|
8th-snype posted:Don't get a Rebel old than the ones I listed because their high ISO is trash. If you can get a cheap 5D that would be even better. Not that it's been mentioned yet, but note that you can't adapt C/Y lenses to Nikon bodies and achieve infinity focus def stick with mirrorless or EF mount if you plan to use those. drat, there's some Nikon D3200 for dirt cheap  Anyways, I was looking into T2i, Canon naming is a bit different around here than the US. XE-1 bought locally and 5D bought on eBay are on the same price range after import, I think in that situation I'd be better of with the 5D? A little over the initial budget but eh, when does a budget in photography is followed, and the T2i ends up not being that much cheaper...
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
I guess one advantage of a low-end mirrorless over a low-end DSLR is the compactness. If getting stuff stolen is a worry, then having a big black camera hanging around your neck seems like a good way to get some unwanted attention. When my friend was recently looking for a new camera, I figured out that the cheapest camera with actual controls and interchangeable lenses that wasn't trash was the Panasonic G7. I posted a bit about it a page or so back. It seems like it would do most of what you want as long as you are fairly sure you will never need a hotshoe. The body+lens kit was €300 over here (Slovakia) from a local big box store. It's super tiny too so will easily fit in a pocket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Wow, I just looked at used gx7 prices on eBay, and I do not understand what is going on. Most are going for more than a gx-85 body after you sell the kit lens. Hopefully he could find a cheaper one in his home market, because that was a beloved camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
The T2i (550d outside of the US) is my main camera at work. It does a decent job at up to ISO 3200 in bad light and the controls aren't pants on head stupid. The 5d OG is probably better in lower ISO ranges and it will let you use your C/Y glass at their native FOVs but a used one will probably have seen a lot of action. The 5d will have a massively better VF but the 550d has decent liveview (the first decent rebel LV imo). The 5d is also weather sealed but weighs twice as much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I guess one advantage of a low-end mirrorless over a low-end DSLR is the compactness. If getting stuff stolen is a worry, then having a big black camera hanging around your neck seems like a good way to get some unwanted attention. I worry less with a big gently caress-off camera than a smaller one, since there's less black market for expensive cameras than smaller ones. Honestly what's really bad on theft around here are cellphones, camera-wise it doesn't happen a lot (besides tourists, but tourists would be robbed off their briefs if possible) GEMorris posted:Wow, I just looked at used gx7 prices on eBay, and I do not understand what is going on. Most are going for more than a gx-85 body after you sell the kit lens. Hopefully he could find a cheaper one in his home market, because that was a beloved camera. That and the G7 are almost non-existent around here. I saw people talking well about panas in this thread but they're not to be found here. 8th-snype posted:The T2i (550d outside of the US) is my main camera at work. It does a decent job at up to ISO 3200 in bad light and the controls aren't pants on head stupid. The 5d OG is probably better in lower ISO ranges and it will let you use your C/Y glass at their native FOVs but a used one will probably have seen a lot of action. The 5d will have a massively better VF but the 550d has decent liveview (the first decent rebel LV imo). The 5d is also weather sealed but weighs twice as much. So it ends up being better ISO + newer + liveview versus full frame + better viewfinder + weather sealing. (Weight I don't care). Thought choice. Is it hard to manual focus on dSLRs without liveview? Of course it will also depend on findind a good offer on a 5D if it's the first choice. Seems like both ways I'd be well equipped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Manual focus on a pentamirror slr like a rebel is inherently worse than a pentaprism like the 5d. liveview is significantly better than both because you can zoom it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Sony NEX 6 or 7? Panasonic GH3 is pretty rugged and takes real-rear end good HD video if you're at all inclined to that. Don't know how cheap you can find a GH3 but surely it's gone down further with the 5/5S coming out. But I don't know what's going on with Panasonic in general because GEMorris posted:Wow, I just looked at used gx7 prices on eBay, and I do not understand what is going on. Most are going for more than a gx-85 body after you sell the kit lens. Hopefully he could find a cheaper one in his home market, because that was a beloved camera. IDK WTF is going on with this. I noticed it too. Edit: what about old Pentax DSLRs? I hear a lot about using old Pentax MF lenses in them. Do they have decent focus confirmation