and sours. Pilsners, saisons, kolshs and uk style malts/bitters are the best.
-
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.
So would it be worth it to grab the extra 35mm prime with the XT-30, 18-55 Kit? It only adds an extra hundred bucks but I wasn't sure if I could pretty much just do the same stuff with the 18-55 alone. I just want a small, easy to use camera that will last me a while. Probably some street photography and occasional landscapes. Thanks for any pointers, this thread already kinda led me to the Fuji ecosystem.
I do a lot of my street photography on the 23 1.4 and 90F2, that kit lens...is a lens, the 35F2 is good as well if you want a nicer, tighter field of vision that's better in low light than the kit lens.
From my reading and research, that kit will cover 80% to 90% of what the pro grade zoom will do, and at daylight with f/4 and above, no one would be able to tell the difference. Moreover, internal static shots would be better/steady due to the OIS. Now that's just to say that's a great lens and you should be covered. It'll cover the 23mm and 35mm primes, unless you need that 1 - 1.5 stop of opening, keeping in mind those ranges aren't really the best to isolate subjects and blur the backgrounds anyway. Essentially, your next lens should be either a wide prime like the 16mm f/2.8 or f/1.4 or a longer zoom/prime (50 - 150 f/2.8 or the 90mm f/2), based on your style of photography.
I have done actual legit work with the 16-55, it serves a purpose and I like it way more than the 18-55. If you're doing nothing more than landscape work then the kit lens is fine, if you're doing an indoor event then you get the 16-55, also good for video work as well. For portraiture, if you're a studio photographer than the kit lens is fine, if you do natural light work then get the 16-55. I don't really like a lot of my street portraits with the kit lens.
These are both pretty helpful. I'll sit on it for a few days before I put down the cash, but maybe I'll just run with the 18-55 and put the leftover money towards a bag or monopod. Initially I thought about just doing the 14-45 kit, but almost everywhere said the 18-55mm was just all around a better lens. Perhaps in 4 or 5 months, depending on how much I use the camera, I may get a better lens to match what I find myself taking photos of. I definitely won't be doing anything professional.
Don't touch that 14-45...I've had a good amount of cameras and I actually get a lot of enjoyment out of shooting primes because it teaches you to bone down, get creative and get more into your shooting, it's bit "interactive" having the benefits of a wider aperture help as well. I own more primes than zooms actually, I have 3 35mm's even after having zoom coverage for that focal length. Pretty much get the camera and kit lens, have fun with it and just start figuring out how and what you shoot and that's how you're going to make your lens buying decisions. I find 35's and 85's essential with something like a 135mm being something that you don't buy unless you really know how to work with it. My dad for example is very zoom focused and I find the amount of overlap he's got to be borderline fucking stupid, but we don't talk anymore and it's a whatever thing, but everybody has their own style and vision for this shit.
Yeah I'd test it out for a few weeks...I mean trust me, I have done pretty good research on this, and I get the allure of a pro grade 24 - 70 f/2.8 equivalent, and I had my share of that on Canon as an amateur. I loved my 17 - 55 f/2.8 stabilized lens on Canon APS-C, but it was a beast and yo, I wasn't shooting weddings indoors and getting paid for it.
Plus the Canikon kit zooms were/are really shitty. So there was no confidence in having those shitty kit zooms.
The first taste of a great kit zoom I had was the 14 45 Panny MFT kit zoom, it was cheap as shit, but sharp across the board. Just not fast. But for indoors, I would use a fast prime anyway. Still that stabilizer is very handy if you're taking shots inside a museum, church, mosque, whatever. This Fuji is like that Panny lens, but MUCH better. It'll actually do...I mean it's pretty fast, stabilized, light weight and very sharp. So unless you're doing gigs, it won't make much difference aside from having a pro lens as a point of pride, which I also understand. But I'd say buy the 40 - 150mm f/2.8 for that, which will get you all the creamy bokeh you want, it'll cover the other end, portrait to landscape.
