|
Does the XPro1 use the same batteries as the XE1? Just want to know whether I need to stock up on new batteries or whether the 5 I have now will work.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:Does the XPro1 use the same batteries as the XE1? Just want to know whether I need to stock up on new batteries or whether the 5 I have now will work. Yup, it's the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
DJExile posted:E: YO DAKANA GET IN HERE AND TELL US WHY FULL FRAME DSLRS STILL OWN. I own: 5D3 6D 17-35 2.8-4 35 1.4 50 1.2 85 1.8 70-200 2.8 2x teleconverter 3 flashes with wireless ttl/hss triggers and shoot weddings, portraits, high school sports, and Spartan Races. I think the biggest benefit the DSLRs have in my mind is durability and reliability. Whether or not mirrorless cameras and lenses designed for them are less durable/reliable/weather resistant? I don't know -- I haven't honestly researched it that much. I kind put my gear through a lot of different conditions and environments, and at the same time expect it to keep on truckin' despite that. I also use off-camera flash extensively so it's nice to have a wide range of compatibility in that regard. The extra stop of DoF is critical for my style of portraits, and the low-light performance of a full-frame sensor is crucial at weddings and sports. I haven't used a mirrorless camera extensively, so I can't really speak to AF performance or the experience tracking a subject and shooting bursts while following action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
I could be entirely wrong, but aren't DSLRs better at AF because the TTL image is reflected off the prism to a dedicated AF sensor on most if not all cameras, rather than relying on algorithms in the camera to decode the actual taking-sensor input and determine AF?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
I have an X-E1 and sometimes in low light, I feel like I should just manually focus 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Miko posted:I have an X-E1 and sometimes in low light, I feel like I should just manually focus I have an X-E1 and sometimes in low light I feel like I should just develop echolocation and send out sonar clicks rather than rely on the EVF Literally only complaint I have about the camera, really. If it wasn't for that I would still be happy with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:IBIS really owns and its the main reasons to pick the Oly 's system over Fuji's imo. This is the only reason I can fathom why Oly went with such a tiny sensor - because it allowed them to build a good in-body stabilization. <3 my em-1. Just got the 75mm f1.8 for it. So sweet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Miko posted:I have an X-E1 and sometimes in low light, I feel like I should just manually focus Switch to MF and use the meter lock button to focus. Works like a charm. I do that for all video too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
I have done a few weddings with Fuji X series cameras, hoping to book more this year now that my dayjob is no longer a 60+ hour a week gig. My shooting style has always been reportage style candids, I used to shoot a D700 with bag full of primes so switching to a smaller bag and camera actually helps me out considerably. I know FF DSLRs are better objectively but for the things I shoot on small digital cameras I have zero issues with my current setup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I could be entirely wrong, but aren't DSLRs better at AF because the TTL image is reflected off the prism to a dedicated AF sensor on most if not all cameras, rather than relying on algorithms in the camera to decode the actual taking-sensor input and determine AF? IIRC something like Sony's PDAF sensors are basically, dedicated AF sensor, but built into the image sensor with the same focal plane and being constantly 'on' and focusing. On DSLR, unless they use the permanent transparent mirrors, the AF sensor will pause during mirror blackout due to the fact that light is going directly towards the sensor. Edit: Another great upside of fullframe is DoF control. You get better out of focus blur and subject selection with same FoV compare to smaller sensor sized cameras. DaNzA fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
I just saw that Sony released 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 lenses for their mirrorless cameras. It's called the Master Series, and costs  dollars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I just saw that Sony released 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 lenses for their mirrorless cameras. It's called the Master Series, and costs Canon announced their new 24-70 2.8 in 2012 for $2300 which has no image stabilization. At $2200, which I don't know if it'll be the actual street price, seems like a better deal with stabilization if it's close in image quality. A couple years ago I was very close to switching to Sony FF mirrorless, however at the time, 2/3rds of the best of their "holy trinity" lenses topped out at f/4. Sony hasn't been able to compete with Canon or Nikon until these lenses come out. If they had these 2 years ago, I'd be shooting Sony now. That's assuming the new lenses are gonna match the quality of the competition. Haggins fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I