|
Schneider Heim posted:Nice! But it doesn't seem compatible with the X-T1... drat it. Does this software let you tether control the XT2?
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 09:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:Has Sony's menus improved though? I've read that they've been terrible at them. A6500 onwards (i.e. A9, A7 RIII, A7 III) have a newer menu system. It's still not great, but I find Fuji menus to be cumbersome too. In Fuji however I don't have to dig into menus as often. Panasonic (and Samsung while it existed) has the only modern usable UI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
InFlames235 posted:Well I was going to upgrade to the A7III but I think the ~$3k entry price (to get the camera and 24-105 lens) might end prohibiting me You need to ask yourself whether or not you need (or want) full frame. You'd be asking yourself the same questions if you wanted a 6D or 5Dmk4 because you're playing in the same price ranges then. Full frame gets you more dynamic range, better low light performance, less depth of field, and more lens options without frame compromises (adapters). You might be better off looking at a crop body if budget is a problem. The a7iii has a lot less compromises than the 6D1/2 or D600 1/2 as well and pulls ahead versus the D750 especially if you want to do any videos as well. quote:I view Sony FF cameras as, like, specialized tools that one would use when they need something that Sony's advanced sensor technology offers. Consequently, even though the a7III seems like a great all-around camera from the spec sheet, if I ever saw myself going into the Sony FF system ($$$$), it would be for doing low-light wildlife photo/video (a7SII) or as a partial replacement for medium format film for landscapes (a7RII/III). The X-T2, with it's dials and above-average JPEG engine, is great for most applications because it's a pleasure to use. The real secret sauce of the 42MP sensor in the a99ii (and now the a7Riii and 45MP in the D850) now that they've increased framerates and buffer lengths is that you essentially have a crop body and a FF in one. 42MP high res for wide angle and normal work, and super usable 18MP crops when you need reach and buffer space. Combine that with the dynamic range, it's really hard to beat it. You pay for that privilege, though. Eye AF is the real deal for portraiture. I still haven't moved to E-mount. If they never released the a99ii I probably would have jumped on the a7Riii or the a7iii and made the move because they're finally on the level that's acceptable to me. But I have the luxury of waiting while getting all the tech (like Eye AF) on my SLR lenses. Anarkii posted:A6500 onwards (i.e. A9, A7 RIII, A7 III) have a newer menu system. It's still not great, but I find Fuji menus to be cumbersome too. In Fuji however I don't have to dig into menus as often. Panasonic (and Samsung while it existed) has the only modern usable UI. The new cameras also have My Menu, button load presets (e.g. hold two buttons to change button presets) and more options for custom buttons and Fn menu to menu dive less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 14:37
|
|
. I only spent maybe $1500 total on my 80D and 4 lenses so don’t know if I’m quite at the point to wanting to double that for a body and one lens.
|
whatever7 posted:drat it. No, it's just for converting RAWs
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:drat it. Fujifilm X Aquire is what you're looking for: https://fujifilm-x.com/x-stories/fujifilm-x-acquire-features-users-guide/?L=14+
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Rot posted:Fujifilm X Aquire is what you're looking for: Nice, connect the PC to the Instax printer would make a nice photobooth. Too bad there is no Instax printer for the wide format. edit: I am just happy that Fuji release a piece of software/firmware I am able to use on my old Fuji gears. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Feb 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
The Lighting thread is no more, so I ask here. I've been wanting to buy a flash for my Sigma DP3 Merrill for ages, and now I also have good reason to get something bigger and bounce-able for an X-T2. Is it possible to buy a flash that will do TTL with both cameras? What about one that would be TTL compatible with the Fuji, but work in Auto mode with any camera? I'm a caveman when it comes to lighting knowledge; most of my relevant experience comes from shooting with old film-era flashes.kefkafloyd posted:The real secret sauce of the 42MP sensor in the a99ii (and now the a7Riii and 45MP in the D850 now that they've increased framerates and buffer lengths is that you essentially have a crop body and a FF in one. 42MP high res for wide angle and normal work, and super usable 18MP crops when you need reach and buffer space. Combine that with the dynamic range, it's really hard to beat it. You pay for that privilege, though. Eye AF is the real deal for portraiture. The A-mount SLT concept, which theoretically eliminates the issues of mirror slap and AF chip misalignment, seemed like such a good idea to me back when I was using an aging FF DSLR that was beginning to suffer those issues. And there are a lot of lenses for A-mount, although I wonder how many of the old Minolta's are sharp enough for the 42MP sensor. The Zeiss stuff is very appealing, though. And Sony has a good range of ultra-telephoto lenses, which E-mount still lacks to a degree (although it's better than it was). The robust SLR body also seems like a surer bet for keeping those fancy Sony electronics safe in harsh environments. So the a99II would be on that list of 'things I imagine I might buy one day' just like an a7RIII or D850 (or hell, even a 5DS) - except that I guess there's no actually usable AF in video? I read that can do a rudimentary sort of video AF that only works at f/3.5? I'd think that might be something that would get fixed in a firmware update, but it's Sony.