|
Does Trigger Trap work with Sonys? (And Fuji?)
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
LiquidRain posted:(And Fuji?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:My homemade intervalometer (that I originally made for Canon) works with Fuji. In theory anything that supports the 1/8" mic cable release port should work, and even if it doesn't you can usually adapt to whatever electronic cable release input the camera uses. They're usually all some variant of 3-pins: shutter release, focus, and ground. I can also confirm pocket wizards will trigger fuji cameras through the 1/8th port, if that helps at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
I use a trigger trap with my xt1. Goes from phone's headphone jack to cameras USB. Triggertrap's website can tell if it will work for your specific camera. It doesn't work for all Fujis. When I had an x100s they didn't have a compatible adapter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
change my name posted:Wait, so you can't use time-lapse/long exposure mode on the A7 unless you put down money and download an app for the camera? Yeah, thats a Sony "thing", although it does give you the option to save time lapse to video directly. That's the sole reason I haven't gotten rid of my nex5n. I'd say its worth the 5 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Looking for a little advise from the mirrorless shooters on here... I received a Fuji X-T10 for attending Adobe Max. I already own a GH4, however. Was wondering, am I going to see any real performance increase, at all, with the X-T10? I did some slight comparisons and I'm having a pretty hard time seeing any kind of difference. Looks like Fuji glass might be a little bit better than the LUMIX counterparts, but it's hard to tell. Any real world application for the X-T10 where it outperforms the GH4?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
It depends on how much you like Fuji color and white balance in difficult situations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:It depends on how much you like Fuji color and white balance in difficult situations. Good point. While the Fuji does render colors nice, it just seems non practical to keep it and forego the GH4 for most situations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
If you look in to why people choose Fuji, it mostly comes down to the strength of lenses with a bit of "Fuji colours" and the user experience, over measurements of dynamic range or cutting edge mega-pixel counts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Don't you have at least a theoretical increase in low-light, high ISO performance over the GH4 with the Fuji? (Speaking of people don't buy Fuji's for nerd numbers reasons) My impression was that, disregarding individual performance measurements and taking both cameras as the sum of their parts, the GH4 is an excellent all-rounder for video and still photography that nevertheless has much more value as an m4/3 4k camcorder than as a vehicle for serious still photography, while the XT10 is the best entry-level camera for the best mirrorless system on the market today for still photography, while being utterly useless as a video recording device. Like, your iPhone video camera is miles better level of worthless. I think the choice is clear if video is a priority for you at all, but honestly I can often see the difference when I look at images from a Fuji camera. If you're as much of a pixel-peeping OCD maniac as I am, you notice and appreciate the look of a digital image that wasn't created through Bayer Interpolation. It's like a pocket-size medium format film camera, in some ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Here's Leica's new full frame mirrorless, comes with glow as standard: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7448206943/a-lot-to-leica-hands-on-with-the-leica-sl-typ-601
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Here's Leica's new full frame mirrorless, comes with glow as standard: I'd like to say they kind of missed the point, but what do I know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
I'm goddamned 6'6" and that would probably be almost too big for my hands, jesus christ leica E: holy loving  what is this poo poo leicaE2: god it just gets funnier as it goes on quote:Ergonomically, the SL owes a lot to its 'S' class medium format forebears. And not in an entirely good way. Buttons are customizable but as a consequence they're almost all unlabeled (Leica did make an exception for the on/off switch) and there's no exposure mode dial. It took several DPR staffers to finally figure out how to change exposure modes. You do that by pressing the rear dial inward and then rotating it. In addition, only one dial is active in shutter or aperture priority, and we found no way to change that. DJExile fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Oct 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
the lens is to be expected from a fullframe sony hasn't put out long range fast lens for that reason
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
So, they obviously didn't make this for their current Leica buying market. Did they think there is some huge untapped "People who want to spend 7500$ on a gigantic unwieldy metal brick" market? Also,  http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/7448206943/Leica-SL_Leica-APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL_90-280_ASPH_top.jpeg Edit: Beat. MeruFM posted:the lens is to be expected from a fullframe Not so sure about that. It's a 2.8-4 variable aperture lens, that is still looking silly big. And it apparently extends with zooming? timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Oct 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
 loving lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
you could genuinely beat someone to death with that thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
That camera looks really uncomfortable. Its nearly as big as the medium format Leica S, and you'd think for all that size there'd be stabilization in there. $4950 USD kit lens... I guess I'm not the target market anyway 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Leica's marketing department meeting minutes: "you know what they say about guys with big hands... Lotsa money."
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Not so sure about that. It's a 2.8-4 variable aperture lens, that is still looking silly big. And it apparently extends with zooming? 2.8 at 90mm is going to be huge regardless on a fullframe lens
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Did Marc Newson design that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
MeruFM posted:2.8 at 90mm is going to be huge regardless on a fullframe lens Yes, it is. That lens though, looks clearly quite a bit longer than my 70-200 2.8 mk2, and it extends to be even longer than that when zooming according to all the press stuff so "it's 280 not 200" doesn't really cut it. Looks about the same diameter, but much longer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
 bruuuuhhhh
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in Fujifilm land: October 21 looks to be the announcement date for the XF 35mm f/2 and the XF 1.4x TC. Fujifilm Australia made the announcement on their Facebook page already, along with surprise new firmwares for the X-Pro1, X-T1, X-T10, X-E2, X-E1, X-M1, X-A2, X-A1, and XF50-140mm coming on October 29. No details on firmware changes yet. It looks like the lens and TC will be available in November.
Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Oct 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Meanwhile, in Fujifilm land: Whenever they get around to releasing their super telephoto zoom, I'm going to be very tempted to jettison most of my current gear and go Fuji. As long as the lens is good and doesn't go for over $2000 retail. timrenzi574 posted:Not so sure about that. It's a 2.8-4 variable aperture lens, that is still looking silly big. And it apparently extends with zooming? Maybe the size is the result of making tele zoom that's optically distortion-free, rather than software-corrected?? I would hope there's some really good technical reason like that, and Leica aren't just trying to lock down the 'rich guys with giant hands and tiny penises' demographic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
There is a new firmware for my XE1? What's odds on getting the Classic Chrome lol? It probably will just add support for the new lens.  That Leica lens is so big I can't think of a joke that can do its size justice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Official stuff (press release, product images, specs) and initial impressions collected in one place for Fuji's announcements tonight: http://www.fujirumors.com/announced-fujifilm-xf35mmf2-wr-1-4x-tc-live-blogging-refresh-this-page-for-the-latest-updates/
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Official stuff (press release, product images, specs) and initial impressions collected in one place for Fuji's announcements tonight: Reading those first impressions of the 35 f/2 makes it sound like the f/2's only disadvantage compared to the 1.4 is the stop of aperture. That's really impressive considering the price point. And the blade chattering is apparently gone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Why does the 1.4 teleconverter only work with one lens, if I could work it with the 35 or the 18-55 I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Hocus Pocus posted:Reading those first impressions of the 35 f/2 makes it sound like the f/2's only disadvantage compared to the 1.4 is the stop of aperture. That's really impressive considering the price point. And the blade chattering is apparently gone. I might get it... I really want a WR lens and this seems to be an all around nice lens. Softness at f/2.0 is disappointing, though. Its my only annoyance with the X100T. I can live with f/2.0 even though I shoot dark a lot, but at least make it sharp wide open... I guess I was thoroughly spoiled by the time I owned an XF 23mm f/1.4... that lens, unf... Animal fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Oct 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Add me to the list of people probably getting the 35 f/2. The fact that the silver model doesn't match the "graphite" X-T1 irks me a little. I think it matches the silver finish of the X-T10 though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Add me to the list of people probably getting the 35 f/2. The fact that the silver model doesn't match the "graphite" X-T1 irks me a little. I think it matches the silver finish of the X-T10 though. Yeah, the price point is making it tough for me - I was pretty set on eventually getting a 23mm f/1.4, but the price point and smaller size makes the 35 mm f/2 very enticing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
I have an X-E1 and the 35mm f/1.4 and I'm having a hard time not justifying the 2.0... Outside of the fact that the AF is still going to be slow on the E1. Now I'm really torn. I want to pick up an X100T still, but an XPro2 and the new 35mm might win out. Also, thanks earlier for posting the astrophotography with the kit lens; I think I'm still going to pick up the Rokinon 12mm when I go up to South Dakota next month. Any one have a really good primer for "astrophotography for complete and total morons who have never done it before"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Animal posted:I might get it... I really want a WR lens and this seems to be an all around nice lens. Softness at f/2.0 is disappointing, though. Its my only annoyance with the X100T. I can live with f/2.0 even though I shoot dark a lot, but at least make it sharp wide open... I'm not really sure what you expected? It's softer at 2 than the 1.4 and few lenses are sharp wide open to begin with? The 35mm 2 looks awesome. At that price point it's going into my bag for sure. It will be drat nice to have for weddings and portraits. The conundrum with the 1.4 was always was that it couldn't focus well in the situations where you needed the stops anyways and the 2 seems to solve that. Fart Car '97 fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Oct 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:I'm not really sure what you expected? It's softer at 2 than the 1.4 and few lenses are sharp wide open to begin with? It's simple, I expected it to be sharp at f/2. I understand that other lenses are not sharp wide open, and that the f/1.4 is sharper at f/2 (and even wider). None of that means that hoping the new lens to be sharp would be a completely unreasonable expectation. Animal fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Oct 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Eh, I'll be keeping my 35mm f/1.4 but I'm pumped for new firmware (classic chrome on my Xpro pls).
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Phone posted:I have an X-E1 and the 35mm f/1.4 and I'm having a hard time not justifying the 2.0... Outside of the fact that the AF is still going to be slow on the E1. http://www.lonelyspeck.com/astrophotography-101/ The Rokinon 12mm is a great lens, especially for the price. I picked one up to do some astrophotography, and I've yet to actually use it for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
JAF07 posted:http://www.lonelyspeck.com/astrophotography-101/ Best bang for the buck! I bought it for astro, got some great shots, but it's gotten plenty of use as a travel lens. 12mm, kit lens, and a Gorillapod = great travel kit. -edit- Also props to lonelyspeck.com it is a great site, and Ian is a very sweet guy who will happily answer your emails if you need advice
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Aargh posted:Why does the 1.4 teleconverter only work with one lens, if I could work it with the 35 or the 18-55 I'd buy it in a heartbeat. In Canonikon land, the 70-200 family are the widest compatible lenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
I ordered a 35mm 1.4 a couple months ago while Fuji had it marked down to $400, but it just arrived this week since it was backordered on B&H, so I could still return it for a full refund and wait for the 35mm 2.0. What are the main pros and cons of each? It sounds like the 1.4 is better optically, while the 2.0 is weather resistant, smaller (not like that 1.4 is a huge lens though), quieter and has faster AF speed. Am I missing anything? Leaning toward keeping the 1.4 at this point since the main reason I got it is to have a fast, oMg BokEh option to complement my 18-55 2.8-4, 55-200 and Rokinon 12. The WR of the 35 2 is appealing, but if it's not great wide open on top of being a stop slower, I'm not sure if it's the best fit for what I'm looking for. Are there actually significant image quality differences between the 1.4 and 2 at wider apertures, or is that mostly conjecture at this point?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 19:48
|
|