Woo, finally got a real camera again a few days ago and have been lurking this thread since. Got a used GX7 and 20mm 1.7 pancake off eBay for relatively cheap, and have the "body lens cap" 9mm fisheye on the way as something else to screw around with. Probably should've put that money towards a real lens but whatever, if nothing else it's a way to pack the camera flat-ish while still being able to shoot something.
Heh that reminds me, I was looking at lenses and remembered reading that mirrorless cams can pretty much adapt anything, then remembered I had an old Canon film camera around with 50mm f/1.8 lens (so I guess it'll be like 100mm on 4/3?). Found an adapter on Amazon for $14 so that should be fun/useful to mess with.
What lenses do you have and do you want to keep using them?
Probably a dumb related question here, but does exposure compensation adjust shutter/aperture or is it a post/software effect? Just thought about it when I was shooting at night the other day and messing with manual settings (cause things were coming out kinda bright) when I figured out that I could maybe just use the exposure comp instead.
You got a FD 50 1.8? It begins. Welcome to the MF master race. (Though in a m4/3rds some of the lenses might be a bit awkward.)
Exposure compensation will basically weight the exposure metering one way or another. So it'll adjust the shutter/iso/aperture as if it's metering +/-1 higher or lower than it actually is.
Yep. Years and years ago I took a photo class and needed a camera, I think the camera shop I went to directed me to the Canon AT-1 with that lens, $100 or $150ish I think, and they'd buy it back later on within some time period. Luckily I just held onto it, for once my packrat nature had paid off, granted it took nearly 20 years.
So uh remembered another question related to those adapters, I noticed they had a lock/open dial on them. What's that for/what's the process of using that, is it related to previewing aperture and figuring out exposure?
Yep. Years and years ago I took a photo class and needed a camera, I think the camera shop I went to directed me to the Canon AT-1 with that lens, $100 or $150ish I think, and they'd buy it back later on within some time period. Luckily I just held onto it, for once my packrat nature had paid off, granted it took nearly 20 years.
So uh remembered another question related to those adapters, I noticed they had a lock/open dial on them. What's that for/what's the process of using that, is it related to previewing aperture and figuring out exposure?
Lots of old lens use a lever to open/close the aperture. This is so that you can have the aperture set to f5.6 or whatever, but still have the lens wide open for focusing so that enough light gets through to see what you are doing.
The lock is so that you can actuate that lever to get the lens to stop down.
The cropped images are 100% zoomed in on center to give the best idea of how it looks.
If you're pixel peeping then yeah the lack of focus might be an issue for you, especially if you absolutely demand sharp images at infinity focus at f/2.8.
Curiously enough, I just got out my Vivitar Series 1 28-90 to test out f/2.8 at infinity focus, and this is what I get(after a 100% crop):
Heh that reminds me, I was looking at lenses and remembered reading that mirrorless cams can pretty much adapt anything, then remembered I had an old Canon film camera around with 50mm f/1.8 lens (so I guess it'll be like 100mm on 4/3?). Found an adapter on Amazon for $14 so that should be fun/useful to mess with.
While everyone and their moms are fawning over multiple AF points and their new-fangled technology, the MF world is still a fantastic place to be. Besides being ridiculously cheap(I paid less than $125 for that Tokina lens), most MF glass are optically as good as the new lenses these days.
100mm is a great focal length imo. That's probably gonna be one of my next purchases as soon as Sony drops the A7III this year lol.
If you're pixel peeping then yeah the lack of focus might be an issue for you, especially if you absolutely demand sharp images at infinity focus at f/2.8.
From experience, loss of infinity focus on an unmodified lens when used as normal (i.e. normal flange distances, etc) is usually due to the front element being further from the optic center than it should. It's usually fixable.
I had the opposite problem with a lens, as well, where it would focus beyond infinity. A shim and it was working as new.
For everyone on a Fuji, how many of you are using Iridient X-Transformer? Is it worth or only for people who like to pixel peep? I'm still just using LR5.
I have the large version of this thing and it's glorious. The only problem is that it's as big as a full size banana so it's not really portable friendly though Giottos sells a small and medium version too.
If that doesn't work, just find a cleaning kit on Amazon. There's a variety of them depending on sensor size so grab the appropriate kit that has the swabs and cleaning fluid. It might seem daunting at first to do but as long as you have a light touch, you'll be fine.
And the swab things. They are like little triangles, with a small bottle of fluid that you dip the corners of the triangle in, and bam, just like a squeegee for your sensor. Just be careful, because you'll be racking your nerves while cleaning it.
