|
20mp is plenty for web uploads but I love having 45 because I am trash at composition and it gives me the chance to fix in post because something was a bit off or I missed a twig poking in from the edge.
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
I never really thought about it much until I started printing the nice landscape pictures I was taking on my camping trips with an X-T30, and comparing them to similar prints from 6x7 film scans and Sigma DP Merrill files. The scans were obviously more rich but the Sigma Foveon sensor’s color detail was also pulling way ahead of the Fuji. Also even when viewing on a computer monitor, pictures can hold up better with the extra stop of DR that my D810 can put out compared to the X-T30… although it’s really impressive how close the Fuji can get to a D810. It’s not really a question of image detail at all for a properly-exposed image, just of lifted shadow noise. E: Also for the guy looking to upgrade his GF1, The G9 also has a really good multishot Hi-res mode, for coming in cheaper than the GH6. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 22:49 on May 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
Ah yeah forgot the g9 has that too, g9s can be <$1k used and are still very good. And yeah I like 20-26 mp, workflow is fast and it's way less expensive. I've printed a few 20x24 images and they look better than most things printed at that size so I haven't really gone looking for anything more.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2022 02:51
|
|
|
I find it absolutely hilarious that a lot of the people who keep saying they need massive resolution only post their photos on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
To be fair when you're downscaling that much (40+ mp to 1080p for instagram or whatever) you can absolutely gently caress up focus or crop it to hell and back and nobody will ever know. I've seen some friends' stuff that looks amazing on mobile but they won't print it because it's clearly botched somehow that you'll only see when it's not on a screen.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 02:51
|
|
|
i know i should just rent and find out but is going from the xpro 1 to an xh1 a sea change in results and usability or no my battered xpro 1 was a pawn shop snag like 2 years ago, and if i can pull a similar thing once the xh2 is out in the world I’ll be happy, but mostly I want a bigger mirrorless body for adapting big lenses to sometimes Also, the dpreview Canadians are perfectly fine ! also also do fuji model designations mean anything xtra heavy 1 xtra easy 4 good fun xposures 50 rangefinder…
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2022 04:51
|
|
|
wolfs posted:i know i should just rent and find out but is going from the xpro 1 to an xh1 a sea change in results and usability or no Yes. X-H1 is a second gen sensor, the final ‘new’ model for that after the X-Pro 2, X-T2, etc. So it has all those features, improvements, and updates, and does so with IBIS. And it had a filter exclusively at launch too. So it’ll be a major step up if you can find one.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
So I’m about to take a beginner photography class to see how much into photography i am, and I want to get a beginner camera. I’d prefer something that’s less than $500 used. I’m leaning toward a Mirrorless since “it will be the future standard” but am worried it may be overkill. I also don’t know which brand is the best or how they’re e different. All I know is that “Sony cameras are the default” and Fuji cameras are the most fun to use.” Any recommendations?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So I’m about to take a beginner photography class to see how much into photography i am, and I want to get a beginner camera. I'll start by saying I don't have a recommendation and wholly accept if you ignore me as a result. $500 used is not a lot of budget. For learning the basics, any camera with a competent manual control layout will suffice. This includes point and shoots which makes your budget make a little more sense. I would focus on sensor size and low light performance. Anything you get at that price you will outgrow pretty quickly anyways, especially when you get a taste of expensive glass. Lenses will end up costing more than the body if you do it right, which is why I say you will outgrow whatever you end up getting. As far as brands go, when I started I leaned into whichever my friends were using specifically so I could borrow lenses. The argument that some folks here make about ergonomics never really made much sense to me as I now shoot both Canon and Nikon for the last decade and I'm still not sure which is "better". Mirrorless is, in fact, the future of photography and as such mirrorless systems will have the best performing sensors and features. But, like buying a house, I think you should go for the starter instead of trying to check off wants on your forever camera and being frustrated when you can't afford accessories like remotes, flashes, tripods, bags, all of the memory, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
