|
also: someone with more disposable income than i have please get that 42.5. i am extremely intrigued i mean, i'd get it with the intention of returning it for a refund but i'm afraid i'd decide to keep it and then my wife would murder me
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
nice pic! tbh im expecting that my desire for a 35mm or 42.5mm will drop precipitously after i get the 25. my 30 is generally good for the view size, but it's a macro and is pretty slow at 2.8 the 12mm i have i got for landscapes when i'm hiking, and i do have to say that it does a good job at that. i got it used for less than half of msrp; i only barely use it enough to be worth it, as my kit lens is a 12-60. but the 12mm is 2.0 instead of 3.5 which is pretty useful for indoor stuff, landscape-y stuff when it's starting to get dark, etc. so far i've been a big fan of the panasonic lenses i've bought. depending on how that 25 treats me, my options for next lens are: * olympus 60mm macro - i have the panasonic 30mm and i love it, but larger working distance for bugs would be nice * panasonic 14-140 - it's $500, but not having to switch lenses on hikes would be rad as hell. probably not $500 rad, though. if it were fast it'd be a different story, but, it's not * manual fast 35mm - cheap, maybe fun, but also probably superfluous once the 25mm arrives * panasonic 42.mm - less cheap, but auto, but probably the same deal as the fast 35mm (but less likely to overlap too much with the 25mm) i'm not dying to get any of these, though. with the arrival of the 25mm, i'll be able to take most any picture that i'm capable of taking and all of these upgrades would be incremental more than "now i can do a thing that i couldn't before". if i get anything, and what i get, will largely be determined by whether or not ms jones ends up getting me a gift card to a photography store for christmas/valentines/birthday/anniversary/etc (and if she does, whether or not that place also sells music gear, etc)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 00:24
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:re: amazon: again, i wish i got paid for this, lol. just trying to spread the good word of MFT being an excellent system & surprisingly affordable. the more people we have on MFT here, the better — with a ton of no-name lenses available we can be more helpful as a community by sharing our experiences with them (obviously, i try to do this) thanks for the kind words, i have one more acceptable thing i can put up once i get my photos onto my home machine. also you said something about 12mm being silly wide on mft, i was so desperate for a fisheye or something rect-wider than the 14 i have to try to get a tree growing out of a rock all funny i think i’m going to do a nature walk this weekend, rather than city. i didn’t get to do hardly anything while up in the mountains this weekend and it’s making me feel wrong. also also, i don’t fault you for wanting to keep the system alive! i think mft is cool and good and it must be nice to have a system with quantifiable advantages to keep going. it’s like a few years ago when fender said* they wanted to start selling more female artist sig guitars and the grognards got all bent out of shape about women in music, meanwhile i’m over here like “good, more people in the practice means more gear being available in more places!” *they of course quarter-assed this effort at best, but the point is my understanding of your position, not corporations being corporations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:nice pic! tbh im expecting that my desire for a 35mm or 42.5mm will drop precipitously after i get the 25. my 30 is generally good for the view size, but it's a macro and is pretty slow at 2.8 there are two main problems with variable focal length ("parfocal", panasonic calls theirs "vario") lenses versus primes: the most obvious is that they are slower (f/4-5.6 is probably what you're gonna get unless you go much more expensive, or conversely a maximum of 5.6 if you go even slightly cheaper). less immediately obvious is the distortion since it has to cover a range of focal lengths the parfocal is likely to have a lot more pincushion distortion than something taken in the same position, with the same camera, and all other things (focal length, aperture, etc.) being equal to a prime. it's just unavoidable. some are better than others at this but generally the cheaper you go the worse this is now, this is personal preference, but when i'm using a parfocal lens i typically don't change the zoom much. since that's the case, it was a no-brainer to switch to primes for me: they're much faster, cheaper (and for the most part, even if you don't go MF), less distorted, smaller, (mostly) lighter... to get all yciapos about it, imo they're just better that's not to say parfocal lenses don't have their place or use, but at least for most of what i do they usually sit unused until i need a focal length i don't have a prime for (like panaonic's 100-300mm). but if you're thinking "well, i'll just use it around 40-50mm" or something — gently caress that. get the prime. since you've been shooting with primes for the most part, and are about to experience the excellent 25/1.7 G, you'll probably be disappointed by how slow the parfocal lenses are and on that note: yeah, panasonic's lenses are really, really good, and surprisingly affordable, even if you're talking about their extreme high end options. there's a reason leica partnered with them olympus' are good too but because they are far more expensive, the only ones of theirs i have are the parfocal kit lenses that came with my om-d e-m10 and the plastic body cap lenses (one is 22mm and the other is a fisheye) n.b. i tried to look up which olympus models i have by searching on amazon real quick and lmao i couldn't find any olympus lenses. weird. but i did find this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CFXFRGVS/ never heard of the brand, but it's 35/0.95. $199 e: oh there are probably better deals, i didn't look around because food is ready, but also wanted to mention — someone please get the cheapo 42.5/1.7. i am sure the panasonic is a very good lens. i am more curious as to how good the cheap alternative is Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Nov 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 00:47
