|
After 6 months of my X100F I have just assumed that anyone who calls rangefinder-sized cameras like it "pocketable" wears stuff like this It's still small enough that I have it with me most of the time but coming from a RX100 I always have to have a specific place to put it, especially with a lens hood. The RX I'd forget I was carrying sometimes.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Yeah I don't think they're talking about jeans pocket. My X-E2 with grip, swiss mount and strap fits in my windbreaker jacket pocket so they're still definitely "pocketable".
CRAYON fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
qirex posted:After 6 months of my X100F I have just assumed that anyone who calls rangefinder-sized cameras like it "pocketable" wears stuff like this Well X100 is definitely small enough to carry everyday, in your bag or whatever. People who buys X100 can afford to get another GR or XF10 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
powderific posted:The D850 is an awesome camera no doubt, that's why I'm saying downgrade. There's a few reasons: Well that makes sense then. But as someone who once considered picking up a d750 because of having a small collection of manual-focus nikkors, I'm curious: does the focus confirmation light not work well enough? I know DSLR focusing screens are piss poor for manual focusing, but I thought the user could at least depend on the confirmation light. Edit: color science, eh? I don't really see how there are supposed to be functional differences between different brands of camera using the same sensor technology (CMOS w/Bayer filter) sensing color differently. There are differences in how they process or interpolate color computationally, but while I'm certainly not sure about anything because my understanding is so basic, it seems like you could take e.g. a Canon image processing system, read out from a Sony sensor, and get colors that have the 'Canon' look. In fact, to my eyes it appears that most of the brand-centric talk about color science just boils down to how deep the reds are. I think that's the consistent difference I see when comparing the mass of camera brands that use Sony sensors to Canon. Maybe there is something at the ADC or sensor level that influences this because (in my experience) it's hard to get warm tones from Sony or Olympus raws to match Canon's, but for all I know that could just be due to how ACR presents the raw data. That's what DPR uses for their comparison tool, and I've never used other photo software to convert raws, so I don't have anything to compare it to. If there is one camera company that had dramatically different 'color science' than the rest, it's Sigma. Foveon technology collects more color information per pixel. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
It works ok but it’s cumbersome and annoying cause I can see a slightly out of focus image on the focusing screen. Focusing till everything is slightly off and a green dot lights up isn’t great. It’s a different issue from not having the microprisms and whatnot that older cameras have—if I could fine tune the position I’d be able to focus fine. I spent ages trying to get it just right on my d800 and never got it perfect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Assuming the focus dot in Nikon's DSLRs is the same as in the F100 (Solid dot when in focus, small arrow telling you which way to turn the ring when out of focus) its annoying to use. Its just out of frame so you need to look away from whatever you're focusing on to see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Edit: color science, eh? I don't really see how there are supposed to be functional differences between different brands of camera using the same sensor technology (CMOS w/Bayer filter) sensing color differently. There are differences in how they process or interpolate color computationally, but while I'm certainly not sure about anything because my understanding is so basic, it seems like you could take e.g. a Canon image processing system, read out from a Sony sensor, and get colors that have the 'Canon' look. The 'raw' files that you get from the cameras isn't truly raw either, it's already gone through their own internal processing pipeline and that's where the difference in the colors between brands come from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
Different brands and models also have have slightly different filters that make up the bayer arrangement. There's the engineering choice of whether to go with a narrower brand of transmission to aim for colour accuracy or opt for a wider band so you can capture more photons and improve the noise performance of your sensor. It's along this line why some sensors are more prone to IR pollution than others. Also, the ideal material for your bayer layer would have 100% transmission between your wanted frequency range and zero outside of that; think a Trapezoid-close-to-a-rectangle. In practice materials have very non-linear responses, akin to a lumpy and uneven bell-curve. So on a given sensor, the red, green and blue channels will have at least some slight difference in overall transmission efficiency; factoring this out of the end result is part of the raw processing process. The different manufactures will also have their own material preferences (which are also probably slowly evolution as they seek the holy grail of filter material) so will mean they measure slightly different ratios of R, G and B. All this is in addition to the human element, where you ask questions such as "Do people prefer a slightly warm or slightly cool look?" which gives rise to the Faithful/Vivid/Landscape/Portrait settings cameras tend to come with. edit: See Figure 3 on this paper. There's also the issue that the underlying photon-to-electrical charge technology doesn't have a flat spectral response but is more efficient at some frequencies than others. Different sensors models/designs will have their own response curve. https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-23-9-12207&id=315861 The people who write RAW converters don't have access to the same information as the manufactures themselves. You have to make your own measures to figure out how to adjust the raw data. This is why something like Lightroom can never give an identical match to in-camera JPGs. Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:
