DSCF1067E2 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1090 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1105 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1116 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1121 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1165 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1172 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1216 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1220 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1370 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1469 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1514 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1594 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1633 by TIKI, on Flickr
DSCF1654 by TIKI, on Flickr
I think that is a brand new body is what makes the price interesting, I understand you can get something older, but this can push other brands, and I am not sure where it leaves Fuji, the xpro2 new price was close to 2k.
And holy SHIT, the 70-200 RF size is just bonkers. This is easily the most exciting prospect of the RF lens lineup. It's f/2.8! HOW?!
If the patent is read a certain way, it actually may be a bit longer than the EF version once it's fully extended.
I'm curious, where was your little needle with that $2150 offer? $2150 is right dead in the middle for the 100-400.
Fine you talked me into it...put in an offer for 2050 ;-P
It probably shares the same sensor but that's about it. Even if that were true an S1R and 28mm Summilux (that would be manual focus only) costs more than just getting a Leica Q2.
2.8 is f4 equiv for bokeh. Pass. If you want 16 just get the 1.4 which is widely regarded as one of the best X lenses period.
What happens if you don't want to shoot wide open? For street/travel photography and landscape, the 16mm f2.8 is a very enticing proposition. It's tiny, weather sealed, reportedly has fast AF, and the sample images look very good. It's also half the price.
Well Tonza brought up shooting the 23 wide open, not me.
That's a bit wide for street, 35mm equivalent is the classic street. I took all my shots (in Thailand and Bangladesh) with the 23mm f/2 and find it to be an excellent street and landscape lens, as well as a portrait lens. It's the perfect travel combo really. If you want a wide...I think the 12mm f/2.8 (Zeiss) or the 14mm f/2.8 (Fuji) are better options for dramatic landscapes. The Zeiss is probably my next lens.
Well, that's really a matter of preference, I find the 35mm length a bit dull, and most importantly I can get a very similar look with a 50mm length. 24mm is a "dramatic wide but not too wide" focal length that is perfectly adequate for many use cases.
Of course it's a matter of preference. But 35mm is quite different than 50mm though, I can't agree there.
I was talking about my experience with my style, and not about general precepts. I find 35mm to be too long for the use I would give a wide lens. And for a normal lens, I find 50mm ideal. So a lot of the time when shooting with a 35mm I'll end up thinking the same way I'd think shooting with a 50mm. I'd rather have a 28 or a 24 for wider shots, and crop a bit if necessary
Fair enough. For me, 24 is too wide for street/general travel/portraits and 50 is way too tight for general travel. I honestly only use 35 when I'm walking around a city just because it's so versatile indoors and out. Landscape is almost always around 24mm or wider.
In a studio setting, seth is probably 20-30ft away from that camera which helps a lot. If you can shoot in 4K and crop into 1080 in post with your desired framing, maybe do that?Hi all, does anyone know how to get a shot like this?
See how Seth is on the right, while the picture is on the left? And at the same time it looks like he's looking straight at you? I've been trying to get this done, but I can't seem to. I'm recording on my phone on a tripod, and I'll sit off to the side. However, when I play back the recording, it looks like I'm looking somewhere else even when I'm looking directly into my phone's camera lens.
The only thing I've been able to do is having to sit directly across from my phone's camera lens, but then in the footage, I'm directly in the middle. Anyone know how to pull this off?
I wasn't suggesting that as a fix, I was saying it basically solves their problem. 4K with a crop afterwards is probably your best bet if possible.
