|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
10-02-2014, 04:35 PM
|
| |
Don't think that cost is an issue for this market - wildlife / sports is a cost-no-object pursuit. From what I've seen for many users the 7D (and in the near future Mk II) is a very deliberate decision since it is, in effect, a 1.6x teleconverter with no aperture loss.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
10-02-2014, 03:19 PM
|
| |
Name practically any camera brand and one or more members of this forum are or have been a user.
I'm interested to know: does anyone shoot NX?
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
10-02-2014, 02:37 PM
|
| |
I meant cost. £900 body + £800 lens. The APS-C combination is a lot more expensive than the functionally equivalent f-word setup.
And the second comparison is weight. Weight does not seem to have been an engineering consideration for the Fuji guys for that 50-140. Which means that the camera/lens combo is pretty much gram-for-gram the same weight as a functionally equivalent, not-so-front-heavy DSLR setup.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
10-02-2014, 02:09 PM
|
| |
I'm in the process of going the other way. I've just sold a bunch of Fuji stuff and bought a DSLR.
What I like(d) about the Fuji X:
- The cameras sure are purdy
- The output is really very fine. Three years on low light performance is still class leading (regardless of whether Fuji overstate ISO; see below), suppressing unsightly noise (i.e. chroma) while retaining detail well. The luminance noise characteristic, of which there is some, is not displeasing. The JPEG engine is hard to beat even when you develop your own raw files
- Some of the X-system lenses are very nice indeed
- Best auto-white balance in the business
- Regular firmware updates that added useful functionality rather than just fixing software bugs
Neutral:
- X-Trans. No idea whether the pleasing output is the result of the sensor or special sauce applied by the engineers. Looking at the A1 over on Imaging Resource, it looks as though the Bayer sensor produces output at least as good as the X-Trans. I refuse to get caught up in the "smeared foliage" / "waxy skin tones" / whatever-the-perceived-shortcoming controversies. Can't say I've noticed anything wrong myself. Also provoking an issue then whingeing about it is the height of folly: "Doctor, it really hurts when I do this"
- Overstated ISO performance. It's a number. If, for whatever reason, the X-Trans sensor needs that number to be higher for the same exposure than competing brand A, so be it. Whether it's ISO 6400 as measured by Fuji or ISO 5000 as measured by some other brand, the high ISO performance is still good.
- EVF vs. OVF. Swings and roundabouts. The view through a (decent sized) OVF is more pleasant. The view through a (decent) EVF is more informative. EVFs are still getting better, OVFs not so much.
Dislike(d):
- The controls. Seriously. Aperture rings in 2014? They're just rotary electronic switches anyway and slightly less ergonomic than a dial built into the body. And distinctly variable in how loose they are. The ring on the 14mm would turn in a slight breeze. OK, that's exaggerating, but it was very liable to accidental adjustment.
- Shutter speed dial. You've got to use the directional buttons to adjust speed from whole stop intervals. When do you actually want to do that? X-sync speed for one along with any speed slower than half a second. You might as well have a dedicated thumb / finger dial like any other non-faux-retro camera and be done with it. Plus mounting anything on the hotshoe obscures it
- Do you like exposure compensation? I mean really like exposure compensation. I hope so, because you'll be using it a lot whether you mean to or not. The exposure compensation dial turns too easily. Yes, you're generally only a third to two thirds of a stop away from metered exposure for the most part, but it is irksome. Again, a modal thumb / finger dial to apply EC like any other non-faux-retro camera is just plain better. I've taken to using manual because that way the exposure compensation dial does nothing
- Crappy screen (I have an X-E1). A 460K screen felt like cheese paring when I bought the camera (and it wasn't exactly cheap) and I'm still annoyed. The lower end M1/A1 bodies have much better screens. And better control schemes
- (Still) no decent flash. I had the EF-X20. Sure, it looked cute (and obscured the shutter speed dial) but it was, in truth, a dreadful piece of kit. I don't think I ever got a pleasing exposure using it. Before anyone points out that I should be using off-camera manual flash, strobist-style: no; most of us do not have the luxury of a studio environment to indulge our inner strobist. You're indoors, it's a bit dark, you want a bit of flash, you don't want it to look too crappy. Fail. On hindsight, I really missed P-TTL!
