|
Duck me. 3.5hrs to charge my GH3 battery. Are they putting the electrons in there one at a time?
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
There's 2, the XC version which is .. okay, about on par with most kit lenses and then there is the XF 18-55 which is sublime, about a stop faster than most kit lenses and super sharp. Not on par with the primes but drat impressive nevertheless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Saros posted:There's 2, the XC version which is .. okay, about on par with most kit lenses and then there is the XF 18-55 which is sublime, about a stop faster than most kit lenses and super sharp. Not on par with the primes but drat impressive nevertheless. Sadly I never got to experience the 18-55 but everything I've heard about it is that it's one of the best kit lenses out there. I just loaded a gallery of shots taken with the XF 16-55 f/2.8 on my XT1. The lens is superb and the XT1 performs admirably given that most of these are in varying degrees of low light with moving subjects, but I'm still desperately awaiting a new sensor in the XT2 for this lens to really shine. http://www.justin-kent.com/u2-dublin-3/
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Can confirm the XF kit lens on the Fuji is top of the line. I love my Fuji setup now and wouldn't imagine going anywhere else for a long time. The XF 55-200 is really nice as well, pair that if you need more range and you will have a "complete" kit for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
The 18-55 is definitely great. Part of me still thinks I got sharper shots out of the 18mm prime, but that could just be what I shot with the 18mm. The convenience of the standard zoom range is pretty great to have for a travel lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:27
|
|
Cat Army
|
Ouhei posted:The 18-55 is definitely great. Part of me still thinks I got sharper shots out of the 18mm prime, but that could just be what I shot with the 18mm. The convenience of the standard zoom range is pretty great to have for a travel lens. I had the kit on my first Fuji (X-E1) and switched over to primes (except the 55-200) for my X-T1. I do agree though that standard zooms are nice for travel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:God drat, Fuji in camera jpg processing -> wifi to tablet -> minor snapseed editing -> sharing is such a great workflow. I don't want to go back Are you and the other people doing this just using the Fuji app?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
aricoarena posted:Are you and the other people doing this just using the Fuji app? That's what I do, occasionally I'll use in-camera processing to push/pull exposure on raw shots on occasion but really it's the only reason I shoot JPEG+raw
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Ouhei posted:The 18-55 is definitely great. Part of me still thinks I got sharper shots out of the 18mm prime, but that could just be what I shot with the 18mm. The convenience of the standard zoom range is pretty great to have for a travel lens. When I borrowed an 18mm for a couple of days, the 18-55 won out in sharpness and distortion, and the 18 had some CA too. Factoring in the utility of the zoom and the OIS the 18 is really hard to recommend over the 18-55. It's not a bad lens but it's not Fuji's best. I'd much rather get the Samyang 12mm or the Fuji 16mm for a wide prime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Geektox posted:When I borrowed an 18mm for a couple of days, the 18-55 won out in sharpness and distortion, and the 18 had some CA too. Factoring in the utility of the zoom and the OIS the 18 is really hard to recommend over the 18-55. It's not a bad lens but it's not Fuji's best. I'd much rather get the Samyang 12mm or the Fuji 16mm for a wide prime. Yeah, I won't be selling my 18-55 for the 18 (since I sold the 18 to get the 18-55). Everything I've read said the same thing as you so I'll just chalk it up to the specific shots I'm comparing not being fair to compare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Geektox posted:When I borrowed an 18mm for a couple of days, the 18-55 won out in sharpness and distortion, and the 18 had some CA too. Factoring in the utility of the zoom and the OIS the 18 is really hard to recommend over the 18-55. It's not a bad lens but it's not Fuji's best. I'd much rather get the Samyang 12mm or the Fuji 16mm for a wide prime. The 16 is crazy good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
