Yeah that makes sense. Certain things I just don't care about, like 4K. I don't like video editing or sending large files so that's probably never going to be a selling point for me unless I was actually a freelance videographer. I do it for work, but video work isn't exactly a super passion of mine.
That's about it. Every organization I deal with uses jpegs and 4gb cards.
I don't keep them, I don't have to look at them, I don't have to edit them so for the most part I really don't care. I get paid to shoot what they tell me to shoot the way they tell me to shoot and that's it. I'm very very detached from that stuff.
Yes. I don't mind him but at times some of what he says isn't applicable to a working or experienced photographer.
It's not bad at all, just depends on the size of the glass you'll have hanging off the front end of it. Any of the 2.8 zooms? Get the XT-2. Any of the smaller F2 primes, which is what it's designed for or the kit lens? You're fine.
I honestly don't even use the jpegs out of my XT2 anymore. I just shoot in negative pro standard so I can get raws that actually make some sense and edit to taste from there. I used to use Vivid but you don't exactly get an accurate approximation of what shit looks like and you'll get raws that might be too under exposed. If I have to I'll apply the film simulation in post but I mostly just use one of the B&W ones if i want to.
Huh? Shouldn't RAW just be the sensor data exposured? Film mode shouldn't make any difference? Maybe I don't get it right.
Pretty much it gives you the read out based on what your settings are. I was under exposing a lot while I was shooting under the color profile of vivid, Neg Pro Standard is just more accurate to reality than something like Vivid which exaggerates things. I think it's something you'll notice more if you work more with raws and ignore the jpegs.
No. When you're looking through the evf with Vivid and Negative pro standard they don't look the same and if you compensate to change something they'll look differently. If you're adjusting based on what your eye sees and not light meter settings you'll flub a couple of things like under expose your raws or be too dark in your shadows. Surely I cannot be the only person to come to this conclusion. Vivid isn't a true to life simulation. Neg Pro Standard is less exaggerated. If you're correcting an exaggeration the non exaggerated raw will suffer a bit. If you're not bothering to look at the raw file you wouldn't even notice.
Yeah I do tend to prefer OVF myself, but at the very least I use both dslr and mirrorless enough not to really be bothered by the switches. It's becoming mostly a matter of finding a baseline and just paying attention to everything. Now when you're doing studio light and flash work EVF don't help anything. You can't really predict what you're going to get till you take the pic and then just work your way into a good picture from there.
I will admit that the evf is a bit "dark" on the XT2. If I follow the light meter it just looks under exposed, though that might be more accurate. I have gotten used to it though. Luckily I can post well.
Long story short technology doesn't override skill and experience.
Tech helps, it's not supposed to be a crutch. If said piece of tech decides to go weird would you be able to compensate for it. That's my line of thought.
No because I wouldn't be able to do shit. I like a good balance of tech and skill. You could bring a camera with all the tech you want to a photo shoot, but if you don't know jack about lighting and angles you're fucked. It's the obtrusive level of tech that gets in the way that I don't like. It's the reason why I turn off face detection and eye detect. Do I like EVF's? Yes. Would I be shit out of luck if I had a camera without and EVF? No, I'd be perfectly fine. I like tech that accentuates the photographer and not something that's kind of there to override the skill of the photographer.
No I don't consider AF that much of a crutch because I'm honestly shit at manual focusing. Though with regards to face detect I see a lot of people on youtube just using face detect in portrait sessions and just holding down the shutter a lot, it's not 100% accurate. Though I have admitted several times to being weirded out by several things that run counter intuitive to how I shoot.
I don't hate the EVF. I just find it weird when a photographer considers it impossible to use anything but. Do I like the one I have on my XT2? Yes would I drop my Nikon system because there isn't one? No. I can get results with both. Don't get me wrong. I like tech. I like it a lot, I think I just have a really bad habit of trying to have a discussion with people on here regarding why they need such and such specific tech. I was once a straight up noob regarding photography at one point and learned without all of the stuff some of the people here have at their disposal. So I'm just trying to figure out why such and such tech is integral to their experience. Some prefer flippy screens, I just usually tend to prefer getting down in the muck to get said shot...unless the muck is horse shit.
If you already have Canon lenses then get a 70D. I do not like Rebel or any of the econo line cameras. If it's your second camera then just step up to something that isn't built like a toy.
