The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

«‹›614 »

DJExile: Jun 28, 2007

TheAngryDrunk posted:

Actually the viewfinder uses more juice because of the higher resolution.

no poo poo? I always figured bigger screen = more power. Shut my mouth then.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 12:58

Star War Sex Parrot: Oct 2, 2003

TheAngryDrunk posted:

Actually the viewfinder uses more juice because of the higher resolution.

I find this generalization hard to believe, and is likely down to each camera's hardware configuration. I'm so surprised by this assertion that I'm tempted to grab my multimeters and X-T2 and go to town. On paper, EVFs frequently use small OLED displays which from a physical standpoint likely require less energy than the large LCDs on the back of the camera. Driving a higher number of pixels to the EVF shouldn't change energy consumption too much, since either way the most expensive operation is constantly sampling and resizing the sensor's output to lower resolution targets. The only thing that changes is the target output size which are both going to be significantly smaller than the sensor's resolution, so that computation difference is likely negligible. Rendering 2D UI at 2MP (EVF) vs. 1MP (back screen) shouldn't cost that much more for these SoCs. My anecdotal experience has me using the EVF with eye sensor for the best battery life solution, and even then other options like continuous AF, recording 4K video, or face/eye detection always seem to be more significant battery drains in practice.

Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Apr 20, 2017

# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:23

TheAngryDrunk: Jan 31, 2003; "I don't know why I know that; I took four years of Spanish."

You're right that it depends on camera specifics, but most modern EVFs are much higher resolution than the rear LCD. The following is a quote from the Sony A7r II manual (you can find a PDF of the manual online):

quote:

[Power consumption (while shooting)]
When using the viewfinder: Approx. 3.2 W
When using the monitor: Approx. 2.7 W

I should add that I don't know specifically why the EVF uses more power here (the manual doesn't say why), but I assumed it's the resolution. It could be because it's brighter, too. I don't know for sure why.

TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Apr 20, 2017

# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:35

Star War Sex Parrot: Oct 2, 2003

TheAngryDrunk posted:

You're right that it depends on camera specifics, but most modern EVFs are much higher resolution than the rear LCD. The following is a quote from the Sony A7r II manual (you can find a PDF of the manual online):

I should add that I don't know specifically why the EVF uses more power here (the manual doesn't say why), but I assumed it's the resolution. It could be because it's brighter, too. I don't know for sure why.

Oh that's interesting. I checked the X-T2's manual as well and it reports better battery life with the LCD, so nuts to my intuition. I imagine the difference in my case comes down to the eye sensor as opposed to the constantly-on LCD. From a signal processing and electronics standpoint, I'm still not sure why EVF is worse.

Edit: I bet it's actually the refresh rate not the resolution that makes the difference. I neglected that aspect at first.

Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Apr 20, 2017

# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:52

TheAngryDrunk: Jan 31, 2003; "I don't know why I know that; I took four years of Spanish."

Refresh rate makes sense.

# ? Apr 20, 2017 19:59

MeruFM: Jul 27, 2010

I'm surprised they didn't come out with two or 3 variants like the a7
high speed
ultra high resolution
video

Sad they kept the kind of lovely dials. The olympus/fuji dials feel so much nicer and clickier

# ? Apr 20, 2017 21:20

TheAngryDrunk: Jan 31, 2003; "I don't know why I know that; I took four years of Spanish."

MeruFM posted:

I'm surprised they didn't come out with two or 3 variants like the a7
high speed
ultra high resolution
video

Sad they kept the kind of lovely dials. The olympus/fuji dials feel so much nicer and clickier

I'm sure they are on the way, but I wish they just put the A7r II sensor in this body and made that a new version. A9r?

# ? Apr 20, 2017 21:38

HolyDukeNukem: Sep 10, 2008

could also involve the backlight. If the viewfinder is trying to use a brighter backlight that may use more power.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 02:01

Encrypted: Feb 25, 2016

HolyDukeNukem posted:

could also involve the backlight. If the viewfinder is trying to use a brighter backlight that may use more power.

There's no backlight on the A7R2 viewfinder but a bunch of dots of lights (OLED), which consumes more power in general than regular ol LCD like the one in the rear.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 13:40

mAlfunkti0n: May 19, 2004; Fallen Rib

MeruFM posted:

Sad they kept the kind of lovely dials. The olympus/fuji dials feel so much nicer and clickier

Why is it hard for companies to understand stuff like this is really important to the overall impression of the camera??? Its literally in EVERY SINGLE review I've ever read about a camera. If it has awful dials or mushy buttons, its getting a lot of attention in the review.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 14:42

JHVH-1: Jun 28, 2002

The marketplace sellers on amazon have been posting some in stock X100F's for $100 bump each time. I think they are trying to see how badly people want the camera.

