JadedWriter
Member
Makes sense. I've been using the burst mode and 3D tracking in my street photography for walking tracking shots...can really get people expressing themselves when they see you.
-
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
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I've ultimately decided to return both the Sony a6500 and Fujifilm X-T2 I was using. I hoped to keep one as a backup APS-C camera for fast action shooting, but both just feel like too much of a compromise to justify spending that much money.
I loved just about everything about the Fuji, especially how it felt in the hand and how accessible all of the controls were, but the major factors that had me return it were:
- You really need to customize the auto-focus options in advance or you'll get a pretty high miss rate when it comes to action. When you set it up properly, including specifying a narrower zone, it's an amazing camera for action and extremely accurate, but if you just go into it's default mode and set it the focus area to "wide," I find it frequently does not focus on what I want it to. It's great that they give you control to customize, but I think Fuji needs a lot of work on their default AF-C mode.
- The colors of their JPEGs using the different film simulation options look amazing, but Fuji employs some really aggressive noise reduction when generating JPEGs in the camera and I'm really not a fan of the end result, especially when I'm taking pictures of humans. Even with the noise reduction setting set to it's lowest possible, I found I still got a lot of waxy/splotchy looking results that I really didn't like.
- Seemingly due to the sensor's unique layout, you can run into some weird issues with the RAW files if you just use Lightroom. Strange artifacts apparently called "worms" can appear in really detailed areas, like grass at an angle. I've seen it in a few of my files already and it's pretty nasty. Apparently, using a program called Iridient Developer to convert the RAF files to DNG files before using them in Lightroom fixes this issue for the most part, but I'm not really interested in adding that to my workflow. So, yeah, JPEGs that leave a lot to be desired in terms of image quality due to aggressive noise reduction and unique RAW files that don't play nice with Lightroom. Bleh.
It's really too bad, because everything else about the camera was amazing, including the kit zoom lens. Really impressive quality all around, but I don't think the system is for me... at least not in it's current rendition. Love that Velvia color profile, though.
The a6500 was a great camera, too, in terms of technology and image quality. I just hated how it only had one kind of hard to spin dial at the top. I'm really used to having both a front and rear dial that I can quickly access on my A7r II and it really bothered me not having that same control each time I used the a6500.
Back to just using my A7r II for now. It's a great camera, but just a bit slow for action (5 fps and sort of laggy shutter) with good but not great AF-C technology. I'm holding out hope that the A7 iii gets some of that A9 focusing tech in it so I can use that as an action cam.
I loved just about everything about the Fuji, especially how it felt in the hand and how accessible all of the controls were, but the major factors that had me return it were:
- You really need to customize the auto-focus options in advance or you'll get a pretty high miss rate when it comes to action. When you set it up properly, including specifying a narrower zone, it's an amazing camera for action and extremely accurate, but if you just go into it's default mode and set it the focus area to "wide," I find it frequently does not focus on what I want it to. It's great that they give you control to customize, but I think Fuji needs a lot of work on their default AF-C mode.
- The colors of their JPEGs using the different film simulation options look amazing, but Fuji employs some really aggressive noise reduction when generating JPEGs in the camera and I'm really not a fan of the end result, especially when I'm taking pictures of humans. Even with the noise reduction setting set to it's lowest possible, I found I still got a lot of waxy/splotchy looking results that I really didn't like.
- Seemingly due to the sensor's unique layout, you can run into some weird issues with the RAW files if you just use Lightroom. Strange artifacts apparently called "worms" can appear in really detailed areas, like grass at an angle. I've seen it in a few of my files already and it's pretty nasty. Apparently, using a program called Iridient Developer to convert the RAF files to DNG files before using them in Lightroom fixes this issue for the most part, but I'm not really interested in adding that to my workflow. So, yeah, JPEGs that leave a lot to be desired in terms of image quality due to aggressive noise reduction and unique RAW files that don't play nice with Lightroom. Bleh.
It's really too bad, because everything else about the camera was amazing, including the kit zoom lens. Really impressive quality all around, but I don't think the system is for me... at least not in it's current rendition. Love that Velvia color profile, though.
