|
KennyG posted:How do you find the multi-function bar? Some sites obsess over the card slots or video crop but the one real thing that I’m interested in is the handling. Dropping the joystick from a $2k+ camera was a bold move. I immediately set it up like this (in M mode because who uses other modes): Front lens ring is exposure compensation (Sometimes I use auto ISO). Front dial is aperture (since #1 this changes less for me than shutter and #2 this dial is orientated with the lens). Rear dial is shutter. Multifunction bar is ISO. Touch and drag AF is enabled, relative position mode. Movie Record button is DOF preview. Spot metering (never used except by me to average my exposure without a handheld meter, or with auto ISO and AE lock). This is generally acceptable to me as a control scheme with no joystick. You can tap to focus when using the LCD and you can drag the focus point around when using the EVF by shoving your finger across the right side of the LCD. You do have to do a half press on the shutter to change the exposure compensation but that's actually a good thing. The multifunction bar is not often used because ISO only gets set every so often, but you know what the real problem is? If I have a dry finger, e.g. I'm outdoors on a cold arid day, it won't detect my drat thumb trying to unlock it. The slightest bit of moisture and it's fine. But drat that's annoying. Otherwise, no issues with it. With that exception I have had no control issues. I do wish there was a handy way to put a hotkey for exposure similation on/off, but I put it and a few other things into a custom menu. Other commentary: With the RF24-105/4L you definitely need the DOF preview. At 24 and 105mm, either extreme, the distortion is seemingly wildly different across apertures (24mm is best at f8-11, 105mm is best at f11-16). In the middle of the lens, e.g. 35-85, it's not so bad in general, so realistically it makes a fine general purpose field lens. You occasionally need to be able to check it to see if it influences your shot before your only option is lens correction profile though, especially when moving to another zoom level and taking a few steps or tightening up the aperture a stop or two may fix it. Edited: notes about auto ISO. windex fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Oct 26, 2018 |
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Now that Leica is forming a consortium with Sigma and Panasonic, I can dream of a full-frame Foveon Leica. Maybe they could call it the M100, seeing as how 100 will be the only usable ISO. Of course this is a joke, but might be closer to reality right now; Sigma have said that they're dropping SA-mount and that all their future proprietary sensors will be in L-mount cameras, which will be shared with PanaLeica. The idea of those three companies coming together gives me hope that they might make some cool poo poo, just as long as each company sticks to what it does best. Also responding to this: my excitement level at being able to mount my M glass on a Foveon is 11/10. I have taken some absolutely amazing photos of my kids (my 14 year old and her friends had their first homecoming dance) with my sd Quattro and a flash for front fill. It's incredibly depressing to pixel peep my EOS R with AA filter vs the sdQ or Leica (no AA filter) even though it's obviously sharp as gently caress. But the ISO 100 game gets old, and the sdQ is no working camera due to that limitation, so that's why I picked up the EOS R.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
Arcsech posted:This might be a dumb question, but is there any way to make it quicker to activate the wifi on the X-T20? I'd like to stick it on the Q menu, but I don't see a way to do that. In the set up menu under button/dial setting, you can either edit the quick menu or give the function keys different.. functions. I personally have my Fn1 button (the one in the corner next to the shutter button) set to activate wifi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I wish I could find the output from digital Leica cameras to be as nice as actual film, because yeah, film is expensive. All the more reason to go medium format IMO. If you're going to be paying so much per frame, might as well make them huge. Don't you mean go large format? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
I recently starting shooting and developing B&W film, doesn't seem that hard or expensive but I guess the developing and digitising is a bit time consuming. On the other hand I get the fully manual no-LCD feeling of that Leica for about $7900 less including lens.... I've been smashing through the frames, I can develop two rolls of 35mm at once which definitely makes the developing time less painful (the actual developing is pretty quick but the setup and cleanup eats more time than the actual dev).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 08:17
|
|
|
The scanning was the part that took me forever but I had a slower computer back then and used an old scanner as well. I should probably get back into it since I could use my camera to get the negatives onto the computer now rather than deal with the scanner. All of my chemicals are like 7 years old though - I guess that could be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
