The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

«‹›614 »

DJExile: Jun 28, 2007

Wengy posted:

The FL-600 seems OK, but it's pretty expensive. Is its smaller brother FL-300 much worse?

Edit: I mostly need it for indoor pics in crappy light over the holidays (little kids will be involved, so fast shutter speeds will be needed) and maybe some macro stuff. The FL-600 seems like overkill, but if the FL-300 really sucks I'll contemplate it.

FYI- regular 4/3 flashes like the FL-36R will run on m4/3 bodies and they're plenty cheap used.

# ? Dec 4, 2014 21:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 23:34

Musket: Mar 19, 2008

8th-snype posted:

Overrated.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 00:09

Wengy: Feb 6, 2008

DJExile posted:

FYI- regular 4/3 flashes like the FL-36R will run on m4/3 bodies and they're plenty cheap used.

Eh, that one costs almost as much as the FL-600 here. Might as well go for the newer gear.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 08:24

Pompous Rhombus: Mar 11, 2007

Just cancelled my A7ii preorder... I did it mostly so I could have the option of getting it before I left for Australia, but with the way the exchange rate is now it's actually cheaper at Sony Australia (even after GST), and I was really on the fence about it with whatever the A9 is just around the corner anyways. Think I'll let the dust settle and let whatever early adopter I buy mine from take the hit on initial depreciation.

In other news, ABOUT GODDAMN TIME.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 17:06

Karasu Tengu: Feb 16, 2011; Humble Tengu Newspaper Reporter

They made the three best and cheapest E-Mount lenses already, I have good hopes about it if they decide to really get into E/F-E lenses.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 17:12

Dr. Despair: Nov 4, 2009; 39 perfect posts with each roll.

evil_bunnY posted:

You want TTL.

Reasons to get TTL:

1. you absolutely have to get the shot right the very first time you take the picture and can't afford to spend 10 seconds before hand taking a test shot or learning guide numbers/how flashes work so that you can just eyeball that poo poo

2. you don't like having money

# ? Dec 5, 2014 17:48

Fart Car '97: Jul 23, 2003

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOJyBmDvp5c

That is just... wow :stare:

# ? Dec 5, 2014 17:50

404notfound: Mar 5, 2006; stop staring at me

holy poo poo

# ? Dec 5, 2014 18:06

Nondescript Van: May 2, 2007; Gats N Party Hats

Jesus gently caress. I have no use for it but i want it anyway.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 18:38

evil_bunnY: Apr 2, 2003

All that and sony makes *1* lens faster than 2.8. It's 55mm.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 19:07

Edward IV: Jan 15, 2006

evil_bunnY posted:

All that and sony makes *1* lens faster than 2.8. It's 55mm.

That and no FE-mount pancake lens is what convinced me to switch to Fuji. Not to mention that the a7 has nothing on the X-T1 when it comes to looks.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 19:45

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Well, I'm sold, gonna go toss my rebel in the trash now.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 20:00

HPL: Aug 28, 2002; Worst case scenario.

Fart Car '97 posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOJyBmDvp5c

That is just... wow

That video would be a lot funnier if people were bumping into each other in the dark.

I took this photo at ISO 51200, f/2.8, 1/5, handheld, at around 11PM at night:

# ? Dec 5, 2014 20:01

Karasu Tengu: Feb 16, 2011; Humble Tengu Newspaper Reporter

Edward IV posted:

That and no FE-mount pancake lens is what convinced me to switch to Fuji. Not to mention that the a7 has nothing on the X-T1 when it comes to looks.

The Zeiss 35mm is sorta pancakey, if you're into wide lenses.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 20:50

keyframe: Sep 15, 2007; I have seen things

Fart Car '97 posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOJyBmDvp5c

That is just... wow

If you think that is good this will blow your mind:

https://vimeo.com/108613669

# ? Dec 5, 2014 21:30

Whirlwind Jones: Apr 13, 2013; by Lowtax

keyframe posted:

If you think that is good this will blow your mind:

https://vimeo.com/108613669

I'm confused by the purpose of this.

I mean, from a technical standpoint it's very impressive, but the result isn't "true" to the scene so it looks weird, and it's also noisy and muddy as hell so it's not exactly a good substitute for daytime filming. As an example of lowlight capabilities it's nice I guess, but this specific example seems useless to me. What usage does that particular scenario have, other than simply a cool "tech demo"?

