Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sold my FS7 today

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NorBro
    replied
    Originally posted by thoomp View Post
    BTW - If you had to get 1-2 lenses for the FX6, what would they be?
    Sony's 20mm and 85mm, both f/1.8. Great lenses with the best FOVs for full-frame, IMO.

    20mm FF is the "Netflix look" and 85mm brings out the FF shallow DOF pop.

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by thoomp View Post

    BTW - If you had to get 1-2 lenses for the FX6, what would they be?
    Without thinking, my reaction was sony 28-135 + sony GM 50. Maximum utility + maximum low-light and beauty

    But of course, it depends so much on what you're shooting. what are you shooting?

    Many wedding photographers carry 2 bodies simultaneously, one with a 24mm f/1.4 and the other with an 85mm f/1.4

    Of course, you could instead get a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 and get a happy medium of speed, coverage, image quality

    Leave a comment:


  • thoomp
    replied
    You guys are great; thanks for your advice and discussion here.

    I'm leaning moving away from the FS7 before it depreciates even further. Honestly, I'd love a pro cam with reliable AF in a more portable package -- -- while maintaining both the proper ND and XLR built-in in the FX6. Right now for AF stuff, I have an A6600 with a Sigma 16mm 1.4 and a Sony 30 1.8 -- but there's no ND and no XLR.

    Meanwhile, I still love my EF-E speed booster, which gains an f-stop on my three IS Canon f/4 zooms (16-35L, 24-105L, 70-300). Plus, I get extra reach with the standard EF-E Metabones when needed. I use all 3 lenses with my A6600 for stills as well. Run-n-gun stuff I do has necessitated IS.

    I was thinking....maybe sell off the FS7 now (as I'm not filming much immediately) and hold the cash until used units come available...and try to get by with my A6600? It's just that the FX6 would require FF lenses and that would require a lot of extra cash...

    BTW - If you had to get 1-2 lenses for the FX6, what would they be?

    Any more thoughts? Thanks again.



    Leave a comment:


  • Andy9
    replied
    Originally posted by scorsesefan View Post

    Is the focus-by-wire a problem for MF?
    Yes, but it's linear motors or whatever so it's not the worst. The 16-35 GM 2.8 is an altogether lovelier lens but no IS and also focus by wire.

    Leave a comment:


  • drboffa
    replied
    Originally posted by scorsesefan View Post

    Yeah, having to up the shutter speed in order to stabilize in Catalyst is something I definitely want to avoid...
    I have yet to do this, although it's also something I'd rather avoid (unless I need to up shutter speeds for additional reasons). But barring that, the workflow is SO clunky: unless things have changed, you can't batch export stabilized clips (or batch stabilize at all), so you have to go through one by one. Not a problem with a handful of clips, but if you end a shoot day with dozens or hundreds of clips this is incredibly impractical.

    Leave a comment:


  • scorsesefan
    replied
    Originally posted by drboffa View Post

    I suppose it depends on how you define "low light" but I find it more than adequate in what I would consider "normal" low light situations. I've definitely used it on some very dim shoots and been happy with the results. F4 isn't exactly "fast" but it's pretty good considering the FX6's Hi Base.

    There are times when I wish I had another stop but that's always the case, and I'm happy to trade that stop for IS, especially when it comes to R&G stuff. The implementation of gyro-stabilization in post still leaves a lot to be desired, enough so that I'm hesitant to buy any more non-IS lenses for the time being (aside from specialty primes and the like).
    Yeah, having to up the shutter speed in order to stabilize in Catalyst is something I definitely want to avoid...

    Leave a comment:


  • drboffa
    replied
    Originally posted by scorsesefan View Post

    How do you find it in low light on your FX6? I just love my Tamron 28-75 on my a7siii in low light conditions but it's non-IS and prob wouldn't use off sticks on an fx6...
    I suppose it depends on how you define "low light" but I find it more than adequate in what I would consider "normal" low light situations. I've definitely used it on some very dim shoots and been happy with the results. F4 isn't exactly "fast" but it's pretty good considering the FX6's Hi Base.

    There are times when I wish I had another stop but that's always the case, and I'm happy to trade that stop for IS, especially when it comes to R&G stuff. The implementation of gyro-stabilization in post still leaves a lot to be desired, enough so that I'm hesitant to buy any more non-IS lenses for the time being (aside from specialty primes and the like).

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    I've only use my 28-135 on tripod for stationary camera stuff, mostly live streaming. It's definitely not too long or wide for r&g but the weight is getting up there. If it's going on your shoulder, it's probably not an issue. I've tried it a couple times on gimbal and I don't like the heft.

    The AF on sigma 24-70 is great but the lens is basically the same thing as your tamron 28-75. The tammy may even have marginally better AF. Anyway I don't think you would need both

    Servo zoom on the 28-135 is handy if you ever need it. I don't have a single other lens for that purpose

    Leave a comment:


  • scorsesefan
    replied
    Originally posted by Andy9 View Post
    The 24-105 on the FX6 was a really nice surprise. Better than the Canon equivalent in every way except manual focus, and even that isn't terrible.
    Is the focus-by-wire a problem for MF?

    Leave a comment:


  • scorsesefan
    replied
    ahalpert If I can't get what I'm asking for the 70-200 I may just keep it along with the Metabones. I rarely used it on my fs7 and it's such a specialty lens in my workflow that it may serve its purpose without AF capabilities on the a7siii/fx6.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy9
    replied
    The 24-105 on the FX6 was a really nice surprise. Better than the Canon equivalent in every way except manual focus, and even that isn't terrible.

    Leave a comment:


  • scorsesefan
    replied
    Originally posted by drboffa View Post
    I find the Sony 24-105mm to be a great R&G, general use lens for Sony FF cameras. I wish it had a little more reach but constant f4 is nice and the size/weight are very reasonable.
    How do you find it in low light on your FX6? I just love my Tamron 28-75 on my a7siii in low light conditions but it's non-IS and prob wouldn't use off sticks on an fx6...

    Leave a comment:


  • drboffa
    replied
    I find the Sony 24-105mm to be a great R&G, general use lens for Sony FF cameras. I wish it had a little more reach but constant f4 is nice and the size/weight are very reasonable.

    Leave a comment:


  • scorsesefan
    replied
    Yeah, meeting up with CL buyers is a bit PITA... I'm looking for an R&G lens -- is the 28-135 a little bulky for that purpose? Do you use the Sigma on your a7siii? If so are you able to AF? Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Craigslist would probably be smart. Of course then I have to meet up with them and it's hard for me to get anywhere extra these days because my wife always wants me home to help with the baby if I'm not working. I don't have the 24 to 105 but I would maybe recommend the 28 to 1:35 if you want a utility lens. I got mine used for like $1,200. I don't love it but I don't hate it. In a similar vein, I recommend the sigma 24 to 70 which I do actually love as a mid-range Zoom although for a lot of things I shoot these days I use my 50 GM instead of the 24 to 70 but only if and when I really don't need to zoom. But like 4 weddings and interviews I totally lean on the 50 instead of the 24 to 70 when I need a normal lens. For what it's worth, the sigma 24-70 has better autofocus t h a n t h e 28th to 1:35 either because it's newer or because the 28-135 is heavier. I don't know about the 24 to 105 although it probably does better than the 28 to 1:35. Which e – mount lenses do you have?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X