I'd say pick something used that fits your budget and what you're looking for. As others have mentioned your biggest spend is going to be on glass. I like my Nikon bodies because they have 2 wheels, I enjoy being able to adjust Aperture and Shutter speeds without pressing another button but that's just me and what I was use to coming from an old age of manual film where I'd adjust on the lenses and camera. I'd say go to a store, bug some friends and fiddle with them to see which warrior you'd like to pick for battle and then go with that. Generally you can take your glass and apply it to a different body when you're ready to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
There's definitely options in that range, but you may be looking more at DSLRs and maybe Micro 4/3 stuff than any of the newer mirrorless mounts. Something like this maybe: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/802508607-USE/olympus_v207021su000_om_d_e_m10_mirrorless_micro.html
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
Imo $500 budget isn't that bad for a beginner nowadays. It's within range of something like the Canon M50/M6 with the kit lens and maybe 22mm f2 or nifty fifty. I've been shooting on a hobby level of years and even though these aren't pro-grade cameras by any means, my skills are still the limit here. Really since I'm shooting in Av/Tv mode 90% of the time, the lack of the secondary wheel isn't the end of the world. The compact size of the platform is a huge advantage for me since I'm mainly using it when travelling but it might be less important for you of course.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses. I'm leaning toward a Sony a6000 or Fujifilm X-A5. Which would be better? Edit - Too late found someone selling a Sony a6000 with kit for $300. Snatched it up. Hopefully I didn’t make a bad decision. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 21:28 on May 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
It's a fine camera especially for a beginner. I had a friend that shot underwater with one and the pictures look fine. Menu's a mess but if you're learning it's not gonna make a difference since you'll need to look all that up anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 02:32
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:It's a fine camera especially for a beginner. I had a friend that shot underwater with one and the pictures look fine. Menu's a mess but if you're learning it's not gonna make a difference since you'll need to look all that up anyways. I nearly had a heart attack since there is only one ring on the kit lens so I thought it didn't have manual focus. Turns out you need to go to the menu to change the single lens ring to activate manual focus, while zoom in will be done digitally. This poo poo is straight up Street Fighter II on the Genesis, but I did get the cheapest camera and lens so I can't complain too much.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2022 04:36
|
|
|
Im considering buying a poo poo phone to save money. Looked into buying a poo poo old camera to take photos with as a replacement for my bad phone cameras. Lucky me, my mom has a 20d in nearly mint condition with the kit lens and 3k shutter usage tops. Any recommendations for an all in one/prime for the Canon af/af-s in the 250-500 dollar range as a step up. I'm intending to take photos of landscapes and streets, I hate people. E: if I get really into photography, I may consider going mirrorless anyways which makes the af lenses redundant right?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
Toalpaz posted:Im considering buying a poo poo phone to save money. Looked into buying a poo poo old camera to take photos with as a replacement for my bad phone cameras. Lucky me, my mom has a 20d in nearly mint condition with the kit lens and 3k shutter usage tops.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
Go find the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to replace the similar focal length kit lens. There’s a reason that lens was in the title of this thread for absolute ages. Also go find a EF-S 24 mm prime lens. It’s a wee little guy, a pancake lens, but great as a single lens to walk around with.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
Not sure if this or the general question thread is a better place to ask, but I'm looking to finally transition from a decade-old refurbished crop-sensor setup to a full-frame body, and I'd love to hear some recommendations because I honestly have no frame of reference for higher-end gear. My primary interests are portraiture, wildlife, and street / documentary style photography, and I know a lot of it is gonna come down to my glass, but I'm looking for something that is durable (and ideally weather-sealed), has good low-light performance, and isn't too insanely bulky. Budget will probably be in the sub-$1000 range - I'd love to get a good body and an a decent all-purpose zoom for somewhere around $1500 all in if possible, but I'd also rather save up for a bit longer instead of saving a couple hundred bucks now to buy something that will just make me want to upgrade again later. I've been shooting on a Nikon so far, but I don't have any particular brand loyalties if something else is more suited to what I'm looking for. edit: Also open to mirrorless, I just haven't really looked into them at all because they've