ahalpert
Major Contributor
It's just about the f/2 really. Some people feel like they don't need prime lenses at that point. I disagree. Nevertheless, it's nice to have options
GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?
- Thread starter filmguy123
- Start date
It's just about the f/2 really. Some people feel like they don't need prime lenses at that point. I disagree. Nevertheless, it's nice to have options
NorBro
Major Contributor
I used it all when younger, but it just didn't work for me because the cameras I used were so video-looking that it really made no difference.
Diffusion didn't make my DSLR look like an Alexa. lol
The best results I had were from minor diffusion on Blackmagics, like a 1/8 Black Magic (no relation) to further take any edge off, but I'm done with diffusion and would rather use softer glass with the best-of-the-best sensors, which I always agreed with people when I learned about doing that and I think it's a really special combination.
If I didn't love AF so much, it would be so fun to experiment with vintage lenses on the R5 or the a7SIII.
The Sigma Classic Art Primes excited me for a second a few years back because I thought they could be modern lenses with AF but also with vintage characteristics, but that line never came to the electronic still lenses (which makes sense because I don't see any company thinking it would be worth it).
stoneinapond
Veteran
ahalpert
Major Contributor
GM 50 is possibly my favorite lens of all time. I doubt it's any better than the equivalent Canon or Nikon, but I didn't bother to compare. I think they're all better than older generations of f/1.2
I was sold in it vs a different 50 by 3 factors: nicest look/rendering, Best/fastest AF, Fastest aperture. If you use a 50 a lot, I think it's totally worth it
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Not the R5c or R1? But yes, R3 is sweet
ahalpert
Major Contributor
They won't allow the 3rd parties to submit lens profiles?? This shouldn't be an issue!
Gotta admit though, Sony's strategy has pretty much nailed me. I'm probably only considering Sony (preferably GM) or Tamron lenses from here on out simply for autofocus reasons. (Supposedly the newer samyangs have even better AF - such as the 45 and 75 1.8. So maybe I'm wrong. But I don't need those lenses so I won't find out first-hand)
ahalpert
Major Contributor
This is uncalled for. Also, you could just stop responding and leave it at that if you feel that way. It works for me!
NorBro
Major Contributor
IMO, it was called for, which is why I said it. But it's done. No more.
I don't want to talk about that and I'm only here to talk tech.
And you're always on a 1-2 day post delay so I was waiting for you to eventually get to it. lol
ahalpert
Major Contributor
That is a bleak flicking outlook. And they mention the increase in sensor prices going forward. Presumably this impacts phone prices too. But those are small sensors. (But multiple I suppose?) Anyone know how much of the production cost of a camera is just the sensor?
NorBro
Major Contributor
The multiple sensors in phones is actually exactly what they are supposedly scaling back on in phones...that's what I read somewhere because the chip problem is starting to affect them, too.
So some models may see 1 instead of 2 cameras or 3 instead of 4, something like that, IIRC.
Not sure what Apple is doing/planning.
2022 could have a bird flu further affecting things...it never ends.
So some models may see 1 instead of 2 cameras or 3 instead of 4, something like that, IIRC.
Not sure what Apple is doing/planning.
2022 could have a bird flu further affecting things...it never ends.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I guess they had to make up for having horrible menus. Their menus are pretty darn good now though
ahalpert
Major Contributor
The menus had next to no organization. Endless scrolling. Very 1990s GUI.
Bird flu. Ha. No chance. Plus, I think Omicron will end the pandemic and transition is to endemic normalcy
By the way,, there are some number of lurkers also using the site.. I've gotten multiple PMs with answers to my public queries from a self-proclaimed lurker who I've never seen post (but ought to!) The one who said you and I should start a debate show. So you have no idea how many people are reading this thread!
$6 (low end) to $30 for the Samsung 108 MPX one. I presume that the 200 MPX HP1 is somewhat more and thus will be deployed only on the high end models (according to rumors, Motorola and Xiaomi in 2022, later in Samsung's own).
And, if one reads smartphone camera reviews, then it's looking extra bleak for the stand-alone photo-video industry. Features that may have cost in excess of $1,000 combined a year or two ago are now offered for as little as $600 (Pixel 6). As is typical with innovation, performance is up while costs are down.
NorBro
Major Contributor
90s GUI would be much more simpler.
It's coming, man...put the 135mm GM purchase on hold...all weddings canceled...
I don't know what that last part is about and lurkers and a debate show, but sounds like we'll need to find a streaming service ASAP.
Zim
Veteran
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I'm on the fence of raw detail vs softness. There is also sometimes too fine and sharp of detail for an array of pixels. One of my only issues with the P4k is the lack of a OLPF. Yeah I'm one of those old school guys that prefer a OLPF. When it comes to the math and physics of an array of pixels it helps eliminate a lot of motion like artifacts like aliasing and moire. Things that don't show up in stills but they do show up in moving images. Thats one reason I held off getting the GH5 but really liked the GH5S. Also a reason why I like the Canon R6. It does have a OLPF. I realize some people do not like a slightly softer look and consider that a negative. A lot of cameras now market the lack of OLPF as a good thing. On the flip side the lack on OLPF on some cinema cameras has been such a concern there are third party companies that will add a OLPF. People are paying a decent amount to add in a OLPF and swear by it. To each their own I guess.
I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer to this. I'm also one of this that thinks a lens should be used in its sweet spot which is typically around f5.6. No matter how great a lens is wide open they tend to be better stopped down a bit. They become more consistent across the frame and have less optical artifacts.
I also agree with Norbro about diffusion filters. They can be a bit too much. There are different levels for a reason and sometimes too strong or too weak of filtering is used. I have a very successful friend who swears by a diffusion filter. Then I know others equally successful that find them to be the work of the Devil. To each their own again I guess.
Thats what I love about the tools we have today. We are no longer faced with crap vs greatness and little in between. Its now more or less what does this awesome look like next to that awesome. Our discussions and debates have moved away from technical and cost limitations and more towards purely aesthetic and artistic perspectives.
I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer to this. I'm also one of this that thinks a lens should be used in its sweet spot which is typically around f5.6. No matter how great a lens is wide open they tend to be better stopped down a bit. They become more consistent across the frame and have less optical artifacts.
I also agree with Norbro about diffusion filters. They can be a bit too much. There are different levels for a reason and sometimes too strong or too weak of filtering is used. I have a very successful friend who swears by a diffusion filter. Then I know others equally successful that find them to be the work of the Devil. To each their own again I guess.
Thats what I love about the tools we have today. We are no longer faced with crap vs greatness and little in between. Its now more or less what does this awesome look like next to that awesome. Our discussions and debates have moved away from technical and cost limitations and more towards purely aesthetic and artistic perspectives.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
That gap between zooms and primes does seem to be shrinking a bit. There was a time when zooms were almost always lower quality. Now my Tamron 70-200 G2 is better than some prime lenses. Canon has a 28-70 f2.0 zoom that is no optical slouch either.
Maybe because I have used m43 since the GH1 but I find f2.8 to be very impressive on FF cameras so far. At least on the R6 it is. Thats essentially f1.4 DOF I had on m43 and I can't imagine needing more than that.