Interesting to know, I don't always shoot in daylight though. Like if I ever wanted to do an event with a 35, 85 and 135 I'd t least want the 135 to be quite accurate.
-
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.
[TR][TD]
Just bought some FujiFilm FP-100C that expired in late 2018. Let's see what I get. I'm still not sure what to even shoot yet 😮
[/TD][/TR]
Just bought some FujiFilm FP-100C that expired in late 2018. Let's see what I get. I'm still not sure what to even shoot yet 😮
[/TD][/TR]
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sigma-40mm-f-1-4-fe-lens-is-in-stock/
Come on Sigma. Stop slapping an adapter on your amazing Art lenses.
FE market is already huge
- -
Samyang AF 85 FE
649 Euro
Come on Sigma. Stop slapping an adapter on your amazing Art lenses.
FE market is already huge
- -
649 Euro
Last edited:
I don't see them developing separate lens designs for awhile. I think regardless of how this lens was going to be made it was going to be stupidly huge any way.https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sigma-40mm-f-1-4-fe-lens-is-in-stock/
Come on Sigma. Stop slapping an adapter on your amazing Art lenses.
FE market is already huge
- -
649 Euro
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sigma-40mm-f-1-4-fe-lens-is-in-stock/
Come on Sigma. Stop slapping an adapter on your amazing Art lenses.
FE market is already huge
- -
Samyang AF 85 FE
649 Euro
Man, I might have to start paying more attention to Samyang.
Spent the last couple of days fucking around doing dumb shit with some film. Hopefully it turns out. I've been pretty uninspired with my standard fare as of late, so I'm just trying some fun and creative things.
IMO those very bright Voigtlander lens are kind of poor quality. Have you already bought it?
Had the 50mm 1.1 and didn't like it at all. Maybe the 40mm one is better?
Small annoyance of me as an engineer: why do we even call apertures "fast". I know that it comes from being able to use fast shutter speeds, but it's so nondescriptive when put next to an aperture. Whoever came up with that naming must have made it so to confuse new people. Having to tell one lens is faster than the other just creates some weird reactions.
No, I am just looking into them, I love that build quality. Actually all the reviews point to the 40mm being really good. I do think the .95 MFT lenses are not great, just mainly because .95 lenses are just notoriously difficult to focus.
Correct.
Apertures aren't called fast, the lenses are. Apertures are just apertures, when people say fast aperture that's incorrect. There are plenty of counter intuitive naming conventions in engineering, AWG wire sizes for example, size decrease as the numbering increases, size 0 is the largest.
Yeah I'm talking specifically about the
yes and apertures are sometimes referred to slow and fast although a better descriptor is wide/narrow (shooting wide open)
I feel most of those are American inventions, many ISO standards are pretty clear and IEC wireguide is just mm^2 so it can't be more clear.
But I've seen plenty of references to fast aperture in itself. Maybe also because for a lens to be fast it needs a wide aperture.
A few months back I asked for some advice for a first camera and was recommmended the XT2/20 cameras. I had a few unexpected expenses but plan to buy a camera in the near future as previously mentioned, but with the release of XT3/30 and some newer Sony stuff, I wonder if these are still solid recommendations? It seems like used and closeout prices of the previous models might offer better bang for my buck?
I have no dreams of doing any professional or event work, strictly hobbyist, and would likely stick to Maine landscapes and street photography. If possible staying under $1k is where I'd like to stay.
I have no dreams of doing any professional or event work, strictly hobbyist, and would likely stick to Maine landscapes and street photography. If possible staying under $1k is where I'd like to stay.
I use an A7iii most of the time but I still own and love my X-T20. It's an amazing performer and insanely portable.
To an extent but I have an f1.7 20mm and an f1.7 25mm and the 25 is noticeably faster. Sure manual focus they are the same but slower older motors on the 20mm the af shot time is significantly worse. And if you are mfing you've already slowed down your shots so much it's not really a valid point. So it's possible to have the same sub f stop on 2 lenses but because of lens design one of those really might not be very fast.
