|
Mega Comrade posted:Its close to 50mm on a full frame. So its good for portraits, but I mostly use it for walk about lens when I fancy having just a little bit extra reach over my 24mm(35mm eq), mostly for taking pictures of my dog on walks but it definitely gets less use for sure. I seem to rotate between using the Fuji 35/2 and 16/2.8 when walking around, and it really depends on if I want to have a little tighter zoom or not. haven't been able to justify the 23/2 quite yet (partially because I got the 27 pancake, partially because my prior camera had that 23/22mm and I wanted a quick break from it) but I think I might try to get that soon.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2022 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
sigma 6 posted:
What are they photos of? Do you know what settings are used to capture the still images?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
@sigma 6 Much like how Sony designates its bodies as "r" for resolution and "s" for sensitivity, Panasonic does the same on their flagship model(s). They make a GH5S specifically for low light sensitivity. It's not a cheap camera, so renting one to try out might be the best option to see if it works for you. The specs and outputs should cover your specific needs, but maybe there's something funky in your setup that won't play nice, so you'll have to try it to be sure. Micro 4/3 macro lenses are pretty cheap, very small, and really good, so grab an Olympus 60mm macro and/or maybe a PanaLeica 45mm macro if size and overall length is more important than 1:1 resolving power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
I looked at that ig account sigma - If your focus isn’t changing between shots Laowa makes very nice macro lenses at 60mm and 100mm for m43 cameras - but I’m not sure if those are easily rentable. Just for your situational awareness if you pursue m43 and find the Oly 60mm not quite what you’re after.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
harperdc posted:I seem to rotate between using the Fuji 35/2 and 16/2.8 when walking around, and it really depends on if I want to have a little tighter zoom or not. If you decide you're interested in the 23/2, shoot me a PM. I hardly use mine since I got the 16-55, and I'm more interested in longer reach lenses anyway. I got mine used but I've been pretty gentle with it and can do a more detailed inspection/provide photos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:Zero latency. You can't do this with consumer cameras, they all have at least a couple of frames of latency on the HDMI output. Probably can't do it with professional cameras either, at least not via HDMI - most super low latency setups I know of use SDI (an ancient digital video industry interface that uses coaxial cables and BNC connectors), and you pretty much cannot buy SDI gear as a consumer even if you were willing to accept the astronomical pricing of such things. The thing is though that it's usually the same number of frames buffered regardless of the framerate, so a higher framerate gets you a lower latency, so if the camera allows you to trade spatial resolution for temporal and get a framerate higher than 60fps (which most of them will do), then that can get you lower latency. FWIW this guy has done some testing of HDMI output latency on a few different cameras, but it's all at 24fps. I also believe a number of Nikon cameras have much bigger HDMI output latency than almost anything else. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Mar 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:You can't do this with consumer cameras, they all have at least a couple of frames of latency on the HDMI output. Probably can't do it with professional cameras either, at least not via HDMI - most super low latency setups I know of use SDI (an ancient digital video industry interface that uses coaxial cables and BNC connectors), and you pretty much cannot buy SDI gear as a consumer even if you were willing to accept the astronomical pricing of such things. The thing is though that it's usually the same number of frames buffered regardless of the framerate, so a higher framerate gets you a lower latency, so if the camera allows you to trade spatial resolution for temporal and get a framerate higher than 60fps (which most of them will do), then that can get you lower latency. There was an HDcctv standard that was released about a decade ago. It uses SDI and should be about the same in terms of latency. But it wasn't widely successful. You may be able to find examples on E-bay that would be cheaper than anything else that uses SDI. But they weren't exactly cheap then. Just cheaper than other stuff using SDI. But it also capped at 1080p for resolution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 04:27
|
|
|
imo if you have the budget then do a GH5S and slap a speed booster on an old Canon FD macro lens (assuming you do not need AF for this case?) and you'll be able to shoot in extremely low light. I use speed boosted FD primes for a lot of shoots and the IQ is fantastic. I used to edit a lot of GH5S footage and have a GH5 personally, and the GH5S video quality puts basically everyone else to shame unless you're going to throw down >$6k on stuff. This will get you 4k60 (long gop though so maybe not good if you're doing high speed applications?). The only way you're getting any better is by going to a GH6 which just came out and can do 4k120 but like I have no idea how the gently caress you would stream that unless you have access to extremely good upload speeds. What's the actual use case? I think this would help us a lot
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 07:52
|
|
|
