mclaren777
Member
Super excited, especially given that most announcements will probably happen this week.
-
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.
The Official Camera Equipment Megathread
- Thread starter demon
- Start date
- Status
Technosteve
Banned
$2799, to be exact, according to alpharumors.
EEk. I mean; there's no arguing their assessment that a typical FF from Nikon or Canon + a 35 mm f2 would cost more than this combo. But you give up so many other features by going with this Sony. But, on the flip side of that, this thing is uber portable; and there's nothing on the market like it.
I don't see this selling well at all. But, I'm still extremely pleased Sony is releasing it. I definitely WANT one; but it'll never happen, lol.
Sony being Sony i guess =(
Guys.
I'm very much interested in buying a macro lens lately. I want to shoot "macro" video, get up close and personal with ants and little critters.
So, I've been wondering would it be worth investing in this hunk of L glass lovin'?
From all the reviews and stuff I've read, this is optically similar to the half-the-price 100mm macro non-L. But my only decision to go for the L is due to IS, which makes a HUGE difference in video at least (one of the reason I'm not gonna buy the 24-70mm "brick" even its damned fine quality).
I haven't done macro so don't know how little hand movements/shakes translate to recording video (with the bad as it is rolling shutter problems). I definitely want to save money and get the non IS 100mm macro, but it is useless to me if the video I produce looks like shit due to not having IS (compounded with rolling shutter).
For example, on the youtubes, I found this video from the non-IS 100mil macro.
It is horribly shakey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx0jghPe-yo&feature=g-hist
So what say you GAF? should I save some cash and go non-IS or go IS with the L glass?
You need a tripod not VR. VR is not really effective for video. It helps, but at that focal length it is going to still be shakey. It will still be shakey if you don't have a good heavy tripod when simply manual focusing. You also want a tripod because your DOF in macro video is going to be razor thin. I am usually at f11 or above when doing macro stills, when shooting video this means stupid high ISO. I would recommend a small LED hot light to help with this.
So save the cash, spend it on a good fluid video head and light.
Interesting product RX1 that is... In some ways, it reminds me of Pentax Q except on the opposite end. It will be a fun, but expensive toy. I suppose they probably need more time to develop FF lenses and just put this thing out there. Otoh, this will allow Nikon/Pentax to use the sensor Sony developed so that's a good news.
Skel1ingt0n
I can't *believe* these lazy developers keep making file sizes so damn large. Btw, how does technology work?
I said it earlier; but ever since getting my X10, I think I'm gonna stick with Fuji for a long while. I just love this camera, and I currently have my eyes on the X-Pro 1 to replace my DSLR.
If Fuji put Sony's FF sensor in an X-Pro 1 like body.... well, I couldn't say no. I'd say "screw it" to saving up, and would whip out the credit card.
Thanks for the informative post.
I have a very good video fluid head (manfrotto 501 HDV) so I should be fine. I guess the 100mm macro non-IS it is. You just saved me a lot of money, man!
Fairly sure the Nikon d600 will be using the same sensor...on a bigger body and (hopefully) lesser price than $2k.
Like who. If Pentax is getting the FF sensor that pretty much covers everybody. Nowadays Ricoh is Pentax. And I pretty sure Sony and Fujifilm belong to the same Zaibatsu. I guess Nikon will buy out the third party exclusivity at least this year. So Pentax will get this it next year. Canon has the facilities to make whatever FF sensor it wants.
Although if Sony is willing to sell the sensor to a non Japanese company it would be pretty funny if a Chinese or US company (say RED) come alone and make a FF digital back with true open standard AF mount.
BTW photorumors said RX1 has external EVF.
VR is pretty useful for stills, I wouldn't totally discount it. I have that same head, my only problem is I bought a fancy carbon fiber tripod and it is not heavy enough.
I'm using the 055xprob tripod legs with the 501 and they are a hard team to beat. The ability to remove the tripod neck and use it at 90 degrees horizontally gives the added flexibility of using it as a jib and slider.
I feel they are too heavy, though, and only use them for a video shoot. Not easy to carry them around everywhere for stills.
Edit: For stills, would the 100mm macro L give you nice results even at 1/8 or 1/10 of a sec?
No. You are still going to want to be @ 1/120th or better. General rule of thumb is your shutter speed should be equal or greater than the focal length for hand held. VR will generally give 1~2 stops of speed, you might be able to pull off 1/30th depending on how steady you are.
