|
The 35mm wins in its bokeh rendering and contrast. I've never seen a lens more capable of handling lovely lighting, and especially backlit subjects, than the 35mm. It's still more than sharp enough for daily driving, and I've found it to be sharper than the kit lens as well.windex posted:I could probably do this....  Mon, Tue, Wed?joebob posted:Yes, I would probably be into bringing my XE-1 out. It would give me an excuse to try the fujifilm lens rental service. http://fujifilm.jp/support/digitalcamera/repairservice/servicestation/region001.html#rental_service As for where we can shoot, we can figure that out once we have a day.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
HPL posted:And the A7SII is official, and it's pretty much the camera Justin should have waited a few months for. Glad I held on and didn't get the A7RII.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Hello folks, I've been doing research for a camera I'm getting before leaving for a trip to Europe next week. At this point I'm leaning toward one of the compact mirrorless cameras: EM-10, X-T10, or a6000. But unfortunately it seems like there's a recall on the EM-10 mark ii's. I played around with the X-T10 and a6000 in a shop today, and I preferred the controls on the X-T10. My big reservation is this: I want a single lens solution for traveling, and for the X-T10 that means the 18-135 WR. But that lens is $750, and since I don't care about WR (and can't take advantage of it anyway since the X-T10 isn't WR), I feel like I'd be overpaying. Given that I want to go with one lens for traveling, is there a better option? I'm bummed about the EM-10 mark ii; should I consider just getting a mark i?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
hand of luke posted:Hello folks, Get the XF 18-55.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
keyframe posted:Glad I held on and didn't get the A7RII.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Get the XF 18-55.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Get the XF 18-55. Interesting. I guess it depends on your shooting style, but you wouldn't miss a bigger zoom? I'm a bit of a newbie, so I don't have the context to really know. For reference, I'll be doing mostly city site-seeing in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
hand of luke posted:Interesting. I guess it depends on your shooting style, but you wouldn't miss a bigger zoom? I'm a bit of a newbie, so I don't have the context to really know. For reference, I'll be doing mostly city site-seeing in Europe. The Fuji 18-55 is a just a much better lens. It raises kit lens to a whole new level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
hand of luke posted:Hello folks, That said, I think the X-T10 and it's 18-55 kit lens is probably a good way to go. It's a decent lens with a little range, and there's enough resolution that you can crop and still get what you need out of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
hand of luke posted:Interesting. I guess it depends on your shooting style, but you wouldn't miss a bigger zoom? I'm a bit of a newbie, so I don't have the context to really know. For reference, I'll be doing mostly city site-seeing in Europe. 24-70 Equivalent is without a doubt the single most flexible+useful standard zoom, and you get drat-near pro tier IQ in a tiny, cheap, stabilized package.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
You wont need a long lens in Europe either, if anything you want to make sure you can go wide enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
The XF 18-55 is one of the best lenses Fuji produces, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:24-70 Equivalent is without a doubt the single most flexible+useful standard zoom, and you get drat-near pro tier IQ in a tiny, cheap, stabilized package. I'm not generally a fan of zooms but this is exactly why I keep looking sideways at the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8. I really ought to take one for a walk to put it to bed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Okay, I'm going with the X-T10 + 18-55mm (+ the extra grip even though it's a little pricey). Thanks, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I'm not generally a fan of zooms but this is exactly why I keep looking sideways at the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8. I really ought to take one for a walk to put it to bed. Olympus 12-40 2.8 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Olympus 12-40 2.8 i got this recently i forgot how heavy nice zooms are compared to primes
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Spedman posted:You wont need a long lens in Europe either, if anything you want to make sure you can go wide enough. This. I was in north Italy two weeks ago and my favorite shots ended up being at 12mm and 23mm. The 18-55mm saw a lot of use and will work great for you. The ideal lens would be the 10-24mm f/4.0 but its not cheap. Here is a straight out of camera with the 18-55mm in Venice: https://flic.kr/p/yj8psm And shots with the X100T in Verona and Rokinon 12mm in Milan: https://flic.kr/p/xDQQ5z https://flic.kr/p/xDGAMj Edit: fixed links. Animal fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Animal posted:This. I was in north Italy two weeks ago and my favorite shots ended up being at 12mm and 23mm. The 18-55mm saw a lot of use and will work great for you. The ideal lens would be the 10-24mm f/4.0 but its not cheap. Nice. Is the rooftop tour worth it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
