Support NeoGAF

[alterno69]

The stability of the footage is incredible, I would have sworn many of those were crane shots. Does it use digital image stabilisation or is it all mechanical?

No image stabilization was applied to the footage, it is THAT smooth.
Also, there where winds of up to 30kmh that day :O

looks great, are you flying in single operator mode or do you have a gimbal/camera man?

I fly solo, recorded around 30 minutes of footage on 3 batteries to get this.

Here's a sample of a picture taken with 5 seconds of exposure time in RAW mode.

DJI_0037 by Nobel Gomez, en Flickr

 

[Flo_Evans]

Ok, so I posted in the wrong thread earlier, so posting here now.

I used to take good pictures with my D90, but lately the colors never seem right on any of the auto-settings and I'm lazy about using manual settings most of the time. I feel like the auto-settings used to produce much nicer pictures 6 years ago when I got it. It's been around the world and is pretty beaten up. Feeling like maybe it's time to get a new camera.

Whenever I upgrade in life I like to upgrade to the next "tier" in whatever as I can usually afford a bit more every 5 years. So while my D90 body + default lens was like $600-800 back in 2009, I might be ok spending ~$2,000 for a nice camera body + lens.

My current equipment is:
18-105 DX Lens
50mm DX Lens
Some old 50/35mm film Lenses
A really shitty cheap 3rd party flash that only works with the hotspot occasionally after my expensive official flash complete died

What would be a good upgrade, especially if most of the time I'd just like to use the auto-settings and point and shoot and then edit later on. Also I don't care about shooting raw because it's a pain in the ass to edit for the entry-level editing I do. I'm fine with HQ jpg. I know this probably offends most people here, but I'm fairly entry level. I do all my photo-editing in IRfanview for free (just cropping, rotating, adjusting color balance and gamma), I've never even used photoshop in my life and 7+ years of photography hobby.

D7200 + lightroom. Get a used 17-55 2.8

 

[Bebpo]

Thanks, I think I'm willing to spend a little more and get a Nikon D750 as I'd like to move up to an FX camera.

If I go with that, and I just want a single lens for all purposes, should I go with the Lens Kit that has the 24-120mm for basically $700 more than the body, or should I use that $700 and get a different and better all purpose lens? Been googling around and it's hard to find info on good all purpose lens since most people recommend shorter range stuff.

 

[captive]

Thanks, I think I'm willing to spend a little more and get a Nikon D750 as I'd like to move up to an FX camera.

If I go with that, and I just want a single lens for all purposes, should I go with the Lens Kit that has the 24-120mm for basically $700 more than the body, or should I use that $700 and get a different and better all purpose lens? Been googling around and it's hard to find info on good all purpose lens since most people recommend shorter range stuff.

maybe its me getting older, but I just don't think the "all purpose" lenses are all that great. The d750 is a very nice senor and IMO would be limited by an all purpose on the front of it.

Even the 14-24 which is by all accounts supposed to be very well regarded, I find lacking, in particular producing a lot of CA. Which is why its still for sale, from me! *shameless plug*

But for ~700 bucks, you could be two or even three very good used prime lenses, between a 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm.

 

[Bebpo]

Well I guess my issue is that while I have like 3-4 lenses for my D90, as I got older and less passionate about photography, I stopped using everything other than kit zoom lens because it was the most adaptable in situations.
I mean, I take 60% of my photos these days on my cell phone camera, even when I have my DSLR in my shoulder bag just because it's straight out more convenient in the moment to just take a quick snap with my phone camera.

I used to be really into photography and reading books and trying to constantly get better at it, but now I'm old and tired and I just want something convenient to take really pretty pictures with easily.

 

[Ty4on]

Thanks, I think I'm willing to spend a little more and get a Nikon D750 as I'd like to move up to an FX camera.

If I go with that, and I just want a single lens for all purposes, should I go with the Lens Kit that has the 24-120mm for basically $700 more than the body, or should I use that $700 and get a different and better all purpose lens? Been googling around and it's hard to find info on good all purpose lens since most people recommend shorter range stuff.