The a6500 was a great camera, too, in terms of technology and image quality. I just hated how it only had one kind of hard to spin dial at the top. I'm really used to having both a front and rear dial that I can quickly access on my A7r II and it really bothered me not having that same control each time I used the a6500.
Back to just using my A7r II for now. It's a great camera, but just a bit slow for action (5 fps and sort of laggy shutter) with good but not great AF-C technology. I'm holding out hope that the A7 iii gets some of that A9 focusing tech in it so I can use that as an action cam.
You set it to single point continuous with 3D with back button focus and forget about it
Tracking actually works surprisingly well with the D5200, but I've never tried it with a telephoto.
My GoPro Hero 5 Black and accessories has turned up. This camera is sooooo dinky and cute!!
Looking forward to getting some car shots with this.
Nice product shot, what's your setup for these? I only attempted product photography once before, and it was a pretty dismal failure, so I'm always curious as to what setups people use.
It's the Fuji curse. Wish adobe would get off their ass and fix the raw. It's been like that for years
Krauser Kat
Member
I have a gh4 with a 18-36 1.8 sigma attached to it (no speed boost)
I am being asked to shoot some events what is one more lens i could get to help round out my kit.
i really want the 7-14mm 2.8 but maybe a 12mm 2.0. for wider shots.
I am being asked to shoot some events what is one more lens i could get to help round out my kit.
i really want the 7-14mm 2.8 but maybe a 12mm 2.0. for wider shots.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
It's the Fuji curse. Wish adobe would get off their ass and fix the raw. It's been like that for years
I wonder what the underlying issue is and what's preventing Fuji and Adobe from working together to fix it. Seems like it would be in both of their interests to do so.
It's really too bad, because that and the other issues were just enough to convince me that the camera is not for me right now. With that said, I'm definitely going to keep an eye on what Fuji comes up with next. I absolutely loved using the thing and the kit zoom lens was ridiculously high quality compared to the competition.
Miniature Kaiju
Member
Depending on the kind of event (say, weddings) you're shooting, you might want to have something a little longer, both for reach and portraiture.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Hey guys. I needed a second camera out of the blue so I'm renting A7Sii for a quick one day shoot (interview) in a few days. It is a coworkers who is renting it to me so the price is unbeatable, but I never used one before.
Any dos and don't, or kinks that one may not be able to know as a first timer with it?
Any dos and don't, or kinks that one may not be able to know as a first timer with it?
Krauser Kat
Member
I volunteered for a local politician i like. Its a one day campaign trip and several speeches and meet and greats.
Astral/H3X
Member
Use it to navigate dark places where you can't see.
JadedWriter
Member
My emergency go to kit is a 24-70 and 70-200 so hopefully you can cover something close to this. The 18-35 is a pretty decent lens though it just depends on how close and crowded the room is. Podium speeches become a different story though.
TFGB
Member
Hi Thraktor and thanks!
Truth be told, this was taken on my kitchen worktop in my office basement lol.
The worktop and wall are white, so both lend themselves to product photography, but there's no fancy umbrellas/softboxes or lights etc. unfortunately.
My previous camera kit pics were taken in the same space too as seen here: http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=239816375&postcount=5440
Many thanks again!
I kinda wish Fuji would swallow their pride and just put a regular Bayer sensor in it. I don't see the benefit.
It would be harder to differentiate themselves in that case; thus, harder to justify the premium quality and prices. I don't think they would have the current recognition if they were compared with Sony directly from day 1. Sony made bigger strides with technology advancements that Fuji can't match. But because Fuji is different at least people will pause and give it a look and appreciate what they have produced instead of focusing on tech side of things too much imo.
JadedWriter
Member
This. Sony pushes tech, Fuji for the most part tries to balance tech with overall usability. If I wanted a Sony I would've gotten one, but I prefer what Fuji does ergo and ecosystem wise. People act like you can't pull a good picture out of RAF files with Lightroom. I'm either ignorant as to what to look for or just overall stopped complaining about it because yeah I did have some complaints when I first started dealing with them. They take some more effort, but I can still process a good picture out of them.