The 18 is easily fuji's worst XF lens. The 18-55 is really really good, except mine broke recently. Something internally chipped/came loose and is stuck to the rear element, which happened while it was in a padded camera bag in transport at some point in the last week. Now, when zoomed out, theres a dark spot on the right side of the frame. I'm super disappointed, that bag never remotely got any kind of abuse that should have resulted in any lens breaking. I dunno if mine is still under warranty, but it's been a long time so I doubt it. I'm still in love with fuji's ability to take wonderful stills, but man, I'm really doubting their ability to make really sturdy gear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Saros posted:There's 2, the XC version which is .. okay, about on par with most kit lenses and then there is the XF 18-55 which is sublime, about a stop faster than most kit lenses and super sharp. Not on par with the primes but drat impressive nevertheless. The XF does look killer but it definitely seems out of the reach of ~$500 used kits, which is a confusing space value-wise. The Sony a5100 seems like the only option with pdaf and I like the design of the bodies but the lenses are a bit pricier outside of the sigmas. I have no idea where to even start with the fuji lineup in that budget range.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
You should be able to get it super cheap with a body, look at used x-e2 especially as its the default kit lens for that and the e2 is drat good, definitely a big step up from a/m/e1 models.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Saros posted:You should be able to get it super cheap with a body, look at used x-e2 especially as its the default kit lens for that and the e2 is drat good, definitely a big step up from a/m/e1 models. The e2 kits seem to run up in the mid to high 600s used which is a couple pennies more than I want to spend right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Huh weird, I can get a new e2 kit over here for about £400 and the US is usually significantly cheaper for camera gear after the exchange rate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Fruit Chewy posted:The XF does look killer but it definitely seems out of the reach of ~$500 used kits, which is a confusing space value-wise. The Sony a5100 seems like the only option with pdaf and I like the design of the bodies but the lenses are a bit pricier outside of the sigmas. You just get the 1855 and the 35 for the next two years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
There's an xpro 1 for $350 CAD on kijiji right now. If I only didn't just buy a new body a few months ago 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Is there a hotshoe thumb rest I can get for the XPro1 that will carry through the flash contacts so I don't have to choose between my remote trigger and holding the camera comfortably?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Anyone actually have any experience with the sony a5100? I'm about 5 seconds from pulling the trigger on one because it's cheap as chips used (like $340) and has super good AF while being incredibly compact with the collapsing kit zoom or a small prime. Some of the fujis look like solid deals but they're definitely a little on the chunkier side, owing to a much more solid selection of manual controls (which the a6000 also has) but also not hitting some of the advanced features like the super good PDAF which I'll definitely be leveraging for pet pics. Anything I'm missing here? I literally have no hobby-level photography experience but I want to do this poo poo right the first time because I'm very much the kind of person that will end up wasting even more money if I pick too close to the entry-level of a hobby and then inevitably end up going deeper into it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
The a5100 is definitely a solid choice for image quality, autofocus and video. It's got most of the sorts of lenses you could want except for anything telephoto, and with the exception of the kit zoom, basic primes, and one remarkable (but big) constant-aperture super zoom, there aren't really any affordable high-quality lenses in the E-mount system. You might miss an eye-level viewfinder for precise shooting in outdoor light (and the nex-6/7 both have one & are pretty cheap) but it doesn't seem to be something you were set on, considering the other cameras you were comparing it to. The only other factor I'd bring to your attention is the build quality of the sonys. They can be a little flimsy, although the 5100 probably less so than the a6000. If you're going to take it hiking or camping, I'd be careful. - Unrelated, but can anyone point me toward a good in-depth guide to the features and best practices for getting the maximum image quality from an oly em10? The printed manual is pretty sparse. I'm especially interested in some guidelines for using the color customization features. Are there shareable presets or anything like that? And do the om-d's raws come with distortion & vignetting correction baked-in? I've realized that my versions of ACR/LR don't have lens profiles for any oly lenses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Also need help in selecting a camera. Moving up from my Canon s100 which I've loved and have taken advantage of some of the manual functions though also plan to take a class/workshop to get more out of my new camera. I've looked at some of the less expensive options and a lot of the