Support NeoGAF

[John Blade]

There is, I think. The zoom/focus rings stick at a few spots. It doesn't appear to actually be in the glass, just the rings.

If it's not inside the glass, they is a chance the lens can be save but I would recommend to go to the Canon technician and ask the cost of fixing the issue with the sticky part. If the estimate cost to fix the lens is more than half of the lens cost, then it might be better to get a new lens. Next time when you're doing photo shoot (aka: professional), do have some sort of insurance to cover this nightmare situation (aka: damage of your camera parts). I know you're doing this not professional as it's for your friend but it's wise to be careful where you put your equipment. Either way, I do hope the cost of fixing the issue won't kill your wallet but if it does, just use this as a learning experience.

 

[jongkookie]

Pretty dang impressed with my A7...

I just took it through an ice sculpture show, where you walk through the halls littered with ice sculptures and where the temperature is at a freezing 9deg Fahrenheit.

I was in there for about 30 mins or so and not only did a fully charged battery held up(dropped down by 6% at the end of the show), the camera didn't have any issues either during or after the show.

I kinda wonder what kind of abuse it can take lol.

 

[thesoapster]

5D MK IV on the way...should have it this week! Very excited, as it's my first FF (upgrading from a 50D).

 

[JadedWriter]

Pretty dang impressed with my A7...

I just took it through an ice sculpture show, where you walk through the halls littered with ice sculptures and where the temperature is at a freezing 9deg Fahrenheit.

I was in there for about 30 mins or so and not only did a fully charged battery held up(dropped down by 6% at the end of the show), the camera didn't have any issues either during or after the show.

I kinda wonder what kind of abuse it can take lol.

I'm not one to test the limits of weather sealing and magnesium bodies. It's best to just be careful or you end up blowing through gear like Matt Granger.

5D MK IV on the way...should have it this week! Very excited, as it's my first FF (upgrading from a 50D).

That is one hell of a leap, enjoy. I have no idea what to do for my next camera. Could be an 810 or I could end up waiting for whatever they announce as the 750 replacement. I'm also hearing rumors about a scaled down D5 like camera. I mainly just want either an 810 or whatever the fuck they put the D5 AF system into that isn't a D5 or D500.

 

[jongkookie]

I'm not one to test the limits of weather sealing and magnesium bodies. It's best to just be careful or you end up blowing through gear like Matt Granger.

Heh, I did due diligence and researched before I ever step foot inside the hotel it's located at.

A number of people have taken in much more colder temperatures and in much longer durations and it never had any problems and that was more than enough to tell me that I'll be fine.

I certainly wouldn't take it in a blizzard or something similar(especially since my lenses aren't weathersealed) but now I know that it can take it at least lol.

 

[TerryLee81]

I have a A7II and a D750 from a friend to try out right now, and to my suprise I'm more impressed with the D750.

After shooting mirrorless for a long time it feels good to use a DSLR again, it's so responsive, fast autofocus, and great battery life with no need to turn the camera off the whole day. Downsides are of course bulk and weight, but I like the grip better then the one of the A7II.

I love the IBS of the A7II and the EVF, no need to review the pictures (compared to the D750) since you directly see the adjustments you made in the EVF. Battery life is not so good.

But boy those lens prices! I know that you can adapt almost any old glass, but if you want to buy new Sony lenses they are really expensive compared to DSLR lens prices.

I'm thinking about buying one of those cameras and I would need a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. For the price of the Batis 85mm 1.8 I can buy all 3 Nikon lenes. Yes the Batis may be better then the Nikon 85mm 1.8, but not that much better.

 

[thesoapster]

That is one hell of a leap, enjoy. I have no idea what to do for my next camera. Could be an 810 or I could end up waiting for whatever they announce as the 750 replacement. I'm also hearing rumors about a scaled down D5 like camera. I mainly just want either an 810 or whatever the fuck they put the D5 AF system into that isn't a D5 or D500.

If the newest 5D didn't happen, I was prepared to jump to Nikon. Even now they still have best image quality by a bit in terms of low light and dynamic range. I do like the MK IV's faster fps of course (and not having to switch systems). I think Canon has a harder time making all their hardware. It doesn't hurt that Sony has been knocking it out of the park with their sensors.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I have a A7II and a D750 from a friend to try out right now, and to my suprise I'm more impressed with the D750.

After shooting mirrorless for a long time it feels good to use a DSLR again, it's so responsive, fast autofocus, and great battery life with no need to turn the camera off the whole day. Downsides are of course bulk and weight, but I like the grip better then the one of the A7II.