I feel like Fuji has a pretty compelling offering. Tech wise it's not like they're far behind and you get beautiful cameras with manual dials in stark contrast to Sony and they have a unique focus on primes and mid level zooms. They're nicely positioned as something different already.
They feel very focused on the hobbyist and have a clear message there. I don't think X-trans is needed there or even helps. Draw them in with the beautiful gear and don't stop them with "Oh, the files are a pain to work with".
Just look around, people tend to drool over tech if everything else is similar. Fuji had a chance to build up a nice system because they weren't put in the same spot as everyone else competing to standout. You don't just go to DxO and see how they compare. You have to dig through reviews and from there is when people realize other things about a camera matter. It really doesn't matter if xtrans is better or not as long as it is comparable in real life. It's all about public's perception.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
They use a Bayer CMOS in their medium format GFX 50S camera.
In my limited time with the X-T2, I didn't notice any dynamic range gains or any other obvious benefits compared to the A6500, for example. What does it gain them, in actuality? Would they not be able to reproduce the colors from the film simulations they have with a Bayer sensor, for example?
In my limited time with the X-T2, I didn't notice any dynamic range gains or any other obvious benefits compared to the A6500, for example. What does it gain them, in actuality? Would they not be able to reproduce the colors from the film simulations they have with a Bayer sensor, for example?
A lot of it is just smoke. As I've said before, underlying sensor is still (likely) a Sony sensor only the CFA and other tweaks are Fuji's. So sensor's performance itself isn't going to be drastically different; however, the resulting characteristics are. Maybe there are times when the X CFA preforms better together with Fuji's proprietary demosaicking algorithm but like everything with phototrophy you gain some you lose some, given the same baseline hardware. In the end, it all kind of evens out and is just nothing to be concerned of (other than the post processing). There's also this article that talks about it recently.
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/03/x-trans-vs-bayer-sensors-fantastic-claims-test/
Also an interesting point to this whole setup they have, they can artificially make their lower end model, which uses bayer, produce lessen quality output and people will inevitably give more credits to X trans being superior. On the flip side, they wouldn't want or need to sabotage the high end side - the GFX50s.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
After returning the A6500 and XT-2, I decided to give one last camera a try before deciding whether or not to just wait a year or two to see what comes out. I found a used but near new condition RX100 Mark V for around $800 and decided to give it a try after trying it out at a Best Buy.
I'm glad I did, because this thing is super impressive, at least in good light. I was very skeptical about 1 inch sensors, but I've been comparing the RAW files for a couple of days now and, honestly, the images this produces are pretty damn close to the ones I got from the A6500 (APS-C). Obviously, the A6500 is better when you pixel peep and it still holds up a great deal better at ISOs beyond 800, but even the A6500 starts to fall apart at around 2000 ISO and really needs noise reduction starting at 3200. The RX100V starts looking pretty ugly at any ISO past 800, so low light is not really it's strong suit, but if you're shooting while it's still fairly bright out, you're golden with this thing.
With that said, thanks to the smaller sensor size, you can use lower aperture (the lens is a 24-70 equivalent with an F1.8 - F2.8 maximum aperture) and still have a much wider depth of field than you would on an APS-C or full frame. I'm able to push shadows and pull back highlights in Lightroom pretty decently, too, although I'm sure it's probably a stop or two weaker on both ends in terms of dynamic range compared to the top of the line APS-C sensors. Also, thanks to the quick consecutive burst, you can do some pretty cool handheld HDR shots and get quite good results.
The auto-focus is almost as good as the A6500 and it has a ridiculous 24 FPS with auto-focus and auto-exposure shooting rate with the electronic shutter, which is actually a pretty good electronic shutter thanks to the front-end LSI that allows it to pull images from the sensor at a ridiculously quick rate. I imagine their experimentations with this eventually led to the A9. I haven't seen any kind of distortion or banding *yet*, but the speed has allowed me to get some shots that I know I wouldn't have been able to get on another camera, especially my A7Rii with it's 5 FPS shooting rate.
