|
so I put my name on the waiting list for an A7RII.... still trying to research versatile lenses. Sorry HPL, I don't think I can do full manual for the types of shows I'm going to. I definitely need AF and having a quick AF is definitely one of the reasons I am wanting the A7RII. I'm sorta frustrated there isn't a 24-70 f/2.8 equivalent FE lens out yet... all of the FE lenses feel 1-2 stops behind where they need to be. This might be awesome, but it's 2.5x the price of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and it's only an f/1.8 what's up with that? The lens offering is the only thing making me question if I'm ready to make the transition to mirrorless for professional use. http://www.amazon.com/Sony-55mm-Sonnar-Frame-Prime/dp/B00FSB799Q
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
Eh, I thought that adapted EF lenses are focusing pretty fast with the A7RII? As far as the 55mm goes, I thought it's a sharp as gently caress nice bokeh lens, worth the price over the 50mm Canon you refer? As far as 24-70mm/2.8 goes, rumors are that one's going to be announced soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:so I put my name on the waiting list for an A7RII.... still trying to research versatile lenses. Welcome to the Sony mirrorless system!  The FE 55 1.8 is by all accounts a stellar lens, I also have a pretty hard time swallowing the pricetag given the cost of competing systems's offerings, but nobody's got a gun to my head making me buy it. I have the FE 24-70 f/4 OSS and it's a very convenient lens that's basically on my camera 100% of the time now (I really need to sell most of my manual lenses). I'd love it to be a stop faster, but I have a feeling it'd be pretty bulky and heavy if they did, I might as well go back to my 5D+24-70L at that point. The distortion is also really significant... checking a box in LR largely negates that, but it still rubs me the wrong way considering what the thing cost. If there was a 24-70 f/2.8 coming out I'd be glad but also kind of annoyed; doubtless it'll cost substantially more than the f/4 while pushing its price downwards, so I wouldn't be able to afford it anytime soon  I'd love to switch to Fuji since I don't care about video, but there are a couple dealbreakers for me: -No IBIS, and -No stabilisation on *any* of the lenses I would shoot with (in reality we're mostly talking about the 16-55, but also the primes) -X-Trans RAW files that won't play nice with LR -lower resolution/worse high ISO performance (not huge, but the lack of stabilisation exacerbates the issue)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Eh, I thought that adapted EF lenses are focusing pretty fast with the A7RII? If photography is putting food on your table, going to gigs with another systems lenses on an adapter with firmware made by a third party is a fools errand. Most lenses seem to be working pretty well with it, but that could change at any moment, and there's quirks still even when it's working well. It's cool for hobbyists and playing around but seems nuts for paying the bills in a situation where you need af IMO. That 55 is way better than any of canons 50mm offerings, so yeah, it's priced accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:If photography is putting food on your table, going to gigs with another systems lenses on an adapter with firmware made by a third party is a fools errand. Most lenses seem to be working pretty well with it, but that could change at any moment, and there's quirks still even when it's working well. It's cool for hobbyists and playing around but seems nuts for paying the bills in a situation where you need af IMO. exactly, I love the idea of a quality 55 prime for personal use and concerts but for the gigs that pay I need a solid 24-70mm or equivalent zoom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:This might be awesome, but it's 2.5x the price of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and it's only an f/1.8 what's up with that? The lens offering is the only thing making me question if I'm ready to make the transition to mirrorless for professional use. The Sony/Zeiss 55 is sharper and less abberated than any 50mm Canon or Nikon have ever released. It's not cheap but I consider it very good value for money in that it's significantly above the price/performance curve for full frame lenses. It has a very modern rendering style but that's something I personally value a lot, and it's one of the very few lenses I wouldn't hesitate to use at f/1.8 and still expect good contrast. The fact that its size matches the body so well is a nice bonus. I'm consistently surprised at how sharp this lens is, even after owning it for more than a year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:The Sony/Zeiss 55 is sharper and less abberated than any 50mm Canon or Nikon have ever released. It's not cheap but I consider it very good value for money in that it's significantly above the price/performance curve for full frame lenses. It has a very modern rendering style but that's something I personally value a lot, and it's one of the very few lenses I wouldn't hesitate to use at f/1.8 and still expect good contrast. The fact that its size matches the body so well is a nice bonus. I'm consistently surprised at how sharp this lens is, even after owning it for more than a year. Hmm. Would you say it’s somewhere about 10x better, optically then the Canon 50mm f/1.8?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Hmm. Would you say it’s somewhere about 10x better, optically then the Canon 50mm f/1.8? I'm pretty sure "x" isn't a meaningful metric in terms of lens optical quality. If you thought about things that way and went "well, this lens costs twice as much as this other one but it's not twice as good" then you'd be best off trying your luck at a car boot sale. It's more useful to think of lens quality as a curve that ever more gradually approaches but doesn't quite reach optical perfection. Without looking at charts or anything (just based off memory), in terms of apparent sharpness, contrast and chromatic aberrations I'd consider the Sony/Zeiss at f/1.8 to be close to where the Canon is at f/2.8. I would suggest finding a side-by-side comparison for yourself if you really want to study whether the difference is worth it to you. Jimlad fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Hmm. Would you say it’s somewhere about 10x better, optically then the Canon 50mm f/1.8? Since when do lenses get priced on some linear value scale?