I think the Sigma 24-105 is a much better performer, but it is a little more expensive. You may get more than 700$ if you sell the 24-120 though. It's 879$ on KEH for example.

For a cheaper lens there are many versions of the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 (with and without VR) which perform similarly in DXO reviews. The newest 24-85 VR is cheap in D600/D610 kits so there are many on the used market. KEH has them starting at 367$ in EX+ condition with everything.

 

[RuGalz]

Well I guess my issue is that while I have like 3-4 lenses for my D90, as I got older and less passionate about photography, I stopped using everything other than kit zoom lens because it was the most adaptable in situations.
I mean, I take 60% of my photos these days on my cell phone camera, even when I have my DSLR in my shoulder bag just because it's straight out more convenient in the moment to just take a quick snap with my phone camera.

I used to be really into photography and reading books and trying to constantly get better at it, but now I'm old and tired and I just want something convenient to take really pretty pictures with easily.

If that's the case why don't you slim down and get Sony A7/ii series or something if you are essentially getting a different system?

 

[Flo_Evans]

Thanks, I think I'm willing to spend a little more and get a Nikon D750 as I'd like to move up to an FX camera.

If I go with that, and I just want a single lens for all purposes, should I go with the Lens Kit that has the 24-120mm for basically $700 more than the body, or should I use that $700 and get a different and better all purpose lens? Been googling around and it's hard to find info on good all purpose lens since most people recommend shorter range stuff.

I would just get a 610 if you want FF but don't want to mess with settings. Main advantage of 750 is video (aperture control in live view and floppy screen) and some more direct control buttons. As for the lens, idk I never liked kit lenses. I shoot most of the time with a 50 prime.

 

[Bebpo]

I dunno, the reviews seem really great for 750 for ISO levels (which I've always had a huge probably using anything over ISO 640 on my D90, so the thought of being able to use up to 1600 without it hugely detriment the picture in low-light situations/night shooting is impressive)

I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on this:

D750 Body - $2,000
Nikkon 70-200 f/4g VR lens $1,400
Nikkon 85mm f/1.8g lens $600

and I'll still have my 50mm 1.8d lens as well.

I really don't want to spend over $4,000 total. Which is a fuck load and I still gotta see if I can really even afford spending that much on a hobby. But maybe I can, and I absolutely don't want to buy used since I've seen the quality of my lenses after a few years and I want to start with stuff as close to pristine as quality since they'll get beat up over time.

I'm mainly shooting portraits of people, cars, architecture, close-range animal shots, and group events like sports matches, family gatherings, weddings. I feel like with that combo of lenses I'll be able to use the 70-200 as the default lens, and the 85mm for portraits and when I really want the bokeh and sharpness. If I need something wider I can use my 50mm and then if I'm finding I need even more wide I can get a 20mm or 28mm later on.

The other option was getting the $1,600-2,000 Nikkon 24-70 f/2.8 lens and use it for everything, but I'd really like to have some zoom range and the bokeh doesn't seem great so I'd still need something like the 85mm prime for portraits.

I mainly like sticking with Nikkon because I like keeping everything the same brand so it all works in junction together no problem. Although the Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 looks like it'd be fun to pick up some day in the future to mess around with for birds and distant animals.

I guess I'll also pick up Lightroom and try to learn how to use it and I probably need to get a new quality flash.

Thoughts?

 

[Ty4on]

I dunno, the reviews seem really great for 750 for ISO levels (which I've always had a huge probably using anything over ISO 640 on my D90, so the thought of being able to use up to 1600 without it hugely detriment the picture in low-light situations/night shooting is impressive)

The ISO performance is virtually the same with the D750 and D610. You can compare them here (switch the 6D to the D610) and turn the ISO up. They share the same sensor.
D750 has better AF and metering though. It can detect faces and meter or focus on them.

 

[RayStorm]

I dunno, the reviews seem really great for 750 for ISO levels (which I've always had a huge probably using anything over ISO 640 on my D90, so the thought of being able to use up to 1600 without it hugely detriment the picture in low-light situations/night shooting is impressive)
Thoughts?

