|
I read a thing that olympus is putting out a 300mm prime for MFT next year, but there were basically no details. I was all set on getting the panny 100-300mm zoom, but now I'm thinking I might wait for some details on this new prime and upgrade my GF1 body to the GF7 in the mean time. Anyone heard anything about this olympus telephoto prime?
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
DJExile posted:I AM SO loving EXCITED yeah, that's the thing I read. RustedChrome posted:I cringe to think what they will cost though. yeah, that among many other things were missing from the blurb. Even a rough plus or minus would be nice to know, as well as what quarter they're expecting to release it. I think I might just be better of forgetting about it until the new year.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Looks like a $1600 lens. if that's true, and if it shoots like a $1600 lens (F5.6 400mm Canon prime for example), I will buy one for sure.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:The NEX series is the classic answer, since it still has the most configurable focus peaking, and auto-adapters for Sony Alpha and Canon EF mounts. Fuji has better actual photo options in their X series, and M4/3 tends to be a bit cheaper and lighter. Well, m4/3 does have all those lovely old Leica lenses you can play with...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Don't know what's good for entry level these days, but the OM-D and GH4 are the top of the line models from Olympus and Panasonic (Olympus for stills, Panasonic for video). The 25mm f1.4 (which is fantastic) is what I upgraded to from the 20 f1.7, which is a your good entry-level walk around lens and the Olympus 45mm f1.8 is a great cheap telephoto. It seems m4/3 you either get the really good body or it's not worth bothering with. I've been eyeing up the GX7 to replace my old GF1, but I wouldn't call that entry level. Is 45mm (90mm equiv) actually a telephoto, or is it just technically considered one? Genuinely asking here, I don't know what it makes a telephoto a telephoto. The word makes me think of things like 300mm+ equivalent at least. A good tele-zoom would be a Panasonic 100-300mm, I'd say.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
grack posted:Olympus' entire lineup uses the same 16mp sensor. What you pay for is the differences in functionality. The E-PM2 or PL5 would be fine for someone who's going to mostly keep the camera in auto mode but doesn't mind diving in to the settings every once in a while and you still get the IQ capability of the M5. That's interesting. I haven't kept up with the tech and am only just getting back into things. I got the impression from various reviews that the Panasonic bodies varied a lot more, some were worth getting, some not at all.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Ripoff posted:A strange question for you all, but I have been shooting with a friend's DSLR and realized I missed having a viewfinder on my GF-1, so I started looking into the Olympus OM-D models. However, I'm seeing rumors of a new OM-D coming in September, and apparently the EM-5 is getting long in the tooth. You could look at the GX-7
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Cacator posted:The GX-7 is about the same age as the OM-D though, isn't it? I played with a friend's for a bit but it didn't convince me to give up my EM-5. It came out around last year sometime, didn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
rawrr posted:The same debate has been going on for the LX rebrands (i.e. DLUX 6). Funny enough, there are people claiming that Leica "tweaked" the firmware etc when there has been absolutely no evidence of that. Well, the folks at Leica probably think the word "firmware" describes the physical camera body itself, and have no idea what goes on in the magic bits that aren't gears and lens elements that Panasonic supplies to them. Hell, Panasonic probably even asked them if they'd like any customized interfaces or anything and they just replied "bokeh" so the Panasonic engineers just gave them their best guess and the marketing folks said "if someone asks why yours is so much more expensive than ours, just say 'custom firmware'".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:So my 40-150 lens came in today, it is the M.Zuiko 40-150 ED F4-5.6, but it will not mount to my EM5. The mount on this lens is a bit larger than that of the EM5, however, both have the m43 logo.... any idea whats up with this? Don't worry, Panasonic has you covered http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/DMW-MA1
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Cacator posted:You could also buy the Olympus adapter, seeing as how he has an Olympus camera and Olympus lens. Don't worry, Olympus has also got you covered, 3 ways too. http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/mlenses/acc/#mmf-3
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Has anyone messed around with manual focus lenses (leica, voigtlander, etc) and focus peaking on m4/3 bodies? How accurate is it? Or does it even work?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
