JadedWriter
Member
That's also a good reason.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NeoGAF Camera Equipment Thread | MK II
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
Also, I picked Canon over Nikon because of the cheap 24mm. For Nikon there's no real alternative to that in the same price range.
JadedWriter
Member
Did you get the pancake lens? Yeah Nikon does not make an affordable 27mm.
Wizard of GAF
Member
Hey, check these out!
RED DSMC (Digital Stills and Motion Camera) DONNA Simulator.
RED have simulator thats available on both the APP store and PLAY store. Its pretty handy for getting to grips with the camera. Its bundled with help tips, info and more. Definitely recommend checking it out. (Phone app only no web app).
ARRI ALEXA Camera simulator ver.11.1 http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/tools/alexa_camera_simulator/alexa/
ARRI also have a simulator for their line of cameras, however this one is more of a 1:1 simulator. It doesn't come with tips and such, but it's still a good tool. If you have anymore questions shoot!
40mm is the pancake lens, I only have the 24mm f/2.8 STM and 50mm f/1.8 STM. It's a great way to start and I only spent 300 on my 20D and both lenses combined.
Well that's it, though, there are just so many good lenses available for EF mount it makes a lot of sense as a system to buy into, if you have the cash for it. Canon's own L-series glass is generally excellent (there's a reason you see videographers mount it on Sony bodies much more often than they do Sony lenses), plus Sigma, Zeiss, and more. Not only does EF mount have a lens option for every possible scenario, but it generally has a very good option for every scenario.
I also feel there just isn't that big of a difference between the different FF cameras as people think. From a IQ perspective, ~20MP is plenty for almost any application, and differences in noise and dynamic range only show themselves rarely in real-world situations. Autofocus performance will depend on use case, people shooting wildlife and sports will notice the difference between a 6D and a 1DX, but the rest of us will likely do just fine on the cheaper model (hell I probably shot 90+% of my 5D MkII shots using only the centre AF point). Video will be a big deal to some, but not to others, and I don't think many would recommend FF for amateur video anyway, given the difficulty of tracking focus with such a shallow DoF.
Moving from the 5D MkII to the A7II, a jump of 6 years in camera tech, I haven't really seen a huge difference in what I'm able to get out of them. The increased dynamic range allows me to do a bit more with photos I've horribly underexposed on the A7II, and it will look a bit better at ISO 12,800+, but I try to avoid both of those scenarios as far as possible.
JadedWriter
Member
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Refurbished This is what you have right? I'm pretty sure this is also what would be considered a pancake lens.
This is all true. I can get very usable images out of my jobs 60D if I have to, though it's not anything I'd use for indoor events, it handles high iso poorly in my opinion. They have really good glass though and that shit is built solid, as long as it's an L lens that isn't one of the 24-105 kit lenses, though probably the newer one is better.
Yeah, that's the one.
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
JadedWriter
Member
How much does sensor size, IBIS and lens selection matter to you? The Fuji has a bigger sensor, but the Olympus has IBIS and more lenses. The Fuji might beat it out in the ergonomics department though.
Olympus and Fuji have a better selection of dedicated lenses than APS-C Sony cameras, particularly if you're looking for primes. I'd recommend testing each camera out in person if you can, just to see how they feel in hand and if you like the controls. Also consider what lenses you might be looking for, as it might be the case that one mount has better options, or just better value options, for the focal lengths you're looking for.
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
Sounds as if I need to get my hands on both and see what feels better, thanks guys.
JadedWriter
Member
This. It's impossible to purchase a camera you've never touched before. It's all about how it feels in your hands in my opinion. It's how I went from wanting a D750 to wanting a D810 and why I don't have much of an urge own a X-T20 (I find the grip too small).
It is mostly lightroom, premier and aftereffects. I think lightroom has good alternatives, for the other two I have none. I really like lightzone and Rwatherapee though, but for video is really hard, more so on Windows I think.
