|
The Nikon 35mm AF-S DX f1.8 would probably be pretty nice with a G adapter.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:The Nikon 35mm AF-S DX f1.8 would probably be pretty nice with a G adapter. I can't wait to give my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 a swing on my NEX. The main problem is that the focus ring is not very nice to turn compared to your average manual focus prime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Nerf Herder posted:Hey guys, I just got a NEX 5k with the 18-55mm lens. I'm looking around for a couple of good in expensive lenses. I know that this means no auto focus. Minolta 50/1.7, $20 on keh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
I am considering moving to a Nex 7 as my main camera. I wanted to wait and see what Fuji was up to, since I love the X100 dearly. It it due to be unveiled on Monday but images are leaking out. I love the form factor and if Fujis promise of a "better than full frame" sensor pan out, this may be worth however much they charge for it. That lens looks hot too. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
35mm f/1.4? poo poo's gonna be pricey. Judging by the size of the sensor relative to the lens mount, it's also going to be a fair bit larger than the 5N and slightly larger than the 7.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
HPL posted:35mm f/1.4? poo poo's gonna be pricey. Judging by the size of the sensor relative to the lens mount, it's also going to be a fair bit larger than the 5N and slightly larger than the 7. As long as it's smaller than my 5D2 I'll be happy. Since I talked myself out of springing for an M9, "pricey" is relative. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
God drat it. I was hoping for a lensless version of X100. This body reminds me of Leica S2. Its too retro looking. And by "retro", I mean this camera look loving expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:a "better than full frame" sensor So the camera is like a foot wide?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
I think the pics are just well done mockups. I look forward to finding out on Monday in any case! Edit: By "better than full frame" they meant better quality in a smaller sensor. They have been working on some new magic sensor for a while. It may turn out to be another Foveon situation. RustedChrome fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jan 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
The Leica M9 is loving sex, but fullframe rangefinder camera, why must you be so expensive?  
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:I think the pics are just well done mockups. I look forward to finding out on Monday in any case! The first is a mock-up, the second seems to be an intentional leak from Fuji. I'm very interested in seeing what Fuji brings to the table. I really like a lot about what Sony is doing and the talk of a FF mirrorless from them being announced later this year would be really amazing, but you would expect as good or better sensor quality from Fuji and better/smaller prime lens selection out of the gate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
moonduck posted:I'm very interested in seeing what Fuji brings to the table. I really like a lot about what Sony is doing and the talk of a FF mirrorless from them being announced later this year would be really amazing, but you would expect as good or better sensor quality from Fuji and better/smaller prime lens selection out of the gate. I'm highly skeptical about a FF mirrorless from Sony because it would throw their NEX lens line into chaos. You would need an entirely new mount for FF NEX and to have three different mounts for one company is madness. If Sony can come out with a good lineup of lenses in the next year and sensor improvements, the move to FF will be moot. At this point, aside from dick waving, is there really a point in making a FF mirrorless if you can get fantastic performance out of an APS-C sensor?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
HPL posted:I'm highly skeptical about a FF mirrorless from Sony because it would throw their NEX lens line into chaos. You would need an entirely new mount for FF NEX and to have three different mounts for one company is madness. If Sony can come out with a good lineup of lenses in the next year and sensor improvements, the move to FF will be moot. At this point, aside from dick waving, is there really a point in making a FF mirrorless if you can get fantastic performance out of an APS-C sensor? A FF sensor will automatically give a power-up on all you existing MF lenses. I don't think there is a market for mirrorless FF either. At least not for Sony. If the FF market is so hot Sony wouldn't discontinue the a900 and a850 without announcing a new FF DSLR. BTW if the NEX mount is big enough for FF sony would have made a much more traditional 50/1.8, to compliment a future 50/1.4. But this NEX 50/1.8 is essentually a ghetto portrait lens that fill the roll of a FF 85/1.8. Obviously none of these NEX primes are designed with FF focal length in mind. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