- Filter size: all over the place. Thirteen lenses (so far), five thread sizes from 39mm to 72mm. Next two lenses will introduce two new thread sizes (67mm and 77mm). I spent a few bob on neutral density / polarizing filters (my full size Lee filters were not a good match) then a few bob more on step-up / step-down rings. Dinking around with step-up/down rings to use a CPL is, again, irksome. The silly thing is the 55-200, for example, would have worked just fine with a 58mm thread. I have Canon close up lenses (they are big filters) and they cause no vignetting.
- Depreciation. To be expected, but it's been particularly painful with the X-E1. These days, the residual value is so low that you're pretty much getting a free X-E1 camera with the 18-55 on eBay. Not quite as bad as with MFT but still bad. Today's £900 X-T1 is next year's £400 X-T1 on eBay. That pushes up the TCO.
- Focus-by-wire. Simply horrid. No idea whether Fuji's implementation is worse than other manufacturers but it's appalling
- Some lenses really aren't nice at all
So what made me come round to the idea of getting another DSLR after getting rid of my Pentax gear a while back?
Telephoto. If you've read the phrase "mirrorless advantage", here's the thing: it's only true for short focal lengths. I plonked down £585 for the 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 and found that it was really not good: big, ugly, unwieldy. The mirrorless advantage suddenly became a disadvantage. Something like a 60D (or even more so the 100D) with a plastic fantastic 55-250mm would have similar weight, better handling. And while I don't normally whinge about slow autofocus (who cares whether it's a third or half a second?) this lens took the biscuit. I do care when it's a second-and-a-half. I wanted a telezoom in my life but not that telezoom.
Macro. I like macro photography as much as the next nerd and really missed a 1:1 lens. During the honeymoon period, I was prepared to overlook the inadequacies of the Fuji 60mm (1:2) but on reflection it was a bit of a dog. Except I love my dog. Just by the way, that's how come I've got Canon close-up lenses: the 250D brings the magnification of the Fuji 60mm up to 0.8. Unfortunately, the pain-in-the-rear (and completely ridiculous) 39mm thread and dreadful focus-by-wire made this a double-plus ungood combination. Sure, there's the Zeiss 50 but it's still focus-by-wire with no magnification scale and more expensive than the Canon 100mm L, a strong candidate for world's most desirable macro lens. Sod that!
Flash. I think I may have mentioned this already. Just to reiterate, Fuji's flash system doesn't merit the word "system". Their top model is a rebadged (and expensive) Sunpak. Doesn't even begin to compare to Nikon or Canon (or Pentax for that matter).
Fuji 56mm F1.2. Never bought this (or been tempted). That F1.2 is a lovely number but let's face it, the use case is not available light photography since that is well covered by the 35mm F1.4. But it does lead to an interesting piece of arithmetic that's worth considering:
Fuji X-T1 + 56mm F1.2 > Canon 6D / Nikon D610 + 85mm F1.8
I won't use the F-word but when you're aiming this high suddenly the impossible dream is distinctly within reach. And before invoking the mirrorless advantage note that the Canon 6D + 85mm F1.8 is actually reasonably compact. Which leads to another comparison worth considering given that Fuji are just about to release an F2.8 telezoom:
X-T1 + 50-140mm F2.8 ≈ K-3 + 50-135mm F2.8 ≈ 6D + 70-200mm F4
And the DSLRs are going to handle a lot better than the mirrorless.
I was (sorely) tempted by the A7 (not so much the A7r) since that Zeiss 55mm is schweet. But then I saw the FE 70-200mm F4 and thought: I don't want that telezoom in my life either. Mirrorless camera + 1kg lens = lousy combination.
I was also contemplating a K-3 since the K-5 was superb. But:
K-3 + 16-50mm F2.8 ≈ 6D + 24-105mm F4
The body is rather more expensive but the lens costs rather less. And no SDM roulette either. So...
I'm not saying don't go Fuji. I'm just giving you the reflections of someone who has and has gone back. The faux-retro controls are more irksome than ergonomic. Olympus do the modern retro thing a lot better since they retain a modern control scheme. "You can see what your settings are at a glance". So? You can see the same the moment you switch on any other interchangeable lens camera. And because of that silly exposure compensation dial, you'd better get very used to checking your camera settings too!
