|
The Olympus 12-100mm is perfect for that and then you’ll only need to bring one lens.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
Played with an X-T30 at B&H while I was in NYC this week. Love the size but man what’s up with that EV dial being baked into the body? It’s a PITA to adjust. The guy said “what’s the problem? You just set it to zero and never touch it.” (wut) Comparatively, both the X-T3 and E-M10 mark iii feel much nicer in hand. waffle enthusiast fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Apr 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Isn't the dial exposed from the back? Fuji likely did it because the EV dial was extremely easy to knock out of place on the X-T2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
I’ve lusted after X100 type cameras since forever and briefly owned both the S and the F. I have, however, finally come to the realisation that they’re not for me, even though the looks get me all excited. I much prefer to use my Olympus cameras. Which is a good thing, because now I don’t have to consider a new camera ever again (unless something breaks of course).
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
Xabi posted:I’ve lusted after X100 type cameras since forever and briefly owned both the S and the F. I have, however, finally come to the realisation that they’re not for me, even though the looks get me all excited. I much prefer to use my Olympus cameras. Curious what it is that doesn't work for you. Not a fan of the 35mm field of view?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Since I’m picking up Nikon gear for more serious shooting, I’m thinking about flipping my xpro1 for an X100. The xpro1 with 35 1.4 is small but I’d like something even more compact for just carrying around. Don’t get me wrong though, I love the xpro.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
I've got an X-T1 and it's starting to show it's age for wildlife photograpy. I'm looking at upgrading, is an X-T3 going to be that much better than an X-T2 with battery grip for focus speed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Curious what it is that doesn't work for you. Not a fan of the 35mm field of view? It might just be me because I’m so used to Olympus, but for me at least it’s slower and more cumbersome to use. I understand the appeal of physical old-style dials, but I prefer a front and rear dial to change aperture, exposure compensation (the F was a lot better than the S with the front dial and the joystick, I must admit). I can also change other settings much easier and faster on Olympus through the Super Control Panel, which is great. There’s also the way these Fuji cameras feel slower and less responsive. I’m not sure if it’s even real, but it definitely feels a lot slower. Maybe all of the above complaints would have vanished into thin air after exclusive use of these cameras over some time, but they never got me going. I missed IBIS as well, which resulted in less keepers. They are beautiful to look at though, with a lovely lens and the beautiful Fuji colours. They never won me over though, even though they are great cameras.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
a recent sale got my interest and Im thinking of jumping ship to Sony with the a6500. its more aligned with what I want to shoot (the AF and in body stabilisation is super helpful) but they dont seem to have many/any Macro lenses, which is another thing I enjoy shooting. what I use: Canon 550D Tamron EF 17-50 F2.8 (main lens) Canon EF-S 60 F2.8 Macro (seems to be my sharpest lens and produces the best portraits) Tamron 70-300 (which sucks because its slow to focus, noisy and sometimes jams at high F - used for motorsport) Canon 50 F1.8 (hardly used, focuses poorly, probably broken?) Canon 18-55 and 55-250 IS kit lenses (just use the 55-250 for birds and motorsport) I dont see a lot of resale value in my setup, which is fine. I can give it to my brother or keep it around as macro only Sony setup I am considering a6500 sony 18-105 F4 OSS a nice prime for family/friend photos (30mm?) other option is to wait and see what the new a7000/6500 successor is and get that, or get the 6500 once the price is dropped on its release. mostly shooting landscapes, nature, flowers, bugs, birds and motorsport (usually at night) the other benefit of sony is I have a friend with one, so we can share lenses (which I have no friends with Canon)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
I'd wait for the a7000 since there's been hints dropped from Sony execs. Or you could buy a 6500 now and sell it later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
Laserface posted:a recent sale got my interest and Im thinking of jumping ship to Sony with the a6500. How does the A6500 fare with the Metabones adapter? Might be a good way to keep your EF macro if you are happy with it. There's also the FE 50mm macro which isn't that much more expensive than your EF one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