You make a good point about macro video specifically and needing a tripod, but IS is incredibly effective for video on normal lenses. Don't want dmshaposv to get the wrong impression for other lenses with IS.
guys im a noob
i have a lumix LX5
i need to take pics like this one
http://i.minus.com/irWytPvNPNHsQ.JPG
what kind of lens i should add to the lumix lx5??
thanks
i have a lumix LX5
i need to take pics like this one
http://i.minus.com/irWytPvNPNHsQ.JPG
what kind of lens i should add to the lumix lx5??
thanks
guys im a noob
i have a lumix LX5
i need to take pics like this one
http://i.minus.com/irWytPvNPNHsQ.JPG
what kind of lens i should add to the lumix lx5??
thanks
You can't change lenses on a LX5.
what about something like this ?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004G8RY7O/?tag=neogaf0e-20
i would not achieve the zoom like in the pic with this lens ?
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
I took this quite nice shot with my 650D last weekend. Only using the cheapy 55-250mm lens. I was standing maybe 3-4 feet because of the lens, but I was pleased with the results.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22949605/IMG_1293.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22949605/IMG_1293.JPG
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
A size comparison of the RX1 showing how small it really is (taken from another forum)...
Puts it into perspective. At first I thought the Zeiss lens would be quite big but now not so much. Crazy how they essentially made a FF camera smaller than a NEX with the Zeiss 24/1.8. One of the advantages of designing a camera around a dedicated lens.
If you love the 35mm focal length, add an EVF (which as been confirmed as happening, along with an optical VF attachment) and this should be you're dream camera.
Puts it into perspective. At first I thought the Zeiss lens would be quite big but now not so much. Crazy how they essentially made a FF camera smaller than a NEX with the Zeiss 24/1.8. One of the advantages of designing a camera around a dedicated lens.
If you love the 35mm focal length, add an EVF (which as been confirmed as happening, along with an optical VF attachment) and this should be you're dream camera.
That reminds me of the accusations from Eastman Kodak aimed at FUJIFILM for indirectly taking advantage through its connections with the Mitsui 'keiretsu' (三井グループ
to dominate the Japanese market of photographic consumables. This was their response:FUJIFILM'S REBUTTAL REGARDING ITS ALLEGED "CONTROL" OF THE TOKUYAKUTEN said:
http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/eng/special/sp019.htmlFUJIFILM'S REBUTTAL REGARDING ITS ALLEGED "CONTROL" OF THE TOKUYAKUTEN said:
Up to this date and this is still pretty suspicious!
Anyway, quite the spectacle they made with that case and their rebuttals:
FUJIFILM: Archives
http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/eng/special/index.html
ScientificNinja
Member
A size comparison of the RX1 showing how small it really is (taken from another forum)...
If you love the 35mm focal length, add an EVF (which as been confirmed as happening, along with an optical VF attachment) and this should be you're dream camera.
I'm obsessed with 35mm at the moment, but I can't justify $2799 for a fixed focal length FF camera. For just a little more, I can afford a Zeiss 35/1.4 prime to attach to my existing FF body. Or for nearly half, I can pick up Nikon's 35/1.4 prime. If I picked up an RX1, it would be to make a fashion statement.
radios shipping overview
Member
Not gonna lie, I want that RX1, real bad. But it's up in M9 territory when it comes to luxury gear purchases.
It's amazing what they've done, and I can't wait to see the rest of the industry respond to it. Meanwhile, I just need to figure out whether to jump into FF now (D600) or stick with a smaller system (NEX-6/X-Pro1) while the industry quickly makes it obsolete.
It's amazing what they've done, and I can't wait to see the rest of the industry respond to it. Meanwhile, I just need to figure out whether to jump into FF now (D600) or stick with a smaller system (NEX-6/X-Pro1) while the industry quickly makes it obsolete.
Forsete
Member
New lens-tiem.
16-50mm f/3.5-5.6
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/first-picture-of-the-new-pancake-16-50mm-e-mount-lens/
Too bad its not faster. But it will be MINE.
16-50mm f/3.5-5.6
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/first-picture-of-the-new-pancake-16-50mm-e-mount-lens/
Too bad its not faster. But it will be MINE.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
I think the size difference between even a mirrorless FF camera and this thing would be pretty different so that in itself could be big for someone wanting the smallest they can get. But I agree with the sentiment that this thing is a boutique camera. Getting it allows some prestige and owning the first of its kind (forgetting Leica of course lol).