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:The Lighting thread is no more, so I ask here. I've been wanting to buy a flash for my Sigma DP3 Merrill for ages, and now I also have good reason to get something bigger and bounce-able for an X-T2. Is it possible to buy a flash that will do TTL with both cameras? What about one that would be TTL compatible with the Fuji, but work in Auto mode with any camera? I'm a caveman when it comes to lighting knowledge; most of my relevant experience comes from shooting with old film-era flashes. Godox would be the answer, but they don't support Sigma. If you used any other system (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus) you could get multi-system TTL via wireless. The flashes automatically change over when they detect a different system's radio. It's very slick. If you're looking for on-camera flash, well, that's tough. However, the Godox/Flashpoint options are cheap enough that you can buy two (or three!) for the price of one OEM flash. quote:The A-mount SLT concept, which theoretically eliminates the issues of mirror slap and AF chip misalignment, seemed like such a good idea to me back when I was using an aging FF DSLR that was beginning to suffer those issues. And there are a lot of lenses for A-mount, although I wonder how many of the old Minolta's are sharp enough for the 42MP sensor. The Zeiss stuff is very appealing, though. And Sony has a good range of ultra-telephoto lenses, which E-mount still lacks to a degree (although it's better than it was). Video AF on A-mount only works in Program mode, and it's locked at f/3.5 (or the maximum aperture of the lens). The video AF is actually really good when you use an SSM II lens, and they adjusted the aperture pusher motor to make smooth aperture adjustments when using the Silent Multicontroller. But I don't shoot videos and thus I don't care. The a99ii is also plagued by aggressive overheat protection in video mode that exhibits in hot environments. It could be solved by a firmware update, but... they haven't released it like they did for the a7Rii to add the temperature shutoff ceiling control. a99ii is, despite being a very solid and compelling camera, is still just delaying the inevitable. I love the camera, but I recognize that the mount I've been using for 15+ years is dying. I know some people who have hacked lenses to push the aperture lever in to stop down in video and fool the camera, and the camera focuses fine. It may have been technical in the early days of SLTs but now it's purely artificial. They were worried about non-video optimized lenses AFing. As far as glass goes, there's plenty of stuff that can take advantage of the 42 MP. A lot of those old Minoltas are super sharp (the 200 f/2.8 is legendary) but they're breaking and getting harder to fix. There's plenty of good and excellent Sony branded A-mount lenses (as well as third party options). But now that E-mount is built up, it's rarer and rarer that you can't get an option for that. Plus, you can adapt lenses on to E-mount! I've been super pleased with how even my gen1 silver 70-400 performs on the body. The AF isn't as fast as the newest lens, but the resolution is still there and I get superlative results regardless of full frame or crop. I prefer the screen articulation on a99ii. The body feels great in hand and batteries are cheap and plentiful. If you ignore the fact that it's a dead mount walking, it's great! I could easily switch to an a7Riii or even an a7iii and get a 24-105 and 100-400 and be happy. It would just cost me a lot of money I don't want to spend, especially after buying an a99ii last year. But those two cameras didn't exist then. Don't buy into A-mount, get an a7Riii or a7ii instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