The 20 is a bit sharper and more compact so I still prefer it over the 25 typically.
Typically fast in regard to lenses isn't the AF speed, though of course you could use the AF speed to describe the lens as fast or slow. Fast = you could get away with a fast shutter speed to stop motion in low light due to the big opening. Therefore, fast lenses are those that can open big. You are talking about the 20mm MFT pancake lens by the way, I love that lens. In Penang I slipped on the beach and it went under water, and in Galveston I slipped on the rocks and it got banged up against those rocks.....still works like a charm.
Yeah I believe it was planned as a Leica lens originally so it makes sense it's top notch. A great bargain.
And right, I'm just saying a lens that on paper is a "fast" lens might not actually be that fast in most use cases depending on it's mechanics. But yeah even a lens with old af motors is fast in the traditional sense stopped wide open for lower light work.
Last edited:
Tool the X-T2 out again on the weekend. While it still has lovely iq, you really get used to the flexibility of the files from the A7R3...
This is exactly why I don't use my X-T3 that much over my A7R2. The Fuji's are great for street photography just due to how easy it is to change settings on the fly and the AF joystick, but the Sony spits out a much easier to edit file.
As soon as someone can find a way to stick an EXIF chip on a manual lens for Fuji, I'll go all out and install that and mod my Mitakon 35 to have a clicked aperture.
Or maybe I'll just do the aperture anyway, who knows.
Or maybe I'll just do the aperture anyway, who knows.
I think I've had the A7R3 long enough at this point to say 2 things definitively, in terms of my experience between Fuji and Sony...
1) Shooting on the Sony is miserable. I feel like I can't see the entire EVF because of the small/close to the body eyecup and I feel like half the time I'm shooting blind and hoping for good results. Fuji felt like I was in total creative control with the physical dials and amazing EVF/deep eyecup on the H1.
2) Fuji files can't hold any sort of candle to the Sony files. In fact, no files that I've seen yet can hold a candle to Sony files. ARWs are raw putty in the hands, incredible dynamic range, incredible recoverability, and the 42mp lets you crop so deeply without major quality loss. ARWs are pure bliss to edit, even if they take a little more time to edit, because the possibilities of what you can do to them is so much greater than any other brand I've worked with. The fact that Lightroom plays very nicely with ARWs is a huge win for me as well vs Fuji.
Point 2 alone is enough to keep me in the Sony camp for now. I just wish the actual photo creation portion of shooting Sony was a better experience.
A side note...did a single (very dim) light source, pitch dark room photo set at ISO 12800 (intentionally) and the results are AMAZING. Fuji just can't do it. That's what I love most about the Sony, the raw hardware opens up new, exciting opportunities for photos I can't get from other brands even if the actual shooting isn't all that fun.
After shooting on a Sony for a weekend, I think your pt one is not that bad, but I do wish the EVF was slightly better although it seems better than the xpro one, just got to get used to the dslr design again
I think for me Fuji is better for street photography and oddly video and it's Sony everything else. I can easily shoot pretty well with either, but the ease of settings changes a bit makes Fuji more enjoyable to do street photography with. I'd be fine with Sony if the thing had a bloody AF joystick.
You'll probably get used to it in about a month if you're anything like me or I've just used way too many cameras in a three year and adapt quickly-ish.
As a person who doesn't necessarily enjoy editing, Fuji lets me make the photo I want in camera, which is pretty sweet.