feedback or something? Cheap DSLRs are usually poo poo for manual focusing. (I find higher end pentaprism cameras to have only slightly less bad manual focus operation, honestly.) SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Feb 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Manual focus on a pentamirror slr like a rebel is inherently worse than a pentaprism like the 5d. liveview is significantly better than both because you can zoom it. Thanks. It seems like you can also adapt a split screen on Canons but them you lose correct metering SMERSH Mouth posted:Sony NEX 6 or 7? Panasonic GH3 is pretty rugged and takes real-rear end good HD video if you're at all inclined to that. Don't know how cheap you can find a GH3 but surely it's gone down further with the 5/5S coming out. Sony cameras just take all the joy out of shooting for me. I can't explain but I've used them (NEX 3 and NEX 7) and just plain hated the whole experience. The grip, the feel of the buttons, eugh. The GH3 looks like an awesome camera but I can only find it on eBay and I'm seeing body-only for 500 bucks, twice what I'm thinking about spending... Maybe I should switch threads to the dSLR one since it ended up being mostly between the 5D and the T2i to avoid derailing this thread even further...
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
If we are talking m43 and body only used with viewfinder required, then the Om-d 10 mk1 might be the best option
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
No we love talking about how much Sony sucks in here. Their older cameras make great files but their menus and controls are a warcrime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:No we love talking about how much Sony sucks in here. Their older cameras make great files but their menus and controls are a warcrime. I use a NEX 3 (That I got from someone in the forums a long time ago) for digitalizing my film and the image quality is very good, but screw using it for anything else. I swear I tried and just gave up several times. It feels like it's draining your soul or something, plainly not enjoyable. That's part of the reason for this thread, I wanted to use the NEX as my digital camera but I just don't see myself doing it. GEMorris posted:If we are talking m43 and body only used with viewfinder required, then the Om-d 10 mk1 might be the best option Woah, nice one. I remember briefly using one a friend had and it was a very good camera to handle and shoot. Prices on ebay are on par with the 5D, but locally they are insane (I'm talking 1000USD for a used one, with the kit lens). Same price as a new Panasonic G7 (basically the only pana found locally). So, import and local: For Import the options would be the 5D and the OM-10. Both nice cameras, but the "keeping all my lenses" is winning on me (Honestly I never expected I could find a full frame in that price range, even if it's a old rugged beast - it would match the rest of my gear on that). Thought the OM-D 10 will be kept in mind if I decide going m43 in the end. For local I'm stuck with Canon and Fuji as contestants, both APC-S as M43 seems to not have many adherents here. Comparing a T2i and a XE-1, the XE-1 being 30% more expensive than the T2i, what would be the pros and cons? Primo Itch fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Feb 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
The XE1 will crush the T2i in high ISO quality. The EVF can be zoomed and has focus peaking so manual focus will be much nicer. The EVF in that model is older and has a low refresh rate tho so it can be jumpy in low light.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
ReverendHammer posted:For the focus settings most of what you mention is already set as such (save for back button focus which I need to put myself in habit of doing). I should also see if eye detection gives me better results. So to provide an update here: yep, the X-T2 does have focusing issues in low light situations (ISO 400, SS 200). In those cases single point focus does have a tendency to lean more towards the back edge and even then it would sometimes miss. Face detection would hardly ever trigger. I had a bunch of Einsteins on just for their modeling lights since the studio I rented today had them (was using my Godox AD200s for strobes) but even then I had issues. So in these cases if I'm going to autofocus I'll probably have to go ISO 800 just to make sure things don't go soft. Which really is probably OK since the ISO noise really doesn't get noticeable until 3200 and up. And even then post-processing at 800 will most likely mitigate most things. Unless other lenses are better about this certain modes of thought for portraiture like 'shoot to remove the lights in the room' don't quite work here. On top of that when you also consider you have an EVF that makes in camera composition much harder. So I may just always have to assume that I need to shoot a couple of stops above base ISO just so I don't miss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