Seconding Godox. I use a a TT350F for my on camera needs. It has a pretty slow recharge because it only takes 2 AA batteries but it's tiny and can act as a master for my AD200s. I love the AD200 btw, bare bulb flash rules for the times I want room filling fill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:The Lighting thread is no more, so I ask here. I've been wanting to buy a flash for my Sigma DP3 Merrill for ages, and now I also have good reason to get something bigger and bounce-able for an X-T2. Is it possible to buy a flash that will do TTL with both cameras? What about one that would be TTL compatible with the Fuji, but work in Auto mode with any camera? I'm a caveman when it comes to lighting knowledge; most of my relevant experience comes from shooting with old film-era flashes. I have a Nissin i42, it works with Fuji TTL (although I kind of just say "gently caress it" and use manual anyway even with on-camera use), but it's made to be a portable flash. I think they have a larger model that has more output, but I'm not sure about compatibility with other systems. Are you planning to use TTL off-camera? The Fuji OEM flashes are overpriced garbage according to several reviews.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:Godox would be the answer, but they don't support Sigma. If you used any other system (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus) you could get multi-system TTL via wireless. The flashes automatically change over when they detect a different system's radio. It's very slick. If you're looking for on-camera flash, well, that's tough. However, the Godox/Flashpoint options are cheap enough that you can buy two (or three!) for the price of one OEM flash. Woah, so if I have Godox Fuji flashes I would only need their appropriate wireless controller for the camera system and I still get TTL flash with say Canon or Panasonic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 07:22
|
|
|
I tried Fuji Raw studio or whatever it is tonight. I had a few shots from a jam session and it is cool that I can get them all in Acros - I did the raws in Lightroom with their Acros camera profile and they are close but the ooc one is better. What is not so great is that the program is clunky. I wish that I could use it as a Lightroom plugin since they don’t even have things like cropping. I am going to have to play with it more to see how much I can streamline it but it is looking like it will be similar to the camera in that I would only be using it for small batches of photos. I really do prefer some things that the camera (and this program) can do over Lightroom though so I hope I can make it work. But not even being able to dictate the export size will make me have to use Lightroom probably because putting full res jpgs on Facebook and some other sites makes them look less sharp rather than resizing to 2048p or whatever it is. I do wish that it would do the processing on my computer and not use the camera as the horsepower that drives it. Is there a reason they did it that way? I assume that most of us are using computers that have much higher processing power than whatever is in the X-T2 or whatever body is being used.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Seconding Godox. I use a a TT350F for my on camera needs. It has a pretty slow recharge because it only takes 2 AA batteries but it's tiny and can act as a master for my AD200s. I love the AD200 btw, bare bulb flash rules for the times I want room filling fill. Hi, can the TT350F act as off camera optical light trigger like a Yongnuo manual flash?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 12:29
|
|
|
ugh whatever jeez posted:Woah, so if I have Godox Fuji flashes I would only need their appropriate wireless controller for the camera system and I still get TTL flash with say Canon or Panasonic? Yup. You don't even need a separate controller, though using the controller is helpful. You can use your Godox flash on-camera and act as a commander for other flashes. You have to use the radio protocol, not optical. This means that if you have a Fuji foot Godox and a Canon foot Godox, one can command the other or you could command both by using the controller. This works with their flash guns all the way up to the big lights. You can buy a set of , say, AD200s or AD600s and use them across multiple brands in TTL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:This works with their flash guns all the way up to the big lights. You can buy a set of , say, AD200s or AD600s and use them across multiple brands in TTL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
Yeah my man Dakana fuckin raves about his Godox lights
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Looks like Godox is the way to go for Fuji system. I am going to try the TT350F. If it works out I will get bigger lights. By the way you can buy it from Adorama thru Google Express for $59 plus 30% coupon right now. Google Express just want the user counts, you can use the 30% coupon multiple times with new google accounts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
So the Olympus 1/4x teleconverter for m4/3 is pretty rad. It only works for 2 lenses (the 40-150 f/2.8 and 300mm f/4), but man it is still quick as hell with the 40-150. The 300 hunts a bit but I've only been able to use it in pretty cloudy and some indoor conditions. Holy god the 300 can see FOREVER now. I'll get some example pictures up tonight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