HPL posted:I'm highly skeptical about a FF mirrorless from Sony because it would throw their NEX lens line into chaos. You would need an entirely new mount for FF NEX and to have three different mounts for one company is madness. If Sony can come out with a good lineup of lenses in the next year and sensor improvements, the move to FF will be moot. At this point, aside from dick waving, is there really a point in making a FF mirrorless if you can get fantastic performance out of an APS-C sensor? The rumor I saw was that Sony was seeking to make a camera with a FF sensor and a hybrid mount system that could take both E-mount and A-mount lenses (it wouldn't be branded as an NEX camera). How Sony aimed to do this, considering that the two systems rely on different AF systems (one requiring a pellical mirror) and vastly different flange distances, I can't say. I can say that being able to adapt legacy rangefinder lenses onto a good mirrorless camera with a EVF and focus peaking is pretty much the dream. If you're only intending to use first party lenses, I would be more inclined to agree that FF makes less sense. That said, I have too much older M-mount glass to not dream of a day when my 21mm Super-Angulon could be a true 21 on a digital camera that doesn't cost 6K+.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
moonduck posted:If you're only intending to use first party lenses, I would be more inclined to agree that FF makes less sense. That said, I have too much older M-mount glass to not dream of a day when my 21mm Super-Angulon could be a true 21 on a digital camera that doesn't cost 6K+. Unless Sony starts making rangefinder lenses, I don't see what upside there is to Sony making a FF DSLR with a NEX mount, especially considering the logistics in making a NEX mount with 18mm work with a 44.5mm Alpha mount.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
HPL posted:Unless Sony starts making rangefinder lenses, I don't see what upside there is to Sony making a FF DSLR with a NEX mount, especially considering the logistics in making a NEX mount with 18mm work with a 44.5mm Alpha mount. I was as surprised to hear it as anyone else, but the smoke was pretty thick around the idea. All we can do is wait and see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
It's gonna happen, Sony will make it. The problem is that Sony's fullframe mirrorless won't be a tiny, rangefinder-esque body - it will be alpha-mount, complete with the longer register distance. That's going to turn off a lot of folks, as mirrorless has become synonymous with tiny. It doesn't have to be that way, though. This is the natural evolution of technology. Once Canon and Nikon perfect on-sensor PDAF, I expect them to release mirrorless bodies as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Just did a test of the Panasonic lumix GF3 with one thing in mind. "If this is a camera designed for and marketed towards people like my dad then how would he really cope?" My dad isn't very good at technology, he would like a better camera than his compact but he is scared of New Things, he does not want a dslr as they are too big but has the disposable income of a retired person. He rather proudly told me last week that he had worked out how to resize pictures in paint. Quite. Taking photos was easy, the iA mode is spiffy but I used A and as wide open as I could (for some reason panasonic has some options calling it A and some calling it F. /sigh) as the light was poo poo. Editing was a different story. Firstly I tried to use the programs supplied with the camera. The "PHOTOfunSTUDIO" (indeed) just imports and acts as a viewer. Dad would be fine. SILKYPIX, the raw editor opens up to a confusing black mess with no instructions or guide mode at all. My dad would have shut it down and not bothered to use raw ever again. Plus point, you can change the colour profiles and the film ones are quite nice, downside is that current adobie camera raw can't read them and I couldn't find the loving convert to jpg option ( I looked but was so pissed off at this point I gave up without much of a fight). When you shoot in raw+jpg the 6 special colour modes can only capture them in jpg, but a really twisted raw file is created, the program only shows the raw. If my dad had got far enough in to view the files he would just delete them, however, when you delete from SILKYPIX both raw and jpg files are deleted. I cannot describe how much Hatred I have for this program. Needed to update LR and camera raw to get the raw files in a proper editing program. The raw files look horrendous (not a LR problem, they look god awful in Panasonic's devil program), and only have the adobie profile. A lot of my quick fix presets won't work. To make the test fair I used the same settings but had to fix the exposer on the raw versions after because the LR auto tone is borked, which left the skies blown. I left them like that because that's all my dad would do. Full set of tests on an average subject on a dull day: http://www.flickr.com/photos/learnin_curve/sets/72157628716023825/ Conclusion. I need to get the panasonic 20mm 1.7 and battle with LR till a proper update comes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
