Page 60 of 62 FirstFirst ... 105056575859606162 LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 617
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,933
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by jcs View Post
    Along with the magenta issue, comparatively low build quality, and problems with raw conversion (X Trans vs. normal Bayer pattern for stills), I'm giving this camera a pass (almost pulled the trigger until I handled it in person- really wanted to like it!).
    I initially passed on it and the upcoming AF firmware had me excited again - for a second - but I do not like the build quality either (and other things). If you have a chance, check out the Z6 at Samy's if they have it out on display.

    I'm about 48 hours away from purchasing it depending on what's said about the RP in the next day or two.

    Currently, I think it's the most underrated camera of the year (this year because it started shipping too late last year). No 4K/60p is hurting me though, but I need to own something soon (not rent).

    Some of the X-T3 is undeniably gorgeous though...I like this guy's work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDTUkuHhTps&t=3s


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,933
    Default
    And the fact that it's so difficult to please all of us doesn't help the times...

    https://lensvid.com/gear/technology/...ustry-in-2018/

    Cameras.jpg


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    1,468
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    I initially passed on it and the upcoming AF firmware had me excited again - for a second - but I do not like the build quality either (and other things). If you have a chance, check out the Z6 at Samy's if they have it out on display.

    I'm about 48 hours away from purchasing it depending on what's said about the RP in the next day or two.

    Currently, I think it's the most underrated camera of the year (this year because it started shipping too late last year). No 4K/60p is hurting me though, but I need to own something soon (not rent).

    Some of the X-T3 is undeniably gorgeous though...I like this guy's work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDTUkuHhTps&t=3s
    Here's X-T3 footage that I think looks really excellent:


    Nikon Z6 vs. EOS R:


    I've always thought Nikon is right up there with Canon for skintones/color (different, but still excellent). For video the Z6 is certainly a better option vs. the EOS R! And if one has the lenses, equivalent for stills (more personal preference at that point).

    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    Definitely entitled to your rain, all potentially valid points. But you are almost the lone voice not digging on and buying this camera, everyone else seems to love it ;-)
    Not sure where you're getting low quality, especially the EVF, it's been lauded as one of the best mirrorless EVFs out there lately, but the screen is decent.
    The dials and buttons are excellent and feel MUCH more solid that the plastic junk that's all over Canon DSLRs, to me.
    I don't Vlog so I don't take into account all of the Vlogger whining that the screen doesn't swivel but I can judge focus and exposure on it decently.
    And yes, the battery set up is weak, but workable and not bad at all with the grip using three of them.

    It seems you're also missing the value equation, how much are you going to pay for the A7S III? This camera is now $1,399.00!
    Are you going to pay double or triple that for the Sony? It may be better when it comes out but worth 200 or 300% of the cost of the X-T3?
    Not to me. But maybe to you, fair enough. The only flimsy thing on it is the battery door, to me.
    But my 80D battery door is crap too as are almost all mirrorless cameras.

    Well Dan for whatever reason I tend to think differently, as I'm sure you've noticed over the years (called the VENICE an ARRI challenger right when it came out; wasn't a popular position. Now the VENICE seems to be a new favorite). Not trying to be a mismatcher or troll, just see things differently. I agree on the value proposition, however I'd rather spend $2k for an A7 III (for video) and $2300 for an EOS R (for stills), but not both. Have you examined the EOS R in person? Build quality and LCD+VF (resolution/detail) are in another league- retina-like compared to pixelated (too bad the EOS R video is so handicapped). When I owned 5D3's and the C300 II, I purchased the 1DX II to provide 4K60 (and replaced and then sold the 5D3s for stills). I thought I could sell the 1DX II and get the X-T3 for both stills and video (going smaller+lighter- same long-term goal as you), however after further research that won't provide the combined stills+video quality I need (right now stills are more important). Then thought perhaps X-T3 for video and EOS R for stills, however build quality and other issues nixed that idea. After spending more time with the 80D (gimbal etc.), prefer full frame over crop- don't have that many fast+wide primes (50 1.4 isn't wide enough, 16-35 2.8 II isn't fast enough, 85 1.2 and 135 F2 are the other current options: way too narrow for crop and our kinds of shoots). Putting the 70-200 F2.8 II on the 80D and shooting the moon was pretty cool though (best moon shot yet- maybe a 2x TC could let me see the secret space force moon bases ;) ).

    I think it's important to politely state one's views even if unpopular, as it can help others make more informed purchase/rental/production decisions. For example, wish I'd known about DJI's terrible batteries before buying a Ronin-M (that everyone raved about at the time- never heard a peep about battery problems (until specifically searching for solutions)). How many people got burned by Sony camera's overheating, etc.? (pun intended, not literally)


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    968
    Default
    For shooting handheld using cameras of this size, I only want to actually hold it in my hand. I used a zacuto marauder/gh4 with good results but it begins to contribute to a larger footrpint, going against a huge benefit of a tiny camera.