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Since when do lenses get priced on some linear value scale? or uhhh, anything for that matter... don't remember a 911 Turbo being 5x faster than a Toyota Corolla.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:I'm pretty sure "x" isn't a meaningful metric in terms of lens optical quality. If you thought about things that way and went "well, this lens costs twice as much as this other one but it's not twice as good" then you'd be best off trying your luck at a car boot sale. It's more useful to think of lens quality as a curve that ever more gradually approaches but doesn't quite reach optical perfection. Without looking at charts or anything (just based off memory), in terms of apparent sharpness, contrast and chromatic abberations I'd consider the Sony/Zeiss at f/1.8 to be close to where the Canon is at f/2.8. I would suggest finding a side-by-side comparison for yourself if you really want to study whether the difference is worth it to you. IIRC it comes pretty close to that newer, crazy expensive Zeiss prime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Hmm. Would you say it’s somewhere about 10x better, optically then the Canon 50mm f/1.8? Its about new 340i quality compare to Nissan Sentra. Keep in mind that I am not calling it a M3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:It has a very modern rendering style What do you mean by this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:What do you mean by this? High sharpness and contrast at large apertures, good flare control, low spherical aberration, low chromatic aberration. This is largely due to using a highly corrected optical design involving extensive use of aspherics and advanced coatings typical of more modern lenses, whereas older lenses relied on less advanced coatings and spherical elements only, giving lower resolving power and the appearance of haze, particularly at larger apertures. I've heard the "modern" look described as being clinical or soulless. Personally, I much prefer it for most (but by no means all) applications.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
Any thoughts on a lens to try via rental for U.S. Open tennis photography? I'll be relatively close to the action (not going to Ashe, have good seats (5 or 6 rows back) on armstrong, and should be relatively close on the grandstand/outer courts). The 55-200 is obviously quite flexible, the 50-135 costs more than I want to spend to rent, and the 90mm really tempting. This'll be attached to an X-E1 body. Any filters I should get or bring, since this will mostly be daytime shooting? EDIT: Basically I'm thinking of getting one inexpensive lens and one high-end lens for the trip. Currently debating between the 50-230 zoom (tennis) and 14/16mm wide angle (city shots), or the 18mm (city) and either 55-200 or 90mm. I'm leaning towards hte later as walking around the city with an X-E1/18mm might be more convenient size-wise. What I currently own, as I've mentioned before, is the 18-55 kit and the 27mm pancake. Borachon fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:High sharpness and contrast at large apertures, good flare control, low spherical aberration, low chromatic aberration. This is largely due to using a highly corrected optical design involving extensive use of aspherics and advanced coatings typical of more modern lenses, whereas older lenses relied on less advanced coatings and spherical elements only, giving lower resolving power and the appearance of haze, particularly at larger apertures. I've heard the "modern" look described as being clinical or soulless. Personally, I much prefer it for most (but by no means all) applications. Funny, I've never heard it described as "clinical or soulless" but that sounds idiotic to me... like calling a window clinical, or a glass of water clinical. The perfect expression of a camera lens I would think would be to not color or change what you are seeing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:Funny, I've never heard it described as "clinical or soulless" but that sounds idiotic to me... like calling a window clinical, or a glass of water clinical. The perfect expression of a camera lens I would think would be to not color or change what you are seeing. But but but that Leica glow 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:Funny, I've never heard it described as "clinical or soulless" but that sounds idiotic to me... like calling a window clinical, or a glass of water clinical. The perfect expression of a camera lens I would think would be to not color or change what you are seeing. Lol go to any Canon users forum and tell them that you prefer the Sigma 50/1.4 Art over the 50/1.2L and you'll hear it plenty. Dat draw, man, dat Canon draw Borachon posted:Any thoughts on a lens to try via rental for U.S. Open tennis photography? I'll be relatively close to the action (not going to Ashe, have good seats (5 or 6 rows back) on armstrong, and should be relatively close on the grandstand/outer courts). The 55-200 is obviously quite flexible, the 50-135 costs more than I want to spend to rent, and the 90mm really tempting. This'll be attached to an X-E1 body. Any filters I should get or bring, since this will mostly be daytime shooting? Even with good seats you'd want the maximum possible reach and fastest aperture. I think the 55-200 is the way to go out of whats available. Also, not really