|
I'm loving my 70d. Real sci Fi poo poo with the appearing holographic focus points in the viewfinder. I don't think I'm going to buy more ef-s glass tho for years. In the sense that I'd buy 3rd party or Fuji system instead. Toalpaz fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Feb 7, 2023 |
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
I actually like the direction Nikon has been going in general, feels like they're building out a solid line of bodies and lenses. The APS-C F-mount lens lineup wasn't that hot either, and I think that they're positioning some of the compact full frame lenses to fill the budget/DX holes. Like instead of the nifty fifty or DX 35mm you'd look at the 40mm f2 or 28mm f 2.8. They're still more expensive, but more more in line with the cheaper F-mount lenses. Saying all that, I switched from Nikon to Panasonic a couple years back with the S1H for its video. I think the Z6 I traded off was a nicer stills camera, but the S1H is good enough and worth the switch for me. With the more compact Z-mount lenses coming out I'm thinking about picking up a used Z5 for a personal stills camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
i used nikon equipment for a decade+ professionally, then sold it all and used a canon G7XMII for a few years (just shooting landscapes) i bought my first mirrorless last summer and heavily weighed Nikon's Z stuff, but yeah, it all felt very overpriced and with their lockdown on the mount, i didn't feel very reassured going forward. especially given Nikon's recent history of product schizophrenia went e-mount, been pretty satisfied.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
It seems they are prioritising the high end, high margin items. And its a perfectly good strategy, they seem to be profitable at the moment and recovering from their slow start into mirrorless, its just frustrating to be someone who isn't included in this current marketing strategy as more an enthusiast level person.powderific posted:Like instead of the nifty fifty or DX 35mm you'd look at the 40mm f2 or 28mm f 2.8. They're still more expensive, but more more in line with the cheaper F-mount lenses. Yes and no. They are nice little lenses (although I'm not a fan of plastic mounts) but they are f2 and f2.8 respectively. The f mount glass Brrrmph was referring to was all 1.8 and still cost less (and it had a metal mount!). They also just announced the 26mm f2.8 pancake which is gonna be $499 (but does have a metal mount) I also think it's a little cheeky to take Tamron lenses, rebadge them, and slap an extra $100/200 on top of it like they have done for the 28-75 and 17-28 f2.8 Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Feb 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:They also just announced the 26mm f2.8 pancake which is gonna be $499 (but does have a metal mount) This is priced $100-200 too high, imo. Also $2,800 for the 85 1.2… wow. That’s a lot of dough for a one trick pony. Maybe I’m just cheap. Though I think you nailed it that they are focusing on high margin products at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Nikon has said they're doing exactly that in their investor presentation things. I think it makes sense given their much smaller share of the market and camera sales contracting on the low end especially. To me they have some nice options that feel within the "enthusiast" category, but I get that there are cheaper options, especially when you've got so much used and third party glass for e-mount these days. I'm excited Nikon finally has a pancake lens for the system — that was one thing that kinda bugged me while they were building out the lineup. The 1.8 lenses are nice and relatively light, but they're all kinda long.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
Lol just picked up a (not micro) Four Thirds SLR for fun(Oly E-5) and lol this one Panasonic 25/1.4 lens is huge. I thought this system was supposed to have small lenses! 35/1.4 Fuji on the left (APS-C) and Panasonic 25/1.4 on the right (FourThirds).
