|
Option b: get an om-d and stop caring.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Ziplock still look cooler than condoms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
I use a ziplock bag to waterproof my kindle at the pool. Works a charm. Touch sensor even works through the bag.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
dodob posted:Anyone using half-cases on their mirrorless? Why is it that leather cases/half-cases seem to be a thing for mirrorless cameras? Is it because of their smaller size, or is it because of the retro factor? I've never seen a DSLR with a half-case before. Do you think this would work for it? I've thought about getting one for quite a while for my NEX-3. Also I'm a terrible sperg that hates cases for everything. I don't even care that my stuff is going to get scratched up (cosmetically, I do protect lenses/screens) and gently caress up the resale value, putting something between me and good industrial design just feels wrong and bad. Macbook Pro, Kindle, OG iPad, smartphone, iPod touch... I felt terrible when my ex gave me a metal hipflask along with a custom cover she'd stitched for it for Christmas, and the next time she came over the cover was up on my shelf. She noticed and commented on it, but at least got it after I showed her all my scratched up electronics. rio posted:It was snowing pretty heavily last week so I cut some holes in a ziplock and put my X100 in it. It is very ghetto and not that water tight. You can build off the Ziploc concept and make a semi-reusable weatherproof housing by buying a UV filter (if you don't already have one). Basically you want to mark on the bag where the lens is going to be, cut out the middle, then gently screw the UV filter onto the camera's lens through the Ziploc bag (if you go too far you'll cut all the way through the bag and have to start over). Then seal up around the edges of the filter/bag with gaffer's tape. I used that setup during Thai New Years back in college with an old EOS film SLR and it worked like a champ, survived numerous direct hits with water without any leaks. Here's a brief step-by-step, although doesn't include the gaffer's tape:  Songkran Rig, Step 1 by ethics_gradient, on Flickr  Songkran Rig, Filter Attached by ethics_gradient, on Flickr  Litmus Test by ethics_gradient, on Flickr And here are some results with the setup. I really like film, although in hindsight I wish I'd had the stones to put my 5D in it (back then, worth about $2k) so I could have taken a lot more photos:  Midget Infantry by ethics_gradient, on Flickr  Blur by ethics_gradient, on Flickr  Wince by ethics_gradient, on Flickr Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
So was there a huge holiday run on m4/3 gear or something? KEH has absolutely nothing listed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
I look at the teeny tiny Zeiss 38mm f/2.8 lens on my Contax T2 and wonder why no one hasn't just taken that lens design and made it into a mirrorless lens. It's designed to work with a super small flange focal distance and it's an awesome lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
DJExile posted:woooooo So, how is that lens? Looking to get one for my Panasonic DMC-G3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
OMGOMGOMGOMG a Leica Price drop... on their poo poo mirrorless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Kidney Stone posted:So, how is that lens? It's a lot of fun. Makes the camera mostly pocketable (depends on the body, the OM-D isn't super tiny), and is surprisingly sharp for a little $50 pan focus. ALso 75mm f/1.8 on the waaayyyyyy 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Anyone have experience with the GM1? I'm debating between the GM1 and the GX7, and right now I'm leaning towards the GM1 (primarily because it would be great for travel). I would miss the viewfinder, tilting screen, and built-in image stabilization from the GX7 though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Would it be your first / only m43 camera? Would you be buying additional lenses? I get the appeal behind the GM1 but I don't think it's priced anywhere near reasonably enough. I suppose if weight / size was a big concern, it's worth it inasmuch as it's the smallest and lightest camera on the market, and comes with a matching OIS lens. If you wanted to build up a good portable system, though, I think the GX7 is a much more sensible buy. Especially if you wanted to use fast primes like the Panaleica 25 or the Oly45, which might feel a bit awkward on the GM1's body. I'll just channel Mr Despair for a moment and say the OMD EM5 would be worth considering if you're looking at that type of money. Rumoured refresh in the new year if time isn't an issue, too...
