I'd probably just get the Sony 85 1.8 unless you must have the GM. I think my FE kit will be:
Sigma 35 FE Art
Sony 2.8 70-200GM
Sony 24-70GM
Sony 85G
Sony 90 Macro (Maybe)
Sony 135GM
After this I think if I ever need an F4 for travel they should be cheaper used than what they are now. It's amazing how we used to complain about the limited amount of lens options Sony had. Now most of what they need is filled up unless you need a very specialized prime like a 600 F4 and such.
Fujirumors says the next X100 will get a new lens. Fuck yes. And make it weather resistant too and I will get one. The lens was the weakest part of the camera imho.
I'd probably just get the Sony 85 1.8 unless you must have the GM. I think my FE kit will be:
Sigma 35 FE Art
Sony 2.8 70-200GM
Sony 24-70GM
Sony 85G
Sony 90 Macro (Maybe)
Sony 135GM
After this I think if I ever need an F4 for travel they should be cheaper used than what they are now. It's amazing how we used to complain about the limited amount of lens options Sony had. Now most of what they need is filled up unless you need a very specialized prime like a 600 F4 and such.
I really like that setup! The 100-400 was a huge stretch for me but I'm a sucker for telephoto and missed the reach of my old 70-210 beercan on APS-C. I'm also surprised with how much I'm using my 14mm ultrawide, and it was pretty cheap to add to the collection.
Yeah, there's a lot of choice at 85mm. Sony has a 1.4 and 1.8, then there's the Zeiss Batis 1.8 (which just looks sexy as hell aesthetically) and the Sigma 1.4. But I'm very happy with the quality of my two current Samyangs and the reviews of the Samyang 85 1.4 are really solid, so I feel good about cutting costs there when I do take the plunge. Also I use she/her pronouns :)
I really like that setup! The 100-400 was a huge stretch for me but I'm a sucker for telephoto and missed the reach of my old 70-210 beercan on APS-C. I'm also surprised with how much I'm using my 14mm ultrawide, and it was pretty cheap to add to the collection.
Yeah, there's a lot of choice at 85mm. Sony has a 1.4 and 1.8, then there's the Zeiss Batis 1.8 (which just looks sexy as hell aesthetically) and the Sigma 1.4. But I'm very happy with the quality of my two current Samyangs and the reviews of the Samyang 85 1.4 are really solid, so I feel good about cutting costs there when I do take the plunge. Also I use she/her pronouns :)
Sorry online I just assume everything I'm talking to is a guy unless I'm told different. I don't mind Sigma at all but I still don't really trust Samyang I've heard way too many varying stories regarding lenses randomly not working or errors happening on their 35 1.4 that I don't touch them. They make great manual lenses but I'm usually very careful with what I put my money on. Don't adapt either. I usually by stuff for work or client work so I'm just annoyingly picky with what I buy.
Got it, given your list I assumed Sony 85 GM is a no brainer, but I hear good things about Samyang as well. Specifically the 12mm on APSC. I think one of the fun aspects of Sony or Fuji is to be able to use vintage lenses. I definitely plan to mate my camera to a Summilux 50mm down the line.
Got it, given your list I assumed Sony 85 GM is a no brainer, but I hear good things about Samyang as well. Specifically the 12mm on APSC. I think one of the fun aspects of Sony or Fuji is to be able to use vintage lenses. I definitely plan to mate my camera to a Summilux 50mm down the line.
My last kit was Minolta mount, so when I first got my a7iii I rented an adapter to use my mostly vintage Minolta glass, but almost universally the contrast was terrible. I was pretty bummed because I do have a soft spot for my chunky old beercan. Most accounts I've read seem to agree that Samyang's AF performance is getting better every outing, and I was already satisfied with my 35mm 2.8. Maybe I'll rent their 85 before buying to make sure!
I honestly can't tell much difference between the Sony 85/1.8 and GM after looking at tons of examples, definitely nothing that would get me to spend the money on the GM. the 85/1.8 is one of the best buys on FE anyways.
I honestly can't tell much difference between the Sony 85/1.8 and GM after looking at tons of examples, definitely nothing that would get me to spend the money on the GM. the 85/1.8 is one of the best buys on FE anyways.
I have it on Nikon, definitely not buying a second copy of it though unless I can find it at an almost throw away cheap price. I'm honestly doing my best to not buy Canon glass just so I can use it on a Sony.
Aw yeah €3K ridiculously heavy lens that's larger compared to its DSLR counterpart to put on your €1000 crap camera, seems Canon really nailed the roadmap with the MILC lineup.