Last week I saw it for $1399, and then earlier this week one for $1499 and today $1599.

# ? Apr 21, 2017 15:53

whatever7: Jul 26, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

MeruFM posted:

I'm surprised they didn't come out with two or 3 variants like the a7
high speed
ultra high resolution
video

Sad they kept the kind of lovely dials. The olympus/fuji dials feel so much nicer and clickier

Sensor company make more bodies, lens companies make more lens.

# ? Apr 22, 2017 01:14

Jimlad: Jan 8, 2005

Bubbacub posted:

Oh, the 20 FPS only works without autofocus engaged. It's limited to 10 FPS with AF on, so a high-end DSLR still has an edge there.

...what? This is plain wrong, the A9 can use AF at 20 fps no problem: https://youtu.be/_ZXFI-eIXk8

Also, I'm surprised people are claiming the AF isn't at DSLR level despite the lack of tests claiming otherwise. All I've seen so far is that AF performance beats DSLRs, but of course this is hardly an independent test: https://youtu.be/gcIpuo_mJl8

I'm not setting out to defend Sony here, but do any of you guys have evidence to back up your claims, or are you straight-up making stuff up?

MeruFM posted:

I'm surprised they didn't come out with two or 3 variants like the a7

Previous launches have been staggered with the base model being released first. The A7II, A7RII and A7SII were released in 5 month intervals, I'd expect something similar with the A9.

MeruFM posted:

Sad they kept the kind of lovely dials. The olympus/fuji dials feel so much nicer and clickier

Are you just guessing, or is this confirmed? They tweaked the ergonomics pretty substantially between the A7 and A7II, I wouldn't be surprised if they were tweaked further for the A9.

Jimlad fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Apr 22, 2017

# ? Apr 22, 2017 10:02

bobfather: Sep 20, 2001; I will analyze your nervous system for beer money

Sony can't keep up with the pros when you only have 2 good choices for lenses to bring to the Super Bowl, and when their 500 f/4 costs the same as a Canon 500 f/4 + $4000 of whatever Canon body you'd like to mate to it.

# ? Apr 22, 2017 12:33

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

Jimlad posted:

...what? This is plain wrong, the A9 can use AF at 20 fps no problem: https://youtu.be/_ZXFI-eIXk8

I'm just parroting what I saw in somebody's lengthy youtube review. Maybe he was specifically just talking about using it with the metabones adapter, I dunno.

e: This is also the only configuration that would be interesting to me. Like bobfather says, I already spent a lot of money on a big white Canon tele. I'm not buying another one from a different company.

Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Apr 22, 2017

# ? Apr 22, 2017 15:56

Shnakepup: Oct 16, 2004; Paraphrasing moments of genius

Recently came into some money, a bonus from work, so I'm looking to get a few new toys :toot:

What's a good wireless flash for Fuji, preferably with TTL? I'm a recent convert from Canon to an XT-2 and one thing I've been missing is having some kind of off-camera flash. Before, I used some Cactus triggers with a Canon 430EX. Are there any fuji-compatible flashes that'll do wireless TTL with the XT-2? Alternatively a flash that'll do TTL with my existing Cactus triggers? I've looked around on Amazon a bit but I'm not sure what's good and what's not. I see there's a Fuji X500 flash but I'm not sure about it from the reviews (seems like people getting bad copies?). I can see a variety of cheaper-looking flashes but I'm not sure which ones will work wirelessly and/or with TTL. Any recommendations?

I'm also wanting to get a new lens. I've got the kit 18-55 that came with the XT-2 body and I also have some Rokinon manual primes, the 12mm and the 85mm. I'm debating between getting something I don't already have, in terms of utility/range, vs getting something that's just nicer than what I already have. Like, part of me wants to get something telephoto, and while the Rokinon 85 sorta works, I'd like to get something with AF and maybe a longer reach. Part of me just wants to get a "do it all" walkaround lens like the 18 -135 and call it a day but I've always read that lenses like that have to sacrifice in the image quality department for that kinda range. On the other hand I see people in this thread raving about various Fuji primes and part of me is like "man I wanna get in on that". But the idea of getting a prime that's within the range of a lens I already have (18-55) feels weird, like I'm being redundant. Does the quality on these primes make up for that?