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 08:02
|
|
|
A really stupid question came to me when I was half asleep last night, and I'm pretty sure I know the answer but I'm asking anyway: Do faster lenses have better low light performance than slower lenses at every f-stop? i.e. if I shoot at f/7 using both an f/2.4 lens and an f/4 lens, will the first one come out brighter? Or is it just that it gives me access to a f-stops wider than f/4?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:A really stupid question came to me when I was half asleep last night, and I'm pretty sure I know the answer but I'm asking anyway: Just access. f/7 = a certain amount of brightness, no matter what lens you use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
That's what I thought, but in my half conscious brain I thought maybe I just hadn't considered it fully before. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:A really stupid question came to me when I was half asleep last night, and I'm pretty sure I know the answer but I'm asking anyway: For what it’s worth, the f-stop number isn’t a measure of speed, but rather width of the opening in the lens. Think of it like your pupil. In low light conditions, your pupil widens to allow in more light. In the sun, it contracts to restrict light. A low f-stop number is a wider pupil. A high f-stop number is a smaller pupil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:For what it’s worth, the f-stop number isn’t a measure of speed, but rather width of the opening in the lens. Think of it like your pupil. In low light conditions, your pupil widens to allow in more light. In the sun, it contracts to restrict light. A low f-stop number is a wider pupil. A high f-stop number is a smaller pupil. Yeah, I understand that f/stop is just a ratio, I just find the "fast lens" terminology easy. I guess the thing I wasn't keeping in mind when I asked the question is the fact that every lens of a given mount type will have the same pupil diameter, so of course a given f-stop will allow the same amount of light in across different lenses. I was thinking of the f-stop as a ratio of aperture to the total diameter of the glass, which is very different from one lens to the next. Like I said, it was a half-baked thought
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:I was thinking of the f-stop as a ratio of aperture to the total diameter of the glass, which is very different from one lens to the next. Like I said, it was a half-baked thought That's how telescopes use aperture, for them the value depicts the total diameter of the light pathway. Those goofballs don't use ratios, it's just a straight up measurement of the opening in inches/millimeters. For camera lenses the diameter of a given aperture does increase with focal length, because f-stop is a ratio between the aperture diameter and focal length. But the resulting image from a 200mm won't be "faster" than a 24mm lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
f- and (t-) stops can be thought of as a measure of the intensity of light hitting the sensor. ‘f-4’ will be the same ‘brightness’ of light coming out of the lens and hitting a sensor no matter the lens(maximum f) or format.
Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Feb 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
Crazyweasel posted:All I gotta say is I’m here for it Here look it's the affordable entry level camera at the 2016 price everybody told me doesn't exist anymore  Lmao 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
Technically it didn’t exist in buyable form during that discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
I'd be buying that R50 as a second body if the controls on the back weren't so stripped down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
I've inherited a D5200 with a couple of kit lenses that my grandpa can't use any more. It's in good shape but needs a good cleaning. I haven't had a real camera since college. What cleaning kit/supplies should I pick up? I also need a charger and some fresh batteries, are the Amazon cheapos good enough for casual use?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I'd be buying that R50 as a second body if the controls on the back weren't so stripped down. Yeah, it looks interesting in that it has very similar capabilities as the R10 for 200 dollars less. I wonder if the theory behind the stripped down controls is that you can regain some of the functionality through the control ring on the lens. Seems like most or all of the RF lenses have the option to toggle the focus to controlling something else of your choosing. You can get EF-RF adaptors that offer a control ring as well. So you lose a dial or wheel on the camera body, but can gain one on the lens barrel to give you a second easily accessible setting. FBS posted:I've inherited a D5200 with a couple of kit lenses that my grandpa can't use any more. It's in good shape but needs a good cleaning. I haven't had a real camera since college. What cleaning kit/supplies should I pick up? Is it just the lenses that need cleaning, or are you going to have to get inside the camera body with swabs? You want a microfiber cloth, some kind of lens cleaning solution, a few long q-tips, and some compressed air or one of those little puffer things. Kits will come with all sorts of poo poo that you may or may not find useful, like soft brushes, little lights and magnifiers, etc. Cheap Amazon batteries and chargers are fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
Fine bristle toothbrush and a new clean 1" paintbrush are great for exterior dust and grime. Also a can of compressed air is great for DSLRs but you have to be careful with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 00:24
|
|
|
Picked up a cheap E-5 for shits. Lol didn't realized (not micro)Four Thirds was such a small dead system. I'm primarily a Nikon DSLR person. This thing kinda works for me but not fully. Apparently there were no official Lightroom lens profiles for (not micro)Four Thirds lenses. And the system didn't support built in correction profiles that came later with mFT. A bunch of user created profiles exist(ed) but are no longer available. Adobe used to have a centralized server with user lens profiles you could just browse and download with an Adobe tool but they shut that down years ago. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
beeftweeter is the worlds most love mft person
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
I have caon eos r with sigma 135mm f/1.8 and I don't think I need anything else look @ this boy 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
I keep seeing cheap Sigma 135/1.8 pop up but I have so many other thing I want before that tho....