sample images I see appear to be as significant improvement over my point and shoot as I'd like (or I'm looking at some terrible samples) so I'm willing to spend a little more. I mostly take vacation and dog photos, so lots of architecture, (poor) landscape, nature, and dog. Portability is a pretty big issue for me as I like to pack as lightly as possible. My budget is a little flexible but I'd like to stay under $1,500. Most of my pictures remain digital but I do print some for family and usually a book for myself every so often so being able to print relatively large is important. Also, I know lenses are incredibly expensive. Given the things I shoot, a recommendation on what I could get away with starting out would also be really helpful. Hopefully I've covered everything that's helpful. transient fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:And do the om-d's raws come with distortion & vignetting correction baked-in? I've realized that my versions of ACR/LR don't have lens profiles for any oly lenses. The MFT standard provides that cameras copy correction data from the lens itself to the RAW, and I know LR applies those with no prompting, wanted or not. If you want optical character to shine through, options seem to be voigtlander or disable in camera, but the PEN-F only gives me the option to disable vignette correction as far as I can tell (menus lol), and you'd still have a possibly inaccurate distortion map to your copy of a mass produced lens. I tend to like quirks wide open and if I want a clean raw on any camera I can shoot at f/4. Dunno why manufacturers consider that stuff defects, but I just argued with a woman yesterday who says any image not in perfectly sharp infinite focus is garbage, and I'm guessing she buys more camera manufacturer made lenses than I do. windex fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
transient posted:Also need help in selecting a camera. Step 1: Evaluate the camera and lens combos you can afford. Evaluate cameras by shutter speed, ISO performance, and color / dynamic range. Evaluate lenses by the way you like to take photos. Example, for cameras: I shoot in the dark a lot, and prefer cameras with fast shutters (preferably 1/8000), good ISO performance (mostly noise free up to ISO1600, ISO3200 prefered), and I like the Canon/Panasonic/Olympus sensor cold/blueish-dominate hue because I find I don't have to work on it much in post. Example, for lenses: I prefer fast primes that open really wide (f/2 or below), because I shoot in the dark a lot and do not do sports or wildlife photography. I also do not mind the legwork of a prime, and only really care about lenses with focal lengths between about 24mm and 135mm. Step 2: Use every camera that meets those requirements. Pick the one that's easiest for you to use and DO NOT worry much about features you do not understand right now, but try to insure that you pay some consideration to lens availability in the mount for the camera and if an adapter is okay or not for you. Step 3: Once you have the camera down, generally speaking ignore the kit lenses and borrow/rent whatever lenses you can find that meet your requirements. Then, buy lens(es) accordingly. Do not buy a lens you will not regularly use - you can rent those. I have taken some very good photos with an EOS M/M3 and the 22mm EF-M prime. The camera is not great, though the sensor is plenty fine for me, and the lens is just ok. I have taken a few great photos with the M3 and the Sigma art primes for EF mount via adapter. I no longer shoot the M3 except as backup or when I have a special need for an APS-C sensor crop factor as the camera hits a wall at extremes. I mostly shoot a 5D3 DSLR with 24/35/50/135mm lenses, and I just bought an Olympus PEN-F and a 35mm equivalent for it. Of those three, the only one that meets my requirements and hits your price point is the M3. Your answer will probably be different, and since thread hates Canon and even I just said the camera is just okay, something will probably have to give. Hint: it's probably your budget. (The Olympus PEN-F/Lens combo I picked up ran a bit north of $2k, half of that was camera, other half was _one_ lens and some minor accessories.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Fruit Chewy posted:Anyone actually have any experience with the sony a5100? I've used it a decent amount, it's great for the price. The one I used also took a tumble, no damage to screen or front element. If you end up getting deeper into the hobby, it can sit very well next to a better(larger) camera as a walk-around camera. Flippy screen w/ touch is also pretty great for pet pics without kneeling or getting on the ground
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
