|
In my experience the x100 is like a savant. It can't tie its shoes and only eats pudding but under the right circumstances and a gentle hand it produces amazing work.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Helicity posted:It's 7D quality with P&S convenience, along with a few other goodies. For casual portraiture and street photography it's like a whole new world. For sports and wildlife it's essentially worthless. For landscapes it really forces you to understand composition and design, and while I find it's more of a thinking exercise, my output has been much better than it ever was with my 17-40L or 10-22 on a Canon crop body. See this is what I was hoping you wouldn't say. My first camera was a Canon AE 1 Program with a 50mm. So I am perfectly fine with the limitation, and intrigued by the limitations of only having a fixed lens. I don't really want to start collecting lenses for a second system (which is why the Pentax K-01 mentioned above wouldn't really fit the bill), and the size of the fuji is really nice. Plus I'm a sucker for the retro look and I prefer dials to buttons. I'm so conflicted, and you guys aren't helping.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:See this is what I was hoping you wouldn't say. My first camera was a Canon AE 1 Program with a 50mm. So I am perfectly fine with the limitation, and intrigued by the limitations of only having a fixed lens. I don't really want to start collecting lenses for a second system (which is why the Pentax K-01 mentioned above wouldn't really fit the bill), and the size of the fuji is really nice. Plus I'm a sucker for the retro look and I prefer dials to buttons. I'm so conflicted, and you guys aren't helping. I was gonna buy a Fuji x10 or x100 but what threw me off was a bunch of reviews saying the manual focus is poo poo. I was hoping for a manual focus on the lens, but apparently that's not what you get. Hope this helps. There's always the X pro though
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:There's always the X pro though The manual focus is still poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Manual focus on the X100 (and Xpro 1, at least through the native X-mount lenses) is by wire rather than directly through the lens, so there's a bit of lag when you adjust the ring on the lens to when the focus actually shifts. The cameras really aren't built for manual focus, especially not through the optical view finder. I recently took my X100 on my trip to Hawaii and it was great because I was able to take it everywhere with me and it never felt like it was weighing me down at all. For me it was the perfect vacation camera because it allowed me to not worry too much about lugging a bunch of gear around with me and just enjoy the drat trip/experience and still get 'DSLR quality' photos because of the sensor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
I took the X100 with me on a trip to Switzerland and basically wore it around my neck (with the leather case) the entire time. It does have its quirks but to me they weren't a hindrance to how enjoyable it is to use and how good it is. However if you do pick one up try and make sure it's a newer model (serial number beginning with 21) to avoid any possibility of "sticky aperture", I myself went through two in my first week of owning them because the first had a hot pixel and the second had a strange motor noise. Third one I've taken over 3000 shots with so far. Also it turns out the mysterious E-M5 sensor was made by Sony and not Panasonic which made all the previous sensors for Olympus. It's not a cut down NEX-7 sensor either since it's 16 MP. Interesting!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
Cacator posted:However if you do pick one up try and make sure it's a newer model (serial number beginning with 21) to avoid any possibility of "sticky aperture", I myself went through two in my first week of owning them because the first had a hot pixel and the second had a strange motor noise. If I recall correctly, you're safe with '14' as well - although you may want to verify that. The first digit is the last digit of the year, and the second digit is the quarter - so 4th quarter 2011 would be '14'. edit: nevermind, a small handful of people have reported issues with their 14As. If you're worried, get a 2/3 year warranty, and make sure you get 2000-3000 shots in before your warranty is up. Although I've heard just as many reports from people saying that they called Fuji and were worried about warranties, and Fuji said they'd fix the issue even if you were out of warranty. luchadornado fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Jul 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Also it turns out the mysterious E-M5 sensor was made by Sony and not Panasonic which made all the previous sensors for Olympus. It's not a cut down NEX-7 sensor either since it's 16 MP. Interesting! Really? Where'd you read that? If that's true, I'm so surprised they weren't more forthcoming with that fact, because Sony has such a better reputation than Panasonic for its image sensors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
Costello Jello posted:Really? Where'd you read that? If that's true, I'm so surprised they weren't more forthcoming with that fact, because Sony has such a better reputation than Panasonic for its image sensors. Been posted around various Olympus forums. Apparently the president of Olympus was the one who said it. Funny how so many internet experts "knew" it was the GX1 sensor...