I'm keeping my X-E1. It's not worth selling and it's a lot more compact than its replacement when paired with a short lens. The 18-55 is still lovely. As is the 35mm F1.4. And the 18mm F2 is kinda cute too.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
06-21-2013, 03:01 PM
|
| |
Well, I kinda wanted Fuji to do a "hyper program" job where the rear dial puts the camera into aperture priority when the aperture ring is set to "A" mode. Looks as though they might have to do this after all to make these new lenses work with the two older bodies. Prototype pancake had a 58mm filter thread but it looks as though the production model will have a 39mm thread, which is a PITA.
By the way, any other Fuji users looking to standardize on 58mm, Fotodiox do a 39->58 step-up ring. This is the only one I've been able to find.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
06-21-2013, 09:18 AM
|
| |
Looks like there's something missing from those lenses - an aperture ring. I've been looking forward to the pancake, but not sure now how it's supposed to work on my X-E1.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
06-19-2013, 02:35 AM
|
| |
1/180 is just one of those limitations that you either live with or work around.
HSS isn't as useless as some people make out since you have considerable headroom with regards to ISO. For example, to shoot with flash at 1/1000 rather than 1/180, you'll get good exposure if you raise the ISO from 100 to 800.
Using an HSS-capable flash, it is possible to trigger a manual flash at extreme shutter speeds using the manual flash in optical slave mode. Here's the result of an experiment with just such a setup taken at 1/4000:
The manual flash on the tripod is a Lumopro LP160 at full power. No idea the degree to which this will work with any slaved flash. I think that Lumopro must have an extremely long T-time for this to be even possible.
|
|
Forum: Flashes, Lighting, and Studio
06-03-2013, 05:32 AM
|
| |
Not sure you're being entirely reasonable here. You seem to be expecting inexpensive trigger units to do the same as absolute top-of-the-range gear.
Let's get this clear. You want:
- To press the button on a transmitter
- ...And trigger a receiver plugged into a camera
- ...Which triggers a remote flash AND a second camera
- ...Which triggers a second remote flash
The Flashwave III system I mentioned will do what you want - you'll need three transmitters and four receivers set up on three different channels and you'll need to buy two cables to connect the receivers to your cameras. You're looking at spending £350 - £400 just on the triggers.
If Pocket Wizards already do everything you're looking for with a simpler setup, then just buy the Pocket Wizards already. No-one ever said that photography was a cheap hobby!
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-02-2013, 01:32 AM
|
| |
K-5 is still a fab camera, no doubt about it. But if I had Nikon kit already, I'd be looking at a D7000.
|
|
Forum: Flashes, Lighting, and Studio
05-31-2013, 12:15 PM
|
| |
That probably won't work, by the way. If you trigger camera and flash simultaneously, they won't sync, because the flash will fire before the shutter opens. You'll need two transmitters / receivers on different channels unless (and for all I know this is true) a Pocketwizard is smart enough to to wait for a sync signal from the hotshoe to trigger the flash.
|
|
Forum: Flashes, Lighting, and Studio
05-31-2013, 12:02 PM
|
| |
Just replaced a pair of Cactus 5's with a Flashwave III set (the Cactus transceiver blocked the shutter speed dial when mounted on my Fuji):
Flash Wave III Radio Trigger/Shutter Release Kit (2458) - Wex Photographic
This might be what you're looking for if you want something that's both functional and a bit posher than the el-cheapo triggers. You'll need two sets to remotely control a camera and a flash at the same time (one pair triggers the camera, the transmitter in the hotshoe triggers the flash).
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
05-26-2013, 11:49 AM
|
| |
Here are a few shots from my friend's garden (all with the 60mm).
Here's my first attempt with Silver Efex (yes, I took advantage of the bundle price; I think I need a new laptop, though, because it's very slow):
And finally, a cute puppy shot:
 |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-26-2013, 09:19 AM
|
| |
It's a £40 / $60 lens. Will almost certainly cost more to repair than to replace. Can you live with the problem?
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
05-25-2013, 05:43 AM
|
| |
14-bit raw files of the Pentax K-5 are definitely noticeably more malleable than the 12-bit raws of the K-r. However, this isn't a comparison of like-with-like. I have no idea whether you can recover equal amounts of information with a K-30 / K-01. 14-bit raw should improve noise performance simply because there's more signal for the same amount of noise. You should be able to see differences if you use techniques like ETTR, since most of the tone information is in the higher bits (so 12-bit should give 4096 tone levels per channel while 14 gives you a theoretical 16384, 12288 of those being contained in those two extra bits). That said, I would be surprised if the sensor were capable of showing that many discrete levels. If anyone has a K-5 and a K-30 and can photograph the same scene using ETTR, we should be able to see whether there are any real-world differences.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
05-24-2013, 05:47 AM
|
| |
For full-time phase detection autofocus (see the demo video that Anvh posted the link to). This has considerable benefits for video and continuous AF tracking. The phase detection sensor is at the top of the mirror box, perpendicular to the sensor. If the mirror moved out of the way, phase detection AF would stop. The 0.5 EV light lost to the pellicle doesn't matter all that much - it's the difference between ISO 80 and ISO 120.