I wish more people knew this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
That's all really interesting. Thanks for the link. I've only read a little bit of the abstract so far but will look closer when I get the chance. I didn't realize that filter array materials were so variable. Or that there was a potentially inverse relationship between wavelength isolation and overall light transmission. Although I've run into a basic version of the same problem when using colored lens filters for b&w film photography where, all other factors being equal, yellowish reds and bluish greens will require less exposure compensation than pure red or green.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Did people stop having opinions on mirrorless cameras?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Yes. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
I got the Olympus 17mm 1.8 for my EM10ii an have been having too much fun shooting with it to post. I never want to put any other lens on this thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
Just got my Z6 and am a big fan so far. So that’s my mirrorless opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
Still loving my E-M10 iviiixi. Having FOMO about full-frame. Probably should buy a macro lens soon, and maybe ditch the ez for the 12-40 f2.8. My $.02
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I got the Olympus 17mm 1.8 for my EM10ii an have been having too much fun shooting with it to post. I never want to put any other lens on this thing. That's what you say....for now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
no see all mirrorless cameras are 100% poo poo if they're not FF literally burn your crop cameras and fall in a well if it's not full frame your photos are going to be trash and you will be trash right along with it E: here look at this absolute horrid poo poo a garbage rear end crop camera in my incompetent rear end hands did  BRW30323 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickrtrash  BRW90027 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickrgarbage  BRW20934 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickrloving wretched  BRW30232 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr*flings self down bottomless pit* DJExile fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Dec 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Dangerllama posted:iviiixi  I'm assuming part of this is "mark IV" or something, but how is this numeral supposed to be interpreted?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
pseudorandom posted:
I think they're making a joke there. Olympus started rapid-fire releasing new models of their 3 bodies for a bit
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
I'm still using an X-T1. Still love it. I'll probably wait for the X-T4 to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:That's what you say....for now. I'm planning on picking up the 60mm macro sometime soon since it looks like the ultimate macro lens, so I assume I'll take off the 17mm sometime around then. No promises.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I think they're making a joke there. Olympus started rapid-fire releasing new models of their 3 bodies for a bit I was kind of suspecting that, but I just kind of lurk this thread so I don't know poo poo about mirrorless. I do like that it's reminding me of this line from the Hercules movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l7lBt7_tXc
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
DJExile posted:no see all mirrorless cameras are 100% poo poo if they're not FF literally burn your crop cameras and fall in a well if it's not full frame your photos are going to be trash and you will be trash right along with it m4/3 is dead - watch my YouTube video to find out why. GEMorris posted:Did people stop having opinions on mirrorless cameras? Read some Instagram comments or YouTube comments. People love to say how mirrorless is poo poo, dslrs inherently give better images and conversely that dslrs are dead. People will always have opinions because how else are they going to spend their time, trying to take good photos? Once you’ve hit your pinnacle of brick wall sharpness there just isn’t anything else to do except spew opinions online or kill yourself so yeah, there’s lots of opinions out there. Although by extension I guess maybe we are out there taking good photos...yeah that must be it. rio fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Dec 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 05:57
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I'm planning on picking up the 60mm macro sometime soon since it looks like the ultimate macro lens, so I assume I'll take off the 17mm sometime around then. No promises. There's a million out there and they can be very easily found used or refurbed. You'll love it. I've had mine going on like 7 years now
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
DJExile posted:There's a million out there and they can be very easily found used or refurbed. You'll love it. I've had mine going on like 7 years now How do you like using it for non-macro stuff? I don't really have a dedicated portrait lens (I could technically use the Oly 40-150 for portrait stuff I suppose) and I've heard it's not bad for it, so that would be a nice double whammy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:How do you like using it for non-macro stuff? I don't really have a dedicated portrait lens (I could technically use the Oly 40-150 for portrait stuff I suppose) and I've heard it's not bad for it, so that would be a nice double whammy. It's not bad! I've done a few portraits with it and even some action in a pinch. The focus isn't the fastest but that limiter dial helps
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
rio posted:m4/3 is dead - watch my YouTube video to find out why. There's also a couple of Fuji shooters. Not one person has expressed an interest in Sony...
