|
learnincurve posted:Few years ago one of the old men with Leica crowd gave me his x100 as he was getting a monochrome, the condition was that I was to use and abuse that camera and not to baby it and if I managed to break it then he would buy me a Leica. It's been rained on, dropped in mud, dropped into bracken water (decayed fern bog) and generally used and abused and the only thing wrong with it is that the stupid soft realise button keeps getting lost and the silver is scuffed a bit. The lesson I was taught was "don't baby your gear it's tougher then you think". this exactly, I treat my X100T like a Leica. I don't intentionally gently caress it up but I also don't baby it, it goes in my bag with just the lens hood and no lens cap all the time and it's still in great shape (given the x100t is a lot newer). Hopefully it will be in great working order when I go to upgrade to the x200 or whatever is next but if not I want to know I got my money's worth out of it for as long as I used it. These things are built beefy.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
Can I take a look at you guys' x100? The x100 models IMO have a lot more shiny painted (metal?) surface to get chipped off compare to the XE/XT series. The X100 models also have slightly higher quality buttons and switches.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
I went to take a picture of the X100 but then realised that it's not actually scuffed or chipped at all, it was just really really dirty, it's not painted btw it's die-cast magnesium. Having now cleaned it it looks brand new. I did have it in a after market leather case for a while but the case got ruined by aforementioned bracken water which really smells. Had to go after market on the case even though fujifilm's own version is supposed to be much hardier because the official one does not accommodate the hood, I don't bother with the cap, just use a filter and the hood.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
What are you people using for camera bags these days? I could just go to a shop and browse, but it seems like a lot of effort. I'd just want something big enough to hold the camera and a couple of lenses. I have a Crumpler bag but it's way too big so I'm selling it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
A bigger Crumpler bag? I like my 6 Million Dollar Home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Terry Bracket, Activate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
I just bought an Ona Prince Street, never imagined I'd drop so much much on a bag, but it is styling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Terry Bracket, Activate. Can you please tell me more about this
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
nerdrum posted:Can you please tell me more about this It's one of these, Supposedly T*Rich uses them on all his flashes for that hard flash/white wall look.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
It's a flash bracket that Terry Richardson is famous for using, something like this http://www.custombrackets.com/products/camera-flash-brackets/cb-mini-rc.html E:fb
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
psylent posted:What are you people using for camera bags these days? I could just go to a shop and browse, but it seems like a lot of effort. I've got a 5 million dollar home but the best crumpler i find is the inner bag (no idea what its called) that i have. Means i can use the other crumplers i have as camera bags too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Aargh posted:I've got a 5 million dollar home but the best crumpler i find is the inner bag (no idea what its called) that i have. Means i can use the other crumplers i have as camera bags too. Haven?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
psylent posted:What are you people using for camera bags these days? I could just go to a shop and browse, but it seems like a lot of effort. I hate to say it, but my favorite bag to use when I'm going with just my camera and a couple primes is an old lowepro slingshot 100 I have. It's super ugly, but it just works. I spin it around to the front and it's like a nice little work area to change lenses or whatever and when it's in back I hardly know it's there. It would be great if someone would make a more stylish bag with same size and functionality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
red19fire posted:It's one of these, Supposedly T*Rich uses them on all his flashes for that hard flash/white wall look. Supports TTL? Can you put a pillow diffuser in front of the cute flash?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Supports TTL? Can you put a pillow diffuser in front of the cute flash? It's just a metal bracket. Whatever cable or remote trigger you use with it may or may not support ttl.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
psylent posted:What are you people using for camera bags these days? I could just go to a shop and browse, but it seems like a lot of effort. I have a couple of Tenba DNA bags and they are awesome, though the top zipper entry on my 15" is starting to show wear. The 11 is just right for my Pen-F + Voigtlander 17.5 and flash + flash cable, I don't own a 13 but it'd probably do the job for you. I have been carrying a film rangefinder in my bag lately so I've been using the 15 to hold the insert from the 11 for the pen-f along with the rangefinder and some film. The 15 is also my 5D3 bag sometimes, so its definitely too big unless you need the huge laptop support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
psylent posted:What are you people using for camera bags these days? I could just go to a shop and browse, but it seems like a lot of effort. I like my Domke F2
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:Haven? That's the one
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
So I went to an airshow over the last 2 days, and I am not happy with the A7's EVF performance in bright sunlight. Normally I know that with a mirrorless, what you see isn't always what you get out, but in this airshow it was really hard, even with the histograms to tell how the outside image would look like. Is this an issue with mirrorless in b road daylight. (The photos I took turned out well, and that gimmick mirror lens rocks in broad daylight, while the 16-35 did its job taking photos of the static displays). Just a thing I noticed after around 16 hours of shooting in daylight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:So I went to an airshow over the last 2 days, and I am not happy with the A7's EVF performance in bright sunlight. Normally I know that with a mirrorless, what you see isn't always what you get out, but in this airshow it was really hard, even with the histograms to tell how the outside image would look like. Is this an issue with mirrorless in b road daylight. (The photos I took turned out well, and that gimmick mirror lens rocks in broad daylight, while the 16-35 did its job taking photos of the static displays). Just a thing I noticed after around 16 hours of shooting in daylight. Could you explain exactly how the performance did not meet your expectations and in what manner it did not match what you got? The EVF is fine on my A7S.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
