|
Not sure if there's an answer to this question but -- I'm in the market for a new mirrorless camera and I've settled on either the Olympus PEN E-PL7 or the OM-D E-M10. I can currently get them for $549.99 and $599.99 CAD respectively, on sale at Henry's (not sure if there's a better Canadian price atm). I have a trip in August that I want the camera for in particular. However, it looks like newer models will be coming out end of summer/September. Are the E-PL7 or E-M10 likely to become scarce or disappear before the new models come out and/or will they drop further in price as we get closer to the new models' release date, or should I just pull the trigger and buy now? Mr. Wookums posted:If you don't mind buying used an em10 or em5 can be found for cheap, probably the pl7 too. There's a PL8 coming out soon which should have the same pricepoint as the pl7 now if you must get new. I figure I'll use it til it falls apart, or will use it as a stepping stone to something better if it photography becomes a hobby - either way, if i can save a some money on a sale price, I'd rather get the current gen than hold out for the next one. I'd rather buy new, though. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 04:02 on May 30, 2016 |
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
Oh, god manual lenses are crazy fun on an X-E1. Why didn't I try this a year ago?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
I have a Canon m39 50mm on mine that hasn't come off since I mounted it a few months ago. It's a great fit for that body. https://www.instagram.com/p/BCved9pkBb9/
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
If you don't mind buying used an em10 or em5 can be found for cheap, probably the pl7 too. There's a PL8 coming out soon which should have the same pricepoint as the pl7 now if you must get new.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
trump, I don't really see what the appeal of the EPL7 is when the EM10 is just $50 more and has an EVF. EVF's are nice to have. Going without on a smaller camera is fine imo but if the savings in price and size/weight are negligible (as is the case here, it seems to me), go with the one that has an EVF. The EM10mkII is already out and is still pretty new so I wouldn't bank on there being a replacement for it coming out very soon. That means you should be able to find an EM10mkI fairly cheap and not have to worry about a newer better coming out and usurping it any time soon, because it already has been.
SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 04:43 on May 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:On of the things that deflated my appreciation for my a6000 was the massive amount of HDR and bad travel snapshots that people seemed to take with it on Flickr. I guess its wider availability is part of the reason for that. Weird thing to gaf about, I know. To be fair, those bad snaps are the bread and butter of these companies. We should all rejoice at seeing tons of bad photos, as long as they exist and aren't taken on an smartphone, nobody is going bankrupt anytime soon. The real problem with the above is keeping the boutique, MF and other speciality lens manufacturers from going under, because without them eventually camera manufacturers will produce nothing but cost reduced automatic only lenses like Nikon did for the Nikon 1, with no focus rings and powered "zoom" like a point and shoot.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:trump, I don't really see what the appeal of the EPL7 is when the EM10 is just $50 more and has an EVF. EVF's are nice to have. Going without on a smaller camera is fine imo but if the savings in price and size/weight are negligible (as is the case here, it seems to me), go with the one that has an EVF. The EM10mkII is already out and is still pretty new so I wouldn't bank on there being a replacement for it coming out very soon. That means you should be able to find an EM10mkI fairly cheap and not have to worry about a newer better coming out and usurping it any time soon, because it already has been. I had a look at the deal Henry's has last night and it's actually the EM10 Mk ii that's for sale for $649, not the Mk i. http://m.henrys.com/91649-OLYMPUS-OM-D-E-M10-II-BODY-BLACK.aspx Decent deal. The EM5 ii is $900.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
ya boy is getting some too-good-to-pass-up deals on fuji lenses from a friend who's leaving the system, so i'm probably going to make the switch because i'm stupid and hate having money. i was thinking of ebay renting an x-e1 or x-e2 while i wait for the x-t2 so i can play with my new toys, but i'm surprised at how much they seem to cost still. ballpark i'm seeing x-e1 for 360 shipped or an x-e2 for around 600 shipped, both CAD. does that sound about right? do y'all thnk i'd be able to make most of my money back on that later this year/next year/whenever? is there somewhere i should be looking (especially in canada) other than craigslist, ebay and keh? thanks pals
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
I deal with USA ameros so I'm not sure but $360 shipped for an x-e1 seems just a tad high. About $300 shipped is isn't that far off though. Used x-e2's are a bit more likely to hold their value, as they have been subject to more recent firmware updates and have better AF performance.. That said, I have an x-e1 that I could sell. Full disclosure, it fell off the top of my car while I was driving, but the metal L-bracket and lens (  ) took the brunt of damage from the impact. I was actually kind of impressed to see that the body still functions just fine; it's a pretty solid little camera. There is a nice gash in the top of the exposure comp dial, but as far as I can tell, it's purely cosmetic. If you're interested, I can make a post in the buy/sell thread. Shipping from Texas might cut into the discount a bit, though. I actually popped into this thread just to say that I picked up a used Lumix 20mm 1.7 for my e-m10, and it's sharp as hell and tiny and I love it. As of right now (after losing the fuji 35mm 1.4 to the asphalt ( ) it's the fastest electronic lens I own, and it's nice having that flexibility back. The AF is a little slow, but you can't have it all for $200.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
