|
Is she really going to be bringing your legacy lenses with her? If not just get an epl# with the kit lens for cheap and the mirrorless you actually want later. Or gf#. They're both stupid cheap now.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
whatever7 posted:The reason I asked you what MF lens do you have is that a camera with EVF will make MF lens shooting more enjoyable. If you MF collection is anywhere decent (say worth more than 300 dollar in total) you should spend the extra money to get EVF. N6 has better MF aid than the XE1 but the EVF is slightly worse. I think both are cheaper than you think and either one is worth the money. I have a whole bunch of MF-lenses, both konica ar and pentax k. But I mainly shoot analog right now and a nex or similar would mostly just be for lazyness/playing around with so spending the money for a EVF doesn't feel necessary. Startyde posted:Is she really going to be bringing your legacy lenses with her? If not just get an epl# with the kit lens for cheap and the mirrorless you actually want later. Or gf#. They're both stupid cheap now. No she will most likely just use the kit zoom and the 50 mm from sony or similar, no MF for her. But yeah I think you are right, a 4/3 for her and then I can get whatever I want later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Startyde posted:Is she really going to be bringing your legacy lenses with her? If not just get an epl# with the kit lens for cheap and the mirrorless you actually want later. Or gf#. They're both stupid cheap now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
So for those of you with experience with these cameras. Have any of you used an Olympus em5 or a fuji xe1 (or xe2) for concert photography. I have tried out both in store and am quite happy with how both feel in my hand. I'm torn between the two, and I'm trying to decide between the two. For a lot of my general needs, both will be pretty similar. But I occasionally do some concert photography, until now I've been using my 5d OG for that and have been plenty satisfied with the results. But I'm tired of lugging a full frame camera around and I really don't want to run 2 systems. So if I could get any feedback on people who have used them regularly that would be great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
I think they'd both work just fine, you can get good, suitable lenses for both and they both have similar high ISO performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:Just not the GF1, which somehow still commands prices of $1100 new. ...or $80-100 on KEH.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
ManiacMatt posted:So for those of you with experience with these cameras. Have any of you used an Olympus em5 or a fuji xe1 (or xe2) for concert photography. I have tried out both in store and am quite happy with how both feel in my hand. I'm torn between the two, and I'm trying to decide between the two. For a lot of my general needs, both will be pretty similar. But I occasionally do some concert photography, until now I've been using my 5d OG for that and have been plenty satisfied with the results. But I'm tired of lugging a full frame camera around and I really don't want to run 2 systems. In theory the XE-1/2 would be better in low light than the EM5 simply due to the larger sensor, but both should work pretty well, and they both have lenses that would work pretty well for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
ManiacMatt posted:So for those of you with experience with these cameras. Have any of you used an Olympus em5 or a fuji xe1 (or xe2) for concert photography. I have tried out both in store and am quite happy with how both feel in my hand. I'm torn between the two, and I'm trying to decide between the two. For a lot of my general needs, both will be pretty similar. But I occasionally do some concert photography, until now I've been using my 5d OG for that and have been plenty satisfied with the results. But I'm tired of lugging a full frame camera around and I really don't want to run 2 systems. I have the E-M5 and the Fuji X-E1 and have used both for events. Honestly I'd use the Olympus over the Fuji. The AF is better in low light, the viewfinder is better in low light. Granted, I've used the kit with the Fuji and some primes with the Olympus, maybe the 35/1.4 or 23/1.4 are different. The Fuji produces better results in good light, and has better high ISO in my use, but the overall experience is better with the Olympus. Also a wider selection of different lenses (not that you need anything but the 23/1.4).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
The answer to most every omd vs fuji x question is to rent the x100s for a week. Since you don't need to rent lenses as well its rather inexpensive to do and it's a perfect example of the strengths and weaknesses of the fuji system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
This fujirumors site is hyping this new body up so much its going to be impossible to meet expectations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
As long as it's not an ugly cartoon sitting on a bench.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