I love the IBS of the A7II and the EVF, no need to review the pictures (compared to the D750) since you directly see the adjustments you made in the EVF. Battery life is not so good.

But boy those lens prices! I know that you can adapt almost any old glass, but if you want to buy new Sony lenses they are really expensive compared to DSLR lens prices.

I'm thinking about buying one of those cameras and I would need a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. For the price of the Batis 85mm 1.8 I can buy all 3 Nikon lenes. Yes the Batis may be better then the Nikon 85mm 1.8, but not that much better.

You're right that the Sony lenses can be expensive. I wonder if it's just because they are still fairly new and there still aren't a ton in the market.

In terms of the 35mm for the Sony, have you considered the non-Zeiss Sony 28mm f/2 lens? It's really good and quite a bit cheaper than the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8. After a lot of debate, I went with the 28mm to pair with my 55mm f/1.8.

 

[NyMartin90]

New to the thread and cameras. I have a Nikon D5300, it took some good pictures when I was on vacation last summer and I'm going to Egypt soon. I wanted to take some 4k pictures. Anyone know if it takes 4k pics? should I upgrade the camera? lens? (I have the stock lens on it).
It also takes ok 1080p 60fps video but any recommendations for 4k video?

 

[Ty4on]

New to the thread and cameras. I have a Nikon D5300, it took some good pictures when I was on vacation last summer and I'm going to Egypt soon. I wanted to take some 4k pictures. Anyone know if it takes 4k pics? should I upgrade the camera? lens? (I have the stock lens on it).
It also takes ok 1080p 60fps video but any recommendations for 4k video?

It takes 4k pictures. Not sure what a decent 4k video option would be, depends on price range. Very few Nikon cameras have 4k video right now :/
4k means ~4000 pixels wide (usually 3840) and the D5300 images are 6000 pixels wide if you save them at full resolution. They're taller than widescreen, but you can crop them to widescreen and they will still be higher res than 4k (not sure if there's an option to directly save them in widescreen).

Upgrade your lens if you want something sharper. I think it should look fine on a 4k monitor/TV. Zoom lens upgrades are often quite expensive (like the Nikon 16-80mm f2.8-4), but the 35mm f1.8G DX is a nice secondary lens with no zoom but better low light and is sharper than the standard zoom.

 

[VisceralBowl]

I really hate that my Yahoo 2-step verification codes never arrive the instant I request them. I usually get them hours after I requested them or, in the case of the phone call option, always get an expired/non-working code. Sometimes I get nothing at all. Maybe someday I'll be able to log back into Flickr.

On another note, I might have the opportunity to shoot a wedding next year. I've done only two events in the past so not sure.

 

[Astral/H3X]

New to the thread and cameras. I have a Nikon D5300, it took some good pictures when I was on vacation last summer and I'm going to Egypt soon. I wanted to take some 4k pictures. Anyone know if it takes 4k pics? should I upgrade the camera? lens? (I have the stock lens on it).
It also takes ok 1080p 60fps video but any recommendations for 4k video?

Pretty much always better to invest in new glass before you invest in a new camera, especially if your concern is image quality.

 

[Mysterious]

Bit the bullet and got the Nikon D750. Got it with a 24-120mm 4G kit lens and a 50mm 1.8G prime lens. Really happy with it.

 

[SiDCrAzY]

Bit the bullet and got the Nikon D750. Got it with a 24-120mm 4G kit lens and a 50mm 1.8G prime lens. Really happen with it.

Congrats, just recently gone mine too.

 

[iamcenok]

Bit the bullet and got the Nikon D750. Got it with a 24-120mm 4G kit lens and a 50mm 1.8G prime lens. Really happy with it.

Congrats on the 750! I love mine!

Congrats, just recently gone mine too.

Great lens choice. I have the 35mm art lens myself. Would love to get the 85 soon. *drool*.



On another note in both excited and peeved.
I ordered a pixma pro-100 from B&H.
Can't wait to put some prints through it.

Peeved because I bought the new MBP (which I love) but annoying to deal with no card reader. So while at my friends place I asked to borrow her cable to transfer photos from the camera to the laptop. And my micro USB port on camera wouldn't take the cable.
So a while back my camera was stolen by a coworker. I caught him and almost a year later. I got my camera back.
And I think at some point he fucked with the port and I hadn't realized until now.

 

[Joelstinton14]

I'm not one to test the limits of weather sealing and magnesium bodies. It's best to just be careful or you end up blowing through gear like Matt Granger.