Just as you mentioned BMPCC4k in your original post and I don't think I've seen anyone mentioned it since: The BMPCCs top out at 1080p over HDMI. They only record higher than that to internal media. No use at all for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
Got to try Canon R6 for a week and used it to shoot couple indoor events plus some motocross with it. Have to say that AF is some next level poo poo. I don't usually do motorsports but that was SOOOO effortless. Perfect tracking and all the shots are actually in focus. All of them. Face/eye AF is also great for events but not always perfect (does not sometimes see the face you want to focus on). Not perfect camera and has some quirks but for this kind of shooting it's very, very hard to go back to E-M1 mk II.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
ugh whatever jeez posted:Got to try Canon R6 for a week and used it to shoot couple indoor events plus some motocross with it. Have to say that AF is some next level poo poo. I don't usually do motorsports but that was SOOOO effortless. Perfect tracking and all the shots are actually in focus. All of them. Face/eye AF is also great for events but not always perfect (does not sometimes see the face you want to focus on). Not perfect camera and has some quirks but for this kind of shooting it's very, very hard to go back to E-M1 mk II. I've just got the R, and yeah, face/eye is good if its clear to the camera what the face is, I switch between that and regular point depending on how front facing the model is. but yeah the problem is it finding the right thing to focus on, not actually missing focus as such. the focus is incredible, and I shoot with 135mm at f1.8 so don't often have much room to gently caress up this is 1:1 cropped from the top part of the image.  I always thought high mega pixels were needed to compensate for how average poo poo was at 1:1 but this is about as usable as it gets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 10:22
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I always thought high mega pixels were needed to compensate for how average poo poo was at 1:1 but this is about as usable as it gets. I think that R6/5/R really bring new life to old (and now cheap) EF mount lenses that I always used to shoot at f/2 or f/2.8 or whatever since DSLRs could never really hit that shallow focus right. Same for third party Tamron/Sigma lenses. They just work now and focus is perfect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
I bought an XT2 and some manual lenses last year, decided to dip my toes into AF after a bad batch of "I can't really see poo poo like I used to" last week. I haven't been able to get an 18-55 off ebay yet, it looks like the prices for that have been getting higher than I can get from mpb. I swore I looked around holiday 2021 and they were significantly cheaper. I did buy a 23mm f/2 for $300, so fingers crossed it is as-described. I did read up-thread that some of you were underwhelmed by it...
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
The 23mm f/2.0 is my favorite lens! That said I'm just a hobbyist so I'm not particular with sharpness and stuff, it really depends on what you want to shoot though, I find it great for street shooting (unobtrusive size, weather-sealed, focusing is good)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
My backordered OM-1 just arrived. Holy poo poo it's light! It also still comes with the usual little camera-powered flash, which I wasn't expecting. on this dead format!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
Alpenglow posted:My backordered OM-1 just arrived. Holy poo poo it's light! It also still comes with the usual little camera-powered flash, which I wasn't expecting. it's between this and a panaleica 50-200mm to throw on my GX8 for me right now. I find myself using vintage lenses more often than anything these days, so maybe it's time to finally try that Olympus IBIS... hmm I'd really miss the tilting viewfinder, though. i love that thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
m43 is the king of formats on affordability alone
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
getting tempted on buying into the discontinued Pentax Q system... no viewfinder but the bodies are so cute and light, it even has a teeny tiny single-aperture lens... It really has nothing better to offer than my current system but don't you all get that itch sometimes I did seriously consider getting a X100 series camera but no IBIS and I think I prefer SLR-type bodies (shooting in rangefinder-style is kinda weird for me). I guess the remedy is to just continue shooting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
Has anyone here managed to get their hands on the XF 70-300? I'd really like something with significantly more reach than the 16-55 for birds and landscapes, but it seems like it's really difficult to actually nab one from Adorama or B&H whenever they have them in stock before they run out (and of course there are gougers selling them on eBay  ). Are there any other trustworthy stores that I should be looking at? And on the off chance anybody has a 70-300 and either the 18-55 or the 16-55, has having a gap in your lenses between 55mm and 70mm caused problems? The XF 55-200 is around the same price and wouldn't have that gap, though less reach and it seems slightly less sharp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:Has anyone here managed to get their hands on the XF 70-300? I'd really like something with significantly more reach than the 16-55 for birds and landscapes, but it seems like it's really difficult to actually nab one from Adorama or B&H whenever they have them in stock before they run out (and of course there are gougers selling them on eBay My carry bag is 16-55, 90, 70-300. I don't think over ever thought, man I wish I had 65mm. The 70-300 is sharp, the IS is great, and it's negligible in weight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 13:17