sure you'll be able to get much in the way of action with the X-E1. I have one and I love it to pieces but the tracking AF is pretty useless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:I'm so pleased with my new a7rii. I can't recommend it enough, the silent shutter is fantastic for street shooting and concerts, and the image stabilisation gives me great shots where I would have had a blurry mess on my a7r. I hate you for testing my resolve. Almost pulled the trigger on the A7RII last week but I must hold on and wait and see what the A7SII will look like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Lol go to any Canon users forum and tell them that you prefer the Sigma 50/1.4 Art over the 50/1.2L and you'll hear it plenty. Dat draw, man, dat Canon draw Do you really need tracking, the foucs distace is the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Lol go to any Canon users forum and tell them that you prefer the Sigma 50/1.4 Art over the 50/1.2L and you'll hear it plenty. Dat draw, man, dat Canon draw Thanks, someone else suggested similar, so I opted for the 18mm f2 and the 55-200mm zoom. I've done okay with tennis action shots with the X-E1 using burst mode; I've tended to focus on serves and returns since the location of the target is pretty well set to avoid tracking issues, though, yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:Funny, I've never heard it described as "clinical or soulless" but that sounds idiotic to me... like calling a window clinical, or a glass of water clinical. The perfect expression of a camera lens I would think would be to not color or change what you are seeing. I've known cines who have gone to extreme lengths to get the set of lenses they want for a project, as the look a lens gives can be very hard to replicate in post. An easy example is Zeiss MkII Super Speeds, which have a slight softness to them and tend to warm the image slightly. They're also balls soft at T1.3, which means if you're doing a period drama you can easily create a pastel, pleasant and glow-y look from the get-go. There are a huge range of factors involved in lens selection like what coating a lens has: If you're shooting a film that's set in say, 1970s Miami, you don't want lenses that'll resist flare in almost all scenarios, because it ends up looking "wrong" for the period. Sharpness and 'correct' rendering at any cost is very much a photography only mentality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
It applies to music and art as well, so it's not surprising to hear it used in the context of photography. Sometimes perfect realism isn't as intriguing to our senses. A little unexpected derivation or the exercise of bridging an abstraction tickles something happy in our brains. Shoot that portrait with a longer focal length that compresses the scene on a pre-WWII lens that looks soft. Shoot that landscape with that yellow-tinted radioactive Takumar that has a slight fish-eye distortion thing going on. I'm so bored of seeing the same landscapes from all of my friends with D800s, 12-24s, and the same lightroom processing. I seriously can't tell some of them apart without the gaudy watermarks.
luchadornado fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Borachon posted:Thanks, someone else suggested similar, so I opted for the 18mm f2 and the 55-200mm zoom. I've done okay with tennis action shots with the X-E1 using burst mode; I've tended to focus on serves and returns since the location of the target is pretty well set to avoid tracking issues, though, yes. You might also want to make sure you can even take a lens of any specific size into the stands. Some events and venues don't allow them for reasons ranging from "no professional cameras" to not wanting you poking and annoying other spectators with the lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
DJExile posted:You might also want to make sure you can even take a lens of any specific size into the stands. Some events and venues don't allow them for reasons ranging from "no professional cameras" to not wanting you poking and annoying other spectators with the lens. Thanks, good point. Already looked into this and it's apparently not a problem at this event.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Borachon posted:Thanks, good point. Already looked into this and it's apparently not a problem at this event. That's cool. Go to town then and just make sure you've turned any beeps and noises off. Bear in mind ushers/security will likely inspect it at the gate, but you should be good to go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
oh man this Olympus 60mm is delicious! The sharpness and colour rendering is amazing! These are just a couple of practice shots on a cloudy, rainy day. I'm still coming to terms with the razor thin depth of field a lens like this is capable of, so I've still got some focusing issues I need to work out.  P1060675.jpg on Flickr  P1060681.jpg on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
keyframe posted:I hate you for testing my resolve. Almost pulled the trigger on the A7RII last week but I must hold on and wait and see what the A7SII will look like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Linedance posted:oh man this Olympus 60mm is delicious! The sharpness and colour rendering is amazing! You're gonna love it. Remember to stop it down quite a bit too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
How much like a rangefinder would you say using a Fuji x100-series camera feels like? I can't explain why I love shooting my film rangefinders, but I think it's a combination of the lo-fi feel, the brightness of the viewfinder image, and the compact size of the camera. Another big factor is that while a manual focus rangefinder is a little slower to focus, I'm much more confident of having nailed the focus. Is a Fuji x100 basically a digital Canonet QL17 or is it more like a digital SLR but with the viewfinder in a different spot?