It's also got a built in flash that articulates for bouncing and a pop-up OLED viewfinder despite being small enough to easily fit in a jeans pocket. It's definitely an expensive device, but the portability and feature set really makes it worth it in my opinion. Unfortunately, the size means a small battery which can be burned through pretty quickly.
There isn't a ton of room for cropping at 20 megapixels, but the image quality thus far has really impressed me, so I felt like posting my impressions here. I'm definitely going to be keeping this one.
I'm glad I did, because this thing is super impressive, at least in good light. I was very skeptical about 1 inch sensors, but I've been comparing the RAW files for a couple of days now and, honestly, the images this produces are pretty damn close to the ones I got from the A6500 (APS-C). Obviously, the A6500 is better when you pixel peep and it still holds up a great deal better at ISOs beyond 800, but even the A6500 starts to fall apart at around 2000 ISO and really needs noise reduction starting at 3200. The RX100V starts looking pretty ugly at any ISO past 800, so low light is not really it's strong suit, but if you're shooting while it's still fairly bright out, you're golden with this thing.
With that said, thanks to the smaller sensor size, you can use lower aperture (the lens is a 24-70 equivalent with an F1.8 - F2.8 maximum aperture) and still have a much wider depth of field than you would on an APS-C or full frame. I'm able to push shadows and pull back highlights in Lightroom pretty decently, too, although I'm sure it's probably a stop or two weaker on both ends in terms of dynamic range compared to the top of the line APS-C sensors. Also, thanks to the quick consecutive burst, you can do some pretty cool handheld HDR shots and get quite good results.
The auto-focus is almost as good as the A6500 and it has a ridiculous 24 FPS with auto-focus and auto-exposure shooting rate with the electronic shutter, which is actually a pretty good electronic shutter thanks to the front-end LSI that allows it to pull images from the sensor at a ridiculously quick rate. I imagine their experimentations with this eventually led to the A9. I haven't seen any kind of distortion or banding *yet*, but the speed has allowed me to get some shots that I know I wouldn't have been able to get on another camera, especially my A7Rii with it's 5 FPS shooting rate.
It's also got a built in flash that articulates for bouncing and a pop-up OLED viewfinder despite being small enough to easily fit in a jeans pocket. It's definitely an expensive device, but the portability and feature set really makes it worth it in my opinion. Unfortunately, the size means a small battery which can be burned through pretty quickly.
There isn't a ton of room for cropping at 20 megapixels, but the image quality thus far has really impressed me, so I felt like posting my impressions here. I'm definitely going to be keeping this one.
Astral/H3X
Member
Saying "there isn't a ton of room for cropping" on a 20mp sensor is a little disingenuous given our SUPER ULTRA MAX HD tvs are 4mp.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Fair enough! I'm just coming from the 42 MP of the A7r ii where I can zoom in 2:1 or 3:1 and have an image that still looks insanely clean and detailed.
JadedWriter
Member
I was actually going to mention this. I can crop D810 and uncompressed XT2 files well enough but I can't get that leeway with my D600 files, since they're actually smaller. I wouldn't get too nuts with 16mp and below.
VisceralBowl
Member
Closer to ~11/12 mp depending on the display. There's also displays that have the ability to display around 36+mp (8k).
That said it's not a super big problem at the moment.
LuciusAxelrod
Member
So I'm looking to get my first real camera since I am getting married early next year. I'm looking to use it to photograph things leading up the the wedding, the honeymoon after, and for pictures of gaming miniatures my future wife and I paint. Probably going with the Canon EOS Rebel T6.
But I've noticed that Amazon and other stores offer a lot of different bundles that come with the camera plus a bunch of accessories, like flashes, extra batteries, tripods, wide angle lens, filters, and sd cards. I realize that most or all of these accessories are not official Canon products and are cheap on their own, but is it still a good deal to go with one of these or will it be better to just get the camera and buy the things I need separately as I need them?
Also, I've heard that some of these bundles include strange versions of the cameras not covered by warranty. Is there something I should look for to avoid this?