transient posted:Also need help in selecting a camera. I went from a canon s110 to a Fuji x-e2 and I couldn't be happier. But really for what you want can't go wrong with most of the mirrorless cameras. The biggest issue with Fuji is there are no third party lenses that interface with the cameras. Fuji glass is amazing though but not cheap so any off brand lenses are going to be totally manual.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Saros posted:I went from a canon s110 to a Fuji x-e2 and I couldn't be happier. But really for what you want can't go wrong with most of the mirrorless cameras. The biggest issue with Fuji is there are no third party lenses that interface with the cameras. Fuji glass is amazing though but not cheap so any off brand lenses are going to be totally manual. Fuji lenses aren't even very expensive, in the realm of comparable glass from Nikon or Canon. Let's not even talk about first-party Sony glass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
In the $1500 range and budgeting for a kit lens and a good prime, you should go to a store and handle the Olympus E-M10 II and E-M5 II, Fuji X-E2s and X-T10, Panasonic G7, and the Sony A6000.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Fuji lenses aren't even very expensive, in the realm of comparable glass from Nikon or Canon. Let's not even talk about first-party Sony glass. You're spot on here. Fuji glass is a goddam steal compared to equivalent L-series stuff from Canon. Of course, the EF lenses have to cover a larger image circle, which I guess can drive up cost. EF-S is definitely a closer match to a lot of the Fuji stuff, price wise. The difference is that lately there haven't been any EF-S camera bodies that can match the low-light performance and overall image quality that the fujis produce. Sony lenses are highway robbery, by and large. Although there are a few gems out there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
I guess I'm confused about the Fuji lenses being so cheap compared to first party Sony lenses. Am I looking at the wrong things? For example, the XF 35mm f/2 R WR Lens is listed for $399 which is the exact same price I paid for the SEL35F18. The Fuji 27mm f2,8 pancake lens is the exact same price as I paid for my SEL20F28 pancake. The Fuji 55-200 zoom is more expensive than the 55-210 E mount zoom (thought the Fuji is faster.) Granted, there are a lot more X mount choices, but I'm not seeing the dramatic price difference that people are talking about. Sony also has a few cheap 3rd party options out there. You can get the Sigma 30mm F2.8 for only $169 and the Sigma 19mm F2.8 for $199 and those are both supposed to be really great primes (if not super fast.) Soon, the Sigma 30mm F1.4 will be available for $339. Right now you can go into Best Buy and pay $849 for the A6000 with both the 16-50 kit lens and the 55-210mm zoom. Regardless on how people feel about the kit lens, that's still a very low entry point for a body with lenses to cover you from 16 to 210mm. If you are working with a $1500 budget, that leaves you with about $600 for primes. You could easily add the 30mm f1.4 Sigma and either the 19 or 60mm Sigma on top of the kit and 55-210 zoom and stay under budget. I was cross shopping the X-T10 and the A6000 and it seemed to me that the A6000 was the overall cheaper package even when I took into account the primes that I wanted to buy. It was my first interchangeable lens camera so I didn't really have any sort of brand preference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
The E-mount 36mm f/1.8 is stabilized. That's why it's expensive. It's also a really good lens too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
The Sony bodies are cheaper and have Fuji beat on paper in all regards, and while lens prices are the same/similar with Sony and there are some really good lenses like the 36mm as HPL mentioned, what you didn't compare in your post is the quality of photos the lenses and bodies take together. Fujifilm lenses, with a few notable exceptions (looking at you, 18mm), generally match or outclass Canon L/Sony G glass for resolution and contrast at a similar or lower cost in a smaller package. A lot of them also inspire almost audiophile-grade levels of admiration, they get talked about in the same fanatical voices and snake-oil hyperbole as those $500 wooden knobs for your amp: the feel of the photo, the ambience the photo creates, a certain je ne sais quoi. I'm a kool-aid drinker - I describe it as "magic." The 23mm and 35mm Fuji primes on a Fuji body make photos look amazing all the time with incredible ease. I don't know why. I don't know how. They just look good, in a way my E mount and EF mount L glass didn't, no matter how hard I Lightroomed them. And then there's the color processing Fuji provides. I don't have a Sony example as I had sold mine by then, but I do have a Canon example. LiquidRain fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:And then there's the color processing Fuji provides. I don't have a Sony example as I had sold mine by then, but I do have a Canon example. I know you love Fuji and I know I don't but your Canon problem in that comparison is mostly down to two things: You do not have the same light at the same angles. Your white balance is different. You make a good point in general that Fuji is a better experience if you do not want to work in post, but it's not really fair to imply that the data is not there, somehow, when I was able to tweak the white balance sliders in Lightroom on your Canon jpg and get 90% of the way to your Fuji image without the raw.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