Quick post here, as I'm a lurker and not experienced with cameras. I've posted before about whether I should upgrade my GF1 and keep the 20mm pancake lens, and I think I'd decided to sort myself out with a GX85 sometime soon. But in the meantime, I picked up a 15mm Leica. I figure the easy aperture adjustment might make me learn how to use it properly, and the quick switch from AF to MF might be fun.  And the very time I go to fit it, I notice that when I dropped the body last week, I bust the battery/card cover. So I might be getting the GX85 earlier than expected...  Swings and roundabouts, eh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Teach posted:And the very time I go to fit it, I notice that when I dropped the body last week, I bust the battery/card cover. So I might be getting the GX85 earlier than expected... Well, good timing at least, the release of the GX9 should keep gx85 prices down until it hits EOL. Bad news is you just missed out on the "extra ebayable lens and $100 gc deal" that periodically pops up for that camera. Regardless, youre likely going to love that lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
The X100T arrived today, it's pretty dirty but otherwise nice. Ton of shutter actuations (166k), but who gives a poo poo. I like it. A lot. The viewfinder / OVF / OVF overlay is loving rad as poo poo. I'm coming off an X100T and this feels like a much smaller camera, even though it's not. BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Looking at a 35mm F2 for my first lens for my new X-E2s. Or would I be better off with the 18-55mm 2.8/4? I like the idea of having to learn with a prime lens so I can focus on composition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
cheese posted:Looking at a 35mm F2 for my first lens for my new X-E2s. Or would I be better off with the 18-55mm 2.8/4? I like the idea of having to learn with a prime lens so I can focus on composition. If its to learn composition with a prime, IMO, the 23mm (35mm equiv.) is the lens to get. Either the f/2 or the sublime but largish and expensive f/1.4 Thats my opinion though. A lot of people really love the 35mm for that more narrow field of view, but in my personal opinion the 23mm is more versatile. Either way you choose you are getting a great kit. The 18-55mm is a fantastic zoom and I use it a lot but for some psychological reason I take better pictures when I put a prime on my camera (or carry the X100) and have no other options.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Yeah my man Dakana fuckin raves about his Godox lights I'm a bit 'meh' on the TT350F since they chew through batteries and have slow recycle times. But I'm in love with the AD200s. One thing to point out with the AD200 though: the light stand head they have with them is not great. The lug they come with is machined too smooth and since the AD200's mount isn't really centered to the weight of the unit (it's a bit too far back) if you don't have them tightened just right they can spin around if you have them pointing up say at 45 degrees. So you may want to use a different head or maybe even do something like putting a rubber washer in between to help keep them in place. The AD200 with the bare bulb is fantastic and even the diffused head is pretty good too (the LED modeling lights aren't really bright enough for my liking). But if you're not trying to do a ton of high power pops through them the batteries will last quite a while. I'm glad I went with these and sold off my Alien Bee 400s and the Vagabond Mini. Much less stuff to carry around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
Animal posted:If its to learn composition with a prime, IMO, the 23mm (35mm equiv.) is the lens to get. Either the f/2 or the sublime but largish and expensive f/1.4
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Yo mirrorless thread (specifically oly buying people). We got this in at work today and it seem to me to be working just fine, I didn't have time to do more than a couple of test shots tho. If someone is look for a used G5 it might go pretty cheap. https://www.ebay.com/itm/7-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-G5-micro-four-thirds-MILC-/332572111268?hash=item4d6ed7b1a4
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
Animal posted:If its to learn composition with a prime, IMO, the 23mm (35mm equiv.) is the lens to get. Either the f/2 or the sublime but largish and expensive f/1.4 Agreed - when I switched to Fuji I got the (great) kit lens and the 35m f2 because it was on sale at the time for 200 bucks. Now that I have my pick of focal lengths after getting most of the lenses I want I definitely prefer the 23mm and find it the most versatile. Which I probably knew from the start since the X100 is what got me to switch from Canon and I left my Canon gear at home for several months only using the X100, which has a 23mm lens. I always enjoyed shooting 50mm on film cameras and I thought I’d use the 35mm more (since it is 50mm equivalent) when I got it but the 23 and 56 are far, far more used by me than any other lenses I have. With that said, the kit lens is really good. You can just leave it set to 35mm if you want that or you can leave it set to 23 or whatever - you don’t have to use it as a zoom lens if you don’t want to, with the down side being that the aperture won’t be as wide as the primes. If you do go the 23mm route the f1.4 is magic (as is the 56mm) and although the f2 lenses are great I would choose the larger, clunkier and older f1.4 23mm over the f2 any day. One thing I like about the 35 f2 though is the size and weather resistance. If it is really lovely outside I feel safe leaving off the grip and popping on the 35 so that it will fit in my coat pocket and taking it out in heavy rain or snow or whatever if I don’t feel comfortable bringing the 23 or 56. And it is a good lens - I don’t want to make it sound like it’s bad. 23mm (or 35mm in full frame) is just so versatile, good at so many things and makes you really think for good compositions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
