If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji calls APS to FF "marginal difference" and "pointless"
On 2016-10-08 02:33:12 +0000, Rich A said:
So they jumped to medium format. https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/...film-interview Probably because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience: http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/ -- Regards, Savageduck |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji calls APS to FF "marginal difference" and "pointless"
In article 2016100720150925210-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says... Probably because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience: http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/ If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added IBIS in their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji calls APS to FF "marginal difference" and "pointless"
On 08/10/2016 08:39, Alfred Molon wrote:
[] If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added IBIS in their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji. Would that offer a lot over MFT, especially considering all the extra weight and bulk? Having used both APS-C and MFT I'd have said there wasn't a great loss in the smaller format, but a worthwhile gain in size etc. Both Panasonic and Olympus offer IBIS. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji calls APS to FF "marginal difference" and "pointless"
On 2016-10-08 07:39:34 +0000, Alfred Molon said:
In article 2016100720150925210-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck says... Probably because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience: http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/ If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added IBIS in their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji. IBIS is just one solution, and Fuji, like Nikon and Canon provide IS/VR/OS in lenses which are likely to benefit from it. Do you mean to say that you are so shakey that you cannot hold a camera steady for a shot with a fast wide lens? If not that is sad, especially if you are going to narrow your equipment choices based on that single factor. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji calls APS to FF "marginal difference" and "pointless"
On 10/8/2016 8:03 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-08 07:39:34 +0000, Alfred Molon said: In article 2016100720150925210-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck says... Probably because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience: http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/ If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added IBIS in their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji. IBIS is just one solution, and Fuji, like Nikon and Canon provide IS/VR/OS in lenses which are likely to benefit from it. For those of us with very good vintage lenses, IBIS is the best solution. Since IBIS doesn't appear to add significant body weight, it may be the best all-around solution because it accommodates lighter lenses. -- Best regards, Neil |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji calls APS to FF "marginal difference" and "pointless"
On 2016-10-08 13:32:56 +0000, Neil said:
On 10/8/2016 8:03 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-08 07:39:34 +0000, Alfred Molon said: In article 2016100720150925210-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck says... Probably because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience: http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/ If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added IBIS in their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji. IBIS is just one solution, and Fuji, like Nikon and Canon provide IS/VR/OS in lenses which are likely to benefit from it. For those of us with very good vintage lenses, IBIS is the best solution. Since IBIS doesn't appear to add significant body weight, it may be the best all-around solution because it accommodates lighter lenses. ....and yet the cameras those vintage lenses were originally intended for film and there was no thought of IBIS, or any other IS/VR/OS. As I said, it is foolish to base one's choice of equipment on a single factor such as IBIS, thereby excluding some excellent options. BTW: IBIS or not, mount convertors are available for most MILCs, so not having IBIS does not exclude using those vintage lenses. Just pretend you are using them as they were originally intended when you were shooting in an analog photoworld, and didn't shake as much as you do now. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji calls APS to FF "marginal difference" and "pointless"
In article , David Taylor says...