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
Is there any reason to explore in-camera white balance/colour temperature settings if I'm shooting in RAW? If so, is there a good crash course on how to do so for better shots? The venue I shoot a regular party in is very warm - red LED strips and those 'edison' bulbs that flicker super-warm light. In post I often have to touch the temperature slider a little bit, and I don't mind doing that, but I'm wondering if there is any further artistic benefit to tweaking the camera's own WB settings before going in to shoot? It's one of the modifier buttons on the front of my camera, so I figure there's got to be some technique one can achieve by tweaking it on the fly. Also someone recently showed, not sure if ITT or somewhere else (possibly Reddit), how to move the Levels sliders in Lightroom(?) based on reading a photo's histogram, to great effect in really balancing the extreme ends of exposure and fine-tuning colour saturation. Does this sound familiar or make sense at all? I'd like to explore that in Lightroom if it's possible, it seemed like a powerful technique. Mister Speaker fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Mar 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 09:56
|
|
|
Personally I just leave it on auto permanently and fix it in post. If you're using a mirrorless you might benefit a little with the evf matching better what you want at the time. But white balance is one of those settings which can be completely altered to anything with raw and post production.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 10:07
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Is there any reason to explore in-camera white balance/colour temperature settings if I'm shooting in RAW? If so, is there a good crash course on how to do so for better shots? If you shoot RAW then technically no, you can change it it in post without losing anything, there might be editing efficiencies to getting it right (if you were shooting multiple sets of shots in varying temps) and other considerations if you are doing something like a time-lapse or a pano or stack where you want a fixed setting. If you hover over the sections of the histogram in Lightroom you will see which slider affects the area and you can even drag that 'slider' from the histogram directly. Not sure if this is what you mean or some other reading of the histogram.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 10:09
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Personally I just leave it on auto permanently and fix it in post. If you're using a mirrorless you might benefit a little with the evf matching better what you want at the time. But white balance is one of those settings which can be completely altered to anything with raw and post production. I used to do this, but now I set it to one thing and leave it For consistency between shots. The camera has to assign some kind of value to it, and I'd rather it was always just the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 11:02
|
|
|
I shoot almost entirely outdoors so don't have artificial lighting to worry about, so I have it set to a fixed K white balance. I don't want Auto to fight against the orange or blue light of early/late hours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 11:53
|
|
|
I have a fuji X-E1 that I never use any more because every time I try to get back into it I get super mad at how bad the auto focus is. Unless you are in a very well lit space and you slowly find an edgy thing to make it focus on it almost always produces an out of focus image. I used to really like this camera but I have grown to hate it. Anyway, I would like something more modern (with wifi) and more compact. More pointy-shooty, even. That has me looking at the Ricoh GR3 however one hesitation is that some of the reviews comment on the poor autofocus performance in low light. But "bad" today versus the 10 year old fuji surely doesn't mean the same thing, right? I'm not trying to take pics of a diving bird but being able to point it at a baby crawling across the room during the day and have it come out in focus would be a nice feature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 12:49
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Thanks for the replies re: in-camera white balance, y'all. Much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:Is there any reason to explore in-camera white balance/colour temperature settings if I'm shooting in RAW? If so, is there a good crash course on how to do so for better shots? I haven't found any reason to change it for better photography, but I set up one of the custom WB settings to match the lighting in one sports venue I shot a lot in, just to make it easier and simpler in post. The defaults didn't match any of the lighting they had and so I just set it to a 40/60 mix and tweaked it a bit the next time I was up there to find the spot and then only used that setting for that specific venue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
