eric_arnold

<p>i would think about getting a reasonably inexpensive waterproof P&S for the beach. there's really no reason to bring your expensive DSLR for activities which dont require its use. better safe than sorry.</p>

<p>Personally, i would not get an A3000 for the use the OP describes. it has decent image quality but the build is super cheap and corners were cut on both the EVF and the monitor screen. If you are planning on serious manual-focusing with legacy lenses, i would at least get an A6000. The price differential is almost certainly worth it. </p>

<p>another thing with Fuji lenses is focus speed. many of the older XF lenses aren't exactly speed demons. the newer 35/2 is said to focus a bit faster than the older 35/1.4 (which i have). tests i saw indicated they were different-performing lenses -- the 35/2 was better in some parameters, the 35/1.4 in others. Fuji is saying it delayed the 120 macro in favor of the shorter primes because its customer base wanted more compact lenses. the notion of a camera company which actually listens to its customer base is a revelation to Nikon users, i know...</p> <p>Does the XT2 punch above its weight? IDK. at its price point, it trails only the Nikon D500 in the APS-C field, and there are still some advantages to full frame cameras. It's not exactly a revolutionary camera, but it can be said to be evolutionary, in that it improves--considerably--on its predecessor. The Fuji system is pretty attractive overall, and seems to have matured in terms of both camera bodies and available lenses. I dont think there's any question as to whether mirrorless cameras have a place in photography at this point, as we now have several complete systems to choose from. And the XT2 does look like the Fuji body i was waiting for-- i scooped up the XE1 and invested in lenses while waiting for the performance metrics to iterate to an acceptable level-- although the IQ was there from day one, even with the 16mp sensor. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I presume the f2 config on the new lenses equates to optimum performance otherwise I don't see the point</p> </blockquote> <p>you mean rather than the existing 1.4 lenses? the performance remains to be seen on a case by case basis, but the design impetus seems to be, more compact and element-proof. it's worth noting that with the new additions, Fuji now has 4 WR zooms and 6 WR primes.</p>

<blockquote> <p> I've read that the X-Pro2 is actually capable of 4K video, but needs a soft ware switch to implement it. Is it just pure marketing segmentation that prevent them from doing that? Assuming of course that they could actually do so.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-manager-at-cp-x-t2-will-have-4k-no-plan-to-add-it-x-pro2-via-fw-monochrome-x-pro-x30-successor/">Fuji execs have been quoted</a> as saying they could add 4k video to the XP2 with firmware, but have no plans to do so. So, yeah, that's market segmentation. But it also makes sense from a technical standpoint. The XP2 doesnt have a battery grip option, which in the XT2 increases the 4k record time to 30 minutes. </p> <blockquote> <p>I'm also amazed the XT-2 has met release this soon, but a pleasant sight it is. Just because it hit before September doesn't qualify as a rush in my view.</p> </blockquote> <p>Fuji obviously could have waited longer, but they may have been swayed by the D500's brisk sales, since the two cameras are direct competitors. I didnt mean to imply that the XT2 was released prematurely.</p> <blockquote> <p>Glad to see the bigger grip on the XT-2 obviously housing a bigger battery, as it better be. Battery life in the XT-1 is a major gripe of mine.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is an issue with mirrorless cameras, period, not just Fuji's. Good to see them being proactive about this. The gripped-up XT2 can fit three batteries at once, for approx. 1000 shots before recharge. I also like the fact that you can goose the performance by using all three batteries at once. Grips which only increase battery life and dont also allow for faster FPS are kind of disappointing IMO. this also allows for different configurations of the camera, i.e. you can equip it for street shooting w/out grip and a small prime, or for eventing or reportage with the grip, extra batteries, and zooms. The styling is virtually unchanged from the original XT1, except for the flippy screen, joystick and new buttons, so it shouldn't be a difficult transition for current XT1 owners. Looks like a winner to me, and probably less of a niche camera than the XP2 (which isn't going to get all the AF improvements of the XT2, btw).<br> <br> oh yeah, Fuji <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/8481938980/Lens_Road_Map_Final.jpeg">also announced some new lenses</a>: a 23/2, 50/2, and an 80/2.8 macro, all of which are weather-resistant. <br> </p>

