|
GonadTheBallbarian posted:That's a pretty damned decent lens for it, so if you wind up only using that you'll be okay!
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
That 20mm is a really good lens already. You might be able to get a used 45mm f/1.8 as well
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Kenny Logins posted:Thanks, she's 4 months old at this point. My couson and her husband borrowed my 55-200mm lens on their Japan trip. Along with their 18-55, 56mm and a remote TTL flash. When I look through their photo albums, the ones that jumped up to my eyed were mostly taken by the 56mm. I don't even remember I recognized any photo taken by the 55-200mm. I am just saying you don't need to have zoom collections that cover the entire focal range. Sometimes you can shoot the entire trip with a prime lens. I have done it with either 14mm or the 16mm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
The 25mm 1.7 is my go to recommendation just due to it being such a good value, but if you've already got the 20mm, I'd just stick with that. Maybe grab the 45 as has been recommended so you have a less-wide-angle option?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Syrinxx posted:I guess about $350-500. The 20mm f/1.7 is very compact so I like that, but I'm not that familiar with the platform so I don't know the quirks or the super amazing values of M43 lenses yet. Want to buy my panaleica 15mm F1.7? I always felt the 20mm was just a little to narrow for when I wanted wide angle landscapes, but I used it for years and loved it. I got the 15mm which is fantastic, but I don't find myself in as many situations where I use it, and have my eye on one of the f2.8 standard zooms. I can provide more details when I get home if you'd be interested.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
I *tried* a lot with my kids (3 and 5) and the Canon 70-300 before I swapped. Unless you are really trying to be the sportsphotog dad, the lenses are just too long and slow to be useful for kids. You can make some OK portraits at the short end and do some passable birding on the long end (in full daylight with cooperative birds), but looking back over my flickr, I can draw a straight line from 1) trying portraits and action of a 1 year old with the 70-300 2) realizing 70mm+ is too physically far away from your kid, they're always either around your legs or running away from you 3) getting the EF 35/2 and going "hey this is much more useful than always backpedaling and still gives really nice DoF up close, shame it's so huge." 4) oh hey, fuji has a really loved 35/2 that's half the weight of my current setup I have the 18-55 and the 35/2, and if it had been released (or even announced) at the time, the 35 would probably be the 50/2. But if I were spending money tomorrow, I would still much rather have wider than longer. Maybe if the girls turn into softball heroes or something my song will change, but for the time being they're rarely more than 55mm worth of reach from me. I shot an entire wekend beautifully in DC with my X100S, and that's all I'm taking to NYC this weekend. I have zero regrets about not replacing my big zoom once I swapped to mirrorless, definitely don't believe the people who tell you your "kit is incomplete" if it doesn't go 14-250. Unless you're just gear lusting, in which case walk your own path. I've been there, just about everyone in this thread has been, too. You'll end up at the right answer for you eventually. Huxley fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Want to buy my panaleica 15mm F1.7? I always felt the 20mm was just a little to narrow for when I wanted wide angle landscapes, but I used it for years and loved it. I got the 15mm which is fantastic, but I don't find myself in as many situations where I use it, and have my eye on one of the f2.8 standard zooms. I can provide more details when I get home if you'd be interested. It sounds like the Pana 20 is "good enough" and I can nearly fit the camera in a pocket with it attached. I was going to get the Zuiko 45mm from the Oly "trade up and save" thing but it ends in a few days and I never got around to it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Syrinxx posted:Thank you for the offer, I think that Summilux looks very good but I'm gravitating towards something a bit longer rather than use my budget on going 5mm wider No prob. The 20 is definitely good enough, probably better tbh. It's a great walking around lens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Want to buy my panaleica 15mm F1.7? I always felt the 20mm was just a little to narrow for when I wanted wide angle landscapes, but I used it for years and loved it. I got the 15mm which is fantastic, but I don't find myself in as many situations where I use it, and have my eye on one of the f2.8 standard zooms. I can provide more details when I get home if you'd be interested. Depending on the price, I might be interested in this myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