I should make it clear I'm not, like, shooting professionally or anything, I just do this for myself mostly. I don't really focus on any one thing in particular; I like landscapes and nature, but I usually find myself shooting friends & family more often.

# ? Apr 22, 2017 18:02

bobfather: Sep 20, 2001; I will analyze your nervous system for beer money

Forego needing TTL and instead get a Yongnuo 560 IV along with the 560 transmitter. You'll pay $80 for a 1-flash manual system that is dead easy to use and gets great results, and can expand to a bunch more flashes really easily.

Manual flash is so, so easy it's crazy, and having the 560 transmitter operate independently of the camera controls means that all you need to do is expose for desired background, then take a few test shots to play with the power of your flash to get the desired lighting on your subject.

I've used ETTL on Canons before, and having the flash and camera make decisions about your lighting just means that you get in the ballpark of correct lighting faster than a manual setup. Now that I shoot manual flash I would never go back to any kind of TTL system.

# ? Apr 22, 2017 22:17

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Alternatively wait for Godox to update their triggers to do Fuji TTL and HSS, which should be soon.

# ? Apr 22, 2017 22:37

torgeaux: Dec 31, 2004; I serve...

Shnakepup posted:

Recently came into some money, a bonus from work, so I'm looking to get a few new toys

What's a good wireless flash for Fuji, preferably with TTL? I'm a recent convert from Canon to an XT-2 and one thing I've been missing is having some kind of off-camera flash. Before, I used some Cactus triggers with a Canon 430EX. Are there any fuji-compatible flashes that'll do wireless TTL with the XT-2? Alternatively a flash that'll do TTL with my existing Cactus triggers? I've looked around on Amazon a bit but I'm not sure what's good and what's not. I see there's a Fuji X500 flash but I'm not sure about it from the reviews (seems like people getting bad copies?). I can see a variety of cheaper-looking flashes but I'm not sure which ones will work wirelessly and/or with TTL. Any recommendations?

I'm also wanting to get a new lens. I've got the kit 18-55 that came with the XT-2 body and I also have some Rokinon manual primes, the 12mm and the 85mm. I'm debating between getting something I don't already have, in terms of utility/range, vs getting something that's just nicer than what I already have. Like, part of me wants to get something telephoto, and while the Rokinon 85 sorta works, I'd like to get something with AF and maybe a longer reach. Part of me just wants to get a "do it all" walkaround lens like the 18 -135 and call it a day but I've always read that lenses like that have to sacrifice in the image quality department for that kinda range. On the other hand I see people in this thread raving about various Fuji primes and part of me is like "man I wanna get in on that". But the idea of getting a prime that's within the range of a lens I already have (18-55) feels weird, like I'm being redundant. Does the quality on these primes make up for that?

I should make it clear I'm not, like, shooting professionally or anything, I just do this for myself mostly. I don't really focus on any one thing in particular; I like landscapes and nature, but I usually find myself shooting friends & family more often.

Go big. The 55-200 is nice, sharp, light and fast enough.

# ? Apr 23, 2017 05:13

Encrypted: Feb 25, 2016

Bubbacub posted:

I'm just parroting what I saw in somebody's lengthy youtube review. Maybe he was specifically just talking about using it with the metabones adapter, I dunno.

lmao someone actually believed that a company would release an ultra high fps flagship camera that can't do af tracking with said fps

"yeah let me just use that 20fps to shoot some waterfall or sunsets"
-bubbacub

# ? Apr 23, 2017 20:08

akadajet: Sep 14, 2003

Encrypted posted:

"yeah let me just use that 20fps to shoot some waterfall or sunsets"
-bubbacub

# ? Apr 23, 2017 20:47

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Name change pls to "20fps dick pics"

# ? Apr 23, 2017 22:13

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

Everything I've found says you only get 20fps with continuous autofocus with E-mount lenses. How am I supposed to get good dick pics with my Canon glass? :colbert:

# ? Apr 24, 2017 02:56

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Bubbacub posted:

"good" "pics" with my Canon

# ? Apr 24, 2017 03:05

rawrr: Jul 28, 2007

Bubbacub posted:

How am I supposed to get good dick pics with my Canon glass?

Try something like the Canon MP-E 65/2.8

# ? Apr 24, 2017 03:14

Lily Catts: Oct 17, 2012; Show me the way to you
(Heavy Metal)

Shnakepup posted:

What's a good wireless flash for Fuji, preferably with TTL?