hand of luke posted:Interesting. I guess it depends on your shooting style, but you wouldn't miss a bigger zoom? I'm a bit of a newbie, so I don't have the context to really know. For reference, I'll be doing mostly city site-seeing in Europe. I went through Italy and mostly just used 35mm and 50mm equivalents, only busted out the 24mm a couple of times, mainly shooting inside churches like this and this. And if all else fails, just use your phone. So I guess it really depends on what's your main focus in shooting. But like Animal said, for general Europe shooting the 10-24mm is pretty much perfect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Nice. Is the rooftop tour worth it? Absolutely. If you can catch it close to sunset even better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
hand of luke posted:Interesting. I guess it depends on your shooting style, but you wouldn't miss a bigger zoom? I'm a bit of a newbie, so I don't have the context to really know. For reference, I'll be doing mostly city site-seeing in Europe. 1855 is alot lighter lens, you will enjoy your trip more. I took 4 lens on my 2-week Asian trip last month. The number of photos I took on my 4 lens were: 56mm 0%; 55-200mm 5%; 18-55mm 10%; 14mm 85%. If you are not a newbie I would suggest that lens. It was a family trip with a lot of family meetings and group photo opportunities. I am pretty sure on next year's trip when it will be just my wife and me I will just take the X100S.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I am pretty sure on next year's trip when it will be just my wife and me I will just take the X100S. My most fun photo trip was when I took an X100T through Slovenia, Austria, and Belgium. Just the camera, strap, lens hood, and extra battery. The lack of choices as liberating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:As for where we can shoot, we can figure that out once we have a day. The weather reports indicate the best day for no rain is going to be Monday, so my vote is there. I'll shoot you a PM with my LINE/FB info assuming you have PM's which I have not checked yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
HPL posted:And the A7SII is official, and it's pretty much the camera Justin should have waited a few months for. I haven't pulled any triggers yet but the biggest detractor for me with the a7sii is still that the drat thing is only 12MP. Like why does everything now have to be a handful of MP or a bajillion MP. I would love if the a7rii had a 25-30MP mode. At the moment I'm actually leaning towards the X-T1 for lens selection and because I love the x-series UX and dial layout. The problem now is I need something to take to Ireland with me in November (6 U2 shows ahoy!) and it would be ideal to have the camera soon do I can familiarize myself beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Why? 12mp is plenty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
teraflame posted:Why? 12mp is plenty. For screen sure, but I imagine the low MP shows more on large prints.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:For screen sure, but I imagine the low MP shows more on large prints. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LKDWvkxCfM (start at 0:57)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
teraflame posted:Why? 12mp is plenty. No, no it's not. If you've ever had need to crop an image because you were shooting with a prime and something distracting is in the frame it is not enough. If you've ever had need to print something in a large format it is not enough... The a7s and a7sii are very clearly cameras built for videographers first and foremost. It happens to be amazing for low light photo uses like concert photography but I fear it wouldn't cut it as an all around workhorse for me for the stuff that actually pays bills. It's one thing if you have deep enough pockets to own an a7rii and an a7sii and all of the $$$ Sony glass to go with them but as someone who doesn't make quite enough money on photography to justify owning 2x $3000 bodies it really doesn't make sense. Im at a point in my photography where I feel I'll be taking some of the best photos of my career with whatever the next body I pick is so I would hate to revisit raw files 10+ years from now and hate myself for not being able to print an enlargement at the size I want because 12MP is kind of weak sauce. MMD3 fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
this is why I only shoot in 64 mp mode with my em5ii, and throw anything else out in the trash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:this is why I only throw anything out in the trash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
In a sort of opposite case, I was going through the photos I took in summer 2014 with my old 12MP Canon Rebel, and for the most part they're much better than what I've taken since then with a 5D2 and an a6000. Getting better gear has actually made me a shittier photographer.. But yeah I can't print any of that good stuff too large. At least, certainly not if I crop it appreciably. I did make some ~20" to 24" prints that turned out very nice though. Last summer. When I was still a good photographer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
