|
spog posted:I'd skip the Voightlanders unless you are happy to lose autofocus. Geektox posted:Read Understanding Exposure because not to be rude, but it doesn't really sound like you quite understand the relationship between ISO, shutter speed and aperture and what they all affect. Your post matches a couple of the guesses I had in my head but was *really* unsure of. Thanks for your patience.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
Is the A7S actually any better than an A7 for still photography up to 25600 ISO? It looks to me like it gets more usable pictures beyond 25600, but up to that point it's a wash, and I think the A7II's 5-way IBIS would be a better way of getting usable pictures above that. I get that the A7S would definitely have some real benefits over the A7 for some people, it just doesn't strike me that it's the sort of camera you should buy if you don't yet understand how aperture and ISO actually work. Sounds more like Doctor read-write etc heard "it's good for low light" and went straight to it, without someone saying every other full-frame camera can still hold their own for most situations. [edit: I think the most important thing is to know exactly what you're going to be shooting. We can't really help you out otherwise. If you're shooting sport or concerts, and expect to be paid for them, I'm sure the A7S will be worth the money -- but then, you'd probably need a longer focal length than 55 for those. rohan fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
On a side note, I can't believe that Flickr still insists you log in to view someone's photos. Buggered if i am going to try to remember my yahoo mail password.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
Only mixed-content streams (sometimes kid friendly sometimes not) required login last time I checked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:I get that the A7S would definitely have some real benefits over the A7 for some people, it just doesn't strike me that it's the sort of camera you should buy if you don't yet understand how aperture and ISO actually work. Sounds more like Doctor read-write etc heard "it's good for low light" and went straight to it, without someone saying every other full-frame camera can still hold their own for most situations. Video + nighttime city shots + possibly some indoor events + close-ups of stuff. No sports. I also asked someone recording professionally (with what I now believe to be an Atomos Shogun, given their choice of camera) at an event with the kind of lighting I might find myself recording in which camera he was using, and he said a7S. Like I said, I want to pay upfront for something that I can grow into without regretting it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
spog posted:The difference is that a higher ISO is never as good as a lower one (i.e. ISO 1600 may be pretty good on a spiffy new body, but I'd always prefer to shoot at ISO400 or lower, if I had the option). given the choice (i.e. the money), I would always get a faster lens. This has been confusing me cause I've read a few people say similar things. How does a lens being "faster" help in night shots? Do you mean faster autofocus? Because as far as exposure goes, as I understand it (and I have Understanding Exposure on my kindle), you need slower shutter speed in low light. What helps is a lens with a bigger aperture (lower f/ number). I don't see how a lens being "fast" will help at night.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
In low light, you need one or more of: higher ISO, slower shutter speed, or wider aperture (and each of these has its own disadvantages). A 1/100 sec f/2.0 shot will be just as bright as a 1/50 f/2.8 shot, or 1/25 f/4.0. Each of these aperture values is one "stop", equivalent to doubling ISO or shutter speed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Animal posted:This has been confusing me cause I've read a few people say similar things. How does a lens being "faster" help in night shots? Do you mean faster autofocus? Because as far as exposure goes, as I understand it (and I have Understanding Exposure on my kindle), you need slower shutter speed in low light. What helps is a lens with a bigger aperture (lower f/ number). I don't see how a lens being "fast" will help at night. Faster is slang for a lens with a large maximum aperture (usually f/2.8 or larger), basically because the larger the aperture the "faster" shutter speed for a given Exposure Value. So and F/1.4 lens that lets you shoot at 1/60th is preferable at night to say an f/4 lens that would require 1/8th of a second exposure. The assumes you are shooting hand held or trying to capture a moving subject. Incidentally "faster" lenses will be slightly faster AF wise in bad light because the larger aperture will give the AF sensors a brighter picture. EFB
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Animal posted:This has been confusing me cause I've read a few people say similar things. How does a lens being "faster" help in night shots? Do you mean faster autofocus? Because as far as exposure goes, as I understand it (and I have Understanding Exposure on my kindle), you need slower shutter speed in low light. What helps is a lens with a bigger aperture (lower f/ number). I don't see how a lens being "fast" will help at night. Faster lens means larger aperture Edit: Beaten.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Got it, thanks  My Fuji XF 23mm f/1.4 is plenty "fast". Also something to consider in this discussion is image stabilization, which will also let you take better night shots with lower ISO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Image stabilization is fine but it's not really a direct replacement for shutter speed. People still move and will blur with a lower shutter speed even if the rest of the image is sharp. This becomes especially apparent with children in the frame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Hocus Pocus posted:You can google diagrams of depth of field, and there are also various lens simulators that will give you an idea of the same shot with different focal lengths. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html I love this site so much...
