|
Animal posted:Can someone do a more thorough first impression on the X Raw Studio suite? I still think it's insane that they're basically just using a computer as a larger UI for the camera and using the camera as the RAW processor, but I'm looking forward to using it.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
rio posted:You will see a huge difference obviously haha. I still wish I had my old x100 though. There was something about that camera that was just so good and even the later x-trans versions couldn’t quite capture what it had going on. That have their own strengths of course but I wish it hadn’t sold it. And n top of that, that was my gateway into Fuji and the camera that got me to stop shooting canon and sell all of that gear to switch 100%. I went to immense trouble to get one of the first shipment cameras from New Zealand (lol, I live in Iceland) before the tsunami delayed the global roll out. I'm holding on to it in the hopes it might be worth something some day. Plus it will be nice to be able to rock both of them, X100 with the teleconverter and X100f without for a 35/50 setup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:lol, I'm going from X100 original. The X100F was already a massive jump over the X100S which I found to be a huge jump over the original X100. Honestly it's almost too complicated at times, so be prepared to re-learn how to use the camera. The Acros and Classic Chrome simulations are tits. rio posted:You will see a huge difference obviously haha. I still wish I had my old x100 though. There was something about that camera that was just so good and even the later x-trans versions couldn’t quite capture what it had going on. That have their own strengths of course but I wish it hadn’t sold it. And n top of that, that was my gateway into Fuji and the camera that got me to stop shooting canon and sell all of that gear to switch 100%. I loved the colour rendering of the original X100 which the X-trans sensors can't quite replicate, but the poor high ISO performance of the original was just extremely limiting to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Cacator posted:, but the poor high ISO performance of the original was just extremely limiting to me. Ok this is something I find kinda funny. On the one hand, you're absolutely right. There are iso monsters which can shoot at iso 250,000 and make a moonlit beach appear like a bright sunny day. Comparatively, the OG X100 absolutely pales in comparison. I bought the X100 a few months after it came out, and compared to my Canon 40D, whose ISO was a mess at 1600, in my mind the X100 will always be "good" in low light. Especially compared to what it replaced. Now, my X-T1 kicks the pants off the X100 in low light. But I'll always have a chuckle whenever somebody calls the original X100 bad for any reason. I still have mine and occasionally shoot with it. I don't think I'll ever sell it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:Ok this is something I find kinda funny. Same experience. Even now in 2017 I consider the x100 a great high ISO camera, I don't hesitate to push to 12,800 at times (in post). The only cameras that noticeably trounce it are significantly larger, more expensive, or both. Even the x100f I read is only about one stop improved from online reviews.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Calling old camera bad at high ISO performance is kind of thing people do on reflex to justify new camera or phone purchase even though these is barely anything worth taking picture at in dim light.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
The X100F doesn't have the blotchy look that the previous models did when shooting at 3200 or higher, that's my excuse. 12800 is perfectly usable out of the camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:Ok this is something I find kinda funny. As someone whose camera progression went D70 (for 10 years) -> X100s -> X-T1, this is how I feel. The D70 was barely usable at 800. Everything released this decade seems ~*magical*~.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
It’s hard to fault the original X100’s high iso performance when comparing it to older digital bodies, that’s for sure, and compared to film it is just crazy. It is cool being about to shoot 12800 without needing to worry about it on the X-T2 though. It doesn’t really matter though since I could just underexpose at a lower iso and raise exposure in post for similar results. ISOless sensors are neat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Anyone have any experience with waterproof housings for the XT-2? I'm going on a boat trip and I am debating on bringing any camera other than a gopro... but I'd really like to get cool hiking around islands/beach/etc shots too. I saw these: https://meikon.com.hk/collections/underwater-waterproof-camera-housing-case-for-fujifilm/x-t2 and then a bunch of housings that are > $1000
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
taco show posted:Anyone have any experience with waterproof housings for the XT-2? I'm going on a boat trip and I am debating on bringing any camera other than a gopro... but I'd really like to get cool hiking around islands/beach/etc shots too. Are you asking this to protect the camera from sea spray and rain? Or to go diving/snorkeling with? If the latter, I wouldn't trust that Meikon stuff. It just screams cheap, and there aren't any reviews on anything they sell. It could also just be lost in translation, but the warranty/return info seems a little sketchy. If you want to go snorkeling and such, there are some good underwater dedicated P&S cameras that would cost less than the Meikon housing and are well reviewed. The more recent Olympus Tough models shoot RAW and are f/2.0 on the wide end. If you're just wanting to take shots while on the boat and want to avoid spray and rain, the XT2 is already a sealed body, and as long as you have a sealed lens you're good to go. Otherwise, things like those OPTech rainsleeves will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
