|
rio posted:Sorry for such a basic question but I have spent a few nights trying to figure this out and even am failing in Google. How do I customize the info on the screen during image playback on an X-T1? Is that option actually not available? Just "information on" or information off" or "detail information"? For playback, I think those are all you have.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
I've briefly played with an XT-1 and an X100T at various points over the last few months. While the experience in way WAY above, there's just something (significantly) special about the tone and colours out of the X100 MK1.........right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
Edward IV posted:Eh. I already have the 23mm f/1.4 which is one of my favorite lenses. Though the f/2 is appreciably smaller and lighter than the f/1.4, I would have liked it to have been more of a pancake like the 18mm. Maybe I need to get one in my hands to appreciate the difference but I see no reason to get it since I already have the f/1.4. I think I'll just save up for a used X100T instead. Right. The 23 f/1.4 is already one of Fuji's best primes. Sharp as a tack and focuses fast. In the case of the 35 f/2, you could see the reason for it since the 35 f/1.4 had a relatively slow focus motor. Not sure why they've spent effort to make the 23 f/2, except that maybe adding WR to a 23 f/1.4 mark II would push the cost up too much?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
it'd push the size too. and if you're going to take your lens outside, you'll prob be fine with f/2
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:For playback, I think those are all you have. Ugh. Thanks, that's what I was afraid of. MeKeV posted:I've briefly played with an XT-1 and an X100T at various points over the last few months. While the experience in way WAY above, there's just something (significantly) special about the tone and colours out of the X100 MK1.........right? Yeah, when I got my x-t1 I was expecting something closer to what my old x100 looked like. It looks great, don't get me wrong, but that x100 really had its own thing going on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
I've heard that fuji has always been known for its color reproduction going back to its days as a manufacturer for digital bodies for Canon and Nikon. How was the EXR processing different from X-trans, beyond being a Bayer array? I'm still wondering if anyone is going to comment on my post about olympus' color. Things aren't as cloudy here anymore and I'm starting to like the default color rendition again, but for a while that pink cast to everything outside was pretty weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I've heard that fuji has always been known for its color reproduction going back to its days as a manufacturer for digital bodies for Canon and Nikon. How was the EXR processing different from X-trans, beyond being a Bayer array? EXR was really neat on the x10; you'd shoot it at 6mp vs the standard 12 and you'd end up with the less than 10% loss in resolution, for high bright detailed sunny days you'd end up with more detail / resolution at the lower setting... The reason why? It unlocked the hardware Dynamic Range feature set at any iso instead of 400 and up and you'd end up almost perfect color cast / midtones in almost any shooting situation, the first gen x100 did this too; this is why so many people bring up the original x series color tones being way different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Right. The 23 f/1.4 is already one of Fuji's best primes. Sharp as a tack and focuses fast. In the case of the 35 f/2, you could see the reason for it since the 35 f/1.4 had a relatively slow focus motor. Not sure why they've spent effort to make the 23 f/2, except that maybe adding WR to a 23 f/1.4 mark II would push the cost up too much? They want a line of WR small primes to go with their WR cameras, all the old primes aren't WR. The next one is going to be a 50/2 WR lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
I think Fuji is doing 23/2 and 50/2.8? because 35/2 is selling really well. These are squarely aimed at the Pentax DA limited lens demographic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
bobfather posted:Not sure why they've spent effort to make the 23 f/2, except that maybe adding WR to a 23 f/1.4 mark II would push the cost up too much?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
That would really suck if the 50 was 2.8
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:The 23/2 is smaller, way faster to focus, weather resistant, and is approximately equivalent to 35mm on full frame. It's like the perfect street lens. I use my 23 more for landscapes so I'm not that interested in the f2 version, but I might swap that for the 16 and then grab a 23/2 to pair with my 35/2 as walkarounds. The 16 is real fuckin' good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
The 50 WR is going to be f2, they're also making an 80 2.8 WR with OIS
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:The 50 WR is going to be f2, they're also making an 80 2.8 WR with OIS I think that 80 is also supposed to be a 1:1 macro lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I'm still wondering if anyone is going to comment on my post about olympus' color. Things aren't as cloudy here anymore and I'm starting to like the default color rendition again, but for a while that pink cast to everything outside was pretty weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Xabi posted:I'd like to help you out but I haven't seen the same problems with my OMD. Same, I'd also add that I exclusively shoot RAW with my E-M1 and leave the color tinkering to DxO (I intervene manually if their profile doesn't fit my needs, which often means slight desaturation, but it generally works fine).
