|
Mr. Despair posted:It depends on the lens. C-mount lenses designed for 1/3" video sensors will have a tiny image circle (5mm), 1" sensor models will have a 17mm image circle. Either way aps-c is probably going to be too much. The lens in question is designed for 35mm, or possibly 6x6. I'm still getting clipped corners.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The lens in question is designed for 35mm, or possibly 6x6. I'm still getting clipped corners. Oh, one of your adapters must be clipping the image circle then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The lens in question is designed for 35mm, or possibly 6x6. I'm still getting clipped corners. 35mm movie? Movies films are shot vertically, not horizontally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:35mm movie? Movies films are shot vertically, not horizontally. No, Makro-Kilar 90/2.8. It's a Zoomar lens. I'm thinking it's the C-mount adapter, because it appears that Arriflex Standard is used for 35mm movie lenses (still smaller than full frame) and that's an OEM adapter. I guess Cine is just too small for full use on APS-C? It seems to be through my adapter at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
I took 6772 shots with my OM-D today... without having to charge the batteries. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Pegnose Pete posted:I think I am leaning towards Oly, either the new PEN or the OMD. Not sure where you are, but Amazon has a bundle with the 17/1.8, although it looks like it's only about $25 cheaper than buying them separately. For some reason they call it a "body only" option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:What makes that better than a Voigtlander Nokton 25/0.95, which you can get in a native m4/3 mount for less than that? a) Small and easy to wield b) It's vintage (1953), which matters to some people. c) Distinct look. The images you get are going to have their own particular character. d) Pretty hard to find/rare. You definitely won't see someone else rockin your lens walking down the street. e) It looks really freakin cool. Also, if we're using KEH as a barometer, the Nokton is going for a little over $900... and if you read carefully, I said $850 or best offer. Meaning if you make me a reasonable offer, I will consider it. Chocolate Cocaine fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jun 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I took 6772 shots with my OM-D today... without having to charge the batteries. Shot some video, did you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
HPL posted:Shot some video, did you? Took a time lapse, took a picture every 2 seconds for about 4 and a half hours. It'll be in the timelapse thread whenever the video finishes uploading.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Fuji is releasing Nex-5 series fighter X-M1 next week. No EVF, Tilt-LCD, wifi and probably no touch screen. I'll be pretty excited if that means the tilt-LCD makes it into the next X-E1 iteration. I'm still sitting on the fence between upgrading my Sony or switching to Fuji.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
Question - have any of you abandoned your SLR kits for mirrorless altogether? I've used the fuji x system for about six months now and I always intended for it to be a small secondary system for when I wanted to travel light or be more discreet. Instead, I've found that my D800 kit lies neglected and unused. I've found that outside of lovely af performance, the x system is giving me all I need and with better bang/buck than Nikon ever could. If I go ahead and sell the SLR kit, will I regret it? The other intriguing aspect of the x mount and other mirrorless systems is that they're relatively new and there's tones of room for growth and maturity, which is exciting. I don't see that in SLRs at all - sure, there will be more megapixels or this/that, but the form factor seems more or less engraved in stone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
krooj posted:Question - have any of you abandoned your SLR kits for mirrorless altogether? I've used the fuji x system for about six months now and I always intended for it to be a small secondary system for when I wanted to travel light or be more discreet. Instead, I've found that my D800 kit lies neglected and unused. I've found that outside of lovely af performance, the x system is giving me all I need and with better bang/buck than Nikon ever could. If I go ahead and sell the SLR kit, will I regret it? I sold off my d5000 to get an OM-D, and I don't regret it at all. I've got a d7000 sitting here too that I could use whenever, but it only gets touched when I need to for work (tethered shooting with a microscope).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