Aw yeah €3K ridiculously heavy lens that's larger compared to its DSLR counterpart to put on your €1000 crap camera, seems Canon really nailed the roadmap with the MILC lineup.
They will, they don't have a flagship or a midrange body for this mount yet. This is Canon flexing its muscle, because no one else can make these lenses. Once the bodies come out though, should be fantastic.
They will, they don't have a flagship or a midrange body for this mount yet. This is Canon flexing its muscle, because no one else can make these lenses. Once the bodies come out though, should be fantastic.
Canon feels like that guy at the gym that always skips leg day and now looks like a malformed triangle. While Sony is that ripped triathlete improving on their scores. Nikon is that famous soccer player crying in a corner somewhere, say Neymar.
Canon feels like that guy at the gym that always skips leg day and now looks like a malformed triangle. While Sony is that ripped triathlete improving on their scores. Nikon is that famous soccer player crying in a corner somewhere, say Neymar.
Sony is where it's at now because they've been working on mirrorless for five years. Sadly neither Canon or Nikon were taking notes learning from Sony's intro mistakes. Canon and Nikon I think can get close with their next bodies, but who knows what Sony's has up their sleeve. I have feeling that the forth gen bodies will border on overkill, but that's not really a bad thing. CaNikon really has to start trying again.
Basically I think Canon introduced the mount and the statement lenses for Canon loyalists that were getting antsy. But to do these lenses justice, their bodies have to be impressive by default, otherwise shutter shake will make the pictures blurry, and general expectation of AF has become something very different and it has to be at parity with other brands. These are for their loyalists who will now hold off and wait for what Canon has coming, and IMO it should be impressive. These are statement lenses to basically state: "Yeah, no one else can actually do this." Their RF mount roadmap still has the 2.8 L Zooms coming in 2019/2020, but I would expect other statement primes and zooms (75 - 200 f/2, 35mm f/1.2, 24mm f/1.2) in the pipeline for 2021 and beyond. Many, many pros will get in line just for those lenses.
Still willing to give Canon a bit of leeway here. They are coming out with the best mirrorless lenses from day 1 of their new mount, and although their first 2 bodies aren't world beaters, they are still more camera than most amateur photogs would know what to do with, not to mention their excellent catalog of EF lenses work BETTER on RF cameras. The vast majority of the 2 year RF roadmap are practical EF replacements, not the unique "because we can" lenses. The 85/1.2 and 50/1.2 were massively popular lenses on EF.
Everyone seems to forget how revolutionary the 5D4 was at the time, as if Canon hasn't produced a massively successful top tier body in a decade. I'll give them 2 years into RF before becoming worried.
Also, yeah IBIS is nice, but Canon lens IS has always been industry leading, so it's not a deal breaker for hundreds of thousands of professionals worldwide. Let's be blunt; if the R had released with dual SD and a joystick with the 5D4 sensor, almost no one would be saying shit about it as a gen 1 product. That means Canon is very, very close to being a legit threat in the FF MILC space.
All of that said, good luck competing feature to dollar with Sony, Canon. That is an uphill battle they're already losing.
Yep agreed with most of your points. It's great to see their 2.8 lens roadmap. And you guys have to realize how revolutionary they are being by ditching the EF mount. They wanna shift the paradigm, they didn't really have to. But price wise here's where Sony has a massive advantage, they can start dropping the prices because Canon flagships have always been expensive, they won't be cheap. Still I'd expect even the consumer primes to be damn good, like the one RF prime, iirc 35 1.8 which is cheap and good.
Still willing to give Canon a bit of leeway here. They are coming out with the best mirrorless lenses from day 1 of their new mount, and although their first 2 bodies aren't world beaters, they are still more camera than most amateur photogs would know what to do with, not to mention their excellent catalog of EF lenses work BETTER on RF cameras. The vast majority of the 2 year RF roadmap are practical EF replacements, not the unique "because we can" lenses. The 85/1.2 and 50/1.2 were massively popular lenses on EF.
Everyone seems to forget how revolutionary the 5D4 was at the time, as if Canon hasn't produced a massively successful top tier body in a decade. I'll give them 2 years into RF before becoming worried.
Also, yeah IBIS is nice, but Canon lens IS has always been industry leading, so it's not a deal breaker for hundreds of thousands of professionals worldwide. Let's be blunt; if the R had released with dual SD and a joystick with the 5D4 sensor, almost no one would be saying shit about it as a gen 1 product. That means Canon is very, very close to being a legit threat in the FF MILC space.