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Received the wide-angle adapter for my 14-42 Olympus lens today and have to say I'm pretty impressed. Nice finally having a "wide" lens for this platform when I need it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
spookygonk posted:Which one did you get? The WCON-P01... basically the wide adapter, not the fisheye adapter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Got a 14/2.5 on order, sort of. Normally they go for 3790 SEK here when available; photo dealer was running a special on a GF3+13/2.5 combo for 2490 SEK. I figure I can easily dump the GF3 for 1000 so that leaves me with a pretty decent deal on the lens. Supposedly a Lightroom 3 license is also included in the deal so I bet I can pawn that off for a decent sum as well. That'll leave me with the 14/2.5, 20/1.7 and 45/1.8. Should be an excellent m43 system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
I bought the "zeikos" brand .45x 58mm filter thread wide angle adapter a while ago on ebay for $15 or so, and it does pretty good with the Panasonic 14-42mm: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
I just had to use the Sony 16mm f/2.8 pancake for a few things. Raaaaaaaargh I want the micro 4/3rds lens selection. I am getting impatient far sooner than I thought I would and find myself considering selling my NEX-7. Goddammit, Sony.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Got a 14/2.5 on order, sort of. Normally they go for 3790 SEK here when available; photo dealer was running a special on a GF3+13/2.5 combo for 2490 SEK. I figure I can easily dump the GF3 for 1000 so that leaves me with a pretty decent deal on the lens. Supposedly a Lightroom 3 license is also included in the deal so I bet I can pawn that off for a decent sum as well. Fine choice! You won't believe how good the 14/2.5 really is. Once I got it I never saw the point of paying so much more for the 12/2, unless you really really need the extra 4mm and speed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:I just had to use the Sony 16mm f/2.8 pancake for a few things. In the same boat as you. Honestly if I hadn't gotten the Sigma 30mm I might have sold it by now, but that lens makes it easier to hang onto my 5N since it is on the camera most of the time. I still try to use the 16mm fairly often and try to find uses for it, and I do, but it is pretty underwhelming. There is also the whole adapted mf lens which is also a nice plus for the system. Patience can only go so far, though, and seeing so many lens announcements for other cameras does make it difficult sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 03:07
|
|
|
I'm dying for a 30mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 or whatever that isn't as massively huge as the regular Sigma 30mm f/1.4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:I just had to use the Sony 16mm f/2.8 pancake for a few things. I am considering asking the place I bought it from if I could trade my NEX-7 in for store credit and get a 4/3rds system. I love the what the camera can do but if I can't take advantage of it, what is the point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
^^^ Exactly, it's frustrating as hell, and Sony's being so damned quiet. If we could at least get a list or promise of lenses coming and know that they'll be quality instead of the poo poo-optical-quality lenses we've had so far I'd be a bit more willing to let it slide, but nope, nothing. What would be the closest thing to the NEX-7 in terms of performance-for-size in the micro 4/3rds world anyway? The largest factors for me are low light performance (ISO 3200 and greater) and buffer size shooting RAW (>6 is my minimum I figure, anything >10 is good), and I wouldn't like something any larger than the NEX-7. LiquidRain fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jul 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
How hot is the NEX-7 these days? I am thinking of selling off mine as I've decided I'd rather just keep shooting with my old film camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:
Olympus E-M5 is the best out there in micro 4/3 now. Fast, great EVF, bunch of excellent lenses available, weather sealed, bla bla.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
The E-M5 is slightly larger than the NEX-7 mainly due to the viewfinder hump, or the next best thing is probably the GX1 which is slightly smaller than the NEX but no viewfinder and not nearly as good as the E-M5 in low light.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Cacator posted:The E-M5 is slightly larger than the NEX-7 mainly due to the viewfinder hump, or the next best thing is probably the GX1 which is slightly smaller than the NEX but no viewfinder and not nearly as good as the E-M5 in low light. Argh, I get the sneaking suspicion that I bought the wrong camera.  The E-M5 is even comparable in low light, and there's the 20mm f/1.7 Lumix, the 9-18mm f/4-5.6 Zuiko (though not a real comparison to the incredible Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, it's zoom range where no options exist on the NEX), and the  Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 OIS. ... and then there's my NEX-7 stuck with a 16mm poo poo-rear end thing. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:I just had to use the Sony 16mm f/2.8 pancake for a few things. Joiiinnn ussss
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