But I've noticed that Amazon and other stores offer a lot of different bundles that come with the camera plus a bunch of accessories, like flashes, extra batteries, tripods, wide angle lens, filters, and sd cards. I realize that most or all of these accessories are not official Canon products and are cheap on their own, but is it still a good deal to go with one of these or will it be better to just get the camera and buy the things I need separately as I need them?
Also, I've heard that some of these bundles include strange versions of the cameras not covered by warranty. Is there something I should look for to avoid this?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I would definitely recommend against the bundles. Most of the accessories are probably of a very low quality and it's questionable whether or not you'll need them in the first place.
Do your research and buy everything individually, except for maybe the body + kit lens.
Also, if you're set on the Rebel T6, go for it, but if you're mostly a beginner in terms of digital photography, I would recommend getting a mirrorless camera instead. Something like the Sony A6000 will be a hell of a lot easier to use. Even the fixed zoom lens 1 inch sensor digital camera category (Sony RX100 IV or V, Canon G7X ii, Panasonic Lumix ZS110, etc.) would probably serve you better when it comes to the intended uses you listed than an entry-level DSLR.
I totally understand why people who are already invested in Canon or Nikon's ecosystems stick with DSLR, but unless you are or otherwise have a lot of experience shooting manually and know you want what a DSLR has to offer, I really can't recommend them to people who are looking to get their first "real" camera. They just aren't user friendly to beginners at all, especially if you're more used to taking photos with a smartphone.
Do your research and buy everything individually, except for maybe the body + kit lens.
Also, if you're set on the Rebel T6, go for it, but if you're mostly a beginner in terms of digital photography, I would recommend getting a mirrorless camera instead. Something like the Sony A6000 will be a hell of a lot easier to use. Even the fixed zoom lens 1 inch sensor digital camera category (Sony RX100 IV or V, Canon G7X ii, Panasonic Lumix ZS110, etc.) would probably serve you better when it comes to the intended uses you listed than an entry-level DSLR.
I totally understand why people who are already invested in Canon or Nikon's ecosystems stick with DSLR, but unless you are or otherwise have a lot of experience shooting manually and know you want what a DSLR has to offer, I really can't recommend them to people who are looking to get their first "real" camera. They just aren't user friendly to beginners at all, especially if you're more used to taking photos with a smartphone.
A lot of these are unauthorized sellers and manufactures won't give you warranty service. I'd just buy it from an authorized seller unless you are buying used.
JadedWriter
Member
For the most part I just buy refurbished, though my XT2 was in excellent condition used so I just got it, it was from Adorama though and not Ebay.
I'm in no way a professional and don't aspire to be, but I have RX100 M3 and I was wondering what people think of a Gorillapod for traveling and some quick shots when I'm doing a small hike in the forest here. I've been reading some very mixed reviews and I don't know if I would do good to order one. It doesn't cost that much, but still, better not waste any money.
Also, how big is the quality disparity with a RX100 M3 and a newer mirrorless cameras? How much would you need to spend to notice a big improvement in image quality? I guess much depends on how good of a photographer you are, but I mostly have trouble with the limited zoom range the RX100 has. Not really on the lookout for something else, but I'm wondering how good this thing holds up to stuff like the A6000/6300 with a moderately priced lense.
Also, how big is the quality disparity with a RX100 M3 and a newer mirrorless cameras? How much would you need to spend to notice a big improvement in image quality? I guess much depends on how good of a photographer you are, but I mostly have trouble with the limited zoom range the RX100 has. Not really on the lookout for something else, but I'm wondering how good this thing holds up to stuff like the A6000/6300 with a moderately priced lense.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Honestly, I think you won't see a massive jump in image quality if you upgrade to an APS-C interchangeable lens camera. You will gain some better low light capabilities, so you can shoot at ISO 1600 without requiring a ton of noise reduction, whereas ISO 800 is probably the limit for the RX100 cameras.