|
|
|
ABC Always Buy Cprimes
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
also manual parfocal telephotos are really loving annoying to use if you want to nail pretty much anything other than the aperture correctly
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 02:04
|
|
|
Olympus rebranded to om systems
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
om system is a separate company from olympus (now). i didn't know they manufactured lenses though? i've never seen one anyway
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
every time you say MF i get confused why you've suddenly switched to talking about medium format and have to spend 5 seconds rebooting
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 02:51
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:ABC but i just bought a zoom! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
it means Morbius Forever actually. it's like when nazis use HH
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 03:31
|
|
|
hail hanson Mmmbop Forever
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 03:34
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 03:46
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:every time you say MF i get confused why you've suddenly switched to talking about medium format and have to spend 5 seconds rebooting no i think mft must mean medium format
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 03:56
|
|
|
HAIL eSATA-n posted:but i just bought a zoom! word on the street is that some people find apertures smaller than f/1.8 acceptable and I suppose for those hypothetical people the convenience afforded by being able to twist a tube rather than walk may be worth it but I don’t know, and frankly I don’t want to know
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:no i think mft must mean medium format 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
Major Fart Turd
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:word on the street is that some people find apertures smaller than f/1.8 acceptable and I suppose for those hypothetical people the convenience afforded by being able to twist a tube rather than walk may be worth it i don't know how to tell you this, but i just used the power of the used market to pick up fixed-length lenses of f4, f2.8, and f2.4. it's possible to live with the lack of flexibility AND slow max aperture. and i'm not even a rangefinder person! my back will thank me on the long wanderances around the city with a digital body tho. pancake limiteds plus k-01 mirrorless saves me 630g over 14/2.8 and full frame limiteds, and I can use a smaller bag which means less weight there and less distance my arm has to rest out from my side. this is all way less of an issue with nature stuff since there's a lot more stopping to work. film's limited to the weighty things with aperture rings regardless, too. i don't wanna miss out on jokes about mf and mft abbreviations but the only thing i can think of is 'most fotografs terrible' and that feels too mean spirited for my tastes. didn't stop me from posting it anyway though! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 05:14
|
|
|
nurrwick posted:and i'm not even a rangefinder person! Hey! You can get multiple sub f/1.2 lenses as long as you only want 50mm
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 05:22
|
|
|
tube twistaz unite
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
nurrwick posted:i don't know how to tell you this, but i just used the power of the used market to pick up fixed-length lenses of f4 i stopped reading here nah but I certainly find some kind of appeal in trying to work with slower and less common lenses. haven’t really done it yet but I am intrigued
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 05:55
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:Hey! You can get multiple sub f/1.2 lenses as long as you only want 50mm the canon 50 f/1.2 looks interesting but the f/1.0 looks so badass clearly a compromise in a lot of ways and not sharp at all but legendary look at this fuckin bad boy  it weighs 985gm - 2.2lb !!!! that huge front element is just chef kiss
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 05:59
|
|
|
one day i'll pick up the pentax a50/1.2, just because. the last thing i (anyone?) needs is another fast 50, though. fortunately my 50 macro is f4 too! also i'm going to have to issue a forums rarity, a retraction: nurrwick posted:and i'm not even a rangefinder person! big black turnout posted:Hey! You can get multiple sub f/1.2 lenses as long as you only want 50mm this post made me pop over to b&h to look at rangefinder glass. since i learned the difference between rangefinders and slrs back in the 2000s, the market has changed a lot. no longer are you spending shittons of money on slow glass, you're spending significantly larger shittons of money on fast glass. sorry rangefinder enthusiasts! i imagine mirrorless taking off must have made engineers realize they could do faster lens designs on the shorter registration distance? i do see at least a few of the newer, more affordable players in the space though, so at least they have that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 06:05
|
|
|
there's some interesting stuff coming out of China for cheap, too. Not leica quality but not leica prices either https://phillipreeve.net/blog/comparison-super-fast-50mm-m-mount-lenses/
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 06:27
|
|
|
The Canon Dream lens (50mm f/0.95) mounted on a period appropriate camera is marvelous. However, most of my lenses are f/2 or slower, and that's what I like for my work. Landcapes don't need razor thin DOF and I'll bring a tripod or a flash
