|
It's a shame Canon doesn't have a real go at it. I've got a bunch of their lenses that I could/would adapt. I also love the idea of a 35mm sensor being able to go in a pocket. The "carry a huge dslr around while friends look at you funny" bit gets old really quick. I mean what's a better option here? A solid point and shoot or sort of bridging that with a mirrorless? In my opinion it only makes sense if the mirrorless I got was a Canon. I think it may be a matter of waiting it out while the market catches up on the niche I'm looking for.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
If you're just looking to adapt, you can get an EF to NEX adapter that even has software control. The downside is that it is about as slow as the EOS M and it doesn't work with all of them. Also it's as expensive as an EOS M, so.
Karasu Tengu fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Nikon and Canon aren't taking it seriously (yet) because they don't need to. The only companies that jumped on board are companies that can't/won't compete with the big two on the <$1k market. Mirrorless was Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic etc opportunity to break into the market another direction than the traditional DSLR. And why Canon/Nikon don't need to, because they would be competing with themselves in a market they are already crushing. What does L-style mean, exactly? Not being facetious, I was never a Canon guy, I really don't know. But if big/fast/good lenses are the hallmark of the L series, would the Zeiss Touit lenses count?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
thetzar posted:What does L-style mean, exactly? Not being facetious, I was never a Canon guy, I really don't know. But if big/fast/good lenses are the hallmark of the L series, would the Zeiss Touit lenses count? L style means that it's got a red ring on it and it costs more. lol if you think none of the other systems are putting out quality glass, fuji, olympus, and sigma have all been putting out better glass than canon lately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Yea, it's definitely a rough time to be a Canon user right now. Their current motto seems to be, "Redesign the same lenses, add $1000 to the sticker price". It's pretty insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
thetzar posted:What does L-style mean, exactly? Not being facetious, I was never a Canon guy, I really don't know. But if big/fast/good lenses are the hallmark of the L series, would the Zeiss Touit lenses count? They're more of the wide/normal fast that was previously mentioned. I think specifically he meant where are the giant fast telephotos - although seeing that Oly is making a 300/4 is certainly a nice way to start.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Yea, it's definitely a rough time to be a Canon user right now. And people are actually -begging- them to do it. Someone on dpr recently said he was "holding out" for Canon to redesign the 135/2. Of all the lenses in Canon's lineup that you would want a new version of, you pick what might be the nicest one they've ever made?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Frankly I think a lot of the Fuji XF stuff is pretty near L quality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:L style means that it's got a red ring on it and it costs more. Not trying to be snobby, I don't own any of it. I just meant long, fast zooms, basically. Looking at the upcoming lineup stuff, Fuji has a couple of 2.8 zooms coming out this year or next, and Sony and M43 has the typical long zoom stuff that tops out at 5.6 or 6.7. Which is fine, I just meant that 1) the systems aren't as mature as the big two mounts, and 2) it might take a while for them to get there since "70-200/2.8" and "small portable mirrorless body" are selling in opposite directions. It's just that 90 percent of the quality glass on mirrorless systems are fast primes. And fast primes are awesome, and it makes sense to fill out a lens lineup with them first, and it makes sense for them on small mirrorless bodies. But right now, if you want the 5 best lenses on any given mirrorless system, you're going to end up with a ton of fast primes <60mm. The mounts haven't matured past that yet, and given the selling points of mirrorless in general, it's hard to tell if expanding much past that is going to be profitable and sensible. Is all I meant. E: And yea, the 300/4 is a great sign that M43 is heading the right direction. And no doubt a lot of the Fuji stuff stands toe-to-toe with L glass. But nobody is saying the X lineup can stand up against the EF lineup, because they've been making EF lenses for 20+ years. Anyway, to answer his original question: Fuji and M43 are taking it as seriously as it can be taken given the newness of the tech. Every system has some severe limitations compared to more mature systems, and some companies are working harder than others at growing it. Huxley fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:And people are actually -begging- them to do it. Someone on dpr recently said he was "holding out" for Canon to redesign the 135/2. Of all the lenses in Canon's lineup that you would want a new version of, you pick what might be the nicest one they've ever made? Reading the forums on Canon Rumors is loving hilarious for just this reason. People hanging on every tidbit hoping for a new chance to get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Not trying to be snobby, I don't own any of it. I just meant long, fast zooms, basically. Olympus already had fast zooms before coming out with micro four thirds, so if you don't mind using the adapter (which with the em-1 means you have full speed af and all that jazz) then you have a few high end options, from a 35-100/2 to a 90-250/2.8 (70-200/2 and 180-500/2.8 equivalent) already. There is already a 300/2.8 as well. They make L lenses look like cheap toys though http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-35-10...ympus+35-100+f2