All of that said, good luck competing feature to dollar with Sony, Canon. That is an uphill battle they're already losing.
I actually like the 5D4, just have no urge to buy one as an owner of two Nikons. Sometimes I really think the DSLR market hinges on what you start off with. Mirrorless is slightly different...just slightly and if Fuji made a full frame mirrorless I'd have that...as long as it didn't lock up.
I can't explain how this shit is still happening. X-T3 did it once during an event last month. I have the right cards, OEM batteries and everything and I was shooting in CL. The cameras are great, but I have no idea. I love Fuji, but damn some people overhype them and no please nobody come at me calling me a Sony shill on that one because it's impossible to label me as X brand shill.
I'm loving Fuji for a few reasons, bodies are very pleasant to use of course, but I have to give them kudos on making very affordable pro grade lenses. I mean that's amazing to me, personally. I'm used to Canon L prices, and I shot Canon....and as an amateur/hobbyist I had the L lenses, I lust after lenses and I bought them.
Either way, I'm used to that pricing model, and to see equivalent lenses at $1400 - $1500, 1.4 primes at much less than $1000...etc, that's great. I'm primarily a lens person, bodies come and go...but I keep lenses.
I'm loving Fuji for a few reasons, bodies are very pleasant to use of course, but I have to give them kudos on making very affordable pro grade lenses. I mean that's amazing to me, personally. I'm used to Canon L prices, and I shot Canon....and as an amateur/hobbyist I had the L lenses, I lust after lenses and I bought them.
Either way, I'm used to that pricing model, and to see equivalent lenses at $1400 - $1500, 1.4 primes at much less than $1000...etc, that's great. I'm primarily a lens person, bodies come and go...but I keep lenses.
I keep what I like the most and use the most. I like Fuji a lot, but there are times where I'm like "why is the most 'reliable' camera buggier than my Sony?" Also i think Fuji had to drop the prices on their XF lenses to remain competitive. If you're just getting into Fuji with the X-T3 the XF lenses commanded a higher premium, especially the 50-140 and 56 1.2. Now is definitely a much better time price wise to get into Fuji, they are definitely more appropriately priced now than about two years ago.
Question : I have two olympus bodies - a Pen-F, and an EM-10mk1 which I handed down to my daughter
If I were to sell one - is it just heart vs head? Seems to me the EM-10 is a perfectly capable camera and not a million miles away from the Pen-F, but the Pen-F is a beautiful camera.
Cost-wise the Pen-F is triple the value of the EM-10
Got the 24-70gm and the weather is shit for most of the week. I might be able to post some work stuff that I'm doing on Tuesday and Wednesday but who knows. Now I just need a TTL flash for Sony and I'm set.
Anything less than a second for recycle time is no good unless it's full power where that's normal. I usually use the bigger flashes for my event work.
I think Flashpoint and Godox are the same, so I'm pretty sure I have that flash. I agree that the recycle time isn't the best, but it's pretty small and cheap which makes it an easy to call to bring it along even if I'm not sure I'll be using it. The only time it's really been an issue for me is weddings.
It's not a wedding flash. It's like an "I want a cheap flash for the 8 pics I need flash for" flash. This isn't probably why I don't own any of these. Also yes Godox and Flashpoint are the same. Flashpoint is just Adorama branded Godox stuff with a warranty.
This is gonna be a weird post, but any input is appreciated. I had one of my insta followers send me an email offering their Mamiya RZ67 Pro II, 50/4.5 and 110/2.8 medium format setup to me if I wanted it as it's gathering dust with him.
I have less than zero knowledge about medium format film cameras, the cost of shooting them, how I'd go about getting scans made of the negatives, etc. This guy was clear that he only wanted me to take it if I would actually use it, and I just have no clue what I'd be getting into here. I watched a good number of youtubes on this camera, and it LOOKS pretty neat, but again, who knows. If you have any experience with these things, I'd love to know. I've read that the 110/2.8 lens is just a beast wide open in terms of sharpness (equiv to around a 53/1.4 in 35mm).
On Ebay, a kit in this condition is going for around $1000, so it's a super generous offer...just have no idea if it's a tenable camera to dink with in 2019.
This is gonna be a weird post, but any input is appreciated. I had one of my insta followers send me an email offering their Mamiya RZ67 Pro II, 50/4.5 and 110/2.8 medium format setup to me if I wanted it as it's gathering dust with him.