The XT2 focus is direct feed, meaning it adjusts focus directly off the sensor; not reflecting into a separate AF module like DSLRs. There is no such thing as front or back focus because it corrects itself automatically. Put the camera on a tripod, shoot a yardstick taped to a desk with a single AF point, or get a focus calibrator if you must. Using eye detection mode on a computer monitor is meaningless. Shutter speed has nothing to do with focus. High or Low ISO doesn't matter, the camera will momentarily boost ISO in darkness to help achieve focus. I've shot about 80,000 photos with a pair of XT2's, at least 90% at iso 1600 & 1/200 shutter, and missed focus maybe a handful of times. I can all but guarantee your focus issues are operator errors. red19fire fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Feb 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I can all but guarantee your focus issues are operator errors. I meant to make a carepost yesterday about thus but yeah this is accurate. I've shot well over 50k images on my xpro2 and have never seen what I would call backfocusing. The only times I miss focus is when the af box is too large and it grabs something of greater contrast behind my subject. Also RevendHammer could you elaborate on what you mean by EVFs making composition harder? You are seeing exactly what the sensor will capture that's tons better imo than an SLR.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
Um, dumb question, but what is focus peaking? My X-T1 has like 3 different manual focus aids but I don't know how to use any of them (since I'm on AF all the time). The one I tried gave some magnified PIP thing to check if my subject was really in focus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:I meant to make a carepost yesterday about thus but yeah this is accurate. I've shot well over 50k images on my xpro2 and have never seen what I would call backfocusing. The only times I miss focus is when the af box is too large and it grabs something of greater contrast behind my subject. Also RevendHammer could you elaborate on what you mean by EVFs making composition harder? You are seeing exactly what the sensor will capture that's tons better imo than an SLR. red19fire posted:The XT2 focus is direct feed, meaning it adjusts focus directly off the sensor; not reflecting into a separate AF module like DSLRs. There is no such thing as front or back focus because it corrects itself automatically. Put the camera on a tripod, shoot a yardstick taped to a desk with a single AF point, or get a focus calibrator if you must. Using eye detection mode on a computer monitor is meaningless. Shutter speed has nothing to do with focus. High or Low ISO doesn't matter, the camera will momentarily boost ISO in darkness to help achieve focus. red19fire: I think if I provide an example here it might help. When I was shooting with two friends a couple of weeks ago and we did some duo shots. The one thing I kept noticing was that while one person would be in focus if the other was slightly behind them by just even like two or three inches the focus would be soft on them. I was shooting at 35mm f/3.6 from six feet away. So there should be enough depth of field to have them both in focus. But it was always the person that was slightly further back that would go soft. And it's not the first time I've seen this happen. What made me wonder about if it was related to ISO in some way was much like you I can shoot at higher ISOs and not have these problems. So I had to wonder if it had to tie into my shooting situation (which I describe below). 8th-snype: Yeah, should have clarified that more. So for this instance if I was A) attempting to shoot at a lower ISO, and B) using only strobes to light the scene typically the image in the EVF would be very dark aside from the boost needed for focusing. So that makes composing in camera a bit more of a pain. It would be nice if there was a way to trigger that ISO boost (well, aside from physically turning the dial anyway) just to help with that. Really I could probably go ahead and bump the ISO and adjust my lighting accordingly since really the noise doesn't start to get noticeable on the X-T2 till like 3200. I was just hoping to figure out a way to be able to shoot at lower ISOs in this case and still be able to compose the way I want to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
So slightly soft focus is within tolerance, depth of field isn't a rigid box where everything is guaranteed to be in razor sharp focus, it's a 12-18 inch deep plane of 'acceptable focus'. Closer to the 'edges' of the focal plane are closer to the 'unacceptable' part of the focus spectrum. You can push your ISO to use a smaller aperture, like 5.6, to get a larger 'safe zone' of focus, so to speak. I also think face detection focus tries to find a medium range where every face is in equal focus, I don't trust it at all. it could be that you moved slightly between focusing and firing the shutter, or the subjects moved slightly, or both; I do this all the time because I focus and recompose constantly. I find the electric shutter mode is slightly softer than mechanical shutter and more susceptible to motion blur. There's a bunch of technique-related things to check before I'd worry about mechanical issues, and those are fairly easy to diagnose. E: VV That too, the nature of mirrorless cameras means they need stronger contrast than dslr's, and are more susceptible to being 'fooled' by bright reflections. red19fire fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Feb 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
