|
Pimp Drakula posted:The G series looks like it might be a good option for my budget, what are the primary differences between the GH series and the other model lines in Panasonic's MFT cameras? I've seen the G series, FZ series, and I believe a couple others, plus suffixes like the GH#K - are there certain major features that explain the price gaps that I might want to consider? The GH series are purpose built for video and I think are the only ones with a mic jack. The GH 2 had 1080, 3 has 4k I think and the 4 is even better at that. The 5 will have 6k I think. The G series is simply a solid camera, the g7 may even have 4k. They focus more on stills compared to the GH. These would be most similar to Oly's OMDs The GX series are rangefinder style with IBIS. The newer ones probably have 4k. I think there's a GM or F series that was discontinued, it's just more of a pocket camera.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
The GH is the flagship, so it should be compared to the OMD (well, to the upcoming E-M1 successor at least); the G-series is more consumer-oriented. The GM line isn't officially discontinued yet, but it looks like it will be - absolutely baffling, I love these little cameras and they really showcase the strengths and breadth of the format.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
I have a G7. It doesn't do "full" 4K (it's a very slightly smaller horizontal version of the 4K standard), it doesn't do video over 60 fps in 1080p, and it's not weatherproof. It also lacks an audio out jack if you want to monitor sound in, and you can't monitor video via HDMI while recording, though it has a pretty good wifi app if you want to use a tablet or phone. Other than all that, it's fantastic and I love it. It's essentially a slightly dumbed down GH4 otherwise. You just have to decide if the differences are deal breakers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Wengy posted:The GH is the flagship, so it should be compared to the OMD (well, to the upcoming E-M1 successor at least); the G-series is more consumer-oriented. The GM line isn't officially discontinued yet, but it looks like it will be - absolutely baffling, I love these little cameras and they really showcase the strengths and breadth of the format.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:With Fujis as good as they are there's not reason to run m43 besides price (on older bodies) and video. So dumb to drop the GM's instead of trying to actually compete if you take price out of the equation, then the same could be said about sony FF and fuji
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:The GH series are purpose built for video and I think are the only ones with a mic jack. The GH 2 had 1080, 3 has 4k I think and the 4 is even better at that. The 5 will have 6k I think. GH2 had 1080. It was good for its time. GH3 did 1080 only, but it was basically downsampled 4K so it outclassed most other HD video ILCs. GH4 does full 4K. Other consumer grade Panasonic cameras that do "4K" like the G7 and GX85 make "4K" video output from a significantly smaller area of their sensors than the GH series do, so there's a 4K 'crop factor' that's pretty significant and will make it hard to get wide angle shots. Honestly the GH3 is pretty sweet for serious amateur video. But the G7 is way more available. And about as cheap as you can find for "4K" without settling for a GoPro or iPhone. One thing you might look into before pulling the trigger on a G7 is how good it's 1080 video is. Just because a camera does 4K doesn't necessarily do HD video at a quality any better than an older Canon rebel or something. You're going to want something that can do video without cropping so much of the sensor if you ever want to go wider than around 30-35mm equivalent field of view and still get good quality video. I think dpreview has a video quality comparison thing that lets you assess still frame grabs from various cameras' video output at different resolutions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Just because a camera does 4K doesn't necessarily do HD video at a quality any better than an older Canon rebel or something. This is good advice. From my own experience, Sony's a6300 does really lovely 4K, but the 1080 footage looks awful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
The X-T1's price dropped here and I could get a body + XF 35mm f/2 R WR or body + XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS for the same price. Which combo should I get? If I get the latter, I'm planning to get the 35mm f/2 sooner or later anyway, but I'm concerned if just getting the prime would limit my shooting... I do portraiture, concert, and street photography, with the occasional family pictures. Everywhere I've read says the kit lens is great, but I'm wondering how does it match up to the prime. Also, if it helps, I've been shooting with my zoom lens locked to 35mm on my 550D and so far it's not bad...
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
I have the 18-55, 50-140 and 35. The 35 definitely sees the least use. It is a good lens - very sharp, fast af, but I find myself using the 18-55 way more (and the 50-145 as well but that is another thing altogether). The 18-55 is a great lens and if I had to choose I would definitely keep that over the 35 if I had to choose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
If you shoot all sorts of random stuff (like you said you do), the kit zoom is definitely a better first lens choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:The X-T1's price dropped here and I could get a body + XF 35mm f/2 R WR or body + XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS for the same price. Which combo should I get?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
So this is very specific to my Xpro1 maybe, or maybe not: I have three batteries. I went out for a walk today and every time I turned off my camera and left it off for more than a minute it would ask me for date/time when I powered back on. My first thought was that maybe the battery was low but the battery meter on the LCD showed full. So I was kind of panicking that my XPro1 was dead/dying. I switched the battery in there (3rd party) to one of the Fuji batteries I brought with me and everything started to work fine. Settings were retained past powerdown, haven't had a problem since. So I mean obviously the battery is dumb and bad and will meet its end in the
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Sounds like there's an internal battery for saving settings and the time that is dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
The aftermarket batteries might being not putting out enough voltage to charge the internal battery or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Fuji post processing question. I have tried with a few images to put together a provia user preset in Lightroom to get my raws looking like my sooc jpgs, starting with the camera profile of course and then making adjustments to sharpening and noise reduction and very small color, vibrancy and contrast adjustments. Other than not having a lens correction profile (come on Adobe, these are not new lenses) I cannot get the images to get quite as close as I would like. I mean, they are very close but in particular the light is just a little different - more contrast in the raw and just a slightly different tonality and I can't get it right with the clarity or contrast sliders to match the jpg. Normally I shoot raw + jpg and just say "gently caress it" and use the jpg almost every time but these shots are for a wedding and I would really like to maximize the quality (a few lost highlights in the wedding dress here and there, small things but big enough to me to want to fix them)...but I don't understand why I can't match my raw to the jpg a bit more exactly...black magic inside my x-t1?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Stumbled across this; I guess it's a mirrorless. (Olympus Air A01)  Kinda awkward because it's not really significantly smaller than a small mirrorless body, but I guess you could use it to disguise a big lens as a coffee mug or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
rio posted:Fuji post processing question. I have tried with a few images to put together a provia user preset in Lightroom to get my raws looking like my sooc jpgs, starting with the camera profile of course and then making adjustments to sharpening and noise reduction and very small color, vibrancy and contrast adjustments. Other than not having a lens correction profile (come on Adobe, these are not new lenses) I cannot get the images to get quite as close as I would like. I mean, they are very close but in particular the light is just a little different - more contrast in the raw and just a slightly different tonality and I can't get it right with the clarity or contrast sliders to match the jpg. Normally I shoot raw + jpg and just say "gently caress it" and use the jpg almost every time but these shots are for a wedding and I would really like to maximize the quality (a few lost highlights in the wedding dress here and there, small things but big enough to me to want to fix them)...but I don't understand why I can't match my raw to the jpg a bit more exactly...black magic inside my x-t1? What version of LR? Because lens correction is in there and its automatic, and there's straight up fuji profiles in calibration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Lhet posted:Stumbled across this; I guess it's a mirrorless. (Olympus Air A01) Sony did it first 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
If any X-T2 folks want to start scouring the manual before their camera arrives tomorrow, it's here: http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en-int/manual/x-t2/
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:What version of LR? Because lens correction is in there and its automatic, and there's straight up fuji profiles in calibration. Whatever the creative cloud version is. I just put it on this pc last week so I assume it gave the most up to date version - it has the various x100 camera lens profiles, a few primes but none of what I am using (18-55, 50-145 and 35)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
The correction is baked into the raw file and should already be there by default when you load it in LR.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Oh, it did mention something like that near lens profiles. Does the jpg not have correction then because when I compare the raws vs. their jpgs they are different in small ways (around the corners etc)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
rio posted:Whatever the creative cloud version is. I just put it on this pc last week so I assume it gave the most up to date version - it has the various x100 camera lens profiles, a few primes but none of what I am using (18-55, 50-145 and 35) It automatically applies lens correction, unless your 35mm (I assume f/2) looks like a fisheye it's working. If you need further distortion correction, and you shouldn't, just click the manual tab under lens correction. Fuji's in camera lens correction is likely going to be different than anything you get in post because they designed the lenses so they have the most accurate profiles but I've honestly never noticed an appreciable difference. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Ok, that makes sense. It is not a huge difference or anything - just enough that made me doubt that correction was happening in Lightroom, like seeing leaves in different places at in the corners.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