So for the lack of weather sealed Fuji lenses, is it within reason to assume they'll just do some "mk II" versions of some of the existing lenses? I can see either the 18-55 or the new 16-55, and maybe the 23, 35 getting this treatment. How much extra work is it to weather seal a lens? Not going to lie - a weather proof Fuji body with the 16-55 f2.8 would be a very nice combination for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Helicity posted:So for the lack of weather sealed Fuji lenses, is it within reason to assume they'll just do some "mk II" versions of some of the existing lenses? I can see either the 18-55 or the new 16-55, and maybe the 23, 35 getting this treatment. How much extra work is it to weather seal a lens? Not going to lie - a weather proof Fuji body with the 16-55 f2.8 would be a very nice combination for me. I doubt it. If its the case we would see bigger lens discount. Fuji just have to weatherproof the 2 f/2.8 zooms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Helicity posted:So for the lack of weather sealed Fuji lenses, is it within reason to assume they'll just do some "mk II" versions of some of the existing lenses? I can see either the 18-55 or the new 16-55, and maybe the 23, 35 getting this treatment. How much extra work is it to weather seal a lens? Not going to lie - a weather proof Fuji body with the 16-55 f2.8 would be a very nice combination for me. Weather sealing is more of a marketing term than anything else. If you skip to the bottom of the article, he mentions that weather sealing for most lenses is a gasket around the objective and rear element and some scotch tape over screw holes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
It's true that weather sealing is generally not much, but it seems like it's definitely "enough". There's a huge difference between keeping rain out and withstanding the pressure of submersion, and knowing that collecting droplets don't have a super free path to drip down into the lens is really what you're paying for. And seeing how little is required to keep the rain out in that article, I kinda wish there were better guides for taking my modern lenses apart so I could seal them myself. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
I weather sealed my x-pro with gaffers tape, the pro-weather seal since forever 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
ManiacMatt posted:So for those of you with experience with these cameras. Have any of you used an Olympus em5 or a fuji xe1 (or xe2) for concert photography. I have tried out both in store and am quite happy with how both feel in my hand. I'm torn between the two, and I'm trying to decide between the two. For a lot of my general needs, both will be pretty similar. But I occasionally do some concert photography, until now I've been using my 5d OG for that and have been plenty satisfied with the results. But I'm tired of lugging a full frame camera around and I really don't want to run 2 systems. Having shot with both IMO OMD does focus better and Fuji has better high iso performance and image quality if you are using the 23/35 f1.4 lenses. I wouldn't use the fuji kit lens for night time/concert shooting it is too slow for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:It's true that weather sealing is generally not much, but it seems like it's definitely "enough". There's a huge difference between keeping rain out and withstanding the pressure of submersion, and knowing that collecting droplets don't have a super free path to drip down into the lens is really what you're paying for. That's kind of the reason its more marketing than anything else. It costs like $.00001 to build in and should be part of every single lens and camera body but its specifically left off so that companies can justify higher prices for "pro" weather sealed gear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
I agree that the marketing is bs, but all the pro lenses that are weathersealed are really only incidentally weather sealed. They have other advantages (construction, glass, speed etc) which are more important to their pricing than a tiny strip of neoprene and scotch tape. I'm not super knowledged on every manufacturer's lens lineup, but I've def. never heard of a lens where they sell a weather sealed and a non weather sealed version of equal performance for vastly different prices. But yes the manufacturer should just add that poo poo into all of them, even if only the expensive ones are labelled weather sealed. Ambihelical Hexnut fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
All the people I know with big expensive DSLR's with weathersealing, are too afraid to take them out in the rain anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
ChirreD posted:All the people I know with big expensive DSLR's with weathersealing, are too afraid to take them out in the rain anyway. You can buy those underwater housings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
I know, but the point is that they don't have to. I'm saying that weather sealing sounds good, but in practise people (I know) find it too risky to take their expensive gear out during bad weather.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