But I think the price is on the mark when one considers the price a FF camera and a FF lens (from Zeiss no less). I just hope the FF interchangeable bodies that result from this are reasonably priced next year 'cause this is what I've been waiting for.
IMO if Canon will make a $2k FF body, it still offer a more comprehensive selection of systems than Nikon
For example, you can get a FF body (6D?), and a mirrorless body next year (EOS M2?) assuming they fix the AF speed. Lens wise Canon has cheaper and more pancake primes. You get another slow travel zoom for the mirrorless APSC body, and then rest of it you get it for the FF body. Canon also has better tele selection. For example, a 70-200mm/4 with or without IS will work for both bodies.
I personally let the lens selection make the decision for me. I think the Fuji 35/1.4 is a killer app for me. I am going to go for it and let the other chips fall into places. In order to get a similar lens from a FF system, you have to wait for Sony release a NEX FF body next year, and you have to wait god know how long for a FF 50/1.8 lens. Since Soy already have a APS-C 50/1.8 lens, they may not even make one until they have a Zeiss 50/1.4, which will be too expensive for me. Plus we are talking about at lease 2 years from now.
Plus the 18-50mm/2.8-4 is also a pretty awesome option of a travel lens. Frankly I don't see a better travel lens in term of quality, range and bulk, except the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 but that lens is twice as expensive.
So its a easy decision for me to pick Fuji in this "generations" of systems. I just need to wait for the reviews and wait for a good deal for the XE1 kit. This will be my first "new" camera body in years. (First since the Pentax K100ds, heh its been a while.)
prelude514
Banned
Are there any rumored specs on the D600?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Another comparison pulled off Fredmiranda alternative forum...
The body being slightly smaller than the X100 is ridconculous. Lens is understandably bigger. These size comparisons are based of the hotshoe of each camera.
The body being slightly smaller than the X100 is ridconculous. Lens is understandably bigger. These size comparisons are based of the hotshoe of each camera.
Guys was just scouring the web for some used telephoto deals, these caught my attention:
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L for $980
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS v1 for $1580
Which would be better for stills and photography? I know the IS is great and essential for video but dat price(
I mean would IS really matter if this is going to be on a tripod anyway? Even for stills I dont see myself lugging around such a heavy lens around my neck.
Wouldnt the non IS be a better bargain?
What say you GAF?? Which lens is the better deal?
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L for $980
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS v1 for $1580
Which would be better for stills and photography? I know the IS is great and essential for video but dat price
(I mean would IS really matter if this is going to be on a tripod anyway? Even for stills I dont see myself lugging around such a heavy lens around my neck.
Wouldnt the non IS be a better bargain?
What say you GAF?? Which lens is the better deal?
I think this is a bit nutty to say... Nikon maintains backwards compatibility for 30 year old lenses. You can buy a 80-200 2.8D brand new still or get the 70-200 2.8 AFS VR. You have lenses like the defocus control that no one has an answer for. Nikon still makes brand new MF lenses that are better than the Ziess branded japanese lenses made by cosina.
People buy nikon lenses and adapters to use on canon all the time because their MF lens selection is so weak.
TerryLee81
Member
Same here. I've just returned from a trip to Amsterdam. I didn't have enough space to bring my DSLR so I took all the pics with the X100 and I have to say 35mm is the perfect compromise. If I had to settle for one focal length, it would be 35mm.
So yeah, the RX1 looks great. But the lens could be a bit faster, or is this totally unrealistic?
I only suggested Canon to jiji assuming he had no investment in either mount. If you already have Nikon gear then that's a big factor. In fact screwdrive backward competibility was one of the reason I jumped to F mount in the first place.
Plus he was inerested in both FF and mirrorless systems. In that case Canon have good solutions for both and the lens compeatibility between two systems is good.
One of the worst things about offering cameras with no in body motor is third party vendors putting terrible focus motors in their lenses.
I've got a Tamron 28-75 2.8 with a screw drive and it focuses about 3 times as fast as the Tamron with a built in motor.
