eric_arnold

<blockquote> <p>Currently, I shoot with the 5D3 and four "L" lenses...17-40, 24-105, 100 Macro and 100-400. This setup is ideal for what I normally shoot, landscapes and nature.<br> I'm currently looking at the new Fuji XT-2 body with comparable lenses to what I now have.</p> </blockquote> <p>Fuji lenses aren't completely comparable to Canon across the board, but a close equivalent might mean 10-24, 18-135 and 100-400. There's no equivalent to the 100 macro; there is the 60/2.4 which goes to 1:2, and the upcoming 80/2.8, which won't be in production until 2017. That would be a decent kit for landscapes and nature, assuming you're ok with the Fuji colors. However, if i were you, i'd consider some of the Fuji primes, which are one of the biggest reasons people get into the Fuji system. You may also consider the Fuji 55-200 instead of the 100-400, which is a huge honker of a lens and not all that well reviewed, considering the price.</p> <blockquote> <p>Am I crazy or does this possible switch seem to make sense to those of you utilizing the mirrorless system? Will I miss the resolution of FF or be completely satisfied with the move.</p> </blockquote> <p>it could make sense, although the weight savings will be less if you stick to zooms. Only you can say whether you will be satisfied with 24mp APS-C's resolution, but unless you shoot crazy high ISOs and/or print extra large, i wouldnt worry about this too much. The XT2 has no anti-aliasing filter, so it may seem sharper than the 5d3.</p> <blockquote> <p>An important consideration would be if the AF performance of the Fuji is sufficient for your needs compared with the 5D3, specifically continuous focus, tracking, and frame rate. Does the Fuji flash system currently meet your need?</p> </blockquote> <p>I actually don't think focus tracking would matter all that much for nature and landscapes, unless you are trying to track tumbleweeds or prairie dogs. the XT2 actually has a higher frame rate than the 5D3 btw.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Strikes me as a prestige lens which is there to show Nikon mean business, even if not all that many people buy it. I would certainly pick an 85/1.4 in preference.</p> </blockquote> <p>if you already have an 85/1.4, though, does this new lens still have appeal?</p>

<p>DPReview just posted some samples from this lens. Bokeh looks amazingly smooth. </p>

<blockquote> <p>For $2,200, it's not a very good looking lens.</p> </blockquote> <p>maybe if they put the bells and whistles on the <em>outside</em>... </p>

<p>some versions of nikon VR do require it to 'lock in' with a half-press depress of the shutter. my 70-200 VRII does the same thing. </p>

<blockquote> <p>the 28/1.8 gets the gold ring treatment, perhaps suggesting the 28/1.4 won't be replaced any time soon</p> </blockquote> <p>this lens is a commemoration of 100 million Nikkor production mark, so maybe that's why they went with a "classic" length, instead of something wide and fast. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I would rather see an f2 or 2.8 version.</p> </blockquote> <p>Wouldn't that largely defeat the purpose of designing and introducing this lens? Nikon already has a 105/2.8 with VR, and similar (macro) lenses in the 100-105 FL are made by Sigma and Tokina. It's possible Nikon's lens designers felt 2.8 wouldn't differentiate itself enough from what's already out there, nor justify the premium price they want for it. Same thing goes for f/2. it's fast-er than 2.8, but not fast enough to claim bragging rights as world's fast-est. It's fairly obvious that was important for Nikon, to develop a lens which ha some degree of uniqueness.<br> <br> I have the Tokina 100, which is an exceedingly sharp lens. Yet i find i dont use it that much for portraits, preferring my 85/1.4. At around $400 new, however, the Tokina is a relative bargain. I don't find the AF on it to be exceedingly slow, however macro lenses in general are not known for speedy AF. By making the new 105 a regular, non-macro, lens, one would imagine that its AF is reasonably bris -- otherwise, why bother?<br> <br> I agree with Ilkka too, that the 1.4 aperture is fairly limited for studio use, and more suitable for field use, available-light, and moving subjects. If you're just going to stop down, 1.4 is useless, and there's no reason not to go with a less expensive alternative. As for the lack of VR, that really only comes into play with lower shutter speeds, as in landscape use. I'm not quite sure how saying "relatively low resolution of Nikon's flagship bodies" <em>isn't</em> a jab, but cheap shots aside, there's not much practical difference between Sony's 42mp and the D8xx's 36mp, since both require care in deployment. In any event, i can't agree that lack of VR represents a "major handicap" for street shooting -- my sense is that AF speed would be a much bigger factor, along with size and weight. There's simply no rule which states that <em>all</em> street photographers <em>must</em> use stabilized lenses and/or bodies. Where VR does make a difference is in handheld video, and if that's really important to you, you might forgo this lens and instead seek out the Tamron 85/1.8 VC or Nikon 105 VR.</p>