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:Frankly I think a lot of the Fuji XF stuff is pretty near L quality. With the exception of 135L there is not a single L lens I would rather shoot with instead of Fuji. Fuji lenses are amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
C'mon now, I know its fun to trash Canon but that's kinda dumb. Canon's 70-200 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8 are industry standards and some of the sharpest glass in production. Their super-teles are untouchable. The tilt-shifts and macros are top of the line. I love my fuji 35mm f1.4 but there is plenty of red rings I'd love to shoot with. Canon just charges way too loving much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:C'mon now, I know its fun to trash Canon but that's kinda dumb. Canon's 70-200 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8 are industry standards and some of the sharpest glass in production. Their super-teles are untouchable. The tilt-shifts and macros are top of the line. I love my fuji 35mm f1.4 but there is plenty of red rings I'd love to shoot with. Canon just charges way too loving much. yeah guys stop complaining about canon they can do no wrong because they made those good lenses once
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Olympus already had fast zooms before coming out with micro four thirds, so if you don't mind using the adapter (which with the em-1 means you have full speed af and all that jazz) then you have a few high end options, from a 35-100/2 to a 90-250/2.8 (70-200/2 and 180-500/2.8 equivalent) already. There is already a 300/2.8 as well. When I sold my E-5 and all the glass for it, this was the one lens I kept. God drat I love it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Have you tried the wide teleconverter? Nope, mostly because I rarely like shooting wider than 35, and I have a 28mm for my 5D. If I end up getting the 50mm converter, I will seriously think about selling my 5D, so I would probably then get the 28mm for those few times I want wider. I have seen the samples shot with the 28mm and they look great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:C'mon now, I know its fun to trash Canon but that's kinda dumb. Canon's 70-200 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8 are industry standards and some of the sharpest glass in production. Their super-teles are untouchable. The tilt-shifts and macros are top of the line. I love my fuji 35mm f1.4 but there is plenty of red rings I'd love to shoot with. Canon just charges way too loving much. People who want 70-200mm/2.8 should just get the Canon anyway. A mirrorless version is not going to make the lens smaller. So just get your giant Canon tele lens and a converter and use it on an EOS M. And realize how bad an idea that is and stop asking for it. I have shot 70-200mm/4 on the EOS M. Its still very fast but way too long and cumbersome to handle. Fuji's 55-200mm/3.5-4.8 can give you 90% of the speed and IQ in a much lighter and shorter package. Speaking of 2.8 pro zooms for APSC format, its the trendy thing to do now. Panasonic has release 2, Olympus has release the normal zoom, will release a tele zoom this year and a ultra wide zoom next year. That will make them the first OEM to release holy trinity pro zooms. Not counting Tokina of course. Fuji has announced and probably will release 2 pro zooms this year. Samsung  decided to one upped the Japanese and pre-announce a 16-50mm f/2.0-2.8 pro zoom. Or and a tele 2.8 zoom too.Sony has released a Zeiss 16-70 constant f/4 zoom, one stop slower than the competition, just like 99% of the other Sony NEX lens. And probably will stop making any new APSC format NEX lens for a while. Still you got to give them credit for not charge too much for the 16-70/4. Neither will Canon, Nikon nor Pentax release any 2.8 zoom for their mirrorless systems in the neat future because they are only paying mirrorless format lip service. Canon knew their EOS M was a bust so they glued a rather fast 24-120mm equivalent 12.5-62.5mm/f2.0-3.9 lens to a Point and Shoot with a m4/3 sized sensor and call it G1X mark II. It doesn't work for anybody but serve the current Canon shooters very well. I just like to casually mention Pentax to remind people they exist. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Cacator posted:In OLYMPUS NEWS they just announced a 7-14mm f2.8 and 300mm f4 prime. http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/02/12/new-olympus-7-14-2-8-pro-and-300-f4-pro-announced/ OW MY WALLET! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I just like to casually mention Pentax to remind people they exist. Hey I'm sure that 20-40mm f/2.8-4 works great on the K01, and so affordable!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:Frankly I think a lot of the Fuji XF stuff is pretty near L quality. I didn't do any pixel peeping test or anything, but I've been much happier with the output of my Fuji 18-55 "kit" than I ever was with my Canon 17-40L, although the latter is admittedly one of the weaker L pieces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Helicity posted:I didn't do any pixel peeping test or anything, but I've been much happier with the output of my Fuji 18-55 "kit" than I ever was with my Canon 17-40L, although the latter is admittedly one of the weaker L pieces. I can't honestly think of a weaker L lens that is still being produced today. I utterly hate mine, and I was at a crossroads a while ago to either keep my 10-22mm and modify the baffle to use it on FF, or sell it off and buy the 17-40. I now wish I had kept the 10-22.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:Frankly I think a lot of the Fuji XF stuff is pretty near L quality. You gotta be really careful with statements like this. L glass is for a different sensor format; additionally, Fuji hasn't released any X-trans sensor with a higher resolution than 16Mp, so we (at least, I), don't know where the resolution of their current XF lenses peaks. A better comparison would be to Sigma Art lenses, which are currently shaming Canon and Nikon. No doubt Fuji has the most compelling APS-C mirrorless system at the moment, but part of me hopes that when they're ready to compete with Canon and Nikon at a pro-level, they do it with a new suite of lenses and bodies that don't have to be compatible with the current X-mount stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Neither will Canon, Nikon nor Pentax release any 2.8 zoom for their mirrorless systems in the neat future http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/q/high-performance/06-telephoto-zoom/ 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Stumbletron posted:http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/q/high-performance/06-telephoto-zoom/ Pentax supremacy yet again