rio posted:The scanning was the part that took me forever but I had a slower computer back then and used an old scanner as well. I should probably get back into it since I could use my camera to get the negatives onto the computer now rather than deal with the scanner. All of my chemicals are like 7 years old though - I guess that could be interesting. As part of mirrorless chat I looked at scanners and from what I could see for 35mm flatbeds suck, dedicated film scanners are OK but very slow and more expensive but surprisingly the best option in terms of speed, price and quality was a macro lens and something like the Nikon es-2. To that end I just ordered a used nikon 60mm macro lens and F to E mount adapter, planning on digitising my negs with my A7RII and I get a bonus macro lens for general photography out of it as well, for less than what a dedicated film scanner would have cost me. It's harder if you're shooting colour because from what I've seen there's a ton more work inverting the colours and removing the film colour cast but for B&W it's easy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Here in Seattle my local camera shop charges $10 for dev + scanning, and they only do color. Another local film store does B&W, but they charge 15 for the same. I love shooting film but when you count dev costs, it comes out to about forty to fifty cents per shot. The last cheap Seattle lab was Cap Hill 60 min photo but that closed ages ago. Send your stuff to citizens in Portland it's worth the extra couple of days wait.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 09:37
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:As part of mirrorless chat I looked at scanners and from what I could see for 35mm flatbeds suck, dedicated film scanners are OK but very slow and more expensive but surprisingly the best option in terms of speed, price and quality was a macro lens and something like the Nikon es-2. Flatbeds are ok if you're just going to publish for the web. If you want to print at larger sizes then yeah, they are pretty bad for 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2018 09:41
|
|
|
The IBIS, responsive EVF to LCD sensor, and improved EVF, the X-H1 is a pretty fantastic upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:The IBIS, responsive EVF to LCD sensor, and improved EVF, the X-H1 is a pretty fantastic upgrade. I agree. Unless you're wed to small size, the XH1 is a thing of beauty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Well, I picked up the m43 Pana 14 f/2.5 and am enjoying it so far. However, I'm not totally convinced it's better than the 14-42mm kit lens my e-m10ii came with (the collapsible EZ version). I'd heard the thread talk bad about the kit zoom and talk up the prime, but in some tests at both f8 and at 3.5 (wide open for the EZ) the kit lens consistently was sharper than the prime. Did I just get a dud or what? I do like the smaller profile when shooting and the wider aperture, but I dunno if it's worth the $150 for the lens if the IQ is roughly the same.
CodfishCartographer fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Nov 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Well, I picked up the m43 Pana 14 f/2.5 and am enjoying it so far. However, I'm not totally convinced it's better than the 14-42mm kit lens my e-m10ii came with (the collapsible EZ version). I'd heard the thread talk bad about the kit zoom and talk up the prime, but in some tests at both f8 and at 3.5 (wide open for the EZ) the kit lens consistently was sharper than the prime. Did I just get a dud or what? I do like the smaller profile when shooting and the wider aperture, but I dunno if it's worth the $150 for the lens if the IQ is roughly the same. When I had that lens it basically lived on my camera since I could fit it in my pocket. IIRC some goons have had bad experiences with the non pancake kits e.g. not yours or the pana 12-32
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-m--zuiko-14-42mm-f-3-5-5-6-ez-ed-msc-lens-review-26471 14mm does seem to be the sweet spot for that zoom:  But I would expect the prime to noticeably beat it https://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-14mm-f-2-5-lumix-g-lens-review-17539 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
I never really "got" the 14mm. Clearly size is the biggest benefit. But the 15mm 1.7 is a better lens at almost the same focal range and the 20mm 1.7 pancake also serves the needs of pocketability while also being faster. This weekend I went on a trip to the beach and brought along just my 15mm 1.7 and my 60mm 2.8 Macro and did not find myself wanting for more, other than possibly a real zoom for a few missed opportunities for shots of birds. Feels like anything in the 15-25mm range, combined with the 60mm Macro could comprise a lightweight and compact travel kit that covers a ton of situation. My .02
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
I did another, more stable, test with the lenses, and the 14mm did wind up being sharper than the kit. However, that 15mm 1.7 does look real nice, so I might wind up selling them both to get that anyways. I've also good stuff about the Oly 17mm 1.8, anyone have experience with both? The 20mm pancake also looks nice for travel stuff, since it's so compact, but I already have the nice 25mm 1.7 so it might be a bit superfluous? The 60mm looks super nice (I assume it's the m zuiko one?), but I'm looking for something a bit wider at the moment (going to Tokyo so I'll be shooting lots of street) so I'll probably wait to pick that up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:I never really "got" the 14mm. Clearly size is the biggest benefit. But the 15mm 1.7 is a better lens at almost the same focal range and the 20mm 1.7 pancake also serves the needs of pocketability while also being faster. Lens choice is a personal thing and what works for you doesn't work for others. Personally speaking, I preferred the tiny size of the 14mm since pocketability for me is a big thing. Plus, it was considerably cheaper than the 15mm. Generally, the 20mm 1.7 is my walkaround lens and get me 85% of my travel shots. Having the 14mm in my pocket gets me another 10% (5% is where I wished I had a long, fast lens) But as you say, that's just my 2c worth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of the 15, but keep in mind that the aperture ring doesn't work on Olympus bodies, while the opposite applies to the Oly 17 and Panasonic bodies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