krooj posted:Question - have any of you abandoned your SLR kits for mirrorless altogether? I've used the fuji x system for about six months now and I always intended for it to be a small secondary system for when I wanted to travel light or be more discreet. Instead, I've found that my D800 kit lies neglected and unused. I've found that outside of lovely af performance, the x system is giving me all I need and with better bang/buck than Nikon ever could. If I go ahead and sell the SLR kit, will I regret it? I sold my DSLR kit to my father and moved up to a NEX. I've got no regrets so far except for really dim lighting situations where the NEX hunts a bit. Actually I'm really liking it because I finally have a cheap normal lens, which the Canon system has lacked for years now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Yes, I ditched the Canon DSLR because it was too big and bulky especially when I had a 10-22 or 17-40 on it. I opted for the X-E1 because it was smaller than the X-Pro-1 and I don't really care for OVFs, and when you slap on a lens like the Voigtlander 15mm it almost feels like a point and shoot it's so small and light. My Fuji takes much better pictures than my Canon T2i ever did. I don't think I could go back for anything less than a full frame with amazing ISO performance - like the D800. Adapting any lens under the sun is kind of fun too, I've got the Minolta, Leica M, and Pentax adapters and have had a lot of fun rummaging through family's attics and pawn stores looking for something interesting to slap on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Helicity posted:I don't think I could go back for anything less than a full frame with amazing ISO performance - like the D800. Which is why I hang onto the D800 - my conundrum is that in order to get the IQ that's possible out of the D800, it's necessary to buy recent high-grade glass. Yesterday I tried an experiment to the contrary: I picked up the notoriously mediocre 35mm f2 AF-D and snapped some shots with my D800 and then with the 35 1.4 on my X-Pro1 - same settings (DOF will be greater on the X-Pro, I know). When I pulled both raw files up in LR, I was floored at the difference in detail. The X system yielded so much more detail. I immediately returned the 35. My point is that if I have to spend $900 on a prime (Sigma 35mm) to get acceptable performance out of that D800 body, and only a little more than half that to get equal performance out of the X system, what am I doing with the D800? I suppose I got the D800 cause I had the funds to get back into photography, I had always used an SLR in the past, wanted full frame, and the D600 was built like a toy (bearing in mind my build quality reference is off of 1970s SLRs). Guess I should have researched harder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Yes, I ditched the Canon DSLR because it was too big and bulky especially when I had a 10-22 or 17-40 on it. I opted for the X-E1 because it was smaller than the X-Pro-1 and I don't really care for OVFs, and when you slap on a lens like the Voigtlander 15mm it almost feels like a point and shoot it's so small and light. The Voigtlander 15mm owns so much on mirrorless cameras.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
krooj posted:Which is why I hang onto the D800 - my conundrum is that in order to get the IQ that's possible out of the D800, it's necessary to buy recent high-grade glass. Yesterday I tried an experiment to the contrary: I picked up the notoriously mediocre 35mm f2 AF-D and snapped some shots with my D800 and then with the 35 1.4 on my X-Pro1 - same settings (DOF will be greater on the X-Pro, I know). When I pulled both raw files up in LR, I was floored at the difference in detail. The X system yielded so much more detail. I immediately returned the 35. My point is that if I have to spend $900 on a prime (Sigma 35mm) to get acceptable performance out of that D800 body, and only a little more than half that to get equal performance out of the X system, what am I doing with the D800? This is kindof a weird lens comparison to make. It'd make more sense to test the Fuji 35 against the Nikon 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 given the sensor size difference. Both of those lenses are cheaper than the Fuji while being significantly better than the old Nikon 35mm F2. Not that there aren't great reasons to go with mirrorless over a DSLR, but you don't "have to" spend $900 on a lens to get good performance out of the D800.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
