|
8th-snype posted:Read the date on that article drat... I was just going through their site the other day and didn't pay any attention.  It sounded pretty crazy...
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
Another noob question: how relevant are filters in the age of digital photography? I'm getting a cheap UV filter mostly to protect the lens but I see a lot of others like polarizers, red filters for B&W, etc. How useful are these for digital? It seems like we can tweak the tone after the fact anyway and my camera has a built-in 4 stop ND filter so it's not super important. I do a lot of outdoor daylight, would a polarizer do much for me?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
qirex posted:Another noob question: how relevant are filters in the age of digital photography? I'm getting a cheap UV filter mostly to protect the lens but I see a lot of others like polarizers, red filters for B&W, etc. How useful are these for digital? It seems like we can tweak the tone after the fact anyway and my camera has a built-in 4 stop ND filter so it's not super important. I do a lot of outdoor daylight, would a polarizer do much for me? If your sensor's latitude is wide enough to cover the whole scene, you don't need to use polarizer. You can just use a RAW converter to get the highlight and shadow detail back in post. However playing with Capture One or Photoshop is not faster than an analog filter. Dark ND filter is for getting blurry effect in day light, it's very hard to fake in post. Somebody else can answer the red filter question.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
qirex posted:Another noob question: how relevant are filters in the age of digital photography? I'm getting a cheap UV filter mostly to protect the lens but I see a lot of others like polarizers, red filters for B&W, etc. How useful are these for digital? It seems like we can tweak the tone after the fact anyway and my camera has a built-in 4 stop ND filter so it's not super important. I do a lot of outdoor daylight, would a polarizer do much for me? Don't get the UV filter, the X100 lens doesn't like it. I had a high quality B&W UV filter and it produced color distortion on the X100T when the sun was in the frame. Just use a lens hood to protect the lens. I don't know much about polarizers, other than there's been a few times I wished I had one.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
Polarizers are still relevant and not really something you can replicate in post, along with very dark NDs for long exposure. Almost anything else you can do in post. Seems like some landscape folks still like using grads instead of doing HDR/comping together multiple exposures, and on the cinema side people seem to use mist filters quite a bit but I don't hear of that much with stills.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Color filters for b&w don't really make sense on a bayer sensor. You might as well let's all the pixels record their R, G or B light levels then you can mix'n'match during post processing (or select the red biased B&W creative filter in camera).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
I take a lot of pictures by the bay and ocean plus it's pretty much always windy in SF, I'm worried about salt and sand and other stuff that a lens hood doesn't do anything about. I'm looking and there's clear filters if UV ones will cause issues.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
qirex posted:Another noob question: how relevant are filters in the age of digital photography? I'm getting a cheap UV filter mostly to protect the lens but I see a lot of others like polarizers, red filters for B&W, etc. How useful are these for digital? It seems like we can tweak the tone after the fact anyway and my camera has a built-in 4 stop ND filter so it's not super important. I do a lot of outdoor daylight, would a polarizer do much for me? I've never used UV filters. The first reason is quality. You're spending lots of money on nice lenses that have been scientifically engineered to deliver superior image quality only to shoot through a cheap piece of thin clear flat glass. The second reason is "protection". The front element on a camera lens is a round disc of ridiculously hard and thick glass and has been given anti scratch coatings etc. Its not going to break. It will however get scratched so thats where people think they need to protect their lenses. In all honesty, most scratches on the front element (unless they are big, long or deep) don't affect the image all that much. By sticking a fragile piece of glass in front of your super robust piece of glass, if the filter is shattered ... its going to throw its glass shards towards your nice lens and those glass shards are more likely to scratch your lens than what you would encounter during daily use. If you want front lens element protection, use a hood. Also in the "protection" sense, if you drop your lens face down (without a hood on) and you have a filter installed, the filter is pretty much guaranteed to shatter but a fun bonus is when the actual threaded ring can get bent meaning it will torque itself onto your lens so tight that its nearly impossible to get it off without cutting it off or using excessive force which could damage your lens further. Just my 2¢ but I would rather have better image quality and no cheap glass shards sitting in front of my expensive lens. The only filters I'll use are for a specific effect (ND, polarizer etc). Everyone should have a circular polarizer filter especially if you shoot outside. It cuts glare and reflection from non metal objects. Water has one of the biggest noticeable effects but it works on the sky, leaves etc.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
qirex posted:I take a lot of pictures by the bay and ocean plus it's pretty much always windy in SF, I'm worried about salt and sand and other stuff that a lens hood doesn't do anything about. I'm looking and there's clear filters if UV ones will cause issues. I wouldn't worry about it. I have taken my X100T through some pretty inhospitable environments all around the world. Its been sprayed with sea water, rained on, the lens is still perfect. I think under those conditions the electronics will fail long before the lens itself.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