<ul> <li>(Adorama preorder is <a href="http://www.adorama.com/IFJXT2.html?emailprice=t&utm_source=rsys&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Product&utm_content=Body&utm_campaign=Email070716NPA">here</a>.)</li> <li>(DPR first impressions review is <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t2-first-impressions-review">here</a>.) </li> </ul> <p>That was quick. I wasnt expecting this until Photokina. MSRP at intro is $1600. 24mp, 8fps, 4k video, dual card slots, 1/8000 top shutter speed, new flash controls, flippy screen, 507g weight. Optional grip boosts fps to 11. Weather-sealed. joystick AF point selector. 325 AF points, 169 PDAF points. AF-C custom settings should improve focus tracking, but i'd be surprised if this camera comes anywhere near the Nikon D500 in AF performance. Looks like Fuji has tweaked a lot of smaller things in the camera which should theoretically add up to a more full-featured mirrorless machine -- which it should be at this price point. Did they tweak the right things? Remains to be seen, but UI, haptics and overall performance seem to be fine-tuned from what was already a very good camera for 90% of photographic applications. Did Fuji manage to touch that elusive 10% to make a true mirrorless sports/action-worthy camera? Maybe. But some of that might depend on lens selection, as AF speed is known to be somewhat lens-dependent throughout the Fuji line.</p> <p>On the surface, the XT2 announcement begs the question, is Fuji finally ready for prime time? It competes directly with high performance prosumer DX DSLRs like the Nikon D500 and Canon 7DII, with an impressive spec sheet and tons of new features. If you're mainly concerned about sports/action, the D500 is probably a better choice, but this is clearly Fuji's most "pro" camera to date, moreso even than the XPro2, whose aesthetic is much more oriented toward classic rangefinder. They share sensors and some features, but the XT2 is designed to work better with zoom lenses, however, and has more advanced video options, though it loses the hybrid VF.</p> <p>Of its mirrorless competitors, it shoots right to the top of the field, slotting above Panasonic and Olympus m4/3 options and Sony's APS-C bodies (which still suffer from limited lens options). At its price point, it also competes with some of the lower-specced models in Sony's full frame mirrorless line, as well as entry-level full frame DSLRs. But one gets the sense it may have been rushed to market to take on the Nikon D500. Choosing between the two for many users might come down to available lens selection, an area where Nikon DX should be much stronger than it is. While you can equip the XT2 with 2.8 zooms, Fuji also has a line of fast primes in focal lengths and max apertures which Nikon doesn't offer for DX-- like the 14/2.8, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 56/1.2, and 90/2. That makes the Fuji system pretty versatile, although Nikon still has more lenses overall, as well as more exotics (not that you'd use a T/S lens on a crop body, but still). </p> <p>I was excited about the XP2, but i thought the initial MSRP was a bit high. The XT2 is slightly more affordable at launch, but also seems to justify its price point a bit better, with even more pro-oriented features, particularly in the way of AF, video, and flash. That makes it real tough if, like me, you have both Nikon and Fuji lenses and are trying to decide between XT2 and D500. Of course, if you don't need all the new goodies, the XT1 prices should be dropping as well. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Of course you can shoot hand-held and get results as good as with a small format camera, but why use an MF camera for that?</p> </blockquote> <p>documentary or on-location commercial work. travel situations where you'll be printing select keepers for gallery exhibition. The point is that you can now use MF digital for that without taking an extra suitcase, should you require it. Hasselblad encourages field use by making the camera weather-sealed, so it shouldnt surprise anyone if it's used this way. </p>

<blockquote> <p>My experience is that you <strong>always</strong> need a tripod for medium format, unless you are working under studio strobe lights.</p> </blockquote> <p>We'll see if this holds true with the X1D. Hasselblad's promo shots show it being handheld casually, and the portability and compactness should appeal to serious street photographers. If 50mp is too much resolution to get sharp shots without a tripod, some of the plusses of a smaller/lighter body would be erased. In any event, i know some folks who shoot handheld with Mamiyas or Rolleiflexes, so it would seem this is not an absolute rule. </p>