The quality of the lenses used on the RX100 line are very good and certainly better than the kit lenses available for most APS-C cameras, but if zooming is your main issue, then upgrading may be a good idea, but keep in mind that high quality long range zooms are very expensive and tend to be gargantuan in size. Since you're considering what looks to be a tiny bendy tripod to use on hikes and you own an RX100 in the first place, I imagine size and weight are factors for you.
With that said, you might also want to check out the RX10 series, particularly the most recent Mark III. It's a big camera with a fixed lens, but it's a good lens and it is an insane super zoom to boot. It goes from 24mm full frame equivalent to 600mm full frame equivalent and manages to keep an f4 aperture even at its maximum zoom. It's probably the best all-in-one camera on the market and would be a nice option to supplement your RX100 when you know you're going to want some serious zoom power.
Astral/H3X
Member
Bad gorilla pod reviews are based on using DSLRs on them... Get one tier of gorillapod than what they recommend and you'll be good. For an RX100, you should have no problem.
RX100 is good at zoom. Image quality improvements on MILC comes from being able to use non zooming lenses, so that's not really what you are looking for.
Thanks for the write up. I'd say size was mostly important because I needed something on my travels and have something lowkey for parties and such. I think the appeal of a good mirrorless would be that if I ever need something else in my life, I could just buy a different lens instead of having to buy a whole new camera.
Yeah, the RX100 holds up pretty well for its whole zoom range, sometimes I just feel the 70 mm focal length doesn't cut it completely. But I guess I'm just better cropping the picture it takes since some of those decent zoom lenses are more expensive than I thought, gosh. Would there be a quality difference with a DSLR? I know what the technical differences are, but outside from the true optical viewfinder, I don't really see what the added benefits of a modern DSLR are compared to a mirrorless. Is it just the availability of the lenses?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
The availability of the lenses is definitely the main bonus for Nikon and Canon DSLRs. You're not going to find a difference in terms of image quality, and for me at least, optical viewfinders are more of a detriment rather than a benefit.
But, yeah, if you're looking to get out to 200mm or beyond with lenses of a decent quality, then you are starting to look at spending around or far more than $1,000 for a huge chunk of glass that weighs a few pounds by itself and probably doesn't have a very wide maximum aperture. In general, the bigger the size of the sensor (1 inch -> micro four-thirds -> APS-C -> full frame -> medium format), the larger, heavier, and more expensive the lens will be at the same equivalent focal length. The main benefits to going with a bigger sensor size are better dynamic range and low light performance (can push shadows and dark areas in post or shoot with a higher ISO before introducing lots of ugly noise) and a wider depth of field at the same aperture and equivalent focal distance.
JadedWriter
Member
Can people stop acting like OVF's are shit please? EVF's are great for manual focusing and acting like you don't know how to check your exposure meter but I find the start up lag effing annoying for street photography and the fact that I have to turn my camera straight up off to keep the thing from sucking the life out of my battery and baking my sensor, both of these complaints have caused me to miss a few shots.
More than 200 mm might be a bit overkill, but seeing these prices for good lenses are already too. Maybe this fixed one on my RX100 is not that bad. I'm aware what the crop factor does do aperture and such. And I always thought that sensor size always reduced noise at any ISO, but I guess at good lighting conditions and ISO100 the difference will never be big between a 1" and APS-C? Maybe I should just try to improve my photography skills, but the one thing I don't like about the RX100 is that it seems to miss a button or two for fast finetuning of settings, if I want to get a good shot it always takes a me a bit to fiddle with the settings.
JadedWriter
Member
Do you ever need to go above around iso 800? What lighting conditions do you find yourself shooting at? I personally don't touch anything without an iso button or knob or switch. Also what focal lengths do you see yourself shooting at? You can probably get a Nikon D7100 and get a Nikon 24-120 F4, which turns into a 36-180? for a decent enough price and call it a day.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I always try to caveat my comments on OVFs and DSLRs as "for me." I recognize that a great many people like optical view finders, but mirrorless and EVF's advantages far, far, outweigh any benefits that DSLR and OVF tech have for my purposes.