depends how much of a discount we're talking about i guess? i'll be visiting the folks back home pretty soon so the shipping could be within the US if the timing works out right. maybe PM me and we can sort it out there ahead of making it official? edit: and yeah the canadian dollar is way in the toilet right now so 360 CAD would be like 275 USD Twenty-Seven fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Jun 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Is there a site somewhere that has a full list of lenses across mounts and lets you drill down? I'm looking for something in the 20-27mm range to mount for cheap, preferably M42 so I can also use it on my film body.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Anybody have experience with bulb mode shutter + second curtain flash on Panasonic? I have a DMC-G5 and can set the bulb mode shutter, but as soon as I set the flash to second curtain sync it resets to a timed shutter. It seems this is not a permitted combination of settings based on this thread: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3354429 Anybody know of a way around this? Or maybe a reason why it isn't supported? I'm not that experienced but as far as I can tell this is supported by many other DSLR/mirrorless cameras.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
I ended up keeping the X-E2 and returning the a6300 and GX85. It doesn't feel as fast as the a6300, and I'll miss the tilting screen and faster autofocus, BUT the controls are much better and the pictures look as good and the JPEGS/colors look better AND it + 18-55 kit lens was literally less than half the price of the a6300 + lens. And there are multiple lenses for Fuji I want to buy and can afford! I'm amped. Prob going to grab another lens for it while the sale is happening. I'm thinking either the 35mm f2 for $300 or 16mm f1.4 for $700. Any of you have experience with these two lenses? Both are appealing to me in different ways, but I'm leaning toward the 35mm because of smaller size/weight & lower price (both focal lengths would be cool to have, though the 18-55 almost covers both of them anyway). BUT my main question is how do you all process Fuji RAW files? I like Lightroom and would like to use it if possible (especially bc my company pays for it), BUT I know it doesn't do great with Fuji files. Any tips?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
grahm posted:BUT my main question is how do you all process Fuji RAW files? I like Lightroom and would like to use it if possible (especially bc my company pays for it), BUT I know it doesn't do great with Fuji files. Any tips? Thread has been over this before, but the issue is that Fuji's jpeg engine is very good, not that Fuji raws are bad in LR. LR knows all about Fuji's non-bayer sensors, with the exception of a few tools in the prior release (latest release seems fixed, per dpreview users). You have to do a lot of work to a raw from any camera to get them to look as good as Fuji's jpegs out of camera. Including Fuji raws. LR knows nothing about Fuji's presets, as the only presets it has that do anything to emulate camera settings down this line are for Nikon and Canon, and mostly Canon, and those are 90% just tone curve color presets - Fuji's jpeg dynamic range recovery is more complicated. This may or may not be Adobe's fault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
grahm posted:
I have both lenses and love them. Both are sharp and fast to autofocus. I slightly favor the 35 f2 for the form factor and with the aftermarket vented lens hood it just looks titties. If you get the 16, the aftermarket square hood also makes it look titties. I processed a few RAWs in light room and it seemed fine to me, but I'm a poo poo photographer so take that with a grain of salt. I didn't find a huge bonus in RAW for the type of shooting I do and enjoy the speed of the JPGs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Between the 35/2 and the 16/1.4, I went with the 16mm. It seen to have bigger discount, also the XT1's electronic shutter can shoot it wide open any time of the day. As for Fuji RAW process, I use Capture One Pro. If you are cross shopping the 16mm/1.6 and the 14mm/2.8, my quick comment is that the 16mm is fast enough to separate the front ground even if you are shooting full portrait. It's actually a pretty good travel lens. And not as big as the spec indicates. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
The 16mm is the tits and is probably their best prime in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
The 16mm is definitely their sharpest piece of glass, I love mine. I'd get that first since you have the 18-55mm to cover 35mm in pinch, f/1.4 and super close focus are pretty sweet. LR definitely works but is slower and clunkier than capture one when doing Fuji RAWs. The XE-2 should be fine but after doing one wedding in it with the Xpro2 I'm not gonna bother in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
windex posted:Thread has been over this before, but the issue is that Fuji's jpeg engine is very good, not that Fuji raws are bad in LR. LR knows all about Fuji's non-bayer sensors, with the exception of a few tools in the prior release (latest release seems fixed, per dpreview users). Counterpoint - Lots of people are totally fine with Fuji RAWs in LR and don't worry with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
hi liter posted:Counterpoint - Lots of people are totally fine with Fuji RAWs in LR and don't worry with it. Yeah, I don't shoot Fuji I just wanted to summarize objections to date. I do think Fuji's ooc jpegs are pretty great though, they just don't have a camera I want to own (I mostly went MFT for image quality + DOF at FOV + lens selection as a three item set, APS-C != MFT for DOF, etc).