Since you are basically going to have to buy everything new anyway, why not switch to sony the Alpha 7 II or 7S which should suit your low light needs like no other camera on the market.

 

[diaspora]

Since you are basically going to have to buy everything new anyway, why not switch to sony the Alpha 7 II or 7S which should suit your low light needs like no other camera on the market.

Nikon doesn't compress their RAWs.

 

[RayStorm]

Nikon doesn't compress their RAWs.

Seems less of a priority here considering this:

Also I don't care about shooting raw because it's a pain in the ass to edit for the entry-level editing I do. I'm fine with HQ jpg.

But just in case, you don't happen to have an explanation, why it would matter for most people?

 

[diaspora]

Seems less of a priority here considering this:

But just in case, you don't happen to have an explanation, why it would matter for most people?

Because most people who buy A7 RII/ D750/ 5D3/s class cameras aren't buying them to get compression artifacts.

edit: Shit, I mean really, between a 750 versus an A7/ A7R why would anyone choose the lossy option, it's idiotic at that price range.

 

[Ty4on]

Sony compression artifacts are visible with high contrast edges. They look like JPEG artifacts with the weird boxes.

 

[RayStorm]

Because most people who buy A7 RII/ D750/ 5D3/s class cameras aren't buying them to get compression artifacts.

edit: Shit, I mean really, between a 750 versus an A7/ A7R why would anyone choose the lossy option, it's idiotic at that price range.

Are those compressions artifacts notable?I would guess it's hardly the case (Edit: Apparently at least in 1:1 they are). Hence the actual abilities of the camera are far more interesting and important. And here The A7 II with its apparently quite amazing IS has quite something going for it as does the A7 (II) R with its high resolution, if you need that, or the A7S with its incrdible high ISO performance. Which are all unmatched by others.

And if you are advising someone who so far does not shoot in RAW and does not care much for it, I would argue that some potentially unnoticable loss by compression is completely negligible.

 

[diaspora]

Are those compressions artifacts notable?I would guess it's hardly the case (Edit: Apparently at least in 1:1 they are). Hence the actual abilities of the camera are far more interesting and important. And here The A7 II with its apparently quite amazing IS has quite something going for it as does the A7 (II) R with its high resolution, if you need that, or the A7S with its incrdible high ISO performance. Which are all unmatched by others.

And if you are advising someone who so far does not shoot in RAW and does not care much for it, I would argue that some potentially unnoticable loss by compression is completely negligible.

Yes absolutely. I'm advising someone get a camera with no compression in their RAWs over a camera with compression in their RAWs because even if they're shooting in JPEG now, it doesn't mean they will forever (you understand what entry level entails right?). If someone wants high resolution combined with uncompressed RAWs the D800/800e/810 would still be a better idea than the A7RII. The A7S is utterly useless outside the field of low-light, low-resolution alone as a 4K camera.

edit: Never mind the familiarity a user may have with the Nikon system itself.

 

[RayStorm]

Yes absolutely. I'm advising someone get a camera with no compression in their RAWs over a camera with compression in their RAWs because even if they're shooting in JPEG now, it doesn't mean they will forever (you understand what entry level entails right?).

I do, I am not sure about the context of that snide remark, but in general I am aware about that. And yet I am a fan of showing someone all options and letting them choose. Different people have different level of tolerances.

If someone wants high resolution combined with uncompressed RAWs the D800/800e/810 would still be a better idea than the A7RII. The A7S is utterly useless outside the field of low-light, low-resolution alone as a 4K camera.

Utterly useless seems quite harsh a remark, but I will grant you, that after having another look at some reviews I'm slightly disillusioned about the A7 lineup. Which in theory should be good for my wallet but still. Oh well...

 

[diaspora]

I do, I am not sure about the context of that snide remark, but in general I am aware about that. And yet I am a fan of showing someone all options and letting them choose. Different people have different level of tolerances.



