|
d0s posted:EDIT2: Since I haven't actually gotten my 17 2.8 in the mail yet and don't really lurk here, does anyone here have one? Is it as bad as the pixel peeping nerds say it is? I'm kind of worried I wasted my money, but since I only have the kit lens (the original 14-42 3.5-5.6) and haven't been spoiled with fancy lenses it's probably going to feel like a definite upgrade, right? RIGHT?!?
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
alkanphel posted:Yeah I thought they would just modify the X100 lens design but it looks a lot bigger than that now. It's a whole stop faster so it's a pretty big increase in bulk, weight, and cost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
Uncle Ivan posted:It's a whole stop faster so it's a pretty big increase in bulk, weight, and cost. Hmm I don't know why I glazed over the aperture but you're right, it would have to be around that size for a 1.4
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Uncle Ivan posted:It's a whole stop faster so it's a pretty big increase in bulk, weight, and cost. Also some of the X-100 lens mechanics are in the body of the camera, including the leaf shutter, so it really is a whole different animal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:Hey guys, I know some of you were wishing for a NEX-7 that is ugly and even more expensive. Thankfully Hasselblad has answered your prayers. All I can think of now is that SNL "Sabra Price is Right" with Tom Hanks. "Is Sony guts!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
HPL posted:All I can think of now is that SNL "Sabra Price is Right" with Tom Hanks. I wonder if they'll at least make a few lenses?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
My worries about the 17mm 2.8 were unfounded, it came in this morning and I'm really enjoying it. In real world use it's plenty fast, sharp enough, and a huge improvement over the kit zoom (the original E-P1 kit zoom anyway, I haven't tried the 14-42 II R or whatever the upgraded version is called). Here's a stupid picture of a fire hydrant. (click for huge) It looks great on the E-P1 too! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
I guess we weren't the only ones making fun of the new Hassel-NEX 7 http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2206781/hasselblad-were-not-robbing-people-off-with-lunar-camera
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:Also some of the X-100 lens mechanics are in the body of the camera, including the leaf shutter, so it really is a whole different animal. I'm quite sure that the leaf shutter in the X100 works like almost every single other leaf shutter, meaning it resides at the aperture point in the lens. I'm not really sure what other mechanics you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:I guess we weren't the only ones making fun of the new Hassel-NEX 7 Thanks for that. It's great that he's admitting that the only better feature is a metal frame, instead of plastic, so it will lst much longer. Of course, you could buy 5 NEX-7s to keep on the shelf and simply unbox one of them everytime you break one. Though how you break one of these is somewhat beyond me. Or why you would want a body to last for so long, when they admit that the 2nd and 3rd generation bodies will be so much better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
Then there's this: Product Announcement: Lensrentals Looney 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
spog posted:Thanks for that. The NEX-7 has a metal frame anyway. It's magnesium alloy which is lighter than aluminum and harder to dent, unlike the Hasselblad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Costello Jello posted:The NEX-7 has a metal frame anyway. It's magnesium alloy which is lighter than aluminum and harder to dent, unlike the Hasselblad. You obviously are not one of these "young people" who are going to buy the heck out of that blinged out hassy!  Is anyone else interested in those Zeiss lenses that were announced for Sony and Fuji mounts? If the price is reasonable, I will be very much interested.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:Is anyone else interested in those Zeiss lenses that were announced for Sony and Fuji mounts? If the price is reasonable, I will be very much interested. They're gonna price them similar to the existing Zeiss 24/1.8 lens for NEX you can gauge the pricing from there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:You obviously are not one of these "young people" who are going to buy the heck out of that blinged out hassy! I was looking into them yesterday. One site had a rep talking about a price point of about €1000.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
d0s posted:My worries about the 17mm 2.8 were unfounded, it came in this morning and I'm really enjoying it. In real world use it's plenty fast, sharp enough, and a huge improvement over the kit zoom (the original E-P1 kit zoom anyway, I haven't tried the 14-42 II R or whatever the upgraded version is called). Here's a stupid picture of a fire hydrant. It would look even better without the unnecessary UV filter ! !