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:Has anyone here managed to get their hands on the XF 70-300? I'd really like something with significantly more reach than the 16-55 for birds and landscapes, but it seems like it's really difficult to actually nab one from Adorama or B&H whenever they have them in stock before they run out (and of course there are gougers selling them on eBay I managed to pick one up at launch. I have both the 18-55 and 70-300 in my bag and honestly that 15mm gap isn't an issue. I was tempted to pick up a 100-400 but at 2.5x the price and only a bit more zoom with slightly older tech it didn't really seem worth it. I do wish the autofocus was a little faster on the 70-300. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:And on the off chance anybody has a 70-300 and either the 18-55 or the 16-55, has having a gap in your lenses between 55mm and 70mm caused problems? The XF 55-200 is around the same price and wouldn't have that gap, though less reach and it seems slightly less sharp. I've had the 55-200 since it came out, and always found it to be rather sharp. But these days I would definitely get the 70-300... I'd swap mine for one if it didn't cost anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Thanks everyone. Here's hoping the stock alerts give me a shot at actually getting one before the bots and speculators. If anybody knows of a site that will let me reserve one, that would also be really helpful. I had to stay glued to my phone to land a video card last year, which really sucked, and really don't want to have to go through the same thing here if I can help it
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Echoing that the small focal length gap is no big deal. If you have the 16-55 on you can always just crop to reach 70 if need to. Verses the 55-200, in some situations 70 on the short end will be a bit less flexible (e.g. if your subjects may either be close-ish or far, there will be instances where 55 can still cover the close end, but 70 is too tight). In other words, there may be some situations where you'll need to swap back to your 16-55 or 18-55 where you wouldn't on the 55-200. However, 55 on APS-C is already pretty long, so these situations will likely be rare. The other main reason to consider the 55-200 is it is somewhat more compact than the 70-300. If you were building a travel setup paired with an 18-55 (which is very compact), the 55-200 could feel like a better fit. The 16-55 though is already larger than the 55-200 in most ways, so in that case the difference in size between the 55-200 and 70-300 probably isn't a concern. Price wise, you'll have a much easier time finding a used 55-200 at a decent price (or new on significant sale) since they've been out for so long (e.g. mpb has one for $424 right now, barely more than half the price of a new 70-300). Outside of that though, I think the 70-300 is generally a superior lens. That said, I've had the 55-200 since 2015 and it's been one of my favorite lenses. I mainly use it for telephoto landscapes as well as some action shots. It's still pretty sharp in most cases (a bit softer at the long end like most telephoto zooms) and the OIS is solid. AF-C performance wasn't too great on the X-T1 (a weak point of the X-T1 in general), but it's been adequate now that I have an X-H1 (can handle action shots of my dog catching frisbees on the run). At MSRP, and paired with my now chonky X-H1 + 16-55 combo, I too would most likely go with the 70-300 if I was buying today. However, the 55-200 is no slouch. If 200 vs 300 isn't a deal breaker (which it very well may be for birds), it would be worth considering picking up a used or sale 55-200 (believe mine was $550 from a Fuji sale) if you want the extra reach and are either on a budget or can't find a 70-300 in stock. Playing the the stock drop game for a lens sounds terrible (I also did it for a GPU). It's worth considering grabbing a used 55-200 for now so you can just get out and shoot rather than stress over stock. You can always re-sell it for minimal (or zero) loss once 70-300 stock becomes more reliable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
Lily Catts posted:getting tempted on buying into the discontinued Pentax Q system... no viewfinder but the bodies are so cute and light, it even has a teeny tiny single-aperture lens... It really has nothing better to offer than my current system but don't you all get that itch sometimes I was looking into this too, as a weird, tiny wildlife cam. Pentax lenses are so good; the SMC Pentax-M 50mm f4 macro I've been using the last couple months is my current favorite lens, i never want to take it off my camera plus I have a soft spot for pentax, as my first DSLR was a cool as hell all white K-x
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
I decided to bite the bullet and just place an order for the XF 70-300 on Adorama rather than wait for stock drops. I have absolutely no idea how long the waitlist is, please I just want my fancy glass toy 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
Is the EF-M mount dead, and is Canon going all in on RF going forward? I had considered getting one instead of Fuji, but the lens selection was pretty poor and geared towards the entry-level market (if you could even call it that)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 05:44
|
|
|
Lily Catts posted:Is the EF-M mount dead, and is Canon going all in on RF going forward? It got more traction in Japan than North America but yeah, it's not a particularly viable system. I am guessing you have an existing investment in Canon's system if you're cross shopping EF-M with Fuji (which has a much more developed and sophisticated ecosystem of lenses and bodies). Newer Sony FF bodies can do pretty well with EF glass on adapters, not sure about the crop bodies though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 06:54