DJExile posted:
Depends. If it's salt water, put it in a rain protector.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
I've had sealed bodies and lenses get drenched with salt water and they were perfectly fine after rinsing off with fresh once things were done Granted, I don't know if Fuji has worse sealing than Oly's, but I've never heard complaints.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I've had sealed bodies and lenses get drenched with salt water and they were perfectly fine after rinsing off with fresh once things were done Only the lens coating worries me in salt water. But, I'm much more paranoid than is probably necessary. I hate getting small, almost invisible grit on a lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Only the lens coating worries me in salt water. But, I'm much more paranoid than is probably necessary. I hate getting small, almost invisible grit on a lens. My only recommendation is to bring lots of lens wipes/cleaner with you -- especially if you are taking pictures of whales! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Cool thanks! I'm planning on just using the gopro for diving/underwater but we're going to be doing a lot of hiking and visiting villages once we get to an island that I think I want my camera. I would be devastated if it ended up in the water but I'm not sure it's worth getting one of those housings vs just being really careful. I just wish that pancake was WR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
If you're just worried about it going into the water while you're transporting it place to place that's a lot more straightforward and cheaper. You could get a good dry bag, pelican case, multiple zip lock bags, whatever. A seal line waterproof dry bag or similar will keep everything safe even if it gets submerged a bit and costs less than $50.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Buying an underwater enclosure just to keep the camera safe during transport sounds really silly to me. If there is actually serious concern that the camera could end up underwater (e.g. you're on a boat that has a non-miniscule chance of tossing people overboard or capsizing), then go with a dry bag. Otherwise just put the camera in your bag (maybe in a gallon ziplock if you're really worried) and don't be a dummy.
Splinter fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Yeah a dry bag is a far better option for you than a housing
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
X100F is so ..... unggggggg *fist biting noise* can't really describe. It took pouring through the manual to get a grip on all the improvements, but I'm really enoying it. I currently have it set to landscape preferences in Manual mode, and then child friendly face tracking and pre-AF in AF-S mode, seems to work really well. Everything is snappier, especially the wait from taking a photo to seeing the live view again. It's so fast I was confused if it took a photo or not, coming from the blackout on the X100. Also I didn't think I'd like the picture in picture tiny tab in the OVF but in manual mode, having it show the center point already magnified, with the AF set to the AFL button?? just great, really helps nail the focus on what I am aiming for. Another nice surprise is in-body battery charging via USB. Anyone tried plugging it into a powerbank via USB to see if it still charges? Wifi transfer to the phone is a little more complicated than I would like but still nifty and I think I'll be using it, especially on trips to post quick previews. Also just loving the high ISO. this is 3200, uncropped, but with a 100% detail. Craziness!! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Anyone tried plugging it into a powerbank via USB to see if it still charges?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:X100F is so ..... unggggggg *fist biting noise* can't really describe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
melon cat posted:I tried out the x100f not too long ago. The colours are amazing and the AF is fantastic. But my wife and I couldn't get over the tiny, awkward controls in it, especially the annoyingly-small focus ring. I don't even have large hands and felt like everything required tiny sweatshop hands to operate. That's weird since I count being able to use the X100/f dials even with gloves on a big selling point since I live in Iceland. I'm also 6'3"/190cm and don't have tiny hands. Never had a problem. Now trying to use any camera that relies on traditional buttons, like the 5D? that was impossible without de-gloving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Never had a problem. Now trying to use any camera that relies on traditional buttons, like the 5D? that was impossible without de-gloving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Kenny Logins posted:It's morbidly hilarious to imagine how a 5D would remove all the skin from your hand in one horrifying action. Just instinctively cringed then took off my wedding ring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
The x100f owns bones (until i can afford a gfx  ) and it will charge off any power bank. I do it all the time. I know the X-T2 also will, and probably the xpro2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Well, I’m back. A few weeks ago I asked for recommendations for a camera that can do both video and stills competently well. The top suggestion was the GX85, which I was heavily considering. Work got in the way, so I had to pause any plans and in the interim I realized that I prefer video over stills. With some more money in my pocket and a clearer idea of what I want to shoot, I did some additional research and ran into the a6500. From what I gather, it’s amazing for video, has IBIS, better lowlight performance than the GX85 (really important for me), and shoots good stills. Downsides are Sony’s lackluster lens support for their APS-C models, expensive lenses, and (I think I read about this here) their abandonment of older models once a new one is released, which seems often. Good idea anyway or should I stick with one of the Panasonics?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