<p>whoops, i was wrong. could have sworn i read that somewhere. anyway, K-1 has 33-pt AF with 25 cross-type sensors. it's a new AF module but certainly not on a D5/D500 level. </p> <p>from Ricoh:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Type: TTL: Phase-matching autofocus</strong><br />Focus Sensor: SAFOX 12, 33 point (25 cross type focus points in the center)<br />Brightness Range: EV -3 to 18 (ISO100 @ normal temperature)<br />AF mode: Single AF (AF.S), Continuous (AF, C)<br />AF point selection: Spot, Select, Expanded Area (S, M, L), Zone select, Auto (33AF Points)<br />AF assist light: dedicated LED AF assist light</p> </blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>A K1 might have good enough AF for you - try one and see - but otherwise if you want good fast tracking AF you need a good DSLR. Personally I think mirrorless is great, use Fujis all the time and used to use Sonys, but DSLRs are still much better at difficult AF.</p> </blockquote> <p>FWIW, the K-1 has a contrast-detect AF system, which is less advanced than the phase-detect AF in most DSLRs and the Hybrid AF in some of the Sony A7 series models (A7, A7II, A7RII). The Pentax AF array covers a much smaller area than the hybrid AF Sonys, especially the A7RII, which has 399 PDAF sensors and 25 CDAF sensors. That said, the Sonys are not as good as focus-tracking in AF-C mode as most DSLRs, although it's unclear whether they are better than the K-1, which didn't fare all that well in <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-1/6">DPReview's autofocus tests</a>. All of which is to say, if you're prioritizing AF as a top criteria, the K-1 might fall short of expectations, while the A7RII would probably be better for everything except fast-moving action. </p>

<p>yeah, with the older... ok, archaic... digital gears, it's a good idea to stock up on parts. </p>

<p>18-35/1.8 Art would be a killer lens on a d7000. i personally like wide lenses, but i agree you dont NEED an ultrawide to shoot landscapes. 11-20 is a good choice IF you will use the 2.8 for interiors/low-light AND you will shoot at the wide end. in my experience the Tamron 28-75 is a pretty good all-arounder, so i'm not sure you even need anything else to do landscapes. the question then becomes, what lens will add to your photographic capabilities? i wouldnt recommend another prime if you're not using the one you have already, but adding primes to a zoom-heavy selection is a good strategy, in general. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Do you think that it's still worthy to move on to Sony mirrorless camera instead of Pentax K-1 FF DSLR?</p> </blockquote> <p>if you can't afford the A7RII, it's kind of a moot point, isn't it? Of course, instead of a A7RII, you could look at another Sony closer to your budget, like the A7II. To answer your question, though, they are different cameras in different systems, with different strengths and weaknesses. To evaluate which one is better for you depends on what parts of the shooting envelope you prioritize, and should also extend to potential lens selection. Saying you "like newest technologies" falls a little short of a qualitative reason to choose a camera IMO. A bigger question is, how would you use that technology to your benefit? The Pentax is underpriced (intentionally) for its market segment, where it competes with 36mp (and higher) sensors. So, it's a bargain considering its specification. Meanwhile, Sony commands a premium price for its 42mp flagship, but just as importantly, will likely force you into paying a premium price for its (limited) lens selection as well. OTOH, with Pentax, there's the option of using somewhat plentiful legacy lenses as well as newer glass developed for Pentax full-frame. Then there's the question of how you would use either camera. The Sony, being more compact, might lend itself more to travel or street shooting. But if you're a landscape shooter who's just gonna park the body on a tripod, then size matters less.</p> <p>I can't speak to the reliability issue, but a key difference between mirrorless and mirrored cameras in practical terms is battery life. ML cameras use much smaller batteries which are quickly depleted by things like live view and EVF usage, and the K-1 has more than 2x the rated battery life of the A7 series. this means that in practice, you might run out of battery in the middle of a shoot far easier. While it is easy to carry spare batteries, logistically, you have to manage their usage, and remember to charge them up before going out to shoot. As well as continually monitor battery life indicators in the camera.</p> <p>Ultimately, only you can make the decision of what's best for you, within your budget. That said, if you can rent before buying, spend a week or two with both cameras and see for yourself which is more your style. I don't think you can really lose either way, as both are capable cameras, but that price differential is pretty significant, and could be the difference between just having one lens and having several. </p>