My X-T2 is definitely capable of buggy focusing. I believe it can mis-focus, but obviously not front- or back-focus in the traditional sense for the reason already mentioned. I've missed people shots, almost certainly because of using too large of an AF box and catching the background, again as already mentioned. I've had focus fail to acquire inside a small AF box on surfaces that were seemingly too uniform. (I say 'seemingly' because they had visible texture and by my reasoning should've been able to catch the attention of the AF system.) What's odd is that the box over the same spot will fail over and over again if you keep it pointed at the same spot, but focus on something else and come back to the exact same place that it failed with before and it will appear to grab onto it without issue. I've had focus confirmation engage on an 'easy' subject, only to have the exposure show that the lens was actually at or near MFD. Even in bright outdoor light. In theory, the on-sensor AF points and CDAF system should eliminate inaccurate focus except in the case of operator error. In practice, there are times when something doesn't work 'right'. It feel like I never had any issues like these with my old a6000, and I'm drat certain that my E-M10 is comparably infallible. It seems to me like most of my issues have occurred in the first few shots after turning the camera on, and I can only speak to them happening with the 18-55. So far no such issues with the 35/2. And closer to ReverendHammer's point, I've seen face detect recognize faces in mirrors, but grab focus on the surface of the mirror rather than the face itself. That's a focus error that placed the focus 'in front of' the intended subject. It's weird. I can't understand why your camera would actually focus better at higher ISOs, unless maybe it's just that switching a setting clears the firmware of whatever kind of error it's experiencing. I think that if the problem is with your gear, is likely a physical issue with your lens (that's the hunch I've got with mine...but it took me three tries to get an optically great copy of the 18-55 so I'm very reluctant to send it back), or a firmware bug. Or it could be operator error, for real. I don't know what you're seeing; all I know is that my experience with AF accuracy on other MILCs was better than the X-T2. The overall speed is nice, though, and the tracking/C-AF is very usable and consistent (within the bounds of what you'd expect from C-AF on a mirrorless camera with a first-gen lens). It's the S-AF that gets me. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Feb 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
When using strobes with an EVF turn off exposure preview. Then you have a nice bright VF.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
Hey guys, I've had an OG Fuji X100 as my only camera for a few years, and I'm hoping to supplement it with a new mirrorless body that I can change lenses on for more varied use. I love the feel and use of the X100, so I'd like to stick to something similar, which in my budget range has led me to a toss up between the XT-1 and X-ES2. What are your thoughts on one vs. the other? Budget is a concern, which makes the X-ES2 seem like the better option (at around 2/3 the price of the XT-1), but if the XT-1 is that much better, I would certainly consider saving more and waiting to get a more quality body. Either way, I intend to get the XF 18-55 2.4-4 kit lens with it. Has anyone used both, and care to comment?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
Keret posted:Hey guys, I've had an OG Fuji X100 as my only camera for a few years, and I'm hoping to supplement it with a new mirrorless body that I can change lenses on for more varied use. I love the feel and use of the X100, so I'd like to stick to something similar, which in my budget range has led me to a toss up between the XT-1 and X-ES2. What are your thoughts on one vs. the other? Budget is a concern, which makes the X-ES2 seem like the better option (at around 2/3 the price of the XT-1), but if the XT-1 is that much better, I would certainly consider saving more and waiting to get a more quality body. Either way, I intend to get the XF 18-55 2.4-4 kit lens with it. Has anyone used both, and care to comment? From an image quality perspective, they're much of a muchness. The X-T1 fit my hand a little better, but the X-E2 was a lot closer to an X100. I think the X-T1 may have had a slightly faster operation than the X-E2, but if you're using an original x100, the X-E2 is going to be stellar. I personally prefer the position of the evf on the X-E2, but I prefer the actual EVF of the X-T1. Is it worth 1/3 more? I don't think so, and that 1/3 can be put toward a 35/2 or 50/2 (both absolutely brilliant).
