|
LiquidRain posted:vvvvv f/3.5-5.6 If they can genuinely make a pancake zoom that has a physical zoom ring and outputs decent quality (good enough for the NEX-7), I'd be all for it. Keep a couple primes for when you need a bigger aperture.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
moonduck posted:If they can genuinely make a pancake zoom that has a physical zoom ring and outputs decent quality (good enough for the NEX-7), I'd be all for it. Keep a couple primes for when you need a bigger aperture. I don't know a whole lot about microlens arrays, but why isn't there a tamron/sigma 17-50 f2.8 for e-mount? Sigma, atleast, can make autofocus, auto-aperture lenses for e-mount, what is stopping them from taking their f2.8 zooms and sticking a little extension on the contacts and mount, and selling it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
MarsellusWallace posted:What is stopping them from taking their f2.8 zooms and sticking a little extension on the contacts and mount, and selling it? Nothing. Or perhaps they don't think there's a market for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
Edward IV posted:Just to make sure, this is the Tamron lens I want, right? It's the only 17-50mm Tamron for Alpha-mount cameras that I could find on B&H.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
Samyang just announced a 8mm f/2.8 fisheye for E and NX mount.  http://photorumors.com/2012/06/11/samyang-8mm-f2-8-fisheye-lens-for-sony-e-and-samsung-nx-mounts-announced/ MSRP will be €349.99
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Eek, my E-M5 arrived at da camera store today, much earlier than I was expecting. Did anyone bother with the rebate Olympus was offering, or know if they still are honoring it due to the lack of supply? Sounds like you're in the clear but I just wanted to add that I have twice (two times) mailed in rebates to Olympus late cos I'm dumb and gotten the stuff sent to me no problems. This is Olympus Japan, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
I'm currently looking at a mirrorless to take on holiday next month. Its a once in a lifetime trip to America, and this gives me the perfect kick up the arse to get a decent camera. Currently torn between the Panasonic GF3 and the Olympus E-PM1. GF3 gets me an extra lens for the same price, but from what I can tell the PM1 is a much better camera, especially with the image stabilisation. But I'm also up for any other opinions from goons with these, or anything else they would recommend around the £300 price point. A lot of the reviews that I've seen so far tend to focus on the really technical points about these cameras, but all I'm really after is the day to day photography, with looking at some more technical stuff later on. Is there going to be much actual difference between a lot of these cameras at the real amateur level, or does it tend to be for the more professional shots? All I want is some really great photos of the Rockies, Grand Canyon, national parks etc. that I'm going to, as my current P&S is pretty bad for most photos. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
PBio posted:All I want is some really great photos of the Rockies, Grand Canyon, national parks etc. that I'm going to, as my current P&S is pretty bad for most photos. I can tell you that you'll definitely want a telephoto for those places.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Haha. Someone got the same idea for using fibre optic cable to trigger a flash on the NEX 5N just like I did a few months ago and for some reason it made the front page of PetaPixel. Except their solution is even less graceful than mine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
I don't know if the E-PM1 is a "much better" camera than the Panasonic. You're right that the biggest difference is the in body stabilization, along with the Panasonic having a touch screen. In body stabilization can be really nice, but all of Panasonic's zooms other than the super wide have very good in lens stabilization. You're only losing IS on the primes otherwise. As for the touchscreen, I really like having one on my G2 for choosing focus points. I picked up my G2 for a trip too (mine was to Costa Rica) and brought along the kit lens, a telephoto, and a pancake 20mm. I wound up shooting 75% on the 20mm since, 20% on the telephoto, and, like, ten shots with the kit lens. The fast aperture of the prime was a big reason for me using it constantly. If I did it again I'd probably add a wider prime too. The places you're going, you might think about a really wide zoom for landscape shots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
powderific posted:I don't know if the E-PM1 is a "much better" camera than the Panasonic. You're right that the biggest difference is the in body stabilization, along with the Panasonic having a touch screen. In body stabilization can be really nice, but all of Panasonic's zooms other than the super wide have very good in lens stabilization. You're only losing IS on the primes otherwise. As for the touchscreen, I really like having one on my G2 for choosing focus points. If you wanna get rid of your kit lens I wouldn't mind snagging it if it was priced right ridiculously cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
I guess while I'm at it, I could also use a wide-angle lens since the Tamron and Zeiss zoom lens has a slightly smaller angle of view than the 16mm pancake and I felt that even the 16mm wasn't wide enough. Does anyone have any experience with the fisheye and wide-angle adapter for the Sony 16mm pancake? That is, does it make the 16mm less of a lovely lens? I heard that Sony removed some lens elements from what became the 16mm to make it a pancake lens and that these adapters puts those removed elements back. I only ask about the fisheye because I already got one as a present. Edward IV fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jun 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
Actually the fisheye and wide-angle adapter make the 16mm pancake have even worse image quality. It is incredibly blurry outside the centre. I have the 11mm out of necessity (no other 11mm E-mount) so... yeah. You are REALLY stuck using the LA-EA2 for quality lenses. Even more sadly, Tokina doesn't make the 11-16mm f/2.8 for Alpha mount. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:If you wanna get rid of your kit lens I wouldn't mind snagging it if it was priced right ridiculously cheap. I might take you up on that at some point as I barely use it despite it being pretty decent all around. It's just not big enough aperture for most of what I want to shoot. I'll shoot you a PM after I think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