    The GH5 obviously has IBIS but I've been paying way more attention to skin tones lately and while material from it can look good on a computer, I find it rarely looks good when streaming youtube videos on a TV.

    I know the camera is only $1399 but that's also a luxli timpani + luxli cello. My point is it hasn't quite done it for me, despite offering incredible value - maybe IBIS would have sealed the deal. While the camera looks awesome for video and would be amazing for stills it's quite far down my list of prioritized purchases at the moment!

    It'd be cool if their film simulations included ones like "sony fs7, canon c200 wide DR" etc.! At that point the other brand of camera has been purchased (to use on a multi cam shoot) so why not cough up the ingredients to make life easy? This is only an unrealistic request by the way.
    Last edited by rob norton; 02-12-2019 at 12:20 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,933
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by jcs View Post
    I've always thought Nikon is right up there with Canon for skintones/color (different, but still excellent). For video the Z6 is certainly a better option vs. the EOS R! And if one has the lenses, equivalent for stills (more personal preference at that point).
    He made one vs. the Sony too (Z7): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tvBykD_sNQ&t=147s

    I'm only waiting to hear about the new RP just in case Canon does something crazy. The price is even rumored to be as low as $1299.

    There is no point in releasing a camera so soon after the EOS R so this one is just bizarrely interesting. 2 days.

    I'm prepared to be disappointed, however, a pleasant surprise would really complicate things for me as I want the Nikon, ha.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    1,468
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    He made one vs. the Sony too (Z7): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tvBykD_sNQ&t=147s

    I'm only waiting to hear about the new RP just in case Canon does something crazy. The price is even rumored to be as low as $1299.

    There is no point in releasing a camera so soon after the EOS R so this one is just bizarrely interesting. 2 days.

    I'm prepared to be disappointed, however, a pleasant surprise would really complicate things for me as I want the Nikon, ha.
    Out of the camera Nikon looks better than Sony (Z7 also more $). I was able to get acceptable results for video with the A7S I/II and the A7 III has better color, so could deal with it for video (not sure about raw stills matching Canon or Nikon raw stills). The new super AF firmware update for the A7 III isn't due until April- that could be really fun for wild gimbal shots. The A6400 AF demos are impressive: should be even more impressive on FF cameras:


    For the time being, focusing on doing better lighting set ups and better content using just the 1DX II (A) & 80D! (B)


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    9,018
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by jcs View Post

    I've always thought Nikon is right up there with Canon for skintones/color (different, but still excellent). For video the Z6 is certainly a better option vs. the EOS R! And if one has the lenses, equivalent for stills (more personal preference at that point).

    Well Dan for whatever reason I tend to think differently, as I'm sure you've noticed over the years (called the VENICE an ARRI challenger right when it came out; wasn't a popular position. Now the VENICE seems to be a new favorite). Not trying to be a mismatcher or troll, just see things differently. I agree on the value proposition, however I'd rather spend $2k for an A7 III (for video) and $2300 for an EOS R (for stills), but not both. Have you examined the EOS R in person? Build quality and LCD+VF (resolution/detail) are in another league- retina-like compared to pixelated (too bad the EOS R video is so handicapped). When I owned 5D3's and the C300 II, I purchased the 1DX II to provide 4K60 (and replaced and then sold the 5D3s for stills). I thought I could sell the 1DX II and get the X-T3 for both stills and video (going smaller+lighter- same long-term goal as you), however after further research that won't provide the combined stills+video quality I need (right now stills are more important). Then thought perhaps X-T3 for video and EOS R for stills, however build quality and other issues nixed that idea. After spending more time with the 80D (gimbal etc.), prefer full frame over crop- don't have that many fast+wide primes (50 1.4 isn't wide enough, 16-35 2.8 II isn't fast enough, 85 1.2 and 135 F2 are the other current options: way too narrow for crop and our kinds of shoots). Putting the 70-200 F2.8 II on the 80D and shooting the moon was pretty cool though (best moon shot yet- maybe a 2x TC could let me see the secret space force moon bases ;) ).

    I think it's important to politely state one's views even if unpopular, as it can help others make more informed purchase/rental/production decisions. For example, wish I'd known about DJI's terrible batteries before buying a Ronin-M (that everyone raved about at the time- never heard a peep about battery problems (until specifically searching for solutions)). How many people got burned by Sony camera's overheating, etc.? (pun intended, not literally)
    I always appreciate your opinions, you have a unique perspective that I definitely don't have and if we all liked the same gear, everything would have a tendency to look the same and would probably be pretty boring.