cheese posted:I haven't bought any lenses yet - purchased body only online. Still figuring on zoom vs prime for first lenses. Hey. New Fuji owner with 18-55 and 23/2 here. I'd say that the comparison goes beyond just the abstract ideas of 'zoom' and 'prime', and what they mean for shooting style and technique. There are performance and image quality differences. I bought a kit that came with an 18-55. Coming from mostly film shooting for the past two year, where 28mm equivalent was maybe my favorite all-around FL, I figured that having a stabilized 18/2.8 plus the flexibility of the rest of the zoom range made the 18-55 an obvious choice. Now I've picked up the 23/2 and the zoom comes out only when IS is needed for video. Why? The 23 is sharper in general, but that's just a nice perk, not the reason. Maybe I've been spoiled by old manual-focus prime lenses, but the zoom just has weak image quality spots across the frame, in oddly asymmetric areas. Here're some examples. [Edit: Open in new tab to see. Don't want to break tables] f/5. 18mm. The large rubbish pile behind the fence and in front of the bush.  f/7.1. 18mm. The sapling with reddish leaves, and the top of the ridge above it. (This is a little harder to see since it's stopped down. Point is, it doesn't ever go away completely.)  So what? Sometimes one copy of a lens will be a little worse. But this was the third copy I tried. Returned the first two. I was basically stuck with this one after that. The first had similar performance to this. The second was much worse. Here's a crop of the upper-left corner from the second copy.  The 23, by comparison, holds things together very well.  Just to show that I'm making an even-handed comparison, here's an example of the 23/2 at f/4, where is shows a little relative sharpness loss in the bottom-right corner. This is gone by f/5.6, and really pretty negligible from f/2-4.  None of this is to say you should forego the 18-55. But if you're cursed to always look at critical detail reproduction and fine-resolution image quality like I am, just be aware that the 18-55 is superior in design to your average kit lens, but not necessarily much better in production QC. Maybe I've just had a run of sub-standard copies (not likely), and (even less likely) maybe I could send mine in to Fuji and they'd find it too de-centered or whatever and give me a better one. But it's much more probably the case that they're all like this to some extent. Still, plenty of folks say they have no issues with the 18-55. Maybe the flaws appear less pronounced on the 16MP sensors, or maybe the earlier runs of the 18-55 were better. Photozone.de says that their test copy wasn't well-centered either, though. I think it's just something you have to not be bothered by. It would be really great if the 18-55 was a high-performance lens. But even as it is, it beats out any slower kit zooms I've tried. The 23/2 and the 35/2 (which I used to have) are both quite sharp. If I had to go with just one lens, I'd go with the 23 over the 35. It's just better for scenes and snapshots. I do have a Nikon-Fuji adapter though, and the fast Nikon Ai-S 50's make good short tele lenses in a pinch. It's way more expensive and pointless to try going wide with adapted full-frame lenses. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
The 18-55 is good but pretty much any prime except the 18mm will kill it in IQ. No one is exaggerating when they talk about how good Fuji's lenses are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
As a Fuji person who has used an x100 for the past few years and is considering a move to an X-E2s for its interchangeable lenses, all of that info about the primes vs zoom is really helpful, thanks! I was actually about to make a post asking about going with a prime or two instead of a zoom because I much prefer primes (I really like being able to visualize what an image will look like before I even raise the camera to my eye, and they force me to zoom with my feet), but wasn't sure if people involved in documentary and photojournalism work these days still use primes, or if everyone packs zooms. If a 50mm prime alone was good enough for Cartier-Bresson, surely it's good enough for me, too. Re: 23mm vs 35mm, I am really torn between those two. I shot with just a 50mm Helios prime on my old Zenit film camera for about 6 months when I was traveling long term and learning about taking photos along the way, and loved it, or at least got really used to that focal length. Since returning to the US and getting an x100 to use, despite loving the camera I find that the 23mm focal length nearly always results in me needing to crop — maybe I am just still mentally used to the longer focal length and position myself accordingly, but regardless I feel like I have to get uncomfortably close to people to