That is one hell of a leap, enjoy. I have no idea what to do for my next camera. Could be an 810 or I could end up waiting for whatever they announce as the 750 replacement. I'm also hearing rumors about a scaled down D5 like camera. I mainly just want either an 810 or whatever the fuck they put the D5 AF system into that isn't a D5 or D500.

I been thinking about picking up an 810 recently too. I have a D700 that i kind of want to upgrade at some point.

I brought an X-pro 2 earlier in the year, and i like it a lot, but i think i prefer the hands on , more physical nature of DSLRS, as well as the better autofocusing and better low light performance. I don't want to get rid of the X-pro 2 as i like using it. The stupid thing is i'm buying the same primes for the X-pro 2 as i got for the D700 so to be honest they both doing the same thing, although i would probably use the Xpro 2 for street photography and the D810 for more topographical stuff. I don't think i need it, but there are a fuck ton of great lens there to utilise for the Nikon. Also with the X-pro 2, with close up shots, parallax shooting can be slightly annoying.

Heh. A case of Gas for sure. But then again, i do think the can compliment each other. using the Xpro 2 as a second body.

The only thing i am a bit worried about with the 810 is with the higher megapixel count there is a lot more room for error, any mistakes you make would show up, but i guess once you learnt the camera inside out that would disappear.

 

[JadedWriter]

I been thinking about picking up an 810 recently too. I have a D700 that i kind of want to upgrade at some point.

I brought an X-pro 2 earlier in the year, and i like it a lot, but i think i prefer the hands on , more physical nature of DSLRS, as well as the better autofocusing and better low light performance. I don't want to get rid of the X-pro 2 as i like using it. The stupid thing is i'm buying the same primes for the X-pro 2 as i got for the D700 so to be honest they both doing the same thing, although i would probably use the Xpro 2 for street photography and the D810 for more topographical stuff. I don't think i need it, but there are a fuck ton of great lens there to utilise for the Nikon. Also with the X-pro 2, with close up shots, parallax shooting can be slightly annoying.

Heh. A case of Gas for sure. But then again, i do think the can compliment each other. using the Xpro 2 as a second body.

The only thing i am a bit worried about with the 810 is with the higher megapixel count there is a lot more room for error, any mistakes you make would show up, but i guess once you learnt the camera inside out that would disappear.

Yeah I heard 36MP is a pain in the ass to deal with. Either it shows up the quality of your lens or it shows up how bad you are at snapping a picture. I would assume after about a week a person would be able to come to grips with it.

 

[opticalmace]

I'm using a Sony A55 DSLR(T?) from 2011. It's been good but the LCD is on the fritz and I'd like to move to something more modern.

After looking at the state of alpha mount Sonys, I am planning to jump into the Canon or Nikon ecosystems.

I am wondering if I should look at something in the D7200 range, or if it's worth trying to save up for something like the D750 (which is a lot of money to me). I am definitely an amateur but if the pictures are that much better I'll consider it (I've never used a FF). It's hard for me to tell where the sweet spot is if you know what I mean.

I shoot everything except action/sports. Any advice? I am planning on something like a 24-72 (or something-ish) type lens primarily. Thanks.

 

[JadedWriter]

I'm using a Sony A55 DSLR(T?) from 2011. It's been good but the LCD is on the fritz and I'd like to move to something more modern.

After looking at the state of alpha mount Sonys, I am planning to jump into the Canon or Nikon ecosystems.

I am wondering if I should look at something in the D7200 range, or if it's worth trying to save up for something like the D750 (which is a lot of money to me). I am definitely an amateur but if the pictures are that much better I'll consider it (I've never used a FF). It's hard for me to tell where the sweet spot is if you know what I mean.

I shoot everything except action/sports. Any advice? I am planning on something like a 24-72 (or something-ish) type lens primarily. Thanks.

24-70's are F'ing expensive. D750 is a really good camera, it's also worth looking at a D610 as well. I heard the 7200 is really good as well, I used the 7100, it's predecessor to good effect as well, though I hate the small buffer on that camera. The 7200 is pretty much a perfected 7100 with a more expanded buffer and better high iso handling. Probably not as good as a 610 though just because you can't really beat overall sensor size.

 

[RuGalz]

I am wondering if I should look at something in the D7200 range, or if it's worth trying to save up for something like the D750 (which is a lot of money to me). I am definitely an amateur but if the pictures are that much better I'll consider it (I've never used a FF). It's hard for me to tell where the sweet spot is if you know what I mean.

