|
The 55-200 with the 2x converter would give you 400mm f/9.5 and come in soundly under $1000.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
cheese posted:Pulled the trigger on a Panasonic GX85 from B&H. I prefer new for things with serious electronics in them and the no sales tax for CA + selling the kit lens eventually should make it solid price. Feeling some analysis by paralysis with the lens selection but I won't buy anything until I figure out what lenses I would use based on my first few months with it. De-lurking to say looking forward to seeing what you think, as I think the GX85 is going to be my next camera. I already have the 20mm prime on my old GF1 body, just wondering whether the upgrade is worth it for me - I'm not a good photographer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
bobfather posted:The 55-200 with the 2x converter would give you 400mm f/9.5 and come in soundly under $1000. That's still kind of shite compared to slapping a 150-600 C on a canikon for the same price with longer reach and 2 more stops of light, but certainly better than my solution. vvv So actually, very better than my solution alarumklok fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
alarumklok posted:I kind of wish there was a semi-decent sub-$1000 wildlife lens for fuji, it was a big 'con' that I decided I'd get over when I switched brands. The closest you can get is a 2x with a 50-230 and that's like effective f/13.4 on the long end, which is an actual cylinder of poo poo. The 50-230 doesn’t work with the tele adapter. at least it doesn’t with the 1.4, I don’t know if the 2x has a different construction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
I am pretty sure the teleconverters work with neither the 50-230 nor the 55-200 lens. Unless they change their design I would like to get a converter to play with my 55-200.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 08:12
|
|
|
So here's a weird problem. I dropped off my x-t2 at fuji last week for a once-over before my work season starts and just got it back. There's a peculiar thing happening now where formatting doesn't reset the remaining frames countdown. So, if there's 850 frames remaining and I take 5 photos, it'll say 845 remaining. If I format the card, it'll still say 845. If I delete the frames, it will still say 845. Even if I swap in a completely different set of cards, it'll still say 845, regardless of card size. It might be related to the internal battery draining while it was on the shelf at fuji, but there's nothing even close to this description online anywhere. And it's exactly the same cards I pulled out before I dropped the camera off. Very strange. VVV E: that worked, I set the frame counter to renew on every format, took one picture, set it back to continuous, and everything is fine. That's a really weird bug. red19fire fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Jan 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
Edit: nvm I misread your issue
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
So I have a really weird question about single point auto-focus on the X-T2 (using the 18-55mm): is it just me or when it figures out what to focus on it puts it like it was on the back edge of the focal plane? There would be times where I know for certain I'd put the focus point on something like someone's eyes and something close behind them would end up soft (we're talking less than a foot away). At first I thought it was a matter of aperture, focal distance, and the distance between me and the subject but there had been times where the math in my head said the plane should be deep enough but yet it still acted like my focal point was at the back edge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
It may all be just a kit lens bug/issue. Turn on the depth of field display (pixel) for a sanity check, and maybe use a smaller focus box, S-AF, back-button focus, and make sure you have focus, not release priority set for S-AF in the AF menu. For the specific instance of front-focus when aiming for the eye, are you using the eye-detect tracking mode? I've found my X-T2 & 18-55 to not be super precise, even when repeatedly focusing on the same spot, especially (but not solely) in moderate-low light. After getting a badly front-focused landscape snap on a bright sunny day, I took my kit into the local store and compared it to what they had. Tried my lens on a different body and my body with a different kit lens. There was really no improvement in focus hit rate using their on-hand demo units. The blue mark on the digital dof scale jumped around slightly with each reacquisition of focus, and sometimes failed to focus on a distant subject even when there was nothing in the foreground. You might have something else going on, but I think the X-T2 is just kind of squirrelly in general. It would be weird if your camera was consistently front- or back-focusing by the same amount every time. You can shoot the end of a yardstick or something to test that, but it's an issue I associate way more with SLRs. All of the MIlCs I've used have been a little slower to make the focus lock, but generally nail it ... if they are finding focus on the correct part of the scene. It seems like the X-T2 sometimes can't decide what exactly it's to focus on, even if it seems like there is something obvious in the box. One weird behavior that I didn't ask about at the store is the way the X-T2 stops down its aperture when you lock focus in S-AF. Say you are shooting at f5.6 and focus on a thing. You half-depress the shutter, the focus box turns green and the iris closes down to 5.6. Then you release the shutter without fully depressing it or taking a shot. Sometimes it seems like the iris stays stopped down for a few moments afterwards. I wonder if this makes it harder for the camera to acquire focus exactly as well as it did before, if you engage AF again before the iris retracts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