I make it fairly clear in the text of that post that the photos were taken a year apart from each other and that I did not take them in exactly the same spot. The Canon is also at a disadvantage as I was using one of Sigma's average lenses (the EF-S 30mm f/1.4 Art) and on a 7D which at that point was already long in the tooth. And yes, my point was Fuji is much better than me (and Canon) at metering and image/color processing out of the camera. You could fault me for being bad at post-processing, knowing what needs to be done to make an image pop. (and I am awful at it)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Fuji has imho the only useable out of camera B&W conversions around. This is definitely subjective but it's great to run RAW+fine with a B&W setting and then have half the post work done if you want a monochrome version. The lens situation is definitely different for me as well when I shot Nikon I really only used a 28/50/85/105 combo not I own a 12/16/23/35/56 set and plan to get the 90 in the next year or so. Not sure if my tastes have changed or if the fact that there's tons of fast primes under a grand is the reason but i'm happy with their system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Lightroom still sucks at handling Fuji raws unfortunately, sharpening still doesn't really work and its hugely slower at processing, loading or viewing them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
Pulled the trigger on a used a6000 with the kit lens today because it was such a killer deal (used for $400). Would have definitely preferred the a5100's size and flip-screen but there's something to be said for a better deal on a camera with objectively superior controls and a viewfinder. I'm going to be sticking with the kit lens for a bit until my wallet recovers somewhat but I'm curious where I should go from there. The Sigma 30mm f2.8 looks like a killer deal at like ~$150 compared to the incredibly expensive sony option. What are some cool examples of non-native glass I could pick up for delightfully low low prices? I've been eyeing some minolta primes but I don't really know where to start for the most part. I have nothing against manual focus (especially with peaking) because I'm fine with shooting anything moving with the kit or the sigma 30.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:And yes, my point was Fuji is much better than me (and Canon) at metering and image/color processing out of the camera. You could fault me for being bad at post-processing, knowing what needs to be done to make an image pop. (and I am awful at it) I mean, that's fine, but, when you make correlation to dynamic range, you are faulting the sensor. I have yet to see an image shot with a higher dynamic range sensor past about 9-10EVs in raw that could not be corrected to visibly aproximate or nearly match another camera except for vs Foveon sensors. Past this, display deviation (even on calibrated displays) and ink limitations impact things way, way more. Fuji is a bit different looking because its not bayer but the tech, unlike Foveon, is pretty similar. What I usually see out of cameras that proclaim high dynamic range in on camera JPEG or otherwise is yellows turned green and vice versa that doesn't actually exist to the eye, and I'd rather deal with my cold blue images than that because at least Canon metering is reliable, even if reliably awful in many situations. That's why I carry grey cards, it's a cheap hack that insures accurate colors most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Not sure if my tastes have changed or if the fact that there's tons of fast primes under a grand is the reason but i'm happy with their system. This is what did it for me. Fuji found a great price point for desirable lenses that was profitable for them, without breaking the bank for their customers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
windex posted:What I usually see out of cameras that proclaim high dynamic range in on camera JPEG or otherwise is yellows turned green and vice versa that doesn't actually exist to the eye, and I'd rather deal with my cold blue images than that because at least Canon metering is reliable, even if reliably awful in many situations. That's why I carry grey cards, it's a cheap hack that insures accurate colors most of the time. So yes, that's the end product I made, here's the Silkypix JPEG presumably equal to out-of-camera JPEG, and for shits and giggles here's a recklessly pulled down export from Lightroom to show how much color was still in the highlights. LiquidRain fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 14:42
|
|