get a good shot with the 23mm. So, 35mm seems like the most natural choice — but, if the 23mm has more utility, perhaps I should just start getting closer and adapting to it. I was also afraid that the X-E2s would seem unbalanced with the 35mm lens, but I held an E3 with one in a store the other day and it felt just fine, luckily. One additional general question about Fuji's mirrorless lenses/bodies: The x100 unfortunately sucks at manual focusing — are other lenses/bodies better at it? As a person who got used to taking photos on an old school manual film camera, I feel most natural when everything is able to be adjusted manually, and have still not gotten used to autofocusing and setting AF points and the like — I'd much rather just manually focus with the focus ring in the moment, eye to the viewfinder, than fiddle with AF points from shot to shot. I guess what I've discovered I really want out of a digital camera is something that is as close to an old school film camera in feel/operation as possible, but is digital. In any case, I won't be able to afford a new body for a while yet, so it's just me and the x100 still for the time being — maybe in the mean time I'll force myself to get used to getting closer to stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
Keret posted:I feel like I have to get uncomfortably close to people to get a good shot with the 23mm Me too, otherwise it's great at everything else. I might get a 35mm f/2 (or even a 50mm) by the end of the year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
Keret posted:So, 35mm seems like the most natural choice The 35 rules and I personally like it more than the 23 (both the focal length and the photos) — especially if you like to shoot wide open / close to your subject (IMO the weak spot of the 23). If you dig the focal length I think it's a great choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
Keret posted:As a Fuji person who has used an x100 for the past few years and is considering a move to an X-E2s for its interchangeable lenses, all of that info about the primes vs zoom is really helpful, thanks! I was actually about to make a post asking about going with a prime or two instead of a zoom because I much prefer primes (I really like being able to visualize what an image will look like before I even raise the camera to my eye, and they force me to zoom with my feet), but wasn't sure if people involved in documentary and photojournalism work these days still use primes, or if everyone packs zooms. If a 50mm prime alone was good enough for Cartier-Bresson, surely it's good enough for me, too. Yes, the focus rings on Fuji lenses are much better to use than the one on the X100 (I am basing this on the first X100 so I don’t know if they’ve improved it). I forget which other lenses have it but the 23mm 1.4 has a push pull clutch which is nice and others have just the standard aperture ring. All feel good to turn with the right amount of resistance and will never be as good as old lens focus rings to me but for focus by wire they are as good as it gets on new lenses. Another advantage of course is that you can adapt old lenses so if you really just want to focus manually you can use the focus aids like peaking and 1:1 spot magnification (as well as other options) you can just save money and get older manual focus lenses and still use the focus features. On the X-T1 I did that occasionally and it was fun because it did feel the closest to shooting a film body with the external controls and old lenses that I was already used to but with the X-T2 the AF is so much better that I use it for practically everything and only MF for some special situations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
35mm lets you pick out something out of the background better to focus on than the 23mm, and it's a lot easier to use it as an ad-hoc portrait lens, but the 23mm is going to be a better general purpose lens than the 35mm, and a lot of those really impressive environmental shots aren't going to work as well with the narrower focal length. That's the basic trade off between the two. I prefer the 35mm and basically use it 90% of the time. I haven't used the 23mm near as much so I can't speak for it, but the 35mm has two downsides though: 1. bad barrel distortion. It's easy to correct for, but it's substantial enough you lose some sharpness if you do 2. soft up close when wide open. I think the 23mm has the same problem though so I guess that's a wash
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
 BRW40293 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr BRW40475 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr BRW40249 by Ben Wilcox, on FlickrThe 1.4x teleconverter turns the 300mm f/4 into a 420mm f/5.6 (840mm equiv) and holy rear end it can see for miles. These were a couple quick shots at the zoo. It definitely slows the 300's focus down a bit, although I'm sure it being a cold and dark/cloudy day didn't help either. The IS still holds up, but this definitely strains it. Both of these shots are hand-held, but it's definitely asking a hell of a lot out of the lens and body IS, and might be better off paired up with a monopod. Putting it on the 40-150mm is quite nice, although I don't have any examples from it yet. Gives it that little extra step of reach and doesn't seem to slow it down (in terms of focus speed) at all. DJExile fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