When my dad picked up my NEX 5N for the first time, he commented on how heavy it was. I didn't say anything, but inside I was doing a massive facepalm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
My best friend in the whole wide world turned round to me the other day and gave me the old line "lovely picture, your camera is really great"  When I was doing research into the camera I read a lot of "I only shoot jpg" posts, having done battle with the raw files I can see why. It took me over an hour to get the bloody things viewable and loaded up to LR and when CS5 refused to import the tiff from LR I very nearly went "gently caress it" myself as jpgs from it are actually perfectly respectable even if the yellows and greens need tweaking, I had to check which was which when they came out of the camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
I was just reflecting on my recent shooting experience with an EVF-less camera and I got to thinking that since I started doing that, I've been shooting at a greater variety of angles than I used to because the camera isn't pinned to my head anymore. Is anyone else finding the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
HPL posted:I was just reflecting on my recent shooting experience with an EVF-less camera and I got to thinking that since I started doing that, I've been shooting at a greater variety of angles than I used to because the camera isn't pinned to my head anymore. Is anyone else finding the same thing? I find whenever I try to compose without a view finder (optical or electronic) I always end up taking photos at crazy rear end angles. Rather than getting down to level with something, it will be a crazy 45 angle that looks awesome on the screen, and when I bring it to a computer, I'm like "what the gently caress is this". I'm also like 10-20 degrees off level with the horizon rather than 1-4 whenever I use the viewfinder. So yeah I use a greater variety of angles, but I find myself hating my shots more than usual.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
HPL posted:I was just reflecting on my recent shooting experience with an EVF-less camera and I got to thinking that since I started doing that, I've been shooting at a greater variety of angles than I used to because the camera isn't pinned to my head anymore. Is anyone else finding the same thing? If I am shooting with a wide angle lens, I still prefer OVF/EVF. Pictures look more nature if I take them at eye level. But LCD has very accurate bokeh and DOF preview. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
I wear sunglasses whenever I'm outside for more than a few minutes and the LCD on my NEX-5 is nearly impossible to see with polarized lenses on. It drives me nuts. If the NEX-7 has an EVF that's viewable with sunglasses/glasses on then I'll probably go for that, if not then maybe an x100 or whatever this new thing fuji is teasing. Otherwise back to my 40D. (Oh god so heavy)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:I find whenever I try to compose without a view finder (optical or electronic) I always end up taking photos at crazy rear end angles. Rather than getting down to level with something, it will be a crazy 45 angle that looks awesome on the screen, and when I bring it to a computer, I'm like "what the gently caress is this". I'm also like 10-20 degrees off level with the horizon rather than 1-4 whenever I use the viewfinder. Well I don't mean skewed angles, I mean like a lot more from up above or down low or around a corner or TLR-style from the waist. I really do wish the 5N had an electronic level on it. I usually have the "rule of thirds" grid on, but it's not ideal. As for the sunglasses thing, I remember one summer I tried using a CPL on a DSLR while wearing polarized sunglasses. That was weird. HPL fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:I wear sunglasses whenever I'm outside for more than a few minutes and the LCD on my NEX-5 is nearly impossible to see with polarized lenses on. It drives me nuts. You don't need to glasses for EVF even if you are shortsighted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:You don't need to glasses for EVF even if you are shortsighted. I'm paranoid about my light colored eyes because all of my grandparents have sight problems likely coming from UV damage, and I have only astigmatism which means my sight is ever so slightly double vision-y at all distances. Thus I wear prescription sunglasses when I'm outside. I hadn't considered, though, that because an EVF is so close it would look ok even without glasses on. I'm just