# ? Dec 5, 2014 21:53

erephus: May 24, 2012; \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/
\o/ \o/ \o/ \o/ \o/

Mr. Despair posted:

Reasons to get TTL:

1. you absolutely have to get the shot right the very first time you take the picture and can't afford to spend 10 seconds before hand taking a test shot or learning guide numbers/how flashes work so that you can just eyeball that poo poo

2. you don't like having money

?CONTEXT ERROR █

# ? Dec 5, 2014 22:30

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

Whirlwind Jones posted:

I'm confused by the purpose of this.

I mean, from a technical standpoint it's very impressive, but the result isn't "true" to the scene so it looks weird, and it's also noisy and muddy as hell so it's not exactly a good substitute for daytime filming. As an example of lowlight capabilities it's nice I guess, but this specific example seems useless to me. What usage does that particular scenario have, other than simply a cool "tech demo"?

It's not "true" because your eyes aren't particularly sensitive to anything beyond contrast at low light levels; your statement would be about as accurate if you claimed any digital camera wasn't "true" to the scene when sensors don't perfectly mimic human vision.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 22:50

timrenzi574: Sep 11, 2001

Whirlwind Jones posted:

I'm confused by the purpose of this.

I mean, from a technical standpoint it's very impressive, but the result isn't "true" to the scene so it looks weird, and it's also noisy and muddy as hell so it's not exactly a good substitute for daytime filming. As an example of lowlight capabilities it's nice I guess, but this specific example seems useless to me. What usage does that particular scenario have, other than simply a cool "tech demo"?

How else are you supposed to videotape white girls twerking on the beach at 3am? That is a use case.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 23:03

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Whirlwind Jones posted:

I'm confused by the purpose of this.

I mean, from a technical standpoint it's very impressive, but the result isn't "true" to the scene so it looks weird, and it's also noisy and muddy as hell so it's not exactly a good substitute for daytime filming. As an example of lowlight capabilities it's nice I guess, but this specific example seems useless to me. What usage does that particular scenario have, other than simply a cool "tech demo"?

Natural history documentaries? So much interesting wildlife behaviour happens after the sun goes down. Night vision and thermal have both opened up avenues to record stuff but both produce a result that isn't "less true" to the world we inhabit.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 23:27

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

Who the gently caress thinks cameras are only supposed to produce something "true" to a scene?

Don't ever read about cinematography or really photography at all beyond instruction manuals and MTF diagrams

# ? Dec 5, 2014 23:31

whatever7: Jul 26, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

quote:

Sigma e-mount 30mm f2.8 Amazon lightning deal 12/5 till 6pm PST only
Didn't see this up, but the Sigma 30mm f2.8 is down to $149 as a lightning deal on Amazon for 12/5 only. Looks like it ends at about 6pm PST.

Searched and didn't see this posted yet. This is $50 lower than other retailer prices (B&H and the like) and this lens is highly reviewed as a "must have" for any e-mount system camera.

http://slickdeals.net/?sdtid=747822..._p%3D1976422982

Its not as cheap as the old version from 2 years ago but is something.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 23:32

whatever7: Jul 26, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

mobby_6kl posted:

Well, I'm sold, gonna go toss my rebel in the trash now.

I feel like a creep peeking silently in the dark. I hope Batman has this gadget.

# ? Dec 5, 2014 23:40

luchadornado: Oct 7, 2004; A boombox is not a toy!

That would be amazing for chasing storms at night - you're usually restricted to trying to catch glimpses of tornadoes when the lightning illuminates them. Would be very helpful for tracking deadly tornadoes after dark.

There's a quarter mile wide EF-2 tornado in this video that took us quite awhile to actually see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YiZxlI9zYA&t=68s

# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:39

Karasu Tengu: Feb 16, 2011; Humble Tengu Newspaper Reporter

It'd also be a great camera to take for any sort of protests or whatever, since they're often poorly lit and run late.

There's a ton of use for crazy high iso, even if you won't use most of them 90% of the time

# ? Dec 6, 2014 00:41

Dren: Jan 5, 2001; Pillbug

Elliotw2 posted:

It'd also be a great camera to take for any sort of protests or whatever, since they're often poorly lit and run late.

There's a ton of use for crazy high iso, even if you won't use most of them 90% of the time

Not to mention how good it would be for any sort of poorly lit sports.

# ? Dec 6, 2014 03:01

whatever7: Jul 26, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

What camera does BBC use to film their 4k documentaries?