|
|
|
Lily Catts posted:Is the EF-M mount dead, and is Canon going all in on RF going forward? When I bought a Canon M a few years back I wound up picking up most of the lenses (the 11-22, 18-55, 22) and also used the adapter. With the adapter it was fine but using EF lenses made the whole thing massive, kind of eliminating the point. Meanwhile, the 22 was fun but the rest were kind of average. The camera was nice enough quality wise, and the menus were typical Canon, but it was limited (esp. high ISO). It’s definitely a small system with limited headroom and a replacement for the old Digital Rebel lines. But unlike those, there really isn’t much room to grow. That’s why I switched to Fujifilm and haven’t looked back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
Ethics_Gradient posted:It got more traction in Japan than North America but yeah, it's not a particularly viable system. I got into photography using a Canon DSLR, but I also think that adapting EF/EF-S lenses to the EF-M mount would cancel out the size advantages of the EF-M system, and just looking at the lens catalog back in 2015-2016 made me conclude that it was only a sideshow at that point. Plus I wanted a viewfinder and an EF-M body with one came out much later after I already bought into Fuji.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 08:21
|
|
|
EF-M did have the advantage of the sigma f/1.4 prime trio which by all accounts are great value and performance but now they have those for Fuji too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
EF-M has gaps, but it's a good value if you don't need a native macro or telephoto zoom. The 32mm f/1.4 is my favorite lens, and the 22mm, 11-22, and 18-150 are great for the price. I also really like the Canon EL-100, the only good cheap compact TTL flash I've found with a rotating head. Unfortunately the EF-M 55-200mm is awful, so I use an adapted EF-S 55-250mm STM for birds. The adapter cost as much as the lens, but the lens was hilariously inexpensive and performs well. I still use a 6D for macro though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
I'm just a guy who likes to snap pictures with his phone, but I got an old DSLR from my dad (Nikon D60) and kinda enjoyed taking pictures with it. I've been pondering getting a mirorrless for a few years now, but now I have both money and some urge to get into photography a bit more. I also plan to do some vlogging with it, so I had my eyes set on Sony a6400. The guy in the shop told me that Sony plans to go all in on full frame in the future, though, and kinda dissuaded me. Am I dumb and should I get it anyway, or is there anything better? The a7iii is a bit too pricy for my taste and I'm not even sure if I'd like a full frame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
lordfrikk posted:I'm just a guy who likes to snap pictures with his phone, but I got an old DSLR from my dad (Nikon D60) and kinda enjoyed taking pictures with it. I've been pondering getting a mirorrless for a few years now, but now I have both money and some urge to get into photography a bit more. I also plan to do some vlogging with it, so I had my eyes set on Sony a6400. The guy in the shop told me that Sony plans to go all in on full frame in the future, though, and kinda dissuaded me. Am I dumb and should I get it anyway, or is there anything better? The a7iii is a bit too pricy for my taste and I'm not even sure if I'd like a full frame. Have you looked at Panasonic bodies? They have a strong video focus and are firmly locked into Micro Four-Thirds, which has a huge variety of lenses you could use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
i suppose this post belong in the catch-all mirrorless thread, not a nikon or sony one i am weighing a sony a7RIII vs. a nikon Z7. I'm going to be pairing that body with a couple sharp primes; zeiss loxias if sony, nikon S lenses for Z7 (i guess??) ...i shot nikon for years, and prefer the feel of the Z7 and its top LCD. the technical aspects of the Z-mount seem solid. i'm a hesitant about the way nikon is controlling access though. the lenses available right now seem... good enough, i suppose. but the future is concerning. the sony seems the more economical. I know what I'm getting with those lenses, and no worries about the future. the sony has a few little technical things that are appealing (the HLG mode for exposure, the pixel-shift exposure, flawed though it is on that body) video/autofocus mean nothing to me ...any thoughts? Or maybe i'm being too myopic and there's something else i should consider (FF, superb image quality, mirrorless)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
i figured it out, thank u
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
I meant to respond, but forgot ha. What'd you decide?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
A7r iv Mainly because the used lens selection is far larger
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
When I plug in my X-T30 via USB C, I can only open one photo and then all subsequent photos say I dont have permission. I have to disconnect and reconnect, and copy them all over first and then open them from the destination. What gives?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 13:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
I just take out the memory card, put it in a USB adapter, and chuck it into my PC's USB port. Fuji camera to mobile phone is already wonky, so I've never tried directly connecting mine to the PC. You're just importing files, right? and not shooting tethered or something?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 01:09
|
|