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Re: Fuji chat & pricing from last night. I got my first edition Nex 3 for about 400USD with two lenses, but the absolute cheapest I can find a used Fuji X-E1 with a single lens is 1000USD. The X-E2's not even available used, and it's about 1800USD new with an 18-55 lens. Denmark's expensive I guess 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
-Anders posted:Re: Fuji chat & pricing from last night. That's insane. What about buying in Germany, UK, or NL and shipping? X-E2 kits are available for $1100 CAD, so you might even be better off seeing if a friend in NA can buy and ship it to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
When I was thinking about upgrading I couldn't get $650 for my X-E1 kit, with a bunch of accessories... and this is in Australia, land of overpriced poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Stumbletron posted:http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/q/high-performance/06-telephoto-zoom/ Heh, you got me there. I thought they are all focus-free. In other news:  Lol nice burn Canon. gently caress you too!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
krooj posted:That's insane. What about buying in Germany, UK, or NL and shipping? X-E2 kits are available for $1100 CAD, so you might even be better off seeing if a friend in NA can buy and ship it to you. Most of the EU countries have VAT that's around 20-26%. Amazon.de has the kit for about $1600-1700 USD. Even the Fuji X100s is still $1800 USD locally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Lol nice burn Canon. gently caress you too! I dunno, their sensors are pretty retro. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:I dunno, their sensors are pretty retro.  Ice cold, man
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
It's too bad that fuji already made a digital version of the best Canon
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:I dunno, their sensors are pretty retro. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:C'mon now, I know its fun to trash Canon but that's kinda dumb. Canon's 70-200 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8 are industry standards and some of the sharpest glass in production. Their super-teles are untouchable. The tilt-shifts and macros are top of the line. I love my fuji 35mm f1.4 but there is plenty of red rings I'd love to shoot with. Canon just charges way too loving much. You misunderstood. I am not saying Canon lenses are trash. I am saying they do not offer any noticeable difference in real world shooting for me to even consider them over fuji. Lets take the 70-200ISII-L for example. Yes it is an amazing lens. It is also $2500 and HUGE. If you are making your living shooting sports buy this lens with a 5DMK3. But for a casual everyday shooter? Why get this? It is too big and expensive to be a carry around combo. Nobody but the most dedicated uses a 70-200 as a walk around lens and you look like a douchebag when you take pictures with it since everyone in a 200m radius is looking at you and your big camera. Fuji gives me impeccable image quality in a portable package. My camera is with me all day, every day. The best camera is the one you can always carry with you after all. If I was shooting 200mm+ telephoto I would go with the Olympus EM1. M4/3's is a mature platform now with amazing lens and camera selection. It is pretty much the future of indie filmmaking too with cameras like Blackmagic pocket and 4K being m4/3 mounts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Would it be dumb to get a nex and a hot shoe OVF? Was thinking of doing this with a 3N but realized it has no hot shoe. I use one lens most of the time anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
East Lake posted:Would it be dumb to get a nex and a hot shoe OVF? Was thinking of doing this with a 3N but realized it has no hot shoe. I use one lens most of the time anyway. Probably better off getting a used NEX-6.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
East Lake posted:Would it be dumb to get a nex and a hot shoe OVF? Was thinking of doing this with a 3N but realized it has no hot shoe. I use one lens most of the time anyway. The OVF is kinda dumb since it only works with the 16mm lens and also it only really sits on the F3 or the 5's, other models either have a normal hotshoe or no hotshoe. So basically get a used nex-6 or 7. Karasu Tengu fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
keyframe posted:You misunderstood. I am not saying Canon lenses are trash. I am saying they do not offer any noticeable difference in real world shooting for me to even consider them over fuji. Pretty much this. I've shot exclusively on L glass for the last 5 years and it is amazing stuff, but I'm willing to trade the focus speed in for the size of Fuji's stuff. There's no noticeable IQ difference at all in the lenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Doesn't the Xtrans sensor not have an AA filter or something? I bet that does a lot to help the IQ or effective sharpness vs L-glass and a Canon body. Not saying anything bad about Fuji glass -- I love the 35 1.4, but I think the body helps too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:Doesn't the Xtrans sensor not have an AA filter or something? I bet that does a lot to help the IQ or effective sharpness vs L-glass and a Canon body.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 15:57
|
|