Just picked up a Panasonic Lumix G7 4K Mirrorless Camera for FaceCam/Greenscreen purposes. Figured I wanted something lightweight, capable of 4K, and at a good price. I noticed the one right above it was a lot better .. I may have goofed. Good thing I got the warranty.
Anyone have any experience with this line of cameras? Should I have gone with a (beefier) Sony? I'm also gonna be using it for travel and such eventually.
One of the videographers at work use it and I'm pretty happy with the footage once I get them in the editing room.
On the other hand, if you're leaning more towards photo than video, then I think a Sony might've been the better choice. But in all honesty, it's all up to how you use it.
From experience, loss of infinity focus on an unmodified lens when used as normal (i.e. normal flange distances, etc) is usually due to the front element being further from the optic center than it should. It's usually fixable.
I had the opposite problem with a lens, as well, where it would focus beyond infinity. A shim and it was working as new.
Oddly enough, I tried it on my D3200 and on the same shots above, they looked a lot more in focus. So I put it on my A7 and turned on APS-C mode, and those too were in focus.
Idk what's going on lol.
I'm pretty sure my guy here can get it fixed, I mean he did fix my 50 1.4 that had similar issues but he lives just too dang far, almost 45 mins out from me and while he does take in by mail, or whatever... it's gonna be a little tough coz I'm leaving for vacation on Friday and I was sorta hoping to use this so we'll see.
Yeah those Giotto Rocket Blasters are no joke. I don't know where to put them in my vacation camera bag besides the main compartment with my camera lol.
Weather and my batteries weren't cooperating so I just stuck around my house and took some outside. The twist is, as you'll see in the album, there are two pairs of images... one of them is the Tokina and the other is the Vivitar.
All the images are completely unedited, shot them in RAW then exported them as JPG's on LR then went on PS to add the letters signifying which lens.
So if y'all don't mind, feel free to jump in the album and tell which one y'all prefer.
Me personally? I really like how A looks especially unprocessed/off the camera whereas B has a lot more capabilities in the editing room. A's bokeh is just magical and the in-focus sharpness is glorious whereas B is a lot more subdued and again, the editing room will definitely be able to get the best out of it. So yeah, A for me is the clear winner.
It's a shame the infinity focus on A is kinda wonky lol.
Honestly, it's super easy to do, especially if you make sure to get the right size. But, the only reason you'd need it is if even after using the blower, you still can't get rid of a spot. I've only had to clean anything twice with one.
Literally the hardest part is telling yourself it'll be okay haha.
The feel of spending 15 minutes on a quick corporate head shot shoot and not having any harsh shadows on their face, shadows on the wall light reflections on their glasses and it just looking right...after post.
For everyone on a Fuji, how many of you are using Iridient X-Transformer? Is it worth or only for people who like to pixel peep? I'm still just using LR5.
For everyone on a Fuji, how many of you are using Iridient X-Transformer? Is it worth or only for people who like to pixel peep? I'm still just using LR5.
I was tempted to do this, but I'm cheap and didn't want to pay for another editing subscription. This and This are edited in Lightroom and these are probably some of my best XT2 edits since I got the thing.
Yea it is possible especially in the middle of the day and if you are pointing at it for a long time. However, since you are using DSLR, as long as shutter speed is short it's mostly likely going to be okay. It's not as bad as having a laser pointer shooting right through the lens...
MILC are more problematic because the sensor is completely exposed all the time.
That's a good thing to know. I don't remember ever trying, or even accidentally pointing my camera in the direction of the sun. I had a suspicion a camera's sensor could be damaged. Now I'll be extra careful.
I was tempted to do this, but I'm cheap and didn't want to pay for another editing subscription. This and This are edited in Lightroom and these are probably some of my best XT2 edits since I got the thing.
I've been shooting the RAW+JPEG files for the last few years and editing the RAWs in LR, but I feel like I'm going to stop. I just can't find any downside to shooting just JPEGs instead.
I've been shooting the RAW+JPEG files for the last few years and editing the RAWs in LR, but I feel like I'm going to stop. I just can't find any downside to shooting just JPEGs instead.
For everyone on a Fuji, how many of you are using Iridient X-Transformer? Is it worth or only for people who like to pixel peep? I'm still just using LR5.
I've been shooting the RAW+JPEG files for the last few years and editing the RAWs in LR, but I feel like I'm going to stop. I just can't find any downside to shooting just JPEGs instead.
I like to craft the look of the image myself personally. A person can take one of my first images off of Flickr and take something from one of my more recent shoots and see that I've been toying with stuff...heavily.