<p>just checked prices on the 105/2 DC. they're going for as low as $800 USD. we'll have to wait for optical tests and reviews of the 105/1.4, but the older lens may be a sleeper for portrait shooters. the newer one with the E designation may be more suitable for video, and i would expect less LoCa, the DC lenses' fatal flaw on digital. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Nikon is determined to create a set of f1.4 primes; however, it doesn't end with the 85mm.</p> </blockquote> <p>i mean, it's nice to see an interesting spec in a new nikon lens. but im not sure who this lens is for. like the 58/1.4, this would have made sense for DX shooters -- except for the price. </p> <blockquote> <p>there has been no true successor to those lenses, except for various 105mm/f2.8 AF macro lenses, which are not necessarily ideal for portrait work.</p> </blockquote> <p>ins't the 105/2 DC a portrait lens?</p>

<p>interesting. and didnt see this coming. the price all but precludes use by DX users, which is too bad, because a 157.5/1.4 FLE would be an interesting spec. will have to see some bokeh samples before NAS commences. </p>

<p>probably not a lens or dusty sensor issue since the spots appear in different locations and are different sizes. flare has different characteristics and created bigger rings. does it also do this in non-backlit photos?</p>

<p>again, if all you want is a decent external stereo mic to do basic video, A Rode video mic that plugs into the 3.5" socket should be sufficient. the Nikon ME-1 would also work. it can and does get complicated when you get into more situation-specific and less general applications, although it doesn't have to be super-expensive, depending on what you are doing. Luckily, the price of broadcast-quality linear PCM audio recorders has come down considerably with the rise of podcasting and DSLR video. A few years ago, the H4n was like $400; today the H2n is less than $200, and is arguably better, unless you need XLR connections.</p>

<blockquote> <p> its a chubby little lens that unbalances the petite XT10 without the grip.</p> </blockquote> <p>hmm, ok... i have the XE1 which is lighter and less bulky than the XT10. i wouldn't say the 18-55 is unbalanced on that body, and it seems a bit of a misnomer to describe the 18-55 as one of Fuji's heftier lenses. it's only slightly heavier than and about the same length as the 14/2.8. whether it necessitates a grip or not is a personal preference.<br> <br> @Bob, have you tried asking this question in the <a href="http://www.fujix-forum.com/">Fuji X-Forum</a>? I bet you could get some helpful advice on disabling the connection there. </p>

<p>i would shoot with active DL <em>off</em> until you can figure out what's really going on. it's supposed to correct for shadows, but can rob contrast and make things weird, if you don't expressly want that in your pics. at best it's a trick mode, which doesn't do anything you can't do yourself in post-, except it sets arbitrary values to tweak exposure, which can't be fine-tuned to taste. </p>