I really want to create an anamorphic setup for my GH5 (for video), but am having trouble finding information about this online. Everyone I've asked who does have an anamorphic gets weirdly secretive and awkward about it, as if I'm T-1000 asking them where Sarah Connor is, or something. It's getting kind of silly. Any recommended resources for finding info on anamorphic setups for the m43?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
I recall the EOS-HD guy posting about anamorphic stuff a lot; there might be decent info in those forums.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
powderific posted:I recall the EOS-HD guy posting about anamorphic stuff a lot; there might be decent info in those forums. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:It may all be just a kit lens bug/issue. For the focus settings most of what you mention is already set as such (save for back button focus which I need to put myself in habit of doing). I should also see if eye detection gives me better results. As for your second point I think the moderate-low light bit might be key here. I sat just a little under three feet away from my monitors and set the lens for f/2.8 at 18mm. With just the lights in my office on if I set the ISO to 400 and the SS to 125. I had the auto-focus try to focus on one monitor a few times, and then would try on the other. With those settings I noticed it would tend to report the focus point at just a small bit past three feet with a few odd spikes here and there. If I changed the ISO to 1600 then it was a lot more consistent about three feet or just a hair under. But if I went back to ISO 400 and set the SS to 250 I'd get a wider variation on the focus... sometimes going out to four or five feet (it happened more so on the monitor that had something dark up). It's hard to say for certain if it's consistently back focusing. I think when doing picture review that's the situation that's a lot more obvious for me. Hopefully eye detection will help out a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
Mirrorless thread, help me out. I've been out of the game for awhile on new gear and I'm looking for a camera/lens combo that'll take good shots at high ISO for stuff like kid photos in bad school gym lighting. I have other gear but none can do this and there's no hope of getting it to do so as it's all rangefinders and Foveon. I need: Full frame 150-600 equivalent coverage out of a zoom, and reasonably clean ISO 12,800 with 25,600 as a bonus. Trying to keep below $4k. Ideas so far: GH5S + ??? (because MFT seemingly lacks a great zoom for this range), A7SII (or III) + Sigma 150-600 w/ mount converter, Fuji xt2 + FUJINON XF100-400mm. Non mirrorless comedy option: Nikon Df w/ Sigma 150-600. Any other good options here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
D500 and a Nikkor 200-500 f5.6
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
windex posted:Mirrorless thread, help me out. I've been out of the game for awhile on new gear and I'm looking for a camera/lens combo that'll take good shots at high ISO for stuff like kid photos in bad school gym lighting. I have other gear but none can do this and there's no hope of getting it to do so as it's all rangefinders and Foveon. I would say the RX10 miii since it covers your focal range. But it is a 1” sensor so pushing that high iso will work but never be as clean as a larger sensor. I haven’t shot m4/3 but the reason I sold my rx10 was because although the lens was great, the convenience factor of having every lens range I would ever use built in to one body was awesome but I still grabbed my Fuji gear more often. The times I did use the rx10 though I loved it. An x-t2 and the 100-400 is a good option. I sold mine since I needed the money (the lens that is) but I loved it for birding. Not sure how great it would be in gyms but the high iso performance of the x-t2 is great (and by extension the x-t20).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
rio posted:words I would say that generally the RXs are out based on past experiences with them. The D500 would also be "in" but I'll lose out on the near side one way or the other without resorting to two lenses. The X-T2 + 100-400 is at the top of my list because Fuji has pretty gracious support of M mount via their adapter and it being APS-C makes them behave differently than they do on my other cameras, but it's right at the max I want to spend with the battery grip. The X-T20 isn't weather sealed which seems like a shame as the lens is and I have plenty of non-primary purpose potential use for the WR combo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