rio posted:After getting the attachable evf it was a lot easier to manually focus with peaking and not have to 9x it. It's pricey but worth it, although I wish it were useable on other newer cameras. I've been thinking about getting a GX-7 for ages, and it has a built in one. I've played around with it in store, and it seems to work well in MF mode on whatever kit lens they have installed, but that's just going by the results on the LCD. I was just wondering how it would fare with a fully manual lens, and if focus peaking is actually useful on an older manual lens.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
so since following this thread, I've gone from really only considering the Panasonic GX7, to maybe possibly Olympus m43 because of the marginally better in-body stabilization and weatherproofing, to hearing all the raving about Fuji and Sony full frame options and thinking full frame might be the way to go... poo poo. I like m43 for the 2x crop, it means I don't have to shell out loads of money on a long telephoto to get the equivalent of 600mm @ f5.6. But while I like long zooms, the reality is I mostly live vicariously through my partner who is the bird photographer, and I probably don't need the extra reach the extra crop factor provides. Since I generally shoot and enjoy shooting more landscapes and macros, perhaps one of the full frame cameras would be better for me? Trouble is other than what I've read in the thread, I know nothing about the glass available for those options. I'm pretty well versed in what can be had in m43 and now I'm just getting confused. The Mirrorless Thread: I'll invest in your system when you give me only two viable manufacturers to chose from.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Also crop factor as a dealbreaker/maker is silly. You would get the same image from a 2x crop body and 600mm that you would out of a higher MP body and a 300mm then cropping in post. It would really only matter if you are looking at the same MP count in all sizes. It's not really, I've got a GF1 with a 20mm prime right now and love it. The advantage I see in m43 is the extra crop factor which is a cheap way of getting extra reach without the cost or size of traditional 400mm to 600mm lenses. However, if I'm not using that advantage, would I be better off with a full frame or APS-C in a different mirrorless system because they have better options in wide prime or wide-zoom glass and/or a better sensor? I've been reading such rave reviews of the Sony sensor and Fuji sensor and glass, it's starting to make me rethink my preference (based only on the fact that I have one and like it) for m43.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:My rule of thumb is better: Your rule of thumb doesn't apply to long telephoto primes or zooms.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Speaking of big prime lenses, there was a rumour about a 300mm prime from Olympus for m43 a while ago, and I think a mock-up shown at a photography show. Everything seems to have gone a bit quiet about it though. Any one heard any news?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
If you could choose (only) one of the following m43 lenses, which and why? Lumix 15mm f1.7 (fastest, cheapest, but only 15mm) Zuiko 12mm f2.0 (not as fast, not as cheap, deliciously wide) Lumix 7-14mm f4.0 (versatile, expensive, slow as a telephoto zoom, maybe too much distortion at 7mm?) Looking at Flickr for sample images, I'm drawn to the Zuiko ones the most, but that could just be the photographers using it. The 7-14 looks neat but a lot of the photos just seem dark /underexposed even wide open. The zoom range seems versatile, but the f-stop range seems limiting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I'd really try and figure out which focal length you like better. I love 35 but not so much 28, for example. I've got the 20mm, (so 40mm equiv) f1.7 version 1 at the moment, and I like it a lot but I'm constantly wishing it was wider. I think 24mm is quite a sweet spot for width of field and distortion, 30mm just doesn't seem wide enough for what I like. Maybe I have a problem with images never being wide enough? Hence the 7-14. But if 7 turns out too wide and distorted, and I'm always shooting at 12-14, I'd be better off with the 12mm prime and a much faster lens. Kowa also makes a (manual focus) 12mm f1.8 for m43 that has very little distortion, which is very intriguing as well. Looks like I can rent both the Olympus 12mm and the Panasonic 7-14 from Henry's so I think I'll do that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:Anyone hook their camera up to a telescope? If so can you summarize how and link a few photos you have managed to take.. I tried a t-mount adapter with my GF1 to try out digiscoping. Results weren't very good. Essentially the telescope becomes the lens, and I had a cheap crap scope at the time. To get really good results digiscoping, I would say you kind of need "alpha" glass, or drat near. I don't know about astro photography, but for earthbound stuff, there's no cheap way of seeing far, well, as usual. I can attach a couple of examples tomorrow to show how bad bad is if you're morbidly curious.