Lasthope106
Member
Awesome little lens. I found it sharper than Sony's own 10-18mm. It is also a hell of a deal if you got it on sale. You won't be disappointed.
Blackpuppy
Member
Ugh, I want that lens! Between photography, gaming and cycling... I haven't exactly picked the least expensive hobbies to take up!
theepicoftyler
Member
That lens is on my a6000 90% of the time. I love it.
Their lens lineup is pretty spectacular. Nikon doesn't have a bad lineup, but Canon have generally had better lenses and covered some areas Nikon haven't.
Canon is one of top companies when it comes to patent filings because they file so many lens designs.
opticalmace
Member
Nice, where from? Got a link?
JadedWriter
Member
I always thought they were more or less equal unless you really needed very specific telephoto primes and 1.2 glass. I guess it just depends on what you need. I will admit their ecosystem is pretty top notch and I do like their L lenses out of the ones I've used. Their 2.8 70-200 is pretty damn good.
Laieon
Member
Lasthope106
Member
RapidCancel
Member
I have one on my Fuji that I've been using all week, I like it a lot.
yep, agreed, is a great lens the few times I've used it, need to get on it more.
Widdle Puppy
Banned
Anyone know who has the Fuji x100f in stock?
JadedWriter
Member
Just got the Fuji 35mm F2. I really wanted the 1.4, but I heard on a lot of fronts that the F2 is just more improved, that and it's cheaper. I think I'll get one of the better fast primes like the 56 1.2.
Lasthope106
Member
I received a coupon from Best Buy that I could get 10% off any purchase + 5% on rewards since I have their credit card (that basically gets it closer to tax free). The coupon had a thing that say "only in-store items." Me being a cheapass I immediately think what is the most expensive thing I need right now so that I could the maximum possible benefit out of this coupon. After a few seconds I realize that I have my eyes on the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 FE lens.
I go to BB's website and check to see which stores carry it around me. Nothing in like a 300 mile radius. Then I proceed to call their support number to see if I can still use the coupon. The person that answers turns out to be completely unhelpful and tells me to go to the store. I call the store closest to me directly, and the person there tells me that they can order it from me from the store and the coupon will work.
As soon as I got out of work yesterday I drove 45 miles to the closest Best Buy. The person helping me puts the order and the proceeds to scan the coupon. It brings up zero discount. He calls manager. The manager doesn't know. Manager tells the guy call the credit card company. After the poor guy spends 40 minutes on the phone, they proceed to tell him they don't know. Manager comes back and tells me they can't do it.
So in summary, Best Buy lost on $2.5K USD sale because they were clueless. Now I'll probably just wait a few years until I can get one used for a decent price.
I go to BB's website and check to see which stores carry it around me. Nothing in like a 300 mile radius. Then I proceed to call their support number to see if I can still use the coupon. The person that answers turns out to be completely unhelpful and tells me to go to the store. I call the store closest to me directly, and the person there tells me that they can order it from me from the store and the coupon will work.
As soon as I got out of work yesterday I drove 45 miles to the closest Best Buy. The person helping me puts the order and the proceeds to scan the coupon. It brings up zero discount. He calls manager. The manager doesn't know. Manager tells the guy call the credit card company. After the poor guy spends 40 minutes on the phone, they proceed to tell him they don't know. Manager comes back and tells me they can't do it.
So in summary, Best Buy lost on $2.5K USD sale because they were clueless. Now I'll probably just wait a few years until I can get one used for a decent price.
JadedWriter
Member
Best Buy's aren't exactly great for pro gear. They have some low level stuff for the most part but that's about it. I wanted to get my Tamron 70-200 G2 from them, but they never got any.
Lasthope106
Member
Yeah, they only carry the stuff that sells the most. The gear that I've bought from them was only available online. It was a really sweet discount if I could have used it.
Now I'm starting to consider that I might have to go and get a used Canon and an adapter in the meantime.
For the weddings that you shoot, do you use a 70-200mm f2.8? Do you think you could get away with using an f4?
