7R as my next camera, but when I posted in here, my question sank without a ripple. I'm willing to go Fuji instead, which seems to be the goon consensus as the way to go. Can you goons help me with a good candidate for a Fuji body and lens? I'm looking for an upgrade to hold me over until I can afford a 645z or equivalent in a few years. I like my A65 body, especially with the beercan, but right now getting a wide lens upgrade for it seems like a waste of money since Sony doesn't give a poo poo about the A-mount. I can't even get my camera repaired anymore, if I break it (again) my local shop won't touch it. I shoot mostly landscapes with occasional portraits, and often in black in white, for which Acros simulation looks good. Weather sealing would be a plus, and I prefer manual focus for the most part (the focus lever on the X-pro 2 looks neat). I don't necessarily need to start with the kit lens, but I am willing to - which wide lenses have higher image quality than the kit? I plan to keep my 70-200 beercan on my A65 permanently once I have a mirrorless camera, so I don't need anything in that range to start with. I usually do 12"x18" prints at the largest.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:In that case, it sounds like I'm going with Fuji. I think I'm comfortable with that decision. I'll do the rest of my due diligence and then post whatever terrible first photo I take as For what it's worth, my typical hiking setup is the 35mm f/2 during the day. I usually carry it by hand with a wrist strap, or tuck it into the lid of the pack for technical sections. I also carry the 18-135mm with me so that I have a lot of flexibility. If I am planning some nighttime photography I will also pack a Rokinon 12mm f/2. Make sure you bring along a couple of Wasabi batteries. I plan to use a battery every two days -- which usually is about right, but shooting with stabilization on the 18-135mm can chew through the batteries. I keep everything in a Crumpler Haven. I am sure there are other solutions. I like it because it provides some protection, allows me to stay organized, and is relatively lightweight/simple so that it doesn't take up too much room in my hiking backpack.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Fuji supports older bodies way into their twilight years and Sony drops support the day a body is released since they are already anticipating the next one. Fuji's lenses are also much better than the Sony APS-C offerings. I would also reconsider your lens list. Something like the 10-24 for a grand could give you some serious extra bucks to spend on either the long end or on a nice prime. If you get the 18-55 then you are going to have an excellent kit lens (really, the best kit lens) and you could get a good, really cheap manual focus 10mm lens for a couple hundred bucks if not less used for the times you need it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for the continued feedback. On the lenses, that was just to get a basic idea on a cost comparison from Fuji to Sony. I pulled the trigger on the X-T20. Of course you fuckers recommend the camera sold out everywhere.  Now I get to play the waiting game. Ordered through B&H as it claimed 1-2 weeks to come in stock as opposed to 1-2 months on Amazon. Got the 18-55 kit lens bundle.The wife, who actually knows a bit more about photography, was happy with my recommendation after she did her own research - so again, thanks goons!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Congrats and welcome to the best camera system.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Yeah, I have shot Nikon full frame, medium format, and large format. Fuji is the system I carry everyday for a reason. If I was planning on backpacking my fuji kit would probably be the 10-24mm, 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 if I felt like I needed the reach.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Sarern posted:I'm the only person in the world who likes the A65, so I was looking at the Sony A7ii or A7R as my next camera, but when I posted in here, my question sank without a ripple. I'm willing to go Fuji instead, which seems to be the goon consensus as the way to go. There is the brand new a99 II which seems to be really, really good if you want to stay with the A-mount.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Thanks everyone for the continued feedback. On the lenses, that was just to get a basic idea on a cost comparison from Fuji to Sony. You made a good choice for your situation, assuming you've held the camera in your hand first, because the feel is very important. Once you've used the kit a bunch, you can decide if you want to expand into more telephoto for wildlife, wide angle for better landscapes/night-time long exposures, or one of the variety of primes. You will however be overwhelmed with the camera controls at first, especially coming to Fuji from a point-and-shoot. The X-T20 isn't as overwhelming as the X-T2, but there are still a lot of dials and menu options you'll need to learn, so I hope you stick with it and figure it all out. Sounds like your wife might be able to help. runawayturtles fucked around with this message at 10:14 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
