|
It's a handsome camera. Most of the video was shot by EM1 though.
whatever7 fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Oct 11, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
I'm selling some Fuji lenses in SA Mart (16mm F1.4 and 35mm F2) if anyone is interested. A while back someone said I could accomplish my photography needs with an X-E2 and the 18-55 and they were RIGHT. Maybe someday I'll be able to or want to justify spending $$$ but today is not that day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
JSW2 posted:I love my 16-55; it's definitely my go to lens. Despite having a good set of Fuji primes, I'd say it and the 50-140 make up 90% of my photos from the X-T1. It is large, and therefore a bit of a pain to handle (especially in low-light scenarios), but the sharpness and definition are awesome and the focal length is very flexible. Good to hear. I think I'm going to offload the 16mm and get one. I've got the square hood for the 16 so I'm thinking I can get 775-800 ish if I throw in some filters. The 2.8 zoom should be handy for chasing my 2 little poo poo heads too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Hopefully this is the right thread to ask for this, but I need recommendations for a Sony camera rental. It'll be used mainly for food photography, and maybe some kitchen shots at a local restaurant. Should I go for the A7R II ($175/day), or the A7S II ($165/day)? I'll be using it with my 18-105mm and my Sonnar T* FE 55mm. I usually shoot with an NEX-5, but it's a terrible, outdated camera and I need something half-decent to use until I can get my hands on the a6500. melon cat fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
melon cat posted:Hopefully this is the right thread to ask for this, but I need recommendations for a Sony camera rental. It'll be used mainly for food photography, and maybe some kitchen shots at a local restaurant. For something like food photography, I'd think the extra resolution of the R would be way worth it. Photos from the S will be small, especially using the crop lens. edit: Unless you'll be editing the photos on a really crappy computer, in which case the smaller images can be kind of a boon. Shart Carbuncle fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
I'd compare the regular 7 to the 7r and not consider the s at all if it's for stills.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Just curious but why does the Fuji XF 16-55 not have OIS? Was it a deliberate thing? Would Fuji release an update in the future? It feels strange that the 18-55 would have it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:Just curious but why does the Fuji XF 16-55 not have OIS? Was it a deliberate thing? Would Fuji release an update in the future? It feels strange that the 18-55 would have it. They didn't wanna make it any bigger, OIS would have added bulk, especially to a constant-aperture zoom. It's a big lens already and it would have made their APS-C size advantage moot. Hopefully one day Fuji cameras will have IBIS
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
melon cat posted:Hopefully this is the right thread to ask for this, but I need recommendations for a Sony camera rental. It'll be used mainly for food photography, and maybe some kitchen shots at a local restaurant. Go with the R. Also, if the rental place has one for a reasonable rate, get the Sony FE 90mm macro as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Wikipedia Brown posted:For something like food photography, I'd think the extra resolution of the R would be way worth it. Photos from the S will be small, especially using the crop lens. Finger Prince posted:Go with the R. Also, if the rental place has one for a reasonable rate, get the Sony FE 90mm macro as well. I was eyeing the 90mm, but unfortunately the local rental place doesn't have any. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
I just received a 300mm nikon AF lens. My intention is to use it with nikon film cameras, and adapted on my EM10. When I attach it to my EM10 and set the camera's IBIS manual focal length to 300mm, the IBIS makes a weird sound when it engages. OM-D users here are probably familiar with the faint hissing sound that the IBIS makes when it's active. With the Nikon 300mm, there's the typical hissing sound, in addition to a kind of faint 'wah wah' ... it's not especially loud, and the IBIS works, but I'm a little worried that the sensor might start spinning around rapidly and cut it's way out of the camera, or explode into tiny pieces and damage the lens. I know there's at least one other poster here who has adapted an older 300mm SLR lens to an OM-D. Does a different, faster and more intense sound emanate from an OM-D when adapted long lenses are attached? My EM10 still makes normal sounds with a Lumix 20mm m43 or adapted Nikon 50mm AI-S.