JadedWriter
Member
I don't do weddings, I normally handle indoor events, but a lot of wedding shooters use 2.8 due to how dark they can be. Not to mention that even doing portraits I'm usually at 2.8. I don't mind stopping down to F4, but I don't like having that as my base point.
I need some advice on what lens to buy. I'm fairly new to non-compact cameras - I got my Olympus E-M10 Mark II last November. I'm very happy with it so far, but I'm starting to want a bit more than my kit zoom (14-42mm f3.5-5.6) can offer. I've read many articles and seen many videos on what lens should be my first purchase and I narrowed it down to three candidates. I just can't make up my mind about what would be the best for me.
So here are my choices right now:
- Panasonic Leica 15mm f1.7
- Olympus 17mm f1.8
- Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 PRO
I've seen suggestions in this very thread that a fast (wide) standard prime (35mm full frame equivalent) is the most versatile lens around. I also found out myself that I much prefer a wider perspective. On the other hand, I've also seen opinions that for a general walking-around lens a standard zoom is a much better choice.
I don't really want to spend money on specialty lenses - I want my new lens to be as versatile as possible and to give me a solid boost in image quality (that is sharpness) over my kit zoom.
With these points in mind, which one of these three lenses would you choose and why?
So here are my choices right now:
- Panasonic Leica 15mm f1.7
- Olympus 17mm f1.8
- Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 PRO
I've seen suggestions in this very thread that a fast (wide) standard prime (35mm full frame equivalent) is the most versatile lens around. I also found out myself that I much prefer a wider perspective. On the other hand, I've also seen opinions that for a general walking-around lens a standard zoom is a much better choice.
I don't really want to spend money on specialty lenses - I want my new lens to be as versatile as possible and to give me a solid boost in image quality (that is sharpness) over my kit zoom.
With these points in mind, which one of these three lenses would you choose and why?
pretty simple, 12-40 pro is all you need. prime will help you to reduce overall size but image quality isn't going to be that much different in this case.
TerryLee81
Member
The 12-40 Pro is the best lens I've ever owned. It's extremely sharp and built like a tank. The 17mm 1.8 is nothing to write home about.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I decided I wanted an APS-C camera with quick auto-focus so I ordered both an a6500 and a Fuji X-T2 (with the 18-55 2.8 - 4.0 OIS kit lens) and have been trying them out for a few days.
Both of these are really amazing cameras and I'm having a terribly difficult time deciding on which to keep.
A6500 thoughts:
+ Insane auto-focus speed and accuracy that just works for the most part. No settings to customize, but I never really felt like I needed them. Combined with the 11fps shooting and I feel very confident that I can capture the action.
+ 120 fps 1080p slow motion video (up to 5x slow motion when converting down to 24p). Better yet, it processes it all in-camera, so you don't have to use software later to slow it down. I don't do a ton of video, but this is a super cool feature.
+ Super compact and light weight. I don't mind the rangefinder placement at all. Maybe it's because I don't have large hands and fingers, but I find that it feels really good in the hand contrary to most of the impressions out there. The grip is definitely more substantial than the one on the Fuji.
- No continuous shooting when using the electronic shutter (silent mode).
- Not impressed with the touch screen since tapping to focus disables auto-focus completely until you tap a specific button on the screen again. I had hoped switching between the two would be a bit more seamless, but it kind of gets in the way as-is. Hopefully they can patch this someday. 120fps EVF certainly is nice, though!
- The lack of a front dial sucks, especially since I'm coming from an A7RII which has does have one. As such, I'm stuck with modifying aperture on the back dial (which has a weird form factor and is hard to use for me), and shutter speed on the mode dial. ISO has to be modified in menus. Not good at all. I really wish it just had the same layout and buttons as the full frame models.
X-T2 thoughts:
+ Holy shit, this thing just exudes quality. Everything feels extremely well thought out and constructed. All of the talk about how much of a pleasure this thing is to use was not just hype.