Nice shots! Speaking of teleconverters, I’m planning on going on safari next year and will be taking my trusty XT20. Was thinking of renting the 100-400 plus the 1.4x tc, though I imagine that’lll lead to quite a loss of light as the max aperture of the lens is 5.6 at 400 I believe. Anyone else used this setup? It might look and odd and would be very front-heavy but I suppose that wouldn’t matter as I’ll be sitting in a jeep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Lady Gaza posted:Nice shots! I'm a week from going on safari myself: Few things I've picked up and learned in the meantime: Length: Get all the fukkn reach you can, not just because big animals can be plenty far away, but because close ones can be really small. Stabilization: I don't know if/how fuji handles image stabilization between body and lens, but some people swear by these kinda sandbag/beanbag mounts you can get that go over doorframes or windows. Sounds like most people take them empty, then fill them with some rice or beans when they arrive. Memory: Get backups. Then backups for your backups.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
Those Oly 300+1.4 shots are great. The IQ holds up with the TC. And when trying to get 'portrait' shots of animals like that, extra reach generally wins out over absolute sharpness anyway since straight-up optical magnification will reproduce the fine textures of fur and feathers better than cropping & sharpening in most situations. It's cool that Oly has made this kind of specialized solution for super-extra telephoto shooting, considering that the format is already 'pre-cropped' from FF about as far as you can go and still have really critical fine detail reproduction. I like wildlife photography, but I'm rolling deep with Fuji now so compared to m43 there's not much in the way of options for getting past 600mm equivalent focal length. The 100-400 is the only supertele in the lineup right now, and slapping a 1.4x on it makes something like a 560/7.1. With Fuji's aggressive anti-diffraction JPEG processing, that could still be sharp enough (although maybe a little underwhelming for the price), but even with the lens-IS, f/7.1 is going to be a little less useful than f/5.6 with the Oly dual IS. I guess the X-H1 IBIS might help out in this department, but the real solution would probably be the forthcoming 200/2+2X TC, if they ever materialize. Even then the lens and converter will probably cost as much as an EM1ii, 300/4, and 1.4TC combined. rio posted:Another advantage of course is that you can adapt old lenses so if you really just want to focus manually you can use the focus aids like peaking and 1:1 spot magnification (as well as other options) you can just save money and get older manual focus lenses and still use the focus features. On the X-T1 I did that occasionally and it was fun because it did feel the closest to shooting a film body with the external controls and old lenses that I was already used to but with the X-T2 the AF is so much better that I use it for practically everything and only MF for some special situations. Yeah, Fuji manual focus aids are great. The Dual Focus mode is especially nice with the X-T's huge-rear end viewfinder. You can get get a full view of the scene in one big box, and a 100% crop view of your selected focus point in another smaller box. Enable that with peaking and it's the best manual focusing setup of any EVF camera I've used. It even works suitably well with an adapted Nikon 300/4, although I haven't caught any close birds in flight with it yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
Lady Gaza posted:Speaking of teleconverters, I’m planning on going on safari next year and will be taking my trusty XT20. Was thinking of renting the 100-400 plus the 1.4x tc, though I imagine that’lll lead to quite a loss of light as the max aperture of the lens is 5.6 at 400 I believe. Anyone else used this setup? It might look and odd and would be very front-heavy but I suppose that wouldn’t matter as I’ll be sitting in a jeep. Take a bean bag for stabilization on the edge of the vehicle. It makes a huge difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Just some safari advice, I went to Kruger national park in SA last year (which is incredible as an aside). My partner had her crop body Canon +400mm f5.6 as usual, and I had my panny with 60mm macro and 15mm summilux. There were some shots, mainly of lions and birds, that I just couldn't get and she could, but otherwise the 60mm was in its element considering how large and close the animals are. I suppose it depends on where you are and the season, but if you figure on just getting the longest lens you can on your platform and leaving it on, you'll miss a lot of shots. If you are the only person shooting, something like a 70-200mm zoom or roughly in that range is going to be a lot more useful. E- or what InternetJunky said - 100-400 zoom. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Mar 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 19:01
|
|