I shoot everything except action/sports. Any advice? I am planning on something like a 24-72 (or something-ish) type lens primarily. Thanks.

FF advantage is better high iso performance, shallower dof, wider view angle at cost of larger heavier and pricier lenses and body. So it just depends on your priority.

 

[Skel1ingt0n]

With 2016 wrapped up, I used my Fuji XT-1 to take photos on the following trips with my wife:

Rochester, NY
Reykjavik, Iceland
Bergen, Norway
Stockholm, Sweden
Helsinki, Finland
San Antonio, TX
Colorado Springs, CO
San Diego, CA
Albuquerque, NM
Atlanta, GA
Portland, OR

My 2017 resolution is to get more serious with my documenting. I want to teach myself more, and I want to focus on improving stepping outside of my comfort zone for a better shot. One of the biggest components of what I want to do, is to expand into video. My plan is for the two of us to do several 3-day weekend trips again, where I really learn and master the tools at my disposal. All of that to culminate in ... ... hopefully ... ... a trip to Tokyo late in the year!

But with that said, I'm debating if upgrading to the XT-2 is the right call. I've done countless hours of research, and in almost every review, the A7R is the better camera for video, period. But I just love Fuji for everything else. Think I'm going to buy each and test drive them both - and keep the one I end up preferring.

 

[JadedWriter]

FF advantage is better high iso performance, shallower dof, wider view angle at cost of larger heavier and pricier lenses and body. So it just depends on your priority.

For some odd reason I didn't start caring about primes until I moved to FF. Just the depth of field and bokeh creation just seems a lot better on FF than crop sensor.

 

[RuGalz]

For some odd reason I didn't start caring about primes until I moved to FF. Just the depth of field and bokeh creation just seems a lot better on FF than crop sensor.

I have mostly prime lenses and super shadow dof is just not my thing so it doesn't matter to me. I'm much happier with the cheaper f2 lenses than paying double or more for f1.4 as long as it's sharp enough by 2.8 or so. For customers, without side by side comparison, they aren't going to know the difference between crop and FF as long as you are shooting in the range where crop and FF are pretty much equal.

 

[Joelstinton14]

With 2016 wrapped up, I used my Fuji XT-1 to take photos on the following trips with my wife:

Rochester, NY
Reykjavik, Iceland
Bergen, Norway
Stockholm, Sweden
Helsinki, Finland
San Antonio, TX
Colorado Springs, CO
San Diego, CA
Albuquerque, NM
Atlanta, GA
Portland, OR

My 2017 resolution is to get more serious with my documenting. I want to teach myself more, and I want to focus on improving stepping outside of my comfort zone for a better shot. One of the biggest components of what I want to do, is to expand into video. My plan is for the two of us to do several 3-day weekend trips again, where I really learn and master the tools at my disposal. All of that to culminate in ... ... hopefully ... ... a trip to Tokyo late in the year!

But with that said, I'm debating if upgrading to the XT-2 is the right call. I've done countless hours of research, and in almost every review, the A7R is the better camera for video, period. But I just love Fuji for everything else. Think I'm going to buy each and test drive them both - and keep the one I end up preferring.

Wow what a great set of places to go to.

I'm hoping to see a friend in Canada later in the year, so hopefully that will rekindle that travel boy in me. Since i left uni (some 6 years ago now . yikes) I've become a bit of a recluse and struggling a bit, i'm also taking less pictures .

So yeah going to push my self this year, just little things from making sure i carry my camera with me everywhere i go, and utilising my time better. Every other week i have a long weekend (Well mid day weekend haha, i have Thursday, Fridays, and Sat off) and will make sure i will use one of those days for going out to shoot. Even looking around at buying a transporter and sticking my camera equipment in the back (with the bike and spending long weekends away).

Also going to get a few beginners guides and sort of retrain myself too , i think at times with photography you get so sucked into details that you miss out on stuff. Going to try and unlearn myself and relearn.

Small steps but also big steps.

 

[Joelstinton14]

I have mostly prime lenses and super shadow dof is just not my thing so it doesn't matter to me. I'm much happier with the cheaper f2 lenses than paying double or more for f1.4 as long as it's sharp enough by 2.8 or so. For customers, without side by side comparison, they aren't going to know the difference between crop and FF as long as you are shooting in the range where crop and FF are pretty much equal.

