|
is your dislike of panasonic because of the m43 lenses? Because the olympus mid/high tier primes and fast pro zooms are all really good. also the olympus bodies have decent low light AF. The only thing you'd be compromising on is the resolution
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
bobfather posted:Let’s talk about firmware updates. http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2015b/nr150915omde.jsp
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
If Sony offered automated focus stacking on its cameras, I'd buy the FE 90mm macro immediately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
TheGoatTrick posted:They just announced new firmware for the EM1 and EM5 II. The EM1 gets focus stacking, focus bracketing, more visible focus peaking, full electronic shutter, and better video image stabilization. The EM5 II already has those last three things out of the box, but gets more options for video recording including a "flat" picture profile. All the Pro series lenses are getting a firmware update for smoother aperture changes when video recording. Where's my focus peaking on the Mk1 E-M5? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
TheGoatTrick posted:They just announced new firmware for the EM1 and EM5 II. The EM1 gets focus stacking, focus bracketing, more visible focus peaking, full electronic shutter, and better video image stabilization. The EM5 II already has those last three things out of the box, but gets more options for video recording including a "flat" picture profile. All the Pro series lenses are getting a firmware update for smoother aperture changes when video recording. This is pretty nice for Olympus users, but isn’t the EM5 II both newer and technically better in some ways than the EM 1? I wonder why they left the macro features only for the older flagship. It’s just bursting photos with adjusted focus, so it seems like it could have easily been programmed for the EM 5 II.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Because that's how market segmentation works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Speaking of market segmentation, Canon is building a niche for EOS M to more widely define it's market segment, but I can't say I'm not excited: http://www.everyothershot.com/a-tilt-shift-adaptor-for-every-ef-lens/ Tilt-shift without $2,000 lenses would be fantastic. (I know there are already adapters for this, but, the extra features seem pretty worthwhile relative to those options, plus I have a dozen EF and EF-S lenses.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:^ That should be 8x10 sorry. I've been shooting with an X100 original since it shipped, and a 12mp 5D original before that. I have 2 meter wide prints on my wall that are sharp, detailed, and want for nothing visually. There *are* people who need more than 12 mp, 99% of all photographers don't fit in that group. Especially seeing as the vast majority don't print, and those few that do print most often uses sizes that 12mp can easily handle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:
yes, and those people are called professionals and they have clients who expect to be able to print things in great detail or crop in on things tightly after the fact. I'm not sure if you can say that 99% of all photographers are consumer/hobbyist photographers but maybe that is actually true, it's certainly far far fewer photographers who shoot professionally. Somehow I doubt it's 99% though as there seems to be a good enough market for professional cameras that every big manufacturer is still working on making their flagships 40+MP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:yes, and those people are called professionals and they have clients who expect to be able to print things in great detail or crop in on things tightly after the fact. So what did professionals do before 16+ MP cameras existed? There's like a whole decade where pro DSLR's were 4, 8, 12MP. There absolutely were and are tons of professionals using <16 MP pro level bodies for tons of stuff and still do. The top of the line pro bodies from Canon and Nikon are 18 and 16MP respectively. Are those unsuitable for pro work? Don't get me wrong, I can understand why you would want more pixels as a working professional, it just seems strange to imply that its impossible to do professional work with less than 20-something megapixels. Also, I don't have any numbers or anything obviously but I'd take a wager that most flagship cameras and high end lenses are sold to rich amateurs. Most professional photographers I know and have met had relatively cheap gear from previous tech generations. Then again, most of them were journalists and wedding photogs so...
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:So what did professionals do before 16+ MP cameras existed? There's like a whole decade where pro DSLR's were 4, 8, 12MP. Film
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Film Sure, and I bet some people still use film right now for some work. I guarantee you weren't seeing a lot of film cameras in photo pits at concerts and sporting events in 2008, though. Point is, "professional photography" is a really broad term and saying 12MP isn't enough for pro work is kind of weird. Sure, its probably not enough for some types of work but for others its way more than enough, I would think. All I know is that I crop the poo poo out of my 16MP DSLR and have no problems printing big but the extent of my professional experience is I've sold a couple of shots to a magazine one time so I don't actually know poo poo about poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Film this... most professionals didn't transition over when DSLR's were 4MP. the only people I knew rocking early DSLR's were photojournalists. I feel like a lot of what is missing in this conversation is context. I don't personally do any real studio work so I don't need a 40MP camera, but I spent almost a decade managing marketing and advertising assets for a big footwear company. I can't count the number of times in the studio photography world where a photo of a shoe or piece of apparel shot on a white backdrop ends up being cropped in on to highlight some stitching or a logo detail and they don't want to have to re-shoot so they just do it all in post. When this happens (and it happens often in that world) you could be talking about losing 80% of your canvas size and then the expectation is that the image gets printed in a premium catalog or for a retail fixture. That's where higher resolution matters, and professionals are expected to keep pace with the competition so