always been so far outside of my budget before this. The Fuji X-T3 looks pretty nice and seems to have a solid selection of lenses for what I'm interested in. Grizzled Patriarch fucked around with this message at 00:02 on May 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Not sure if this or the general question thread is a better place to ask, but I'm looking to finally transition from a decade-old refurbished crop-sensor setup to a full-frame body, and I'd love to hear some recommendations because I honestly have no frame of reference for higher-end gear. My primary interests are portraiture, wildlife, and street / documentary style photography, and I know a lot of it is gonna come down to my glass, but I'm looking for something that is durable (and ideally weather-sealed), has good low-light performance, and isn't too insanely bulky. I just picked up a Fuji X-T3 not too long ago as my first personal 'real' camera and I've been loving it. Camera feels comfortable in my fairly large hands, it's a great size for travel and general walkabout - especially when combined with the small primes (I use a XF16mm F2.8 and it's light enough to be basically a point and shoot). Body is water resistant and a lot of the lenses are too. Low light is generally fine in my experience, especially with any of the new 1.4 lenses. The only downside I've really been noticing is the battery life kind of sucks, but its boot up time is a second or two so you can easily just flick it off after you take a shot, then flick it on next time you bring it up to take some more, and I've gotten multiple hours off of one battery doing that, just walking through a plane museum. If you have glasses, the magnification on the viewfinder means the corners might get a bit hard to see, but you can switch the EVF to a reduced size one to help with that, or an even further reduced size one that always has the manual focus zoom showing next to the frame. I can't speak to the 18-55mm kit lens that they come with, but per what I've heard they're supposed to be really decent lenses for the price, especially in the bundle.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 03:34
|
|
|
The fuji XF 18-55 f2.8-4.0 is supposed to be the best kit lens on the market afaik.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
Fwiw the 16-80 f4 lens that is bundled with some kits is really good also, with full weather resistance as well, and its sharpness is comparable with the 18-55. If you like the extra reach without any real downside beside the weight, I’d recommend that. Used ones are pretty affordable too due to it being bundled with some bodies. edit: actually it's quite a bit more than the 18-55 used, so disregard if it's outside your price range hope and vaseline fucked around with this message at 13:39 on May 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2022 12:20
|
|
|
I used to shoot the 18-55 f2.8-4 all the time on assignment, it is totally fine. The 16-80 f4 is sort of a sidegrade and the 16-55 f2.8 is only marginally better for way more cost (nobody is going to notice it). Also the IS is going to be a big help since the XT3 doesn't have ibis.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Not sure if this or the general question thread is a better place to ask, but I'm looking to finally transition from a decade-old refurbished crop-sensor setup to a full-frame body, and I'd love to hear some recommendations because I honestly have no frame of reference for higher-end gear. My primary interests are portraiture, wildlife, and street / documentary style photography, and I know a lot of it is gonna come down to my glass, but I'm looking for something that is durable (and ideally weather-sealed), has good low-light performance, and isn't too insanely bulky. What is it about full-frame specifically that you need? If that's a hard requirement for you then your budget is likely going to stretch about as far as a last-but-one gen used body like a 5Diii. You can get a new 6Dii body only for about that, but then you don't have any glass for it. If full-frame isn't a hard requirement and you just want a more capable camera than what you currently have, then your options open up a lot further. Modern APS-C (and higher end µ4/3rds) cameras are not noticably less capable than last gen full frame bodies, especially with regard to low-light performance. Another thing, one of your requirements is 'not insanely bulky' and that's kind of baked in with full-frame DSLRs. I upgraded a few years ago from a 70D to a 5Div and the increase in size and bulk was a lot more than I expected. Full-frame cameras - even most full-frame mirrorless cameras - are big and heavy. Weather-sealing adds additional bulk too because there need to be bigger heatsinks to deal with heat management inside a sealed body - and that's on top of the extra heat management required to handle the bigger, more power-hungry sensors of a full-frame body.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 11:09