I got an a5000 a few months ago and am now looking to get a fast prime for it, sony lenses are pretty pricey, and there aren't many of them- yeah adapter rings exist but I got a mirrorless because I wanted a small camera that'll fit in a pocket. When I was in the shop asking what they'd recommend (I was in a similar situation to you) they said either the Sony or a Panasonic. I went with the Sony for the sensor, low light performance even with the kit lens is pretty decent, I'd imagine the a6500 will leave it in the dirt though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
[quote="“Butt Savage”" post="“479188479”"] Well, I’m back. A few weeks ago I asked for recommendations for a camera that can do both video and stills competently well. The top suggestion was the GX85, which I was heavily considering. Work got in the way, so I had to pause any plans and in the interim I realized that I prefer video over stills. With some more money in my pocket and a clearer idea of what I want to shoot, I did some additional research and ran into the a6500. From what I gather, it’s amazing for video, has IBIS, better lowlight performance than the GX85 (really important for me), and shoots good stills. Downsides are Sony’s lackluster lens support for their APS-C models, expensive lenses, and (I think I read about this here) their abandonment of older models once a new one is released, which seems often. Good idea anyway or should I stick with one of the Panasonics? [/quote] You answered your own question essentially and that just leaves the question if you are ok with not a lot of lenses to choose from, expensive native E mount lenses and them releasing new bodies very frequently. The sensors are nothing to complain about of course - they do that well, and over m4/3 you will certainly see improvements between sensors. From my own experience with Sony, those exact disadvantages are what got me to leave them. This was back in 2011 or 12 when I got an NEX5n. It was small, it had a good sensor and I was mostly adapting lenses since I couldn't get what I wanted that was native to E mount (like their only 24mm lens being like 1200 buck or something at the time and not having a native 35mm wide aperture lens, which they do now). My daughter uses that camera now and it still has good IQ but the interface was a pain, the menus were really bad and there were just a bunch of things they could have fixed but didn't, instead releasing a new body shortly after releasing the 5n. With that said, I have an older photographer friend who has 2 a6000 bodies, one modded to shoot infrared and the other standard, and he does amazing work with them. He knows what he is doing and chose those bodies not out of ignorance but as a calculated decision and gets along well with them. They are capable bodies but the negatives were too big for me to want to stay with them and now that they were capitalizing on being the full frame mirrorless option they seem to care even less about APS-C lens lineups. I don't do video at all because I am a pleb who just records myself playing music and I care more about the audio quality, but I have heard that Fuji is actually an option now for video. Maybe someone else can chime in on why or if that is true. I went from Sony to full frame Canon and then sold all of that to go to Fuji and if you were only talking about stills I would always recommend fuji but I just don't know about the video experience except hearing that Fuji Mae it a lot better (who knows what that means though because it was really bad before).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Is the Fujifilm x100 a solid choice for a camera to toss in a sidepocket? They’re going for sub-£200 on eBay now, and it seems like a perfect thing to carry around every day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
ijyt posted:Is the Fujifilm x100 a solid choice for a camera to toss in a sidepocket? They’re going for sub-£200 on eBay now, and it seems like a perfect thing to carry around every day. It was for me. I left it on spot focus on the center point and while it wasn't blazing fast it was much better after all of the updates than it was when I first got it. The Bayer sensor isn't as technically impressive as the trans sensors but it also has an awesome look that is different and something the trans sensors can't quite do. I didn't know they were so cheap now - I might have to buy one since I really miss that old camera. Also I don't know if this is an issue now but when I got mine years back it was important to me to find one used that had already had the sticky aperture issue fixed or one that was produced after they had already addressed it. It has been long enough that I don't remember what serial number is the turning point to cameras that wouldn't have the sticky aperture issue but that info is on the web somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Side pocket as in side of a backpack? Just watch out for the EVF/OVF switch, it can break off easily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Noted, thanks for the info, I’ll keep an eye out!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
I'm trying to sort out back button focusing for my a5000, can't find a guide for my model but loads for the 6000 series which I've followed to a T but the camera is still refocusing (well, attempting to) when I press the shutter? The button I've assigned is working for focusing just fine but even though I've turned AEL w/shutter off and disabled pre-af it's still trying to refocus as I hit the shutter. Doesn't seem to matter which focus mode I use either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