The 90F2 and the 56 1.2 are the bokeh lenses not the 50-140, trust me I own all three. If he's not really making money or doing this for work then yeah kit lens, even if I didn't like it personally. The 2.8 zooms honestly are my least used lenses for street photography, I use them mostly for video work and events if I can get away with flash and even then I don't like the high iso on the Fuji's enough to use the 50-140, which is why I do most of my events on full frame. I use the 50-140 mostly for park photography, street fashion and that's probably about it. I'd honestly just use two primes on the two extreme ends and just stay away from zooms period, but that's just me. Probably a 16 1.4, 23 1.4 and either the 56 or 90 depending on what it is that you prefer and call it quits. Keep in mind that I find 50mm boring as a focal length, you can probably google my rants on this at this point.
Well his question is primarily one about overlap, and the 35mm f/2 would be redundant for either city or portraits (how much would that one extra stop allow that the kit zoom wouldn't?). He has the kit zoom, and is wondering whether to ALSO buy the prime. I prefer primes as well, but that's not the question. It all depends on the use case. In city I obviously just use the 23mm f/2, and I'll soon pair that with the 16mm f/1.4. But if I'm hiking in the Catskills, Bavarian Alps or the Grand Canyon, I'd carry the kit zoom for everything, and an ultra wide lens for dramatic landscapes. As for the 50 - 140, it's more than just a portrait lens, that 70 - 200 will get you portraits, landscapes and street depending on your skill set and experience. It all depends on his use case. I mean that's the progression I am looking at, obviously others may disagree.
I tend to not use 70-200's for my street photography these days. Unless I'm going to test around I use the 70-200's for park stuff, they do work well for landscape purposes. I do know what 70-200's are good for since I own 3 of these things, they're great all rounders and the compression that they allow you for portraits are great, I use them for event and head shot work. Regarding the kit zoom vs the 35. That one extra stop gets you more than you think if you're running around at night, plus the F2 lenses have great AF and are weather sealed are a lot better for portrait work since you can't even get the same amount of bokeh at the same focal length on the kit lens. Landscape, matters less, portrait work is something completely different. The F2 is at least dof wise a 2.8, the kit lens isn't that period, it's an F4-5.6 kit lens, that makes a difference. I probably haven't used the 35F2 so it's not really a lens that I'm passionate about fighting about, then again neither is the kit lens since when it came time for me to make some trade ins for my D4 that's what got traded in, don't even miss it since I kept my 16-55. They're both good starter lenses to use to train your eye a bit till you figure out what you like. I think long story short I'd rather trade stabilization for aperture considering I do a lot of people photography, that kit lens did nothing for me, there's also the matter that the 35F2 is sharper than the kit lens. Also regarding overlap, pretty much every prime and zoom shooter has some form of overlap somewhere unless they're using a football lens. My thing is not to buy a prime that shares the same aperture as one of my zooms, which is why I'm very picky about Fuji primes, I have 4 primes for a reason though I mainly use three because 50mm is just boring. I'm not buying the 16 2.8 for example because that's pretty much rolled into my 16-55. I'm most likely not getting the Zeiss Batis 135 2.8 either unless I fall into stupid money and want a lighter 135mm for street photography work.
But I mean he mentioned landscape and street which will require wide depth of field to begin with which would negate the purpose of a wide prime if he's covered within that range, unless he's out wondering around at night, which isn't a typical landscape or street use case. Or is he's taking close up portraits to blur the backgrounds...but he didn't mention that either. However if it's $100 only, I'd buy it, sell it and put that money towards the next lens.
I mean...you can do street photography at night unless I've been doing my street photography wrong over the last couple of years. If you're taking shots at people from the hip then yes drop it to 5.6 if not even more and don't even bother, but considering the fact that I'm stupid and aim through my EVF I just shoot as wide as need be and aim. There's more than one way to do this thing.
Lol, I edit either at home or at work and I edit while listening to music, especially in public.