These are all reasonable points. Thanks for the input, guys. I think I just need to get over my fear of A) being locked into a focal length at prime and B) missing out on the odd long shot. I should probably just pick the XF 35 or 50 F2 and just go to town taking portraits etc realizing that either choice is going to be good and useful in the long run and they're only like $100 apart. Kenny Logins fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Has anyone here used the 50 f2? I have been curious about it but will never ever part with the 56 1.2 so I know I won’t have any first hand experience with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:Depending on the price, I might be interested in this myself. I haven't checked eBay, but Keh had one the other day for something like $487. I'm in Canada which always complicates shipping, but it's a small enough package. I figure something like $450ish USD + shipping? I was going to put a post up in the buy&sell thread, but I can offer first dibs if you want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Fuji folks: 16-55 f2.8 or the 18-55 w/ OIS? I can't decide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Unless you really know you need the 2.8, get the 18-55, on the used market you can find them for $325, they're a bargain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
The weather sealing is nice too. Wish it wasn't so big and goofy either. Okay I'll get the 18-55.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
For the price of the 16-55 ($850 used) you can afford to buy an 18-55 ($300 used) and a 50mm f/2 ($350 used) and still have money left over to almost buy yourself a used X-T10 as a second body ($350). Or forego the 50mm and X-T10 and just buy an X100s for ~$500. So many good deals on used Fuji gear if you look.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
rio posted:Has anyone here used the 50 f2? I have been curious about it but will never ever part with the 56 1.2 so I know I won’t have any first hand experience with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
rio posted:Has anyone here used the 50 f2?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Kenny Logins posted:If I get it I'll report back but the consensus online seems to be it's a great compact XF F2 prime like the 23mm and the 35mm it's just a bit of a weirdo focal length, albeit one that's still fine for portraits and scaredy-cat street shots. Price is nice, and the size/weight as well. I have the 35 f2 and it is a great lens. When I was getting a 23 I had a tough decision between the f2 vs. 1.4 and ended up with the latter. I’m glad I did because it is so good but they both have strengths and weaknesses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Huxley posted:
They also dart from shadow to shadow like cockroaches. My kid is never lit properly. Fast prime all the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
rio posted:I have the 35 f2 and it is a great lens. When I was getting a 23 I had a tough decision between the f2 vs. 1.4 and ended up with the latter. I’m glad I did because it is so good but they both have strengths and weaknesses. I'm finding the most common use case for my 18-55 these days is at 55, as wide open as possible, and usually shooting the baby or someone holding the baby i.e. never headshots. Hence the 50 as a draw if I have to pick a particular focal length since that's probably going to be the main use for the next few years. Seems like all the XF f2s are good choices anyhow. I feel like I'm spoiled rotten only jumping into the hobby at the X-T20.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
bobfather posted:For the price of the 16-55 ($850 used) you can afford to buy an 18-55 ($300 used) and a 50mm f/2 ($350 used) and still have money left over to almost buy yourself a used X-T10 as a second body ($350). oh I'm aware. I was about to pull the trigger on an xt2 with the 18-55 but instead went used and got an xt1, 23 f2, 35 f2, Rokinon 12 f2, extra batteries and two travel tripods with money leftover. Couldn't be happier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Hey guys, I’ve finally saved up enough money to buy a camera that’d be better than my iPhone. I have $1200. I’m cross-posting this to the DSLR thread, because I don’t know which of the two types of cameras would suit me best. All I know about the downsides of mirrorless are lower battery capacity and EVF lag in low-light, and I’m probably out of the loop regarding those things. I’m aware that just having one lens isn’t enough, and I’ll need a tripod and memory cards and other gear, so those $1200 start looking mighty short when taking those things into consideration. I really love low-light and night photography, but I’d also like to dip into video as well. So that’s where the big issue comes in. To be frank, I don’t know which of the two I’d prioritize, and this camera would help me find that answer, I think. I’ve included some images and videos of what I’d like to do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=x8xzZXPyTxs https://www.flickr.com/photos/songmatin/34147739761/in/faves-90085889@N00/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/songmatin/34267516812/in/faves-90085889@N00/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/kristin-krahl/32492116801/in/faves-90085889@N00/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/songmatin/34199799226/in/faves-90085889@N00/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/makhmutov/7833257646/in/faves-90085889@N00/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/danieleboffelli/19296229361/in/faves-90085889@N00/ https://vimeo.com/33285534 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS3awiP13N8 I know it’s a pain in the rear end to recommend something that does both well, especially at the price point I can afford, but a man can dream.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