Utterly useless seems quite harsh a remark, but I will grant you, that after having another look at some reviews I'm slightly disillusioned about the A7 lineup. Which in theory should be good for my wallet but still. Oh well...

If someone is shooting JPEG only because they're starting out, they'd say so, alternatively if they planned on shooting JPEG forever they'd say so. The former happened, not the latter, so Nikon, Canon, and possibly even Fuji would offer the ability to shoot uncompressed RAW f one were to choose to go down that route when they're sufficiently confident enough to do so. Incidentally, nobody is saying you can't present other options, but there's nothing wrong with someone pointing out why they might be worse.

 

[RayStorm]

If someone is shooting JPEG only because they're starting out, they'd say so, alternatively if they planned on shooting JPEG forever they'd say so. The former happened, not the latter, so Nikon, Canon, and possibly even Fuji would offer the ability to shoot uncompressed RAW f one were to choose to go down that route when they're sufficiently confident enough to do so. Incidentally, nobody is saying you can't present other options, but there's nothing wrong with someone pointing out why they might be worse.

Well Bebpo did state that in his 7 years of having photography as a hobby he had not been interested in more than "entry level editing". Granted that is not necessarily foreboding for the future and he also added Lightroom to his shopping list, but still I think it's not necessarily unreasonable to expect less of a progression here than in other situations. Although come to think of it, using Lightroom was what prompted me to finally start shooting in RAW as well.

I just feel that if you point out the flaws of a suggestion it is helpful for the understanding of others to point out why something is a flaw even if that reason seems obvious to yourself.

 

[mrklaw]

I use Lightroom simply because I like the cataloging, I only do very basic editing to photos, but by default those edits are done on raw because it is transparent to do. I don't think I'd notice if the Raws were compressed.

I would be interested to hear people's Lightroom workflows. I tend to leave things in Lightroom and I should export more finished photos so I have JPEG copies that are more portable/shareable

 

[captive]

I use Lightroom simply because I like the cataloging, I only do very basic editing to photos, but by default those edits are done on raw because it is transparent to do. I don't think I'd notice if the Raws were compressed.

I would be interested to hear people's Lightroom workflows. I tend to leave things in Lightroom and I should export more finished photos so I have JPEG copies that are more portable/shareable

my lightroom workflow, download to lightroom -> let lightroom build 1:1 previews, cause I hate waiting for images to load when I want to edit them -> select my favorites/the best ones, edit those with Auto tone or Direct Positive -> white balance & tint -> fine adjustments on highlights/shadows/whites/blacks -> clarity/vibrance -> crop -> dust cleanup (more than 2 or 3 and I take it into photoshop for much faster cleanup) -> pano stiching or stacking thank god this is finally in Lightroom -> export for web/website etc.


I got more stuff for sale.

Mamiya AFD & Mamiya AF 55mm f2.8

$450 for the body
$400 for the lens

My entire 4/3ds m4/3rds system

Olympus OM-D EM-5 - $400
Olympus EP-2 - $100
Olympus 75mm f1.8 /w aftermarket lens hood - $600
Panasonic 25mm f1.4 - $325 - SOLD $315
Panasonic 20mm f1.7 - $200
Olympus Zuiko 12-60 f2.8 - $250
Panasonic DMW-MA1 Lumix G 4/3rds adapter - $100


The EP-2 is pretty beat up cosmetically, there is a scratch on the screen, but still functions fine, sensor is clean.
The OMD has a couple scratches/scuffs on the body above the EVF. Screen is perfect and the sensor is clean.
the 75mm is in very good condition, just some minor wear from the lens hood and on the bottom by the lens mount. Glass is perfect
The 25mm has some scratches on the front of the lens body, but not the glass. Glas is perfect.
The 20mm has a scuff/scratch on the lens itself, I tried to show a photo of it. I have not noticed any loss in image quality.
The 12-60 has a slight hitch in the zoom range at about 35mm. This is unfortunately from falling off my tripod while being carried, the EP-2 was the camera it was attached to at the time and it took more of the damage.