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Do you guys think Olympus will drop the price of OM-D soon in light of X-E1?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:It would look even better without the unnecessary UV filter ! ! Bah, UV filter is fine. That's the only way I roll these days on trips to not worry about the front element or cap. Just don't get a crap one that introduces flare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 13:53
|
|
|
keyframe posted:Do you guys think Olympus will drop the price of OM-D soon in light of X-E1? I'm guessing they will roll at current pricing through the holidays and drop after the first of the year. That being said, if they feel between the XE-1, NEX 6 and NEX 5R that they have a lot of competition at the $800-$1000 mark, it may behoove them to drop the OM-D earlier, while it's still considered to be pretty sexy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
keyframe posted:Do you guys think Olympus will drop the price of OM-D soon in light of X-E1? No, they will drop the price because I just ordered one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
Just posting to say that the Xpro1 firmware update made me fall in love all over again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Has it been explicitly said that the X100 won't get the new firmware? All I want is that and a telephoto adapter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
Fiannaiocht posted:Has it been explicitly said that the X100 won't get the new firmware? All I want is that and a telephoto adapter. I'll be happy with just the telephoto adaptor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
An xpro1 just followed me home, wish that battery would charge
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Bah, UV filter is fine. That's the only way I roll these days on trips to not worry about the front element or cap. Just don't get a crap one that introduces flare. Yeah, that's why I have it on, I don't think it's even a UV filter, it's made by Olympus specifically for this lens and they call it a "protection filter". It's coated with something that counteracts flare. I know it looks dumb but it's more convenient than messing with a cap
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
I was ready to buy a Nikon DSLR and started thinking that I really don't (won't) want to drag all that poo poo around Europe. The last trip I used my crackberry and s95 for 90% of my photos because we walked every where and i did not want to hassle with weight. we tend to wander about like idiots from daylight to dark with no schedule. I find the Canon s95 and new iPhone great cameras but they lack speed and flexibility in low light situations. Are the 4/3 cameras really my answer? I was considering an older generation body with the kits lens and the lenses listed below. Would these really be tolerable to carry all day? Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/2.8 Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f/1.8 Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:I was ready to buy a Nikon DSLR and started thinking that I really don't (won't) want to drag all that poo poo around Europe. The last trip I used my crackberry and s95 for 90% of my photos because we walked every where and i did not want to hassle with weight. we tend to wander about like idiots from daylight to dark with no schedule. Comedy option would be to replace the telephoto zoom with the Tokina 300mm mirror lens. It's smaller and lighter than the zoom, but it's manual focus. Most people don't like the out of focus donuts though. Honestly, I would find it no problem to carry that stuff around as long as I'd have a comfortable bag they all fit in. Something to consider is that you might want a wider lens than the 17mm. I know Olympus makes a 9-18mm. I don't know how good it is, but it looks small. Something like the 9-18, the Panasonic 20 f/1.7 and some sort of long telephoto would be a kit that I would probably like better personally, but obviously you have to go with what fits your shooting style (and budget).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
My last vacation I had a similar trifecta, panny 20, and two adapted lenses- super tak 50, and tamron sp 35-80. A bit heavier than your choice but it wasn't any trouble. I've got a gf1, which I love, but I wouldn't call it a low light dynamo. All of the older ones outside the GHes are rough above 800. Wasn't a problem for me since I rarely shot faster on film, but something to think about. The GX1 does much better if you can swing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
The 9-18 and a 45-200 plus the 45 prime would be doable, I want the 45 for a portrait lens. I guess I need to spurge in the bodies to see how old and low cost I can go and still get something relatively decent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Panasonic or Olympus should make a m43 500mm f/2.8. It would be awesome for wildlife and what not because you wouldn't need such a ginormous lens compared to a full frame one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:The 9-18 and a 45-200 plus the 45 prime would be doable, I want the 45 for a portrait lens. I guess I need to spurge in the bodies to see how old and low cost I can go and still get something relatively decent. If you don't want to blow $600 on the 9-18, the Panasonic 14mm is a fantastic little lens too. I don't really see any reason to buy the 17mm- it's a decent lens but the 14mm is sharper, smaller, and has much better AF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:If you don't want to blow $600 on the 9-18, the Panasonic 14mm is a fantastic little lens too. I don't really see any reason to buy the 17mm- it's a decent lens but the 14mm is sharper, smaller, and has much better AF. I don't want to blow a dime more than I have too, thanks for the tip 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:If you don't want to blow $600 on the 9-18, the Panasonic 14mm is a fantastic little lens too. I don't really see any reason to buy the 17mm- it's a decent lens but the 14mm is sharper, smaller, and has much better AF. Seconding this - the Panny 14 is a great piece of glass that is constantly overshadowed by its' 20mm sibling. The 28mm FOV is pretty sweet for travelling around with, and it's small and light.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
So, what's the super bargain for a m4/3 body to go with that tiny panny?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 14:14
|
|
|
spog posted:So, what's the super bargain for a m4/3 body to go with that tiny panny? I've seen the GF3 for under $300. Not a great camera, but tiny and a good price.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
I have been looking at the Olympus PL2, any reason I wouldn't want this camera. I would probably add a viewfinder, one day. The panny 14 Samyang 7.5 fisheye Kit lens 14-42 Insert a zoom lens here 45-200? 42 f1.8
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
HPL posted:Panasonic or Olympus should make a m43 500mm f/2.8. It would be awesome for wildlife and what not because you wouldn't need such a ginormous lens compared to a full frame one. It would be ginormous and then some. For a lens like that you would gain near nothing making it fit m43 over fullframe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Let's set something straight, a lens of a particular focal length and ratio, whatever the image circle it throws, will have a minimum diameter. An F-ratio is a physical dimensionless number, so applying the simple arithmetic we get 500 mm / 2.8 = ~179mm aperture (front element). Slightly over 7 inches, for the rest of you. The image circle needed (sensor format) affects the internal construction, lens tube length & weight, but the front element size quoted is a minimum. For example a 50/2.8 need only be 17.8 mm but my Sigma normal zoom was 72mm, mostly to accomodate the light cone angle of the wide end of the zoom range. Edit: on the other hand, a 250mm lens covering the same angle of view as a 500mm lens on 135 format of the same focal ratio would be "only" 3.5 inches in diameter. Edit the second: the reason physical length doesn't correlate to lens focal length is because the focal length is defined as the image-plane-to-optical-centre distance. The problem is said optical centre can very easily be outside the physical lens barrel due to Optical Magic Tricks. Wolf on Air fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Sep 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
spog posted:So, what's the super bargain for a m4/3 body to go with that tiny panny?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
Ropes4u posted:I have been looking at the Olympus PL2, any reason I wouldn't want this camera. I would probably add a viewfinder, one day. Sub in the Oly 12, Panny 25, or Oly 75 if you want to spend more money. Fisheye is a specialty lens, so up to you. Tele zooms are all fairly common, and I don't know that any is considered a blowaway lens. The Oly 40-150 or Panny 45-200 are generally good and affordable (Oly is smaller and lighter, but Panny has a little extra reach).
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 01:14
|
|