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:I find it absolutely hilarious that a lot of the people who keep saying they need massive resolution only post their photos on Twitter. It's not until I look at my photos up large that the glory of my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 really shines, the shallow depth of field is so glorious.  Up big, the contrast between the infocus hair and the creamy (ew lol) bokeh of the out of focus area behind it is just simply glorious lol. But on ya phone? yeah it's ok. It's really a true shame that the photos I've taken of models with my nice equipment and the time I put into them, they often never even bother to look at up big. Oh well, so it goes.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 11:54
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:It's not until I look at my photos up large that the glory of my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 really shines, the shallow depth of field is so glorious. Its the tip of the nose being out of focus that I notice with very wide aperture portraits.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
like, as a bad thing? I reckon the extremely shallow depth of field gives a dreamy effect, and I hate that I’ve said that, but when you look at them up big, it is like a dream in that when you look at my eye, you’re looking at something with detail but a lot of the rest of the image is blurry and lacks detail like in a dream anyway, can’t please everyone lol, if I closed it down and caught the whole face in focus I’d lose something that I was going for. also noses are a bit ug anyway 😂
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:like, as a bad thing? Yeah the nose being out of focus is annoying to me on a portrait, there are other options between f/1.2 and f/11. Also background separation is not purely a factor of aperture, composition with regards to background distance can give you nice separation. But as always photography is subjective, so shoot what you like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
So, perhaps stupidly, I sold all my MFT gear (E-M1 Mk III, 12-40mm Pro and 40-150mm Pro MC-20 and 60 and 30mm macro lenses) and now full regretski is in effect. I will have $3200 dollarydoos (AUD) from a tax return and I’m considering either the X-T4 or X-T3 and the Fuji Macro (FUJINON XF80mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR). The X-T3 won’t have the IBIS I’m used to from the E-M1, but the macro lens has stabilisation which makes me question if the X-T4 is worth the extra $600 rather than a street prime with the 3. What I shoot: macro, wildlife, street and moon. I won’t be able to afford a moon-shot setup, so I’m focussing (hurr) on a macro setup. Any advice over whether or not APS-C is a better fit than MFT or whether Full Frame is worth the extra cash?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 08:33
|
|
|
23 Skidoo posted:So, perhaps stupidly, I sold all my MFT gear (E-M1 Mk III, 12-40mm Pro and 40-150mm Pro MC-20 and 60 and 30mm macro lenses) and now full regretski is in effect. For macro, if it involves life animals that will get scared when you get too close, working distance is your friend, and so I would go for a setup that will accommodate a 180 mm or 200 mm macro lens. Edit: For some people, macro starts at 1x, and if you think you may go down that path, have a loot at the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x. If I understand right, it will not focus at anything less than 1x. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Jun 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 14:29
|
|
|
23 Skidoo posted:So, perhaps stupidly, I sold all my MFT gear (E-M1 Mk III, 12-40mm Pro and 40-150mm Pro MC-20 and 60 and 30mm macro lenses) and now full regretski is in effect. With macro it really comes down to what your subject is. APS-C or M43 are all good, a lot of people like the crop which gives you a filled frame at a bigger distance and less mag which gives you slightly better DoF. I use full frame but then I am insane. If you want to shoot live insects in the field then its all about the flash and diffusion. For me I use Canon because only they have the lens and more importantly the flash I want, the body is really the least important part. A lot of people shoot 100mm macros on crop (150/160mm FF equiv) I prefer 65mm on FF because it improves the lighting (the closer light source is to the subject the better) The MP-E65mm as mentioned above is the lens I use, but it's literally only gonna do 1x or greater and a lot of people don't actually shoot 'macro' at 1x because a lot of subjects are too big for that, especially on crop, and also it means getting really close which makes everything harder. So really it's nuanced based on type of images you want to produce, I often ask people for examples of what they want to achieve, because macro can mean a few different things to different people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
Laowa has a macro lens sorta like the MP-E 65 now too, though it's 25mm and 2.5-5x instead of 65mm and 1-5x. They have it in a few mounts (though not X). https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-25mm-f-2-8-2-5-5x-ultra-macro-2/
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
powderific posted:Laowa has a macro lens sorta like the MP-E 65 now too, though it's 25mm and 2.5-5x instead of 65mm and 1-5x. They have it in a few mounts (though not X). https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-25mm-f-2-8-2-5-5x-ultra-macro-2/ That lens, yeah it exists, 25mm at 2.5x working distance must be so short as to make lighting almost impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