they can offer competitive services and quality. That's why Hasselblad is still around. For Sports or Concert photography where you may be working in an arena or a stadium and the action could be happening on the opposite end of the venue you could be zoomed all the way in and the action only fills 1/5th of the frame. Well if you have a higher resolution camera you can get away with cropping much tighter while retaining that quality. This is less of an issue for someone like Getty images who just sends multiple photographers to the big sporting events but if you're an independent freelancer and you really want to get the best shots it's certainly a consideration. Now, I very well could get away with using a lower resolution camera for the stuff I'm doing 90% of the time. But sometimes that other 10% is pretty important and when you find yourself in that situation there's nothing more painful for a professional (or really just anybody with some passion for the thing) than missing a great shot because you're unprepared. This is one of my personal favorites in my portfolio at the moment:  That shot is actually a portrait crop of a shot that was composed in landscape. If my camera would have been much lower resolution there's no way I could have pulled that off and still printed the shot at a reasonable size. This shot would not be in my portfolio if I were shooting a 12MP camera 6 years ago when I took it. I realize that it totally depends on what kind of work you're doing, but for those of us who are trying to wear a lot of hats with a modest budget picking the right platform is a big decision and not something you do every year. I've been a Canon shooter for like 13 years so jumping to Fuji or Sony mirrorless is something I'm going to obsess over for a bit. Sorry for the hijack, I do find this to be an interesting conversation just want to ensure people realize what they're saying when they offer advice like "just stitch panos"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
I've been looking to add an ultra wide to my Fuji landscape/travel kit (alongside the 18-55 & 55-200). My first thought was the 10-24 and I was close to pulling the trigger since it is on rebate right now, but now I'm leaning toward the Rokinon/Samyang 12mm f/2 (manual focus). My rational:
Anyone have any thoughts on the 10-24 vs 12 for primarily landscape purposes? Do the lenses have comparable image quality? Does the Rokinon 12 have issues w/ bad copies (e.g. should I go w/ new over used for easier returns in case of a bad copy)? There's no difference between the Rokinon and Samyang versions besides the name, right (the prices don't always line up)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Splinter posted:I've been looking to add an ultra wide to my Fuji landscape/travel kit (alongside the 18-55 & 55-200). My first thought was the 10-24 and I was close to pulling the trigger since it is on rebate right now, but now I'm leaning toward the Rokinon/Samyang 12mm f/2 (manual focus). I have heard great things about both lenses. The 10-24 does have optical stabilization which is supposed to be really nice. It really is just a matter of price and use. There is also the 16mm f1.4, which isn't as wide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
The 10-24 is a nicer lens but for the price you cannot beat the Rokinon. And if you are gonna do astro then its the best option out there. https://flic.kr/p/wmf41f With the price difference splurge a little more during your vacation or use it to buy a used second body so you don't have to be swapping between three different lenses all the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Animal posted:The 10-24 is a nicer lens but for the price you cannot beat the Rokinon. And if you are gonna do astro then its the best option out there. Wow. I think I need one now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
To say that lower megapixel cameras are fine for commercial work because pros used to use 8MP cameras is silly. Times change and so do expectations. That's like saying we should still be recording every album on 2-track reel-to-reel tape because it was good enough for Buddy Holly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
HPL posted:To say that lower megapixel cameras are fine for commercial work because pros used to use 8MP cameras is silly. Times change and so do expectations. That's like saying we should still be recording every album on 2-track reel-to-reel tape because it was good enough for Buddy Holly. It's fine assuming your audience is still on 15" CRT's at 1024x768
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Splinter posted:I've been looking to add an ultra wide to my Fuji landscape/travel kit (alongside the 18-55 & 55-200). My first thought was the 10-24 and I was close to pulling the trigger since it is on rebate right now, but now I'm leaning toward the Rokinon/Samyang 12mm f/2 (manual focus). The Fuji 10-24mm is very nice, I have it and have shot two weddings with it. The zoom range is really useful and the OIS is magic. That being said the 16mm f/1.4 is a better lens and might be a good choice since you have now fast glass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Welp, am I missing out on anything if I use the A7R II with nothing but canon lenses for mostly static shoots like landscapes?  Since I think I have pretty much have everything covered and then some regarding focal length and f stops.Or is there something else that you guys recommend. The landscape from this thing is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
How well does it focus with adapted canon lenses? When the a7rii hype machine was gearing up there was a lot of talk about it being a 'game changer' for its purported compatibility with canikon lenses. I read on another forum (always the most reliable sources of information) that, according to a canon rep, every EF lens designed since 2010 has been engineered with the eventual release of a 50+ MP camera body in mind. Take it with a grain of salt. You can of course go look on dxo and see that Zeiss FE lenses form a good chunk of the highest-scoring pieces of glass to be tested. But I think the camera-dependent nature of the testing methods they use bias the results and inflate the lens scores of units tested on high-MP camera bodies. But that's more of a notion that I have, not a reasoned conclusion. I don't know enough about their methods to say for sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
What does everyone think about the older Fuji mirrorless's? I've been looking at cost and it seems the the older X-M1/pro1/e1 can be had for a fraction of the price of the X-T's. Is it worth splashing out for an X-T?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
