Because the f5.6 is literally them taking a lens design from the 60s and marketing it as having "character". It has a much smaller target audience than the modern 28mm Elmarit-M, so I guess you could justify the greater price with a smaller production run. You could probably get the M39 version of the Summaron for cheaper and adapt it to M-mount instead though. Leica's products really should just be regarded as camera-shaped fashion accessories for the very wealthy.
I've been carrying around the RII every chance I get and I like it a lot. It takes a bit to get used to but I've been fine lately.
Some of the greatest photographers in history have used Leica cameras and still swear by them, though.
Yeah I'm just gonna rip off the bandaid and have fun with it. I'll shoot for the 24-105 and 100-400 and spend way too much money this year as usual ;-)
$2400 even, apparently they went for a little lower in the last few months but back up for the holidays I guess. Still beats retail and tax.
I got my start on bridge cameras. I haven't been impressed or cared for one in years. The only reason I think I'd even get one is if I went to a concert and had to have a camera on me that the venue would allow me to even bring. On day to day use, it's some thing I cannot see myself ever picking up. These days they're not bad for video work if you want an all in one device.
I've been fine on Ebay, just know what you're buying. Other times I've been really lucky at B&H on sales.
Who knows. I will try to keep my Fuji stuff at least, it's really good for video work...though so are the Sony's. I guess if I want something smaller they should still have a use.
At least it's out of your hair now lol. Enjoy the eventual A7RII, if that's possible this time before you put that on Fred Miranda to finance another X-H1 unless that lasts long enough for the X-H2 to release. Anybody here know if I should ever get the Sony 70-200F4? It's pretty affordable, but I know I do enough low light stuff to warrant the 2.8 lens, which I intend to get when I get my vacation time check god willing. It would just be a stop gap.
Considering that I've been reducing contrast I think I'd still want something that still has some level of native contrast. My current editing style is a bit extensive, but it's been a lot more pleasing to the eye I would think. I definitely have a saved search for the 70-200GM on Ebay though because that's definitely a lens that would allow me to put the A7R2 to immediate work. Also yeah unless Fuji throws as much modern tech as humanly possible into the X-H2 it's just going to be old when it comes out, which would give it a very Canon-esque problem. The X-T3 is the hot camera now for crop sensor, who knows what going to happen 18 months from now though. They'd pretty much have the A7SIII to compete with, which is a legit problem I would not want to have as a camera competitor. After using the A7RII for a bit I like it so I can safely say I'll be in this ecosystem going forward. I'm not immediately making my trade ins or anything but the Sony system has a lot of potential.
You have a choice between the 23 1.4 and the 23F2. I prefer the 23 1.4 personally.
Keep the D750 and trade in the D7100. I traded in my D7100 for an X-T2 and had no regrets. The buffer, fps, high iso and overall lens selection are better for Fuji than the D7100 even though yes what you use on the D750 will carry over. Also the Fuji will do video a thousand times better than on the Nikons. Trust me on this one I have used both for video and vastly prefer doing video on Fuji's. Trade all of that DX gear in and keep the FX stuff unless you would prefer going mirrorless full frame as well and get some credit towards something like an A7RII while the discount is still going on. Also I apologize to everyone if I'm now also constantly suggesting Sony stuff, shooting on one of their cameras and liking it won me over.
True. This really just depends on what it is that you do. There are lighting conditions that I wouldn't bring my Fuji's into just like there are room sizes I wouldn't bring my full frame nikons into. I wouldn't do video on my nikons either at this point and I do nothing but shoot 1080p and 24fps. I can shoot portraits on all of my cameras, but I'm starting to not enjoy it as much on my D810 for example just because of AF point coverage, I can do it yes, but if you're leaning up against a rock the last thing you want to do is reposition yourself on that rock 5 time because you still can't get your AF point on her eye because everything is center clustered. I wouldn't exactly recommend them for a random blind buy but if a person has been doing photography for a bit and knows what they do and don't like about both formats and see it as a positive enough change for what they do then yeah I'd recommend Sony FF mirror less I used to not be into mirror less and now own 3 of them.
My problem with the camera is how slow it is to zoom in and out. I think the photos look great from it, I don't have any issue with image quality from the 1" sensors or even the smaller ones used in some of the Panasonic models like the FZ300 etc.
Yeah, that is fast for a power zoom, but not compared to using a slr. It is also draining the battery to do it. Wildlife and birds especially are gone in an instant .It's fine for stationary subjects.