I've been shooting the RAW+JPEG files for the last few years and editing the RAWs in LR, but I feel like I'm going to stop. I just can't find any downside to shooting just JPEGs instead.
I would understand for sports shooters and journalists, but that's about it. Once I saw how small the Fuji jpegs are I'm not bothering. They're like 8mbs tops. I can get about twice that almost just exporting it straight from raw into a jpeg, besides. Where's the fun? I've actually learned a lot about tweaking white balance manually since Fuji is a warm camera. You can pretty much set the tone of the image just by tweaking the white balance and I've been having some good fun with that.
I've been shooting the RAW+JPEG files for the last few years and editing the RAWs in LR, but I feel like I'm going to stop. I just can't find any downside to shooting just JPEGs instead.
I would understand for sports shooters and journalists, but that's about it. Once I saw how small the Fuji jpegs are I'm not bothering. They're like 8mbs tops. I can get about twice that almost just exporting it straight from raw into a jpeg, besides. Where's the fun? I've actually learned a lot about tweaking white balance manually since Fuji is a warm camera. You can pretty much set the tone of the image just by tweaking the white balance and I've been having some good fun with that.
I pretty much *always* adjust colors and shit in post. And that shit sucks ass when starting from a JPEG. Had to do it once and I'm still mad about that photo.
I pretty much *always* adjust colors and shit in post. And that shit sucks ass when starting from a JPEG. Had to do it once and I'm still mad about that photo.
I once shot an early shoot in mostly JPEG, there's a lot you can't do with those files. I feel sorry for anybody using Raw small as well on camera's that have that option. It's still just a buffed up jpeg.
How did you like Capture One? Did you ever use LR before that?
It was just a thought floating around, guys! I normally use lightroom, but I've been using snapseed while I was on the road for a bit, and I was only transferring jpeg files from my camera to edit on there and was happy with what I could do. But knowing me, I'll most likely just keep shooting both and use whichever is convenient for me when I decide to edit depending on what the picture is.
How did you like Capture One? Did you ever use LR before that?
It was just a thought floating around, guys! I normally use lightroom, but I've been using snapseed while I was on the road for a bit, and I was only transferring jpeg files from my camera to edit on there and was happy with what I could do. But knowing me, I'll most likely just keep shooting both and use whichever is convenient for me when I decide to edit depending on what the picture is.
Jpeg is fine till you severely fuck something up. If you're working with flash then stick to raw. I've had to rescue some event shots because I was using the wrong flash settings in the beginning of them.
Yeah I used LR until about 5. something when I got my first fuji I got a forest shot where all the greens in the background was all smeared weird effect so I tried CO, I like it, I like the layout although I've changed things to make it more to the way I want, I think is worth doing the trial if you want to check it, but it will be a change if you're really used to LR, I don't use the CO catalog so I am not sure how good or bad that is in comparison, I just do sessions and keep a session folder per import
How did you like Capture One? Did you ever use LR before that?
It was just a thought floating around, guys! I normally use lightroom, but I've been using snapseed while I was on the road for a bit, and I was only transferring jpeg files from my camera to edit on there and was happy with what I could do. But knowing me, I'll most likely just keep shooting both and use whichever is convenient for me when I decide to edit depending on what the picture is.
That feel when you shoot an event, take over a thousand pictures and then have to sort and edit them. The NYS Lt. Governor showed up. You don't let the VIP do something and not get a picture of it.
Sorting, rating and culling is absolutely the worst part of the whole photographic pipeline. I shot a set of jewelry, once, about 25 different pieces. All macro, all focus-stacked, 60 shots per stack, 5 or 6 different setups for each piece.
Ended up with upwards of 10k shots to filter through. Never again.
Sorting, rating and culling is absolutely the worst part of the whole photographic pipeline. I shot a set of jewelry, once, about 25 different pieces. All macro, all focus-stacked, 60 shots per stack, 5 or 6 different setups for each piece.
Ended up with upwards of 10k shots to filter through. Never again.
Jesus fucking christ. Yeah the culling is snore inducing. I usually take the occasional break from it because it can get straight tedious. I couldn't imagine if I had a high buffer 12 frames per second camera for this.
I always think about culling photos, then remembered when I had to edit videos and feel sorry for film editors.
For Mad Max: Fury Road:
As a result, the editorial team on location processed between 10 and 20 hours of footage on a daily basis, which had to be flown back to Sydney, Australia, where Sixel and her editorial team would work on shaping the footage in conjunction with production. By the time principal photography had wrapped, Sixel was given over 470 hours of footage to edit, which took three months to merely view in its entirety.