The xt20 is fine getting a little wet, but I think you'd want the xt2 either way, iirc it has a much higher frame rate E: i have massive hands, my bottom 2 fingers go underneath my xt20, but I've never found it uncomfortable. Holding and using the xt2, its noticably much better. With the battery grip, its probably really good for following kids around a court, but I've never used one with the grip on. The 20 cant get a grip. Try one out in store, the shutter speed dial can be a bit awkward but i'm pretty sure you shoot film a lot, so you might take to it quickly. underage at the vape shop fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Jan 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
I think if I got the x-t20 first I could have made so but after getting the x-t2 when it was released I tried the x-t20 in a store and man did it feel small. The viewfinder was also very disappointing in comparison. That was something where if I was wearing my contacts I could have dealt with it but it was small enough that I would have had issues using it with glasses on. The grip is also great in every way except for the slight flex/flimsiness of the part that extends over the camera body but my initial worries were unfounded since I have had no problems with it after over a year of heavy use. It feels great though, increases performance and battery life so that’s a win. Also with the 100-400 it would be very oddly balanced without the grip - even with the larger and more substantial x-t2 I always had the grip on when I had that lens because it is really big and I needed that extra real estate to grab on to and to use the other shutter button for portrait orientation. It’s also worth mentioning that the x-t2 might get cheaper soon. That new IBIS Fuji body is coming out soon so it might drop the price of the x-t2 (I have no idea, just a guess) so maybe that could make it a little more palatable price wise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
windex posted:Mirrorless thread, help me out. Yeah, the 200-500.. The XT2 is pretty much the mirrorless cameras you want, based on your expressed needs. Sony a6300 would be an option except that there are no 400mm telezoom options that aren't either poo poo, adapted-only, or $2.5K. (I'm still kind of amazed that this hasn't changed in the years since I had my a6000.) But the D500 + 200-500 is really a step up. You get more reach and class-leading low-light performance. I've been really impressed by the XT2's suppression of chroma noise at high ISO. It's the best low-light performer I've ever used, but the everything I've seen from the D500 makes it seem just as good, but in a different way.. if that makes any sense. Plus, you can add the 35/1.8 DX for very few camerabux and then its got a reason to exist beyond kids sports photography. Speaking of kids sports, the D500 is around 2K. It is reported to have insanely good AF. But since you're not doing this professionally, you could maybe consider the D7500 as well. It doesn't have the super-duper AF chip of the D500, and only one card slot, but in most other aspects it's the same camera. Critically, it has the same sensor, and the viewfinder is fairly large if not an exact match for the D500. Edit: don't know about AF microadjustment being a feature on the 7500 though. I assume it's there on the D500. Kind of an essential tool for using supertele lenses on DSLRs IMO.. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jan 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
Used A7R2 and a Canon 100-400 II with adapter would work pretty well at high ISOs. Alternatively there's always the A7R2 + cheapo canon 135mm f2 option. On an unrelated side note, A7R2 with the 12-24 G is amazing. Super fun to shoot with since it's so light and small while amazingly sharp for any pixel peepers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 10:53
|
|
|
At that long zoom range, why not just use Canon body and lens. I don't see the space saving with a mirrorless body.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 11:39
|
|
|
There’s always the option for the D750 and 200-500. You won’t miss the part from 150-200 or 500-600. If you’re going comedy big lens anyways the body won’t save you too much weight or size. You’d gain a faster FPS, way better autofocus, insane battery life, and better weather sealing. Try as it might, the Autofocus on the A7 with native lenses isn’t anywhere near where the d500 or D750 is, let alone performance using a lovely adaptor with non native lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 12:05
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:At that long zoom range, why not just use Canon body and lens. I don't see the space saving with a mirrorless body. Because we are in the mirrorless thread?  Also the A7R2 still has better IQ than anything from Canon 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I am pretty sure the teleconverters work with neither the 50-230 nor the 55-200 lens. They do work with the 55-200.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:They do work with the 55-200. I looked around. According to forum posts, not physically competible. It would be super nice if it does. edit: however the 1 4x can be used behind the 60mm with a 16mm extension tube. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jan 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