Yeah i rarely use lenses wide open, (normally aim for F8/11) but it is kind of nice to have when you have your camera around with you at family or functions. Or even low light conditions. And that the build quality is a lot nicer - you would hope so considering the price - but i think it is worth paying the extra money just for the moments you may need it.

Also i guess it depends where you live. Living in Cornwall (uk) the light is really strong when it is shining. So i tend to shoot smaller apertures anyway (don't really tend to use filters that much)

 

[JadedWriter]

I have mostly prime lenses and super shadow dof is just not my thing so it doesn't matter to me. I'm much happier with the cheaper f2 lenses than paying double or more for f1.4 as long as it's sharp enough by 2.8 or so. For customers, without side by side comparison, they aren't going to know the difference between crop and FF as long as you are shooting in the range where crop and FF are pretty much equal.

I got 1.8's I don't exactly like the look of 1.4 though so I don't see myself using those. My zooms are 2.8 though. I cover events and do natural light...usually portraits. Depends on how much space my location allows for an off camera flash set up. I've already gotten used to FF so my next camera is definitely going to be that.

 

[RuGalz]

And that the build quality is a lot nicer - you would hope so considering the price - but i think it is worth paying the extra money just for the moments you may need it.

I shoot Pentax; their quality disparity between crop and FF is pretty minimum compared to other brands so it doesn't apply in my case. Having an extra stop or so usable high iso is nice but if the extra weight and size is going to make me carry it less, then it's not worth the trade off. I can make things work at up to iso 6400 on my camera. If higher than that, it will usually be b&w unless the scene simply does not have that much tonal variation. I don't look for pixel perfection. My goal is simply - is my client going to be happy with the results? (Either a real client or my wife or me.)

 

[Fox1304]

Phew, having a hard time choosing between the Fuji models. All look very enticing, and the second hand pricing options allow for many models to return (X-E1 for example, X-Pro1 too if can be found)

 

[Dr.Horrible]

I've got an A6000 and am looking to add a new lens as I've still only got the two kit lenses that it came with. At the moment I'm leaning heavily toward the Sony 35/1.8, but is there anything else I should be considering? I know about the Sigma 30mm, but am not sold on it.

I mostly like to shoot landscapes at the moment if that matters.

 

[KalBalboa]

I've got an A6000 and am looking to add a new lens as I've still only got the two kit lenses that it came with. At the moment I'm leaning heavily toward the Sony 35/1.8, but is there anything else I should be considering? I know about the Sigma 30mm, but am not sold on it.

I mostly like to shoot landscapes at the moment if that matters.

That 35 1.8 is nice and expressive. You'll love how fast it is if you're indoors.

With that being said, it's basically a portrait lens when used on an APS-C, in my opinion. The 20mm 2.8 is wider and pretty fast, plus it's basically a pancake. It functions akin to a 35mm on a full frame, if that helps, but it's obviously not as showy when it comes to depth of field and general sharpness as the 35mm.

 

[Sobriquet]

I tried to search and came up short, but I think it's worth noting for those looking to get into photography that the Nikon D3400 with two lenses (18-55mm VR and 70-300mm) is only $500 right now. That's half price. This is everywhere across the US, not a specific store.

Be careful because the single-lens kit is also $500 for some reason.

 

[Dr.Horrible]

That 35 1.8 is nice and expressive. You'll love how fast it is if you're indoors.

With that being said, it's basically a portrait lens when used on an APS-C, in my opinion. The 20mm 2.8 is wider and pretty fast, plus it's basically a pancake. It functions akin to a 35mm on a full frame, if that helps, but it's obviously not as showy when it comes to depth of field and general sharpness as the 35mm.

I looked at that and if I wanted to stay with a wider lens I'd probably go with the 19mm sigma as it seems to have better reviews.

On that note, does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 30mm vs the Sony 35mm?

Lastly, would it be stupid to just get both Sigmas - 19mm and 30mm?

 

[JadedWriter]

I tried to search and came up short, but I think it's worth noting for those looking to get into photography that the Nikon D3400 with two lenses (18-55mm VR and 70-300mm) is only $500 right now. That's half price. This is everywhere across the US, not a specific store.

Be careful because the single-lens kit is also $500 for some reason.

That fucking 70-300 with no fucking VR is fucking useless. To further clarify I don't like the idea of a telephoto like that without VR because it's probably borderline impossible to get something in focus at the telephoto range ie 200-300 because the requirements for the optimal shutter speeds have to be a pain in the ass. It's like a "taking a picture on the surface of the sun" lens.