Would that offer a lot over MFT, especially considering all the extra weight and bulk? Having used both APS-C and MFT I'd have said there wasn't a great loss in the smaller format, but a worthwhile gain in size etc. Both Panasonic and Olympus offer IBIS. Some extra pixels/dynamic range/SNR (whatsoever) due to the larger sensor, at the expense of larger and heavier lenses. The new E-M1 Mark II looks pretty competivive however. From a system perspective it's superior to the new Sony A6500 because of the limited Sony lens range. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji calls APS to FF "marginal difference" and "pointless"
In article 2016100805035285936-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says... IBIS is just one solution, and Fuji, like Nikon and Canon provide IS/VR/OS in lenses which are likely to benefit from it. Do you mean to say that you are so shakey that you cannot hold a camera steady for a shot with a fast wide lens? If not that is sad, especially if you are going to narrow your equipment choices based on that single factor. Check this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pK-XI9xPUk At one point the photographer is describing a situation where he is taking a shot in the evening at ISO 1600, 100mm (=200mm FF equiv.) and 1/6s handheld. Try doing that without stabilisation or only with lens stabilition. In fact this level of stabilisation is possible because both the body and the lens have stabilisation and the two stabilisation systems work in synch. Stabilisation technology is progressing and having stabilisation only in the lens puts you at a disadvantage compared somebody who has stabilisation both in the body and in the lens. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji calls APS to FF "marginal difference" and "pointless"
On 2016-10-08 15:22:51 +0000, Alfred Molon said:
In article 2016100805035285936-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck says... IBIS is just one solution, and Fuji, like Nikon and Canon provide IS/VR/OS in lenses which are likely to benefit from it. Do you mean to say that you are so shakey that you cannot hold a camera steady for a shot with a fast wide lens? If not that is sad, especially if you are going to narrow your equipment choices based on that single factor. Check this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pK-XI9xPUk At one point the photographer is describing a situation where he is taking a shot in the evening at ISO 1600, 100mm (=200mm FF equiv.) and 1/6s handheld. Try doing that without stabilisation or only with lens stabilition. As a video drop from an "Olympus Visionary" he is a paid by Olympus promoter. What do you expect him to say, other than all things Olympus are the greatest, including their implementation of IBIS? All of what he says might well be valid, but in the end it is paid for, or sponsored hype. However, even with stabilization a successful shot taken handheld with a shutter speed of 1/6 is going to rely on camera holding/steadying techniques more than any IS/VR/OS or IBIS. The ISO is irrelevant in such a case, the focal length not so much. In fact this level of stabilisation is possible because both the body and the lens have stabilisation and the two stabilisation systems work in synch. ....and while nice to have it isn't totally necessary, and many photographers seem to manage with a single IS method, some manage with none at all when shooting with film, and those vintage lenses. Stabilisation technology is progressing and having stabilisation only in the lens puts you at a disadvantage compared somebody who has stabilisation both in the body and in the lens. While the technology is improving and it is great to have when needed, either one is good enough, there is no major disadvantage if one is left with an in-lens IS vs IBIS. It certainly isn't needed with fast wide and ultra-wide lenses. As far as using both methods "in sync" is concerned, just how gullible do you have to be to buy that? If one camera manufacturer implements IS via IBIS, and another via in-lens where needed the effect is similar. Then we have some folks who manage to get bad images regardless of having either IBIS or in-lens IS/VR/OS available. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Fuji calls APS to FF "marginal difference" and "pointless"
On 2016-10-08 10:05, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-08 13:32:56 +0000, Neil said: On 10/8/2016 8:03 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-08 07:39:34 +0000, Alfred Molon said: In article 2016100720150925210-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck says... Probably because there are Pro FF shooters having this sort of experience: http://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/sold-nikon-d5-fujifilm-x-t2/ If Fuji added IBIS to their cameras as Sony did (they just added IBIS in their A6xxx series), I'd consider a Fuji. IBIS is just one solution, and Fuji, like Nikon and Canon provide IS/VR/OS in lenses which are likely to benefit from it. For those of us with very good vintage lenses, IBIS is the best solution. Since IBIS doesn't appear to add significant body weight, it may be the best all-around solution because it accommodates lighter lenses. ...and yet the cameras those vintage lenses were originally intended for film and there was no thought of IBIS, or any other IS/VR/OS. As I said, it is foolish to base one's choice of equipment on a single factor such as IBIS, thereby excluding some excellent options. Since we mostly stick to our brand/platform and accumulate such lenses... As I have several very expensive lenses for the Minolta (now Sony) system, the advent of stabilization (Minolta-Konica period) in camera was a definite benefit. While (at that time) not as effective as IS/VR in lens, it has come a long way in the meantime to the point that the differences at the stabilization performance level are getting to be negligible. One might argue that having one system (in camera) is a more cost effective solution than having it in all lenses. It definitely is for those of us not about to replace our holy-trinities and other high priced lenses. Adaptors don't work in all cases or fully integrate either. Where the body flange/film plane distance is too far for the given lens, you are screwed. -- She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics. -Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ | \The Great One\ | Digital Photography | 0 | July 14th 09 12:04 AM |
Flickr: difference between "most relevant" and "most interesting" | Max | Digital Photography | 7 | September 26th 07 11:38 PM |
"P" mode and "Av" mode..whats the difference on a Canon 400d? | the_niner_nation | Digital SLR Cameras | 22 | May 29th 07 07:52 PM |
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode | ashjas | Digital Photography | 4 | November 8th 06 09:00 PM |