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
X-E vs X-T series IMO comes down to: nose in the screen and tilting LCD or superior EVF position but fixed screen. Why Fuji, why...
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:It's funny that one of the majorly cool things about 'mirrorless' (rangefinder etc) film cameras was their ability to take wide-angle lenses with rear elements that almost touched the film plane, but that advantage is lost with digital mirrorless. One of the main reason people complain that the full frame mirrorless cameras are still huge with full frame lenses is because the back focusing distance/flange distance aka the distance between the sensor and the lens mount on those full frame lenses were not optimized for mirrorless. Eg. if you pickup the Sony 16-35 GM lens and look at the rear part of the lens, you can see the huge empty space between the last rear element and the lens mount itself. Because they've most likely just used their older/non mirrorless optimized designs.  Similar things can be observed on other lenses too albeit with some slight modification or added elements. Adopting lenses usually doesn't have that much negative effects on IQ especially for regular focal length or longer tele. But like others have pointed out earlier, it's kinda bad on wide angle when you are trying to bend light at extreme angles just so it can essentially 'shoot straight' into the body/sensor area. So what can you do? If you are stuck with a long back focusing distance like canon (44mm, sony is 18mm) you have to use a bunch of elements to correct the aberrations so the light can shoot straight when it reaches the mirror box. You can also see how much effort Canon put in to achieve that on their 11-24mm f4. It weighs 2.6lb and cost 3k. The result is basically the best wide angle ever made but lol @ the size/weight and cost. The other route is to decrease the back focusing distance or mount the glass right against the sensor. Check out the capability of sony's old "mirrorless" camera with only 2.1mm backfocusing distance. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A6.HTM That was pretty amazing considering it was 2005 and they didn't use a bunch of fancy glass in the camera. And that was in 2005, now there's the Sony 12-24 f4 G and sony have done it again.  Weighs and costs around half of the canon while being much more portable. The best part is that the IQ is similar or indistinguishable even when compared to a 5DsR+11-24, the best wide angle. Granted there's a 1mm difference but eh, it's almost half the weight and price  On a slight tangent, this is also why I always just laugh when people whines at canon to produce a FF mirrorless (with short flange distance) that can take regular canon lenses without using an adapter "because adapter  is dumb and increase the size and weight of the camera " as if they can somehow change the physical properties of light.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 11:34
|
|
|
Yeah cosina went on to release a later version of the 15mm (mkIII) that had a reworked design for use on digital sensors. So mirrorless camera lenses can accrue some advantage from being able to sit closer to the sensor than a DSLR. It just has to be designed differently than a traditional 'symmetrical' wide-angle formula. I see. That's definitely a more reasonable and economical route to go down than fabricating curved sensors, but it'd still be cool. I wonder if curved sensors would have any other advantages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
I didn't read all the Fuji posts but have you adjusted that perscription eye thing? I don't know how the evf corrects for it but I know when I accidentally adjusted it I was missing focus on my beautiful hound.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
GX-85 Primes-only with baby update: I use the 15mm like 80% of the time, the 42.5mm the other 20% and the 25mm not at all. Not a dig on the 25 as it is a great lens, especially for the price, and was my first intro to fast primes, but I'm just not finding a use for it fwiw.