|
Yeah people simply equate "bigger = better", something that was strongly perpetuated by Canon & Nikon, and it is really hard to get out of the minds of the casual people.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
alkanphel posted:Yeah people simply equate "bigger = better", something that was strongly perpetuated by Canon & Nikon, and it is really hard to get out of the minds of the casual people. A more subtle mistake is equating "this camera takes better pictures" with "this camera is better to take pictures with".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
*tapes a fleshlight to a leica* WHAT NOW?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
It's best if you have a Canon L zoom because then it's HUGE AND WHITE WITH A RED RING LOOK I MUST BE SOMEBODY IMPORTANT. It was amazing how people would just get out of my way at these little concerts I would take it to. Instant assumption was I was with the band. I might have used that to my advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Even if Canon and Nikon do go mirrorless for their consumer/prosumer/generic pro ranges, they are still going to be big bodies because I can't see them deciding to invalidate the huge lens libraries that exist for those systems. Flange distance is 44mm for EF and 46.5mm for F mount, plus about another 20-25mm for a screen, chassis and circuitry. That's a hard limit on how thin the camera can be. By contrast µ4rds is 19.25mm and Sony's E mount is 18mm.
Helen Highwater fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jul 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Even if Canon and Nikon do go mirrorless for their consumer/prosumer/generic pro ranges, they are still going to be big bodies because I can't see them deciding to invalidate the huge lens libraries that exist for those systems. Flange distance is 44mm for EF and 46.5mm for F mount, plus about another 20-25mm for a screen, chassis and circuitry. That's a hard limit on how thin the camera can be. By contrast µ4rds is 19.25mm and Sony's E mount is 18mm. Yeah they have themselves painted into a corner really. On one hand you DON'T want to mess up the product you already have but on the other hand how do you move forward? It's similar to Microsoft with legacy support in Windows... they need to break free but doing so is painful. Apple kinda just said "screw it after X you have no options". I am enjoying mirrorless in general though, my reckless abandon for finding the "right camera for me" has allowed me to use all sorts of neat stuff. I have to say with Fuji my favorite is the WYSIWYG EVF, even the Panasonic lacked this in the way Fuji implemented it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
The EVF reflecting exposure settings is the most genius part of mirrorless. I could never go back to trusting the exposure indicator, checking exposure on the LCD using the histogram, then adjusting and reshooting. Or alternately, just being lazy about nailing exposure and adjusting in post. I save so much time because I can nail exposure right off the bat and not even need to do post unless I'm printing a photo. 'Tis amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Yeah having a good EVF is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
bobfather posted:The EVF reflecting exposure settings is the most genius part of mirrorless. I could never go back to trusting the exposure indicator, checking exposure on the LCD using the histogram, then adjusting and reshooting. That alone, getting it right the first time, is what draws me to it the most. I work at a computer all day and it's really the last thing I want to do when editing, so any time reduced is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:If you end up picking up the Fuji macro, please post about your experience with it. Macro was one of the reasons I stuck with m43 (the Olympus 60mm is so great), and there really isn't much out there about the Fuji. While I had the 60mm macro, it was a damned good lens. The slow focus thing is overblown, and it is sharp as anything. I sold it because I got it into my head that the (rumoured) 120mm macro would have been more my thing as the 60 was only 1:2 and really, I wanted a 1:1 and that was all bollocks anyways because my photos would be equally garbage at 5:1 ratio. It's a good lens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Yeah they have themselves painted into a corner really. On one hand you DON'T want to mess up the product you already have but on the other hand how do you move forward? It's similar to Microsoft with legacy support in Windows... they need to break free but doing so is painful. Apple kinda just said "screw it after X you have no options". Canon already did it once and had way less of an obvious reason for doing so. I think it helped them in the long run but I can't imagine being one of the people with a ton of FD glass getting told that a whole new system was coming out that was completely incompatible. At least with mirrorless they'd be able to do adapters easily.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
powderific posted:Canon already did it once and had way less of an obvious reason for doing so. I think it helped them in the long run but I can't imagine being one of the people with a ton of FD glass getting told that a whole new system was coming out that was completely incompatible. At least with mirrorless they'd be able to do adapters easily. their adapter works really well too, being that it's canon and they are not known for releasing test features (except that dual pixel raw. that is still some super uncanon like poo poo) - EF lenses on a dualpixel M focus like EF lenses on a dualpixel EOS. The problem is that just like with their crop DSLRs, they are not making fast primes in the shorter focal lengths where they can save some weight and size because of the mount. Adapting a 70-200 2.8 is fine, because a native 70-200 2.8 would be a giant lens anyway. Adapting a 35 1.4 , while knowing if they got off their butts they could make one significantly smaller is much less acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Yeah the Oly 60mm macro is phenomenal
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
I'm unloading my Fujifilm Instax SP-2 printer (among a few other things) over in the buy/sell/trade thread, if anyone was curious to pick one up.
Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
bobfather posted:The EVF reflecting exposure settings is the most genius part of mirrorless. I could never go back to trusting the exposure indicator, checking exposure on the LCD using the histogram, then adjusting and reshooting. Seriously. Even in when weird lighting situations like I was shooting this weekend the EVF plus histogram gave me a good idea on what I could tap on like exposure or shadows in post. Which was good especially since there was some bits where I was shooting ISO 6400-12800.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
What's a decently sharp but ridiculously wide-apertured cheapo lens that can be adapted for m43?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
GonadTheBallbarian posted:What's a decently sharp but ridiculously wide-apertured cheapo lens that can be adapted for m43? Manual, you mean? Pretty much every manufacturer has a 50/1.4 from the 80s at around $50.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Manual, you mean? Pretty much every manufacturer has a 50/1.4 from the 80s at around $50. Isn't that essentially a 100/2.8 for m43, or am I understanding that totally wrong?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Sir Bobert Fishbone posted:Isn't that essentially a 100/2.8 for m43, or am I understanding that totally wrong? Yeah olympus DSLRs and mirrorless bodies are 2x crop factors But yeah you can easily adapt any of their old OM glass to m4/3 and there are a ton of great ones
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
I don't know what your standards for "ridiculous" or "cheapo" are, but the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 is a reasonably sharp, widish lens for $150. There are a couple of 9mm f8.0 (lol) lenses out there for around $100. The Olympus is surprisingly well reviewed. Haven't tried them though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Panasonic 25 1.7 is on sale for 150 right now. You get great af performance that I doubt you'd get with a cheap adapted setup. The dof is equivalent to 2x like the crop if you ignore the crop and only look at field of view... It's a stupid comparison. You get as much light at 1.7 with ff wrt exposure. Very wide there is the oly fisheye or regular bodycap lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
well, I saw some of the Mitakon f/0.95 lenses and was intrigued. Even if they're not perfect they'd be fun to gently caress around with, but I didn't know if there was anything else like a 1.1 or what out there
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Looking for some eclipse advise. I'm gonna be at Grand Teton National Park on the 21st. I'll have my X-T1, 18-55mm, 35mm f/2, 55-200mm, and a tripod. I'm trying to plan what I'm going to do. There won't be time to change lenses during the main event, so I pretty much need to pick one. The 55-200mm seems like the obvious choice to just zoom all the way in and shoot away, and it would be very cool to get those photos. But, given the location, maybe it would make more sense to go wide and get in as much scenery as possible? I've never done this, so I don't actually know if the fact that an eclipse is happening will be obvious from 18mm, or if there will be proper light for good landscapes. I only have one body though (cheap point-and-shoot and phone aside), so I need to choose. What do you guys think? Also, I'm gonna need a solar filter, and these seem popular. But if I end up going with the 55-200mm, I'm not sure which size to get. The thread is 62mm, which is in the range of the smallest 50-69mm filter, but the full diameter of the whole lens seems to be around 69mm, which I guess would require the next largest size? For the kit lens I would of course just go with the smallest one. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:The dof is equivalent to 2x like the crop if you ignore the crop and only look at field of view... It's a stupid comparison. You get as much light at 1.7 with ff wrt exposure. The mikaton f/0.95 is not a great lens if you want decent sharpness. Wide open, it almost feels like there's a halo of blur. Only useful for headshots or something similar. Voigtlander 0.95 is much better Both are not cheap though panasonic 25 1.7 is a great sub 200 pick
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
MeruFM posted:the electronic sensor noise is like a FF sensor cropped to that sensor size. So for the 2 points people care about (at least regarding sensor size), image quality and DoF, it's a decent comparison. Kinda figured, but I wasn't about to forge on ahead without at least asking. I'll probably pass on the 20/25 given I have the Sigma 30 already
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
I've been shooting film more than digital in the past 6 months and am toying with the idea of selling the xt1 and all my x mount lenses and picking up an x100f or t. Anybody made this transition that could tell me about thier experience? I like the idea of simplifying but just can't let go of interchangable lenses for some reason, even though the 23 1.4 is pretty much glued to the xt1.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
I bought an xt20 to supplement my GR and because my GR's buttons are failing and really I just wish for a new GR instead. The interchangeable lenses seemed like it'd be fun but I'd rather have the single great fixed lens. (I do have a d800 with lots of lenses to fall back on though)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
I went a little different direction, but kind of did the same thing in principle. I was shooting full frame Canon and ended up getting an original X100. Gradually I used the Canon gear less and less except for work that required other lenses (mostly longer lenses for people and portraits) and easily 90% of my time with a camera was with the X100. Probably close to 100% of my own personal shooting time. But that led me to get into interchangeable Fuji and I got an X-T1 and a bunch of lenses after selling my Canon gear and now I use that as an backup and use an X-T2 as my main camera. I have considered multiple times getting another X100 and have always decide against it because I want the versatility of other lenses (now that I have so many to choose from) and because although the 23 1.4 is usually on my camera, the 56 1.2 is on my camera a hell of a lot too. I could probably do with only those two lenses but just going to 23 would be tough at this point and I often go to gigs with the 23 in one camera and the 56 on the other. I think depending on your usage that going only to an X100 could work though and you just have to evaluate honestly if that would work for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
I had Canon gear and only 3 lenses, I bought an original X100 a few months after launch and I didn't touch my Canon gear for over 3 years. I started to feel the restriction of the X100 and bought the teleconverter lens for it, a used X-Pro1, 35 1.4, 100-400, 1.4x TC, and now I want a 23f2, X-T1, etc. The other weekend when I did a 24 mile backpacking trip to a glacier I took just the X100 though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Eh. 7D2 with 100-400 or D500 with 200-500 seem like valid birding use cases, and some of the really specialised lenses don't have a mirrorless equivalent yet. But yeah, for everything else, might as well either go mirrorless or go full retard straight to Tilt shift and yeah, it is right now cheapest to get a 7DII (which is sub 2K while the A9 is what, 4K and while the A9 is cheaper than the D5/1dxmkII its still not cheap), but the A9 has all but destroyed the argument that ONLY DSLR CAN DO SPORTS AND HIGH SPEED CONTENT. Right now as an a7II user I am waiting to see if the A7III has the A9's thumbstick so I can potentially upgrade (the new firmware helps a lot). Also like everyone says the Flashpoint/Godox equipment has changed the game
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 21:16
|
|
).