I do use a grad ND filter. Easy to apply in post (or remove) but exposing so the sky doesn't get blown out means pushing the shadows more. Though mostly it just keeps me from making that mistake as easily.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
I got a cheap-ish 10 stop ND and don’t like it - I get a noticeable drop in sharpness. I feel like it’s only worth getting decent filters, otherwise as others have said you’re putting cheap glass in front of expensive glass which negates the quality of the lens. In my opinion though all UV/clear filters are pointless.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
I mean, its literally the thread title for the Camera Gear thread. Camera Gear v8 "Buy A Pentax ME" (Don't buy UV filters, do hail satan)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Animal posted:I wouldn't worry about it. I have taken my X100T through some pretty inhospitable environments all around the world. Its been sprayed with sea water, rained on, the lens is still perfect. I think under those conditions the electronics will fail long before the lens itself.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
I use clear/UV filters sometimes. They're nice if you're going to be out in weather wiping the lens all the time cause you don't have to worry about grit and whatnot. I'll also put them on gear I'm pretty sure I'll be selling eventually (or am not sure about yet) as it's way easier to move lenses if the front element is pristine. Right now I have one on my 17-35 cause it's my go-to inclement weather lens, my 58mm 1.4 cause I don't know if I want to keep it, and my 80-400 cause the hood is enormous and I'd rather run without it most of the time. The rest of my lenses are all sans UV filter.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 20:51
|
|
qirex posted:I take a lot of pictures by the bay and ocean plus it's pretty much always windy in SF, I'm worried about salt and sand and other stuff that a lens hood doesn't do anything about. I'm looking and there's clear filters if UV ones will cause issues. Given that the x100 series isn't particularly strongly weather sealed, if you get in a situation where salt/sand/spray would gently caress with the lens, its gonna infiltrate all the parts and hatches a UV filter isn't touching.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
qirex posted:Another noob question: how relevant are filters in the age of digital photography? I'm getting a cheap UV filter mostly to protect the lens but I see a lot of others like polarizers, red filters for B&W, etc. How useful are these for digital? It seems like we can tweak the tone after the fact anyway and my camera has a built-in 4 stop ND filter so it's not super important. I do a lot of outdoor daylight, would a polarizer do much for me? Get the Fuji or JJC hood and a CPL. The hoods have a thread adapter, which you’ll need for any filter to be attached. The hood itself attaches to the outside of this thread adapter using a bayonet mount. I used a CPL on my X100T, and it was on the camera all the time. It’s great for removing glare in the sky and reflective surfaces such as water, windows or cars. A good CPL will also remove another 1 - 2 stops of light. The built-in ND is fantastic. Since the X-Trans sensor doesn’t (really) stop down to ISO 100, the ND helps you keep highlights in check when ISO200 is all you have. Along with that, the ND also lets you go f/2 in daylight, or even underexpose. So you can get neato DOF and even underexposure while walking around the city. I also used it for long exposures and experimental lightpainting. It’s the one thing I miss the most when using the X-H1.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
qirex posted:Another noob question: how relevant are filters in the age of digital photography? I'm getting a cheap UV filter mostly to protect the lens but I see a lot of others like polarizers, red filters for B&W, etc. How useful are these for digital? It seems like we can tweak the tone after the fact anyway and my camera has a built-in 4 stop ND filter so it's not super important. I do a lot of outdoor daylight, would a polarizer do much for me? Just to reiterate a key point. The glare reduction from a circular polarizer over water for example cannot be replicated in post. Darkening a sky can be. Also like someone else said, I have clear filters for a situation if I will need to wipe the lens a lot, but otherwise one thing I feel they do when left on all the time is when focusing, now the air from the moving lens has to be displaced from somewhere in the back of the lens and I feel like it just pulls dust in easier. Specifically I feel like this happened to my x100F lens. SimpleCoax fucked around with this message at 13:36 on May 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 13:32
|
|
|
Polarizers are great for reducing window and glasses glare too.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
qirex posted:I take a lot of pictures by the bay and ocean plus it's pretty much always windy in SF, I'm worried about salt and sand and other stuff that a lens hood doesn't do anything about. I'm looking and there's clear filters if UV ones will cause issues. they arent sealed so dust and dirt is gunna get on your lens and its going to stay there because the uv filter makes you feel safe
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
underage at the vape shop posted:they arent sealed so dust and dirt is gunna get on your lens and its going to stay there because the uv filter makes you feel safe it's this, yeah
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
I have a friend who wants help buying into the fuji system for his trip to Africa. He's relatively new to photography, but money isn't an object. I'm thinking a two lens setup, maybe a shorter zoom and a long lens. His interest is primarily wild life from a distance, but I want to make sure the every day stuff is covered as well. Which body and lenses would you folks suggest?