One good thing about NEX is the NEX kit lens is definitely sharper than the Olympus 14-42 mm kit lens. You can use the NEX kit lens and not want to kill yourself like a lot of other kit lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Costello Jello posted:One good thing about NEX is the NEX kit lens is definitely sharper than the Olympus 14-42 mm kit lens. You can use the NEX kit lens and not want to kill yourself like a lot of other kit lenses. Which Olympus 14-42 are you talking about? I was under the impression that the second revision of the Olympus 14-42 is much better than the first version of the lens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:Which Olympus 14-42 are you talking about? I was under the impression that the second revision of the Olympus 14-42 is much better than the first version of the lens. I'm talking about the first, I haven't used the second version. I know it's got better autofocus, but did they actually improve the optics on it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Costello Jello posted:I'm talking about the first, I haven't used the second version. I know it's got better autofocus, but did they actually improve the optics on it? That's what I heard! I've never used one and have no intention of owning one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
If I were to theoretically look at an E-M5 body only, what lenses should I be buying? I would likely eventually pick up the stupid expensive Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 (because I'm a sucker for wide open standard zooms), but what can replace my precious Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 EF-S/DX lens on Micro 4/3rds? I see fisheyes and the Olympus 8-18, but the Olympus ultra-wide zoom has a relatively limiting aperture. I really like shooting ultra-wide. For pancakes, the two I should need/want are the 14 and 20?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:For pancakes, the two I should need/want are the 14 and 20? Yeah, if you're just starting a m4/3 setup you can't go wrong with these. Both are super sharp and contrasty at all apertures and the 14mm focuses very quickly and silently (20mm not so much). I played with the Oly 9-18 at a camera shop once and wasn't really impressed with the build quality. It felt waaay to cheap for a ~$600 lens. Olympus also just released a newer 12-50mm kit lens for the E-M5 which looks alright. It's quite slow at the telephoto end of and probably isn't as sharp as the primes though. On the other hand, it's currently your cheapest ($350 or so used) way to get to 24mm EFL on this system. Also, it's the only weatherproof lens available for m4/3 at the moment. Bouillon Rube fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jul 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
How's the pancake kit zoom for m4/3? I took MY GIRLFRIEND camera shopping and she's pretty sold on getting one, but doesn't want the relative bulk of the standard kit. Got my own research to do for her, but my MacBook is in the shop so it's kinda inconvenient right now,
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:... It may feel lightweight, and that is a positive on mirrorless cameras imho, but it's been a really nice lens for me. Quite sharp and fast to focus. Nothing has led me the feel like it's fragile or prone to damage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
Got another concert shoot published. Shot this at 12,800 on my 5N because the light was so weak. http://abortmag.com/2012/07/live-review-tyrants-blood-with-guests-july-6th-2012-rickshaw-theatre-vancouver-b-c/
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Wow, that looks comparable to / better than a lot of cameras at ISO 3200. Nicely done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
Actually got something passable out of ISO 8000 on the E-M5. M43 has come a long way. From a trip to Legoland recently. Also, got an M-mount to m43 adapter coming in the mail tomorrow. Any bets on how my 1950s Summicron DR will hold up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
All the whining of the Sony-victims itt finally convinced me to invest into m43 - 14mm and 20mm here we go. I'm (from my current point of view) going to miss out on focus peaking and a less aggressive crop factor for my legacy lenses, but m43 seems to be on a roll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
As a big fan of the NEX system, I believe the m43 system is the system of the future. It's inevitable. Sensor/film sizes have shrunk over the years so it makes sense that sooner or later, the m43 or even the CX-sized sensor will become the dominant one. It probably won't be too long before they figure out how to squeeze good 12800 performance out of one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
Pentax Q: Camera of the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Pentax Q: Camera of the future. I snigger every time I walk by the Q display at Yodobashi.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
I have a friend who wants to buy a camera for her dad similar to what she saw me using with my NEX-7, but without spending the $1300 for a NEX-7. What m4/3rds camera should I recommend for an ol' coot? Something at or under $400 (with a lens) and performs well? I see a few Lumixes and Olympuses at that price. The father used to do a lot of film shooting and even his own development, so learning curve shouldn't be a big issue when it comes to the camera menu systems. Recommendations for models?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 02:57
|
|