Interesting speculation that the A-mount is on its way out. I saw a recent Sony video where the Sony engineering guy said that they bought out Minolta not for the name, but for the mount. That would be a big chunk of change down the drain if they drop it. However, big businesses are concerned not just with profits but earnings per share and it may well be that Sony see no reason to throw good money after bad by continuing to invest in an area where they're not competing all that well rather than redirecting resources to the much more successful E-mount. They can continue legacy A-mount support with their rather good A-mount adapter which effectively turns a NEX camera into an Alpha one complete with pellicle mirror. Then again, the recent release of the top-specced A99 would suggest that Sony are very much committed to the Alpha platform.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
05-24-2013, 05:07 AM
|
| |
A Pentax camera getting reviewed and recommended on the world's most widely watched camera / lens reviews is a good thing. The snitty remarks about Kai's presentation style or some of the silly things they do on their shows goes to show that there really is no pleasing some people.
They don't ignore Pentax - I've seen a review of the K-r (which they thought was sort-of OK) and if you search for the pancake day special you will see that the 40 Limited gets a lot of praise.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
05-23-2013, 05:40 AM
|
| |
Real advantages of a 35mm DSLR:
- Turns lenses that are a "meh" focal length on APS-C (e.g. 20mm, 24mm) into the (ultra) wide-angle lenses that they were designed to be
- Bigger, brighter viewfinder (since the size of the OVF roughly correlates with the sensor size; not always though - an Olympus E-5 has same size viewfinder as a Pentax K-5)
- Typically one stop advantage for low light performance, dynamic range, etc. over an APS-C sensor of the same generation
- Slight to moderate increase in resolution, again only true when considering the same generation
- Typically very high-end bodies so have high-end features unrelated to the sensor size.
Illusionary advantages of a 35mm DSLR:
It is true that there are no constant F2.8 ultra-wide zooms for APS-C, while every manufacturer of 35mm DSLRs offers at least one model. However, I think the laws that make this so are economic rather than physical, APS-C users being more cost conscious / weight conscious than their 35mm-toting counterparts. You can, however, get a constant F4 ultrawide for any mount you care to mention and Sigma make a constant F3.5 model for a number of mounts, including K-mount. Besides which, I can't really see the point of constant F2.8 when your use case is more like F8. There is no ultrawide focal length range for a 35mm sensor that does not have an equivalent for a smaller sensor (e.g. Panasonic 7-14mm for mft and Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C).
|
|
Forum: Ricoh GR
05-21-2013, 10:54 AM
|
| |
A pretty amazing deal has come up on eBay UK. GXR with A16 24-85mm F3.5-5.5 and A12 50mm F2.5 APS-C lensors, EVF accessory and remote release for £600. I was tempted, I have to say, but it doesn't really get me anything that I don't have already (besides a groovy new gadget to play with). So if anyone else wants to pick up a bargain, here's the link:
Fantastic Ricoh GXR Kit plus accessories *Immaculate* 026649703836 | eBay |
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
05-20-2013, 05:05 AM
|
| |
X-E1 has min. shutter speed of 1/4000 and min base ISO of 200 (ISO 100 reduces DR so I avoid it). I have shot in daylight and not come close to hitting minimum shutter speed. Admittedly, I don't live in Arizona, but I wouldn't call this a major limitation. Under these circumstances, a CPL would be useful anyway and would provide the necessary two stop light extinction.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
05-18-2013, 04:36 AM
|
| |
I've used both. Overall an OVF is (still) more pleasant to use. The TV-watching experience of the EVF creates an additional removal from the scene being viewed. However, when I first used an EVF (a soon-to-be-lost Olympus VF2), my first thought was "that is one big TV screen". So there's one advantage to the EVF: the size of the viewfinder image is not limited by the necessity of using natural light. Reduced need for natural light leads to another advantage: viewfinder brightness is not dependent on the lens mounted. On my new X-E1, I was using 6 and 10 stop neutral density filters and was still able to compose through the viewfinder. That is simply amazing. It is possible that live view would give you the same thing, but since live view on a K-5 is barely usable without an ND filter, I haven't cared to put it to the test.