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:Would it be your first / only m43 camera? Would you be buying additional lenses? I'm planning another trip for next year and decided it's time to upgrade the camera. My first choice was the GX7 cause of the extra features, but now I am wondering if I should optimize for size/weight and go for the GM1 instead, particularly since they have the same sensor so the IQ difference between them won't be that significant. I prefer the ergonomics of the GX7 - the GM1 handles like a tiny point and shoot which I find rather awkward, but perhaps the accessory grip would help with this. I really like that the GM1 can fit in my jacket pocket (and probably my pants pocket too, actually), which means I'll have it with me more often. Right now I generally use a separate bag to carry the camera, and if I don't feel like carrying the bag around I won't have the camera. Something more pocketable sounds highly appealing, I'm just not sure if I'm willing to accept the tradeoff in features. (I've also considered the RX100 II but I love the 20mm f1.7 lens and would be sad to give that up!) * Well and the 100-300mm telephoto but I'm not taking that traveling since it weighs nearly 2 lbs by itself. Edit: Lens-wise I'm probably going to stick with the 20mm f1.7 and the 12-32mm pancakes (for portability) no matter what, and will end up selling the G3 and 14-42mm power zoom. The only question is which body to pair with it. Maybe I'll pick up that body cap lens though, it's super cheap. NoDamage fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Dec 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
I got the GM1 for MY GIRLFRIEND as a Christmas present; once she unwraps it I'll post my impressions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
The 1/50 flash sync kills the GM1 for me. I was thinking of getting it for MY WIFE for Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 11:26
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a pretty terrible stat. Oh well, I hope the little thing will get her hooked on photography and then we can acquire gear together 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 11:54
|
|
|
Panasonic should take the GM1, put a compact fixed lens on it and make it the new version of the LX series. It would totally carve into the Sony RX100 market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
HPL posted:Panasonic should take the GM1, put a compact fixed lens on it and make it the new version of the LX series. It would totally carve into the Sony RX100 market. No kidding. The RX100 mark I is still selling over 400 bux new, for a 2 loving year old camera. Main while the 2/3" sensor QX1 just came out and dropped immediately to 400 bux. I haven't even heard of anybody mention the new LX7 in any photography forum I hang out in. In the high end P&S business people only care about the first place, nobody gives a poo poo about the 2nd place. Panasonic has to understand the LX3 was a great camera becuase it was the best high end P&S at 500 dollars. As soon as the cost of production go down the buyers of this segment will move up the next best 500 bux P&S. Also, Panasonic is the only camera company that is still doing the "overprise the first batch of shiny new products and go down in a few months" tactic. Not cool Panasonic. Both the GM1 and the 12-35 are way overpriced at launch. People will catch up on that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
75mm f/1.8 arrived and oh my god you guys this lens is nuts. It's a big fucker compared to the 60mm f/2.8. Doesn't extend as far but definitely weighs more. It's a lot of glass. Focus is very quick too, comperable to the 45mm f/1.8.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
DJExile posted:75mm f/1.8 arrived and oh my god you guys this lens is nuts. It's a big fucker compared to the 60mm f/2.8. Doesn't extend as far but definitely weighs more. It's a lot of glass. Jealous as gently caress, post some pics 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
The 60mm seems to be the only Olympus lens that hasn't gone on sale and it's the only one I want 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Cacator posted:The 60mm seems to be the only Olympus lens that hasn't gone on sale and it's the only one I want Everyone talks about the 19/30 Sigma combo, but the 60/2.8 is $200 on Amazon and has a higher DxO mark than the Oly Macro (unless the macro is worth the extra $200 to you).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Cacator posted:The 60mm seems to be the only Olympus lens that hasn't gone on sale and it's the only one I want It was on sale over the summer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Everyone talks about the 19/30 Sigma combo, but the 60/2.8 is $200 on Amazon and has a higher DxO mark than the Oly Macro (unless the macro is worth the extra $200 to you). The main reason I want it is for macro. How much was it over the summer? The cheapest I can get it locally is $450.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
I think it was 400 new? $100 bucks off if I recall right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Wengy posted:Jealous as gently caress, post some pics I'll get some up tonight!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I'll get some up tonight! And here we are. walked over to the zoo and gave it a try. These are just .jpgs out of the camera with some cropping because i'm lazy as hell right now  Untitled by PhotoBen27, on Flickr  Untitled by PhotoBen27, on Flickr  Untitled by PhotoBen27, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