I guess I'm just trying to say that I don't like this trend towards giant studio resolution cameras and tiny 4k video resolution cameras. I'd love to see more mirrorless bodies in the middle of the road. The X -T1 being 16MP and not having top of class AF are maybe the biggest current detractors for me for Fuji. and the A7RII being $3000 with very expensive slow (relatively) lens selection is the biggest detractor to Sony on the flip side. I don't need a 73MP camera, I just think there's a happy medium there somewhere and I've already found times with my 22MP 5dmkii where i've had to crop in on things and wished I had something that was higher resolution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:I guess I'm just trying to say that I don't like this trend towards giant studio resolution cameras and tiny 4k video resolution cameras. I'd love to see more mirrorless bodies in the middle of the road. I think everything in photographic gear is usually a compromise. You just have to pick the one that ticks the most boxes for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Even on Better dynamic range is much easier to see, you can see the difference on a phone sized photo. It's not like we have much say in this subject anyway, Sony is only one fabbing sensors (for cameras in this thread.) whatever7 fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:I think everything in photographic gear is usually a compromise. You just have to pick the one that ticks the most boxes for you. The three top reasons I like the EOS M gear is because: 1) it works with my other Canon kit and all the investment into it mostly translates into more Canon kit. 2) They are not perfect gear by any means but learning how to work around the weaknesses leads to occasionally great photos. 3) I have no real complaints about image quality from their gear, and so long as you can live with it being slow, it will generally be pretty (M3 reproduces color for me as reliably as my other EOS FF's have). There is a lot of arguing in this thread about camera limitations, but I am not seeing any major points that were unknowns at purchase, especially when you throw in the track records of individual companies. I think the bigger problem is not any of these technical points - I have seen epic artistic photos off junk bin 35mm film cameras, taken with broken lenses, etc. But those guys knew how to work with the limitations of their gear (and in the case of broken lens collector guy, sought out gear with additional limitations). For people who have time to complain about their gear: Spend the time that would be spent complaining trying to figure out the most you can do with said gear outside of your currently rigid technical definition of perfection and have fun, because if you can't have fun as a enthusiast or even semi-pro / pro photographer with a interchangeable lens camera of almost any pedigree, you're doing it wrong (or working in a morgue with some very uptight co-workers). Buy a new camera when one interests you, not because you "need" it to make up for problem X. If the answer is murky, as long as your current camera works ...
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Even on 8x6 Kodak metalic paper print, I can't see the resolution lose of a cropped 16mp photo. If you are going to print large, you can easily do it on a stitched up panorama.  8x6 isn't large friend... I'm talking about professional use here. If you're going to be paying $3000 for a camera body it better be something you can consider professional by some definition of the word. Let's break this down: 8" @ 300ppi is 2400px on the longside... wait until you need to print something at 16x24 (a totally realistic size to be printing things at if you ever want to put something in a gallery) w/ a 12.2MP camera which produces a file 4,272px on the longside you're now looking at dropping your resolution down to around 180ppi before you begin cropping at all. God forbid you need to crop in on the image to a scale of 2/3 of the original size which would be 2,848px / 24" you're looking at 119ppi. You can probably get away with it but I wouldn't be happy printing that very large. Sure it's a hypothetical but if you are expecting to print photos at 300ppi with a 12.2MP camera you are limiting yourself to ~14" wide images. Of course you can upres the images but that's another conversation. But you're right, I should probably just start shooting everything as a panorama in the eventuality that I want to make a big enlargement down the road. MMD3 fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
^ That should be 8x10 sorry. For commercial of course you should be lugging a FF setup. But for your own use you really have very limited wall space to hang large 20 x 30 or whatever prints. So it's no big deal to spend time to shot a stitched panorama. On a side note I printed some identical photos on 8x10 Kodak Endura Metallic paper and standard luster paper on a 12x12 book (I believe this is Kodak as well) from Adorama, I was surprised to see the metallic paper offer noticeable better contrast and resolution. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:I guess I'm just trying to say that I don't like this trend towards giant studio resolution cameras and tiny 4k video resolution cameras. I'd love to see more mirrorless bodies in the middle of the road.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
TheGoatTrick posted:Have you looked at the Panasonic GX8? I think he wants more than 24mp. Somewhere between that and the a7rii.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
whatever7 posted:^ That should be 8x10 sorry. I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or you're just a kid that talks about things he has no concept of. I guess I don't spend enough time in the dorkroom to know. MeruFM posted:I think he wants more than 24mp. Somewhere between that and the a7rii. I don't necessarily care for more than 24MP, I just am not really as interested in Panasonic. I've resigned myself to the idea that the camera I want doesn't really exist yet. I think I want an X-T2 to come out tomorrow with >22MP and the best low light AF yet. While I love full frame it's less important to me than decent resolution and best of class lens selection.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:01
|
|