 

[diaspora]

Well Bebpo did state that in his 7 years of having photography as a hobby he had not been interested in more than "entry level editing". Granted that is not necessarily foreboding for the future and he also added Lightroom to his shopping list, but still I think it's not necessarily unreasonable to expect less of a progression here than in other situations. Although come to think of it, using Lightroom was what prompted me to finally start shooting in RAW as well.

I just feel that if you point out the flaws of a suggestion it is helpful for the understanding of others to point out why something is a flaw even if that reason seems obvious to yourself.

I had shot jpeg-only for 5 years. Not unheard of.

 

[Forsete]

I thought only "old men" shot JPEG because RAW was considered "cheating".

Going to buy the 55 mm I think, somebody stop me!

3rd highest rated lens on DXOMark. The top 2 are 4 times the price.

 

[Bebpo]

The reason I shoot jpg mainly came down to storage space. When I first got my DSLR I was doing every thing in RAW, but with 8gb cards being the biggest at the time it was pretty limiting on trips where I only had a couple of cards, so I'd just shoot in the highest quality jpg. Since I wasn't using lightroom or anything there was really not much difference when editing with RAW or Fine JPG since I'd load the picture into irfanview, crop, adjust gamma/saturation and then downsample to 1080p and save. And I just kind of stuck with that routine because it worked for the most part.

Since you are basically going to have to buy everything new anyway, why not switch to sony the Alpha 7 II or 7S which should suit your low light needs like no other camera on the market.

Honestly, it's mainly brand loyalty. I've been really happy with Nikon and I know how Nikon cameras work, so I just wanna stick with them. Just like how I stick with Nvidia for videocards because I'm used to them.

 

[Swig_]

Hey guys, I'm looking for some advice on buying a point and shoot camera. I have a DSLR already, but want a smaller point and shoot for when I don't want or need to take my DSLR.

Anyway, I'm trying to decide which features I would need or want. Things like geocoding the GPS data into the files, or wifi connectivity would be great. If there are must have features, or very useful features, I'd love to hear about them. I haven't bought a camera in a while, so I'm not sure what is out there.

I've been considering the Sony RX100 (It seems that there are different models, I'm looking at the $450 model, as that's the top of my price range.).

 

[Joel Was Right]

So I'm thinking of getting the XT10...Fuji just keeps bringing me back with the image quality. I cant justify the price difference between this and the XT1; it costs 76% more for minor differences.

 

[Forsete]

Hey guys, I'm looking for some advice on buying a point and shoot camera. I have a DSLR already, but want a smaller point and shoot for when I don't want or need to take my DSLR.

Anyway, I'm trying to decide which features I would need or want. Things like geocoding the GPS data into the files, or wifi connectivity would be great. If there are must have features, or very useful features, I'd love to hear about them. I haven't bought a camera in a while, so I'm not sure what is out there.

I've been considering the Sony RX100 (It seems that there are different models, I'm looking at the $450 model, as that's the top of my price range.).

There are 4 models (I, II, III, IV) of the RX100 (I think all of them are still being sold). I think III and IV have a pop-up Electronic Viewfinder (EVF). I have the first model which lacks this feature, and it is something I would like to have because LCD rear screens are sometimes hard to see in bright sunlight.

Anyway, they are lovely little cameras. The size is perfect since you are able to take it with you without hassle, and the image quality is excellent. Also the little popup flash has a hinge, so it is possible to bounce the flash.
Video mode is also very good, as a bonus.

 

[Swig_]

There are 4 models (I, II, III, IV) of the RX100 (I think all of them are still being sold). I think III and IV have a pop-up Electronic Viewfinder (EVF). I have the first model which lacks this feature, and it is something I would like to have because LCD rear screens are sometimes hard to see in bright sunlight.

Anyway, they are lovely little cameras. The size is perfect since you are able to take it with you without hassle, and the image quality is excellent. Also the little popup flash has a hinge, so it is possible to bounce the flash.
Video mode is also very good, as a bonus.