I've used something like this to shoot in rain and snow with my non-sealed cameras for years and never had a water issue, though they can be cumbersome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:I agree that the marketing is bs, but all the pro lenses that are weathersealed are really only incidentally weather sealed. They have other advantages (construction, glass, speed etc) which are more important to their pricing than a tiny strip of neoprene and scotch tape. I'm not super knowledged on every manufacturer's lens lineup, but I've def. never heard of a lens where they sell a weather sealed and a non weather sealed version of equal performance for vastly different prices. Pentax 18-55mm kit lens is about 85, the Weather Resistant version is about 150; The regular 50-200mm tele kit is 150, the WR version is 240. Pentax only make 2 more "WR" lens, 55-300 and 18-135. All zooms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Pentax 18-55mm kit lens is about 85, the Weather Resistant version is about 150; The regular 50-200mm tele kit is 150, the WR version is 240. Also all of their DA* lenses are weathersealed, and that includes the prime lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Whatever "weather proofing" Fuji does, I hope it is similar to the EM-1. It is the only camera I know that I wouldn't be scared to shoot in the rain/snow with. Even with the EM-1 there are only a handful of lenses that are weather sealed isn't it?(is there a water proof fast prime for m4/3's? afaik only kit zooms are water proof)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
keyframe posted:Whatever "weather proofing" Fuji does, I hope it is similar to the EM-1. It is the only camera I know that I wouldn't be scared to shoot in the rain/snow with. Even with the EM-1 there are only a handful of lenses that are weather sealed isn't it?(is there a water proof fast prime for m4/3's? afaik only kit zooms are water proof) The 60mm f/2.8 macro is sealed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Look at the size of this $129 full frame 40mm 2.8 lens, Sony could have made the same lens and sell it for $350 and have a nice 100% markup. Instead they want to put the Zeiss badge on a 35mm/2.8 lens and have 400% markup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
I just took home a nex-3n kit (with the 16-50 powerzoom) for under 200 bucks at my bestbuy. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Look at the size of this $129 full frame 40mm 2.8 lens, Sony could have made the same lens and sell it for $350 and have a nice 100% markup. Instead they want to put the Zeiss badge on a 35mm/2.8 lens and have 400% markup. I get what you're saying and agree that they should put out an inexpensive prime, but the tests I've seen of the 35mm 2.8 are extremely impressive. It's not just a Zeiss badge slapped on a piece of junk or something. The Lensrentals people said that only camera/lens combination they've tested that could outresolve it is the D800e with the Zeiss 55mm Otus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
If weather sealing is effectively a couple of extra gaskets and a bit of extra tape, as described above, how viable would it be for Fuji (or anyone else) to offer a fixed price weather sealing upgrade & service on their lenses? Is lens construction just too complicated and precise for it to work? I'd imagine so, but still wondered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I just took home a nex-3n kit (with the 16-50 powerzoom) for under 200 bucks at my bestbuy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
ChirreD posted:All the people I know with big expensive DSLR's with weathersealing, are too afraid to take them out in the rain anyway. Look, I paid $6700 for this D4 and 18-200mm lens, I dont want to ruin it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Musket posted:Look, I paid $6700 for this D4 and 18-200mm lens, I dont want to ruin it. I can totally see someone with that combo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Musket posted:Look, I paid $6700 for this D4 and 18-200mm lens, I dont want to ruin it. Exactly :-)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Amazon has the nex3 nl/b kit for $289. I've been looking for a upgrade to my rebel xs dslr in a small package and this seems like a perfect fit for me. Is this a good camera? I don't do a whole lot of photography (mostly because I don't want to carry around a dslr) I also don't care much for a large lens selection if that is an issue with the emount system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Nondescript Van posted:Amazon has the nex3 nl/b kit for $289. I've been looking for a upgrade to my rebel xs dslr in a small package and this seems like a perfect fit for me. Is this a good camera? I don't do a whole lot of photography (mostly because I don't want to carry around a dslr) I also don't care much for a large lens selection if that is an issue with the emount system. The 3N is a pretty good camera yeah, the kit lens it comes with is decent enough, and it works with the zoom lever on that camera, so you can work it just like a point and shoot if you care.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Cool. I just wanted to be sure it wasn't terrible or something. I forgot I had a giftcard so it dropped it down to $207 which was pretty nice. Looks like I should sell my canon stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
The only real problem you would really have with the 3N is that it doesn't have any hotshoe, so you can't use the EVF or extra flashes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
I'm planning a 3 week hiking/backpacking trip and am looking at a Ricoh GR as a lightweight camera option. I'm thinking about battery scenarios and I realized I could get an OVF to significantly extend the life of the battery by leaving the back screen off and framing with the OVF. Then I realized that if I leave the back screen off, I wouldn't have any exposure information like I would with a dslr or EVF. Has anyone tried using an OVF to save on battery? I guess I could turn it on, set up some general landscape settings (set ISO, narrow aperture for example) then turn off the screen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:21
|
|