+ The film simulation stuff is great. I really like the look of Velvia. It's also a huge bonus that you can process RAW files in the camera body, so you're not stuck to just the one you chose at the time of shooting.
+ Being able to shoot silently with the electronic shutter at really high frame rates is super cool. I thought the A9 was the only camera that could do this, but the X-T2 already had it! Of course, the A9 is much better with rolling shutter/banding, but still.
+ This is more for the lens, but I find the OIS on the 18-55 lens to be amazing. Even though the camera doesn't have IBIS, I don't feel limited in terms of slower shutter speeds at all. I can shoot at 1/15 and 1/10 with it just fine, which is pretty much the limit on Sony IBIS cameras even when combined with an OSS lens. Very impressive. The image quality with this lens is amazing, considering it's a zoom kit lens. It honesty rivals the image quality of some of the Sony full-frame primes I have when used on the a6500. People aren't joking when they talk up Fuji's lens quality.
+ When digitally zooming in while manually focusing, you get a small pop-up window that shows where you are zooming in on the overall image. I find this extremely helpful.
+ You can get all of the information you might want on both the LCD and EVF. Histogram, electronic level, focus distance, exposure meter, etc. It's all there and you don't have to leave anything off. Very cool.
+ Really good feeling shutter release. Lots better than the sort-of mushy Sony shutter buttons.
- Continuous auto-focus settings require some tweaking for the right situation. Doesn't really feel like you can just pick up and shoot in AF-C mode.
- The focus mode (AF-C, AF-S, M) switch being on the front of the body doesn't seem like the best choice. Not a deal breaker, but odd considering how awesome all of the other button placement is.
- The eye autofocus is a bit lacking. You can't manually try to activate it like on Sony bodies and it works *only* in AF-S mode, which is a huge bummer. I think this is because AF-C wide/tracking mode has only 91 AF points to use, so the focus points are too large for eyes, but this is honestly a huge advantage to the Sony cameras to me.
Other:
I heard a lot about the dynamic range and amazing capabilities of the X-TRANS sensor in the X-T2, and it certainly is impressive, but honestly, I can't tell much of a difference between it and the A6500 at least when using Lightroom to process RAW files. In the situations I've tested, they both look *extremely* similar and seem to have just about the exact same capabilities when it comes to recovering both shadows and highlights. Noise seems to be introduced in just about the same amount when boosting exposure. To my eyes, both cameras produce great images up to ISO 1600 and then it starts to degrade pretty quickly at 3200 and above, but still usable in a pinch up to 12800. I took a few test images using the same settings on both, and when editing in Lightroom using the Adobe Standard profile, all of the files honestly feel like they came from the same camera. That is to say, both are really good and malleable. I just heard so much talk about how flexible and incredible the X-T2 RAW files are compared to the competition, but that seems like it was a bunch of fluff, honestly.
So, yeah, I'm having a really tough time choosing between the two. On paper, the A6500 is pretty much just more capable of a device. With that said, I'm really enjoying using the Fuji. It's a lot of fun to use and it's nice to have a compact zoom lens that actually produces incredible image quality and doesn't feel like a huge compromise compared to a prime lens. RAW image quality seems pretty much the same between the two, but I can definitely feel confident in the image quality of the Fuji JPEG files straight out of the camera, whereas that's often not the case with Sony's in-body image processing.
I'm going keep using both for another week or two before ultimately deciding which to return.
Both of these are really amazing cameras and I'm having a terribly difficult time deciding on which to keep.
A6500 thoughts:
+ Insane auto-focus speed and accuracy that just works for the most part. No settings to customize, but I never really felt like I needed them. Combined with the 11fps shooting and I feel very confident that I can capture the action.
+ 120 fps 1080p slow motion video (up to 5x slow motion when converting down to 24p). Better yet, it processes it all in-camera, so you don't have to use software later to slow it down. I don't do a ton of video, but this is a super cool feature.