just saw that Sony released 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 lenses for their mirrorless cameras. It's called the Master Series, and costs If the glass shows to be as good as they claim it to be, then it's probably comparable to offerings from other brands in price range. They claim it's better, but that's to be seen - every company claims they are better. I'm more interested in upgrading from my Nex-7 to the a6300, but I'm currently living in Japan and so far it's not on any of the Sony Japanese websites as even being a product they announced. I'm going to swing by their flagship store one day soon to ask about it. I find it hilarious that it's not even acknowledged on the sites here though. Aredna fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Canon announced their new 24-70 2.8 in 2012 for $2300 which has no image stabilization. At $2200, which I don't know if it'll be the actual street price, seems like a better deal with stabilization if it's close in image quality. They obviously aren't going to be promoting a lenses lack of a feature, but if you look at all of the press releases for it, you'll notice that there is no mention of stabilisation on the 24-70, and B&H's product page appears to confirm it. I'm guessing they dropped OSS in order to reduce size/weight (especially on a non-telephoto) now that the FE bodies have IBIS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
I misread the article that was posted and assumed it meant all 3. Would make sense. With or without it, it's still on par with other FF lens prices. FF is just expensive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I misread the article that was posted and assumed it meant all 3. Would make sense. With or without it, it's still on par with other FF lens prices. FF is just expensive. Yeah, true that. My 24-70 f/4 OSS pretty much stays glued to my A7 and I still pine for my EF 24-70L (not the size/weight of that combo though). Hah, just checked, and the new Sony is larger than the 24-70L but weighs slightly less (but still about 2x what the f/4 does). I'd expect L glass quality at that price, considering they don't appear to have pulled off any optical miracles. Starting to think I might be better off buying back in to Canon and just keeping mirrorless around for long hikes or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Yeah, true that. Haggins posted:I misread the article that was posted and assumed it meant all 3. Would make sense. With or without it, it's still on par with other FF lens prices. FF is just expensive. That's the fundamental physical downside to ff: large heavy expensive elements Too bad diffractive optics never took off
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:They obviously aren't going to be promoting a lenses lack of a feature, but if you look at all of the press releases for it, you'll notice that there is no mention of stabilisation on the 24-70, and B&H's product page appears to confirm it. I'm guessing they dropped OSS in order to reduce size/weight (especially on a non-telephoto) now that the FE bodies have IBIS. That plus the A7 series generally has pretty good high ISO performance so that plus f/2.8 plus IBIS basically makes OSS irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Which is funny considering oly delayed the 300 f4 to put OIS in while their bodies already have IBIS
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Which is funny considering oly delayed the 300 f4 to put OIS in while their bodies already have IBIS The Olympus IBIS probably wasn't up to snuff for dealing with an effective 600mm focal length.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Is it normal for the x100t to have like a bloom in the corners when there's a bright light in the scene? I was shooting behind the scenes at a fashion test today, and whenever i had the kino flo in the frame at f/4 or faster, the corners instantly turned gray, and it looked like the lens fogged over. Drove me nuts until I stopped down. You can see it here, it's like a grayish vignette in the top of the frame: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
HPL posted:The Olympus IBIS probably wasn't up to snuff for dealing with an effective 600mm focal length. Yeah, the longer you go out the less effective IBIS is. Even Sony put OSS on the new 70-200, despite it appearing that all of their new A7 bodies are going to have IBIS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Is it normal for the x100t to have like a bloom in the corners when there's a bright light in the scene? I was shooting behind the scenes at a fashion test today, and whenever i had the kino flo in the frame at f/4 or faster, the corners instantly turned gray, and it looked like the lens fogged over. Drove me nuts until I stopped down. It is pretty normal for that to happen when you point a light source into a lens, some lenses control it better than others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