I actually find some of the editing a bit fun...within reason.
yeah it wasnt too bad, I am still fiddling on custom buttons to the way I need and is not much different than rotating dials at that pt and never touching the menus very often
I don't mind doing color correction, aspect ratio adjustments, and rebalancing exposures, but I find it much easier if I have a great starting point from an imagery perspective. Shooting in the dark is cool and all, but I don't find that as fun as actually enjoying the Jpeg filters (even if I just apply them in Lightroom and edit from there)
Yeah Fn button everything that you find important. I did that and I only really have to hit the menu to format my memory card at this point. It'll take a bit to figure out how you want it best, but I think I'm at the point where I'm comfortable with my settings. Since I'm sure you have an A7III you don't have to even worry about figuring out a comfortable way for AF point selection like I did.
I usually kind of have a decent idea at this point, unless I'm going to experiment a little, which usually looks weird for a bit until I settle on a style that's not bombastic and annoying color wise.
I totally get this, and if you're the kind of person that is fine with Fuji JPEGs, I'd rec a Fuji in a heartbeat.
I was finding with Fuji, however, that the Provia JPEGs tended to blow my highlights (to the point of no recovery), so I was having to shoot RAW and do full edits anyways, and at that point, why not just work with better RAW files?
I pretty much edit and then add on a jpeg sim these days, though a lot of them just tend to blow out highlights so for a landscape shooter I'd stay away from them.
This is me. For me, the Fuji just makes me wanna go out there and shoot, it made me fall back in love with photography all over again. As a creative person (with an engineering background) that has many interests and doesn't wanna get bogged down into details, the Fuji ecosystem is a godsend. I could see tinkering around with RAW and RAW for archival purposes, but the reduction of effort and time, plus the film simulations enable me to concentrate on being more creative in actual life. That's why I can see why even many pros just moved onto Fuji and out of camera jpegs (the files are huge, more than high quality enough for weddings, magazines, posters). At the end of the day even RAW manipulations doesn't get you near Acros or Astia/Velvia.
I have a LR plugin that reads the Fuji EXIF data for the film sim that was used, and then it applies that (I can't personally see any difference between the native in camera Film sims and LR's 'approximation'), and then I'm good to make any exposure adjustments I want, while still keeping the film sim 'intact'. That gives me full RAW quality and editing ability with JPG film sim look, and I only spend maybe 30 seconds on a given photo.
That being said, I haven't had much time to go shoot, living in Indiana can be limiting at times. &_&
Try this plugin, it's amazing, and you get the best of both worlds.
http://lightroomsolutions.com/jb-xlr/
That being said, I haven't had much time to go shoot, living in Indiana can be limiting at times. &_&
Try this plugin, it's amazing, and you get the best of both worlds.
http://lightroomsolutions.com/jb-xlr/
I guess. Lightroom already allows you to just pick a fuji sim from a dropdown, looks like the only step this removes is having to actually pick it? And it should be stated the LR version of the film sim doesn't give you the same exact results as letting the camera do the conversion.
It's not the exact same, but I tried pixel peeping a few shots and I couldn't find any real difference.
The main thing it does is yeah, automatically reading the EXIF data and automating it. It's a small difference, but one that adds up *real* quick on batches.
My workflow right now is:
Import photos -> Select all photos, run through X-LR -> While that runs, use EXIFtool to assign lens data to each group of photos -> Pick keeper photos -> After that it's just a few seconds of adjusting exposures, occassionally colors, and then export to Flickr after tagging appropriately.
I pretty much sort, pick what I want to be B&W and color each get a different star number, edit a pic, copy over the settings and adjust from there as need be, then export. If I have to I break it down by lens and sort that way. Editing really isn't that much of a time sink. Granted I have no real life so I can get a bit granular and detailed if I want. Sometimes I'll break up the sorting and editing into two days if I want to not get exhausted or burned out by it.
Yeah I was reading that thread. I hope at some point I can get one used after someone buys it after the hype figures out that focal length isn't for them and I can get a deal on it. 135mm is not for everybody.
That's the price it should've debuted at and it's still worse than an A7R2. Sony should really just use the A7R2 to combat whatever price drops Canon or Nikon do on their cameras and should just run the slogan "better than an EOS R and Z7" in bold fucking letters.