Start up time is definitely a concern if you chronically shut off your camera. I typically leave it on. I've never heard of sensor baking, before, but I doubt any modern camera will be hurt by simply leaving it on. The X-T2 you have in particular has a cool "low framerate" mode it automatically goes into when it's idle to save battery. Battery life is another undeniable benefit for DSLR, and while mirrorless are certainly getting better, needing to output the image to a screen at a high resolution and frame rate will also be a drain on the battery. I'm fine with that, though. I'll happily just carry an extra battery or two.
There's also the fact that there is no lag with an optical viewfinder, while there will always be some amount with EVFs. Personally, I don't think the difference is big enough to cause a missed shot, but I'm sure some people will disagree.
With all that said, though, I find the advantages of mirrorless to be far greater. Being able to see how my settings are directly affecting the image, in real time, is just a game changer and pretty much what I needed to finally figure out what all of the different settings on a camera actually do--a key step to getting out of auto or the priority modes. Add to that all of the different overlays and screen layouts you can choose, to get electronic levels, histograms, "picture in picture" zoom, focus peeking, zebras, etc. etc. The list really goes on and on.
The other huge benefit for me is that, well, you don't need to use the viewfinder. Most (all?) decent mirrorless cameras have an articulating LCD screen that works just as well as the viewfinder, albeit usually with lower resolution and refresh rate. This frees you up from needing to look through the viewfinder and allows you to position your camera in angles where you would have to shoot blindly if it were a DSLR. Sure, you can do the same thing on some DSLRs with "live view" mode, but the shutter lag is so insane when using it that it's useless for anything with a moving subject. With mirrorless, you get to use your eyes as the optical viewfinder (no zoom, of course!) and freely position the camera to get the angle you want by glancing down at the LCD screen.
Anyway, sorry for the text dump, but that's my take. I don't think DSLRs or OVFs are shit, but I do think they are a worse solution for the kind of pictures I want to take. I can totally understand that lots of people prefer them at the same time.
What do you typically shoot in? It certainly lacks controls, but it's also a pocketable camera, so there have to be trade offs. I usually shoot in manual mode and in that mode the ring on the lens controls aperture and the control wheel on the back controls shutter speed. I have ISO set to the right button, but I usually keep it in auto 100 ~ 800.
So I got this tiny stain on my camera's sensor that I don't know how to get rid of. I bought this tiny sensor cleaning kit that definitely helped with other minor spots, but this big one just won't come out.
Any tips on what I can do? Don't have any pics of it handy, but I can probably get one if needed.
Any tips on what I can do? Don't have any pics of it handy, but I can probably get one if needed.
JadedWriter
Member
By lag I mean the initial amount of time for it to actually switch on when you put it to your face, it's not instant. I like having an EVF because I find myself doing less drastic exposure correction. But at the same time people have been shooting for decades with out the use of an EVF. I personally do get a little tired of people acting like they can not take a picture without using an EVF. I also have essentially just been alternating between DSLR and MILC outside of sensor size and basic all round ergonomics differences...and focal length limitations I pretty much just shoot the same way though on both cameras, though I do find myself switching stuff around less on the XT2 because I'm always in the same lighting. Anything dynamic would be a pain depending on how much I'd need to change. Also Fuji batteries are effing expensive. Not really in the mood to spend $70 for one yet. Regarding sensor baking I saw a video where it was stated that you could kind of mess up the sensor if your camera is constantly pointed down towards the ground with the sun reflecting off of it. I haven't really ran into situation but I just keep it off for a bit if I'm not shooting. Regarding flip out screens I barely use mine. I honestly feel that I put more effort into the actual framing of my shot when I look through the viewfinder, flippy screen be damned. I haven't messed with that thing in weeks.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
For me, it's superior tech. It removes the disappointment I was constantly faced with using my entry-level DSLR, where I thought I nailed a shot only to see it look like crap when I loaded it up on my computer later.
People were shooting for decades with film, but each improvement in tech lowers the barrier to entry when it comes to taking up photography. To anyone that was happy shooting with film and all-mechanical cameras, any tech improvement is just a luxury. To folks like me, though, mirrorless just represents the latest and biggest dramatic improvement that makes it easier to get into the hobby.
