-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
When you start hitting all in ones it really turns into you need another lens that overlaps on the longer end to actually compensate for the amount of image drop off that you're going to get so either way she's going to need more than one lens. She can get one she wants, but we're telling you the downside of said lens. Not to mention the amount of light fall off at the long end is fucking preposterous, it's even a stop slower than the 100-400 maxed out, but with almost half the range. The lens is probably good optically up to around 180mm (tops) I'm going to assume till the image softens up considerably. This becomes matter of she should look through what she actually shoots to know if she's really going to need 240mm a soft 240mm at that.
Oh I get it and I appreciate the advice but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to convince her. This is probably something she'll have to experience for herself even if it costs us more money in the long run. Or she might be really happy with it. I plan on spending a lot of time researching lenses and options. I'll let her know what they are and she can choose what she think will meet her needs and make her happy cuz her being satisfied and happy is what I want the most.
If you can rent that lens first, I honestly really don't like a lot of variable aperture lenses unless it's something that's a pro grade wildlife lens, which I'd never buy since I don't shoot wildlife. Something like a 24-105 and a 70-300 would cover a lot of ground for her and the 70-300 isn't that big of a lens.
Renting the lens first is probably a really great idea. Between weight, price, desires, real life uses there is great deal to balance out. With the first big test of these cameras not coming until June (Sequoia, King's Canyon Nat'l Parks) we have a bunch of time to get it right.
Last edited:
Jelly. No shame in renting, I rent a lens for pretty much every national park trip. Trying to shoehorn all your shooting into one lens, and a slow one at that, especially on a trip like that is a folly, though.
Cannot wait to see the big trees!
It's really my fault for showing her that all in ones exist in the first place. Ignorance would have been bliss in this situation but I got overly excited about getting a new camera and all the options that I just had to share with her.
All in ones exist, but optically they're dogshit. I know someone that's constantly bitching at me over his Tamron 18-300 that he uses to cover events with...his pics...they're suboptimal. If the trip is as good as it sounds get something that's really good and probably rent a good gap filler and be done with it.
Pretty much if they want to do it on the cheap they should start off with the 16-35 Zeiss?
Until you're walking along and you desperately need to photograph that chipmunk's eyelashes that's in a tree 7 miles away. <----Real life story
With shit like that no lens will save you. I have a 70-200...more or less 3 actually, 200mm isn't as much zoom as it sounds like for wildlife, it helps, but I'd still rather have a good lens.
That's a good way to go. The 24-105 is a great all rounder that I would be into if I didn't do indoor event photography. I use flash, but not all the time.
Why do you think I have a 100-400, brah? Chippers are life.
A bad lens can really hamper someone's enjoyment of a good camera. I didn't even like my Fuji X-T2 until I got a lens I liked for it. I'm trying to avoid something like that where the user thinks it's the cameras fault and not the lens. "Don't expect Instagram quality from it" isn't exactly something I'd slap on the box as an endorsement of said product.
I'm operating under the assumption that she's not crap. If she is it doesn't matter what she gets and she'll be unhappy no matter what she gets.
I've been using a Sony A58 for video for about four years now. I love it to death, but am looking for something with more kick, and better low light capabilities.
I have an array of A Mount lenses (especially those cheap vtg. Minoltas - hell yes) which I adore using... is the Sony A 77ii pretty much the cream of the crop for native A Mount? I have no interest in switching to E mount. Heard rumors of an A77iii down the road also... can't afford that.
I have an array of A Mount lenses (especially those cheap vtg. Minoltas - hell yes) which I adore using... is the Sony A 77ii pretty much the cream of the crop for native A Mount? I have no interest in switching to E mount. Heard rumors of an A77iii down the road also... can't afford that.
That's a lens you buy used. I get the concept of a walk around lens fully, but there's no such thing as a "do everything" lens, I don't look at those unless it excels at at specific niche so to speak. I think my vacation combo...would actually just be my Fuji set up or the 24-105 and a fast 35, I would think the 70-200GM would scream "mug me" as an obvious tourist.
I love my Helios but I enjoyed using it more on my Fuji. The X-H1 gave it an 85mm/2.8ish quality with great IBIS. I don't use it all that often anymore on my Sony. Plus it looked dope as hell paired with the Fuji aesthetics.