<p>the 18-55 (310g) is "hefty"? who knew? im sure the grip helps balance, but that's actually one of the lighter zooms around. the 16-55 is 655g! anyway, CIPA's testing regimen is as follows:</p> <blockquote><ol> <li>Take pictures continuously until the camera shuts down due to power loss.</li> <li>Fire the flash at full power for every other photo, if the camera has a flash.</li> <li>Operate power zoom with every photo.</li> <li>Keep any illuminated screens on throughout the text.</li> <li>Use default camera settings, except as noted above.</li> </ol></blockquote> <p>So, 150 shots per battery charge, using EVF, with no flashed shots, is extremely low. making sure the camera app on the phone is off is a good idea, in addition to disabling the wi-fi in camera. Try it without the wi-fi on and see how the battery life is then, and make sure the battery is on full charge before shooting. The NP-W126 battery is the same as in the XE-1 i have, which typically gets 350-400 shots per charge under normal usage patterns. Most Fuji shooters carry 2-3 spares at all time, nit just because of short batery life, but also because there's no % charge indicator. </p>

<blockquote> <p> if Sony can only go in the direction of large and heavy optics it is restricting some of the presumed advantages of mirrorless.</p> </blockquote> <p>i think this misses the point somewhat. Sony already has some not so large/heavy optics. but... most of those lenses werent developed with 42mp sensors in mind trying to match the bar set by the Otus. interestingly, though, the directive to keep it compact is being followed by Fuji's new f/2 primes. they have a smaller sized sensor and lower MP count of course.<br> <br> on another note, i just read the DPR comparison of the 55/1.8 and new 50/1.4. Im not convinced the new lens is worth it as the older one appears to be very good, and there's sample variation to contend with. But if it's true that the Sony lenses close down the aperture to focus (instead of metering wide open), then that is a major limitation imposed by design. That alone right there could keep sports/action shooters away from Sony. Read the comments on the DPR site for more explanation as to why this is a problem. </p>

<blockquote> <p>overweight large optics that can really be made smaller.</p> </blockquote> <p>given that "nifty fiftys" have been around forever, and several lensmakers including Sony/Zeiss have multiple options in the 50mm range, i'm not sure how valid this complaint is. We've definitely seen the image quality bar raised with the Otus and the Sigma ART, which do happen to be larger than typical 50/1.8s and pricier to boot, so the new Sony 50/1.4 follows this direction. However, no one is pointing a gun to your head and demanding you spend $1500 for an 11-bladed aperture 50mm for your A7RII. if you prefer a smaller lens, go for it. Some people probably prefer rotary-dial land lines to smart phones as well. </p>

<blockquote> <p>the Zoom is intended to be shoved in someone's face during an interview (at least, that's how I see them on TV). A lavalier or shotgun-on-a-pole would be better for capturing just a speaker no matter what you plug them into</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> a shotgun mic will work about the same way as a Zoom H1. it'll capture what's in front of it, as well as some ambient sound. with an H2, you have more options for directing the sound field, so those are a bit more versatile for musical performance. a lavalier, or clip-on lapel mic, is generally used in single-subject interviews. you wouldnt use one, for instance, covering a press conference with multiple speakers, unless you were able to clip it on to every speaker individually before they started speaking. I work with documentary filmmakers who'll use the Rode for general audio capture, then switch to the lavalier for individual interviews where you want to limit the background ambient sound. </p> <blockquote> <p> my lavalier was about £150 (out of desparation), but there are, I believe, good lavaliers available for substantially less</p> </blockquote> <p>prices for lavaliers range widely. you can get one for an iPhone for about $20 USD, and a name-brand wired mic for about $30-$100 USD, all the way up to $150-$500 USD or so for a wireless setup with transceiver and sometimes switchable mics. incidentally, Nikon sells a wireless mic kit, the ME-W1, for about $200, and the ME-1 can be had for substantially less as a grey market import. With pro audio/video, there's always a more expensive/newer model, so it's sometimes abut what's "good enough." My advice is, don't overspend if you don't have to. </p>