I have less than zero knowledge about medium format film cameras, the cost of shooting them, how I'd go about getting scans made of the negatives, etc. This guy was clear that he only wanted me to take it if I would actually use it, and I just have no clue what I'd be getting into here. I watched a good number of youtubes on this camera, and it LOOKS pretty neat, but again, who knows. If you have any experience with these things, I'd love to know. I've read that the 110/2.8 lens is just a beast wide open in terms of sharpness (equiv to around a 53/1.4 in 35mm).
On Ebay, a kit in this condition is going for around $1000, so it's a super generous offer...just have no idea if it's a tenable camera to dink with in 2019.
If you shoot in a studio, shoot landscapes, or just work slowly in general that would be a great camera to use, probably one of the best medium format film cameras ever. With medium format I believe you have to slow down a bunch and really take your time to shoot it but if you do, you can get some incredible images. Especially if you choose to get them drum scanned.
If you shoot in a studio, shoot landscapes, or just work slowly in general that would be a great camera to use, probably one of the best medium format film cameras ever. With medium format I believe you have to slow down a bunch and really take your time to shoot it but if you do, you can get some incredible images. Especially if you choose to get them drum scanned.
Yeah, I'm primarily a landscape shooter, but I am usually shooting while hiking. This would be a decidedly different beast, definitely not a hiking kit, pure tripod landscapes with this.
I bought my T5i principally for timelapses and I'm strongly considering a purchase of Arsenal - and I wondered if anyone had any experience messing with it?
I bought my T5i principally for timelapses and I'm strongly considering a purchase of Arsenal - and I wondered if anyone had any experience messing with it?
This is gonna be a weird post, but any input is appreciated. I had one of my insta followers send me an email offering their Mamiya RZ67 Pro II, 50/4.5 and 110/2.8 medium format setup to me if I wanted it as it's gathering dust with him.
I have less than zero knowledge about medium format film cameras, the cost of shooting them, how I'd go about getting scans made of the negatives, etc. This guy was clear that he only wanted me to take it if I would actually use it, and I just have no clue what I'd be getting into here. I watched a good number of youtubes on this camera, and it LOOKS pretty neat, but again, who knows. If you have any experience with these things, I'd love to know. I've read that the 110/2.8 lens is just a beast wide open in terms of sharpness (equiv to around a 53/1.4 in 35mm).
On Ebay, a kit in this condition is going for around $1000, so it's a super generous offer...just have no idea if it's a tenable camera to dink with in 2019.
If you are willing to invest in a scanner, the RZ67 Pro II would be a very nice camera for landscape work if you can be bothered to lug it around. You didn't mention what finder the camera has. The waist-level finder has no metering, so if you want metering in-camera you'd need the AE prism finder or more rare chimney finder. You could get a handheld meter, use a phone app, or use your digital camera to meter instead.
Film-wise, the costs of purchasing film and getting it developed depends on where you are. It is cheaper to develop at home, and developing black and white film is quite easy. Colour and Black & White negative films are easier to shoot as they can tolerate overexposure, while Slide requires precise exposures.
On a 6x7 camera, you are getting 10 exposures from a roll of 120 format film.
If you end up shooting a bunch of film, I'd recommend getting a used or refurbished Epson V700, V750 or V800 scanner, as the cost of having the lab scan your film adds up.
For post-processing your scans, a Lightroom plugin called Negative Lab Pro is quite useful for automatic colour correction.
Some film prices from B&H for reference:
For 120 format Kodak films are only sold in 5-packs, while Ilford films and Fujichromes are sold individually as well.
Colour Negative:
Kodak Ektar 100 - 5-pack $27.99 which is about $5.60 per roll
Kodak Portra 400 - 5-pack $35.95 which is about $7.20 per roll
Fujicolor PRO 400H - 5-pack $38.94 which is about $7.79 per roll
Black & White:
Kodak T-Max 100 - 5-pack $32.95 which is about $6.60 per roll
Kodak T-Max 400 - 5-pack $32.45 which is about $6.50 per roll
Kodak Tri-X 400 - 5-pack $30.95 which is about $6.19 per roll
Ilford Delta 100 - $5.99
Ilford Delta 400 - $6.19
Ilford Delta 3200 - $6.49
Ilford HP5+ - $5.69
Ilford FP4+ - $5.49
Ilford Pan F - $6.09
Slide:
Fujichrome Velvia 50 - $9.59 or 5-pack $46.95
Fujichrome Velvia 100 - $9.29 or 5-pack $44.95
Fujichrome Provia 100F - $8.99 or 5-pack $43.95
I finally upgraded to a full-frame Nikon! Now I just need some Nikon AF lenses...