How's the AF on the x100s? Does it approach the speed of an updated x-t1 equipped with one of the faster-focusing Fuji lenses? Does it work well for split-second candid street photography?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Is it normal for the x100t to have like a bloom in the corners when there's a bright light in the scene? I was shooting behind the scenes at a fashion test today, and whenever i had the kino flo in the frame at f/4 or faster, the corners instantly turned gray, and it looked like the lens fogged over. Drove me nuts until I stopped down. are you using a lens filter in front of your lens? try remove it if you are lenses nowadays should be able to handle the flare pretty gracefully and most of the time it's the extra piece of glass people place in front of their lens that's causing the problem
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:are you using a lens filter in front of your lens? try remove it if you are Even the finest filters cause horrible flare and destroy your photos, especially in low light. If you don't need a filter, don't use one!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:Even the finest filters cause horrible flare and destroy your photos, especially in low light. If you don't need a filter, don't use one! I learned this lesson shooting a candlelight vigil in college using the newspaper's gear, which included a uv filter on the 70-200.  _DSC2280 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
I was on the fence about buying a 35mm f/2 unyil I found one on CL with a tiny ding in the filter ring for $260. Nice lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:are you using a lens filter in front of your lens? try remove it if you are No filters, just the lens hood. It goes away when I stop down either the shutter or the aperture so who knows   E: Seems like it's the worst at 2.8. Maybe I should send it in for service? 
red19fire fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Stupid question; it's not reflections off the inside of the hood is it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
red19fire posted:No filters, just the lens hood. It goes away when I stop down either the shutter or the aperture so who knows I thought I remembered mine doing the same thing outdoors in backlit shots so I held it up to a light like you did. At 2.8 there is that ring around the light source just like in yours. At 2 there isn't a well defined ring, instead the image is a hazy and there can be some ghosting of the light source depending on the angle. At 4 all's well. I chalked it up a long time ago as don't shoot backlit at f/2 but if you send it in for service and they say something's wrong with it let me know. I've also seen some issues with flare from outside the frame but that can easily be controlled with your hand or a lens hood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Maybe you had the built-in ND filter on. ND on, f2.8:  ND off, f2.8: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
ape posted:Maybe you had the built-in ND filter on. The ND is off, but it still looks like the one with the filter on. Maybe it's stuck open.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
red19fire posted:The ND is off, but it still looks like the one with the filter on. Maybe it's stuck open. Weird, does toggling it change the exposure time?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
I'm finding it really hard to shoot stable video with my Sony A6000. It this just a combination of handshake from caffeine and adderall and bad hand position? Or is this a problem for other people when using a heavy lens + a light camera body? Here is a video I shot at the zoo yesterday for reference. Please ignore the awful manual zoom (thanks, kit lens!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gS-XqYVXj8
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
What focal length were you shooting at? I always thought that if you were pushing telephoto ranges you'll be really hard pressed to get smooth video without some sort of gimbal or stabilizer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:What focal length were you shooting at? I always thought that if you were pushing telephoto ranges you'll be really hard pressed to get smooth video without some sort of gimbal or stabilizer. Somewhere between 100 and 200mm, I think, using a lens with optical steadyshot (for however much good that does). I really have no point of reference for video, so I wasn't sure if all of the shake was on me or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Somewhere between 100 and 200mm, I think, using a lens with optical steadyshot (for however much good that does). I really have no point of reference for video, so I wasn't sure if all of the shake was on me or not. This (rather biased) video provides a bit of a baseline around 9:20: http://youtu.be/tIWyE7LBErw
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
That's pretty steady for being zoomed in so far. Shooting handheld at that length is like holding a pencil by the eraser with your fingertips and trying to write. OSS can only do so much. (Try turning it off to see what it's getting you.) I want a gimbal of some sort, but they're all super pricey. A shoulder rig can help a lot, though! I have one that looks like a rifle stock that I'm afraid to use, because I think the NYPD will shoot me. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
The Mantis posted:This (rather biased) video provides a bit of a baseline around 9:20: I can't watch a video with sound right now, but that Olympus he's testing has IBIS, right? Did the lens he used with the Sony have OSS? I have no idea how they compare, though
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:01
|
|