# ? Dec 6, 2014 03:10

keyframe: Sep 15, 2007; I have seen things

Whirlwind Jones posted:

I'm confused by the purpose of this.

I mean, from a technical standpoint it's very impressive, but the result isn't "true" to the scene so it looks weird, and it's also noisy and muddy as hell so it's not exactly a good substitute for daytime filming. As an example of lowlight capabilities it's nice I guess, but this specific example seems useless to me. What usage does that particular scenario have, other than simply a cool "tech demo"?

what the hell does "true to the scene" mean?

I don't know how to explain to you why this is impressive if you can't think of any uses for a camera that can shoot in moonlight.

# ? Dec 6, 2014 05:00

Fart Car '97: Jul 23, 2003

Guys stop this is headed the route of the portrait focal length derail, and that was loving stupid and bad

# ? Dec 6, 2014 06:31

Borachon: Jun 15, 2011; Whiskey Powered

I'm looking into getting a interchangeable lens system to do more photography with actually controlling exposure, aperture, and such; I've done this some on my old powershot SD750, but the controls made it hard. Most of my usage is family pictures and travel, so portability is a high priority. Because of this, I'm mainly looking at mirrorless systems.

I'm thinking I'd be best starting with and older, perhaps used, body, and focus on getting some decent lenses and getting good at actually using them. My budget with a body, prime, and ideally a kit lens is $750 or so.

Here's what I've found so far:

Sony has a range of lenses available, retail at the local best buy so I can try the ergnomics, and has been doing mirrorless long enough that there are older used bodies available. I handled the A6000 and it was really nice - just big enough to be comfortable, while still easy to transport; the A5000, on the other hand, was a little on the small side. Sony also doesn't seem have the best support reputation around here, and the upgrade path past the A6000 is going to their FF bodies; should that bother me? Looking at KEH, a used NEX-5r, kit zoom, and 35mm prime fit into my budget.
Olympus has similar pluses, along with a more obvious upgrade path (M10->E5 family->E1 family) and a better support reputation. Unfortunately, there's no Olympus retailer in town listed online; I'll be hitting local camera shops tomorrow to see what I can find. Amazon has the low-end E-PL5 w/ the 14-42 kit lens and 25mm f/1.8 online inside my budget.
Fuji doesn't have the older bodies, and most of their lenses are more expensive. Not sure what I think about the lack of a viewfinder, too. The X-M1 and 28mm f/2.8 sneaks under my budget with no kit lens. Similarly, the X-M1 with the fast f/2-4 18-55 kit lens used from KEH also fits in my budget, but with no prime lens. Like Olympus, we'll have to see what the local camera shops have so I can check ergonomics.

Are there any obvious older bodies in the Sony/Olympus lines to look at that I can probably get for a modest price and have good ergonomics? Any obvious ones to avoid? Things I've missed or forgotten?

# ? Dec 8, 2014 03:53

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Borachon posted:

I'm looking into getting a interchangeable lens system to do more photography with actually controlling exposure, aperture, and such; I've done this some on my old powershot SD750, but the controls made it hard. Most of my usage is family pictures and travel, so portability is a high priority. Because of this, I'm mainly looking at mirrorless systems.

I'm thinking I'd be best starting with and older, perhaps used, body, and focus on getting some decent lenses and getting good at actually using them. My budget with a body, prime, and ideally a kit lens is $750 or so.

Here's what I've found so far:

Sony has a range of lenses available, retail at the local best buy so I can try the ergnomics, and has been doing mirrorless long enough that there are older used bodies available. I handled the A6000 and it was really nice - just big enough to be comfortable, while still easy to transport; the A5000, on the other hand, was a little on the small side. Sony also doesn't seem have the best support reputation around here, and the upgrade path past the A6000 is going to their FF bodies; should that bother me? Looking at KEH, a used NEX-5r, kit zoom, and 35mm prime fit into my budget.

Olympus has similar pluses, along with a more obvious upgrade path (M10->E5 family->E1 family) and a better support reputation. Unfortunately, there's no Olympus retailer in town listed online; I'll be hitting local camera shops tomorrow to see what I can find. Amazon has the low-end E-PL5 w/ the 14-42 kit lens and 25mm f/1.8 online inside my budget.

Fuji doesn't have the older bodies, and most of their lenses are more expensive. Not sure what I think about the lack of a viewfinder, too. The X-M1 and 28mm f/2.8 sneaks under my budget with no kit lens. Similarly, the X-M1 with the fast f/2-4 18-55 kit lens used from KEH also fits in my budget, but with no prime lens. Like Olympus, we'll have to see what the local camera shops have so I can check ergonomics.