from what I am told they work really well, I mean, the whole idea here is that none of these lenses are particularly amazing or expensive (a lot of them I bought used) so im not afraid to jump ship. I was considering an 80D but thats also supposed to be replaced this year but Sony still wins with the AF. I also dont really need a DSLR sized body.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 06:00
|
|
|
getting ready to put in an order at borrowed lenses for my trip, but before I do does anyone have any experience with them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I used them once and it was fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
I'm really, really enamoured with the xf16/2.8. It's a totally brilliant little lens and I suspect it's probably going to replace my 23/2 as my most used one going forward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2019 09:12
|
|
|
Are there aspects other than the focal length that make you prefer the 16/2.8 to the 23/2?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
sildargod posted:I'm really, really enamoured with the xf16/2.8. It's a totally brilliant little lens and I suspect it's probably going to replace my 23/2 as my most used one going forward. I recently picked one up and I'm liking it as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
Easychair Bootson posted:Are there aspects other than the focal length that make you prefer the 16/2.8 to the 23/2? It seems to be 100% the focal length, they're both stellar lenses. I'd put the 16 above the 23 in terms of sharpness, and it has a very interesting FOV when you get up close to anything, moreso than the 23. I'm going to shoot some kids hopped up on leftover easter eggs this weekend so it'll be a nice challenge to see how to work with it compositionally. Other than that, it's very much the same as with any of the fujicrons, they're really really nice lenses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 07:58
|
|
|
I'm on a bit of a lens buying spree while I figure out what I want. If anyone has any of the following Fuji X-mount lenses that they want to part with, holla. I'm in the US. 16/1.4 23/2 35/2 55-200 My setup right now is the 10-24/4, 15-45/whatever, 50/2, and 90/2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
PM'd
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
I was hoping for some advice on the best path ahead for me. I have only ever used an old old panasonic point and shoot/iphones, but I have a 6 week trip to Africa coming up and I was looking at getting something better. Both for the trip and ongoing. However, for proper camera gear, I am very much a newbie. I've done a bunch of reading, but I still feel like I'm in the weeds/overwhelmed with options on this. I was looking at mirrorless for 3 main reasons: - size: I have limited packing space, and I don't want to be lugging around a big DSLR for normal use. - flexibility/upgradeability: This one is a bit more of a toss up I guess. Since I am newer, I was tossing up whether I should just go for a good compact camera. However, I like the idea of having something that I can upgrade in the future. Particularly with better telephoto lenses - picture quality: basically, I want something that will do better than an iPhone Things I am looking for a camera/camera system: - wildlife. Focus would be on larger animals at longish distance. Not so much birding (at least not yet >.>) - landscape/scenery - general all purpose. portraits etc. This is not as big a deal for me Budget is somewhat flexible, would prefer to spend less than 3k AUD (and less than 2-2.5k would be even better), but also don't want to end up with a lot of poo poo that I will just end up replacing quickly. For lenses, I was looking at a general purpose ~ 20-50mm, and a telephoto lense. I was also looking at a small ~25mm pancake lense - partially as a simple compact option and partially since I think the missus is a bit worried about it all being too complex. For the telephoto, realistically it is probably going to be up to 200mm (maybe a 300mm if I go with Panasonic or Olympus). I haven't seen a 400+ below $2k, which I just can't justify. I've read a bunch of people saying that 400-600+ is what is you need. Is this just a matter of more is always better, or would I actually be dissapointed with the smaller lens? Is it actually worth it to go with a micro 4/3 instead of an APS-C just for extra equivalent focal length? Also, the 400+ lenses are probably just too large for what sort of trip it is... But anyway, is this a ok plan for starting lenses or am I better off going with something different (or possibly fewer) For the actual Camera/system, the main options I was looking at were. Fuji X-T3 - $1900 (or $3500 with xf 18-55/2.8, xf 55-200/3.5, xf 27/2.8) - somewhat overbudget but definitely a very nice looking camera. Would lack of in housing stabilisation make a large difference? X-T20 - $900 (or $2500 