 

[brerwolfe]

That fucking 70-300 with no fucking VR is fucking useless. To further clarify I don't like the idea of a telephoto like that without VR because it's probably borderline impossible to get something in focus at the telephoto range ie 200-300 because the requirements for the optimal shutter speeds have to be a pain in the ass. It's like a "taking a picture on the surface of the sun" lens.

My work is in golf and I have great relationships with many of the photographers on the PGA Tour. A lot of them use lenses with image stabilization or vibration reduction, but I noticed they don't have the switches enabled. I brought it up once, and David Cannon (one of the most prominent golf photographers ever) said that the shutter speed is so high that it just doesn't matter. We're talking about $10k lenses like the Canon 200-400 f/4.

Point being, just change your shutter speed. Instead of shooting iso 125, change it to 800 or 1000 and adjust accordingly. No, you likely wouldn't use it indoors with high shutter speeds, but no shame posting up with a monopod, either. Whatever it takes with the tools you have.

 

[JadedWriter]

My work is in golf and I have great relationships with many of the photographers on the PGA Tour. A lot of them use lenses with image stabilization or vibration reduction, but I noticed they don't have the switches enabled. I brought it up once, and David Cannon (one of the most prominent golf photographers ever) said that the shutter speed is so high that it just doesn't matter. We're talking about $10k lenses like the Canon 200-400 f/4.

Point being, just change your shutter speed. Instead of shooting iso 125, change it to 800 or 1000 and adjust accordingly. No, you likely wouldn't use it indoors with high shutter speeds, but no shame posting up with a monopod, either. Whatever it takes with the tools you have.

I usually don't do monopods. I carry enough crap around and I'm not bringing an extra friggin' thing to lug around. Unless I'm lugging around off camera lighting stuff for a portrait shoot I'm not bringing any extra thing that can't fit into my camera bag. I iso ride if I have to, but it really just depends on what the shutter calls for though if I can get away with 1/125 I'll usually use that unless I just have to crank up the shutter to kill some lights, negate motion blur/shutter shake or something else. I think my best settings at my last event ended up being F4 Iso 2000 with maybe 1/400th shutter speed. 200-400 F4 isn't a bad lens, I just really do not like variable aperture lenses. If you're bringing your own lighting then fine, natural light...completely different story as long as you have enough lighting available or shooting aperture priority to cut down on the amount of settings you need to tweak. Indoors? Hell no, unless that's the dedicated flash lens and body combo. I think I only have two VR lenses any way, which are my 70-200 and 2.8 17-50...which I don't even fucking use anymore.

 

[Rentahamster]

That fucking 70-300 with no fucking VR is fucking useless. To further clarify I don't like the idea of a telephoto like that without VR because it's probably borderline impossible to get something in focus at the telephoto range ie 200-300 because the requirements for the optimal shutter speeds have to be a pain in the ass. It's like a "taking a picture on the surface of the sun" lens.

I think it's a pretty good lens actually, considering the price isn't too bad, the zoom range is pretty useful, the image quality is pretty good, and it's FX. Useless for your event jobs in dimly lit indoor areas, of course, but outdoors it works quite well.

 

[Astral/H3X]

I looked at that and if I wanted to stay with a wider lens I'd probably go with the 19mm sigma as it seems to have better reviews.

On that note, does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 30mm vs the Sony 35mm?

Lastly, would it be stupid to just get both Sigmas - 19mm and 30mm?

The Sigma is a smidge wider (not really a factor), is sharper, and cheaper. Can also be used on an A7, with caveats (I do this).
The Sony 35 has stabilization, opens wider, so is much better in terms of how it handles low light, and will also focus a bit quicker, but is more expensive.
Aka Sigma for value, Sony for quality.

The 19 and the 30mm lenses are different enough focal lengths that sure, if you have the cash and want that extra width, no reason not to get both.

EDIT: If you like landscapes, and this is the primary usage of your next lens, consider a wide angle -- if you're usually around the 16mm end on your kit lens (I assume that's what you are using atm), then Samyang makes some fantastic wide angle ones, so that might be worth a look. And since its landscape, manually focusing won't be a bother... Mountains don't exactly move around a lot.