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Encrypted posted:Eg. if you pickup the Sony 16-35 GM lens and look at the rear part of the lens, you can see the huge empty space between the last rear element and the lens mount itself. Because they've most likely just used their older/non mirrorless optimized designs. Just an FYI, The 16-35GM is not related to the previous A-mount design. It's completely different in a variety of ways. But you've explained the general principles very well There are reasons to air-gap certain lenses, but most of them boil down to the fact that telephoto (and telecentric wide-angle) designs tend to end up with longer registration distances anyway. The GM is supposed to be uber-performance at a very wide aperture, and its geometry needs probably required a more retrofocal design to avoid excessive vignetting or smearing. quote:Check out the capability of sony's old "mirrorless" camera with only 2.1mm backfocusing distance. One advantage single-lens systems have is that you can optimize the lens and sensor construction to match each other. The Sony RX1 has a similar setup where the lens is right up against the sensor. In an interchangeable system, there's no guarantee (exactly) as to what sensor type you're going against, and some sensors have better performance than others or different designs when it comes to microlens layout. When the lens designer is aware of those factors, they can design around them and match it to the sensor. quote:For example, if you take the 1st gen CV 15mm (a film camera lens that almost touches the film plane) and mount it on an A7, the corners will be full lovely with color fringes. It's because of the color filter layer on top of the sensor? It seems to make sense; the light is hitting a glass surface at a very sharp angle. I've heard this is a reason that Sony was once researching curved sensors. A sensor is basically a very fine mesh grid, think of it like a screen door, or an ice cube tray. The incoming light hits these wells which are formed of a few layers (microlens, bayer filter array, and the front glass). You can get crosstalk between these wells and what color they are sensitive to, and photos that hit at an incident angle might not be completely read. That's why the first group of full-frame sensors had troubles with vignetting until offset microlenses were invented. You can account for these kinds of problems in the sensor design, but you may make decisions that work better for some optics and not so much on others. A curved sensor could help, but you'd have to curve it in relation to the projection of the lens, which would be difficult to do in an interchangeable system, but not a fixed lens system. Current digital sensor designs love straight-on rays, and lenses try to design with that in mind. Film didn't work this way. Aside from not being perfectly flat, the crystals on the film substrate did not have anything to block and separate the incoming light. Color sensitivity was handled in different ways. Chromagenic processes used multiple levels of substrate to be sensitive to different wavelengths of light. There's no grid, no glass, no wells. Ergo, much less sensitive to incident angles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:Um, dumb question, but what is focus peaking? My X-T1 has like 3 different manual focus aids but I don't know how to use any of them (since I'm on AF all the time). The one I tried gave some magnified PIP thing to check if my subject was really in focus. melon cat fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Feb 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:GX-85 Primes-only with baby update: I shoot my baby videos with the 14mm, 16mm and 56mm lens. What I have found is 14mm 2.8 is not bright enough for taking baby video in door. The 1.4 lens still take great and distinctive video. But with a 2.8 lens, the XT1 is not cutting it. I prefer the video from a $100 gopro knock off over the XT1/2.8 lens combo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I shoot my baby videos with the 14mm, 16mm and 56mm lens. What I have found is 14mm 2.8 is not bright enough for taking baby video in door. The 1.4 lens still take great and distinctive video. All of my primes are at 1.7 and while I occasionally use an off camera strobe to soften shadows, I'm finding 1.7 to be sufficiently fast for my current needs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
melon cat posted:Focus Peaking is only used for manual focusing. It's a visual aid to help you properly set your focus. If you have Focus Peaking turned on, the EVF shows a highlighted, outlined area for the areas that are currently in-focus. An example. Ah yes, did a quick scroll and saw a few comments and remembered how toxic the community is there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
rio posted:Ah yes, did a quick scroll and saw a few comments and remembered how toxic the community is there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Hey all, I have a friend who's interested in getting a decent camera for travel photography. He has a budget of £400-£500, and I've convinced him to try a mirrorless instead of getting a DSLR (he mostly just wants a decent camera that if he likes he can do more fun stuff with). I see a lot of people mentioning the GX85, which slots neatly into the upper end of the price range, but is there anything else I should be recommending for an amateur? Ease of use but also potential power (as he's quite good at picking up new tech and adapting) are both priorities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