<blockquote> <p>my logical reaction says to wait for an X2D to be developed and released - history says that the 2nd generation of a new line of cameras is far more solid.</p> </blockquote> <p>generally, this would be true, except for the fact that the 50mp Sony-designed sensor was already a known quantity, having previously been used in the Hasselblad CFV50c and H5D. There's an interview on DPReview where Hassy execs explain the ease of product development due to this. So i think its really a question of whether they got things like the UI and touchscreen capabilities correct. While Sony and some other manufacturers' approach has been to use 1st-gen buyers as beta testers, and correct the flaws of new bodies in subsequent iterations, I don't think Hasselblad had that same luxury. Given their financial problems and narrow core constituency, they needed X1D to be a knock-it-out-of-the-park grand slam, or see their window of opportunity for continued relevance begin to close. After all, the CFV50c was supposed to represent a rebirth for them, but it mostly just languished on the shelves as Pentax forged forward with the 645Z and Leica attempted to modernize itself. Had that been a completely successful product, i dont think the X1D would have had much impetus to be developed. But given that it was developed, it's clear that "revolutionary" is a starting baseline for it. It's also got to be a fairly complete release in and of itself, because who wants to invest that kind of money into a not-fully-realized system? The X1D will have to be successful for there to be an X2D, and if there is one, it probably wont be until the ability to put on-chip PDAF into the sensor is realized. Obviously, no camera today is future-proof, as technology keeps advancing, but at this price point, it's not realistic to ask customers to buy something which will be obsolete in a year or two. <br> <br> </p>

<blockquote> <p> there are a lot of 200/500 series cameras and lenses out there, some on their second or third life in the barely-used circuit</p> </blockquote> <p>well, i see the point, and i could add that for just $14,500, <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1144062&gclid=CjwKEAjwzN27BRDFn9aAwLmH2yISJABWuEXcCkezNQTQNiyhcsZ5PdFO5nmbTqUO7Mof9M8ZBHzzXxoCEWrw_wcB&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C92051677802%2C&Q=&A=details">you could buy a H5D with the 50c back</a>. but then, i could also note that, as <a href="https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/07/23/too-little-too-late-or-rebirth/">Ming Thein pointed out</a>, going the 200/500 route isn't necessarily a smooth road.</p> <blockquote> <p>There’s a catch, though. A number of them, in fact, and they’re fairly large. Firstly, the V system has no lenses wider than 38mm – which is 32mm in 35mm-e terms – which isn’t very wide. And you’ll need an SWC body for that, which generally doesn’t play that nice with digital backs (mine didn’t, at any rate, and other owners report the same). Next, there’s effectively no hope of any new lenses. The best lens for digital on the V system is probably either anything above 120mm, or the 4/40 IF FLE – which cost a fortune when new, and is even more expensive today. It’s also enormous and heavy – just for a 35mm-e FOV. You’re also limited to 1/500s, which is great for studio work, but not so good for available light – especially when there are no low ISO pull settings on the sensor below 100. This means very little depth of field control. Finally, you’re going to have to manual focus – and you’ll need a 90deg prism finder if you’re going to shoot portraits, because the sensor isn’t square (or a 33x33mm crop really isn’t that exciting). The V system was really designed to be shot square, and it shows.</p> </blockquote> <p>However, getting into the viability of older Hasselblads starts to become somewhat off-topic; this thread is actually about the X1D, and its viability as a potential game-changer in the world of mirrorless cameras, and the implications of its release on mirrorless, DSLRs, and Medium Format systems. If you'd like to have a discussion just about older Hassys instead, there is a Medium Format forum for that.</p> <p>If you're not already invested in older MF Hassy systems, i'm not sure it would make sense to do so at this time, rather than buy into the new X1D. Just looking at a spec comparison between the CFV50c, the X1D has a much wider latitude of ISO range, which has significant implications as far as how the camera can be used: if you're no longer constrained to the lower end of the ISO scale, available-light shooting becomes much more feasible. The top shutter speed on the 50c is 1/800; the X1D can do 1/2000. And the new body has wi-fi and GPS, as well as touchscreen focus. On top of that, there will be more lenses coming for the new system -- <a href="http://petapixel.com/2016/06/30/hasselblad-ceo-sets-record-straight-will-zoom-lenses-x1d/">including zooms</a>. So, this is a camera which looks ahead to the future while drawing on the legacy of the past. It's already excited the rumor mill about the possibility of a more-affordable Fuji MF offering, as well as thrown down a gauntlet to Pentax and Leica, and perhaps even Sony, Canon, and Nikon users chasing the resolution/IQ envelope. </p> <p>What i like about the X1D release is that it opens up the possibilities for mirrorless to be a high-quality yet portable imaging system which gets medium format out of the studio and into the field. It makes you think from a long-term investment perspective about whether you want to put all your eggs in a DSLR or FF mirrorless basket, or perhaps aim a little higher on the IQ scale. In other words, it moves the conversation forward at a time when the camera industry as a whole is struggling. Hasselblad in particular was in need of reinvention; not only does the X1D seem to check all the boxes for innovation, but its presence on the market could spur other camera makers to step up their games in innovative ways. </p>

