|
windex posted:Adapters that line up the sensor and back of the lens at the correct back focus distance relative to the sensor location should only impact the field of view relative to the different crop factors of both sensors. Short answer: no. There are some rare adapters with glass (FD to EF that preserve infinity focus), but they're uncommon and you wouldn't need them with a mirrorless body anyways. Sony as one with a pellicle mirror for their mirrorless cameras but it's really only if you want to use their A-mount AF glass on E-mount. There is another adapter that uses condenser lenses to make a lens "brighter" (forget who makes it, Metabones?), but anything any adapter adding extra optics is generally bad news bears for image quality. You're doing the maths the wrong way, the FD28mm f/2.5 would be 56mm f/2.5 equivalent on your E-M5.
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
8th-snype posted:Lost in the mail? Yeah I agree a nonissue but damaged in the mail is a thing that happens a lot more frequently. I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about something worth $700 being damaged and noone being willing to pay out the insurance on it because you are trying to cheat the tariff. I've marked some used stuff as a bit cheaper when shipping to Canada but never $0. My monitor got busted on its way to me after I moved back in April, and I am *still* fighting with USPS to get reimbursed on the insurance I paid for. It's such a pain in the rear end; I'll still use it for selling stuff, but I honestly can't see myself ever bothering to insure my own property again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Right now the best deals are XE2 because it has dropped to 500. Both XE1 and XP1 have hit depreciation bottom a good while ago. Yeah, it's amazing what you can get on a budget starting out these days. My old NEX-3 + a 35mm f/1.7 CCTV lens makes a great "I don't care what happens to this kit" beater to take out to bars, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Battery life is poo poo on mirrorless lenses. I went on a short 4 hour trip and I ate up 2 mirrorless batteries for my a7, my dslr on one is still chugging along and it is an old model. Were you blazing away non-stop in the cold or something? I can usually get a whole day of travel stuff on one battery with mine. I used like 1.25-1.5 batteries doing an event (~2 hours?) of near-continuous shooting in September.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:no touchscreen or flippy mechanism Keep making cameras without articulated LCD's Fuji, and I'll keep not buying them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
quote:24-70mm f/2.8 listing for $2200 Sounds about right 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Still no fast crop lenses or primes or anything that isn't a super zoom There's an 85 f/1.4
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:You shouldn't have to replace glass every 2 years because it wears out and costs more to fix than replace. lmao what the hell are you talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Canon announced their new 24-70 2.8 in 2012 for $2300 which has no image stabilization. At $2200, which I don't know if it'll be the actual street price, seems like a better deal with stabilization if it's close in image quality. They obviously aren't going to be promoting a lenses lack of a feature, but if you look at all of the press releases for it, you'll notice that there is no mention of stabilisation on the 24-70, and B&H's product page appears to confirm it. I'm guessing they dropped OSS in order to reduce size/weight (especially on a non-telephoto) now that the FE bodies have IBIS.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I misread the article that was posted and assumed it meant all 3. Would make sense. With or without it, it's still on par with other FF lens prices. FF is just expensive. Yeah, true that. My 24-70 f/4 OSS pretty much stays glued to my A7 and I still pine for my EF 24-70L (not the size/weight of that combo though). Hah, just checked, and the new Sony is larger than the 24-70L but weighs slightly less (but still about 2x what the f/4 does). I'd expect L glass quality at that price, considering they don't appear to have pulled off any optical miracles. Starting to think I might be better off buying back in to Canon and just keeping mirrorless around for long hikes or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
DJExile posted:It's listed as a 180 degree field of view. I have no idea if that'd change going to full frame. I don't know that it'd be able to cover any more than that. I used my bosses old Russian 8mm fisheye on my 5D back in the day, and it turned out to have similar coverage to a crop-sensor (circular image with black corners). No way a lens designed for m43 would cover more than one designed for 35mm, I'd think. There is that ludicrous, super-rare Nikon fisheye for astrophotography, I think that's like a 6mm? Yeah, here we go: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/fisheyes/6mmf28.htm
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Phone posted:Eh kinda OT, but I take it that Yodobashi and BIC should have Instax Mini film, right? Those'd be the first places I looked, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Not that I've noticed, and I think there shouldn't be anyway, since it's not like it's another optical element for light to pass through. it's just shaping the light rays. Yeah, depending on the # of blades you'll get different shaped ~*bOkEh*~ when you stop down, but 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Out of 790 photos shot at a wedding today, 190 of them were with the 90mm f/2. I am definitely buying one of these things. im the guy rope going through the lady's head 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:I'm going to Hawaii for the first time in September for a wedding (for one of the days), and probably going to be somewhat touristy the rest. I have the Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 and a 16-35 f/4 lenses, and an a7S body. 16mm is already pretty wide, do you mean the 24-70? IMO way too many people fixate on going wide for landscapes, it can be really tough to fill the frame with such a huge POV. A telephoto lets you pick out interesting features and make a composition around them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Lhet posted:Stumbled across this; I guess it's a mirrorless. (Olympus Air A01) Sony did it first 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I could see a drone rigged out with something like one of those, but maybe they don't have the operational range to be useful for that purpose. I was thinking about that myself, but I couldn't find anything in reviews about its effective range.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
I'm hoping at some point in the future I can snag a cheap Nikon 1 AW to have as a beater for motorcycle touring. It was really nice to have a crappy 35mm camera on a Blackrapid slung over my shoulder so I could stop and snap pics without having to dig something out/take off gloves.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
sony a7
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:With the holidays coming up, I'm seriously considering snagging the SP-2 Instax printer for parties and family get-togethers. I realize that this isn't exclusively a mirrorless or Fujifilm thing since it has iOS and Android apps too, but I figured I'd be most likely to get impressions here. I might cross-post in the general thread too just in case. Either way, does anyone have an Instax printer and have any impressions? I like the idea of the rechargeable battery in the SP-2 more than anything over the SP-1, which apparently had difficult to find batteries. Alternatively, I like Zack Arias' system of just using a generic USB power pack with the SP-1. Not the Instax, but a few years ago I had the Dell Wasabi (which was a rebranded Polaroid or something), which printed little business card sized photos you could peel the back off of and stick on something. It wasn't wireless; you had to use the camera's direct print feature to print over micro USB. Quality obviously not incredible, but perfectly fine for what it was. I took it to a hipster bicycle race with my 5D and it was a *massive* hit. F you Dpreview, always bagging on Canon's direct print button.  I'd buy another one to do the same thing with my Sony gear, but I'd have to go through my phone, which is too much hassle.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2016 23:50
|
|