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I know there's at least one other poster here who has adapted an older 300mm SLR lens to an OM-D. Does a different, faster and more intense sound emanate from an OM-D when adapted long lenses are attached? thaaaaaaat's me  The 350mm f/2.8 makes it a bit noisy, but i also always keep it attached to a monopod so that helps things a bit. I also have an 800mm mirror lens and the IBIS goes nuts with that. It basically makes a pretty loud grinding noise. I'll see if I can get a video of it for you tonight when I get home. I know the EM-10 IBIS is a little different from the EM-1, I think it's only 3 steps but yeah I wouldn't worry too much about the noise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Animal posted:They didn't wanna make it any bigger, OIS would have added bulk, especially to a constant-aperture zoom. It's a big lens already and it would have made their APS-C size advantage moot. I see. And yeah, IBIS would be great. I mean, the upcoming Sony a6500 is going to have it, which should put some pressure on Fuji to keep up. A little off-topic, but my friend's X-E2 and 35mm 1.4 got stolen in his office. He works at a call center, which attracts all sorts of terrible people. I'm saddened because he's been posting this cool street/portraiture series on Facebook featuring this girl whom he may or may not be dating and it was counting down to something. drat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:I see. And yeah, IBIS would be great. I mean, the upcoming Sony a6500 is going to have it, which should put some pressure on Fuji to keep up. I have/had cameras that had IBIS and honestly all it lets you do is gain a few stops of stability to an already death gripped camera. So if you can shoot at 1/30 handheld with reasonable results for you, you might get 1/8. If your subject moves the rules are no different than if shooting at 1/8 normally. At 1/30, you are only 3 stops off from 1/250, and if your camera RAW can't be pushed +3 EVs in Lr to a satisfactory result, that's probably a bigger issue. I do get why people like IBIS as a concept, but you could also just idk use a faster shutter and eat the depth of field loss or ISO performance degradation to get a sharper subject than the resulting blur off the 1/8 exposure. IBIS is also worthless on long telephoto lenses which need optical stabilization to be used on anything but well secured tripods. Not saying any of this to defend Fuji, more so that in general the idea of IBIS in a photographer's mind is a bigger conceptual deal than it actually is in execution, at least if you shoot living things, and landscape photographers hate stabilization systems since it causes problems with tripods so it's not for them either. Overall, having shot both ways, I prefer simply using a faster shutter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
windex posted:I have/had cameras that had IBIS and honestly all it lets you do is gain a few stops of stability to an already death gripped camera. So if you can shoot at 1/30 handheld with reasonable results for you, you might get 1/8. If your subject moves the rules are no different than if shooting at 1/8 normally. At 1/30, you are only 3 stops off from 1/250, and if your camera RAW can't be pushed +3 EVs in Lr to a satisfactory result, that's probably a bigger issue. I haven't tried using a faster shutter speed and correcting the underexposure in post, but my current body (Canon 550D) is old so it's probably not viable until I get my X-T1 this weekend. I do have problems handholding my camera to get sharp pictures below 1/60 so I don't know how much technique could fix that (I've only started shooting since February). Thanks for the tip though!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
windex posted:I have/had cameras that had IBIS and honestly all it lets you do is gain a few stops of stability to an already death gripped camera. I agree with all of this for photos (though I'd still rather have IBIS as an option than not), BUT for video IBIS is very useful for anything handheld. With Fuji, if you want to shoot handheld video you pretty much need to be using a lens with OSS, which is a bit of a bummer if something cool happens in the moment and you have a prime on the camera. This didn't really matter for Fuji before, but now that video on the X-T2 looks really nice, it would be nice to have. Still, overall agree that it is not essential but also it would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
I am going to get some money to blow on camera stuff in November. I have an X-T1 but I really want the X-T2 - both because of the obvious upgrades but also so that I can use my X-T1 as a second body. I am also going to get another lens but I wanted some recommendations. The 16-55 talk reminds me that I would like that , and I would be awesome to have that on one body and my 50-145 2.8 on the other. My other three lenses are the 18-55, 35 f2 and the 23 1.4. The 23mm, which is new to me, is really impressive and it is nice to get close to the dof that I was used to from when I was shooting full frame before I moved to Fuji so I am curious about their other primes now. Whatever lens I get will be somewhat redundant since I have all the focal lengths that I use often except anything at 16mm. So that makes me think that the 16-55 would make sense, and looking at image quality between the 16-55 and 18-55 there is a definite upgrade, particularly with contrast (the contrast of the 16-55 reminds me of the contrast I am getting with the 23mm which I like). But I could also see getting a whole lot of use from the 56mm 1.2 - similarly to the 23mm, it would get me back around the dof I was used to with full frame and I do shoot people a lot and know that I would use it a lot. But then again, right now I use the 50-145 for portrait work and am very happy with it. So unless I am missing a lens that should be getting my attention (and let me know if I am), I am probably going to be deciding between the 56 and the 16-55. Both offer something that I don't have right now with the lenses I already own but both are also somewhat redundant. On one hand the 16-55 is a definite image quality upgrade across that whole range except for shooting at 23mm or 50+mm but on the other hand having f1.2 for portrait work is incredibly appealing to me. And having two bodies, I could see justifying either since having the 23mm in one body and the 56mm on the other would be just great, but having the 16-55 and the 50-145 on the other would also be awesome. Help me with my first world problems - I have a few weeks to decide but really any input would help if anyone has experience with either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