 

[Rentahamster]

With 2016 wrapped up, I used my Fuji XT-1 to take photos on the following trips with my wife:

Rochester, NY
Reykjavik, Iceland
Bergen, Norway
Stockholm, Sweden
Helsinki, Finland
San Antonio, TX
Colorado Springs, CO
San Diego, CA
Albuquerque, NM
Atlanta, GA
Portland, OR

My 2017 resolution is to get more serious with my documenting. I want to teach myself more, and I want to focus on improving stepping outside of my comfort zone for a better shot. One of the biggest components of what I want to do, is to expand into video. My plan is for the two of us to do several 3-day weekend trips again, where I really learn and master the tools at my disposal. All of that to culminate in ... ... hopefully ... ... a trip to Tokyo late in the year!

But with that said, I'm debating if upgrading to the XT-2 is the right call. I've done countless hours of research, and in almost every review, the A7R is the better camera for video, period. But I just love Fuji for everything else. Think I'm going to buy each and test drive them both - and keep the one I end up preferring.

If you had a free flight back to any two of those places right now, where would you go?

 

[opticalmace]

I've never dabbled with Raw photos before.

What is the easiest software for doing simple adjustments (preferably automatically, for the most part)? Thanks.

 

[hEist]

I've never dabbled with Raw photos before.

What is the easiest software for doing simple adjustments (preferably automatically, for the most part)? Thanks.

normally I would say Lightroom. Dunno if it's available without subscription... but if you are fine with Lightroom 2, I have a license left which I don't need anymore (since I am using Adobe CC)

 

[Rentahamster]

I've never dabbled with Raw photos before.

What is the easiest software for doing simple adjustments (preferably automatically, for the most part)? Thanks.

Lightroom or Adobe Bridge/raw converter. They have free trials. You can also try the free trial of Capture One to see if you like it too. Google for video tutorials

 

[Joelstinton14]

normally I would say Lightroom. Dunno if it's available without subscription... but if you are fine with Lightroom 2, I have a license left which I don't need anymore (since I am using Adobe CC)

You can buy Lightroom 6 standalone. And to be honest it is all you will probably ever need. Kind of like the current crop of DSLR really, any extra is bells and whistles.

 

[JadedWriter]

I think it's a pretty good lens actually, considering the price isn't too bad, the zoom range is pretty useful, the image quality is pretty good, and it's FX. Useless for your event jobs in dimly lit indoor areas, of course, but outdoors it works quite well.

I must have gotten that lens confused with whatever AF-P 55-300 or whatever lens they recently rolled out...still shocked that things FX cause they usually don't put FX lenses in DX kits, which has to mean that lens is cheap. Edit: I just checked, that's a DX lens. I always heard the 70-300 VR Nikon makes was pretty good and reasonably priced on Ebay so I normally just think of that one as the good 70-300. I mean it's usable outdoors, but I've gotten so lens picky these days. If I can't justify it with indoors shooting or portrait shoots I just don't think of a lens as being usable. I'd like a Tamron 15-30, but what the heck would I even use that lens for?

 

[RuGalz]

I've never dabbled with Raw photos before.

What is the easiest software for doing simple adjustments (preferably automatically, for the most part)? Thanks.

I've been messing around with the new ON1 Photo Raw last few weeks. Its auto button does way better job than Lightroom and there's no need to mess with library import. And if you grow out of auto settings or presets, for the most part, it does way more than Lightroom. Give it a try.

 

[captive]

My work is in golf and I have great relationships with many of the photographers on the PGA Tour. A lot of them use lenses with image stabilization or vibration reduction, but I noticed they don't have the switches enabled. I brought it up once, and David Cannon (one of the most prominent golf photographers ever) said that the shutter speed is so high that it just doesn't matter. We're talking about $10k lenses like the Canon 200-400 f/4.

Point being, just change your shutter speed. Instead of shooting iso 125, change it to 800 or 1000 and adjust accordingly. No, you likely wouldn't use it indoors with high shutter speeds, but no shame posting up with a monopod, either. Whatever it takes with the tools you have.

Yea outdoors is a whole other game than indoors.
Interestingly coming from Olympus that had in body stabilization i never used it because i found it not great and never got good results with it. Since switching to nikon, my 300f4 and 500f4 have lens VR. I almost exclusively leave them on, doing comparisons even at 1/2000 of a second the VR shots were better. Add the 500mm to my d500 and add a 1.4 TC and all of a sudden im looking through 1000mm angle of view.

what i actually like is i can see the VR working. I have pretty steady hands, i've gotten good shots handheld as low as 1/50 but just switching VR off and on i can see it stabilize the image even when using a tripod.