+ Super compact and light weight. I don't mind the rangefinder placement at all. Maybe it's because I don't have large hands and fingers, but I find that it feels really good in the hand contrary to most of the impressions out there. The grip is definitely more substantial than the one on the Fuji.
- No continuous shooting when using the electronic shutter (silent mode).
- Not impressed with the touch screen since tapping to focus disables auto-focus completely until you tap a specific button on the screen again. I had hoped switching between the two would be a bit more seamless, but it kind of gets in the way as-is. Hopefully they can patch this someday. 120fps EVF certainly is nice, though!
- The lack of a front dial sucks, especially since I'm coming from an A7RII which has does have one. As such, I'm stuck with modifying aperture on the back dial (which has a weird form factor and is hard to use for me), and shutter speed on the mode dial. ISO has to be modified in menus. Not good at all. I really wish it just had the same layout and buttons as the full frame models.
X-T2 thoughts:
+ Holy shit, this thing just exudes quality. Everything feels extremely well thought out and constructed. All of the talk about how much of a pleasure this thing is to use was not just hype.
+ The film simulation stuff is great. I really like the look of Velvia. It's also a huge bonus that you can process RAW files in the camera body, so you're not stuck to just the one you chose at the time of shooting.
+ Being able to shoot silently with the electronic shutter at really high frame rates is super cool. I thought the A9 was the only camera that could do this, but the X-T2 already had it! Of course, the A9 is much better with rolling shutter/banding, but still.
+ This is more for the lens, but I find the OIS on the 18-55 lens to be amazing. Even though the camera doesn't have IBIS, I don't feel limited in terms of slower shutter speeds at all. I can shoot at 1/15 and 1/10 with it just fine, which is pretty much the limit on Sony IBIS cameras even when combined with an OSS lens. Very impressive. The image quality with this lens is amazing, considering it's a zoom kit lens. It honesty rivals the image quality of some of the Sony full-frame primes I have when used on the a6500. People aren't joking when they talk up Fuji's lens quality.
+ When digitally zooming in while manually focusing, you get a small pop-up window that shows where you are zooming in on the overall image. I find this extremely helpful.
+ You can get all of the information you might want on both the LCD and EVF. Histogram, electronic level, focus distance, exposure meter, etc. It's all there and you don't have to leave anything off. Very cool.
+ Really good feeling shutter release. Lots better than the sort-of mushy Sony shutter buttons.
- Continuous auto-focus settings require some tweaking for the right situation. Doesn't really feel like you can just pick up and shoot in AF-C mode.
- The focus mode (AF-C, AF-S, M) switch being on the front of the body doesn't seem like the best choice. Not a deal breaker, but odd considering how awesome all of the other button placement is.
- The eye autofocus is a bit lacking. You can't manually try to activate it like on Sony bodies and it works *only* in AF-S mode, which is a huge bummer. I think this is because AF-C wide/tracking mode has only 91 AF points to use, so the focus points are too large for eyes, but this is honestly a huge advantage to the Sony cameras to me.
Other:
I heard a lot about the dynamic range and amazing capabilities of the X-TRANS sensor in the X-T2, and it certainly is impressive, but honestly, I can't tell much of a difference between it and the A6500 at least when using Lightroom to process RAW files. In the situations I've tested, they both look *extremely* similar and seem to have just about the exact same capabilities when it comes to recovering both shadows and highlights. Noise seems to be introduced in just about the same amount when boosting exposure. To my eyes, both cameras produce great images up to ISO 1600 and then it starts to degrade pretty quickly at 3200 and above, but still usable in a pinch up to 12800. I took a few test images using the same settings on both, and when editing in Lightroom using the Adobe Standard profile, all of the files honestly feel like they came from the same camera. That is to say, both are really good and malleable. I just heard so much talk about how flexible and incredible the X-T2 RAW files are compared to the competition, but that seems like it was a bunch of fluff, honestly.