The video point is a good one; I have never attempted to shoot video on a camera. I usually remap the video record buttons etc to other functions. I do know that I am annoyed at the pricing on the a7s/a7sii because of the video features, as a low light stills camera its a monster, but it's probably $1k overpriced for me for that purpose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
rio posted:So unless I am missing a lens that should be getting my attention (and let me know if I am)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
windex posted:Not saying any of this to defend Fuji, more so that in general the idea of IBIS in a photographer's mind is a bigger conceptual deal than it actually is in execution, at least if you shoot living things, and landscape photographers hate stabilization systems since it causes problems with tripods so it's not for them either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
I'd have to double check, but I think the GX85 will combine ibis and ois with compatible lenses. Anyway, stabilization is a very nice thing to have for specific applications, like hand held macro and night/low light shooting. Perhaps not essential, but useful enough to take the frustration out of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:I haven't tried using a faster shutter speed and correcting the underexposure in post, but my current body (Canon 550D) is old so it's probably not viable until I get my X-T1 this weekend. I do have problems handholding my camera to get sharp pictures below 1/60 so I don't know how much technique could fix that (I've only started shooting since February). Thanks for the tip though! The usual rule for handholding at slow shutter speeds is that you shouldn't be handholding if your shutter speed is slower than the inverse of your (full-frame equivalent) focal length. In other words, if you have a 50mm lens, then you should be ok to hold it down to ~1/50s. A 300mm lens will need support below ~1/300s and so on. Obviously this will also depend on other factors like the stability of whatever you are standing on, high winds, etc. You can try at slower speeds, you need to brace and prepare for it though. If you can hold your camera against something like a tree or utility pole, that will help. You can also try bracing yourself against something, holding the camera so that the neckstrap is taut and slowing your breathing down. You might get a stop or two more doing that but really, that's when you should be busting out a monopod or tripod.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
Also keep in mind, I am mostly talking about photographing living subjects. People don't always hold still for any length of time, even if they're expecting photos. Once you have a tripod, the stabilization doesn't matter. So the main benefit is for people who shoot !living things at slow shutters handheld in relative darkness, which is a drat small number of people for stills when taking into account the image quality at higher ISOs and recoverable range in raw files on the same modern cameras with stabilization. The argument about pixel shift / astro and horizon correction, as well as video needs, makes more sense. But for general stills photography... pixel shift and the other high res shot modes require multiple exposures, which requires a tripod to get right anyway. Same with the astrotracer and horizon correction modes. At the end of the day being able to handhold under 1/30ish for stills is not a huge gain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Wrt ibis, I feel it's meant for photographers like me who mainly shoot events. Because I mainly shoot events like conventions, I am always on the move for everything but mass photo shoots. Not every convention center has godly light and that light exists only in the daylight. Now ISO performance for my a7 is bad (it's good enough for Instagram and Facebook below 2000 but I still hate it because it's so noisy). Ibis (main reason why I am planning to go for an a7 II) would enable me to shoot at lower shutter speeds (and for the a7 which has my 16-35 glued on to it would be awesome) without raising ISO. My dream canon mirrorless would have ibis for say my 50-100 or hell other unstablized lower primes because I love the camera but unless i shoot at really fast speeds I will run the risk of the shot not being well hyper focus (or I drop down to F 3.5 but with light that is an issue.) Also ibis with 5 action is always helpful because even with the shutter rule there is always forward rotational motion unless you have the lens on a tripod at lower shutter speeds being a factor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
A decent IS implementation also opens up the possibly of doing intentional-motion-blur shots when and where a tripod isn't practical. Particularly on wide angle shots, yet this is where lenses tend to lack IS (and hence IBIS wins fans with its all-focal-length ubiquity).
Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Wrt ibis, I feel it's meant for photographers like me who mainly shoot events. Because I mainly shoot events like conventions, I am always on the move for everything but mass photo shoots. Not every convention center has godly light and that light exists only in the daylight. Now ISO performance for my a7 is bad (it's good enough for Instagram and Facebook below 2000 but I still hate it because it's so noisy). Ibis (main reason why I am planning to go for an a7 II) would enable me to shoot at lower shutter speeds (and for the a7 which has my 16-35 glued on to it would be awesome) without raising ISO. Yup. When I worked for my college newspaper IS was an absolute godsend for speakers in poo poo-lighting halls and theaters. Shooting at 200mm at 1/30 and getting a sharp result since it was just someone at a podium was a godsend when the alternative would be ISO12800.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Yeah IBIS is a godsend for events or sports where you can't have a tripod or even monopod in some cases. It's not the be-all-and-end-all of camera features but I'll take the combination of IS and lower ISO over a cranked up ISO every time. E: yo SMERSH Mouth i haven't forgotten about you, just didn't get a chance to take that video of the noise last night. I'll get to it today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
IBIS means that I've only ever used my E-M1 above base ISO a handful of times, i. e. whenever I had to freeze movement in terrible light (e. g. when taking pictures of kids). That's pretty crazy if you ask me. Like 95% of my photographs are taken at ISO 200 (the lowest value on Olympus cameras), because I can just crank up my shutter speed when the light gets dimmer. Or open up my Nocticron to f1.2. I realize that this isn't suitable for all styles of photography, but honestly, I couldn't imagine being without IBIS in my main camera anymore. Of course, other systems/sensor sizes perform much better at higher ISOs, I'm just saying that IBIS is one way to broaden a camera's 'shooting envelope' and it really works for me. That said, if the E-M1 Mark II really is as expensive as the rumors are claiming I'll be pretty furious!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
It's worth noting with the Fuji lenses that most of the zooms have OIS, in fact looking up the lenses shows that aside from the 16-55 all the other zooms have it. So if you use the 1/ focal length equation you're going to need a 1/80th exposure on the long end for a sharp shot without stabilization. Given the f2.8 maximum aperture and the quality of images on Fuji sensors up to ISO 6400 there aren't going to be too many situations where the lack of OIS on the 16-55 is going to matter. IBIS I think works great if you love adapting old lenses, or as mentionef previously shoot a lot of video but for photography alone which has been the focus of Fuji so far theres not many reasons to put up with the extra expense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Does anybody have a 16-55 that they would like to turn into a 16mm 1.4 with a square hood? I'm ready to haggle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Aargh posted:It's worth noting with the Fuji lenses that most of the zooms have OIS, in fact looking up the lenses shows that aside from the 16-55 all the other zooms have it. So if you use the 1/ focal length equation you're going to need a 1/80th exposure on the long end for a sharp shot without stabilization. Given the f2.8 maximum aperture and the quality of images on Fuji sensors up to ISO 6400 there aren't going to be too many situations where the lack of OIS on the 16-55 is going to matter. Now I need to see examples because I am rather annoyingly anal on "quality of ISO" above 1600 no less, (and the rotational motion point which I mentioned). Also, for fast primes it is amazing as well, which is confusing. (and as the fuji primes seem to show, OIS involves compromises to lenses, which may not be ideal for primes but for zooms are tolerable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