I totally agree with you, do everything lenses are never great. I have been ok with the 24 - 70 and 70 to 300 range lenses previously, but even then one was a pro grade lens from Canon, the other was consumer zoom which happened to be a damn good example. I'm saying if her heart is set on it, it may be best for her to find out on her own.
I was intrigued...but ended up buying a Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.4.....well I guess I'll find out how it is. There aren't decent wide enough vintage lenses for my taste (unless I get lucky with a decently priced Leica down the line), so the eq 70 to 100 mm range makes more sense to me.I love my Helios but I enjoyed using it more on my Fuji. The X-H1 gave it an 85mm/2.8ish quality with great IBIS. I don't use it all that often anymore on my Sony. Plus it looked dope as hell paired with the Fuji aesthetics.
I'm quite skeptical that there even will be an A77 3 in the future. Most people think Sony has abandoned the mount. So yes, the best option for a new A-mount body is the 77 ii.
I've done most of my learning already so I try not to flush my money down the toilet, everybody has to go through that phase I guess, but if it suits her needs then more power to her.
Say it's about girth, not length.
But really, rather have a one more tailored telelens that can do want you try to achieve than one size fits all that actually fits nothing you want to do.
First rule of event photography is to take your shit before the event starts...it's important ;)
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63195258/jbareham_190221_3239_0010.0.jpg)
Here are some sample images: https://lightroom.adobe.com/shares/ac2605f3d4364ad9b969ff0c265b9099
Looks decent enough but nothing I can't produce on my R3 honestly. Maybe in the hands of a better photographer I'd be more impressed.
Yeah...I was eyeing the Q1 or the Sony RX1r 2 a few years ago. I may as well eventually get the Q2 or the next iteration of the RX1r...both of these cameras are lovely.
It's weird that $5,000 seems almost reasonable for the camera coming from Leica. Why such a good deal relative to their ILC bodies and lenses? Is the lens a dramatically reduced quality or something?
I would assume it's much easier to design an integrated camera and lens and they also can estimate high demand based on previous sales, as opposed to a new system containing multiple bodies, lenses that can work together. I wouldn't assume the optics would be inferior.
The original Q was also a good deal. Would be weird for it to be dramatically more expensive. The lens looks like it's the same 28mm Summilux which alone costs $2k except now comes with autofocus.
The dream is a Q that you can change lenses that has autofocus but I don't know if that's even possible.
The only $2k 28mm Leica lens I can find is a manual focus f/2.8. The Summilux f/1.4 (also manual focus) is like $7k. Seems like the Q2's lens having autofocus at all is a rare thing for Leica lenses.
Damn, there you go! Yeah. M lenses are all manual focus only which is why they are so compact while being glorious optically.
The SL lenses that have autofocus are all huuuuge, unfortunately. :(
Last edited:
I'm starting to see Fuji as great street photo and great video cameras. Just due to the crop sensor and their iso handling I can't see them as event photography cameras. An X-Pro 3 will be a great camera just something I wouldn't use for my bread and butter work unless I'm using a heavy amount of flash or outdoors.
5k for a camera that I can't shoot a corporate event with, pass.
It's going to be a VERY crowded space and they have carved out their niche already. Their main competitor in that niche, Panasonic, is abandoning it as well, so why would Oly do anything different? You've seen the size of the L mount glass, that's not Oly's bag.
Considering the xpro2 was 2 sensors behind, I assume it will have the xt3 sensor, I don't see how they have something new iq wise there.
Should have been clearer I meant M-mount lenses like the Summilux. Also the S1R body is already much larger and heavier than the Q.
I thought the X-Pro 2 had the X-T2 sensor so it's not two sensor old, it's just the rangefinder X-T2. The processor I believe is the older one if I'm not mistaken or at least more limited than the X-T2 sensor.
You want to see Olympus go bankrupt? Because that's how you go bankrupt.
I want a new version of the XE3. An XE4 with the updated sensor and weather sealing would be lovely.
That's a body that's not in the price structure category to get weather sealing, it's a consumer grade X-Pro. The corporations don't really care what you want and just stupidly tier everything. I'd want an A7RIII with the electronic shutter capabilities of the A9 or a Nikon D4 with the resolution of the D810 or a D810 with the speed of the D4, but they don't exist...though the A7RIII comes close to that last one.