And speaking of Fuji and hiking, I currently have an X-T1 with the kit lens, the 55-200, and the 35 f/2, and I have a couple questions. First, I've been out of the loop a bit since around the time the 23 f/2 was released, but I had been waiting for that to release for a while as I was considering switching from the 35 to the 23. I'm now considering that again and looking for advice. I currently use the 35 for a few particular things: - general street and nature photos if it's raining - low light photos indoors for gatherings with friends - food close-ups of my wife's baked goods - the occasional portrait I'd imagine the focal length of the 23 would be more useful for the former two, and less useful for the latter two. The 35 also has a slightly larger aperture improvement over the kit lens at it's respective focal length (3.6 -> 2 vs. 3.2 -> 2). Which do you guys think would be more useful for me to have? And I guess I should make sure: did the 23 turn out to be just as high quality as the 35? Second, one of the most common uses for my camera is for landscapes and wildlife while hiking (and sometimes astrophotography afterward). Recently I've been looking to lighten my pack, and would like to avoid carrying all three lenses around with me all the time. I need the 55-200 for wildlife, and I need the 35 (or 23) for inclement weather, so the question is really whether I can avoid taking the kit lens. With the 35 as my prime, the answer is certainly no, as it can't handle landscapes, but what about the 23? Do you guys think it would make a reasonable enough landscape lens, or should I just suck it up and take all three? edit: I should clarify, I don't carry around the 55-200 on all hikes, only when I'm expecting significant wildlife sightings. But my next trip is to Yellowstone, so... runawayturtles fucked around with this message at 10:52 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
Popelmon posted:There is the brand new a99 II which seems to be really, really good if you want to stay with the A-mount. I did look at the a99ii while breathing heavily, but if I'm going to spend more than 2k on a body, I'd rather do that when I get the 645z. Most of the mirrorless bodies I looked at were at a more comfortable price. Ideally I'm looking at less than 2k for the body and first lens.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
23mm on APS-C is a capable landscape focal length. The 23 + 55-200 combo covers everything landscape-wise except that popular super wide angle look (and for that you'd want something wider than the kit lens anyway). If you're in a situation where you want something in between 23 and 55 (rare for me) you can always shoot with the 23 and crop. Whether or not you'll be happy with the 23 being your widest landscape option is really up to you. Go out and take some landscapes with your kit lens set to 23 and see how you like it. Pull back to 18 to see if you miss the extra FOV. Find landscapes you like on sites like Flickr and 500px and check what focal length was used in the EXIF data (be sure to account for crop factor). Personally, I once went to Alaska with only an x100s (23mm) and I was pleased with the landscape shots I got (including some long exposures). I occasionally found myself wishing I had something longer (like the 55-200) to fill the frame with a distant subject, but hardly ever felt the same about going wider. Don't get me wrong though, these days the Rokinon 12mm is always with me when landscape shots are a possibility (and I'm even planning on upgrading to the 10-24 at some point) because I like having a super wide FOV available as an option.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
Frequently while hiking I have found 23 to not be wide enough. Heck, sometimes 18 isn't. This is for photos in tight spaces though
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
TheEye posted:You made a good choice for your situation, assuming you've held the camera in your hand first, because the feel is very important. Once you've used the kit a bunch, you can decide if you want to expand into more telephoto for wildlife, wide angle for better landscapes/night-time long exposures, or one of the variety of primes. I wanted to actually hold the camera in my hands but as far as I can tell it barely exists in real life right now. I couldn't find any online or local store with it in stock. With me not ever having a "real" camera to already have a preference, I have a feeling I won't be too upset about the ergonomics either way. Plus all of the reviews seem to say it feels good in the hand other than maybe a little small to grip, which it seems like there is a grip add-on if needed. I guess worst case I can return it. From my reading I think I'll end up buying a wideangle prime lens equivalent to about 21mm full frame, but with the praises everyone has given the kit lens I figured I'd start with that. A good wideangle prime is as much as the camera body itself, which I'm sure it's normal to spend more in lenses than you do in bodies. I watched a couple of reviews and "first time setup" videos and I think I'll be fine on figuring it out. I know adding a button for quick ISO changes and for auto-focusing on center will be my first changes. I am super stoked and can't wait for the camera to get here. Hopefully B&H's 1-2 week estimate is accurate. It's already going to be a long 2 week wait, can't imagine I'll be able to hold out if it turns into 1-2 months.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