curried lamb of God posted:I'm a big fan of the 15, but keep in mind that the aperture ring doesn't work on Olympus bodies, while the opposite applies to the Oly 17 and Panasonic bodies. I find the aperture ring too loose on the 15mm and it's constantly getting bumped from where I set it/auto. I kind of wish it didn't work because it's pretty annoying and I find it easier to adjust aperture with the thumbwheel since that's what I'm used to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Why do we test lenses on sharpness to f22? The physics of this simply don’t work for sharpness past about f11 with modern sensor densities. The diffraction alone is going to prevent sharp focusing, so why do we sit here and bitch about physics limitations that have nothing to do with optical design or manufacturing quality? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Who tests lenses at f22? Any lens test I see usually has a variety of apertures and almost never goes above f11 or so precisely because of diffraction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Guessing the depth of field from those tiny apertures will give you a sharper image than shooting it at a wider aperture with shallower dof. But yeah in general the tiny apertures should be avoided especially if you can focus with hyperfocal distance. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
It's also why the Zeiss batis lens with the OLED display on top is amazing especially for landscape/night/astro shoots. It shows the closest focusing distance, the furthest focusing distance and the amount of dof you will get. So for night landscape/astro shoots you just just need the furthest focusing distance just barely hitting infinity and you will be good to go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Encrypted posted:It's also why the Zeiss batis lens with the OLED display on top is amazing especially for landscape/night/astro shoots. Whats wrong with good old dof scale on the lens? This is like using gps to navigate to the local supermarket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
tino posted:Whats wrong with good old dof scale on the lens? This is like using gps to navigate to the local supermarket. While I agree with you, having an oled on something is just better. If my spoons had oleds on them, they would be better spoons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
tino posted:Whats wrong with good old dof scale on the lens? This is like using gps to navigate to the local supermarket. because it means they can mark up the lens price by about another 50%
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-the-new-olympus-e-m1x-is-a-canon-1dx-level-camera/ Well poo poo, if the part about the built in vertical grip is true then it kills my interest in the new model. Makes it too bulky to easily fit in my pack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
tino posted:Whats wrong with good old dof scale on the lens? This is like using gps to navigate to the local supermarket. You can't read those in the dark.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 09:22
|
|
|
So had anyone here actually gone through with it and picked up an EOS R or Z6/7? The big guys are now in the FF mirrorless game, but it hasn't been a revolution; the pros and cons of the Canon and Nikon FF DSLR systems have persisted, for the most part, into their new offerings. The Nikon's are now even closer to just being customized/rebranded Sony cameras. The particulars of their raw format offer some differentiation, which could be seen as an advantage, but their on-sensor PDAF implementation lags behind the latest A7 cameras. There is of course close-to-native compatibility with F-mount, which no other mirrorless systems offer, and that means a lot of lens choices, but the S lens starting lineup is, as I see it, piss poor. Which is funny. In the primordial days of the Japanese consumer camera industry, Nikon was number one when it came to optics; even Canon (and Bronica, Plaubel, and certain Eastern Bloc camera makers) relied on them to make lenses for their cameras. But Canon is now the one with a decent initial offering of lenses for their new mirrorless system. Hell, currently you can't get a native f/2 standard zoom or an autofocusing normal lens faster than f/1.4 in any other mirrorless system. But they also make their own sensors...and that's a mixed blessing to say the least. Dual-pixel AF is better than Nikon's aforementioned mirrorless autofocus system, but the Sony/Nikon sensors offer better specs across the board otherwise. Still, at least with Canon you can get some things that no other full-frame mirrorless systems are currently offering. Not just in the lenses themselves, but also in the adapters. Oh yeah, and top-plate LCD displays. Canon and Nikon both have those, and Sony doesn't. As for me, I bought an X-T2 in 2016 and have no intention of switching systems. I'm happy with the lenses, the low-light capability, and the video (which, like Sony's, is a good deal better than Canon's or Nikon's). The only thing to come out of the big 2018 announcement season that changes the calculus for me is the discontinuation of SA-mount and Sigma's transition into consortium with Panasonic and Leica; prices on the SD Quattro and SA lenses are going down, down, down. I've always wanted one, and now I can pick up an SD Quattro kit for less than the cost of a new high-end Fuji lens. I have the need for a Fuji telephoto, but I want an SD Quattro with the 30/1.4 for loving around. Decisions..