I'm amazed at the image quality (looking at the Amazon page), but it seems to be lacking on features. I think I'd prefer image quality over GPS/WiFi/whatever else they offer these days, but if there's a camera with similar image quality with more features, I'd like to at least consider it.

 

[Kraftwerk]

My buddy needs quick camera advice. He wants a camera mainly for video blogging. Walking around and sometimes just sitting and talking. Good quality, as he wants it for some nature videos as well.

His budget is 400-500. Doesn't HAVE to be small and compact.

 

[Joel Was Right]

My buddy needs quick camera advice. He wants a camera mainly for video blogging. Walking around and sometimes just sitting and talking. Good quality, as he wants it for some nature videos as well.

His budget is 400-500. Doesn't HAVE to be small and compact.

Canon T3 w/ 50mm 1.8 lens.

 

[Kraftwerk]

Canon 550D or 600D with the 50mm 1.8 lens.

Yeah, i did suggest him the rebel series. He just wanted to see if anything else is out here.

He really likes the feel of the Nikon. I think it was the d5100.

 

[Lender]

So I'm thinking of getting the XT10...Fuji just keeps bringing me back with the image quality. I cant justify the price difference between this and the XT1; it costs 76% more for minor differences.

XT10 is a great deal compared to the XT1. There could be some differences that make people go for the big brother, but in terms of speed and image quality they're identical. If I ever make the complete switch over from DSLR to mirrorless it would be tough to choose between Fuji and the A7 series of Sony.

 

[Forsete]

I'm amazed at the image quality (looking at the Amazon page), but it seems to be lacking on features. I think I'd prefer image quality over GPS/WiFi/whatever else they offer these days, but if there's a camera with similar image quality with more features, I'd like to at least consider it.

What features are you looking for?

The cameras closets to RX100 is probably Panasonic Lumix LX100 and Canon G7X.
Lumix has GPS tagging and WiFi transfer.

I have WiFi transfer on my glorious A7S, but never use it since SD transfer is so much faster. NFC transfer over to a mobile however is pretty quick, which also uses WiFi so it is probably a firewall issue on my PC.

 

[TerryLee81]

God damn, I went from a X100T to a D7100 and then to a D600, which had amazing IQ but was too big and heavy, so I sold it.

Right now I have a X-E1 with a Zeiss 32mm/1.8, but I'm already thinking about buying a OM-D to get something even smaller.

But I don't know, the Fuji has great IQ, altough slow AF, which doesn't bother me most of the time. What really pulls me towards m43 are the small lenses.

I should stop buying (and selling) cameras!

 

[Forsete]

I still have my A900 DSLR just for its glorious 24MP sensor, but paired with the 24-70mm 2.8 Zeiss its just too big and clunky when you've gotten used to a mirrorless. But I still love it.

99.98% of the time I go mirrorless though, or RX100/Ricoh GR.

 

[LyleLanley]

Alright, I'm getting the upgrade itch bad, someone convince me not to upgrade to the D810 from my D300s.

 

[diaspora]

Alright, I'm getting the upgrade itch bad, someone convince me not to upgrade to the D810 from my D300s.

See if you can find a cheaper used D800 body instead.

 

[LyleLanley]

See if you can find a cheaper used D800 body instead.

Not a bad idea, it looks like they're going for around $1300-$1500.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Went to get the XT10 before I go on holiday.
None in stock anywhere.
Cracked and purchased the XT1 instead.

 

[Kraftwerk]

Wut

 

[giga]

Wat

 

[Bebpo]

So I'm thinking I should probably get a 35mm rather than an 85mm to go with a 70-200 lens. Reason being that with 70-200 and 85 and an old 50mm, only the 50mm is going to be useful in small house events and getting full body portrait shots up standing a few feet away from the subject.

On my D90, I find the 50mm lens way too zoomed in, and it's always been tough getting far enough away from the subject if I don't want a zoom shot. I understand that the D90, being a DX camera means the 50mm is acting more like a 75mm because of the cropping. (am I understanding this correctly?)