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 08:56
|
|
|
that does look amazing. I presume those things are worth a small fortune
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 09:32
|
|
|
One of those could be yours for like $3k AUD
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 10:13
|
|
|
more like $3k aaaauuuuuuuuuu daaaaammnnn
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
fotodiox apparently even make an RF adapter for its weird mount
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Also, I'm doing this because I like this photo. This would be my take on an edit. tbh I prefer this to mine. and spose I should have just done more than take an Echi Special colour edit and hit the black and white button lol. as a general kind of thing I’ve noticed that some people do and I am defo guilty of this is when they discover some kind of effect, at first they go overboard with it (unknowingly), and then over time they pull it back to a more subtle level I might be in the transition zone. I don’t want to admit it though. growing and changing is also admitting defeat 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:fotodiox apparently even make an RF adapter for its weird mount It's just LTM (Leica threat mount) echinopsis posted:tbh I prefer this to mine. and spose I should have just done more than take an Echi Special colour edit and hit the black and white button lol. Yeah, you need better tonal seperation here to pull out the form of the grass. A warm colour tone too I like for these dryer looking landscapes. Editing for black and white is a different beast to editing for colour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
white balance might be something I struggle with the most wrestling between how did something actually look at the time vs how I think it should look vs what looks best as a photo vs what mood I’m in while editing and I manage extremely little consistency
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
just do what I do, shoot mostly black and white instead of learning something useful
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
makes you seem classier that’s for sure
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
editing is of course a completely different beast, but imo shooting for black and white specifically is similarly different than shooting for color at least for me, if i'm shooting b&w i'm going to be looking to maximize contrast. sometimes that might mean using a color filter or intentionally exaggerating shadows, sometimes by combining and under and overexposure. sometimes that just means looking for texture versus color combinations etc. etc. as with everything in photography you don't need to go into it being completely serious about it and start off with specifically modifying your routine. ime just do what you'd normally do and any deficiencies will become apparent. then you can do better next time of course that means you can get pretty good at figuring out which color photos of yours would be a good conversion too
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 02:51
|
|
|
ex. these are conversions  these are not   depends on what you're going for, but you definitely don't need to natively shoot b&w to get a good result
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
I was eyeing up the sigma 105 f/1.4 i’d have to sell everything to get it lol, and it looks like a dream lens except it’s bad when shooting into the sun apparently. and I do that a lot. so I have used this to justify not lusting after it and being content with what I have when I visit hashtags of the 135mm lens I don’t like what most people are doing with it. I am trying to be the exception
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
i'm honestly considering selling my sony kit (a7iii) so i can get more MFT stuff i love the flexibility the sony's sensor provides, but... it's not really anything i can't pull off with MFT with a little creativity, maybe with post-processing, etc. of course i also love MFT's form factor, but brass tacks, i don't really care about the sony's bulk. the main sticking point is that i only have two FE lenses versus idk even how many for MFT; double digits to say the least. i'd have to sell all or most of those to get started with a similar FE collection, probably including a few (or maybe all) of the MFT bodies i have seems easier to just ditch the sony stuff. but i like both systems, and really, the sony is more likely to be useful in the future idk. i might just keep it all and wait until i can afford whatever i want, but ever since i got a spinal injury having that much disposable income again seems very distant, if it's possible at all  medical care in america is loving ridiculous
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
nurrwick posted:i have one more acceptable thing i can put up once i get my photos onto my home machine. that'd be this one:  i also picked up some film from the lab today      these are lab scans. i started to try to scan some highlights from the rolls for personal editing and sharing, but i'm getting absolutely trash detail from my scanner from any combination of settings. the color can end up looking great, at least. i need to dig into whether this flatbed can approach acceptable results for me or if i need to be doing something else. e: it was tonight that i learned that photo flatbed scanners all have incredibly low effective resolutions that will all struggle to produce more detail than the 2400x1600 8-bit jpegs i get from the lab. if i want to have reasonable freedom to color correct, i either need to find a lab that will give me tiffs or i need to get an slr scanning setup, because proper film scanners are more than i feel like i want to spend on this. nurrwick fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Nov 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:ex. these are conversions lightroom has about 14 thousand b@w presets and they all suck
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 05:00
|
|