One thing with EVF is it's the basic gist of what your exposure is and what your JPEG will look like, but it's not what the final picture will look like after you've pushed and pulled and prodded your file.
I am not an EVF shooter, but I totally get that it can be really useful and speed up the process and stop silly mistakes because the camera was in the wrong mode.
I do kinda like an OVF tho because I see what my eyes see and I can do the exposure work in my head. Being basically a window there aren't the same resolution, lag, power, etc. worries either. If I'm unsure of the highlights and shadows difference I can make a quick spot meter of them. I really like that process of taking the picture in my head first and working out the exposure; figuring out if I should keep the highlights or shadows if everything won't fit. An EVF doesn't stop me from doing that and enables a bunch of other things, but a quick bit of metering goes a really long way.
I am not an EVF shooter, but I totally get that it can be really useful and speed up the process and stop silly mistakes because the camera was in the wrong mode.
I do kinda like an OVF tho because I see what my eyes see and I can do the exposure work in my head. Being basically a window there aren't the same resolution, lag, power, etc. worries either. If I'm unsure of the highlights and shadows difference I can make a quick spot meter of them. I really like that process of taking the picture in my head first and working out the exposure; figuring out if I should keep the highlights or shadows if everything won't fit. An EVF doesn't stop me from doing that and enables a bunch of other things, but a quick bit of metering goes a really long way.
JadedWriter
Member
Regarding your first statement I had the very same problem until I started realizing the correlation between shutter speed, aperture and iso, which is something I learned on a basic dslr. You could've researched that on youtube, one doesn't need to dump money into mirrorless tech to figure that out. I get it, EVF's help, but learning basics also help mitigate that problem. Would I ever shoot film? Fuck. No. But learning overall basics just helps, it's probably why I can bounce between DSLR and MILC without being lost at sea. Hell even on my XT2 I fuck up a little bit just trying to figure out which is the best iso to even be at since I tend to run my shutter speed a little high on that thing and under expose a little at first.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I read through Understanding Exposure and definitely checked YouTube tutorials, but it never clicked for me with my old DSLR. Maybe I'm just dumb, but the disconnect between what you see on the OVF and what you get after hitting the shutter button was just too big for me. Maybe that's why I had better luck using the touch screen on my old Canon, although it was impossible for anything but still photography.
Everything made sense once I could see what I was going to get on the screen. Now I have a general understanding of what kind of shutter speed, aperture and ISO I will need to get the kind of image I want in a variety of lighting conditions, so I imagine I would have much better luck with a DSLR these days.
Everyone's different and has their own individual threshold of what is "too much." To relate it to gaming, I couldn't imagine not building a gaming PC from OEM parts every couple of years, but for a lot of people, anything more than a console is just too complicated.
The funny thing is my dslr can catch in focus so I just turn the focus ring and it will take the shot when it is in focus. I actually have to zoom in to make sure it's focus with my Fuji so it's not really faster. I think Nikon has similar feature to trap focus you should try it.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Never heard of catch in focus before. That's super cool! How is the success rate? I can't fathom how the camera knows what you intend to be the subject.
JadedWriter
Member
Yeah this is true. I just learned by essentially fucking up, learning why I fucked up and trying not to fuck up as much afterwards. The whole disconnect thing I guess can be a problem, though mostly I guess it's just about finding out what you want to shoot and applying the best settings for that. I personally can't shoot sports for shit, I have an idea of the settings, but I don't have a feel for it I think...granted it also just depends on access, time and how often I do it. If I threw myself at it enough times I know I'd be a lot better with it in practice after I analyze my shots and fuck ups. I also don't think the evf tells you if you're going to wind up with motion blur, but I'm not sure since I'm pretty much always running around with SS at around 1/250th to 1/1000h on my XT2.
Miniature Kaiju
Member
AFAIK, all Nikon cameras have focus-priority release.
It knows what you intend to be the subject because your focus point is over it
Basically you hold down the shutter release, turn the focus and once it detects it's in focus, it actually releases the shutter.