AfricanBootyShine posted:Hey all, I have a friend who's interested in getting a decent camera for travel photography. He has a budget of £400-£500, and I've convinced him to try a mirrorless instead of getting a DSLR (he mostly just wants a decent camera that if he likes he can do more fun stuff with). I see a lot of people mentioning the GX85, which slots neatly into the upper end of the price range, but is there anything else I should be recommending for an amateur? Ease of use but also potential power (as he's quite good at picking up new tech and adapting) are both priorities. Panasonics are nice, relatively cheap cameras that will serve the enthusiastic amateur well. Their main downside is that lenses tend to be a bit expensive and their sensors are small (which has various side effects on focus etc. that in all honesty he probably won't ever notice unless he becomes a gigantic image quality snob). Their main upside is that you can adapt most any old lens to them, if you don't mind focusing manually. He'll also want to grab several extra batteries (cheap Chinese ones are usually fine) and a sturdy carrying case. Also, if he has a smartphone, the Panasonic app actually doesn't suck and opens up some neat possibilities re: monitoring and remote triggering. After that, he should be ret-2-go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Panasonic / Olympus lenses are expensive? I've not cross shopped different camera formats but this was not my impression, do you have some examples? Legit interested not being a platform/brand fanboi
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Canon/Nikon 50mm lenses (and for nikon at least the 50mm equivalent 35mm dx) come to mind as ones that are cheaper, though it's not like the panasonic/olympus options are super expensive. The Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX is $200 new, the 50mm 1.8g is only a bit more, Canon's 50mm 1.8 is $125, etc. And then you can imagine how cheap these wind up on the used market. I don't think that's necessarily a huge deal though in the grand scheme of things and there are other focal lengths where it's a different story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
powderific posted:Canon/Nikon 50mm lenses (and for nikon at least the 50mm equivalent 35mm dx) come to mind as ones that are cheaper, though it's not like the panasonic/olympus options are super expensive. The Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX is $200 new, the 50mm 1.8g is only a bit more, Canon's 50mm 1.8 is $125, etc. And then you can imagine how cheap these wind up on the used market. I don't think that's necessarily a huge deal though in the grand scheme of things and there are other focal lengths where it's a different story. The 50mm equivalent Panasonic lens (25mm 1.7) is like $150 most of the year. It's not much cheaper used but that's mainly a function of it not having been around for all that long. The Oly 45mm is an example of a good lens that has been around awhile but it can be had for sub-$200 used. I wasn't aware that the Canon and Nikon fast primes were so cheap, but I was always comparing Panasonic lens costs to Sony, and I honestly never looked into Fuji.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
GX85 got here last week and had a chance to really play with it a lot this weekend. As someone who hasn't owned a non-smart phone camera in a decade, holy poo poo! It does so much, feels so good and was a real steal price wise. The only real gripe is that I'm missing the flippable screen more than I thought. The wife gave me a heavy eye roll when we tried to take a selfie on our hike from a nice vista. We got it with a little trial and error, but I think I might need something with a true rotating screen (either flip up all the way or to the side). It looks if I want a flip screen on a relatively compact camera without breaking the bank, I need... 1) GX850 - potentially mediocre ergonomics, no IBIS and 5 minutes of 4k video 2) Olympus Pen F - expensive, no 4k video 3) G85 - bigger, lose the rangefinder style I like (no nose on the glass) Is the Olympus Pen F really the only recent camera that combines IBIS, flip screen and a rangefinder location for the viewfinder?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
Or use the smartphone app
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 01:18
|
|