There is the new Samyang/Rokinon 8mm fisheye if fisheye is your thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Just bought a Minolta MD 28mm f2.8 to go along with my 50mm f1.7 MC Rokkor and 135mm f3.5 Minolta Celtic. I think I'm set for lenses for a while. I think I've spent maybe $75 total for those + the adapter rings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:Actually the fisheye and wide-angle adapter make the 16mm pancake have even worse image quality. It is incredibly blurry outside the centre. I have the 11mm out of necessity (no other 11mm E-mount) so... yeah. You are REALLY stuck using the LA-EA2 for quality lenses. Even more sadly, Tokina doesn't make the 11-16mm f/2.8 for Alpha mount. Are you referring to this lens? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/687279-REG/Tokina_ATX116PRODXS_11_16mm_f_2_8_AT_X_116.html However, I don't know if I can justify getting both the Tamron and the Tokina with the LA-EA2 for my Disney trip this autumn. I suppose I could make do with just the Tamron. But then again, I don't know if the Tamron will be wide enough, particularly for the firework shows. Since I'm already settled on the Tamron, I'll buy it sooner rather than later and get a feel for it before deciding on whether I need anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
If you have any other LTM or M mount lenses, the voigtlander 12mm is pretty great for UWA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
Edward IV posted:Are you referring to this lens?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
 Just got my E-PM1 in today. Focuses faster than my Pentax K20 with either the 16-45mm or 100mm Macro lens which is pretty awesome. I shoot mostly light tent stuff or event stuff, and it seems like this will be leaps and bounds better than my previous kit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:
E-pm1 is a great camera, lose the factory strap though, its poo poo. We got a gordys strap and a aki-asahi leather skin and its so much nicer to use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
I'm sure I'm crazy, but maybe you nice camera goons can tell me I'm not crazy...or confirm I AM crazy and deter me from my crazy antics. Originally, I was thinking og picking up an S95 from the recommendations in the P&S thread (a refurb one direct from Canon.) Then I read about 'Compact System Cameras', found this thread, and, welp, here I am with the following items in my Amazon shopping cart, awaiting me to click "Place My Order.': Olympus E-PL1 (From an Amazon Retailer, much cheaper, but no lens at all.) Panasonic Lumix 14-40mm Lens (From what I can tell, the same lens included with the PL1 if you order direct from Amazon, but getting the lens-less camera above plus the lens separately is cheaper.) Pansonic Lumix 14mm/f2.5 Lens That last lens is what I'm really waffling on...I mean, I don't really need that yet, do I? I'm just starting out, so I probably shouldn't be going overboard...so I guess we'll nix that 14mm lens. So now the question is, should I get the PL1 + that cheaper lens for ~$250, or a refurb S95 from Canon for ~$230. Fake edit: Ok, I can't find the refurb S95 listed on the Canon site anymore. this was the link but it's dead now. So I guess maybe I'll have to decide between the EL1 or the S100?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Get the 14mm lens on eBay for $160. You won't be sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
The older 14-45 kit lens is better than the 14-42. Look for one of those instead. Recently they were clearancing GF1 with 14-45 kits here for barely more than the used price of a GF1 body alone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 12:54
|
|
|
Guess who has a 45/1.8.  Also, drat Olympus for taking cues from Canon in not including the lens hood and selling it separately for a ridiculous sum. For fun, my 1Ds II + 85/1.8 weighs 1975 grams. E-M5 + 45/1.8 541 grams. Yeah, you get shallower DOF with FF, but still, 1/4 of the weight and the optics of the 45 are just fantastic. I am still getting used to being able to shoot wide open with no worries about sharpess on my m43 primes. Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jun 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Also, drat Olympus for taking cues from Canon in not including the lens hood and selling it separately for a ridiculous sum. That's why god invented eBay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Guess who has a 45/1.8. What other lenses did you get by the way?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:This is why I'm so happy now that I can carry around the E-M5 with 3 primes in the same space that I carried a DSLR and 1 prime. For much less weight too! I have the 45 and the 20. Since the 14 is so cheap now (GF3 + 14mm kits being dumped and parted out) I might add that too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 11:08
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I have the 45 and the 20. Since the 14 is so cheap now (GF3 + 14mm kits being dumped and parted out) I might add that too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
Fuji press release for their lens roadmap, almost makes me want to ditch my NEX-5N (which I really love). http://www.fujirumors.com/full-fuji-lens-roadmap-and-press-release/
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
Studebaker Hawk posted:Fuji press release for their lens roadmap, almost makes me want to ditch my NEX-5N (which I really love). An f/2.4? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
It's just a half stop between f/2.0 and f/2.8, which isn't common in modern lenses but I have a fixed lens film rangefinder which goes to f/1.7.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to the 21mm and 35mm equivalents. The 27mm that is out now doesn't really work for me, not wide or tight enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:It's just a half stop between f/2.0 and f/2.8, which isn't common in modern lenses but I have a fixed lens film rangefinder which goes to f/1.7. "In-between" stops aren't that weird. Panasonic's20mm pancake is f/1.7, and Pentax has a 35/2.4 on the market as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:"In-between" stops aren't that weird. Panasonic's20mm pancake is f/1.7, and Pentax has a 35/2.4 on the market as well. 1.8 is a between stop too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Aren't those things completely arbitrary anyway? Sure there is a standard but if they can make a lens 1.7 instead of 2.0 why not go for it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Well I learned something today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Aren't those things completely arbitrary anyway? Sure there is a standard but if they can make a lens 1.7 instead of 2.0 why not go for it? Exactly. Also, the f-stop is not an accurate indication of how much light actually gets through either, you have to look at the t-stop for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
edit: dumb question wrong place
signalnoise fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Get a light meter and it can give you readings in tenths of a stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 08:23
|
|