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:So had anyone here actually gone through with it and picked up an EOS R or Z6/7? I have I went with the R. I am taking it on my first trip today. I looked at it as a bet on the mount. I was already invested in EF glass but that didn’t really sway me as I could easily adapt it to Sony. I think the R fit a nice spot for me as being good enough with better ergonomics than the A7 III (although the R was $400 more). Ultimately I think Canon will cave on the IBIS front, but it may not be till 2021. The launch glass from Canon to me shows the amazing things that are possible and that Canon is committed to doing with the RF mount. The 28-70 f/2 and the new 1.8 wide zoom (yes, 1.8 zoom!) patents show me the decisions that Canon (and Nikon) have made will bear fruit. Do I think the Sony cameras are better from a sensor and even overall body feature perspective based on cameras on the market as of 11/7/2018? Yes. Yes, I do. Do I think Sony is in trouble with their narrower throat of their mount? Probably too strong, but I think the Canikon glass will continue to get better and the bodies will be less differentiated. We have all said that it’s the glass that matters. I’m excited about the future of the RF mount. I can’t say the same for Full Frame E mount.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
KennyG posted:... I went with the R. ... I also would up with an EOS R but I disagree with some of your comments about the Sony platform. The EOS R feels like a pro DSLR in build quality. This is not the case with the a7 series. The Sony sensors are better in some regards (recovering blacks) but awful in others (color reproduction) and are at best a wash. The big killer though? I honestly think that once people use the EOS R's autofocus system - especially wedding, portrait, and fashion photographers - they will demand it's level of ability / performance moving forward. I don't see how anyone is going to compete against it given Canon's patent portfolio on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
I'll probably downgrade from my D850 to a Z6 once they start hitting shelves in numbers. I'll update with how I feel about it then. I've had a lot of different mirrorless cameras and none of them stuck for me. I just don't really enjoy the interfaces and want something that reacts more like a DSLR and feels more like on in hand. From what I've seen of the new Z cameras, they should fit that to me really well. It's not like I haven't tried to get on board with mirrorless either. I've had G2, GH3, A6000, A7s, XT20, and I've rented the A7SII several times. I never like shooting with them as much as I liked the D750, D800, and D850. To me, the Nikon wrapping on the Sony sensor really does make all the difference. The only mirrorless thing I've stuck with is the GR (which I love forever.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
powderific posted:I'll probably downgrade from my D850 to a Z6 once they start hitting shelves in numbers. Dang, why ditch the D860?. It's "the best DSLR". Granted, I've only read the reviews, browsed images made with it, and played with it for a few minutes at a camera store, but it seems to be the case. I think the only thing holding it back in the spec sheet wars is the underwhelming live view/video AF, but there are some better options than a Z for a serious video/stills combo camera, if that's what a consumer is after. quote:I've had a lot of different mirrorless cameras and none of them stuck for me. I just don't really enjoy the interfaces and want something that reacts more like a DSLR Yeah, notwithstanding any of the comparable features between D850 and Z6, the reflex/pentaprism approach to framing and focusing will always be more immediate and immersive than an EVF. If someone doesn't get on with MILCs because of their interface paradigm, there's not much more to the story. I guess some concerns about F and EF mounts dying, but that's got to be a hell of a long way off if it ever even happens. I mean I could imagine other reasons somebody would want to switch to a smaller, lower-resolution camera if the D850 is getting left behind or making image libraries that cause LR to chug. But if it were me I'd hold on to that thing. quote:The only mirrorless thing I've stuck with is the GR (which I love forever.) If you like the GR, and you like optical viewfinders (even if they aren't TTL), have you considered an X-Pro or X100?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
The D850 is an awesome camera no doubt, that's why I'm saying downgrade. There's a few reasons:
I've rented the X100 a couple times and don't like it that much. It's a whole different size class than the GR for one. Generally like the 28mm equiv lens on the GR better, and honestly I like the GR's pictures more. Never looked at the X-Pro seriously and given that I didn't much care for the XT20 I doubt I'll give them another shot. The faux old school camera control thing just doesn't do it for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
windex posted:but awful in others (color reproduction) If one shoots raw, what affects color reproduction, aside from the lenses? Does the filter array in front of the sensor make that big a difference?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
I picked up a GRII to keep in my backpack. It’s really tiny and just fun to use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Schmerm posted:If one shoots raw, what affects color reproduction, aside from the lenses? Does the filter array in front of the sensor make that big a difference? It makes more of a difference being able to smugly talk about color science superiority to others about the brand you shoot. (P.s. not accusing this guy of that, just see it all over the place)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I picked up a GRII to keep in my backpack. It’s really tiny and just fun to use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Before I got the GRII I thought I might find the lack of a viewfinder and a fixed screen a problem, but it hasn't been. I probably shoot mostly at arms length while palming the camera and get so many more organic shots that way. And being actually pocketable is so nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
I love that it's so easy to use one handed too. You can use basically every control.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 23:01
|
|