If you're willing to get a Nikon body with an in body focus motor, your lens selection for medium priced lenses opens way up. The 80-200 2.8 Nikon for about $750 used. Tamron's screw drive focus 28-75 for FF and 17-50 for DX (the 17-50 is rare with screw drive focus since it had a really limited production run before the D40 came out). The screw drive focus is generally pretty fast. Unless they have their own companies equivalent of AF-S, SWM, etc the screw drive version will almost always be much faster and more accurate. For the semi cheap fast lenses that many jump on instead of buying the respective companies big guns (17-55 DX)(24-70)(70-200) this makes a big difference.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Not just you, its supposed to be pretty mediocre. Its supposed to perform better in the corners on he C3 and 5N.
Instigator
Banned
Some people swear it's not bad if you stop it down to F8 or something.
But it's cheap for a NEX lens so you get what you pay for.
Valkyr Junkie
Member
The lens could be faster, but it would be larger and even more expensive then.
People seem to think there's a vast disparity in quality control on the 16mm lens. I've seen one or two threads on DPReview where people have shown pretty huge differences comparing 2 different models of the lens. Sony seems to be clearing inventories out them out now and while there hasn't been rumors of a replacement, that doesn't mean there won't be one soon. The RX1 came out of nowhere.
radios shipping overview
Member
People say this about a lot of crappy lenses, as if wasn't true for every lens ever made.
radios shipping overview
Member
I have some Nikon AF (nifty fifty) and MF (several) lenses. I generally like Nikon controls better than Canon, and I have no interest whatsoever in what the EOS M currently is. The D600 makes a lot of sense for me.
On the other hand, I have a couple of Leica M lenses, one of which (CV Nokton 35/1.4) I plan to trade for something else soon. So I should probably consolidate, whichever way I go.
it came with the kit.
I wonder if other Sony E-mount lenses are of the same quality.
I think that's the joke.
Herpes Reasons
Banned
been reading the d600 will have a price point of $1500.
for a full frame DSLR. that's a steal.
hopefully this will force canon to drop the price on the mark II.
if its sub $1500, that's a major game changer for current ff cameras.
great for our wallets.
Valkyr Junkie
Member
No. The zooms are all pretty impressive, and the 50mm is phenomenal. No idea about the macro though.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
The E 50/1.8 OSS is nearly comparable to the Zeiss ZM 50/2 Planar. The Planar is better as far as optical ability (especially stopped down and color accuracy) but the Sony 50/1.8 has AF and stabilization.
The E16 from what I have seen has terrible corner IQ, bad color reproduction and distortion for portrait. It may very well be TEH worse fixed lens.
I still want to get one though. I really want to to a comparo between the E16+ECU1 and the Tokina 11-16 at 12mm.
In fact if someone can borrow me the lens for a couple weeks to do the comparo I will pay for the shipping both ways.
I still want to get one though. I really want to to a comparo between the E16+ECU1 and the Tokina 11-16 at 12mm.
In fact if someone can borrow me the lens for a couple weeks to do the comparo I will pay for the shipping both ways.
Guys was just scouring the web for some used telephoto deals, these caught my attention:
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L for $980
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS v1 for $1580
Which would be better for stills and photography? I know the IS is great and essential for video but dat price
I mean would IS really matter if this is going to be on a tripod anyway? Even for stills I dont see myself lugging around such a heavy lens around my neck.
Wouldnt the non IS be a better bargain?
What say you GAF?? Which lens is the better deal?
Best to worst for performance
F2.8 IS -> F2.8 -> F4 IS -> F4
best to worst for price and weight
f4->f4 IS -> f2.8 -> f2.8 IS
so the classic conundrum. I found the 2.8IS much too unwieldy for carrying around all day and using handheld, so I went for an f4 IS. If you're shooting on a tripod I'd go for the 2.8 non-IS.
prelude514
Banned
Thank you, good sir. Looks interesting, might pick it up to compliment my RX100.
HappyBivouac
Member
Shit. I just ordered the NEX-5N (I'd have it in my hands right now if Best Buy had the black model, but alas). My excuse is I'll be working/living abroad and traveling a lot post-graduation.
I gotta start learning stuff.
I gotta start learning stuff.
TerryLee81
Member
When buying new gear I usually take into consideration how good it will hold its value.
If the rumours are true and Sony releases a FF NEX next year, I'm not sure how good the RX1 will hold its value. The advantage of interchangable lenses of the NEX will be a huge plus.
If the rumours are true and Sony releases a FF NEX next year, I'm not sure how good the RX1 will hold its value. The advantage of interchangable lenses of the NEX will be a huge plus.
- Status