<p>not all public/street art is "graffiti" btw... there's a difference between letter-based art and image-based art.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>I'm pretty certain at this point that there is no focal plane shutter, digital or otherwise, in the X1D. This means it will be very difficult to use legacy lenses on this camera, at least the V variety.</p> </blockquote> <p>the X1D can use H system lenses with an adapter. </p> <blockquote> <p> I see that the cost of a new CFV50c back has been reduced from $16K to $10K.</p> </blockquote> <p>this only makes sense if you already have V lenses and a V system body. the X1D has the same sensor in a much smaller package with updated features, at a lower price.</p>

<p>i have a bunch of Sigma lenses, including the 35 ART. all are made in Japan. all of them work fine on my various Nikon bodies. in fact, the only issue ive ever had with a 3rd party lens was a Tamron 17-50 which overexposed with a sb-600 in ttl-bl mode. so i wouldnt hesitate to buy or recommend another Sigma, and TBH, their lens output for the last several years has smoked Nikon, especially in DX where they have the 18-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8 -- innovative designs Nikon refuses to make. i also have the older 50-150/2.8 which is a killer DX lens. that said, there are occasionally QC issues with all camera/lens manufacturers, and Nikon has been known to reverse-reverse-engineer their bodies to make Sigma glass not work. But Sigma will rechip their lenses if you send them in. So, on principle, i dont think the old adage that Nikon lenses > Sigma lenses automatically is still correct. Nikon lenses arent built like they used to be, and it's beenawhile since they released something absolutely stellar in the IQ department. That said, if you buy a low-end Sigma or Tamron lens, i wouldn't expect a lot. </p>

<p>for "event stuff," the D750 is a more logical camera than the 800 or 810. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Pentax should feel pressure about this.</p> </blockquote> <p>Ya think? I'm sure Hasselblad looked hard and long at the 645Z, the X1D's most immediate competitor. The Hassy seems to improve performance parameters in a number of key areas, and also enables handheld use by dropping the weight by one-half. The 645Z's max flash sync speed is only 1/125; the X1D's is 1/2000. That's before getting into the minutiae of the touchscreen and streamlined UI; the 645z is pretty cluttered. Slightly lower cost, and maybe wider available lens selection, would be the only thing which would compel me to get a 645z over an X1D, but that might even out once you start adding lenses. </p>