I use a Nissin i40, which is nice. There's a newer, more powerful model, the i60a, but it's bigger. They both come with wireless TTL capability but you pay like triple the price for a manual flash.

I never use the wireless TTL (I use on-cam TTL for event shooting), because manual offers you more control. If you use your flash off-cam then chances are you have the time to setup your flash exposure manually anyway. I myself am looking to buy two Yongnuo flashes for manual off-cam use because they're more powerful and have nice features (and I could get three for the price of my current flash).

# ? Apr 24, 2017 04:08

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

I actually did submit a dick pic in the March contest thread. Apparently I misjudged the dorkroom's preferences, I though it was gonna be a shoe-in for the victory.

# ? Apr 24, 2017 04:37

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

rawrr posted:

Try something like the Canon MP-E 65/2.8

this was a much better burn than mine hth

# ? Apr 24, 2017 06:00

Jimlad: Jan 8, 2005

Well, can't say I didn't call it - not definitive but finally some independent mention of improved buttons and dials vs the A7 range: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4934566891/sony-a9-shooting-experiece

I don't get why this thread is so keen to poo poo on Sony that some will even try to pass off fake claims about their cameras. What gives?

# ? Apr 24, 2017 23:56

bobfather: Sep 20, 2001; I will analyze your nervous system for beer money

Jimlad posted:

Well, can't say I didn't call it - not definitive but finally some independent mention of improved buttons and dials vs the A7 range: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4934566891/sony-a9-shooting-experiece

I don't get why this thread is so keen to poo poo on Sony that some will even try to pass off fake claims about their cameras. What gives?

I mean, why wouldn't we poo poo on Sony in the Fuji thread?

# ? Apr 25, 2017 01:24

rio: Mar 20, 2008

I like to poo poo on Sony because they like to poo poo out bodies like they just ate some bad camera body Chinese food.

# ? Apr 25, 2017 02:23

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

We poo poo on Sony because they make good cameras... for a clown to use at the circus.

# ? Apr 25, 2017 03:51

underage at the vape shop: May 11, 2011; by Cyrano4747

8th-snype posted:

We poo poo on Sony because they make good cameras... for a clown to use at the circus.

# ? Apr 25, 2017 08:19

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

8th-snype posted:

We poo poo on Sony because they make good cameras... for a clown to use at the circus.

Excellent low light performance and dynamic range.

# ? Apr 25, 2017 11:13

Lily Catts: Oct 17, 2012; Show me the way to you
(Heavy Metal)

Does Sony still have overpriced-rear end lenses

# ? Apr 25, 2017 13:15

bobfather: Sep 20, 2001; I will analyze your nervous system for beer money

Schneider Heim posted:

Does Sony still have overpriced-rear end lenses

Yeah bro, like 40% more expensive than equivalent lenses from Canikon.

# ? Apr 25, 2017 13:28

underage at the vape shop: May 11, 2011; by Cyrano4747

Sony users on other sites I found are obnoxious as gently caress too. Somehow its worse than mitsubishi dorks obsessing about how they are better than Subaru, and I've met evo owners who've dropped 5k+ au on "lol wrx" plates.

# ? Apr 25, 2017 14:32

whatever7: Jul 26, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

I want a LOL SORNY plate.

# ? Apr 25, 2017 14:40

Finger Prince: Jan 5, 2007

Fuji? More like FuJOKE! Nice OlymPISS, chump! Leica? Leica-my-balls!

# ? Apr 25, 2017 15:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 12:58

timrenzi574: Sep 11, 2001

bobfather posted:

Yeah bro, like 40% more expensive than equivalent lenses from Canikon.

and that for A-mount superteles that are old and underperform vs their much newer CaNikon equivalents. and only shoot at half speed (10FPS) on their new pro sports body.

I would expect they are hard at work right now on 300/2.8 , 400/2.8 and 500/4 in E mount tho. They wouldn't drop this body on the world without those lenses in the pipeline, right?

Edit: Dpreview published an article this morning about the "like for like" costs of switching from a Canon sport shooting kit to an A9 one. And just up and decided they would replace the 300/2.8 with the Sony 100-400GM since there's no E-mount 300/2.8 and those are totally the same thing and very comparable lenses.

timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Apr 25, 2017

# ? Apr 25, 2017 15:19

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

«‹›614 »