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:The 16 is real fuckin' good.  Fujifilm 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
I process my E-M10 raws in Lightroom with the camera profile set to Vivid and they turn out just fine
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
I wonder if it's a matter of perception, or really a problem. I've never had a camera that captured fully accurate, real-world color. I've even been reluctant to let go of all of my Canon gear, because I like the way those cameras 'interpret' color. I could suppose what I'm seeing is just the way OM-Ds are. If that's the case, I can just switch to another system if I want. If it's something actually wrong with my camera, then I guess maybe sending it in for warranty service could be a thing to do. What gives me the most pause is something I saw on another forum. This person bought an E-M10, and the highlights would always clip to pink:  Mine doesn't quite do that, but check this out: This is a stock photo of a Caterpillar backhoe:  This is a picture I took yesterday. In-camera Auto WB, color and tone, along with ACR Adobe Standard Camera Profile. Check out the part of the logo on the arm... it should be red.  ... And this is the same photo with ACR Auto WB and Vivid Camera Profile applied:  That's pinker than LFTB. Just checking, but this isn't something that y'all other OM-D users have experienced? I wonder if Olympus service would consider this out of spec. Maybe the budget-tier E-M10 doesn't get the same level of QC as the 5's and 1's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
I recently found myself with a Fuji affiliate account, meaning I can buy any x series body/kit/lens for 50% off (1 body/kit per year and 1 copy of each lens per year). Currently shooting with an a7ii, mostly with a bunch of older high quality mf lenses I've adapted. I plan keeping the a7ii because444 the IBIS is key with all my MF focus poo poo, but the x100t looks rad. I've heard that the x200 should be announced at Photokina this year, I'm wondering if anyone knows how long after Fuji announces something at a trade show they start to ship? edit: or I should just get the xpro2 lol Google Butt fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Aug 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:The filter thread diameter is different than the 23/1.4. I have a principle to not buy lenses with incompatible filter sizes. 62 and 52 should be good enough for all primes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:I have a principle to not buy lenses with incompatible filter sizes. 62 and 52 should be good enough for all primes. The olympus 45/1.8 is 37 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Yeah...I just spent $140 on lens hoods... but my poo poo looks tite tho
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Yeah...I just spent $140 on lens hoods... Lens hoods for 16 and 23?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Lens hoods for 16 and 23? Yup, also since my post I have ordered an additional 23mm hood because it fits on the 56mm. Sadly none of these dope square hoods fit on the 90mm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Yup, also since my post I have ordered an additional 23mm hood because it fits on the 56mm. Sadly none of these dope square hoods fit on the 90mm. I ponied up the money for the metal square hood on the 16 when i got it too. I wanted one for the 35f/2, but had to settle for a metal vented hood. I'm sure there is some technical reason for a tulip hood, but drat do Fuji's look stupid as gently caress, and looks are what photography is all about. Choicecut fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:The 23/2 is smaller, way faster to focus, weather resistant, and is approximately equivalent to 35mm on full frame. It's like the perfect street lens. I use my 23 more for landscapes so I'm not that interested in the f2 version, but I might swap that for the 16 and then grab a 23/2 to pair with my 35/2 as walkarounds. There is no reason, other than X100 sales, that they couldn't do the 23 f2 as a pancake x-mount lens right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I wonder if it's a matter of perception, or really a problem. I've never had a camera that captured fully accurate, real-world color. I've even been reluctant to let go of all of my Canon gear, because I like the way those cameras 'interpret' color. I could suppose what I'm seeing is just the way OM-Ds are. If that's the case, I can just switch to another system if I want. If it's something actually wrong with my camera, then I guess maybe sending it in for warranty service could be a thing to do. I think I know what you're talking about. Are those CAT shots JPEG ooc? Or raw and converted? I'll dig up some similar examples when I get a chance from my Panasonic of hot pink rendered really badly as JPEG. Some colours just don't respond to JPEG compression and go all weird. There's also the possibility that your eyes aren't calibrated the same as your camera, so with that granite aggregate, you're seeing a yellow cast that isn't there. Check with someone in person, point to the granite and the photo and say "does this look the same to you?".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