powderific posted:This is kindof a weird lens comparison to make. It'd make more sense to test the Fuji 35 against the Nikon 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 given the sensor size difference. Both of those lenses are cheaper than the Fuji while being significantly better than the old Nikon 35mm F2. Not that there aren't great reasons to go with mirrorless over a DSLR, but you don't "have to" spend $900 on a lens to get good performance out of the D800. Not trying to be argumentative, but there are no good mid-range 35mm AF primes for F-mount. It'd be wonderful if Nikon could revamp the 35 f2 abomination with modern optics and SWM, then tag it at $550 or $600.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
I agree with powderific, it would be interesting to compare the Fuji 35/1.4 to a Nikon 50mm 1.8 or 1.4. The 50/1.4G cost about the same as the Fuji, its a fair comparison. As for mirrorless vs SLR. As soon as the EVF and live view sensor technology are good enough (in the last 1-2 years), its logical to replace DSLR with a mirrorless system for not too demanding photography tasks. Now you still need a SLR to scratch the telephoto itch since SLR systems have better AF and better telephoto lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I agree with powderific, it would be interesting to compare the Fuji 35/1.4 to a Nikon 50mm 1.8 or 1.4. The 50/1.4G cost about the same as the Fuji, its a fair comparison. You don't need a loving slr to "scratch the telephoto itch". The crop factor on some mirrorless bodies makes telephotos amazing! :
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I agree with powderific, it would be interesting to compare the Fuji 35/1.4 to a Nikon 50mm 1.8 or 1.4. The 50/1.4G cost about the same as the Fuji, its a fair comparison. Except the Fuji would destroy the Nikon 1.4. Have you seen how freaking soft that lens is at 1.4? However, at comparable depths of field (2.0 for the Nikon, wide open for the Fuji) it'd be an interesting comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
quote:You don't need a loving slr to "scratch the telephoto itch". The crop factor on some mirrorless bodies makes telephotos amazing! If I am going to get a newish Canon 650D 700D and a 70-200mm/4 IS. Is there anything comparable in the m43 camp? Uncle Ivan posted:Except the Fuji would destroy the Nikon 1.4. Have you seen how freaking soft that lens is at 1.4? However, at comparable depths of field (2.0 for the Nikon, wide open for the Fuji) it'd be an interesting comparison. Well I want to know how much can the regular D800 out resolve the XE1/Xpro1 without the low pass filter in optimal lens aperture. I don't care about resolution myself. I rather spend money on a new body that has 2-3 more steps of dynamic range.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
krooj posted:Not trying to be argumentative, but there are no good mid-range 35mm AF primes for F-mount. It'd be wonderful if Nikon could revamp the 35 f2 abomination with modern optics and SWM, then tag it at $550 or $600. Yeah, but the Fuji 35mm is for APS-C, and Nikon DOES have a good, affordable 35mm APS-C prime. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think most people would comparison shop lenses by their equivalent FOV and not the focal length. Thus my reasons for comparing the FX 50mm's to the APS-C 35mm. If you like the classic 35MM fov Fuji doesn't have you covered other than the X100 anyway--the closest is the 18mm, which is 27mm equivalent, which, again, Nikon does actually have in a modern affordable-ish lens as the 28mm 1.8.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
powderific posted:Yeah, but the Fuji 35mm is for APS-C, and Nikon DOES have a good, affordable 35mm APS-C prime. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think most people would comparison shop lenses by their equivalent FOV and not the focal length. Thus my reasons for comparing the FX 50mm's to the APS-C 35mm. If you like the classic 35MM fov Fuji doesn't have you covered other than the X100 anyway--the closest is the 18mm, which is 27mm equivalent, which, again, Nikon does actually have in a modern affordable-ish lens as the 28mm 1.8. Sorry, I wasn't clear on that last statement. Nikon doesn't yet produce a decent quality affordable full frame 35mm lens. I guess they've put it off because DX was being milked for so long. As FF becomes the DSLR standard again over the next few years, I expect they'll have no choice but to update or scrap the lingering AF-D lenses remaining. I wonder what they're going to do about the embarrassing situation with their 35mm 1.4G...