<p>for basic DSLR video, the MT-1 is pretty easy-peezy. if i was recording a symphony, i might want a separate audio track, and the H2 shines in music recording -- it can do 180 or even 360 4-channel audio. But that is a more complicated setup for a specific application, while also requires syncing in post-. FWIW, the Shire SM57 RJ mentions only costs $100, which is less than an MT-1. But using an SM57 or SM58 for audio for DSLR video would require extra cables for connectivity, plus there's no hotshoe mount. </p>

<p>I have an H1 and an H2. the mics on those are very good, CD-quality 24-bit audio. ive never used either for DSLR video recording, however. the most common set-up i see out in the field is the Rode. the MT-1 is probably a better option than the Zooms for dedicated DSLR video, since it has a 3.5" jack cord and a hotshoe mount. if you're going to do other things, like field recording/podcasting, the Zooms might make more sense, since they can be used as stand-alone recorders, while the Rode and MT-1 are just external mics. </p> <p>On a side note, Andrew said the Zooms offer "likely substantially better at recording quality than anything you'll get through the internal mic - especially if you hook it up to an external microphone." Sure, well, a stereo 24-bit audio is gonna be better than a mono-built-in mic. But plugging a second external mic into a Zoom is redundant, somewhat. Zoom's parent company, Samson, is a mic manufacturer, and their mics are often better quality than alternatives from Roland, Olympus, and Tascam. The one situation where you'd want a Lav is if you're doing interviews and want to mic your subject. But then, you could just plug the Lav into the camera's external jack, no need to go Frankenmic by plugging a Lav into a Zoom, unless you wanted a separate audio track.<br> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Maybe Petapixel is allowed ? : </p> </blockquote> <p>i saw that when it first appeared. it's a Nikon-approved photographer, for one, shooting for the D500 launch campaign, and there's no supplied EXIF data on any of the music shots. also, if you look at the shots themselves, the venue is better-lit than a lot of clubby music venues, and the shots are also cherry-picked so that they dont show too many weaknesses as far as noise -- which they didn't completely succeed at. also, a backlit wall of lights isn't going to be the biggest challenge for a high-ISO shot, and it's somewhat telling that the best shots are of the drummer -- which meant the shooter was closest to the light sources (possibly onstage). you can see some noise on the guitarist's face in live photo #6, even though the shooter does his best to mask it. a better test would have been a close up of one of the performers' faces, at 6400-12800, aka a "no mercy" shot. <br> <br> as someone who shoots music photography with a D3s frequently, i would love the claim that the D500 can handle 12800 ISO to be true, but i suspect its somewhat hyperbolic. Acceptable noise thresholds may be somewhat subjective, but i would only consider 2-3 of those shots to be publishable. So, i stand by my statement that pushing DX past ISO 6400 isn't going to inspire the same level of confidence as with an FX body. although you may get better focus accuracy due to the greater sensitivity of the D500's meter. </p>

<p>the obvious lens choice here is the 70-200/4. great shot Joe, btw. </p>

<p>Other than a higher-resolution sensor, the D3300 arguably has a <em>lower</em> level of specification than the K30 in many areas. for example, it has 100% viewfinder coverage, as well as in-camera stabilization, weather-sealing, faster max. shutter speed, and 6 frames per second. i dont know that i would swap those out for a couple of basic consumer features, especially since you can pano in post -- unless i was sold on the Nikon's UI and ergonomics (which would require actually testing the D3300 hands-on). The Nikon does have longer battery life, but that may be ameliorated somewhat by the fact the Pentax can run on AAs (with an adapter). I also wouldn't say the Nikon is better for sports as both cameras have 11-pt. autofocus, and Nikon doesn't put its best AF modules on its entry-level bodies. Though the K30 is an older camera, it's still a pretty decent body in 2016.</p>

<p>yeah, well... that's why you dont see many Sony Macro 90s in photo pits...</p>

<p>agree with Kenneth, this doesn't sound like a problem you can fix on your end. a best-case scenario is that it would be a minor repair which can be done at a repair shop without shipping the camera away.</p>