I think the aps x-trans sensors are all the same, right? It's just a question of form factor and whether or not the AF is good, bad, or barely usable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I think the aps x-trans sensors are all the same, right? It's just a question of form factor and whether or not the AF is good, bad, or barely usable. I think the XE2 and later camera use the X-Trans II sensor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
The X-M and X-A are Fuji's budget line and doesn't use X-Trans iirc. If you're really looking for an older Fuji get a used X-E2 or something, they're fairly cheap
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Thanks for the info about the sensors I didn't know that. I'm UK based so prices are crazy and seemingly irrational at times. Does anyone have other brands/models to recommend? I'm trying to move up from my canon S110 to something portable-ish for mostly travel photography and hiking with a budget of about £500 (about us$800). I'm thinking a used mirrorless, a kit lens of something around 18-50? and some sort of wide lens for landscape work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
well, Photokina is in like a week so I'm definitely not going to be making any decisions before the announcements come in there to see if prices drop at all. I'm not anticipating an X-T2 will be announced but maybe the X-Pro2 will have compelling specs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:How well does it focus with adapted canon lenses? When the a7rii hype machine was gearing up there was a lot of talk about it being a 'game changer' for its purported compatibility with canikon lenses. It depends on the lens. Some of them are amazing. The new 24-70 with Metabones IV is pretty much equivalent to native FE lenses. I can't really tell the difference between them if there is one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:well, Photokina is in like a week so I'm definitely not going to be making any decisions before the announcements come in there to see if prices drop at all. I'm not anticipating an X-T2 will be announced but maybe the X-Pro2 will have compelling specs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Saros posted:What does everyone think about the older Fuji mirrorless's? I've been looking at cost and it seems the the older X-M1/pro1/e1 can be had for a fraction of the price of the X-T's. Is it worth splashing out for an X-T? I have an X-Pro and an X-E2. I really like the form factor on the X-Pro and use it all the time. The AF speed isn't an issue for the stuff I shoot and I have access to classic chrome with a CPO profile if I ever want it. The X-E2 is good but not amazing, I like the files that come out of it more than I do the process of actually using the camera. That's not a complaint or anything, I would still choose one over any DSLR out there but that's a personal preference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Geektox posted:The X-M and X-A are Fuji's budget line and doesn't use X-Trans iirc. If you're really looking for an older Fuji get a used X-E2 or something, they're fairly cheap No. XA1/XA2 use conventional Bayer sensor, XM1 uses XTrans. I actually prefer Fuji's non-XTrans daytime color over XTran, just a hair bit. XP1 was announced in Jan 12, XT1 was announced in Jan 14, so its pretty easy to predict when the new flagship will be announced. I am waiting for the new body announcement so I can pick up a mint XT1 for cheap. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
The X-e2 used is about twice the price of the X-pro1 used so if I had to choose one based on price alone the pro comes out ahead. Good to know about the form, it certainly looks good to me. [e] so the pro uses the better sensor?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Saros posted:The X-e2 used is about twice the price of the X-pro1 used so if I had to choose one based on price alone the pro comes out ahead. Good to know about the form, it certainly looks good to me. The new X-Pro 2 will probably use some sort of X-Trans III sensor, and all the later cameras like X-T2 and the next X100. The X-E1 is probably a much better option over the X-Pro 1 unless you really must have that OVF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:The new X-Pro 2 will probably use some sort of X-Trans III sensor, and all the later cameras like X-T2 and the next X100. The X-E1 is probably a much better option over the X-Pro 1 unless you really must have that OVF. You mean X-E2 right? The X-E1's EVF is not great (neither is the xpro's but it at least has an OVF option).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Saros posted:The X-e2 used is about twice the price of the X-pro1 used so if I had to choose one based on price alone the pro comes out ahead. Good to know about the form, it certainly looks good to me. X-E2 will have the newer [subjectively] better sensor, better AF, much higher resolution LCD and EVF, WiFi, and Classic Chrome support. If you don't care about any of those things get the X-Pro1 or the X-E1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Thanks guys I guess I'm going bargain hunting for an E2 then. I like the ovf on the pro but I think from looking now it's actually only marginally cheaper than the e2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Saros posted:Thanks guys I guess I'm going bargain hunting for an E2 then. I like the ovf on the pro but I think from looking now it's actually only marginally cheaper than the e2. I also feel obligated to tell you the X-E series cameras are smallish. So be prepared to get a thumb grip and possibly hand grip if you have big hands like me or want to use it for extended shoots. I have a cheap metal grip that was $20 on amazon and it makes the camera infinitely more usable to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:You mean X-E2 right? The X-E1's EVF is not great (neither is the xpro's but it at least has an OVF option). Err yes, that was a typo. I found it very amusing that Fuji released their flagship camera first, then every subsequent camera was better (and some cheaper). And I think it's going to happen again with the X-Pro 2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Woops wrong thread for buying and selling. 2-3 year old Lumix vs Olympus micro 4/3rds - which one do I choose wise goons?! plotskee fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Sep 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 05:31
|
|