How do you calibrate your eyes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
VERY CAREFULLY
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:How do you calibrate your eyes? turn on your monitor first
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
I have special eyes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:VERY CAREFULLY The calibrating part is dangerous enough, but degaussing is not recommended. *boingngngngngngng!*
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I think I know what you're talking about. Are those CAT shots JPEG ooc? Or raw and converted? I'll dig up some similar examples when I get a chance from my Panasonic of hot pink rendered really badly as JPEG. Some colours just don't respond to JPEG compression and go all weird. There's also the possibility that your eyes aren't calibrated the same as your camera, so with that granite aggregate, you're seeing a yellow cast that isn't there. Check with someone in person, point to the granite and the photo and say "does this look the same to you?". The CAT pics are from a raw file that I processed in ACR. The first one shows default camera settings, the second is with acr's auto WB and interpretation of the e-m10's 'vivid' camera profile applied. So I don't think the pink red is a jpeg thing. It's more like, pink is really what this camera 'sees' as the color of that logo element. Just looking at the test image comparisons between the various OM-Ds on camera review sites shows some variation in color handling and detail levels between the models, even though they have what are said to be essentially the same sensors. Still, I am really leaning toward sending in my e-m10, but I wonder if this kind of color inaccuracy will still be considered in-spec. When I was a little kid, I remember asking my parents why everything looked more blue when I closed my right eye, and everything more red when I closed my right. I never got a good answer, heh. As I got older the difference in perception seemed to dissipate, but I'm still very convinced that my eyes had different 'color balance' from each other when I was young.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:I recently found myself with a Fuji affiliate account, meaning I can buy any x series body/kit/lens for 50% off (1 body/kit per year and 1 copy of each lens per year). Currently shooting with an a7ii, mostly with a bunch of older high quality mf lenses I've adapted. I plan keeping the a7ii because444 the IBIS is key with all my MF focus poo poo, but the x100t looks rad. I've heard that the x200 should be announced at Photokina this year, I'm wondering if anyone knows how long after Fuji announces something at a trade show they start to ship? Buy X-Pro 2 and lenses today. Buy X200 Jan 1 2017. Sell me X-Pro 2 Jan 2 2017 Profit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:Buy X-Pro 2 and lenses today. It's actually one every 12 months
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Jesus help me when the x200 comes out. So far, since May when I was regretting selling my X100 and Canon gear, I have bought a X-T1 with the kit lens, 35 f2, 55-140 2.8, going to get the x-T2 when it comes out and probably the 23 f2...hopefully the latter will help me resist the x200 when it comes out but I know it will be a struggle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
rio posted:Jesus help me when the x200 comes out. So far, since May when I was regretting selling my X100 and Canon gear, I have bought a X-T1 with the kit lens, 35 f2, 55-140 2.8, going to get the x-T2 when it comes out and probably the 23 f2...hopefully the latter will help me resist the x200 when it comes out but I know it will be a struggle. Fujirumor usually get a few rounds of gossip before a new Fuji body is released. There is no x100mk4 rumor in a while. Fuji may want to do something special to the next X100, hence the delay. You may want to make do with a X100t for a while first. Fuji may not even release the next X100 in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
The Fuji engineers are too busy coming up with a medium-format system to play around with creating a X100 mark four....
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
I'm going to Hawaii for the first time in September for a wedding (for one of the days), and probably going to be somewhat touristy the rest. I have the Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 and a 16-35 f/4 lenses, and an a7S body. I'm thinking of selling my a7S sometime soon (I no longer use it frequently) and renting the a7R II. While I'm at it, would I be remiss if I didn't rent a wide angle lens or the 70-200mm lens? Should I include a polarizer filter? Any general advice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 09:55
|
|