The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

«‹›614 »

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

Encrypted posted:

Get the sony and if you are looking at the Z7 then maybe the A7R III. The focus on the sony is better than the z7 while the lens and adapter makes the sony a much better buy.

Also lol @ nikon using XQD memory card instead of SD.

That's only true if the lens designer are lazy, like nikon who basically just add an extension tube to their full frame lenses, or idiotic like canon, who designed the lens to be even bigger than the regular dslr counterparts just so they can make their lineup seem higher end while soaking their customer with terrible outdated bodies.

Something like sony's 12-24 is tiny compare to canon's 11-24 while being sharper. The new 24 1.4 is also small compare to pretty much anything else on the market while still having edge to edge sharpness.

Cool, thank you. My general read was that Nikon had sorta fallen off their game

# ? Jul 8, 2019 12:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 23:58

powderific: May 13, 2004; Grimey Drawer

I don't think Nikon's off their game so much as because the mount is a lot newer they just don't have many lenses yet. What they do have are generally good and they are new optical designs and not just their old lenses with adapters glued on. Also not sure what adapter makes the Sony a better buy unless you have a stack of Canon glass lying around. Lens selection is definitely in Sony's favor for native glass at this point though.

# ? Jul 8, 2019 14:07

Mega Comrade: Apr 22, 2004; Listen buddy, we all got problems!

Yeah I think for the first attempt the Z6 and Z7 came out great. But they have a LOT of catching up to do and the z mount only has 3(?) lenses right now, so you pretty much need that converter. It would be great if Nikon followed Sony and released the mount specifications to third parties but I doubt they will, this means its going to take the likes of sigma and tamron a while to reverse engineer it.

# ? Jul 8, 2019 15:27

powderific: May 13, 2004; Grimey Drawer

They're up to 5 now, but it's gonna be a minute for it to fill out. It probably makes the most sense for people who either like the way the body feels or, like me, have a lot of Nikon glass already. The adapter pretty much lives on mine and it's a lot nicer than any other adapter I'd be able to get on other systems.

# ? Jul 8, 2019 16:33

Encrypted: Feb 25, 2016

Mega Comrade posted:

To be fair, XQD cards are faster, have larger storage size and more are reliable than SD and I generally think they might be the default format in a 5-10 years time if prices come down. Nikon are just jumping the gun a bit, I can kinda see the Z7 targeting high end justifying it, but the Z6 should have been SD for sure and it will be very dumb if the rumoured Z5 (or whatever they call their new midrange Z cameras) to not take SD cards.

UHS-II that goes up to 300MB/s already exist while being backwards compatible to regular ol SD.
It's pretty neat too since it's similar to how usb 3.0 has a bunch more pins inside the regular usb 2.0 plug to retain compatibility.

There's also UHS-III and SD Express that goes up to 624MB/s and 985MB/s, while they all still work in the ol SD slot.

Also it will be interesting to see if Nikon will admit defeat and have SD inside their next camera instead of "we should expand the market of XQD and get more people to use it thus sell more Z7".

powderific posted:

I don't think Nikon's off their game so much as because the mount is a lot newer they just don't have many lenses yet. What they do have are generally good and they are new optical designs and not just their old lenses with adapters glued on. Also not sure what adapter makes the Sony a better buy unless you have a stack of Canon glass lying around. Lens selection is definitely in Sony's favor for native glass at this point though.

The sigma mc-11 for the canon-sony adapter feels a lot more secure and better made than the metabone iv. It can be had for 150 or so on sale, but either one of them works with the latest eye focus etc.

Also it's the focusing tech on the nikon that's lacking.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7/8

quote:

The above roll-over does a good job summing up our experience using the Z7 to track. The example starts midway through the run - all the shots prior those those shown here were critically sharp - but then for seemingly no reason, the Z7 loses focus on the cyclist, settling on the background instead. This behavior proved pervasive throughout many of our subject tracking bike runs. We also noted a similar tendency of the camera to jump to the background when using Face Detect in Auto Area mode, but more on that below.

In short, the only thing consistent about the Z7's subject tracking performance is just how inconsistent it is.

quote:

Below is our standard low light Face Detect test, meant to simulate photographing friends or family in an indoor environment with dim lighting.

The hit rate for this test is good, only about 2 of the 15 photos are totally out of focus, but there are some caveats. For this test, we had to set the camera to 'Release' priority instead of 'Focus' priority to avoid the slow acquisition speeds in the former. The result of doing so is that the autofocus keeps up, but doesn't always deliver critically sharp images.

quote:

In multiple real-world scenarios, like the one above, we observed Face Detect mistaking distant inanimate objects for faces. When this occurs, the camera is then reticent to refocus on something closer - even an actual, real face - taking up a portion of the frame.

When it comes to moving subjects, what is especially frustrating is that even when the camera seemingly can stick to a face - as proven by a red box hovering over them - often it just can't drive AF fast or accurately enough to actually maintain focus. In the scenario above, of the shots we thought we had in focus, most (~80%) weren't critically sharp in 1:1 viewing.

quote:

One constant frustration we observed while field testing the Z7 is the camera's tendency to hunt in AF-C when shooting in very low light or back-lit subjects. In controlled testing we found the camera started to hunt noticeably in light levels between 0 and -1EV when using the 35mm F1.8 S lens. But even in light levels slightly higher - like in the example above - AF hunting caused missed shots.

Changing the camera's AF-C priority from 'Focus' to 'Release' Priority helps to cut down on AF hunting in low light, but at the cost of critically sharp photos. And in severely back-lit scenarios, more often than not the Z7 simply cannot focus at all.

Supposedly they have the on-sensor phase detection similar to sony and canon but just doesn't focus well for some reason. Especially when comparing it to their dslr counterparts.

The nice thing regarding the sony is that it's beating out even the traditional slr camera for focusing on faces. The eye focus alone make it great for f1.2/f1.4 lenses. Canon are trying to do their own eye focus now but it's still not as good while still releasing huge lenses that defeats the physical advantage of mirrorless.

quote:

The EOS RP is Canon's first camera to offer pupil/eye detection in continuous (Servo) autofocus mode. In principle this means it will track your subject's eye as they move around, making it easy to shoot family and social situations.

The performance isn't all that we'd hoped for. Pupil detection works best when the subject's face takes up quite a large proportion of the screen, so only works well at relatively close distances. Some competitors are able to detect eyes that take up, comparatively, a very small portion of the scene. The speed is also rather lens motor-dependent: it's reasonably fast with the 24-105mm F4L lens but noticeably less responsive with the 35mm F1.8.

edit: here have some sony eye focus video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_B-3Ak5sjg

It also works on cats, dogs and other animals now too.

Encrypted fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jul 8, 2019

# ? Jul 8, 2019 18:18

Easychair Bootson: May 7, 2004; _{Where's the last guy?

Ultimo hombre.

Last man standing.

Must've been one.}

edit: moved my question to the General thread

Easychair Bootson fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jul 8, 2019

# ? Jul 8, 2019 19:56

Mega Comrade: Apr 22, 2004; Listen buddy, we all got problems!

Encrypted posted:

UHS-II that goes up to 300MB/s already exist while being backwards compatible to regular ol SD.
It's pretty neat too since it's similar to how usb 3.0 has a bunch more pins inside the regular usb 2.0 plug to retain compatibility.

There's also UHS-III and SD Express that goes up to 624MB/s and 985MB/s, while they all still work in the ol SD slot.

Ahh didn't know that, that's cool

# ? Jul 8, 2019 20:20

powderific: May 13, 2004; Grimey Drawer

Nikon did just release a firmware update that improves the AF. I'm sure it's still not up to Sony or their DSLRs but it should be better than before. I'm mostly on manual focus glass though so don't have much personal experience with that end of things.

# ? Jul 8, 2019 21:21

dakana: Aug 28, 2006; So I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch and headed for California.

A brief trip report: I sold my 5D3 and 6D and bought an A7RIII and a Sigma MC-E11.

I shot my first wedding with it and a borrowed A7III, 12-24 f/4 G and 24-70 f/2.8 GM, and adapted my EF mount Sigma 24 1.4, Canon 50 1.2, Canon 85 1.8, and Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II.

On the whole, I'm thrilled.

My #1 concern was autofocus, particularly in the dark, but both cameras performed really well, and my AF keeper rate is actually higher with the Sony cameras than it was on my Canons, particularly thanks to Eye and Face AF which are goddamn magical. The cameras kept up well even as the lights went down.

The other feature that surprised me with how much I ended up using it is the tilting screen. I tend to shoot a lot of candids and like to have a good rapport as well, so being able to just tilt out the screen while still getting fast and accurate AF (in addition to composing instead of firing blind) was such a huge convenience. It also helped a lot in getting low and high angles -- less firing blind and less laying flat with my face pushed against the floor.

Another surprise convenience: reviewing photos on the EVF. When it's super bright out, checking focus and exposure in the isolation of the EVF was actually really helpful.

One big bummer: my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II focuses like _ass_ on the Sony cameras. Unless the subject is stationary, I won't use it, and even then it's pretty drat iffy. I'm going to need to sell that and either buy the Sony 70-200 (which is so goddamn expensive, jesus christ) or reevaluate. The Sigma 135 1.8 looks tempting, but I don't know if I want to lose the flexibility of the 70-200. It's a really convenient focal length, especially during ceremonies.

I probably won't buy the 12-24 or 24-70. I borrowed them because a. I could, b. I only had 1 MC-E11 and c. it doesn't hurt to have a backup. I've never been a 24-70 guy, and f/4 is rough for weddings. The Sigma 14-24 2.8 is pretty tempting. Either that or the 14mm 1.8, which sounds fun as hell.

# ? Jul 10, 2019 02:47

Ethics_Gradient: May 5, 2015; Common misconception that; that fun is relaxing. If it is, you're not doing it right.

dakana posted:

A brief trip report: I sold my 5D3 and 6D and bought an A7RIII and a Sigma MC-E11.

I shot my first wedding with it and a borrowed A7III, 12-24 f/4 G and 24-70 f/2.8 GM, and adapted my EF mount Sigma 24 1.4, Canon 50 1.2, Canon 85 1.8, and Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II.

On the whole, I'm thrilled.

My #1 concern was autofocus, particularly in the dark, but both cameras performed really well, and my AF keeper rate is actually higher with the Sony cameras than it was on my Canons, particularly thanks to Eye and Face AF which are goddamn magical. The cameras kept up well even as the lights went down.

The other feature that surprised me with how much I ended up using it is the tilting screen. I tend to shoot a lot of candids and like to have a good rapport as well, so being able to just tilt out the screen while still getting fast and accurate AF (in addition to composing instead of firing blind) was such a huge convenience. It also helped a lot in getting low and high angles -- less firing blind and less laying flat with my face pushed against the floor.

Another surprise convenience: reviewing photos on the EVF. When it's super bright out, checking focus and exposure in the isolation of the EVF was actually really helpful.

One big bummer: my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II focuses like _ass_ on the Sony cameras. Unless the subject is stationary, I won't use it, and even then it's pretty drat iffy. I'm going to need to sell that and either buy the Sony 70-200 (which is so goddamn expensive, jesus christ) or reevaluate. The Sigma 135 1.8 looks tempting, but I don't know if I want to lose the flexibility of the 70-200. It's a really convenient focal length, especially during ceremonies.

I probably won't buy the 12-24 or 24-70. I borrowed them because a. I could, b. I only had 1 MC-E11 and c. it doesn't hurt to have a backup. I've never been a 24-70 guy, and f/4 is rough for weddings. The Sigma 14-24 2.8 is pretty tempting. Either that or the 14mm 1.8, which sounds fun as hell.

Yeah, a tilting LCD is one thing I never knew I needed until I got my NEX-3 all those years ago, won't buy a camera without it now.

Does the Metabones work any better with the 70-200 2.8? I agree that the prices on Sony glass are eye-watering, stinks not having the 30 year pool of secondhand glass that EF does.

Out of curiousity, what do you shoot with if not a 24-70 2.8 for weddings? Just primes?

# ? Jul 10, 2019 03:11

Verman: Jul 4, 2005; Third time is a charm right?

dakana posted:

A brief trip report: I sold my 5D3 and 6D and bought an A7RIII and a Sigma MC-E11.

I shot my first wedding with it and a borrowed A7III, 12-24 f/4 G and 24-70 f/2.8 GM, and adapted my EF mount Sigma 24 1.4, Canon 50 1.2, Canon 85 1.8, and Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II.

On the whole, I'm thrilled.

My #1 concern was autofocus, particularly in the dark, but both cameras performed really well, and my AF keeper rate is actually higher with the Sony cameras than it was on my Canons, particularly thanks to Eye and Face AF which are goddamn magical. The cameras kept up well even as the lights went down.

The other feature that surprised me with how much I ended up using it is the tilting screen. I tend to shoot a lot of candids and like to have a good rapport as well, so being able to just tilt out the screen while still getting fast and accurate AF (in addition to composing instead of firing blind) was such a huge convenience. It also helped a lot in getting low and high angles -- less firing blind and less laying flat with my face pushed against the floor.

Another surprise convenience: reviewing photos on the EVF. When it's super bright out, checking focus and exposure in the isolation of the EVF was actually really helpful.

One big bummer: my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II focuses like _ass_ on the Sony cameras. Unless the subject is stationary, I won't use it, and even then it's pretty drat iffy. I'm going to need to sell that and either buy the Sony 70-200 (which is so goddamn expensive, jesus christ) or reevaluate. The Sigma 135 1.8 looks tempting, but I don't know if I want to lose the flexibility of the 70-200. It's a really convenient focal length, especially during ceremonies.

I probably won't buy the 12-24 or 24-70. I borrowed them because a. I could, b. I only had 1 MC-E11 and c. it doesn't hurt to have a backup. I've never been a 24-70 guy, and f/4 is rough for weddings. The Sigma 14-24 2.8 is pretty tempting. Either that or the 14mm 1.8, which sounds fun as hell.

Try renting the new sigma 70-200 2.8 sport/art or whatever they call it. The tamron 70-200 2.8 was ok on my a7iii but nothing like native canon glass on a canon body. I came from canon and was vey reluctant to switch.

The first wedding I shot with my a7iii felt like cheating. I instantly increased my keepers due to high iso performance and accuracy of focus. It was insane. It opened up a lot of flexibility with low light that would have never been usable with my old canon setup. The eye AF was surprisingly good and accurate. I feel if anything, older canon lenses struggled to focus quickly or accurately. I've had a few lenses hunt on occasion, specifically older 70-200 variations. Sigma art lenses though ... those things work like magic.

# ? Jul 10, 2019 05:00

DJExile: Jun 28, 2007

Ethics_Gradient posted:

Out of curiousity, what do you shoot with if not a 24-70 2.8 for weddings? Just primes?

Yeah my boy dakana has a huge pile o' primes

# ? Jul 10, 2019 06:19

Encrypted: Feb 25, 2016

Yeah the 70-200 ii doesn�t seem to focus that well with the adapter. But i haven�t tried the new firmware with it yet.

The 35 1.4 ii, 85 1.2 ii and 135 f2 all work well though and so does the 16-35 iii so eh :shrug:

# ? Jul 10, 2019 08:20

Lady Gaza: Nov 20, 2008

Got a baby on the way. Thinking of getting a fast prime for my XT-20 so I can use it indoors in lower light. Recommendations? Was thinking 35mm but wondered if I�d need wider, e.g. 23mm?

# ? Jul 10, 2019 10:02

Pablo Bluth: Sep 7, 2007; I've made a huge mistake.

Encrypted posted:

UHS-II that goes up to 300MB/s already exist while being backwards compatible to regular ol SD.
It's pretty neat too since it's similar to how usb 3.0 has a bunch more pins inside the regular usb 2.0 plug to retain compatibility.

There's also UHS-III and SD Express that goes up to 624MB/s and 985MB/s, while they all still work in the ol SD slot.

Also it will be interesting to see if Nikon will admit defeat and have SD inside their next camera instead of "we should expand the market of XQD and get more people to use it thus sell more Z7".

XQD is all but dead, it's limping along until CFExpress cards (eventually) hit the market. CFExpress is form and pin compatible and Nikon have said they will release firmware to enable support in their cameras. In theory CFExpress has wider backing which might give a wider selection of cards and bring down price.

The second generation of CFExpress (when they eventually release the first generation) is pencilled in for a transfer speed of >7GB/s. It might not make sense for small form consumer targeted camera, but that'd be great for people shooting lots of 4K video...

# ? Jul 10, 2019 10:22

SimpleCoax: Aug 7, 2003; TV is the thing this year.; Hair Elf

Lady Gaza posted:

Got a baby on the way. Thinking of getting a fast prime for my XT-20 so I can use it indoors in lower light. Recommendations? Was thinking 35mm but wondered if I�d need wider, e.g. 23mm?

I keep a camera with the 23mm 1.4 on it in the living area at all times after I just had a baby. I never change it from 1.4.

# ? Jul 10, 2019 12:55

GEMorris: Aug 28, 2002; Glory To the Order!

Lady Gaza posted:

Got a baby on the way. Thinking of getting a fast prime for my XT-20 so I can use it indoors in lower light. Recommendations? Was thinking 35mm but wondered if I’d need wider, e.g. 23mm?

Not Fuji, but my 15mm (30 equiv) 1.7 on my m43 has been the perfect baby/toddler lens for my now 18 month old

# ? Jul 10, 2019 13:06

ilkhan: Oct 7, 2004; I LOVE Musk and his pro-first-amendment ways. X is the future.

Ethics_Gradient posted:

Out of curiousity, what do you shoot with if not a 24-70 2.8 for weddings? Just primes?

My wedding was shot with 24-105s and 70-200/2.8's. When I asked he said the iso performance makes up for it, and he gets better range with the -105. Makes sense and I agree with him. I'd rather have the range too. Impressive seeing his camera cases with $20k of equipment in them. Each.

# ? Jul 10, 2019 13:09

tino: Jun 4, 2018; by Smythe

Lady Gaza posted:

Got a baby on the way. Thinking of getting a fast prime for my XT-20 so I can use it indoors in lower light. Recommendations? Was thinking 35mm but wondered if I�d need wider, e.g. 23mm?

I ended up shooting 90% of my baby photos and videos on a phone because first 6 months all I could use was one hand and the other hand had to hold him. After he began crawling most I shot were videos, and some time lapse.

When I use the Fuji gears I use the 16mm mostly.

edit: your post made me go back to see the my baby's old photo stream. An stationary infant was so much easier to take photo than a 18 month old who is addictive to run. Even changing diaper is a freaking battle now.

tino fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Jul 10, 2019

# ? Jul 10, 2019 13:11

dakana: Aug 28, 2006; So I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch and headed for California.

Ethics_Gradient posted:

Yeah, a tilting LCD is one thing I never knew I needed until I got my NEX-3 all those years ago, won't buy a camera without it now.

Does the Metabones work any better with the 70-200 2.8? I agree that the prices on Sony glass are eye-watering, stinks not having the 30 year pool of secondhand glass that EF does.

Out of curiousity, what do you shoot with if not a 24-70 2.8 for weddings? Just primes?

I always kind of thought of it as a gimmick, but that was when live view AF was terrible. Now that phase detect is so good, I agree it's all but an essential feature now.

I'm not sure about the Metabones adapter. I'm not sure I'd want to fuss with it, especially for weddings. Might be better off just ditching the 70-200 and either getting the Sony or figuring out my life with a prime. I do still do sports on occasion, though, which makes me lean toward biting the bullet and shelling out for the Sony 70-200.

And yeah, I shoot the majority of my wedding stuff with my 24 1.4, 50 1.2, and 85 1.8 -- heavy on the 50. The 70-200 comes in handy for the ceremony and speeches, though.

Verman posted:

Try renting the new sigma 70-200 2.8 sport/art or whatever they call it. The tamron 70-200 2.8 was ok on my a7iii but nothing like native canon glass on a canon body. I came from canon and was vey reluctant to switch.

The first wedding I shot with my a7iii felt like cheating. I instantly increased my keepers due to high iso performance and accuracy of focus. It was insane. It opened up a lot of flexibility with low light that would have never been usable with my old canon setup. The eye AF was surprisingly good and accurate. I feel if anything, older canon lenses struggled to focus quickly or accurately. I've had a few lenses hunt on occasion, specifically older 70-200 variations. Sigma art lenses though ... those things work like magic.

I may do that! I'm curious about the AF performance of the Sport line. And I definitely agree about the feeling of cheating. It's similar to when I first started shooting with a 1D Mark III after having shot with a Digital Rebel XT and 40D for a long time. There was one time in particular where I got caught off guard and had to whip the camera to my face, mash the AF and start firing a burst, and the A7RIII just nailed every shot, even through the adapter and at f/1.4.

ilkhan posted:

My wedding was shot with 24-105s and 70-200/2.8's. When I asked he said the iso performance makes up for it, and he gets better range with the -105. Makes sense and I agree with him. I'd rather have the range too. Impressive seeing his camera cases with $20k of equipment in them. Each.

I'm still a sucker for the subject isolation I get with my wide apertures, and being able to shoot with higher ss, lower iso, and lower flash power are powerful additional benefits as well. I'd go nuts shooting a wedding with an f/4 lens.

# ? Jul 10, 2019 18:43

Easychair Bootson: May 7, 2004; _{Where's the last guy?

Ultimo hombre.

Last man standing.

Must've been one.}

Capture One Pro doesn't support tethering with the Fuji X-T30, but they do with the X-T3. Is this an intentional move by Fuji to prevent the X-T30 from overlapping too much with the X-T3, or is it possible that C1 might eventually support X-T30 tethering?

# ? Jul 10, 2019 18:43

XBenedict: May 23, 2006; YOUR LIPS SAY 0, BUT YOUR EYES SAY 1.

Easychair Bootson posted:

Capture One Pro doesn't support tethering with the Fuji X-T30, but they do with the X-T3. Is this an intentional move by Fuji to prevent the X-T30 from overlapping too much with the X-T3, or is it possible that C1 might eventually support X-T30 tethering?

They added support for the 30 in February?

# ? Jul 10, 2019 19:27

Easychair Bootson: May 7, 2004; _{Where's the last guy?

Ultimo hombre.

Last man standing.

Must've been one.}

XBenedict posted:

They added support for the 30 in February?

Where are you seeing that? The X-T30 didn't come out until late March, and their site shows that it does not support tethering with the X-T30. I tried it anyway a few months ago, but as expected, it did not work.

# ? Jul 10, 2019 20:34

XBenedict: May 23, 2006; YOUR LIPS SAY 0, BUT YOUR EYES SAY 1.

Easychair Bootson posted:

Where are you seeing that? The X-T30 didn't come out until late March, and their site shows that it does not support tethering with the X-T30. I tried it anyway a few months ago, but as expected, it did not work.

Sorry. I misread your post vis a vis Tethering. I was just thinking general C1 usage.

# ? Jul 10, 2019 21:05

toggle: Nov 7, 2005

Just a question for youse guys.. I've been using micro 4/3s for about 5 years now and I'm kind of over the low light performance in certain situations for both photo and video. I've pushed my GH5 to the limits over the years with decent results at times, but I just want a change. Been looking at the Z6 to fill my hybird shooting needs. I do have some f mount primes hanging about too.

Has anyone used the Z6 with video? How were the video controls? Obviously I won't be getting lovely 4k60p like with the GH5, but as long as it looks and grades nice I'll be happy. I have tried one out at a Nikon event a couple of weeks ago and I couldn't get over the fact there's no exposure control indicator in video mode. Just bizarre.

I'll mostly be doing time lapses/astrophotography/run and gun doco and low light wedding videos (receptions) with it.

Looking for any thoughts, feelings and suggestions.

# ? Jul 10, 2019 23:37

powderific: May 13, 2004; Grimey Drawer

I have one and shoot video, but I don�t use it a ton for video as I have a dedicated camera for that. For exposure, it has histogram and zebras which are enough for me. I�d love a waveform, but my main camera stupidly does not have one either so whatever. You should check out the S1 too.

Edit: I had no issues with the controls but not sure what might be your specific concerns there.

powderific fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jul 11, 2019

# ? Jul 11, 2019 00:12

Animal: Apr 8, 2003

Sigma unveils world smallest full frame camera

It looks like an ergonomic nightmare and I want it

Animal fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jul 11, 2019

# ? Jul 11, 2019 15:23

DJExile: Jun 28, 2007

Animal posted:

Sigma unveils world smallest full frame camera

It looks like an ergonomic nightmare and I want it

loving lmao at calling it pocketable, that is some amazing PR spin

# ? Jul 11, 2019 15:40

qirex: Feb 15, 2001

It looks like the body is around the same size as a Fuji X-E3

fp 113 x 70 x 45mm 370 grams
X-E3 121 x 74 x 43mm 337g

Far from pocketable but still I love it. Not in an "I'd buy it" way but I think it's cool it exists.

# ? Jul 11, 2019 16:11

Fools Infinite: Mar 21, 2006; Journeyman

With the release of a 45mm f2.8 it seems like they are also setting it up to replace the compact quattro line too. No mechanical shutter, modular system? Sigma sure does make interesting choices. I'd love to buy one, but I doubt I will ever by able to justify the cost.

If the foveon version is in the same form factor you can finally get acceptable high iso performance by buying a second body.

The apsc 1.4 lenses coming to ef-m is pretty cool too.

# ? Jul 11, 2019 16:45

JAY ZERO SUM GAME: Oct 18, 2005; Walter.
I know you know how to do this.
Get up.

Does Sigma make actual good lenses now? My last experience with them was ~15 years ago, and they just weren't up to snuff with a comparable Canon/Nikon fast lens.

# ? Jul 11, 2019 17:12

Fools Infinite: Mar 21, 2006; Journeyman

Yes, they do. Patent applications have shown they designed a bunch of lenses for other companies too, like olympus and panasonic, I believe.

# ? Jul 11, 2019 17:26

Kalsco: Jul 26, 2012

The size and weight tend to be notably bigger, mind, but optically they're just as good/leading the pack, lens depending.

# ? Jul 11, 2019 17:28

bloops: Dec 31, 2010; Thanks Ape Pussy!

Yea. I used their 35mm 1.4 when I shot Canon. It was great.

# ? Jul 11, 2019 17:30

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

Animal posted:

Sigma unveils world smallest full frame camera

It looks like an ergonomic nightmare and I want it

Wow that absolutely owns. I love that they are trying something new. I say go for it, give people an easy to use full frame stripped down of all the extras. I passed around my X-T30 at a BBQ on Sat and no one under the age of 30 used the viewfinder, its worth a shot :iiam:

# ? Jul 11, 2019 17:32

tino: Jun 4, 2018; by Smythe

Looks like a FF black magic, it's a total brick.

# ? Jul 11, 2019 17:35

Krispy Wafer: Jul 26, 2002; I shouted out "Free the exposed 67"
But they stood on my hair and told me I was fat; Grimey Drawer

holocaust bloopers posted:

Yea. I used their 35mm 1.4 when I shot Canon. It was great.

I just sold my 35mm 1.4 since I switched from Nikon to Fuji. It was by far my favorite lens.

So yeah, if Sigma makes a lens you can use they're pretty good.

# ? Jul 11, 2019 17:35

XBenedict: May 23, 2006; YOUR LIPS SAY 0, BUT YOUR EYES SAY 1.

cheese posted:

I passed around my X-T30 at a BBQ on Sat and no one under the age of 30 used the viewfinder, its worth a shot

I don't know if it's a mystery. They're not photographers and grew up taking photos by looking at a phone.

# ? Jul 11, 2019 17:37

Verman: Jul 4, 2005; Third time is a charm right?

Sigma today is not the sigma of 10-15 years ago. Their art and sport lenses are professional lenses on par with or better than most 1st party lenses. Their MC11 adapter is also one of the top adapters out there right now for Sony users wanting to use FF canon/nikon mount glass and can be had for $150. The build quality is impeccable and they feel like professional gear although they are kind of heavy. As an added bonus, their top of the line lenses are generally much more affordable than the 1st party brand offerings (which is huge being a Sony shooter because sony lenses are $$$$)

# ? Jul 11, 2019 17:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 23:58

DJExile: Jun 28, 2007

Yeah new sigma is v good. Dakana will not shut up about their primes

# ? Jul 11, 2019 18:03

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > The Mirrorless Thread: Son(y), I Am Disappoint.

«‹›614 »