If you want to do video well at that price point get the G85. It's not going to be the best low light performer though, gotta pick what matters most.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
As a noted Fuji fanboy I'd say look into the X-E3, it's available brandnew with the 23mm f/2 for $1,150 on amazon which is a rad deal imo. I've had really good experiences shooting xtrans3 cameras in low light and the 23mm f/2 is crazy good despite it being only f/2. Edit: Hell there's one like new listed on amazon right now for $1,078 which is a steal. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
People who ask for camera buying advise will most likely ignore your suggestion anyway so I will go ahead and recommend used 70D 18135 and a Sony X3000 as your B cam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
Butt Savage posted:Hey guys, I’ve finally saved up enough money to buy a camera that’d be better than my iPhone. I have $1200. I’m cross-posting this to the DSLR thread, because I don’t know which of the two types of cameras would suit me best. All I know about the downsides of mirrorless are lower battery capacity and EVF lag in low-light, and I’m probably out of the loop regarding those things. I’m aware that just having one lens isn’t enough, and I’ll need a tripod and memory cards and other gear, so those $1200 start looking mighty short when taking those things into consideration. So, night time Tokyo/city candids and street scenes, car stuff, video, etc... Brother I can help. Get a Panasonic GX85, which is $600 at BH right now with a crappy kit lens (sorry, I really didn't like the 12-32 when I used it on my sister's camera). Sell that for $50 or whatever, then buy a used 20mm F1.7 pancake. That should leave just enough left over to splash out on the pana 12-35 f2.8 (if you want dual IS for video) or Olympus 12-40 f2.8, or most other lenses that might take your fancy. Or you could probably get both the Olympus M zuiko 17mm and 25mm F1.8s still in budget if you want to stick to primes. One of the Leica branded summilux primes (15 or 25mm) is a good choice too, and will leave a little left over. One of the plus sides of the GX85 is the built in micro USB charger. It charges like a phone, so if you're running low, you can swap batteries if you have a spare, or just park yourself at an outlet for an hour and recharge. One if the downsides is no mic jack for video. However, most of the things I've read and seen when it comes to video recording recommended recording audio separately (on say a Zoom M1 or whatever) and mixing in post. Having a built in mic preamp is certainly convenient though. If you're worried about low light performance, don't be. It's not going to be unnaturally amazing like a Sony A7s mark whatever, but the IS (and especially dual IS if the lens+camera combo supports it) and fast primes will let you easily handhold at night without really needing to go higher than ISO 800. The dynamic range enhancer geegaws work well too, though generally require a very stable platform. I can post a couple of night scenes shot with the 15mm summilux and 20mm pancake if you're interested. I don't want to photo dump itt though. (or buy a Fuji, which is what everyone else is going to tell you to do!)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
rio posted:I have the 35 f2 and it is a great lens. When I was getting a 23 I had a tough decision between the f2 vs. 1.4 and ended up with the latter. I’m glad I did because it is so good but they both have strengths and weaknesses. Could you elaborate on this? I'm thinking of switching to Fuji and window shopping the 35mm f2 and the 1.4, and I'm not really sure what the difference is besides one stop and ~$150.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Arcella posted:Could you elaborate on this? I'm thinking of switching to Fuji and window shopping the 35mm f2 and the 1.4, and I'm not really sure what the difference is besides one stop and ~$150. the f2 focuses much faster and is weather sealed. the f1.4 is a lovely lens but it was one of the first ones they made so its focusing mechanism is outdated. For a long time it was considered the best lens ever
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Ok, you’ve got my attention. This camera seems to hit the right notes — a good balance between video and stills capabilities, judging by some Amazon reviews. Plus, I’ll have enough cash left over for a secondary lens to play with. From what I’m gathering, here’s the breakdown: code:For audio, I think my iPhone + a nifty little mic would suffice until I decide to get real serious with video, if that ever happens. Hell, I might end up preferring stills over video while I’m learning, so spending too much on the video aspect might not be wise. Maybe post your 2 latest favorite shots? Do you have any big gripes about the GX85 that you think would turn off a novice like me? I read the EVF was pretty disappointing? But yeah, something about the Fuji's is tempting as hell, especially with all the praise they get here. I'm colorblind, so dealing with color correction in LR sounds like a nightmare to me, and everyone says that Fuji's jpg output is near perfect. I figure that would allow me to worry less about fixing up images and just getting out there and shooting. 8th-snype posted:X-E3 Is it alright for video, in your experience? whatever7 posted:People who ask for camera buying advise will most likely ignore your suggestion anyway so I will go ahead and recommend used 70D 18135 and a Sony X3000 as your B cam.  I really appreciate the help, everyone. I’m loving excited either way! Butt Savage fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Butt Savage posted:
I don't shoot motion work but my understanding is that the newer sensors are at least serviceable for video. Arcella posted:Could you elaborate on this? I'm thinking of switching to Fuji and window shopping the 35mm f2 and the 1.4, and I'm not really sure what the difference is besides one stop and ~$150. I've owned the 35mm f/1.4 and two 35mm f/2 fuji lenses (yes I know I have a problem). The 35mm f/1.4 is slower and louder to focus but it's def sharper and optically superior. The 35mm f/2 is crazy fast and weather sealed, but to get that into a small package they had to make some optical concessions. The f/2 is corrected via software which is fine if you shoot jpegs or use the latest version of lightroom, but if you have some nonstandard program in your post workflow you are gonna have to manually correct for distortion. Also incase you care the 35mm f/2 focus breathes heavily. That being said it's great lens and if I didn't have a tele converter for my x100f I'd strongly consider putting one in my bag again. I suppose it really depends on why you want a 35m lens, if you are a portrait photographer get the f/1.4, if you plan to use it as an all around lens get the f/2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Arcella posted:Could you elaborate on this? I'm thinking of switching to Fuji and window shopping the 35mm f2 and the 1.4, and I'm not really sure what the difference is besides one stop and ~$150. I have the 35 f2 and honestly I don’t notice the focusing speed difference on the X-T2. I did notice it on the X-T1 but it was not enough to matter to me. The 24 1.4, and like it the 56 1.2 are just magic and the glass is made up of ground up pixies or something. They are optically excellent and the extra stop makes a big difference to me since I can use them in low light and get a lower iso (which isn’t a huge issue with a modern Fuji but the less noise the better for me). The only thing I am not a huge fan of on the 23 1.4 is the push/pull focus ring but now that I am used to it there are no issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Cool thanks, I'm mostly looking to downsize from my 40D/17-50 2.8, as I never find myself wanting to take it around when we're on vacation, or throw it in my bag, and I figure a mirrorless + a smaller prime is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Arcella posted:Cool thanks, I'm mostly looking to downsize from my 40D/17-50 2.8, as I never find myself wanting to take it around when we're on vacation, or throw it in my bag, and I figure a mirrorless + a smaller prime is the way to go. Consider also the x100f. It's basically a mini xpro2. I carry mine with the wide and tele lenses, which gives me 28, 35, 50mm FOV f/2 lens option in a package that fits into a very tiny bag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
I shoot my X-T10 90% of the time and keep looking at my X100S in the cabinet thinking how I could turn it into another lens for my main. But I just took the X100S to NYC for four days and god it's just the absolute perfect tool for travel, and I came home wanting to sell my whole setup and just be an X100F guy forever. I had it thrown over my shoulder for four straight days on my feet and didn't even notice it was there. It seems like I only shoot it twice a year, but when I do it's just an absolute and indispensable joy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
200 f2.8 going to exist for m43 <3quote:poo poo, that’s a tough choice. But I think I like the idea of one prime and one zoom, for now. So that’d be the pancake plus the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 or the Olympus 12-40 f2.8, no? Unless you recommend otherwise. Really, I'm quite lost regarding this stuff. The 5-axis stabilization sounds amazing, though. Submarine Sandpaper fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Consider also the x100f. It's basically a mini xpro2. I carry mine with the wide and tele lenses, which gives me 28, 35, 50mm FOV f/2 lens option in a package that fits into a very tiny bag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Heads up on video: the gx85 doesn't have a mic jack, while the G85 (more expensive, I know) does. Your example videos didn't have audio (or it wasn't Central to the work) so this may not matter to you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:Heads up on video: the gx85 doesn't have a mic jack, while the G85 (more expensive, I know) does. Your example videos didn't have audio (or it wasn't Central to the work) so this may not matter to you. You can also get a $20 lav and recording on your phone. It's more work but you mick doesn't need to tether to your camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
I'll sell you my gx8 too, pm me 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 19:40
|
|