with xf 18-55/2.8, xf 55-200/3.5, xf 27/2.8) - lack of weatherproofing worries me slightly, but looks to be a good price for something not too far behind the T3 Fuji other potentials X-T2 $1500, X-H1 $1750. - would the image stabilisation really make up for older and larger at almost same price as the T3? Sony A6000 - $800 (or $1100 with 16-50mm, 55-210/4.5mm as a package) - obviously a very old model, but seems to be a good price with the lenses (albeit entry level ones). Veering away from this, just because its such an old old model. A6500 - $1500 (or $2000 with 16-50mm, 55-210/4.5mm, but I'd probably go the 18-200/3.5 for $2700 total since I've heard the 55-210 is terrible) Other potentials would be something like: EOS M5 - $1000 - not much between this and full bodies. I'm not sure I would prefer this over the Mid range Fujis G9 - $1750 or G85 - $900 - Mainly as Panasonic look to do a relatively affordable 100-300mm lense, but also in body stabilisation. However, smaller sensor. OMD E-M5 ii - $950 or PEN-F - $1700 - Again Olympus has a 75-300/4.8 lense for $550, also in body stabilisation. I haven't ready too much about the Olympus. Alternatively I could just get something like a FZ2500 compact (24-480mm) or a RX100 VI (24-200mm)... I am still leaning towards Fuji system, probably the X-T20 (although my Gear Acquisition Syndrome is pushing me to th X-T3). However, I would really appreciate any suggestions or advice on this would be really appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 10:37
|
|
|
I advise you spend less than half on the body and rest in lens. If you go with Fuji you can go with 55-200 or skip it and rent a fancier telephoto for the trip. The other lens you can get the 18-55 and a prime lens. Prime lens is a Fuji strength if you don't shoot prime go with a m43 system, it's got lighter telephone lens. For 1k you can get any Fuji body that's not XT3. Somrebody else can advise on a m43 loadout. Don't get the super bridge cameras. 1 You don't need superzoom for Africa Safari 2 they are too heavy for everyday use 3 they depreciate. You are better off just get a Huawei P30 Pro. Edit2 and don't get the M5 it's a loving dead system. tino fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Apr 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 10:52
|
|
|
Thanks, thats great advice. I do live in the land of overpriced consumer goods, so the Fuji bodies do go above the 1k mark, but point taken. Hopefully others can comment on an M43 system. edit - What's your opinion on the in frame stabilisation, or more specifically the lack of it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 12:11
|
|
|
Yeah, spend more on the lens and less on the body. For $2k usd you can get a used panasonic 100-400 and a second hand GX9 body or something. If you get a panasonic body it has dual IS with that lens but any m43 body will work. Usually those come bundled with a general purpose zoom lens so that can cover the range for vacation snapshots or whatever. The 100-300 is still fine especially if you want to spend less overall, but if you're fairly set on getting into wildlife then the 100-400 is very much worth it. In general more reach is better for wildlife and 800mm equivalent fov is more than enough. You can still do fine with shorter focal lengths but the goal is usually to not disturb/harass the animals so more distance is a bit better. Almost all of my land wildlife shots (birds, not birds) are with the 100-400 and I love it, though people complain about the zoom action being stiff. Optically it's great and it has a ton of reach. It packs down small and is easy to hike around with all day. Olympus bodies are on sale a lot, easy to get used, and very good. Their telephoto lenses are extremely good but the higher end ones are also a lot more pricy than panasonic and it might be trickier to find a used one. IBIS is good but not necessary, but it is useful for getting really low shutter speeds handheld. It's extremely nice on telephoto for wildlife, especially if the subject is just lazing around in a lower light situation. Fuji stuff is almost all lens stabilized so that will get you more than enough, generally as long as the lens or body is stabilized you will have a lot more flexibility with telephoto shots. The X-T20 is great, I have no desire to upgrade or replace mine yet and it's probably dirt cheap right now. I'm sure the X-T3 controls feel better and of course the AF is way better. The fuji zoom telephoto is pretty slow to focus and most people I've talked to about it have mixed feelings, but in general fuji is extremely good and especially better than m43 in lower light conditions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 12:38
|
|
|
Sticko posted:Thanks, thats great advice. I do live in the land of overpriced consumer goods, so the Fuji bodies do go above the 1k mark, but point taken. Hopefully others can comment on an M43 system. It's less important when you have fast lens. I'd say it's useful for less than 10% of the situation in the Fuji world (because most zoom lens are already IS).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 12:43
|
|
|
I had the Canon EOS M3 for a year, got rid of it in exchange for a Fuji X-T20. The Canon Ms are...fine, but there’s little room for growth there (unless you want to adapt the EF lenses, which, what’s the point unless you have them already). I’d honestly go with the X-T20 setup you were sizing up. I have the 18-55 and it’s amazing, if the 55-200 is similar quality then it should be very good for a non-professional. Lack of weatherproofing means...just make sure you keep it dry and away from humidity? The 27 pancake is good too, makes for a very good “toss it in the backpack and have a camera” option. For what you listed as real reasons — growth, and better images than from a smartphone — I think you’ll get a lot from the Fujifilm world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 13:19
|
|
|
Here in the U.S. the X-T3 release and imminent X-T30 release has led to deals on both the XT-20 and XT-2 on the used/refurb market. In a fit of "I can't let that deal pass" and GAS I recently ended up with one of each recently. I think the X-T20 is great, but if I think you would be better served for wildlife (or other potential weather/hard use situations) with the X-T2 or X-T3 due to the weather sealing. The difference in sturdiness instantly apparent from handling them. The X-T2 body is heavier and slightly bigger, but not by that much. I recently took a trip with it where I was hiking about seven miles a day and holding it in my hand with just a wrist strap the entire time, and it never bothered me. I also generally like the dials a little bit better on the X-T2. I ended up liking both cameras enough that I kept the X-T20 rather than return it. But if I were to actually be a responsible adult and just keep one, I would keep the X-T2. The X-T2 I got was certified refurbished and came in at ~$900 (USD) with the 18-55 XF kit included and I have had zero problems with it. A new X-T2/body only on Amazon goes for the same price. As far as differences in tech between the X-T2 and 3, from what I saw when researching the main improvements on the 3 go to video. For stills, you don't seem to get that much improvement. No matter what you decide on check for certified/manufacturer refurbs (avoid third party refurbs) or gently used bodies on the used market. Plenty of people with GAS will be letting their X-T2 go cheap to get an X-T3. I don't know if KEH does international sales or not, but they usually provide a solid warranty on their used cameras (one year last time I checked) and they have sales every few days, so maybe check with them, assuming the customs duties and international shipping doesn't make it unfeasible for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
I bought a cheap grip attachment for the XT-20 when I rented the 100-400 for safari, the body was too small to hold comfortably with the lens attached. The 100-400 is an amazing lens for wildlife - I used it with the 1.4x TC and it didn’t degrade image quality as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Sticko posted:I was hoping for some advice on the best path ahead for me. I have only ever used an old old panasonic point and shoot/iphones, but I have a 6 week trip to Africa coming up and I was looking at getting something better. Both for the trip and ongoing. However, for proper camera gear, I am very much a newbie. I've done a bunch of reading, but I still feel like I'm in the weeds/overwhelmed with options on this. If you're used to using panasonic p&s, panasonic m43 is a good fit. Fujis have lovely feel if you can swing the price, but m43 is better value imo. Specifically for an Africa trip (depending on where exactly, and the environment), you're going to want a long lens, sure, but also consider that the animals are BIG and CLOSE, and a long prime can be an impediment when all you can get is half an elephant in the frame and you can't zoom with your feet because you're in a vehicle. So a 100-300 or 100-400 would be ideal there. When my partner and I went to Kruger, she had her canon 400mm and 70d and there were lots of shots she just couldn't get, which is where me with my wider lenses came in. Most of the time, my 60mm on my GX85 was ideal for roadside beasts. I'll post a couple of examples (but the links will break soon since I'm leaving Flickr before they delete all my photos). For m43, I would probably look at the Leica 50-200mm, for more versatility, or the Leica 100-400 if you're really going to want the reach. If your budget is very tight, the panasonic 100-300 mk2 isn't amazing (I had the mk1 for a while), but it will get you the shot. With fuji, you're pretty much looking at the xf 100-400mm. I wouldn't look at Sony unless you're minted, because their long lenses are $$$$$. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Apr 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
Oh yeah about the X-T20 not being "weather sealed," I've been abusing the gently caress out of mine for two years basically in an attempt to destroy it so I have an excuse to get an upgrade and I haven't managed to do it. I took it to sea regularly on a dive boat and had it out in extremely heavy rain and have never had a single problem with water intrusion, so as long as you're not doing a dunk test on it then you should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
[kramers into thread] HELLO I HEAR SOMEONE IS ASKING ABOUT USING MIRRORLESS IN AFRICA  BRW20933 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr BRW20845 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr BRW40744 by Ben Wilcox, on Flickr BRW41151 by Ben Wilcox, on FlickrI rolled with two Olympus EM1 Mk2s, one almost always had the 300mm f/4 and 1.4x TC on it, the other had a 40-150mm f/2.8. Third lens was a 25mm f/1.2 that didn't see a lot of use. Oh hey, here's what I posted over in the wildlife thread a while back: DJExile posted:This seems as good a place as any to dump a bunch of poo poo I learned spending a week on safari in Tanzania between Arusha, Tarangiere National Park, Ngorongoro Crater, and Serengeti National Park. Here's some dumb gay advice from a bad photographer. Take it or leave it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
re: new fujis apparently the only real difference between the x-t20 / x-t2 and t-t30 / x-t3 is the better video specs and improved autofocus at the expense of barely noticeable low light performance so if you don't need the better video and can deal with the lower autofocus performance the x-t20 / x-t2 is perfectly fine for what you're after as for lenses you can always rent what you need to see which ones you want to pick up, that's what im doing when i go to hawaii in 2 weeks
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Just chiming in to agree with the X-T20 love. You can get great prices on them now, and I’ve loved mine for the month that I’ve had it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a NAS? I need to clean up and organize my photos before I swap computers (iMac if it matters). I don’t do subscriptions or I would upload everything to the cloud, is this really dumb?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
But…muh gear acquisition disorder! Realistically, in what situations would you pick the X-T30 over the X-T20 when it comes to AF performance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
HP microserver
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
Dangerllama posted:But…muh gear acquisition disorder! i got the x-t30 with the 35 f2 was the same price as the x-t20 with the 18-55 when i made my purchase  the af and video upgrades were a nice addition but the only zooms i have any interest in is the coming 16-80 and the 55-200 and the 35 f2 was one of the primes i wanted
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
Sticko posted:55-210/4.5mm, but I'd probably go the 18-200/3.5 for $2700 total since I've heard the 55-210 is terrible) Just to chime in on this point, I have one and I don't think it's particularly bad? Unless I just happened to get a good example? Reference pics:  
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
Dangerllama posted:But…muh gear acquisition disorder! There's practically none, I had an x-t20, traded it on an x-t3 and the af benefit is marginal at best. There's the whole "can focus in nearly 3 stops less light!!" bollocks, but in practical terms, that's not really true. (I can convince an x-t3 to focus maybe a touch faster than the x-t20 would have in similar situations and I'll have one or two more keepers, but it's more hype than anything else, the x-t20 is *FINE* in almost all situations) For the prices you can get an x-t20 kit with the 18-55 I would recommend it over pretty any other fuji camera right now, it's superb, built well, has almost everything you'll need, is plenty fast and when the next bangwow awesome fuji kit lands, you can keep the 18-55 and whatever other lenses you buy for the money you saved on the x-t30/x-t3 and trade it for one of those. The only real benefit I can see in the newer bodies is in video, which I don't personally shoot, so I may as well have kept the t20. A bad photo on a modern body is just as bad as it was on a slightly less, but still very modern body.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
Ropes4u posted:Can anyone recommend a NAS? I need to clean up and organize my photos before I swap computers (iMac if it matters). Ooooo, one I can help with! There is a NAS thread here - https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2801557 I'm fond of Synology NASes unless you really want to roll your own. The most important thing to know is that you should still have backups because RAID is not backup. That being said, you really should just use the cloud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 13:35
|
|