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:The duration of the flash is shorter than the sensor read time, so the scene would only be potentially illuminated. You can use constant lighting, but not flash Are we not at a level of tech with LEDs that they can put out at least an equal level of performance compared to a small xenon built-in flash, but with the added benefit of having much more control over timing and duration?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:Go take a picture with a 3-4 year old smart phone and ask again. (no, they're slow as gently caress and even some phones use tiny flash bulbs instead. ) The comment was originally about flash duration being too short to fully expose the frame with an electronic shutter. I figure with a few ultra bright LEDs, you could extend the duration of the flash long enough to expose the entire sensor. I'd kind of like to see the results of an electronic shutter exposure with a traditional flash though, for.. um.. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
spog posted:Well, gently caress. On a 4 day trip to London, forgot my charger, already blown through 1 of 2 batteries for my GF5 on day one. London camera exchange might have you covered: http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Branch/?Branch=London%20(Strand) Alternatively, there are shitloads of camera specialists near Holborn / the British Museum. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:it seriously doesn't support microusb charging? I couldn't tell from the amazon listing and i've never handled that camera myself, but that seems loving crazy. Just speculating here, but with m43 size is a big factor, and a charging circuit takes up space and generates heat that might be tough to dissipate.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
spog posted:Thanks for the suggestions, guys. I really appreciate them, not least because this one came in when I was only 10mins away from the shop. but it's free 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
spog posted:Both the headlining exhibits were an extra £16.50 each. yeah, the headlining stuff is really only worth it if you've got a very keen interest in that specific thing. Otherwise the ordinary galleries are pretty good from what I remember. I only made it out there once in the 6 years I lived in London. Science and Natural History museums I went to several times though, they are excellent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
thetzar posted:That's basically the idea. Forward-facing data portability based on a (reasonably) open standard. Plus it sort of grew out of the time that Nikon was starting to encrypt white balance info in their raws and other stupidity, to stand as a counter to camera companies trying to wall off their gardens. Some cameras shoot DNG as their native raw format, which was always Adobe's goal — it's just that not many camera companies signed on. Hmm, sounds a bit like a .pdf, in a way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Wengy posted:Sure hope m4/3 doesn't go the way of 4/3 just as I'm pouring money into the system. Panasonic should up the pace of their sensor development and Olympus should hurry up with their pro lens lineup. Sony and Fuji ain't sleeping. I was just reading that the sensors for m4/3 are made by Sony anyway, and it sounds like they progress at the pace Sony develops them, which is probably just slower than what Sony themselves puts in their alphas. They still have cost in their favour for the bodies, and I don't think Panasonic's collaboration with leica has been bad for business at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
Bought a GX7! Finally, after humming and harring for ages. Panasonic Canada had ridiculous deal going with the discount I get through work, $690 CAD+tax for a body and 14-42mm kit lens. I've already got the 20mm pancake, I'll likely sell/trade in the 14-42 and put it towards the 7-14mm or 100-300mm.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
I've done a bit of mucking around with the GX7, holy crap there is a lot more going on there than on my old GF1.. The filters, image modes and scenes are definitely numerous.. Looking forward to trying out the time lapse function, and stop motion. I haven't had a chance to try the app, but remote firing the shutter from my phone sounds like a really good idea for long exposure night photography. Previously I would set the camera down and use the 2 second timer, but that could be hit or miss. Just the ability to push photos over WiFi to my NAS is a boon, though it doesn't play nice with my TV for directly displaying photos on that over WiFi.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