|
Choicecut posted:I've been shooting film more than digital in the past 6 months and am toying with the idea of selling the xt1 and all my x mount lenses and picking up an x100f or t. Anybody made this transition that could tell me about thier experience? I like the idea of simplifying but just can't let go of interchangable lenses for some reason, even though the 23 1.4 is pretty much glued to the xt1. I went from a Canon kit to the x100 and it was my most productive and enjoyable period of photography. Started feeling limited by lack of a zoom and got an XE-1. Started adapting and chasing lenses and was never really happy. Then shot a bunch of film. Now I want an x100f because there are times I just want to take pictures and don't want to gently caress around. When I don't mind loving around, I'll bust out filters, tripods, and the MF/LF stuff. I think the x100 serves a great role as a go-to camera, but it's not so great as an only camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
just wanted to pop into this thread and say that the auto minimum shutter speed thing that fuji added a while ago that adjusts itself based on focal length is insanely convenient and i'm never going back, that's a dealbreaker feature from here on out
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
I second shot a wedding today with another Fuji dude and he had rented an x100f for the day so I got some hands on time with one. It is very good and and it is very accurate to call it a mini xpro2 and I am very much buying one in the next week or two.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
Since I'm shooting MF film 85% of the time, I'm thinking the x100 would fill the digital gap that I can't let go of. My XT1 only comes out when I know I'm going to be in a low light situation or when I just want snapshots of my kids and friends/family. The F looks like a great model.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Took a mirrorless out last night for some low-light shooting. The WYSIWYG immediate feedback on setting changes was a pretty cool departure from the DSLR guesswork I'm used to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
I just finished driving around Kruger national park in South Africa and my Oly 60mm basically never left the body. I almost never used my lovely 15mm summilux except for a couple of vistas. I really enjoyed shooting at 60mm, especially for large close beasts, and as much as I love that lens, I'm seriously considering selling both and getting the new leica 12-60mm. I've always been a prime shooter but the versatility of the zoom has me considering my stance. I'll post a few examples once I get things off the camera and uploaded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:I just finished driving around Kruger national park in South Africa and my Oly 60mm basically never left the body. I almost never used my lovely 15mm summilux except for a couple of vistas. I really enjoyed shooting at 60mm, especially for large close beasts, and as much as I love that lens, I'm seriously considering selling both and getting the new leica 12-60mm. I've always been a prime shooter but the versatility of the zoom has me considering my stance. FYI - The Oly 12-40mm is a constant f/2.8 aperture and you can find that used/refurbed for around $750-800. Both are weather sealed though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
DJExile posted:FYI - The Oly 12-40mm is a constant f/2.8 aperture and you can find that used/refurbed for around $750-800. Both are weather sealed though. I've been mulling over that and the Panasonic 12-35 for ages, but getting that extra reach that I enjoyed with the prime 60 in a zoom may have tipped the balance. Also the ability to use dual IS mitigates a lot of the slower f4 at 60mm. I rarely found myself using 2.8 on the macro anyway, the shutter speeds ended up too high in daylight. I mostly used around f5.6. Ideally I'd keep both lenses, or at least the macro, but after this trip the lens budget is a bit tight!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Understandable. I'd drat sure hold onto the 60mm though. It's fantastic and super light.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
Finger Prince posted:I've been mulling over that and the Panasonic 12-35 for ages, but getting that extra reach that I enjoyed with the prime 60 in a zoom may have tipped the balance. Also the ability to use dual IS mitigates a lot of the slower f4 at 60mm. I rarely found myself using 2.8 on the macro anyway, the shutter speeds ended up too high in daylight. I mostly used around f5.6. Ideally I'd keep both lenses, or at least the macro, but after this trip the lens budget is a bit tight! Does the Panasonic and Olympus IS interact like that, though? I thought that was one spot where at least historically they haven't cooperated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 18:31
|
|