So, 4 months using the 6D MK II, and the only thing I'm not really happy about it is the focus system. The focus points are too in the midle using the OVF and the liveview doesn't have eye AF, just face tracking. It makes really tiresome to get some good pictures with off-center subjects at wide apertures. (I mostly shoot portraits)
A change to another system is not in the cards right now. Selling this and getting an EOS RP would be an easy buy if only they had good eye AF, but right now is not worth it. This weekend I'll try to get into manual focus using the 10x zoom in liveview.
A change to another system is not in the cards right now. Selling this and getting an EOS RP would be an easy buy if only they had good eye AF, but right now is not worth it. This weekend I'll try to get into manual focus using the 10x zoom in liveview.
I mean just get a Canon adapter and go Sony then. I didn't like my D600 for portraits which has the same problem and frankly don't do portraits with my DSLR's anymore for this very reason. You could get an EOS R if you must stay Canon.
Center pt focus and recompose? is usually how i shoot regardless
Don't do this if you want good, reliable, non-centered AF.
Owning any 6D means you need to be good at focus and recompose. This means using back button focus is your friend and will greatly help you out.
Lol, I keep forgetting it's more ass than they advertise it to be. Focus and recompose was always not my thing.
Either way I don't have the money right now, so I have to wait until the end of the year or so to make a decision. I mentioned the EOS RP because it is cheaper than my camera and it would be just a matter of selling one and buying the other if it had what I want.
Sure, I do that sometimes but at wide apertures more often than not the eyes get slightly out of focus. It's also not good when people are moving.
Sure, I do that sometimes but at wide apertures more often than not the eyes get slightly out of focus. It's also not good when people are moving.
You'd be giving up quite a bit with the RP. Losing GPS, good ergos, and great battery life.
However...you would get edge to edge AF. Kind of a tough call IMO. If you can still get the RP bundle with adapter and grip included for free, might be worth trying it out.
However...you would get edge to edge AF. Kind of a tough call IMO. If you can still get the RP bundle with adapter and grip included for free, might be worth trying it out.
And this is why I do not do it. As a brand as a whole minus the lenses, I don't recommend Canon for much at this point. I'd honestly just deal with the 6D if you can and just wait for their second gen bodies.
Yeah, I'm not in a hurry, for now photography is just a hobby for me. Also this is my first DSLR, waiting at least until the first year anniversary to buy another one isn't going to kill me. I've learned so much since I bought it and my friends all love the pictures I took from them.
This is the most important part. You have grown, your friends love it so it's fine and not money or time wasted.
You can do anything in any way, just not sure what your recommendation to him is?
We went back and forth regarding this so many times to the extent the whole meaning of this argument is lost on me and I'm sick of having it.
The easiest is to focus at the center, hold down the focus and reframe, then press the shutter all the way, ie, focus and re-compose. Or, focus using the AF-L button, hold it down and recompose, then press the shutter, ie, back button focus. But in this mode, you might have to decouple the AF function from the shutter button on your camera, and it'll take some time to train yourself....but this is also intuitive once you get used to it. Either way, the first method get's very easy once you get used to it. We were taught metering by the sky method in high school....depending on if you wanna show the blueness of the sky, you set your exposure by the sky, lock that exposure and then shoot your subject. These are the reasons you have the AF L and AE L buttons.
F&R fails when you are shooting wide open, like he mentioned. What might be critical focus when you initially grab focus probably isn't by time you recompose.
For me, being able to set the general area using a joystick or dpad has been a godsend.
Yep I can see that happening with the shallow dof plus corner sharpness itself typically is less so it may seem more out of focus. The AF-L button usage gets intuitive enough, but you do have to decouple the shutter AF assignment right? Otherwise the camera would just refocus when you press the shutter.
6D and 6DII have a dedicated AF-ON button, and yes, you have to turn off the shutter half press focus.
To be fair, there's not a HUGE reason to use back button focus if you're only shooting portraits outside of center. You're better off using AI-Focus (AF-S) with a half hold of the shutter, move, and then complete the shutter press.
BBAF is really most helpful for AI-Servo (AF-C) shooting.
Yeah, I use AF-S + back-button focus and it's generally fine. My newer lenses also have Quick Shift focus, so I can get a general AF lock and quickly tweak the focus ring to adjust.