Are there any obvious older bodies in the Sony/Olympus lines to look at that I can probably get for a modest price and have good ergonomics? Any obvious ones to avoid? Things I've missed or forgotten?

You can easily get an X-E1 and either kit lens or 35mm for your budget. Alternatively this goon's EM-5 and kit is within budget.

# ? Dec 8, 2014 03:57

SoundMonkey: Apr 22, 2006; I just push buttons.

Panasonic has some highly decent poo poo also, for relatively few dollars.

# ? Dec 8, 2014 05:58

grack: Jan 10, 2012; COACH TOTORO SAY REFEREE CAN BANISH WHISTLE TO LAND OF WIND AND GHOSTS!

This is kind of interesting: http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-e-m5-successor-has-sensor-shift-to-create-up-to-40-megapixel-images-on-the-fly/

43rumors is saying that the new EM-5 is going to be able to use sensor shift to increase resolution by stacking multiple exposures.

Hasselblad does this with one of their medium-format cameras.

# ? Dec 8, 2014 07:03

luchadornado: Oct 7, 2004; A boombox is not a toy!

http://www.fujirumors.com/hot-deals-x-e1-with-18-55-for-699-ends-dec09-rokinon-12mm-deal-starts-soon-x-a1-with-double-zoom-kit-for-499/

Fuji X-E1 and the 18-55 for $700. Not bad.

# ? Dec 8, 2014 13:47

Borachon: Jun 15, 2011; Whiskey Powered

Helicity posted:

http://www.fujirumors.com/hot-deals-x-e1-with-18-55-for-699-ends-dec09-rokinon-12mm-deal-starts-soon-x-a1-with-double-zoom-kit-for-499/

Fuji X-E1 and the 18-55 for $700. Not bad.

Yeah, that's a pretty screaming deal. I'm going to see if I can find a fuji in town to handle today and see what I think.

# ? Dec 8, 2014 14:41

whatever7: Jul 26, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

If you want to go cheap, nothing cheaper than an used Canon with a third party 2.8 zoom lens.

grack posted:

This is kind of interesting: http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-e-m5-successor-has-sensor-shift-to-create-up-to-40-megapixel-images-on-the-fly/

43rumors is saying that the new EM-5 is going to be able to use sensor shift to increase resolution by stacking multiple exposures.

Hasselblad does this with one of their medium-format cameras.

Don't you need to do it in studio/tripod.

I think its just a gimmick to get "30MP" printed on the box.

# ? Dec 8, 2014 18:40

Borachon: Jun 15, 2011; Whiskey Powered

Borachon posted:

Yeah, that's a pretty screaming deal. I'm going to see if I can find a fuji in town to handle today and see what I think.

Neither local camera store carry any mirrorless (well, except one that has a Nikon 1). None of the local big boxes (Best Buy, Target, Office Max, Staples, Wally world) have anything mirrorless outside of Sony, either.

Borachon fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Dec 8, 2014

# ? Dec 8, 2014 19:59

grack: Jan 10, 2012; COACH TOTORO SAY REFEREE CAN BANISH WHISTLE TO LAND OF WIND AND GHOSTS!

whatever7 posted:

Don't you need to do it in studio/tripod.

I think its just a gimmick to get "30MP" printed on the box.

It would be nice for landscape photography.

# ? Dec 8, 2014 20:41

RustedChrome: Jun 10, 2007; "do not hold the camera obliquely, or the world will seem to be on an inclined plane."

Borachon posted:

Neither local camera store carry any mirrorless (well, except one that has a Nikon 1). None of the local big boxes (Best Buy, Target, Office Max, Staples, Wally world) have anything mirrorless outside of Sony, either.

Best Buy has Fuji X cameras on their site and people have reported seeing them in the stores lately.

# ? Dec 8, 2014 21:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 23:34

Borachon: Jun 15, 2011; Whiskey Powered

RustedChrome posted:

Best Buy has Fuji X cameras on their site and people have reported seeing them in the stores lately.

Yes, but I've looked both online and at the local stores, and both say there are no Fuji X cameras locally. On the other hand, CostCo also seems to have Fuji X-series cameras online; I can check there locally, as well.

# ? Dec 8, 2014 21:37

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

«‹›614 »