For two years, Sixel worked for roughly 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, for a total of over 6,000 collective hours of editing to create the film's eventual 120 minute running length.
Rumours seem to indicate sometime before the end of the year, but I haven't heard any specifics (and wouldn't really want to, given how recently I bought an a7II). Both the a7II and a7rII have IBIS, by the way. Works very nicely with vintage glass, too.
If you care about good auto-focus, high frame rate continuous shooting and a large buffer, then definitely wait for the a7 iii announcement. It's likely to at least be announced this year.
For everyone on a Fuji, how many of you are using Iridient X-Transformer? Is it worth or only for people who like to pixel peep? I'm still just using LR5.
I'm using it to convert to DNG and then import in C1.
C1 has a pretty good X-Trans RAW converter by itself but I store all my RAWs as DNGs, and I want to have the best possible conversion from the get go.
I don't pixel-peep, I've just followed what others have tested and the consensus seems to be that X-Transformer is the best.
That's a nice score. If I did more landscape work that'd be a definite lens to buy. I honestly have no idea how to incorporate an ultra wide into my tool set.
Quick question for the Nikon/Canon owners out there. Can you setup the camera for back button cancel instead of back button focusing? Basically the reverse of back button AF -- instead of pressing the AF button to focus, you press it so the shutter button does not attempt to focus.
Welp, sold my 24-105 4L, 100 2.8 macro, and old 17-55 2.8 IS so I could get a Canon 24-70 2.8L II. Love it, an amazing lens!
Now I just need to consider the following trade-up/sale. Any thoughts:
Sell 70-200 4L IS and 135 2L and buy a 70-200 2.8L IS II. My only possible regret if I do this is that I love the 135. Has anyone used both of these who could comment on if the 70-200 2.8L IS II would fill enough of the same role? Obviously it's a huge step up from the 4L IS.
Welp, sold my 24-105 4L, 100 2.8 macro, and old 17-55 2.8 IS so I could get a Canon 24-70 2.8L II. Love it, an amazing lens!
Now I just need to consider the following trade-up/sale. Any thoughts:
Sell 70-200 4L IS and 135 2L and buy a 70-200 2.8L IS II. My only possible regret if I do this is that I love the 135. Has anyone used both of these who could comment on if the 70-200 2.8L IS II would fill enough of the same role? Obviously it's a huge step up from the 4L IS.
I would keep that 135 F2L honestly. You can't replace F2 with 2.8. The 70-200 is more versatile, but the bokeh looks aren't exactly the same thing. Just trade the F4 towards a Tamron G2.
So I bought a license for Capture One and this is so nice to use and to produce some very good results with! I'm far from being a (semi-)pro but shooting in RAW seems to be the way to go now. I'll keep it in RAW+JPEG though since it's sometimes just easier to pick the low quality JPEG to send to someone if the picture is not that important (Facebook compression negates anything you do with the picture). Normally there shouldn't be any downside to shooting both besides write times and buffer storage, yes?
I don't know why I ever paid this much for a small camera that I didn't properly use, but now that I'm learning the tricks of the trade the purchase seems worthwile to me. The biggest thing I hate about the RX100M3 though is that there's no touchscreen for the AF, I hope Sony will address this in a not so distant revision. And I don't know why the M4 got the fix to not shutdown on closing the EV but the M3 didn't get an update, makes me less likely to use the viewfinder on the fly.
What format and quality do you usually export your RAW files to after you're done editing them? I feel like 60MB pictures are a bit overkill for each and every picture you've taken.
What format and quality do you usually export your RAW files to after you're done editing them? I feel like 60MB pictures are a bit overkill for each and every picture you've taken.
I keep the raw files as my editing style/preference change over time or sometimes I need a picture edited different for different purpose. Convert your raws to lossless compressed DNG if you need to. 60MB seems excessive for 20MP. My 24MP camera outputs DNG and they are around 35MB on the large end.
I keep the raw files as my editing style/preference change over time or sometimes I need a picture edited different for different purpose. Convert your raws to lossless compressed DNG if you need to. 60MB seems excessive for 20MP. My 24MP camera outputs DNG and they are around 35MB on the large end.
The RAWs are only 20MB, I meant the final image after you are done processing them. The PNGS are like 60MB, but I guess the JPEGs should suffice but there's so many options I don't know whether they really matter.
Also, is there a benefit from converting your manufacturer's extension to DNG?