I was looking at the Sony DSC RX10 IV for wildlife, just out of curiosity, for the Fuji (or Sony)...one would need the 100 - 400 at the least. So I was curious if there were just all-in-wonder solutions, and this camera seems to be very decent for wildlife, 24-600mm equivalent focal length, great AF and decent sized sensor. Some of the shots people took are pretty amazing. If someone wants to get into birding and the budget is somewhat limited (the camera is still pretty expensive), then this might be a good solution.
Another curiosity is the Fuji 33mm f/1.0 lens. I will have no use case for it, aside from just wanting to own a f/1.0 lens. I know I won't shell out 7k to 10k for a Noctilux, but this Fuji will probably come in at around $2500 - $3000 (hey, hopefully even less!), I could take soft candle lit indoor portraits. Just because.
Another curiosity is the Fuji 33mm f/1.0 lens. I will have no use case for it, aside from just wanting to own a f/1.0 lens. I know I won't shell out 7k to 10k for a Noctilux, but this Fuji will probably come in at around $2500 - $3000 (hey, hopefully even less!), I could take soft candle lit indoor portraits. Just because.
From what I've seen the RX10's are good for birding. That Fuji 33 is probably not going to get bought by me, I think that's technically a 1.4 lens and at that price I'd rather just get a 50 1.4 for either my Nikon or Sony cameras.
I think the light gathering ability is still 1.0, but the depth of field will be as you say, 1.4 - 1.5 ish due to the sensor crop. So if you wanna use it in the dark, it'll still be a 1.0 fast lens, but the depth of field will be not as shallow. I think if you have a FF camera, I'm sure there are PLENTY of f/1.2 normal lenses that'll work on the Sony E mount so there's absolutely no reason to get the Fuji lens. This is more of a novelty item, ego thing like I said.
Yeah it's a lens pissing contest thing. I like the light gathering of the 56 1.2 for example, but I do think if I got my A7R2 earlier there would be a few lenses that I wouldn't currently have, but most of them get used either way so it's more of an observation than a complaint. Shit I could adapt a Canon 1.2 lens, just depends on how much I want to hobble my AF.
For what it's worth I also picked up the 18-55 2.8-4 with my X-H1. It just got delivered to my place but I'm stuck at work for 2 more hours so I don't have any impressions yet.
But from my research at least, the 18-55 is the best buy if you're switching to Fuji from a different system and need the range. I initially was just gonna use my FF Nikon glass with the X-H1 to start but I realized that I didn't want to deal with the crop factor bullshit and just want to shoot great pics and vids so I just ponied up for it lol.
But from my research at least, the 18-55 is the best buy if you're switching to Fuji from a different system and need the range. I initially was just gonna use my FF Nikon glass with the X-H1 to start but I realized that I didn't want to deal with the crop factor bullshit and just want to shoot great pics and vids so I just ponied up for it lol.
Not like most people had any choice with most DSLRs and their bunched up small selection of AF points.
Mirrorless really changed the game in that regard, especially with the most modern cameras. Having access to PDAF across the entire frame and reliable C-AF just makes it so much easier to photograph living subjects especially.
No kidding. I can definitely work with DSLR's since I still shoot the bulk of my events on them, but there's a lot of stuff about them that I'm getting tired of dealing with. I'm quite sure my D4 will be my last DSLR, I love the thing but jeez. I don't always need a photographic AK-47.
Boo, i was looking forward to see how you liked the kit. You'll like the Sony more, though.
Yeah unfortunately I don't have many thoughts with respect to the kit; except that it was light and felt great holding it.
It just sucked that after swapping out the first one that had dust in the lens; the next one that arrived from BH earlier this week had issues with the EVF. Side note: B&H is so slow for processing exchanges 14 day turn around.
That's when decided to just give up on RP and decided to go with Sony as it was my original first choice but I got swayed by the RF lens potential.
Now the painful wait for the A7iii.
Canon with that cheap ass camera is going to push people onto rival brands.
That is really fucking weird to me. That said (even as a Canon shooter) I think you're making a good move.