Lhet posted:I want to be able to take a fairly large variety of shots: events, landscapes, dogs, whatever looks interesting. I want a bit of low light ability, enough to get a building with cool lighting or maybe something at a concert or something (not sure if that's asking too much). Video would be nice but not a hard requirement. get whatever m4/3 body you like (I like Panasonic, but that's due to familiarity more than anything. Olympus' options might fit your preferences better), then stick a Panasonic 20mm F1.7 pancake prime on it and go to town. My GF1 + 20mm prime has done me great service for years. About the only thing it isn't good for is birds.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Alot of camera news today. I thought Fuji's "thing" was their proprietary sensor design. If they start using a standard Sony sensor, they're going to have to start putting moire filters on their lenses, or running two separate lens lines - one full frame and one crop.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:Isn't the bigger issue is that they'd have to design an entirely separate line of lenses, because the XF lenses are designed for the XF mount/crop sensor? I'll admit I'm not really up on how lenses and sensors interact w/r/t crop vs full frame, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. As long as the mount is the same, the only thing that changes is the effective focal range. Canon lenses mount to both their crop body dslrs and their FF ones.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
If you do end up going with m4/3, see if you can find a good deal on the Panny 20mm f1.7 lens. Doesn't have to be the mk2, the original is still great. For compactness it's the way to go.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:$400 lines up pretty well with used prices on amazon (~440 shipped to get one through keh or adorama). If you check it out you can see how used it really is by checking the shutter count, it's hitting away in a test menu. Basically punch the konami code in to get to it. Does shutter count matter on a mirrorless? I thought it was relevant on SLR because of the mechanical prism mechanism, but that mirrorless shutters were engineered to be a sort of "life of the camera" sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
JSW2 posted:Been playing around with my X100S for a couple weeks now, mostly using the in camera raw editor to make changes. But now I'd like to try more advanced editing. Is it better to go for the Capture One subscription, or is the Lightroom/Photoshop subscription the better deal? No prior experience with either. In my opinion, I don't believe subscription based software is worth it unless you are a power user and processing a lot of photos every month for ever, and regularly upgrade your workstation and require regular software version updates to keep current. You'd be better served with Lightroom 5 and/or PS elements/last version of non-subscripiton PS, or some other non-subscripiton editing software if you don't fall into the above category.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Sharizard posted:On the other end of the opinion spectrum, I think that subscription based software (especially in the case of Adobe's Photography bundle) is worth it. I used to be anti-CC until the photographer's bundle came out, and now I've grown to appreciate the deal Adobe threw out there. It'd be cool to see them create other CC bundles, too. Those are all valid points, and if it's a serious hobby or professional interest, I wouldn't question it. The issues I have with the model is it isn't flexible. A pay-as-you-go option would go a long way toward making it more appealing, as well as making it easier to license on more devices. Leasing a car makes sense for a lot of people too, but I still prefer to buy used for cash and save money.  E- reading their FAQ, it seems they've done a lot more to allay some of the concerns I had since the last time I looked into it. I get what you're saying with Netflix, etc., but with those I can stop paying whenever I like, and start up again whenever I like. CC only sells a yearly subscription (paid monthly or in advance). Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:This is basically cable company bundle scheme. They will alway put the only software you actually need in the next tier. Next thing you know you will be buying Adobe triple play with Photoshop, Dreamweaver, inDesign, After Effect and Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Panorama Master, Adobe Color Correct Ninja, Adobe My Camera lens Inventory Manager for 19.99 a month. Oh did I mention you get three month of Cinemax for free?! $39.99 for the first 3 months! monthly fee increases to $69.99 after three month period 24 month minimum contract cancellations will be billed for all months remaining in contract at full price
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
I just picked up a Panasonic 100-300mm F4.0-5.6 for my GX7. Still early days yet since I've discovered I really don't know what I'm doing with telephoto photography, but it seems pretty decent. But compared to my partner's 400mm F5.6 Canon L... Olympus better hurry up with their 300mm prime, and it'd better be good! Though to be honest, I'm more interested in their upcoming 7-14mm F2.8.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
I know this isn't exclusive to mirrorless cameras, but I just want to say that Wifi file transfer is the greatest. Straight off the camera on to the hard drive attached to my router, sitting on the couch.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 00:09
|
|