<blockquote> <p>18-140 with 35mm f/1.8 together would be a nice, simple kit if you can live without ultrawide</p> </blockquote> <p>i agree, although i would always want an ultrawide for travel. the nice thing about the 18-140 is you could avoid lens changes when going from normal to telephoto, which fits the pace of travel photography. the ultrawide would come out of the bag for architectural shots, vistas, etc., while the 35 would be a go-to for indoor and low-light. </p> <blockquote> <p>Getting an FX lens in this range because maybe you may get a FX camera some day is limiting yourself now for something maybe.</p> </blockquote> <p>Going FX is a real decision to make if you already have 3-4 DX lenses. you really need a logical reason to do so, i.e., an idea of what you will gain from switching formats. Otherwise, you could easily spend several times the cost of your current kit for only incremental increases in photographic capability. and besides being generally more expensive, FX lenses are bulkier and heavier than DX lenses, making them less well-suited for travel. A 24-120/4, for instance, may be exceedingly front-heavy on a D3300, though that lens would balance a bit better on a D500.<br> <br> i dont really understand the point about luminosity when shooting skies. if you're shooting night skies, you get more leeway in terms of light-gathering from a slower shutter than from a stop or two of aperture -- so bring a travel tripod-- while daylight shooting shouldn't be constrained by either shutter or aperture. in fact, i wouldnt hesitate to shoot skies with any of your current lenses, but i might want to add a polarizing filter to reduce atmospheric haze, especially at telephoto distances. </p>

<p>all your current lenses are DX, so... an FX upgrade would entail replacing all of them, at considerable cost. you could start that process now if you are sure this is what you will do, but neither FX lens you mention is ideal for use on a DX body right now. except that since you do have the 10-20, 24-120 or 24-85 wont mean you have no wide angle capability. but if i were you, i'd just get the 18-140. the 16-80 would make the 10-20 largely redundant, except for the extreme wide end, and it's pretty expensive to boot. it's also only 2.8 at the short end. on top of that, you would be replacing two lenses with 18-200 range with one which is quite a bit shorter. for much less cost, with the 18-140 you get a reasonable all-in-one walkaround which would work well with the 10-20 and 35/1.8 for travel purposes. if you need a more 'luminous' lens down, the line, add a fast prime. </p>

<blockquote> <p> I don't see how it could be used to shoot a wedding in a candid style however, since the lenses are slow and often one needs to shoot in extremely dimly lit churches with no flash allowed.</p> </blockquote> <p>i dont think wedding photography was the primary goal of the X1D design team, but FWIW, the camera can use existing H system lenses with an adapter. a quick look at the <a href="http://www.hasselblad.com/lenses/medium-format">Hasselblad product page</a> shows there are a few relatively fast lenses with apertures between 2.2 and 2.8. however, these are even more expensive than the system lenses, so i don't know if this makes sense as an investment if you dont already own them. In any event, the system just launched, so i'm sure we'll see more and faster lenses down the line. Whether the AF and high-ISO performance holds up in low-light conditions remains to be seen, but <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/interviews/7746435225/mirrorless-is-probably-the-future-an-interview-with-hasselblad-product-manager-ove-bengtson">according to Hasselblad</a>, it wasn't possible to put phase detection on this sensor at this time. Future iterations will probably address this.</p> <p>FWIW, there are already plenty of wedding photographers who use medium format and the Pentax 645z in particular; but that body is large and cumbersome. with the X1D, it's small enough to fit in a bag with a second body/lenses.</p>

<blockquote> <p>It is very compact in size and weight, perhaps even more so than the Tamron 28-75mm.</p> </blockquote> <p>the sigma is 1.5 oz <em>heavier</em> than the tamron 28-75.</p> <blockquote> <p> lacking wide angle capability does not fit the "versatile" category. </p> </blockquote> <p>that all depends. i've used the 28-75 on aps-c. it's more "versatile" on the long end than a 17-50, making it more suitable for portraits in particular. also good for live music if you're a bit back from the stage. i definitely missed the wide angle in my own shooting, but my point was that that focal length <em>can</em> work for some applications. WRT to the 16-85, that's much more of a compromise lens, based on spec. a max aperture of 2.8 @75mm allows for much more DoF control than max aperture of 5.6. so, the 16-85 would be a better landscape lens, while the 28-75 would be a better portrait lens. you do get the wide range with the 16-85, but you could always get a 12-24/4 as an UWA option. </p>

<p>14-50/2 would be hard to beat. and a 50-150/2. and a 100-250/4. with m4/3, there's a need to get back stops you lose because of the sensor size. the prime selection is pretty much there, but faster than 2.8 zooms would add specialness. </p>