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
I've always liked this explanation, since it gives a very clear visual representation:
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:Video + nighttime city shots + possibly some indoor events + close-ups of stuff. No sports. Buy a kit lens and an A7 (mk1 no s no r) or maybe even an A6000 with a kit lens/18-200mm. You don't want the a7s, and you need to learn exactly what you're doing before you start loving around with hundreds of dollars of lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:What's a good lens (or two) to start out with on an a7S? Should I just follow Wirecutter's suggestions? A lot of those recommendations are for APS-C sensors, not full frame sensors. I have an A7S and the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 is a great lens to start with because it's small, light and sharp as heck. It's a semi-wide angle lens, but you can still get really good subject separation at portrait-type distances. The lens size is a good match for the A7-series of bodies, proportionally. Beyond the 35mm f/2.8, I would say go to a camera show or used camera equipment store and browse their selection of manual focus SLR lenses. I recommend a set of 50mm f/1.8, 28mm f/2.8 and an 85mm or 90mm f/2.8 lens. That plus a lens adapter or two and the 35mm will give you a great range of focal lengths for minimal money. I personally like the Olympus OM series of lenses because they have big, grippy focus rings that are great for fast manual focusing and the aperture ring is at the front of the lens as opposed to the back, so it's easy to reach. The glass itself is top notch. It's hard to go wrong with any first-party glass (ie. Pentax K, Nikon F, Canon FD) except for the occasional oddball low-end lens aimed at beginners.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
404notfound posted:I've always liked this explanation, since it gives a very clear visual representation: That's a pretty awesome graphic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
404notfound posted:I've always liked this explanation, since it gives a very clear visual representation: the middle scenario here is the one i was never really able to grasp intuitively until i saw this just now, and then looked down at a lens with a depth of field scale on it, thought about it for a second, and facepalmed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
accipter posted:That's a pretty awesome graphic. It's also wrong. Focal length doesn't change the depth of field. Some source there are further and probably better sources, but I'm feeling lazy. Edit: Just realised that it's the same website, apparently. Hilarious. They can't even get their story straight. Here's another practical test in case any of you think I'm pulling this out of my rear end. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:It's also wrong. I think you're missing the point though, the original image says that if your distance to subject is the same then a longer focal length will give you a shallower depth of field whereas the article you linked says if the person is the same size in the viewfinder which means they're at different distances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
$37.99 for the f/8 15mm body cap lens during a flash sale... I couldn't resist http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-15mm-f8-0-Body-Black/dp/B009DL0LOW There are also some deals tonight on a few Rokinon lenses like this one http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EFRMJIU/ but 16mm is too close to my already pretty fantastic 12mm lens to justify buying it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Aargh posted:I think you're missing the point though, the original image says that if your distance to subject is the same then a longer focal length will give you a shallower depth of field whereas the article you linked says if the person is the same size in the viewfinder which means they're at different distances. Yeah, your caveat is correct. That said, my beef with the graph was that I felt it created the impression of the DOF becoming larger and/or smaller with focal length, which isn't the case for all subject distances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
My rule of thumb is better: Wide angle (like seeing the world with both eyes) thin Depth of Field, very expensive. Normal to portrait distance (one eye field of view) thin DOF, reasonably priced. Telephoto (creeping field of view) thin DOF, cheap but not all that useful. Fast lens = thick, heavy and expensive lens like 18 inch chrome rims. Slow kit lens = tiny and plasticy and cheap, like 15 inch steelies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:My rule of thumb is better: Your rule of thumb doesn't apply to long telephoto primes or zooms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Why does the rule of thumb need to be more complicated than "stop down or back up for larger DOF, dickhead. Kill you are self if you can't suss out that the opposite actions will result in shallow DOF"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
In things other than pointless depth of field chat, has anyone seen much about the new Fuji extension tubes? I usually rely on fujirumors for all my Fuji news but that site has gone all advertising and shameless self promotion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:.Telephoto (creeping field of view) thin DOF, cheap but not all that useful. 400mm f/5.6 = $1,400 400mm f/4 = $6,700 400mm /f2.8 = $10,500
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Narrow depth of field at a long focal length is rather popular in wildlife and sports. It's also rather expensive. Surely sport those apertures have more to do with shutter speed than depth of field.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