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:Did people stop having opinions on mirrorless cameras? I like Panasonic (Quiet cause I am the only one here and I don't want to draw attention to myself.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 10:16
|
|
|
Are you guys planning to move out of flickr? The price has done up. It's not that expensive but I would like to keep my options open.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 10:26
|
|
|
tino posted:Are you guys planning to move out of flickr? The price has done up. It's not that expensive but I would like to keep my options open. I’ve used Flickr since I got my first DSLR ten years ago, I had pro for a while before most of the “pro” aspects (namely storage) were moved to the free tier. I’ve just re-upped on Pro - got it on the discount, means I can keep my existing backup there in place. I guess you could look at it as ransom in a way, but I’m happy to pay for that kind of backup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 10:45
|
|
|
Sure there are aps-c or m3/4 mirrorless that's almost as good as full frame slrs. But why not just go with full frame mirrorless that's better than full frame slrs?  and I guess it's also perfectly fine to use the smaller non-full frame mirrorless if you have small hands. Actually I'm getting old or sometimes uninspired to shoot to the point I just use my phone instead, which is still not too bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 10:46
|
|
|
tino posted:Are you guys planning to move out of flickr? The price has done up. It's not that expensive but I would like to keep my options open. Old fart post coming in: I'm definitely not renewing it (think it auto-upped for 2 years back in August though) - it's long dead as a viable community and 'interestingness' has kinda always been a worthless algorithm. I started using it 12 years ago because at the time it was the only game in town - I think smugmug technically was an option but the name/logo, fugly design, and photo-dad vibe were really offputting to me as a uni student, and I had no interest in their pro features for selling prints or whatever. Flickr had some cool and useful communities, and when I studied overseas I actually went to some Flickr meetups, which was a great way to break the ice and meet local people with a shared interest, not to mention find out about some cool locations/events to shoot I otherwise wouldn't have known about. The stats were/are a great feature as well, was always interesting to see what people looked at, and how they found it. I think Flickr results ranked pretty well on GIS - I actually sold a photo to WSJ Magazine because the author wanted to use it for an article and reached out. Pools/groups or whatever could be really useful and the discussion boards could be great little micro-communities - could answer questions about stuff like film cameras, lenses, etc. I still use them (via Flickrriver) when I want to look at stuff from a single lens. Cons: Those irritating bling badges and white noise comments on photos. Flickr does have a seedy/creepy underbelly but it was very easy to ignore the existance of it. 500px and Insta have basically killed the site though, when I stumble across a community there are usually a handful of recent uploads (and mothballed discussion threads). I've started using Instagram recently after holding out for a *long* time but it's terrible in its own, arguably worse ways. It is a much more atomised, isolated experience: I don't get any sense of community or discussion on stuff, and my feed feels like it is overrun with accounts marketing gear rental, accessories, and the like (this might be my fault for searching for gear hastags, the way I'd use a Flickr group to check out what people were doing with certain equipment). The lifestyle porn and people trying to become 'influencers' is really offputting, but easy enough to just roll my eyes and move on. It's irritating as hell to have to do that workaround to post non-phone photos. I would happily pay for a more photographer-centred community site without all the marketing and other BS, but that internet seems to be dying off (see also: SA). I think 500px was supposed to be something like that, but from what goons and other reviews say, the stuff that does well there is not stuff I enjoy. I am looking to get back into part-time pro work in the near future, ultimately I think I am going to have a folio site and use Instagram for current work to promote myself. As far as a community I'll probably keep on with the Dorkroom as long as it's going, although a lot of my favourite posters don't really post here no more, or don't post work (which I'm also guilty of). Ethics_Gradient fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Dec 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 11:53
|
|
|
Instagram somehow became the best platform (because it has all the decent world-class photographers worth following) despite being a dumpster fire of small overcompressed files. It makes no sense but it is what it is. 500px is worse than Flickr. It quickly became a game to get up the popularity ranking, and never even got close to the community aspect of Flickr.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
I just use Flickr as a cloud photo repository. They make it easy to upload and organize, plus share links to albums and photos with friends and family. I guess I could use OneDrive or Google Photos (I used to use Panorama back in the day), and maybe I should? I'm not interested in any of the social media side of Flickr. But then there's the whole having to reupload everything from local copies scattered across the hard drives of multiple devices, so unless they start making it actively difficult to use for non-paid users, I'll just stick with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:I just use Flickr as a cloud photo repository. They make it easy to upload and organize, plus share links to albums and photos with friends and family. I guess I could use OneDrive or Google Photos (I used to use Panorama back in the day), and maybe I should? I'm not interested in any of the social media side of Flickr. But then there's the whole having to reupload everything from local copies scattered across the hard drives of multiple devices, so unless they start making it actively difficult to use for non-paid users, I'll just stick with it. The limit of only your most recent ~1,000 photos for non-paid users was what did it for me. And yeah. Instagram is for sharing random nonsense off of my phone with family and friends (private account and curated follows/followers), Flickr is for backing up the bigger batches of photos off of the DSLR or MILC. I'm still thinking of creating a personal site/folio once again to share photos instead of Instagram.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
Flickr is still a good deal. Hosting photos for forums, for sharing with friends and family, all very easy to do. If youve been using them for years, moving to a new site isnt trivial, and no other photo site is significantly better. Plus, really, $50 a year is still a good deal for unlimited storage. The silly badges and dumb comments dont matter if you limit your participation in that community. Frankly, SA is the last of the photo communities I still actively use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
Yeah I've largely stuck to flickr because sharing bigger albums has always been pretty easy with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Well I have also been a fluckr pro member since it was first offered under yahoo. My main concern is the archive aspect of the service. I want the cloud backup service I use stay in business 40,50 years from now. I was doing offline backup of my photos but lapsed a few years ago. Plus I only have my camera photos on google photo and flickr. This wasn't a big deal until my baby was born and I started shooting way more camera photos than "real photographs". At this point I would pay good money to flickr if they can give me a complete copy of my photos with intacted keywords. Maybe a third party aready offer that service for a fee.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
I've become an accessory junkie. After buying my X100F specifically to avoid GAS I now have 3 neck straps, 2 wrist straps, 3 lens hoods, a couple filters and 2 new bags. Of course all those combined cost less than a single decent lens but it's still funny to experience. I've managed to avoid grips, cases, thumbrests, and release buttons so far but who knows where my illness will lead next? [probably a tripod] I got all my straps from Simplr and DSPTCH, the best bit is they use the same 1/2" buckle connectors so I can swap them easily. I got one of the DSPTCH braided straps last weekend and I really like it, it's not as light or compact as the webbing ones but it's a lot more comfortable. I also have a DSPTCH sling strap and a Simplr M1a which are basically identical [they even cost the same] except the Simplr is easier to adjust, even by accident. If you leave your strap one length I think the DSPTCH one is better. I tried a Peak Design Slide Lite and it was nice but I didn't like how the heavier material made loops on both ends of the strap and the Leash did the same thing to a lesser degree. I imagine they're really designed for heavier cameras. Plus I think the connectors look a little goofy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
spog posted:I like Panasonic You aren't alone, buddy
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 16:51
|
|