    Also, I've rented and used both Canon Teleconvertors with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM and IMHO, they are both awful and noticeably degrade the image quality, the 2X more than the 1.4X obviously. I shot BTS on Cosmos at Sunset Crater in Arizona with the 2X on the 5D MKIII and it was terrible, the CA was off the charts, the images were soft in comparison to just the 70-200. I'm a bit leery of all teleconvertors to be honest, they are something that has design compromises optically by their very nature. If you need a long lens, buy a long lens. The idea of a teleconvertor is more appealing economically but the image, yuck. Maybe the Fuji 1.4X I am going to try will change my mind but the Canons? Ughh.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    1,468
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    I always appreciate your opinions, you have a unique perspective that I definitely don't have and if we all liked the same gear, everything would have a tendency to look the same and would probably be pretty boring.

    Also, I've rented and used both Canon Teleconvertors with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM and IMHO, they are both awful and noticeably degrade the image quality, the 2X more than the 1.4X obviously. I shot BTS on Cosmos at Sunset Crater in Arizona with the 2X on the 5D MKIII and it was terrible, the CA was off the charts, the images were soft in comparison to just the 70-200. I'm a bit leery of all teleconvertors to be honest, they are something that has design compromises optically by their very nature. If you need a long lens, buy a long lens. The idea of a teleconvertor is more appealing economically but the image, yuck. Maybe the Fuji 1.4X I am going to try will change my mind but the Canons? Ughh.
    Thanks man, it's certainly fun/entertaining to have intelligent discourse especially when there are many different viewpoints. E.g NorBro and I had a long debate over Canon color and we kept it cool. And to be clear, Canon color is far from perfect, it just tends to work better than the competition when "normal" people examine the results (e.g. after working hard on getting GH4/FS700/A7x skintones looking good and showing the talent examples also taken with Canon cameras, they always chose Canon). If Sony puts VENICE level color on their A7x series, I think that's good enough to switch from Canon, even for stills (A7x III already looks pretty good and can work for stills with some work in ACR).

    Thanks for the tip on the TCs- read reviews on B&H and thought they might be useful. In your experience ACR's CA correction won't work (curious if the TC shows up in metadata)? No more usable detail and not better than upscaling in post?
    Maybe you had a bad one?
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...II.html?sts=pi
    I am very surprised with this extender. I am using this on a 5D Mark III with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I read several reviews saying the image wasn't very sharp but I am getting some great results with it (even hand held.) Just remember to double the shutter speed compared to your zoom to get the best results. So if you are shooting at 200mm with the 2x extender you will be at 400mm so your shutter speed will need to be at least 1/800 to get the best results. If you are on a tripod you can get away with a slower shutter but I try to keep it at least equivalent to the lens. I will attach a quick photo I shot from 20ft away at 400mm total and then the cropped version to see all the detail. The compatibility chart says, If the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens is attached to an EOS camera having multiple focusing points and an Extender is attached to the lens, only the center focusing point will be usable for AF. But, to my surprise, ALL of my focus points are working with this lens and the 2x extender. I had to go back and re-read it to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, but EVERY focus point is working even though it says only the center focus point would be useable. The only drawback I can see so far is the focus is much slower to find it's mark in low light but seems to be great with well lit subjects. So maybe the message is for older cameras? One other thing I have noticed but haven't had time to do a real test is the depth of field. The loss of light is as it should be by doubling the 2.8 to 5.6 but the depth of field doesn't seem to follow what I expected. Normally if I am shooting a subject at f5.6, I would have a deeper focus area. With the extender, I seem to be getting a really shallow depth of field as if I were still shooting at 2.8. So to get some more usable focus depth I have to stop it down to 7.1 or higher (as you can see in photos below shot at f9). I actually like the really shallow depth I am getting since I mostly shoot artistic shots and modeling but I could see how this would be a problem with sports and such and may be the reason some people are getting some softer results. And again, I haven't had time to completely test this theory. So, to sum it up. I have had very sharp results with the 2x Extender as long as I keep the shutter at the proper speed. It is a great way to double your compatible lenses (will not work with incompatible lenses because of the way part of it slides into the lens.) And, on my 5D Mark III with the 70-200 2.8 IS II, ALL the focus points are working. I love having a small way to basically have the zoom of a 400 without carrying the extra bulk and the cost. If I were shooting sports or such for a living, I would buy the proper lens. It does lose focus speed relative to the amount of light available and in lower light may not focus at all unless you can find a hard edge to catch.

    Pulling the 70-200 F2.8 II off the 1DX II and putting on the 80D is a kind of TC ;) As would using a higher resolution sensor (5DS/R etc.). For astro seems like using a telescope with a DSLR adapter would be the way to go?


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Senior Member marvinhello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    GTA, Canada
    Posts
    773
    Default
    Official X-T3 V3.0 firmware announcement:
    http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n190214_04.html

    Camera Remote V4.0 app announcement:
    http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n190214_06.html
    Last edited by marvinhello; 02-14-2019 at 03:02 AM.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    indiana/austin tx
    Posts
    574
    Default
    Xt 30 looks really interesting especially at 899$. Have to wait a bit to see fir sure.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 60 of 62 FirstFirst ... 105056575859606162 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •