|
Coming back to say I'm so very satisfied with the X-T30. I'm just an enthusiast with little real photography knowledge but my quick auto focus shots have basically all been crystal clear and very pleasing so far. As this ones for my work, I might have to finally update my old T5i and get one for myself as well.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Yeah, I’ve used the following cameras: Canon Rebel XSi, Canon 5D mkii, Nikon D600, Nikon D810, Fuji X-T2, and finally, Fuji X-T30. The X-T30 is the first one where I can feel reasonably confident I got an in-focus picture of whatever was under the green square, to the point where I don’t have to immediately check for focus afterward. It’s great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 13:52
|
|
|
One problem though: Getting access to the photos. I plug the camera into my computer, I can see thumbnails of the photos but then as it tries to load, it changes it mind before coming clear and tells me I dont have permission to view the files. Fujis software is completely jurassic horse poo poo from about 2001, I cant believe how bad it is. Transferring wirelessly is painful. So I'm left to remove the tripod plate and take out the SD card, which works on its own. What gives?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
What's the current state of phone cameras vs cheap(er than a new phone) point and shoot cameras? I'm not looking to get into photography in a big way, just want to take pictures of my kid outside in the daytime mostly. My phone (moto g5splus) takes garbage pictures but my wife's iphone 11 takes I would say pretty good pictures. The camera has been poo poo on every android phone I've had, so I was looking at an iphone se which is $750 here and I would rather spend less and not have to have an iphone. Is it worth getting a point and shoot? To get an idea of cost I could get a sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V for $450 or a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ80 for $550 or even a Canon Powershot SX620HS for $370. Used market is pretty heinous here, I have my eye on a crusty looking RX100 ii for which the current bid is $275. I want something that can fit into a nerd sized pocket, so not a DSLR or anything with a huge lens barrel on it. Any ideas? Or just suck it up and buy an iphone? e: I should mention I'm in NZ, you could check prices on things here https://pricespy.co.nz/category.php?k=97 if you are extremely helpful or bored. Thanks bobbilljim fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Sep 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:What's the current state of phone cameras vs cheap(er than a new phone) point and shoot cameras? I'm not looking to get into photography in a big way, just want to take pictures of my kid outside in the daytime mostly. My phone (moto g5splus) takes garbage pictures but my wife's iphone 11 takes I would say pretty good pictures. The camera has been poo poo on every android phone I've had, so I was looking at an iphone se which is $750 here and I would rather spend less and not have to have an iphone. Is it worth getting a point and shoot? To get an idea of cost I could get a sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V for $450 or a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ80 for $550 or even a Canon Powershot SX620HS for $370. Used market is pretty heinous here, I have my eye on a crusty looking RX100 ii for which the current bid is $275. So far the best phone camera I've used in the 20+ years I've had phones was the Nokia Lumia 1020. Had a 41 megapixel Carl Zeiss lens and probably the best depth of field I've seen on any phone, even recent ones: https://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_lumia_1020-5506.php Probably hard to come by these days since they've been discontinued for a few years, but if you already have a phone for, y'know, phone calls, and just want to buy a phone for taking high-definition photos then you're probably safe to go with the Lumia tbh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Thanks but I can't find any of those for sale. Almost as cool as the samsung galaxy camera
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
I wouldn't buy an older model cellphone just for the camera anyway. After a lot of research into midrange phones, I bought a pixel 4a recently to do most of my shooting on. The sensor isn't quite as large as other options available, but the multishot/composite/night mode works even when shooting raw which make up for a lot of the difference, and I have been happy with the shots I get (of mostly still subjects) in low light. Here is a sample I took (and edited from the raw dng file):  Edit: I forgot to add about compacts: I wouldn't buy a small sensor one, might as well use your cellphone. Most larger sensor compacts are 1" sensors (like the rx100), I think these are mostly overpriced for the results. There is also the slighty larger sensor lx100, which is decent but less pocketable. Larger apsc sensor cameras mostly have fixed 28mm or 35mm equivalents, and are a big step up in quality. I had gr ii and gr iii and loved the images but both developed problems with dust. There are also a number of interchangeable mirror less cameras and pancake lenses that might fit what you need, like an m camera and 22mm pancake. Fools Infinite fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Sep 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 01:00
|
|
|
One big advantage phones have is ease of sharing photos. You can upload them directly from the phone to various services. A lot of camera companies provide Wifi/Bluetooth with smartphone apps, but these tend to be finicky. If you don't mind downloading the files to your editing computer/tablet, you could potentially look at used cameras from a few years back. Fuji X100 series should fit in your jacket pocket, but probably a tad too large for like jeans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
I love my x100 but it’s probably pretty wide for child pictures. Maybe check out something with a zoom like a Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
I bought the 20mm f/1.8. So far the only place and time I've had to test it out was at work. It's very difficult to shoot appealing photos of the place with all the barriers up between games for COVID. I'm also on the fence about whether to use the flash in spaces like these - it certainly makes getting the shots easier, but glare off the machines becomes an issue. I think I need to do some more practice runs with it. Without flash:   With flash:    Then I got drunk and tried to see how deliberate movement with rear-sync flash would look in the space::   Then I took this on the way home which might be my favourite shot of the night:  I'm pretty happy with it but it needs a good workout in a better space, like shooting crowds at a rave (lol) or shooting some landscapes. Also yeah, I definitely need to work at these arcade shots before I take a train out to the new venue to get shots of it for the website. But yeah, I got the gig. At least, the owner is keen on me coming out there at some point to get the shots. We haven't discussed pay yet and I still have no idea what to ask that's fair to me, but won't make him go "lol gently caress off, I'll do it with my phone."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Are you bouncing the flash off the ceiling? Would probably look much better diffused. Are you running matrix metering? I'm wondering what differences you'd see if you changed to spot metering for the machines, if not already. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Sep 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Are you bouncing the flash off the ceiling? Would probably look much better diffused. I've got it pointing away at a diagonal in most of those shots, with the diffuser dome on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Huh weird, just really shiny everything then :[
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Are you running matrix metering? I'm wondering what differences you'd see if you changed to spot metering for the machines, if not already. Playing with metering types is something I need to do more of. I think I was on spot metering for these.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions everyone - weird times we live in when it's probably better to buy a phone when you want a camera. Those fancy 1" / apsc cameras are tempting though
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Huh weird, just really shiny everything then :[ Bars are best experienced drunk and with poor lighting
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
qirex posted:I love my x100 but it’s probably pretty wide for child pictures. Maybe check out something with a zoom like a Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100. I have an x100 and an rx100. The x100 isn't really pocketful unless you have cargo pants (admittedly, goons). The rx100 will fit in any men's jeans pocket without issue as well as a short pocket.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
Yeah I still have my RX100m2 from way back I liked taking it to clubs and shows [rip to clubs and shows in pandemic hell world]. Huge size difference and I’ll probably only consider getting rid of it if I see a good deal on a GR III.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Do Fuji X-series lenses ever go on sale? Any websites that might offer a discount for students or nurses? I’ve been looking to pick up a 23mm f2 WR and they still go for a pretty penny used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 04:48
|
|
|
This maybe a dumb question but does Samsung still make SD cards? I can only find microSD and I wanted to buy a couple to throw in my bags in case I forget to transfer off my card (which is always). I could buy some CF cards but like, they're bigger and pricier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
Why Samsung?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
ijyt posted:This maybe a dumb question but does Samsung still make SD cards? I can only find microSD and I wanted to buy a couple to throw in my bags in case I forget to transfer off my card (which is always). I could buy some CF cards but like, they're bigger and pricier. doesn't like every single microSD card you buy come with one of those adapterdillys? I have a billion of them
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Why Samsung? Two unlucky experiences with sandisk 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
I'll buy SD cards from Amazon for my raspberry pi etc, but SD card fraud on Amazon is way too high for me to buy a high end camera SD card on Amazon, I always buy those from beards & hats and pay the premium
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
Yeah, I imagine fake cards account for the majority of card issues. I did recently gamble on some Lexar CF cards from Amazon but theb CF is a dead-end so the scammers have probably moved on to focus on SD. I assume Samsung focus on selling branded microsd cards as it fits with their smartphone business. That said B&H do have some uhs-i Samsung SDs. Other brands to consider: Lexar - seems to have survived the sale to China Sony ProGrade Digital - founded by ex Lexar people. Angelbird - Austrian brand. They seem to have popped up selling really fast cards in various formats. Delkin, Transcend. Not brands that have ever gained a premium reputation but they've stuck around so peoplemust find rhem ok (I've occasionally bought Transcend)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Yeah, I imagine fake cards account for the majority of card issues. I did recently gamble on some Lexar CF cards from Amazon but theb CF is a dead-end so the scammers have probably moved on to focus on SD. Thanks for these, I'll check them out - I had fully assumed Lexar was dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
There's a few sites that benchmark a lot of card brands/models https://alikgriffin.com/ultimate-guide-memory-cards/ https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/sd-cards/
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
I recently bought some Transcend V90 cards on Amazon and they run fine in my G9. Could be that making fake 64gb cards of an unpopular brand is not worth their time tho.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 07:30
|
|
|
My transcend cfast cards have been great. Better than lexar and prograde. Sadly they’re never in stock anymore. I also risked a cheap but not that cheap Egodisk brand cfast that has worked better than the name brand prograde ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 12:31
|
|
|
Transcend have been around for yonks, providing solid cards at a sensible price but without managing to position themselves up their with Sandisk and Lexar. They should hire better graphic designers; often their stuff looks like a cheap 90's brand.
Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Sep 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2021 13:50
|
|
|
Wanted to check in on my decision making. My 9Yo has expressed a desire to do photography but he also drops stuff as fast as he picks it up sometimes. Looking at around 200 or so dollars for body and 28-80mm Nikon lens. I'd' like to stay in Nikon ecosystem so he can use my other lenses when we're going out. I'm thinking D80/90 depending on what I can get some used ones for from MBP,B&H or Adorama and the kit once that's done I'll be spending the rest of the layout on a bag, memory cards etc. tater_salad fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Oct 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
Kinda interested in moving to full frame from my now nearly decade old Sony A6000, but I'm not sure how much sense it makes. Current: A6000, which is honestly pretty beat up given all the use it's had, the shutter release is starting to stick even after cleaning + it leaves a lot to be desired AF wise compared to newer bodies. Current lenses: Rokinon 12mm f2.0 (almost entirely been replaced by just using the ultrawide camera on my iPhone Pro Max in the rare situations where I need the widest possible FOV possible) Sony 20mm f2.8 (Great lens, but again the main iPhone camera also replaces a lot of this lens' usage) Sigma 30mm f1.4 (probably my #1 lens as it gets me a nice compromise in focal lengths for general use + it's about as good as you get with an AF lens on APS-C for low light) Sony 50mm f1.8 OSS (Nice but rarely used and I don't really do portraits. Also as a light telephoto my Canon FD 135mm f2.8 works very well relative to the 75mm equivalent of the Sony) + a variety of adapted Canon FD, Minolta MD, etc. lenses in other lesser used focal lengths. Idea: Buy a cheaper used A7III when the probable soon to be released A7IV comes out + Sony's new 40mm f2.5 compact prime (and maybe their compact kit zoom from the A7c). Pros: Much better AF. IBIS (important, since I find myself doing handheld low light a lot when using a dedicated camera) Larger viewfinder. Orders of magnitude better low light performance. Better ergonomics + controls, although I mostly shoot in aperture priority with auto ISO so the lack of extra dials on say an A6400 or A7c wouldn't be that annoying. In terms of shooting I mostly use it for travel or just walking around, street photography, etc., don't do video at all, and low light performance matters quite a bit. In terms of lenses, I almost always have the 20mm or 30mm lenses on my A6000; I think the A7III + 40mm 2.5 would suit my needs extremely well relative to those lengths without having to worry about which to grab. Logically, an A6400 would be the no brainer upgrade given my current lens collection, but other than a slightly nicer body and amazing AF it's not getting me much sensor wise over my current camera. The iPhone Pro Max is such a great pocketable camera that having the absolute smallest APS-C body isn't that much of an appeal over a marginally larger FF mirrorless any longer; if I'm going to be carrying a dedicated camera the A7III isn't going to be much more of a burden, plus in a pinch it gets me usable to good 13mm, 26mm and 65mm equivalent focal lengths if a 40mm prime isn't cutting it in a given situation. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
tater_salad posted:Wanted to check in on my decision making. Flying_Crab posted:Thoughts? The a6100/a6400 do have it, and perform a stop better at high iso than the a6000 even with the same size sensor (the a7c/a7 iii are more than two stops better than the a6000). Buying the full frame body and modest aperture lenses does give you a reasonably small package, but your not really gaining anything over the apsc sensor and faster lenses. And if your af lenses are designed for apsc, the image circle may cover a little more than apsc but you'll still be cropping, losing quality compared to the apsc body option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Fools Infinite posted:Why buy the full frame kit lens for a crop body? edit: this man is correct I was thinking the 18-55mm kit lens not the 28-70 tater_salad fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Oct 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Fools Infinite posted:Why buy the full frame kit lens for a crop body? Sony makes a FF 28-60mm, and the 40mm f2.5 is also a FF lens. In terms of performance, the A7III does way better at high ISO as far as I can see + having IBIS probably allowing for some slower shutter speeds, etc. If I really want a fast prime I can throw a cheap vintage Minolta or Canon 50mm 1.4 or 1.7. Eventually I'd probably grab Sony's FF 55/1.7 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
The a6600 also has ibis, and looking at the studio on dpreview seems to be around a little more than a stop worse iso performance than the a7 iii, which is to be expected based on the sensor size. Probably not enough to justify the extra money, especially if you are planning using lenses more than a stop slower than what you currently have. There are definitely reasons to pick full frame. Shooting vintage lenses without crop is a good reason. Sony does have a great full frame lens lineup to expand into, and many would handle the switch to a high resolution body if that becomes something you need. Maybe you just really like the rendering of the 40mm. I would just set my sights on something that really justifies the move now, or wait until something does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Adapting vintage lenses natively is a huge selling point, as using a speedbooster with multiple lenses is sort of a pain in the rear end. Plus cheap adapters for multiple mounts. I just skimmed the DP Review test images and am honestly a bit surprised how good the A6600 does compared to the A6000 at higher ISOs. It's still worse than full frame, but it's IMO much better than the 6000 where I don't like going over ISO 1600, or at a max 3200 if I have to. But the high ISO performance of the A7c/A7III is so good that even with a marginally slower lens it probably wouldn't matter much for low light. But undoubtably an A6600 would get me a lot more out of my existing lenses. I guess the big question is, how effective actually is the IBIS on the A6600? How low of a shutter could I go handheld with out huge blurring on an A6600 vs an A6400? I still lean towards just making the jump to full frame, but an A6400/6600 is a fairly compelling (and much cheaper) compromise. Looking at the darkest handheld night photos in my library I'm fairly often getting down to 1/15th or maybe slightly lower at times, which while not perfectly crisp are still usable images for my needs. Looking at the high ISO on an A6600 I could probably crank the max ISO to 6400 and not hate it, while also hypothetically gaining a few stops from the IBIS which could definitely mean the difference between a decent shot and a blurry/noisy mess with the same lens on a 6000 vs 6600. Flying_Crab fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 14:10
|
|
|
Pretty confident that the amount of detail captured in low light/shadows would be more than acceptable on the 6600: or even something stupid like ISO 25,600 that I would almost never use in real life:   Usually 1600 is the max I'll use on my 6000, with 3200 or 6400 if I absolutely can't get an acceptable shutter speed any other way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
Both the a6600 and a7 iii are rated to five stops stabilization, and the a6600 is the newer product with the smaller sensor, so it probably does well. Comparing the jpgs tells you more about the processing than the iso performance, you really need to compare the raw files. And shoot raw to get the best performance out of your camera.  Picking the closest noise pattern to the a7 iii by eye, it looks like the a6600 is about a stop worse, a6000 is about two stops worse. Detail looks worse on the a6000 but probably isn't a noise problem, might be a different lens as it was tested earlier or focus issue or who knows. The a6600 is a clear upgrade over the a6000 in any case. Fuji has historically cheated by baking noise reduction into their raw files, which makes it hard to compare fairly. There is less color noise, maybe that is a sensor thing, maybe that is a noise reduction thing, but going by size of the grain it is still in that 1.5 crop sensor being a little more than a stop worse than full frame ballpark. If you are shooting jpg, most people find the fuji jpgs more appealing. In practice, having the newer easier to use auto focus system on the a6600 will probably save more hard to get shots than a stop of iso performance. Also consider that both are not new cameras and should go on sale. The only place I can compare prices easily is the amazon listing, but camelcamelcamel has the pretty regular sale price of the a6600 at $1200 and the a7 iii at $1700. Usually I recommend checking out the used market, but it has been kind of crazy since covid and the ebay price is almost $1200 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
The color noise of the A6000 is what gets me most at high ISOs as it looks terrible, that and detail going to absolute poo poo rather quickly. And yeah I was looking at RAW comparing 3200 to 6400 on the 6000/6600 there. I shoot RAW + JPG, only using the RAW if I want to really mess around with editing to get a better result later. I love the idea of Fuji's JPG output and wish Sony offered similar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 17:58
|
|