|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
06-18-2016, 05:56 AM
|
| |
I think if you want speedy apertures then the K-1 is the way to go -- at least from a Pentax stand point. You aren't going to find anything as wide and fast as the 15-30 f2.8 zoom in a Fuji mount. The FA limiteds and DA *55 on the K-1 are a treat to use and are more than fast enough for my purposes and actually relatively small in size. The whole equivalency thing means that a 16mm f1.4 on APS-C only ends up being a 24mm f2.2 lens on full frame, which isn't actually that hard a lens to create and have sharp wide open --- I would be surprised if Pentax doesn't have one of these by early next year.
Anyway, I am not trying to disparage Fuji. Seems like some folks love them, others find the interface difficult to use and don't enjoy them as much. Either way, it is nice that there are more than two or three camera brands out there, as it hopefully increases the chance of interesting, innovative cameras coming onto the market.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
06-17-2016, 03:40 AM
|
| |
The problem is that Fuji, as a crop only camera system, has sold themselves to users as "full frame quality in a smaller package." There was that whole video out there where some Fuji-paid photographer spent twenty minutes ranting about the fact that the difference in size between APS-C and full frame sensors wasn't big compared to the difference between, say, full frame and large format film sizes.
Anyway, if you have a full frame camera and a 50mm f1.4 or a 31mm f1.8 and you want to get equivalent angle of view and ability to shoot narrow depth of field, you need pretty fast lenses. And the reality is that a 50mm f1.4 for full frame is going to be at least as small as a 33mm f1.0 lens for a crop sensor camera. If you don't need super-fast lenses, then you can make your lenses a lot smaller -- like the DA limited lenses are.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
06-16-2016, 03:47 AM
|
| |
I have to agree. There are a few places, like snap shots of my kids in good light, where jpegs are more than adequate. But hard drive space is not at a premium these days and the flexibility you get from shooting RAW is amazing. There is just no comparison to taking a DNG file into Lightroom (or whatever editing software) and adding two stops of exposure, bumping the shadows and then dropping a digital GND on the sky. Beautiful. But do the same thing to a jpeg file and you are seeing clipping and weird artifacts all over the place.
I have experimented with jpeg shooting, particularly when on vacation with my family, and Pentax jpegs are fine. I usually just shoot natural setting and have most of the bells and whistles turned off. But it doesn't take that long to edit RAWs and it is more than worth it. And with the latitude we have with RAW files these days, you don't even have a reason to shoot HDR for most situations.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
06-15-2016, 02:51 AM
|
| |
Thank you for sharing.
Fuji always felt a little expensive for what it was, but they certainly have nice lenses. I definitely would look at some of the Pentax primes out there. the DFA 100 is quite nice and relatively cheap and maybe throw in the DA 50 f1.8 for good measure. It is just tough to compare a consumer zoom like the 50-200 to primes from any system.
Edit: I guess I would echo the comments about RAW shooting. I think if you shoot RAW, you won't see a big difference. If you shoot jpeg, then Fuji has one of the best jpeg engines on the market and you'll see better results right out of camera.
|