With both Olympus and Sony doing these, I really though we'd be seeing SOMETHING out of them. I mean, I never thought they'd 'take off', but somebody must be using them to do unique street photography/embedded cameras/drone stuff/creepshots. But I've seen nothing about anyone using them at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Yeah Oly kinda quietly announced that AIR thing a year or so ago, but I'm not really sure what they're meant to do. It's some weird middle ground between using a mirrorless camera and your phone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Yeah Oly kinda quietly announced that AIR thing a year or so ago, but I'm not really sure what they're meant to do. It's some weird middle ground between using a mirrorless camera and your phone. Well the idea is pretty solid. If you don't need a control interface for a camera, it can be as small as the lens mount and sensor. Most people who can afford photo gear have a control interface in their pocket that offers more options and just as much interactibility than a physical camera body can provide. Let people use their phone for control and just concentrate on the optics so that you can have a nice camera that's as portable as a phone and a lens. I've literally never seen one in use however. If you already have a bunch of compatible lenses, I can see a case for buying one as an ultraportable option but for everyone else, the price is the same as a very nice compact and you still need to buy at least one lens to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Well the idea is pretty solid. If you don't need a control interface for a camera, it can be as small as the lens mount and sensor. Most people who can afford photo gear have a control interface in their pocket that offers more options and just as much interactibility than a physical camera body can provide. Let people use their phone for control and just concentrate on the optics so that you can have a nice camera that's as portable as a phone and a lens. Seriously. I'd think this would be a godsend for shy street photographers — hold the lens in any position, look all nonthreatening as you stare at your phone. Yet, apparently, no dice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
You could probably do some pretty creative stuff with it attached to something small like Oly's 12mm f/2.0 The oly AIR is also what's all the way at the back of that awesome picture of the guy's shoulder-mounted 90-250mm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
I think a more likely use for them, and possibly why you don't see them out and about, is they'd be excellent for certain specific kinds of professional studio work. Stop motion animation, photographing or filming experiments remotely (like in a clean room or something), macro work, etc. would all be things I could see the format being useful for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I think a more likely use for them, and possibly why you don't see them out and about, is they'd be excellent for certain specific kinds of professional studio work. Stop motion animation, photographing or filming experiments remotely (like in a clean room or something), macro work, etc. would all be things I could see the format being useful for. But that's just tablet/phone control, which plenty of cameras have anyways (along with a shape that doesn't roll). The thing that sets these apart is the size and appearance, and all that really comes to mind is having a stealthy setup (that still isn't as stealthy as a gopro, but offers full control). All I can really think of is...street photography? (though TBH it's not a bad value just as a mirrorless).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
I could see a drone rigged out with something like one of those, but maybe they don't have the operational range to be useful for that purpose. Seems like it would be kind of a pain to try and use with a zoom lens, since you always have to be holding the phone as well. The DXO One always struck me as appearing kind of awkward to use for the same reason. Although at least the AIRs don't have a physical connection that looks like it would snap off in your phone's cable port if you picked it up the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
The problem with all of those is that the UI design is hot loving doodoo. Have you seen the lag on wifi remote first party apps?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Could be interesting for people who want to attach a camera to a microscope/telescope but don't want/can't attach a full-weight camera to their rig.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I could see a drone rigged out with something like one of those, but maybe they don't have the operational range to be useful for that purpose. I was thinking about that myself, but I couldn't find anything in reviews about its effective range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Immediate X-T2 unboxing thoughts:
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
where'd you order yours? amazon.ca just sent me a er .. very pessimistic shipping estimate. hopefully they're just sandbagging / haven't taken into account that i should be pretty early in line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Amazon.com, and really late too -- maybe 2 weeks ago? They still managed to get it to me on release date. It sounds like B&H was a disaster on this release; not receiving many units and not starting shipping until today. Adorama had it in stock with free overnight shipping as of a few hours ago. I'm not sure how Canadian vendors have done with the release.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
I had my name down on a waiting list at two separate camera stores and called this morning to find out that they already sold out their units before they got to my name, so I looked around and saw that london drugs had them "in stock" on the website. I called to confirm and they told me they had a bunch in stock at the vancouver warehouse and if I ordered one, it would get here by tuesday. the website still shows it as "in stock" but who knows how often that is updated. maybe nobody thinks to buy pro camera gear at a drug store.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
I don't need an XT-2, my XT-1 is just fine. I don't need an XT-2, my XT-1 is just fine. I don't need an XT-2, my XT-1 is just fine. I don't need an XT-2, my XT-1 is just fine. I don't need an XT-2, my XT-1 is just fine. I don't need an XT-2, my XT-1 is just fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:37
|
|