Google Butt fucked around with this message at 19:47 on May 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
For wildlife the 100-400 is not really up for debate. Either the 16-55 or 18-55 as an everyday lens plus if money isn't an issue, one nice prime so he can learn the joys of that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:For wildlife the 100-400 is not really up for debate. Either the 16-55 or 18-55 as an everyday lens plus if money isn't an issue, one nice prime so he can learn the joys of that. Get the 16-55 2.8, the 100-400 and whatever short prime floats his boat as an lighter carry lens.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Perfect, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Or get the 100-400, 10-24 f/4, and a 35mm f/2 for travelling light.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
I just noticed Fuji has a new body, is it a noticeable up upgrade from the xt-2 for this use case?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:21
|
|
Google Butt posted:I just noticed Fuji has a new body, is it a noticeable up upgrade from the xt-2 for this use case? The x-h1 is more video focused, if you're just doing stills I think the only major upgrade over the x-t2 is the IBIS.
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:The x-h1 is more video focused, if you're just doing stills I think the only major upgrade over the x-t2 is the IBIS. Interesting. That may be worth it, especially if he opts for the 100-400 with the 2x tc.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:Interesting. That may be worth it, especially if he opts for the 100-400 with the 2x tc. The IBIS is really, really good. The body is bigger, and balances with the larger lenses better, for me at least. I like it over the XT2 which was too small for my hands, but too big to be really "small".
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Get the 16-55 2.8, the 100-400 and whatever short prime floats his boat as an lighter carry lens. Google Butt posted:I just noticed Fuji has a new body, is it a noticeable up upgrade from the xt-2 for this use case? It's not a clear yay or nay and depends on the value placed on size/wight. Ideally you've visit a bricks and mortar with your friend and see which feels right in his hands.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:The 18-55 f/2.8-4 is significantly smaller than the 16-55 2.8. For someone new to photography and of unknown long-term enthusiasm, that shouldn't be discounted out of hand; the worst camera is the one you left at home be couldn't be bothered to carry it. It was the use scenario that made me suggest the larger lense, with a suggestion for a prime for the more portability for everyday carry.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:For wildlife the 100-400 is not really up for debate. Either the 16-55 or 18-55 as an everyday lens plus if money isn't an issue, one nice prime so he can learn the joys of that. I would recommend the 1.4x TC as well.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Has anyone heard if the wireless tethering situation has improved on the X-T2? I noticed that after I upgraded the firmware to the one before 4.00 that the Camera Remote app on Android was able to pull pics from the camera much faster than before. But I wasn't sure if the same could be said for the wifi tethering. And at the moment I'm not seeing anything out there specifically about this combination.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Holy crap A7iii is amazing. I am so in love with this thing, especially the eye AF. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
I took my Fuji to Africa last year for a safari. If they’re going to get the 100-400 make sure he also gets bean bags to help stabilize his lens against the side of the trucks (not a tripod). I personally got away with the 55-200 (The 100-400 was too expensive for me) and cropping like crazy in post but we got very lucky and were very close to animals so ymmv. Things can happen really quickly so changing lenses to the wide I brought basically never happened unless I knew we were going somewhere scenic. We did a bush walk and a horseback ride (DEFINITELY do this) and I was happy to have a 50mm prime then. My friend, new to photography, brought his 100-400, but he didn’t nail the bokeh so his pics don’t look super far off from mine heh.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 13:25
|
|
|
I rented the 100-400 recently and it was a really nice lens but far too much for me to shell out for.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 13:32
|
|
|
Yeah you're basically going to want reach on reach on reach if you're on safari.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
You should carry a X100F for normal focal range, a XH1+100-400mm for stabalized telephoto, a XT2+10-24mm for superwide scenery. Also a gopro on your shoulder and a Samsung 360 camera on your hat.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:You should carry a X100F for normal focal range, a XH1+100-400mm for stabalized telephoto, a XT2+10-24mm for superwide scenery. Also a gopro on your shoulder and a Samsung 360 camera on your hat. Honestly the X-T2 is just duplicating things so why not go medium format GFX 50S? 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
whatever7 posted:You should carry a X100F for normal focal range, a XH1+100-400mm for stabalized telephoto, a XT2+10-24mm for superwide scenery. Also a gopro on your shoulder and a Samsung 360 camera on your hat. What about one of those selfie rigs they used to use on those haunted buildings tv shows
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2018 16:33
|
|