My friend bought the GF7 and came over with it because the manual is only in English and Panasonic don't offer a Slovak or Czech menu option. My thoughts on playing with it for a bit. It's tiny. Really, really small. I was afraid I might accidentally swallow it when she handed it to me. I have some half-frame cameras that are beefier than that thing. The controls are not as intuitive for someone who's used to a DSLR or manual cameras as the Olympus OM-Something that I played with for an afternoon. I found myself figuring out how to change something in manual mode and then getting frustrated when I couldn't repeat it a minute or two later. The image quality from the 12-32 kit lens is not going to get gasps of admiration from committed pixel-peepers, but for people who publish 100% of their work as web content, it's entirely fine. Autofocus was fast enough, the EVF is responsive and there was no appreciable difference in sharpness at different zoom levels. Manual focus would have been nice but the EVF is fine as long as you aren't navigating a lot of occluding detail between you and your focus point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I looked around. According to forum posts, not physically competible. D'oh. I was thinking back to when I was buying extension tubes. You're right. It works only with the 50-140 and the 100-400.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
Any opinions on the Fuji 23mm options? The 1.4, big, fast, optically (rather than digitally) corrected, ~$900 MSRP. The 2, small, fast enough (remembering good results with the EF 35/2 on my 5D), less than half the cost of the 1.4. I wonder if there's much of a difference between the sharpness and bokeh of either lens at f/2. It's tempting to want to spring for a 23/something and either the 56 or the 90, but I'm more inclined to hold off and save up for the 100-400 (or 200/2+TC if I can swing it). Does anyone here use adapted manual-focus lenses with their Fuji kit? Thinking about picking up a Nikon Ai adapter to gently caress around with while waiting on my major purchase ability to recharge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Any opinions on the Fuji 23mm options? The 1.4, big, fast, optically (rather than digitally) corrected, ~$900 MSRP. The 2, small, fast enough (remembering good results with the EF 35/2 on my 5D), less than half the cost of the 1.4. I wonder if there's much of a difference between the sharpness and bokeh of either lens at f/2. The 23mm f/2 is also optically corrected. They are both extremely sharp. The 23mm f/2 has much faster and more accurate AF than the f/1.4 I have owned both and would buy either again in a heartbeat if I didn't have an x100f. I keep trying manual focus and I just don't see well enough to focus fast glass. My most recent effort included a Speed booster, it was very good but just not for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
Teach posted:De-lurking to say looking forward to seeing what you think, as I think the GX85 is going to be my next camera. I already have the 20mm prime on my old GF1 body, just wondering whether the upgrade is worth it for me - I'm not a good photographer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Does anyone here use adapted manual-focus lenses with their Fuji kit? Thinking about picking up a Nikon Ai adapter to gently caress around with while waiting on my major purchase ability to recharge. I picked up an m42 to XF adapter ring when I got my X-T2, to mess around with my Helios 44-2 and it's swirly bokeh, and also some Pentax Super Takumar's (35mm and 50mm I think) that I've been hoarding for years, but never really got results I enjoyed. I'll try and take some test shots this week with a few and post the results, for science, or those interested in how they turn out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Interesting. I have a Helios-81 in Nikon mount and it's sort of the main thing I was wanting to try out on the X-T2, because of the bokeh. But the -44 was a little underwhelming? Also good to know about the 23/2 being optically corrected. I thought all the 'Fujicron' f/2 primes were made small and cheap with digital aberration correction. I heard that was the case with the 35/2, at least. EDIT: one more thing. Is the Fuji-user orthodoxy to turn down sharpness even when shooting for OOC JPEGS? I just went though a set of images from my last outing with the X-T2 kit, and the JPEGs from the camera looked a little softer than the RAFs I processed with the default sharpening applied on export. No surprise since the camera is set to -2 sharpening, but... is there a reason for that? It's the same setting I used on my old XE1, but I can't remember why Do sharpening artifacts start to appear at default (0) value? SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Jan 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