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
hi liter posted:Counterpoint - Lots of people are totally fine with Fuji RAWs in LR and don't worry with it. [muttering grumpily] Lots of people spent a hideous amount of money on a very expensive camera with the best lenses because they wanted the very best image quality and colours, only to let Light Room gently caress them up because they couldn't' be arsed to batch convert to .tiff in MyFinePix Studio. It's fujifim, if they wanted camera without quirks then they would have been better off with a panasonic. More money than sense if you ask me [/muttering]
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:[muttering grumpily] Lots of people spent a hideous amount of money on a very expensive camera with the best lenses because they wanted the very best image quality and colours, only to let Light Room gently caress them up because they couldn't' be arsed to batch convert to .tiff in MyFinePix Studio. It's fujifim, if they wanted camera without quirks then they would have been better off with a panasonic. More money than sense if you ask me [/muttering] keep muttering, Fuji's cameras are very (in)expensive compared to competitors in the market. I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again, Lightroom's raw handling of Fuji images works just great for my workflow. I have an x100t and an xt1 and I handle everything through Lightroom and it's never made me lose any sleep. I import the raws, apply the camera profile I used initially (typically provia) and then bump clarity & vibrance a touch and it looks amazing. If you are looking for the exact perfect color that Fuji's in camera image processing provides then why not just shoot jpeg and call it good? If you want to edit your photos then shoot raw and do whatever you want to make it look as good as you feel it can. Can we close the door on the Fuji raw+lightroom thing already? It's really not bad at all. If I didn't read this thread I probably never would have realized people complained about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Fuji x-t10 user here, just wrapping up 3 weeks in Russia and the baltics with the 16, 27, and 35mm lenses. 16mm definitely got the most use. When I was feeling lazy for the day I just threw the 27mm on. 35mm was really nice change from 16 though when I wanted some more focused shots. Shot in RAW+jpeg the whole trip but running out of card space in these last 3 days and I might switch to just jpeg. Haven't played with the other film types simulations or weird alternate settings. Any you guys recommend shooting with for a while? Lots of outdoors and architecture stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
If you're shooting architecture, I like Classic Chrome. The 16 is truly an all-day lens. Wide enough, plenty sharp, opens up nice and fast for when the light gets low. For Europe, the only thing that can surpass it would be the 10-24 in dark museums and cathedrals. At 10mm you can get off shots that are sharp at 1/2 second exposure or slower, especially if you can brace against a wall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Opioid posted:... My go on simulations are S+200% or V+400%. I shot with 2 Eye-Fi cards in 2 cameras. If I am out alone, I shoot slow enough that it's more convenience to let the cards sync RAW+jpg files to my tablet with WiFi. But on the memorial long weekend road trip I went with friends and family, I shot too much during the days and I had to move all the files to the tablet with USB reader and OTG adopter. You can get a 128GB or 200GB microsd card on your tablet for pretty cheap nowadays. You can also backup the files to a 2nd card if you want to. BTW I brought an off camera speedlight/softbox setup with me. It's so much fun to bring it out on mountain top and other scenic locations. It's totally worth the hassle. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Someone should 3D print me a flash bounce that slides under the pop-up flash on my X-T10 and into the hot shoe. E: Actually they exist but they're super ugly. Gross. Huxley fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jun 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
FWIW, B&H is having a sale on Fuji cameras and lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Here's one for the Lightroom Fuji X-Trans spergs out there. One of these came from an RAF I applied the fuji profile to in lightroom, the other from an in-camera JPEG. I did some minor level adjustments to both, mostly clarity/vibrance/saturation. Both edited in Lightroom 6.5. Tell me which one looks better? These are from my x100t. feel free to view at original resolution on flickr.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
The snow seems to have a gray/blue-ish hue to it in the top one, so I like the bottom a little better. That's a quick glance on a phone though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
DJExile posted:The snow seems to have a gray/blue-ish hue to it in the top one, so I like the bottom a little better. That's a quick glance on a phone though. Weird, looks the total opposite to me. I guess the snow is whiter in the second one, but the dog has more blue around the nose and eyes. My monitor is probably junk though. First one looks better to me after looking on an iPad. Choicecut fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
My money is on the RAW converter compressed the highlight in the first pic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
E- nm. Slow 3g connection!
Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
I like the first one better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
i like the bottom one better but i'm a sucker for higher contrast stuff. The bottom looks like the sooc jpeg to me. Velvia I assume.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
So I just got hired for a wedding in September. I am nervous about it because I sold my Canon gear, but when I did have it I just used a 5D, a Tamron 28-75 2.8 and a Tamron 70-200 2.8. Having sold that for money for food and booze at the lowest point during my separation, I am now rebuilding but with Fuji. When I got my X-T1 I got it with the kit lens and the 35 f2. I love the 35 but realistically I don't know how much use it will see at the wedding. I know I need a longer lens - I assume the 50-140 2.8 is the way to go? Any reason to get it with the teleconverter? The 100-400 is intriguing but in real life I don't know how useful it would be. Also, I got good results with good planning and just the one 5D body and the two lenses. Oh wait, actually I did always have my old X100 on my side, which was useful...I guess my old NEX-5N could serve that purpose since I still have the glass. Theoretically, though, just the X-T1 and the kit lens + the 50-140 offers the same range as what I had with the Canon setup. There is also the 16-55 2.8 but I should have passed on the kit lens if I were planning on getting that huh? Sorry this is disjointed. Any advice appreciated. E: p.s. I like the bottom doge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
I just did a wedding with two bodies and 90% of my shots were on the 16, 23, and 56mm. I used the 35mm a couple of times but could have used the something else fpr almost every one of those shots. Maybe rent a 2nd XT-1 and a couple of lenses, unless this is an excuse to buy the 50-140 then totally get that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
It is partially an excuse. Renting a second body is a good idea. Another option is the 90 f2...I have some money to burn and am not trying to buy it all but I could put the money into more primes like you mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Shooting with primes is different from shooting with zooms though. The 23 and 56 will definitely have a place in your prime kit while the 16 or 90 would be depend on how much space you have on location, or your personal style. Easy way out is just to get the 16-55 and 50-140 though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
rio posted:It is partially an excuse. Renting a second body is a good idea. Another option is the 90 f2...I have some money to burn and am not trying to buy it all but I could put the money into more primes like you mentioned. I don't know about your style or the venue but as frequently mentioned the 16mm f/1.4 is great. Looking at my last wedding and I honestly could have shot all of it with the 18-55mm and the 16mm. That would have necessitated me using more flash and not having nearly as much control over my DOF while doing the formals but it could have been done. It was a small venue on a lake with big windows though so YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
DJExile posted:The snow seems to have a gray/blue-ish hue to it in the top one, so I like the bottom a little better. That's a quick glance on a phone though. Choicecut posted:Weird, looks the total opposite to me. I guess the snow is whiter in the second one, but the dog has more blue around the nose and eyes. My monitor is probably junk though. whatever7 posted:My money is on the RAW converter compressed the highlight in the first pic. grahm posted:I like the first one better. Nondescript Van posted:i like the bottom one better but i'm a sucker for higher contrast stuff. The bottom looks like the sooc jpeg to me. Velvia I assume. rio posted:E: p.s. I like the bottom doge. Sorry guys, I'm a bad person, it was a trick. They were both the same raw file just processed two different ways in Lightroom. First was the Provia profile albeit with a healthy saturation bump, second was the Velvia profile. Lightroom's raw processing of Xtrans .RAF files works just great, neither of these took more than maybe 20-30 seconds of processing to get the results I wanted. Don't pretend like Lightroom's handling of Fuji raws should ever be a factor in making a camera buying decision. If you like using a workflow that includes captureone or importing tiffs or whatever then great, by all means keep doing it, but stop pretending like Lightroom struggles with Fuji raw files. It handles them just fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 05:34
|
|