I must have gotten that lens confused with whatever AF-P 55-300 or whatever lens they recently rolled out...still shocked that things FX cause they usually don't put FX lenses in DX kits, which has to mean that lens is cheap. Edit: I just checked, that's a DX lens. I always heard the 70-300 VR Nikon makes was pretty good and reasonably priced on Ebay so I normally just think of that one as the good 70-300. I mean it's usable outdoors, but I've gotten so lens picky these days. If I can't justify it with indoors shooting or portrait shoots I just don't think of a lens as being usable. I'd like a Tamron 15-30, but what the heck would I even use that lens for?

thats because nikon doesnt have a proper DX lineup, something thom hogan and many people have been complaining about for years.

 

[JadedWriter]

Yea outdoors is a whole other game than indoors.
Interestingly coming from Olympus that had in body stabilization i never used it because i found it not great and never got good results with it. Since switching to nikon, my 300f4 and 500f4 have lens VR. I almost exclusively leave them on, doing comparisons even at 1/2000 of a second the VR shots were better. Add the 500mm to my d500 and add a 1.4 TC and all of a sudden im looking through 1000mm angle of view.

what i actually like is i can see the VR working. I have pretty steady hands, i've gotten good shots handheld as low as 1/50 but just switching VR off and on i can see it stabilize the image even when using a tripod.


thats because nikon doesnt have a proper DX lineup, something thom hogan and many people have been complaining about for years.

Yeah I normally just keep my VR on indoors or out cause I'm usually not in good enough conditions to be at like 1/500th consistently. I've improved my hand holding decently enough to assist with the VR, but I still keep it on cause 1/125th at 200mm on a 70-200 is still pretty damn sketchy. If the DX lineup wasn't piss poor and the Sigma lenses having inconsistent AF I would've probably stuck to DX, but I just got tired of having lenses that A) only work with one format and B) I really do like FX DOF for some odd reason. It really started to make my portraits pop. It's either that or I drastically improved at around the time I got my D600...or both.

 

[Skel1ingt0n]

If you had a free flight back to any two of those places right now, where would you go?

I thought they were all fantastic for different reasons (except Atlanta... I really didn't like Atlanta), but the short version would be:

I felt most alive in Stockholm. There's so much to do. Great food, great shopping, great art, music, parks, views, sights and sounds. We happened to get there on an absolutely gorgeous day; 70F, not a cloud in the bright, blue sky, a nice breeze under a bright sun. We talked with our waitress in the morning about how amazing it was, and she said "yeah, nobody will be working today." And I thought she meant it in the US sense - you know, everybody might leave early or gaze out their windows. Nope - literally, it felt like no one was working. Small shops were closed up. From 11-4, the parks and the districts were filled to the brim with people in dress cloths, but their suit jackets hanging on their briefcase on the ground.

Everyone was friendly. There was just an inviting aura in the air. But yet, everyone still speaks English and customs are very similar, so there's no reason to be "on edge" at all.

Iceland, on the other hand, was the most relaxing place I've ever been. My wife and I drove our rental on this road for about an hour when I asked her to stop. We pull over, get out - and as far as the eye can see in any direction, all the way to the horizon line, there was not another soul around us. We felt like we had the whole planet to ourselves. Food was kind of meh - and outside of photo opps, there isn't much to necessarily "do." But man - breathing in the crisp, fresh air. Waking up with the coziest of chills in the air. Everything moved on its own clock.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I've never dabbled with Raw photos before.

What is the easiest software for doing simple adjustments (preferably automatically, for the most part)? Thanks.

If you want the adjustments to be automatic, then I really don't think you should shoot raw.

It's far more likely that your camera body will process and develop a more appealing and accurate image when shooting in JPEG than Lightroom will by pressing the auto button with a raw file.

I've tried the auto settings in Lightroom with the raw files from Sony camera and it usually just blows out the highlights and ups the contrast every time.

Anyway, if fiddling with settings to develop the image *you* want sounds like a pain in the ass, then just shoot using the best quality JPEG option. You'll save yourself a ton of time and hassle and gain the peace of mind that you probably can't do much processing besides cropping to make your images look better. I'm going to keep shooting raw, but I can see the appeal of shooting JPEG, too.

 

[VisceralBowl]

What is the easiest software for doing simple adjustments (preferably automatically, for the most part)? Thanks.

Just shoot jpg for automatic stuff

 

[JadedWriter]

I've never dabbled with Raw photos before.

What is the easiest software for doing simple adjustments (preferably automatically, for the most part)? Thanks.

You can honestly improve the looks of your photos by leaps just by actually experimenting in Lightroom. So I'd advise heavily against just clicking on auto adjust.