For those of you with Sony cameras (the site doesn't specifically list which models work and which don't so I can't be more specific), looks like someone put together a firmware hack that removes the 30 minute recording limit and enables the language menu. https://github.com/ma1co/OpenMemories-Tweak
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
HPL posted:Could you explain exactly how the performance did not meet your expectations and in what manner it did not match what you got? The EVF is fine on my A7S. Ok, I've used my A7 for a year and change now, and its a great camera, but in the broad daylight, what I saw in the EVF (and its metering) did not match what I downloaded into lightroom. When using my 16-35 f4, I had to constantly decrease exposure to make the image match what I would have expected the EVF to show. Now I understand unlike say a DSLR where what you see is usually (not counting for say white ballance) is what you get, but the screen did not match 'reality'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
evf should be more accurate than OVFs which don't compensate for your exposure setup
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Ok, I've used my A7 for a year and change now, and its a great camera, but in the broad daylight, what I saw in the EVF (and its metering) did not match what I downloaded into lightroom. When using my 16-35 f4, I had to constantly decrease exposure to make the image match what I would have expected the EVF to show. Now I understand unlike say a DSLR where what you see is usually (not counting for say white ballance) is what you get, but the screen did not match 'reality'. Did you turn up the EVF brightness? I usually have to do that when I'm out in the sun. You're probably cranking up the exposure to compensate for a dim viewfinder set for indoor light levels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:I didn't loving say that you don't need to worry about salt water I said that not everyone needs to worry about salt water. Your post makes it seem like everyone ever will be next to the ocean at some point wielding a camera, which is simply not true. "Not how odds work" is when you seem to think that the probability of something malfunctioning this time in the rain is contingent on how many times it's been in the rain. Please do wear condoms since you seem to have trouble with basic poo poo like being mad at the internet when you are wrong. Wow, you seem like a real dick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Wow, you seem like a real dick. A dickish reply to another dickish post preceding it? On the Internet? How unusual and surprising. Nobody cares. --- Any advice on how to take high quality time lapses? Someone at my work mentioned qDslrDashboard and it supposedly works with my a7S but I haven't the faintest clue how to work it. Apparently there's some sort of optimization for adjusting camera settings?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:Any advice on how to take high quality time lapses? Someone at my work mentioned qDslrDashboard and it supposedly works with my a7S but I haven't the faintest clue how to work it. Apparently there's some sort of optimization for adjusting camera settings? I think Sony makes you buy an app to do this? If you need bulb/T mode, good luck, somebody I know of resorted to crazy poo poo - wiring their Canon remote shutter cable into an IR transmitter to pretend to be a wireless release.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:A dickish reply to another dickish post preceding it? On the Internet? How unusual and surprising. Nobody cares. Nah, not really. I don't see how somebody talking about why *they* need WR lenses makes them a dick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
windex posted:I think Sony makes you buy an app to do this? If you need bulb/T mode, good luck Wow, that's really hosed up. I thought the intervalometer feature was pretty much standard on newer cameras. That's not a cheap camera either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Nah, not really. I don't see how somebody talking about why *they* need WR lenses makes them a dick. Cause it was phrased as why everyone needs them and a bit misinforming? I mean yeah I was being a dick but this is the internet and that's a thing here. Maybe try Fred Miranda or something if you are uncomfortable with the posting on something awful because it only gets worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Cause it was phrased as why everyone needs them and a bit misinforming? I mean yeah I was being a dick but this is the internet and that's a thing here. Maybe try Fred Miranda or something if you are uncomfortable with the posting on something awful because it only gets worse. I've been here awhile but thanks for the advice 8th-snype!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:Wow, that's really hosed up. I thought the intervalometer feature was pretty much standard on newer cameras. That's not a cheap camera either. It would be hosed up if it were true, which it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I've been here awhile but thanks for the advice 8th-snype! oh well in that case go gently caress yourself
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
I seriously cannot believe you dicklocks actually made me come into the
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Anyone tried the Pentax Q series? How is it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:Anyone tried the Pentax Q series? How is it? They are the Lomography of digital cameras. How you interpret that speaks of you and you alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
windex posted:They are the Lomography of digital cameras. Not going to lie; if they were a bit cheaper or the sensor a bit bigger, I would buy one for funsies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
spog posted:Not going to lie; if they were a bit cheaper or the sensor a bit bigger, I would buy one for funsies. I do not disagree, but man they are expensive for what they are and the Ricoh GR II or even the new Olympus Tough that shoots raw cameras are nicer cameras for real use I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
windex posted:I do not disagree, but man they are expensive for what they are and the Ricoh GR II or even the new Olympus Tough that shoots raw cameras are nicer cameras for real use I think. But look at this:  So sweeet!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
what is pentax's obsession with tiny cameras? they tried this with a film SLR too, the pentax 110 system
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 16:15
|
|