lazy and never took off my glasses when using my 40D and also because I needed them because of the OVF. I guess I need to go play one of the pelicle mirror sonys to see how good an EVF can be before I jump in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:I guess I need to go play one of the pelicle mirror sonys to see how good an EVF can be before I jump in. The A77 has a fantastic viewfinder. It's not perfect, but it's great because it's bright and has a very fast refresh rate so it's good at keeping up with motion relative to other EVFs. It's kind of weird to look into an EVF at a dark scene and see it properly exposed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:If the NEX-7 has an EVF that's viewable with sunglasses/glasses on then I'll probably go for that, if not then maybe an x100 or whatever this new thing fuji is teasing. Otherwise back to my 40D. (Oh god so heavy)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
from x100 forums:quote:New Fuji X-Pro1! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
I would be jealous, but there's no way in hell I could afford one anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
It sounds good. I eagerly await more details and some sample shots. It makes me glad the NEX 7 has been impossible to get. (But not glad for the reason it's impossible to get.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
HPL posted:I would be jealous, but there's no way in hell I could afford one anyway. Supposed 1,300 USD price for the kit with the 50mm equiv 1.4 and 600 a pop for the other two lenses. That's quite reasonable imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
Did some more tests of the GF3 in bright light on flowers, I don't have time to edit till later but today I tested iA Vs A mode, and am surprised that I junked 90% of the aperture mode pictures on the first go through because of blown highlights, but the iA pictures were all usable. I'm not surprised at iA being so good, I have the lumix Tz10 and the reviewers all noted that it often did a better job than they did, the inconsistency in the metering between the two modes however is confusing. One thing I did like about Ai was that the wind picked up and it instantly switched focusing modes to track the flowers, it won't be good enough to follow a ball in football but an impressive trick none the less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Supposed 1,300 USD price for the kit with the 50mm equiv 1.4 and 600 a pop for the other two lenses. That's quite reasonable imo. An EOS 1DX for $8000 would be quite reasonable but that still doesn't make it affordable for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Supposed 1,300 USD price for the kit with the 50mm equiv 1.4 and 600 a pop for the other two lenses. That's quite reasonable imo. Is it wrong that I am thinking about buying this and keeping an x100 just because of the 35mm equiv.?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
French article with more pictures: http://photo-cult.com/tests/ReponsesPhoto239-p8.jpg There's also going to be 10,000 black X100s. I wasn't planning on investing potentially thousands of dollars in another system so I'd be happy with an X100. At least that's what I'm trying to convince myself. Cacator fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jan 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
Also the X-Pro1 looks like it will be available in silver. It looks like bare metal in this crappy shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
Pockyless posted:Is it wrong that I am thinking about buying this and keeping an x100 just because of the 35mm equiv.? The thing is, I like the non removable lens. It keeps me light, and focused more on taking photos than gear. I'm actually not really tempted by this new camera. I have my 5D, 28/35/50/85mm lenses when I need to change focal lengths, but since getting the X100, I've pulled it out only one time for a portrait session with a friend's kid. It does look like a fantastic camera though. I wish the portrait lens was a pancake too. To elaborate further, the number one benefit of the x100 for me is that it's small and self contained with nothing else to worry about. That is what makes me sling it over my shoulder every day, and always have it near at hand. Even a 2nd small pancake lens destroys this feature. This new camera will probably be great, but it's a different type of camera, even if it's similarly sized and styled. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jan 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Pockyless posted:Is it wrong that I am thinking about buying this and keeping an x100 just because of the 35mm equiv.? The Japanese sure know how to get your money. Thats why Fujifilm is not the one filling chapter 11 right now. I am planning to dual wield myself. I plan to shoot with a NEX3 and a DP-1 now and slowly upgrade to NEX5n and a Fuji or NEX7.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 17:53
|
|