It's getting in to DOF vs Bokeh territory, but the fast telephotos will give you a creamy background you just can't get with the more (affordable) consumer lenses like a 400mm f/5.6 or 150-600 f/5.6-6.3. People spend big money on those lenses for a mix of shutter speed in low light, subject isolation and generally outstanding sharpness, the exact important of those three will be varying by individual but DOF is certainly a factor to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:It's getting in to DOF vs Bokeh territory, but the fast telephotos will give you a creamy background you just can't get with the more (affordable) consumer lenses like a 400mm f/5.6 or 150-600 f/5.6-6.3. People spend big money on those lenses for a mix of shutter speed in low light, subject isolation and generally outstanding sharpness, the exact important of those three will be varying by individual but DOF is certainly a factor to some degree. I more meant that for sport a 2.8 400mm would allow you to run some really high shutter speeds so you can freeze the action. The difference between 1/1000 and 1/2000 mightn't make too much difference to a wedding photographer but being able to freeze the ball as it comes off the bat could mean the difference between eating and starving for a freelancer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Speaking of big prime lenses, there was a rumour about a 300mm prime from Olympus for m43 a while ago, and I think a mock-up shown at a photography show. Everything seems to have gone a bit quiet about it though. Any one heard any news?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Speaking of big prime lenses, there was a rumour about a 300mm prime from Olympus for m43 a while ago, and I think a mock-up shown at a photography show. Everything seems to have gone a bit quiet about it though. Any one heard any news? Of the "Pro" lenses on their way out from Olympus, that seemed the furthest away. They're also working on a 7-14mm and I believe that's due out sometime early next year. Both were announced around February 14th this year and the only timeline Olympus has seemed to give is "sometime next year".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
Just a few weeks ago I was contemplating a switch from m4/3 to full frame because Sony's system is starting to get really interesting, now I'm suddenly intrigued by Oly's new 40-150 tele in light of a trip to Scandinavia I'm going to take next year. At the same time, I haven't really been out shooting much lately. Wtf is wrong with me, gently caress gear lust. I don't think that's gonna stop until I get a camera with the speed and robustness of my E-M1, the UI and size of my GR, the DOF and low-light capabilities of the Sony A7s and the image quality of my DP2M. OTOH, I got an FL-300R flash for my E-M1 last week and am totally satisfied with it. Glad I didn't go for the bigger FL-600R; it's just right and doesn't spook my little niece.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Aargh posted:In things other than pointless depth of field chat, has anyone seen much about the new Fuji extension tubes? I usually rely on fujirumors for all my Fuji news but that site has gone all advertising and shameless self promotion. Don't forget how with every single lens they have the same post: Fuji 26-472mm zoom preview: shipping soon "insane sharpness" "bokeh monster"
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
Wengy posted:Just a few weeks ago I was contemplating a switch from m4/3 to full frame because Sony's system is starting to get really interesting, now I'm suddenly intrigued by Oly's new 40-150 tele in light of a trip to Scandinavia I'm going to take next year. At the same time, I haven't really been out shooting much lately. Wtf is wrong with me, gently caress gear lust. I don't think that's gonna stop until I get a camera with the speed and robustness of my E-M1, the UI and size of my GR, the DOF and low-light capabilities of the Sony A7s and the image quality of my DP2M. Yeah I'm saving up for that 40-150 because goddamn that's gonna own for sports.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
It's gonna own for a bunch of stuff since AF is lightning fast and it has insance close focusing ability and portraits look awesome in the reviews I've seen so far. drat, Olympus really do make amazing lenses. If only they'd update their sensor... Not that I'm unhappy with the E-M1's IQ, but when it comes to landscapes it just can't hold a candle to my GR and especially my DP2M.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
I'm still wondering if I do myself any favors going from the EM5 to the EM1 and I've been battling back and forth on it. Considering the cost difference it doesn't seem like I'd gain a whole lot. On the other hand, it sounds like I'd finally be able to use my last 4/3 lens effectively again and I've been dying to do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Don't forget how with every single lens they have the same post: Just think of it as a lens deal website.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
If you could choose (only) one of the following m43 lenses, which and why? Lumix 15mm f1.7 (fastest, cheapest, but only 15mm) Zuiko 12mm f2.0 (not as fast, not as cheap, deliciously wide) Lumix 7-14mm f4.0 (versatile, expensive, slow as a telephoto zoom, maybe too much distortion at 7mm?) Looking at Flickr for sample images, I'm drawn to the Zuiko ones the most, but that could just be the photographers using it. The 7-14 looks neat but a lot of the photos just seem dark /underexposed even wide open. The zoom range seems versatile, but the f-stop range seems limiting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
I'd really try and figure out which focal length you like better. I love 35 but not so much 28, for example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I'd really try and figure out which focal length you like better. I love 35 but not so much 28, for example. I've got the 20mm, (so 40mm equiv) f1.7 version 1 at the moment, and I like it a lot but I'm constantly wishing it was wider. I think 24mm is quite a sweet spot for width of field and distortion, 30mm just doesn't seem wide enough for what I like. Maybe I have a problem with images never being wide enough? Hence the 7-14. But if 7 turns out too wide and distorted, and I'm always shooting at 12-14, I'd be better off with the 12mm prime and a much faster lens. Kowa also makes a (manual focus) 12mm f1.8 for m43 that has very little distortion, which is very intriguing as well. Looks like I can rent both the Olympus 12mm and the Panasonic 7-14 from Henry's so I think I'll do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 17:53
|
|