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:If I am going to get a newish Canon 650D 700D and a 70-200mm/4 IS. Is there anything comparable in the m43 camp? First off, who the hell "scratches an itch" with a 1200 dollar lens. You're being stupid. Because you could get an E-PL5, OM-D, or E-P5, any of which will have comparable image quality to a t4i, and and there's plenty of 40-150's that cover the same range as a 70-200 does on a Canon. If you want to dip your feet into the wonderful world of telephotos by spending thousands then you can get stuff like the 35-100/2, or 50-200/2.8-3.5, or the 300/2.8 from olympus, or stuff like the 35-100/2.8 from panasonic. Finally, try finding an 800mm f/5.6 equivalent lens for your t4i for under 40 bucks. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
^^^ Its an hobby, spending any amount of money on an hobby is not "stupid". Not that I have spent a lot of money in mine. My problem with smaller sensor mirrorless system (m43, Nikon-1) is that the bodies are not really smaller than APSC mirrorless bodies. I don't want to sacrifice IQ for minimal weight advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
The last gen m4/3 sensors from olympus are as good as any aps-c sensor out there in a mirrorless body. I guess the k-5ii's sensor might have better high iso performance, or the sony sensors that just came out in the past 6 months, but you aren't seeing those in mirrorless bodies yet. And trust me, smaller isn't always better depending on what you're doing. Trying to mount a lens like I posted onto a nex will work, but I don't know if you want to use a long telephoto on say, a nice small Nex-C3:  I know I sure didn't. It really depends on what you want to get out the camera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
All sensors are made by Sony (and trust me the Sony ones are better than Panasonic ones), they are the same poo poo. Obviously the bigger sized sensors are better than smaller ones. So far my golden standard for telephoto is Nikon AFD 180/2.8. The IQ is absolutely good enough, and I don't need anything longer. However its a bit too heavy and too long. Taking it out is such an effort. I can get the Fuji 55-200mm. Its almost as heavy. Plus I hate changing lens so I rather carry a smaller second body. If m43 offer a body with EVF thats noticeably lighter than the competition I will look into it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Reasons the OM-D owns: weather sealing.  e. I brought it inside before the hail hit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Reasons the OM-D owns: weather sealing. I know you are the OMD man around here, which weather proof lenses do you use?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Pegnose Pete posted:I know you are the OMD man around here, which weather proof lenses do you use? I've got the 12-50 (the one that comes with the kit), and the 60mm macro. I haven't used the macro at all though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lozjZoRP5lM Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
krooj posted:Question - have any of you abandoned your SLR kits for mirrorless altogether? I've used the fuji x system for about six months now and I always intended for it to be a small secondary system for when I wanted to travel light or be more discreet. Instead, I've found that my D800 kit lies neglected and unused. I've found that outside of lovely af performance, the x system is giving me all I need and with better bang/buck than Nikon ever could. If I go ahead and sell the SLR kit, will I regret it? I've ditched my 5D2 for my OMD ever since I got it. However I still keep it around for doing macro but only because I get some insane bokeh on full-frame that m4/3 just can't give me. Otherwise I use my OMD for all my digital shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:If I am going to get a newish Canon 650D 700D and a 70-200mm/4 IS. Is there anything comparable in the m43 camp?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Aargh posted:Not m43 but Fuji has the new 55-250? That seems quite nice from the reviews out there 55-200. I'd give it a few more weeks to see how it really stacks up before trusting any reviews. The first reviews of the 18mm said it was pretty good, also - and between the 14mm and the 18-55, there's no reason to buy the 18 unless you really need that pancake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Is there a small cheap lens I can adapt that isn't that lovely 35mm cctv lens?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
teraflame posted:Is there a small cheap lens I can adapt that isn't that lovely 35mm cctv lens? Lots of them! What sort of lens are you looking for though, and what camera mount? e. There's lots of different cctv lenses too, so I'm not sure exactly what lovely one you're referring to!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Looking for a small lens to walk around with adaptable for nex, anything from wide to normal. The lens I was referring to is the fujian/generic 35mm f/1.7 that has very crap corners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
teraflame posted:Looking for a small lens to walk around with adaptable for nex, anything from wide to normal. The lens I was referring to is the fujian/generic 35mm f/1.7 that has very crap corners. The Takumar 35/3.5 is very sharp and pretty light (although the m42 mount adapter can make it a bit long, I'm not sure if you want a pancake or something). You can pick up the single coated version for ~35 bucks on keh, SMC models go from 60-100 bucks. I'm not sure of any good "cheap" wide angles though, someone else will have to speak up for that. e. Buy this. http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Screwmount-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-PS060108004690?r=FE
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Photography 101: When you take a picture of your camera for the internet, always make sure it's on Manual. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Costello Jello posted:Photography 101: When you take a picture of your camera for the internet, always make sure it's on Manual. Damnit, I should have thrown it in ART mode.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 03:16
|
|