How far away was the tiger? I mostly shoot zoo stuff, and the 75 mm is very tempting for me. Although if that 100mm comes out like 4/3 rumor says it will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
This owns, hope I'll be able to afford a 75 sometime next year
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 11:54
|
|
|
TLG James posted:How far away was the tiger? I mostly shoot zoo stuff, and the 75 mm is very tempting for me. Although if that 100mm comes out like 4/3 rumor says it will. I'd estimate around 6-7 feet at the most. Kept it wide open to try and keep the net/fence out of it as best I could.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
Is Fuji going to do something like this free lens crap in the US anytime soon, or am I going to have to be satisfied with our already lower prices on most stuff?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Is Fuji going to do something like this free lens crap in the US anytime soon, or am I going to have to be satisfied with our already lower prices on most stuff? In this deal you basically overpay the 18mm for about 300 bux and the XP1 maybe 200 bux and use the money to buy the extra lens. The US version of the promotions are "X-deals". Its more flexible, X-deals allow buying newer bodies sometimes even the XM1. You can potentially save more when you buy more lens and more desirable newer lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
I just got an X100s. I'm wading through all the settings, but are there some standard settings you guys like? For example, on the Canon 7D, I was advised to set up things like backbutton focus. It looks like there's a ton of options and adjustments I can make with the Fuji, but I'm not sure where to start. I already turned on RAW. One thing specifically, the dynamic range setting defaults to 100%, but also has 200, 300, and Auto. Is this something worth having on in the camera or should I worry about this in post? I'm new to all these options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:I just got an X100s. I'm wading through all the settings, but are there some standard settings you guys like? For example, on the Canon 7D, I was advised to set up things like backbutton focus. It looks like there's a ton of options and adjustments I can make with the Fuji, but I'm not sure where to start. I already turned on RAW. DR on the fuji just pushes your iso up. Max DR setting is ISO 800. Because you shoot raw, none of those settings matter and will not save to the file. Those are JPG settings only. They will show on the LCD but not in LR/Silkypix/ECT and there is no need to worry about that. Also you may find there is no need to shoot RAF if you fiddle with some of those jpg settings. One of my fav settings for B/W is BW-R, Sharpening, Highlight, Shadows all set to +2, NR set to 0, DR set to auto, Auto ISO-1600. TLDR, Play with the settings in JPG.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:In this deal you basically overpay the 18mm for about 300 bux and the XP1 maybe 200 bux and use the money to buy the extra lens. Ah good to know. I'd hate to think someone out there was getting a better deal. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:I just got an X100s. I'm wading through all the settings, but are there some standard settings you guys like? For example, on the Canon 7D, I was advised to set up things like backbutton focus. It looks like there's a ton of options and adjustments I can make with the Fuji, but I'm not sure where to start. I already turned on RAW. I recommend setting up auto ISO. It works really well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
ChirreD posted:I recommend setting up auto ISO. It works really well. It defaults to max 800. I feel like I should raise it but I have no idea how the high ISO performance is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:It defaults to max 800. I feel like I should raise it but I have no idea how the high ISO performance is. One of the main reasons I upgraded from the X100 to the S is because of ISO performance. Why don't you play around with different settings and see what you like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Cacator posted:One of the main reasons I upgraded from the X100 to the S is because of ISO performance. Why don't you play around with different settings and see what you like? Ultimately that's what I will do but I figured there would be some agreement on where the image really starts to degrade, and suggested initial settings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:Ultimately that's what I will do but I figured there would be some agreement on where the image really starts to degrade, and suggested initial settings. If you want to play it safe I would say 3200 is perfectly usable, and 6400 is acceptable in the majority of situations. Not sure if you can set auto ISO above that anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:Ultimately that's what I will do but I figured there would be some agreement on where the image really starts to degrade, and suggested initial settings. The image degrades when you say it does. Ive used ISO 6400 out of the X100 nbd for 8x10 print sizes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 21:21
|
|