More than twice as much as the ancient Canon version that is optically superior lol. Oh Sony, it's just sad. I would never recommend the Sony F4 having read as much as I have. https://admiringlight.com/blog/sony-fe-70-200mm-f4-g-oss-vs-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4l/
Untitled by Scott Tucker, on Flickr
Why am I getting the feeling that I'd be better off adapting the Canon 2.8 70-200LII lens instead of getting the Sony GM. I don't have an adapter, but that option is probably better and cheaper than Sony's if what you say about the F4 and what Lensrentals has said about the GM is true. I'm really trying not to adapt stuff and gimp the AF if I have to, but if it's better and cheaper then why not?More than twice as much as the ancient Canon version that is optically superior lol. Oh Sony, it's just sad. I would never recommend the Sony F4 having read as much as I have. https://admiringlight.com/blog/sony-fe-70-200mm-f4-g-oss-vs-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4l/
The Canon F4 is the perfect lens for outdoor use IMO. Fast and light, and still delicious bokeh at 200mm/f4. (ignore that I missed face focus, ID-10T error, not the lens)
Wanna know a secret? I'm only using the A7R3 as a stopgap till Canon puts out a solid R offering ;-)
Have fun waiting 5 years for Canon to release a modern camera. Granted my Sony stuff is sort of a stop gap for Nikon to get it's head out of its ass as well. If the Nikon to Sony adapter wasn't such shit I'd just adapt all of my damn Nikon glass.
I think it'll be closer to 3 years personally but we'll see. I have a strong feeling the R is intentionally gimped to protect the "5D" professional line, and we'll likely see a true mirrorless 5D V sooner than later.
So it'll take till 2021 for Canon to not make a POS mirrorless camera? No wonder why I don't like Canon and didn't feel like waiting for Nikon to release a better camera. There's also the fact that I'm an event photographer so I might be better off just going with the Native Sony. Granted my Nikons are my event cameras, but shit still happens and I don't want to deal with adapter hiccups during a shoot of any sort.
There's an argument that the A73 would be a much better event camera for a multitude of reasons...if the 7R2 works out, and you go native, I'd probably move that direction. No need for 42mp event photos, like ever.
I run two bodies and I actually do like the image quality from that sensor...the D810 is one of my event bodies, I honestly just use the higher MP body as my lesser used 2.8 24-70 and flash body to try to get around that issue. Usually with an event the D4 (the 2.8 70-200 body) gets probably twice as many shots as my D810. The A7R2 or RIII would be my corporate headshot body because I do not shoot head shots for the most part on my D4 just due to cropping and such. Actually the only higher MP body that's used as the 70-200 lens is my X-T3 because it's a lot snappier and with better AF coverage than my X-T2. Also yeah I do like the A7RII, if I didn't I wouldn't pick it up and use. It's doesn't feel like a torture test to use...granted at some point I need to put something bigger than this 50 on there and include the grip so this still is sort of a long term review in progress. Though to be honest I can already tell I'd like the third gen bodies a lot more since the grips for those already have a joystick built in. Also I'm just running the camera with Compressed raws, which I think are in the 48mb range or something, it's pretty much on par with what I get out of my D810 with lossless compressed raws. Now if I was dumb enough to uncompress these things it would be a different story. Ok so I just checked and my Central Park raws on my A7RII cap out at 44mb and one of my last events on my D810 has raws at 50mb, though this does depend on iso number and such and the information in the file. I've been shooting events on my D810 over the last almost 2 years so the file sizes are something that I'm actually quite used to dealing with at this point.
Yes it is pretty cool to see. It's actually a smarter decision than buying a Z7 for example. I prefer the GFX50S just based on grip size and body, but I wouldn't toss out an R for example. If medium format was more versatile I'd definitely get one, but it's mostly just a portrait, landscape and product photography thing. That would just be hyper overkill for my event work (no corporate event my job does is worth that kind of image quality).
More than twice as much as the ancient Canon version that is optically superior lol. Oh Sony, it's just sad. I would never recommend the Sony F4 having read as much as I have. https://admiringlight.com/blog/sony-fe-70-200mm-f4-g-oss-vs-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4l/
The Canon F4 is the perfect lens for outdoor use IMO. Fast and light, and still delicious bokeh at 200mm/f4. (ignore that I missed face focus, ID-10T error, not the lens)
70-200f4 by isayldrm, on Flickr
Untitled by Alex Golovanov, on Flickr
Second looks pretty good. First one is also good considering is hampered a little by it being on an A6300. Second one has better color editing though.I don't know, man, the images I'm seeing in this group look plenty damn good. The bokeh looks similarly delicious to me.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2390700@N20/
Can you wait till next year? The A7III and RIII are probably more than enough, though I don't think the RIII does super slow mo or something.