DJExile posted:E: yo SMERSH Mouth i haven't forgotten about you, just didn't get a chance to take that video of the noise last night. I'll get to it today. Here ya go! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq8bDEVJEFk This is the EM-1 attached to an 800mm mirror lens, with the IBIS custom set at 800mm, hear that high-pitched kinda whining/grinding sound? Totally normal. Is that what you're hearing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Ooooo, yeah that's the stuff. Sounds more metallic than my em10, but it's the same basic rhythm. Good to know that my camera isn't about to eject a white-hot sensor out through the back screen and perforate my skull when it makes its 'I'm trying' sound. Also, ibis is the poo poo for wildlife photography. I've had this Nikon 300mm bolted to my em10 for two days now, and am consistently getting at least a two stop improvement in usable shutter speed compared to my non-stabilized 400L on a a 7D or 5D. Now I can track subjects into deeper shade, and get more usable results from shooting later in the evening. I get how ibis would matter less to normal-wide users, street shooters and the like, but in this case it's a godsend for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Yeah you're good then 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Will I regret selling my DSLR and its 5 cumbersome lenses to get that new Olympus camera with a 12-40mm f/2.8 zoom and a 17mm f/1.8 prime? I'm not sure if I can handle the lack of DoF in a general purpose zoom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
Thoren posted:Will I regret selling my DSLR and its 5 cumbersome lenses to get that new Olympus camera with a 12-40mm f/2.8 zoom and a 17mm f/1.8 prime? Zoom, thin DOF, not cumbersome lense. You can have only have 2 out of 3, doesn't matter how much you money you have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Thoren posted:Will I regret selling my DSLR and its 5 cumbersome lenses to get that new Olympus camera with a 12-40mm f/2.8 zoom and a 17mm f/1.8 prime? If you're anything like me, you won't. Though I think the 17mm f1.8 is rendered redundant by the 12-40 (which is sharper at 17mm than the prime!). If you do want a nice bright prime, the Summilux 15mm f1.7 would be better. Or go all out and get the new Olympus 25mm f1.2  I'm on my way home from holiday and I did all my shooting with the E-M1, the 12-40 and the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8. Even on the most challenging hikes, I was covered from 24-200mm (equivalent) at f2.8. Feels good man. Meanwhile, if Sony really are announcing a new flagship A9 next week, as the rumors have it, I'll have some thinking to do. The E-M1 Mark II will supposedly be very expensive, and that's making me balk. I want to squeeze as much image quality as possible out of m4/3, but if the Mark II is only 20% better than my E-M1... I dunno. Might as well build a second system geared towards all-out, no holds barred image quality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Zoom, thin DOF, not cumbersome lense. You can have only have 2 out of 3, doesn't matter how much you money you have. I've gotten pretty good results at f/2.8 with aps-c cameras. I don't need an ultra-thin depth of field but sometimes it's nice to get a bit of subject isolation. I didn't even know about the 15mm. My budget might be a little drained after the E-M1 Mark II and the 12-40mm. However, I think those two lenses would be a perfect combo for me. My main focus is (candid) street photography and vlogging/travel vids. If I downsize my gear I can downsize my backpack, which makes me look more like a civilian than a tourist when I spend the next year overseas. It's like a domino effect of positive changes. The Olympus "Visionaries" are saying the Mark II is really good. No perceivable viewfinder lag, AF-C that stands up to modern full frame DSLRs, and a full stop improvement over the first E-M1 in terms of ISO performance. I guess we'll have to wait for some unbiased reviews to come out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
The OVF on my X100 is easily visible with polarized sunglasses on in landscape but not portrait. The used X-Pro1 I bought is the opposite, the lines disappear on landscape but reappear on portrait. And the eye sensor on the X-Pro2 I tried in a camera store doesn't seem to work with glasses on at all. What the gently caress, Fuji?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Rontalvos posted:The OVF on my X100 is easily visible with polarized sunglasses on in landscape but not portrait. The used X-Pro1 I bought is the opposite, the lines disappear on landscape but reappear on portrait. And the eye sensor on the X-Pro2 I tried in a camera store doesn't seem to work with glasses on at all. The eye sensor of my xpro2 works just fine with my glasses. I have in fact never used it without wearing glasses because I'm blind af yo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 01:27
|
|