NonzeroCircle posted:I got an a5000 a few months ago and am now looking to get a fast prime for it, sony lenses are pretty pricey, and there aren't many of them- yeah adapter rings exist but I got a mirrorless because I wanted a small camera that'll fit in a pocket. When I was in the shop asking what they'd recommend (I was in a similar situation to you) they said either the Sony or a Panasonic. I went with the Sony for the sensor, low light performance even with the kit lens is pretty decent, I'd imagine the a6500 will leave it in the dirt though. What focal length do you want?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
I'm not totally sure at the moment, I do mostly landscapes with some gig photography, which I want to do more of, generally local bands in small venues. The kit lens goes to 16mm but it's max aperture is 3.5, which means higher ISOs in lower light if I want to keep stuff sharp. I'm looking at primes because I'm generally happy with zooming with my feet, and also the 20mp sensor lets you get away with some super generous cropping in post. A dumb question just to confirm, I gotta do the x1.5 maths to get equivalent focal lengths on lenses as it's an APS-C so a 22mm is equivalent to 35mm (give or take) on a full frame? NonzeroCircle fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
rio posted:You answered your own question essentially and that just leaves the question if you are ok with not a lot of lenses to choose from, expensive native E mount lenses and them releasing new bodies very frequently. The sensors are nothing to complain about of course - they do that well, and over m4/3 you will certainly see improvements between sensors. Yeah, the lens question ultimately comes down to how good I get at this stuff and how much further I’d like to take it. This would be my first “real” camera, after all. I guess I could do alright with just two lenses initially (zoom and prime). And some lenses are better for video than others, apparently? I really don’t see myself going beyond 3 down the road. But what worries me most is the possibility of Sony just abandoning this model for the next. Your example of them refusing to fix things through something like a firmware update to push you towards the next model is unacceptable. Which is a shame, because the a6500 seems like an amazing camera. And it seems that Sony has yet to unfuck their menus, but I guess that’s a small price to pay for the performance of the overall package. Speaking of Fuji, someone else mentioned the X-E3 which also has an APS-C sensor. Obviously it won’t have the same video options/capabilities as the Sony or Panasonic, but for a starter like me, maybe it’ll be good enough? Gotta do some more research. NonzeroCircle posted:I got an a5000 a few months ago and am now looking to get a fast prime for it, sony lenses are pretty pricey, and there aren't many of them- yeah adapter rings exist but I got a mirrorless because I wanted a small camera that'll fit in a pocket. When I was in the shop asking what they'd recommend (I was in a similar situation to you) they said either the Sony or a Panasonic. I went with the Sony for the sensor, low light performance even with the kit lens is pretty decent, I'd imagine the a6500 will leave it in the dirt though. From what I’ve been reading, people are generally happy with their Sony’s, but feel gouged by the cost of lenses. This is definitely a tough decision. Butt Savage fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
If you were seriously considering a gx-85 and your budget got slightly larger, then just get the G85 and enjoy cheap lenses and a good menu system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
NonzeroCircle posted:I'm not totally sure at the moment, I do mostly landscapes with some gig photography, which I want to do more of, generally local bands in small venues. The kit lens goes to 16mm but it's max aperture is 3.5, which means higher ISOs in lower light if I want to keep stuff sharp. I'm looking at primes because I'm generally happy with zooming with my feet, and also the 20mp sensor lets you get away with some super generous cropping in post. You have a lot of options, it depends on what you really want to do. I would highly recommend looking at the Dyxum lens database. http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?chbLensType=1 and set it to E-mount. It will show you all possible lenses available, with links to reviews as well. If you're OK with manual focus you can get several good options on the cheap in native mount. If you want AF, the new Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN seems like it's right up your alley if you want a 24mm equivalent, and it's relatively affordable at $449. It's getting good reviews for image quality, so you should definitely check it out. Sony is rumored to be making a new 16mm prime but it ain't out yet and probably won't be until sometime next year. The Zeiss Batis 18mm is an excellent lens but you'd be paying $1500 for it. A little wider is the Samyang 14mm f/2.8. At $279 it is the cheapest of all the options, but it's not as bright as the Sigma. If you want something less wide, the 24mm Zeiss on APS-C is always a good choice, but it isn't cheap (around $1K). The 28mm f/2 is a little narrower but more than half the price at $424. There's also the 20mm f/2.8, but that may not be bright enough (and also it's a pancake which means some compromise).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
Mmmmmm, ISO 4,000 3 image stitch, taken through a fence, while standing on a guard rail, car idling behind me in a parking lot. The ability to have the x100F with me at all times without weight/size penalty of a dslr, but achieving the IQ of one... yes maam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 11:49
|
|