I was tired and just focusing on what I was going to eat for dinner on my way home last night, and then as I got out of the car I remembered the X100F had arrived while I was at work and it felt like Christmas morning suddenly. Now I'll need a hipster strap and a red shutter release button because I hear those make you take better pictures.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Okay, be gentle on me here. I know nothing about cameras and have some questions. Based on weight: Ricoh GR II 250g GF7+12mm: 472g XT20+14mm 618g A7+10-18mm 699g XT2 +14mm 742g You need more money for a FF combo anyway. I use Stickpic to mount light camera to a trekking pole. Don't worry about weather seal because when the weather is bad you won't be using the camera anyway. Just use your phone for those shots. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 15:52 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Don't buy the XC 16-50. Buy an XT-20 kit and recalculate your budget. This is great advice. I've found that 99% of my shooting is easily covered by the kit lens, and the XF 18-55 is fantastic. That being said, I am totally in love with my G85 with the 12-35 f2.8, it really is the perfect camera for my purposes. mAlfunkti0n fucked around with this message at 15:44 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:From my reading I think I'll end up buying a wideangle prime lens equivalent to about 21mm full frame, but with the praises everyone has given the kit lens I figured I'd start with that. A good wideangle prime is as much as the camera body itself, which I'm sure it's normal to spend more in lenses than you do in bodies. Get the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm/f2. It's manual focus but that hardly matters for a landscape lens and focus highlighting means its simple to use anyway. All of Fuji's wides are super bonkers expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Saros posted:Get the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm/f2. It's manual focus but that hardly matters for a landscape lens and focus highlighting means its simple to use anyway. All of Fuji's wides are super bonkers expensive. Seconding this .. I loved that lens on my X-T1
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Saros posted:Get the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm/f2. It's manual focus but that hardly matters for a landscape lens and focus highlighting means its simple to use anyway. All of Fuji's wides are super bonkers expensive. mAlfunkti0n posted:Seconding this .. I loved that lens on my X-T1 Awesome. Will add it to the list. Now to figure out a carrying solution for hiking. I have some ideas but I'll hold off on that for a bit considering it will be a while before I get my camera. Plus I am done with monopolizing this thread for a bit. Again, can't thank you guys enough. I am super excited.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Awesome. Will add it to the list. I throw my stuff in my Osprey "day" pack for day hikes .. just keep it away from a water bladder (if you're using one) because it will build up condensation if it's cold water.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Peak Design Capture Clip
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Man the only Sony user in here it seems, I am more like "I love the Sony a7II and for a light wide angle lens the Sony 35 2.8 can't be beat, the lens is wide and unlike micro four thirds, you can get actual wide lenses without distortion (the real reason why I like full frame and would love medium format is I love landscapes and you do not want a distorted landscape. Also, the reason why I still reject Fuji, their Raws do not play nice with Lightroom, and while I understand most people are naturalists, I edit heavily in post, which means Raws are king. Has fuji fixed that? I mean, their glass is nice but the 85 1.8 from baittis is an amazing thing and well balanced. (Also Eye AF is amazing, I can't ever go back to DSLRs without it for portrait work.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Fuji raws are perfectly fine in Lightroom now. Even the film simulations are pretty much spot on. The only problem is that there's no way to easily simulate the in-camera shadow and highlight settings once you import them. However, I've tried making curves presets that match by directly comparing to the JPEG, and I got pretty close.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
A couple years ago my wife said she wanted a nice camera to take pictures of the kids and take along while traveling. She had no interest in shooting anything manual, and wanted a DSLR. I was pushing her hard to get a Fuji mirrorless, because she was essentially treating it as an expensive point and shoot and I feel like her use case was better suited for a mirrorless than a DSLR. I couldn't convince her, and we ended up getting a Nikon D3200. As it turns out, exactly what I expected to happen happened. We barely use it, because it's big and heavy and hauling it around with 2 kids and all their gear is a pain. It also is really crappy in low light situations, and the autofocus especially struggles there. Now we're back to thinking about a mirrorless. I'm looking at Fujifilm stuff, because they are well recommended and I like how they look. Me as a know-nothing who reads things on the internet and expects to shoot a lot of portrait type photos has the idea that the 16-50mm kit lens is the one I want. The decision is made more difficult on which body to get. Adorama has the X-A10 for $500, the X-A3 for $600, and the X-T10 for $700. 3 cameras with identical lenses in increments of $100 It looks like the key feature differences between the A10 and the A3 are the 180 degree rotating screen and the 24 MP sensor compared to the 16 MP sensor (bigger numbers is better). The T10 adds to the A3 a viewfinder and ???? It looks like the A3 is probably the right one for us and the best cost/feature value for me. Is there anything I'm missing? Also, I'm thinking based on ebay/craigslist postings I can probably get $300-ish for the old Nikon, which softens the cost of this upgrade. Any tips on where or how to sell a camera?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:07
|
|