ianskate posted:I picked up an m42 to XF adapter ring when I got my X-T2, to mess around with my Helios 44-2 and it's swirly bokeh, and also some Pentax Super Takumar's (35mm and 50mm I think) that I've been hoarding for years, but never really got results I enjoyed. I'll try and take some test shots this week with a few and post the results, for science, or those interested in how they turn out. You won't get terribly visible swirly bokeh with a crop-sensor camera. The Helios effect (which is actually the Biotar effect) is most pronounced at the edges - which obviously are mostly outside the smaller sensor area. The Helios 81 is another double gauss, Biotar-derived design like the Helios 44 but it's a slightly different optical formula. You still get the stretched bokeh but the effect isn't as strong. It is a great lens though, I have a couple for my Kiev 19 (which is an F mount camera) and for the Kiev Automat mount cameras I have. It's sharp and renders colours really nicely. Here's a Helios-44 shot with a Spotmatic.  Spotmatic002.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr Here's one with a crop-sensor DSLR (Canon 70D).  untitled-43-Edit.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr This is the Helios 81 on my Kiev 19.  Kiev19019.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Any opinions on the Fuji 23mm options? The 1.4, big, fast, optically (rather than digitally) corrected, ~$900 MSRP. The 2, small, fast enough (remembering good results with the EF 35/2 on my 5D), less than half the cost of the 1.4. I wonder if there's much of a difference between the sharpness and bokeh of either lens at f/2. I didn’t like the 23 F2 and it’s the only Fuji lens I’ve bought and then sold so far. It’s fine if you are not close to your subject and/or you don’t use it at at F2, buuutttt in practice I did both of those a lot, and often together. For reference, I have the 35 F2 and love it and use it at F2 all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
I found MF to be much easier to use with Fuji than Sony, just joy to use. Fuji implementation seemed so much better thought out - push wheel, you are immediately at max magnification, rotate wheel to change magnification if you want, take photo. Peaking is much more visible and always there. Compared to A7 II (from memory, I don't have it anymore) - push button, first you get to move magnification area, push button to get to first level of magnification, push button again to get to max magnification but now no more peaking! Also, in some scenes peaking just isn't there. This is X-E2, I assume other Fujis are similar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:You won't get terribly visible swirly bokeh with a crop-sensor camera. The Helios effect (which is actually the Biotar effect) is most pronounced at the edges - which obviously are mostly outside the smaller sensor area. Thanks for sharing this. Definitely makes sense that the swirly corners wouldn't be seen on a smaller sensor, but I was hoping there might've been more of a hint of it left in the effective crop. The 'soap bubble' effect in that 70D pic is pretty striking, but I'm guessing that's something particular to having strongly back-lit foliage at the right distance from the subject, and not a common effect of the lens? I've used the Helios on my FE2 quite a bit, but not for portraits. Threw it on my 5D2 for shits a few times and found it to be quite a bit sharper than I honestly expected from a lens that looks like its engraved markings were painted in with a white-out brush. grahm posted:I didn’t like the 23 F2 and it’s the only Fuji lens I’ve bought and then sold so far. It’s fine if you are not close to your subject and/or you don’t use it at at F2, buuutttt in practice I did both of those a lot, and often together. For reference, I have the 35 F2 and love it and use it at F2 all the time. Huh. Wide open (at f/3.2) and close-up is a good chunk of how I've been using the kit lens at 23mm. ugh whatever jeez posted:I found MF to be much easier to use with Fuji than Sony, just joy to use. The Fuji peaking seems better than either Sony or Oly's, but the real game changer for me might be the dual-view display mode, where the whole scene is view is downscaled and placed beside permanently-zoomed view box. I haven't actually tried it with a manual-focus lens yet, but it seems promising.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:
Pixel peepers would probably notice it more. I had the 1.4 and it was nothing short of magic. Ken rockwell types complain about the f/2 versions edges being soft wide open around 12” from the subject. The k*rock underground believes Fuji had to cut corners optically to make a smaller weathersealed lens, and it manifests as soft corners at f/2 and a more aggressive raw-to-jpg distortion correction profile  You can probably find a used one from $600-700, they’re getting long in the tooth but worth every penny. Coupled with a 56/1.2 it’s part of the dream team. red19fire fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jan 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Interesting. I have a Helios-81 in Nikon mount and it's sort of the main thing I was wanting to try out on the X-T2, because of the bokeh. But the -44 was a little underwhelming? I shoot SOOC jpegs with +2 sharpness on my xtrans3 cameras.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
So I finished getting all my gear, thought I'd do a rundown for reasons, maybe it will be helpful to someone, or you fuji guys can tell me I've wasted my money... GX85 Camera Kit: $600 Selling kit 12-32 lens: -$150 25mm 1.7: $150 42.5mm 1.7: $350 15mm 1.7 (used): $400 Total: $1350 Peak Designs Field Pouch and Leash: $70 Two extra batteries: $25 And everything fits inside the field pouch.      If I hadn't already owned the 25mm I might have picked up the 20mm in lieu of the 15 and 25, and just had two lenses, but so far I'm really liking having all three focal ranges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 03:21
|
|