powderific posted:Laowa has a macro lens sorta like the MP-E 65 now too, though it's 25mm and 2.5-5x instead of 65mm and 1-5x. They have it in a few mounts (though not X). https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-25mm-f-2-8-2-5-5x-ultra-macro-2/ Be aware this lens has manual aperture, so you are stopped down to f11 or f14 while you are composing. You need a good modeling light at the end of your camera. An experienced macro shooter can make any of these things work, but manual aperture is definitely a difficulty increase compared to auto-aperture. Manual focus is fine, and is probably the better way to shoot any macro (1x or greater magnification), but manual aperture is not something I would want to sign up for anymore. I’ve done reversed lenses and and bellows and stuff, and it’s too much work for me when I can use my MP-E 65 or a Laowa 2x 100mm. I’ll shoot manual aperture for static subjects on a focusing rail with studio lighting around it, but not in the field.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
Also beware that 2.5x is basically a lot of magnification, we're talking about a bumble-bee face taking up a large portion of the frame. DoF ~<1mm working distance 45mm working distance. And you are locked to that. Most reviews I have seen of it the example field shots are taken at the smallest magnification, it's just impractical at anything greater and 2.5x is already hard .3-2x is a more usual practical range in the field close up/macro range. My ideal lens is a FF 65mm infinity-2.5x APO lens with electronic aperture but it doesn't really exist yet. Laowa have got close but they are manual aperture or lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2022 11:32
|
|
|
My OM-1 finally arrived after ordering back in March. I had no idea auto focus can be like this. As a life long GH5 user and L mount user, this is incredible. Think of those videos of deaf people hearing for the first time. But with bird photography. That was my reaction. I’m smitten.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2022 11:50
|
|
|
I've got a camera-adjacent battery question; I've got a couple of VR controllers that run on NP-BX1 batteries and the ones that came with the controllers are some third-party battery brand called Kingma. I'm just curious as to if I'd see any real difference in battery life if I forked out for proper Sony-made batteries instead of these third-party ones?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
Yes I know I’m stepping in it by asking this but: I know UV filters are overrated and I don’t use them for normal photography buuuuuuut…would y’all recommend them for backcountry pursuits? Think hiking, fishing, mountain biking where the lens may get treated a tad tougher than normal. Anything that will help me stop babying my gear so much, and just take more dammed photos, could be beneficial at the margin. I was looking at the Urth UV filters. I have a couple of their ND and polarizer filters and like them. Not sure if anyone has any experience with them or if $30 or so is overkill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
waffle enthusiast posted:Yes I know I’m stepping in it by asking this but: I know UV filters are overrated and I don’t use them for normal photography buuuuuuut…would y’all recommend them for backcountry pursuits? Think hiking, fishing, mountain biking where the lens may get treated a tad tougher than normal. Anything that will help me stop babying my gear so much, and just take more dammed photos, could be beneficial at the margin. It's a polarising issue. The pro-UV crowd say that having a sacrificial bit of glass in front of the expensive front element protects it from random knocks and scrapes. That's not actually much of a pro however. Firstly there's the optical performance of the filter itself. Good ones (like the Urth) will have good quality coatings and high transmission glass to eliminate aberrations. It is still an issue however but not one that you'll notice much. More to the point, is that the front element of your lens is actually pretty tough. It's hard to scratch and very hard to crack or chip. It's much easier to damage the UV filter glass. Even if the front element does get a bit scuffed or dirty, you probably won't notice, it almost certainly won't be visible on photos (see this Lensrentals blog post for a great example https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches/ ). Finally, if you drop your lens and dent it, you might find that the UV filter breaks but the filter thread is out of true and you can't remove your broken filter any more. You are much better off protecting your lens by putting a lens hood on it than you are a random bit of optically neutral glass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
The broken glass of a UV filter is more likely to damage your lens than anything else If your front element is going to get damaged by a fall or whatever, a UV filter won’t stop it And I have backpacked a lot with camera gear
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 18:46
|
|