On my D90 I mainly take shots with my 18-105 lens at 18mm, which again using the cropping, means on an FX camera that'd be closer to around 30-35mm? So if I wanted a lens that can see as much on an FX camera as I can see on my DX camera at 18mm, I should probably get a 35mm prime and then use the 70-200 for zoom in shots and where I'm at least 5+ feet away from the subject. I mean I can get an 85mm down the road if I want for better bokeh/portraits, but if I'm only going to get 2 lens for everything for a start, it seems like 35 & 70-200 would cover most of the bases for everyday walking around photography shooting handheld?

 

[Swig_]

What features are you looking for?

The cameras closets to RX100 is probably Panasonic Lumix LX100 and Canon G7X.
Lumix has GPS tagging and WiFi transfer.

I have WiFi transfer on my glorious A7S, but never use it since SD transfer is so much faster. NFC transfer over to a mobile however is pretty quick, which also uses WiFi so it is probably a firewall issue on my PC.

That's the problem, I'm not even sure. I haven't purchased a camera in a while, so I'm not sure what exists. I've heard of the GPS tagging and WiFi transfer stuff. I'm not sure if there are other good features. A pivoting screen (like on the RX100 M3) would be cool.

I'll probably get the RX100 (first generation), because it looks like it has the best image quality and is in my price range. I didn't really want to spend more than $400 or so, but am willing to, for the right camera. I just wasn't really looking into spending $700+.

I'm just not sure I'll find a camera with similar image quality and more features than the Sony, especially not in the price range I'm looking to stay in.

The camera is mostly for traveling (for work and personal). I would just like to have a good camera to take pictures of the places I'll be going. Also for things that I wouldn't want to use my DSLR for.

 

[TerryLee81]

Went to get the XT10 before I go on holiday.
None in stock anywhere.
Cracked and purchased the XT1 instead.

That's a nice lens. I'll either buy this one for my X-E1 or an OM-D camera.

 

[Joel Was Right]

That's a nice lens. I'll either buy this one for my X-E1 or an OM-D camera.

It's a wonderful lens that will surprise you for all the right reasons. Only negative in using it with the X-E1 I found was that the body lacked enough of a hand grip to use this not-so-small lens. Well, it is small actually but when you compare it to the XE-1's tiny frame by comparison...

 

[dmshaposv]

I thought only "old men" shot JPEG because RAW was considered "cheating".

Going to buy the 55 mm I think, somebody stop me!

3rd highest rated lens on DXOMark. The top 2 are 4 times the price.

If I were you I'd get the 35mm 2.8 for the A7 series.

I love the size of the lens, and while it isnt as sharp as the 55, it is hella damn good. Just an excellent travel lens.

I'm thinking of ditching my 5dIII 24-70 2.8 setup for a A7sII + 35 2.8 and 85mm 1.8 setup.

 

[sfedai0]

If I were you I'd get the 35mm 2.8 for the A7 series.

I love the size of the lens, and while it isnt as sharp as the 55, it is hella damn good. Just an excellent travel lens.

I'm thinking of ditching my 5dIII 24-70 2.8 setup for a A7sII + 35 2.8 and 85mm 1.8 setup.

Have you used both? The 55 is also great for a walkaround lens as well.

 

[Forsete]

If I were you I'd get the 35mm 2.8 for the A7 series.

I love the size of the lens, and while it isnt as sharp as the 55, it is hella damn good. Just an excellent travel lens.

I'm thinking of ditching my 5dIII 24-70 2.8 setup for a A7sII + 35 2.8 and 85mm 1.8 setup.

I bought the 35 2.8 shortly after getting my A7S with the kit lens.
Yeah the size and feel of that lens is beautiful. The lenshood is TINY.

But the 55 has gotten so much praise its hard to resist, and I miss having a 50 mm lens. In the meantime I have been using the old Sony 50 1.4 for Alpha and with the new adapter you get autofocus, but it turns out to be quite big as you can see (the adapter has a screw motor for autofocus of the old non-SSM Minolta/Sony lenses and a pellicle mirror to add phase detect autofocus).

We will see.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Uploaded via the Phone app.