other people posted:I have a fuji X-E1 that I never use any more because every time I try to get back into it I get super mad at how bad the auto focus is. Unless you are in a very well lit space and you slowly find an edgy thing to make it focus on it almost always produces an out of focus image. I used to really like this camera but I have grown to hate it. It'll be better but it's still not all that great. Baby crawling across the floor, like, 6 feet away, sure. Closeup maybe not so much, and babies become toddlers who are much faster ha. I have so many great shots of my little girl when she was still crawling, but now it's almost all camera phone stuff because she's too fast and too interested in the camera for me to have much luck any other way. Rent one and see how you like it. Maybe it is good enough!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
powderific posted:It'll be better but it's still not all that great. Baby crawling across the floor, like, 6 feet away, sure. Closeup maybe not so much, and babies become toddlers who are much faster ha. I have so many great shots of my little girl when she was still crawling, but now it's almost all camera phone stuff because she's too fast and too interested in the camera for me to have much luck any other way. Glad I’m not the only one. I have so many good shots of my kid when they were in infancy and now that they’re approaching two it’s drat near impossible to take a good photo
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Just buy a Nikon D6. You’ll never miss a moving kid shot again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
powderific posted:It'll be better but it's still not all that great. Baby crawling across the floor, like, 6 feet away, sure. Closeup maybe not so much, and babies become toddlers who are much faster ha. I have so many great shots of my little girl when she was still crawling, but now it's almost all camera phone stuff because she's too fast and too interested in the camera for me to have much luck any other way. Renting is a nice idea I had not thought about. Unfortunately I could only find a few places in europe with consumer stuff for rent and none of them had ricoh. Anyway, I found a nearby vendor that had it for under €800 so I placed an order. Maybe I can report back next week. Does anyone want to buy an X-E1 with a broken control wheel?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
Brrrmph posted:Just buy a Nikon D6. You’ll never miss a moving kid shot again. Get the Z9 so you can also shoot it at 120fps so you really, really don't miss anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 10:36
|
|
|
Alright, the GR III arrived yesterday and so far it is pretty cool A+ would buy again. This is my first camera with wifi/bluetooth and I am struggling to grasp exactly how it works. If there is a better place to ask this please redirect me. I connected it to my phone via bluetooth and used it to transfer some images which was simple enough, but then I noticed that made my phone disconnect from my home's wifi and connect to what I suppose is the camera's wifi hotspot. So is the bluetooth just some control link that can't actually be used for the transfers? And then I closed the ricoh app and it didn't reconnect my phone back to my home wifi which is kinda annoying but maybe I missed some step. Another thing that I don't "get" is how exactly the GPS coordinates feature works. I thought when I transferred a photo to the phone the app would check the photo timestamp and see where the phone was at that time and update the EXIF data on the image, but that isn't what seems to be happening. Instead it seems the bluetooth connection needs to be active at the moment the photo is taken so the camera adds the EXIF location data when you take the pic. Is that right? So I have to leave the bluetooth enabled on the phone any time I am using the camera? I guess that's okay I just want to be sure I am understanding how this works. It is a super cool feature. Also also, are there 3rd party apps that have the same (or better) functionality as the ricoh app?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 13:45
|
|
|
I never bothered with the app mainly because it works 40% of the time. GPS worked 0% when I tried it. I used the app a couple of times to take photos remotely, but yea you have to follow a strict set of steps to get it to connect and even then it's a crapshoot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
Glad to hear it’s not only Fuji who have terrible unusable apps
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2023 16:16
|
|