So, yeah, I'm having a really tough time choosing between the two. On paper, the A6500 is pretty much just more capable of a device. With that said, I'm really enjoying using the Fuji. It's a lot of fun to use and it's nice to have a compact zoom lens that actually produces incredible image quality and doesn't feel like a huge compromise compared to a prime lens. RAW image quality seems pretty much the same between the two, but I can definitely feel confident in the image quality of the Fuji JPEG files straight out of the camera, whereas that's often not the case with Sony's in-body image processing.
I'm going keep using both for another week or two before ultimately deciding which to return.
JadedWriter
Member
The XT2 is predominantly a stills camera, it does good video but that's not the strong point. 6500 is an all rounder. I personally don't like Sony ergonomics. Every time I pick up a Sony I'm like "no." They're both top tier mirror less though Fuji puts more time and thought into crop sensor lenses. The XT2 also gets better video functionality with the grip. Fuji raws are weird, it's frankly all about your processing skill.
How is sharpness? I haven't seen a good comparison and haven't tried an X-Trans myself, but I have seen some horror stories where certain patterns lose all their detail. Fine stuff like foliage seems to do poorly, but some other patterns too.
To me I just look at the X-Trans as a regular modern sensor with a unique color filter and processing. The noise is maybe nicer, but you don't seem to gain much detail and the dynamic range seems on par with competing sensors (sans Canon).
Don't believe in the myth. Fuji fudge with ISO number more and does a bit of cooking. In the end it's the same grade of Sony sensor with Fuji tweaks. Sony were also terrible at getting the most out of their own sensor back then.
Other pluses with Fuji, well I always say, Fuji and Pentax share similar DNA and you can tell by using the equipments hence I picked Fuji as my MILC of choice. They are just a joy to use. Now if the rumored IBIS becomes really, I'll be super happy.
I've owned both an Olympus OM-D EM10II and a Fuji XT-20.
In find the Olympus too small to handle comfortably and it was too menu driven.
With the Fuji I don't even need to look at a menu if I don't want to, I just set aperture on the lens, shutter speed on the dial. I have a base ISO set and a max auto ISO so I let the camera decide that. It's just so easy and fun to shot with.
Definitely handle both of you can. I bought the Olympus first after a lot of research but no hands on. Then I sold it and bought the Fuji. I also use a couple of vintage lenses as well, not sure if you can do that on the Olympus.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Maybe I just haven't shot enough with it, but I haven't noticed any weird issues or noise patterns or anything. I'm using the latest version of Adobe Lightroom available with the Creative Cloud plan, so maybe those issues of the past are gone now.
I honestly cannot tell the difference between the RAW files of both cameras. I'm sure they are there, but when comparing shots at identical settings and nearly identical framing, even stuff like the noise patterns at 3:1 zoom look pretty much the same to me.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Looking at various people's xtrans vs bayer comparisons using different RAW developers, I don't see much difference either.
Fully developed, and exported for web view, it doesn't matter much at all.
Fully developed, and exported for web view, it doesn't matter much at all.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
You can do this with any camera that has at least two dials, though. I love how the X-T2 is set up with the dials and buttons on the body (although I'm still getting used to it), but not needing to dig into menus is just not a unique trait. In fact, needing to adjust flat dials on the top of the camera body can be more inconvenient than having something you can just operate with your thumb without taking your eye from the viewfinder.
There's some difference if you pixel peep but in the end it really doesn't matter that much after all the processing and without AB comparison.
JadedWriter
Member
Regarding my XT2 the only things I've tweaked have been the preview button on the front and using one of the dpad buttons to change around the AF modes. I'm still getting used to the dials due to how they make changing shutter speed a pain but that's about it so far.
Good cameras should have pretty good, sensible default layout imo. I don't mind tweaking a button or two but any more than that it makes jumping from camera to camera such pain with a bunch of generically or non labeled buttons.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, the shutter speed dial in particular is definitely taking some getting used to. It's fine, but when you want more granular control of the speed you end up needing to use the back dial anyway, which inevitably makes me wonder why it can't (?) just control the full range...