Back to Sony. The link provided isn't exactly replete with details, but it's safe to say that the SLT format hasn't set the world on fire. All the bulk of a mirror system with a slightly worse viewfinder experience. Phase detection on the sensor makes the entire concept obsolescent, if not quite yet obsolete. Yeah, if I'd bought big into the A-mount, I would now be worrying about its future.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
05-17-2013, 04:25 AM
|
| |
Already chosen a Fuji.
I am so not going to get buyer's remorse just because the Oly looks really purdy. Besides which, the Fuji is kinda pretty too. But it doesn't have IBIS. Damn!
Seriously, nice looking camera and quite a tasty looking spec sheet. Not sure that the prettiness is worth the premium over the OM-D, though.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
05-16-2013, 06:00 AM
|
| |
Wow, that is bad. My mental arithmetic says that the second image is six stops below the first.
To see whether you've got a repair job / sell-for-parts candidate, try using it in either TAv or P mode (Green mode is basically P). With the standard programmed autoexposure configuration, Av and Tv are just a quick turn of a dial away. If these work, then you'll simply need to avoid the two modes that don't.
Just out of interest, does the issue occur if you mount a first party lens?
EDIT:
Just saw your last post. Glad it was the obvious reason!
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
05-16-2013, 05:37 AM
|
| |
Just read that article. "Infomercial" would be a generous description.
Nonetheless, interesting move by Google. Immediate target is not Adobe, but Facebook / Instagram. Let them slug it out, I say.
Adobe are clearly in their sights long term. They didn't acquire Nik just to discount the software (although I'm guessing that the amazing bundle deal = lots and lots of $150 downloads). Mark my words, that bargain software suite is a gateway drug for the photographic enthusiast. Couple of years down the line we'll see raw development in the cloud, with the Nik tools seamlessly integrated (rather than the current clumsy work-on-a-copy integration in Lightroom). It's not as unfeasible as it might first appear: you've got at least one generation of Moore's law in Google's favour and they will embrace and extend open-source raw converters adding, at the very least, GPU acceleration to speed up the process. Maybe they'll embrace, extend (and hopefully simplify) the GIMP for actual editing too. Then you'll have a thin client in the browser (using Adobe Flash?) and a hardware-accelerated JPEG preview engine at the backend, with all the grunt work done on the server.
Photoshop has just become easier to displace. That Creative Cloud strategy has cost Adobe a lot of user goodwill (I've not read a single positive opinion). The only value that the cloud seems to providing here is for the software to phone home every so often to see whether Mothership Adobe says "yes". You still need the necessary CPU / GPU and RAM to run the CS. $20 - $50 a month, every month, makes it expensive too. And since there are proprietary file formats involved, you might class it as ransomware: pay up or all your .psd files become so much wasted disk space. Maybe Google's cloud service will be able to read PSD files too.
Lightroom will be harder. It's both high quality and an established part of many photographer's workflows. Assuming that Adobe don't end up making that subscription-only as well it's going to take a lot of added value from Google to make us move. However, those RAW files sure do take up a lot of space, so maybe inexpensive cloud storage might be just the added value we're looking for.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-16-2013, 01:39 AM
|
| |
If he's not the lens changing type and you want the camera after he's done, why not a "serious" compact? What would you consider for yourself? Sony RX100 or Fuji X20 might be just the ticket.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-16-2013, 12:15 AM
|
| |
No competition. If you've ever picked up an Olympus Pen camera, the Fuji is about the same size. You need to change your grip, however - holding it like a DSLR isn't quite right. The Fuji cameras don't suffer from the "small camera, big lens" syndrome. Not yet, anyway, although the upcoming telezoom looks like a bit of a honker. It's a lot more comfortable to carry around, that's for sure. Overall handling is in favour of the K-5. All those dials may make it look like an airplane cockpit but it means that everything is a lot more accessible. Some features that you may take for granted, such as more than three bracketed shots more than 1EV apart, are conspicuously absent from the Fuji for, as far as I can tell, no good reason whatsoever.
|