mulls fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
mulls posted:How much like a rangefinder would you say using a Fuji x100-series camera feels like? I can't explain why I love shooting my film rangefinders, but I think it's a combination of the lo-fi feel, the brightness of the viewfinder image, and the compact size of the camera. Another big factor is that while a manual focus rangefinder is a little slower to focus, I'm much more confident of having nailed the focus. Is a Fuji x100 basically a digital Canonet QL17 or is it more like a digital SLR but with the viewfinder in a different spot? None of the focus assist methods is a rangefinder, so if that's the attraction for you, it doesn't have it. You've got peaking, magnification, and split image (a la split prism on a focus screen) It's got a nice big bright finder though , and it's significantly smaller than a DSLR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
I've never used the x100t which has can show a small live view window in the OVF which seems like it could fix a few gripes I have with the x100. Sometimes it's hard to know exactly what your autofocus has actually locked on to, you might not be focused on what you think you are. The manual focus frame lines don't update until you half press the shutter. The scale focus display gets in the way of the frame lines when manual focusing. Focus by wire isn't great, at least on the x100. Size-wise my Olympus XA is much smaller so I end up bringing it with me most of the time instead. In therms of framing it's the exact same as a range-finder which is nice. Out of camera JPEGS are great, it's nice to have a small camera to do high ISO black and white shots which I can't do with my XA. Overall I like having a proper viewfinder, some of my gripes may have been worked out with the s and t models.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Hmm maybe I'll hold out for a Leica M9 to fall out of the sky instead. Thanks for talking me out of spending $1000!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Maybe try an X Pro1 kit instead, they've been selling with the 18mm and 35mm for $949 brand new. Then you can sell the body and move to another Fuji, if you want, and if you don't you won't be out too much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
The X100 captures the spirit of shooting with a rangefinder camera since the OVF works similarly, the major difference is the X100 is primarily an autofocus camera. Manual focus on the X100 isn't great. In your case, it'll probably be a good idea to rent/borrow one for a few days to see if you get along the with AF system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:The X100 captures the spirit of shooting with a rangefinder camera since the OVF works similarly, the major difference is the X100 is primarily an autofocus camera. Manual focus on the X100 isn't great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Digital split image makes the X100T pretty much functionally identical to a rangefinder though  Clarification: In my opinion the functionaly difference between rangefinder style MF and split-prism AF is pretty much non-existent. You stick the DSI into the X100 and you end up with a digital rangefinder with a fixed lens. Others might disagree, but the only way you could possibly get an answer to this question is to see how Fuji's DSI looks in person. Fart Car '97 fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:Digital split image makes the X100T pretty much functionally identical to a rangefinder though Different type of focus assist - split image cuts the image horizontally and you have to line the two halves up. Rangefinder gives you the whole thing twice and you have to align them on top of each other. Rangefinder is a lot faster (IMO) if you aren't trying to focus on something that has obvious vertical lines to line up. Never been a big fan of split image - I think the shimmery microprism ring is much better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Different type of focus assist - split image cuts the image horizontally and you have to line the two halves up. Rangefinder gives you the whole thing twice and you have to align them on top of each other. I'm aware, I've used rangefinders. I edited my post to clarify.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
mulls posted:How much like a rangefinder would you say using a Fuji x100-series camera feels like? I can't explain why I love shooting my film rangefinders, but I think it's a combination of the lo-fi feel, the brightness of the viewfinder image, and the compact size of the camera. Another big factor is that while a manual focus rangefinder is a little slower to focus, I'm much more confident of having nailed the focus. Is a Fuji x100 basically a digital Canonet QL17 or is it more like a digital SLR but with the viewfinder in a different spot? low-fi feel: not really, moreso than a DSLR though brightness of viewfinder image: it's good but it's not a huge bright viewfinder compact size of the camera: ✓ manual focus rangefinder is slower to focus but you are much more confident in having nailed the focus: basically you are gonna be using AF or maybe zone focusing if you like that. As others have said it does not do rangefinder style MF. I'm not overly fond of the MF modes and the AF is pretty good on the x100t. You might enjoy framing with the OVF's framelines and turning off the feature where the framelines correct for focus distance/parallax at half press of shutter in order to get that "not quite sure what my frame is" feeling of a rangefinder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 23:48
|
|
