The photography thread

RaymondLin

ThePrettyDamned said:

Fyi for any interested - I have a great condition X-t2 for £375 posted in the classifieds here. That's a very good deal I think, £100 less than anywhere I can find then online in similar condition. Has 4 batteries (2 original and 2 non oem). 

I so would.....but i don't need it, just like to and that is not enough reason to ugprade from the X-T1.

Budgie

ThePrettyDamned said:

Fyi for any interested - I have a great condition X-t2 for £375 posted in the classifieds here. That's a very good deal I think, £100 less than anywhere I can find then online in similar condition. Has 4 batteries (2 original and 2 non oem). 

PMd and will take it

stickyfiddle

If you’re going to have it on a tripod I’m then IBIS is pointless. I also agree that Sony don’t handle as nicely as Fuji (though YMMV, obviously), and so @ThePrettyDamned ’s XT2 would be a fantastic buy. Grab an 18-55 and whichever prime suits your product photography best and you have a great kit. 

FWIW, I do believe full frame is better for IQ but it only really matters if you’re printing HUGE - at least A1 - and evening then only if the use case has people viewing that huge print quite closely, which is almost never. Money is better spent elsewhere imo; mostly on glass, and within a system you are happy with and can manipulate quickly to get whatever result you’re looking for at any given moment. 

Bridgehouse

stickyfiddle said:

If you’re going to have it on a tripod I’m then IBIS is pointless. I also agree that Sony don’t handle as nicely as Fuji (though YMMV, obviously), and so @ThePrettyDamned ’s XT2 would be a fantastic buy. Grab an 18-55 and whichever prime suits your product photography best and you have a great kit. 

FWIW, I do believe full frame is better for IQ but it only really matters if you’re printing HUGE - at least A1 - and evening then only if the use case has people viewing that huge print quite closely, which is almost never. Money is better spent elsewhere imo; mostly on glass, and within a system you are happy with and can manipulate quickly to get whatever result you’re looking for at any given moment. 

For me, the FF advantage isn’t just printing..

With a very high mp count (45) I get more cropping options at any given FL, I can use legacy lenses at native focal length, and it’s brilliant for digitising negatives and slides (but I’m weird in that respect)

stickyfiddle

Bridgehouse said:

stickyfiddle said:

If you’re going to have it on a tripod I’m then IBIS is pointless. I also agree that Sony don’t handle as nicely as Fuji (though YMMV, obviously), and so @ThePrettyDamned ’s XT2 would be a fantastic buy. Grab an 18-55 and whichever prime suits your product photography best and you have a great kit. 

FWIW, I do believe full frame is better for IQ but it only really matters if you’re printing HUGE - at least A1 - and evening then only if the use case has people viewing that huge print quite closely, which is almost never. Money is better spent elsewhere imo; mostly on glass, and within a system you are happy with and can manipulate quickly to get whatever result you’re looking for at any given moment. 

For me, the FF advantage isn’t just printing..

With a very high mp count (45) I get more cropping options at any given FL, I can use legacy lenses at native focal length, and it’s brilliant for digitising negatives and slides (but I’m weird in that respect)

I agree it can give more scope for cropping, but I don’t think it’s that important. I’ve printed heavily-cropped stuff from my old XT1 with no issues. I don’t believe any great photograph has stopped being so because of slightly-less-than-ideal resolution

Ultimately it’s thing that’s nice to have and an easy one for comparison sites and reviewers to latch onto, but it’s not the be-all and end-all

dazzajl

There is no best sensor (film) size, only a best for any given situation or need. 35mm has historically been the best all rounder but probably only the pinnacle in terms of sports shooting. 

I liked Uncle Ansel’s answer to the question of what is the best camera as “The heaviest one I can carry”. Although not being anywhere near as dedicated as he was, my version has become the lightest one I can get away with 

Jimbro66

It's interesting hearing full frame DSLRs promoted as a pinnacle of image quality. Whilst not doubting that they can be superb, I also remember when 35mm (i.e. present day full frame) was far less commonly used for most studio work than medium format was. I'm not sure that medium format digital cameras have been mentioned even once in this thread. So what are our pro photographers' thoughts on medium format these days? Have full frame DSLRs taken over their role to some extent?

RaymondLin

Jimbro66 said:

It's interesting hearing full frame DSLRs promoted as a pinnacle of image quality. Whilst not doubting that they can be superb, I also remember when 35mm (i.e. present day full frame) was far less commonly used for most studio work than medium format was. I'm not sure that medium format digital cameras have been mentioned even once in this thread. So what are our pro photographers' thoughts on medium format these days? Have full frame DSLRs taken over their role to some extent?

Digital Medium format

Pro - Great IQ, great look to the images

Con - Expensive, larg-er system, even the Fuji GFX, which is laughable to call it medium format as opposed to 35mm, there is a fixed size, the GFX's sensor is on the smaller, if not smallest end of the medium format size.  Anyway, larger sensor = larger body and lenses.

AF is not as good as 35mm bodies

Strangely DR is not as good either, they also don't have the same limits in terms of high ISO performance.

With the Sony can do 61mp, resolution on medium format is no long that big an advantage as it used to be.  The Hasselblad are nice and no doubt in a studio camera they are good and useful and is better than say a Sony A7R4, but value for money, I don't think they are.  

Bridgehouse

My personal opinion on sensor format isn’t really about ultimate IQ. 

I buy cameras based on what I want to do, how usable they are and how they act as tools. I’m looking for the best IQ and most usable tool in a given price range for a set of tasks.

For me, I chose FF for the following reasons:

- DR
- Low light performance (at higher ISO)
- Ability to adapt old legacy lenses at native FL (probably the biggest reason for me going FF)
- Ability to digitise film 1:1

Ultimately, a camera is a tool that needs to do what you specifically want it to do. If the majority of my shooting was out and about and I wanted something to stick in a pocket and use from time to time rather than a camera to take on a photo shoot (as a specific activity) then I wouldn’t go full frame at all. I’d probably go m4/3. 

Funnily enough, I’ve been shooting a lot with an Olympus XA2 recently - a super compact 35mm film point and shoot - it does a great job and has a brilliant lens. I’m now thinking about getting a small large sensor compact to do the same sort of thing with. Problem is, I want to keep it small and have as large a sensor as possible with a fixed FL lens, but I want to retain a viewfinder of some description. It’s not an easy choice. 

dazzajl

Jimbro66 said:

It's interesting hearing full frame DSLRs promoted as a pinnacle of image quality. Whilst not doubting that they can be superb, I also remember when 35mm (i.e. present day full frame) was far less commonly used for most studio work than medium format was. I'm not sure that medium format digital cameras have been mentioned even once in this thread. So what are our pro photographers' thoughts on medium format these days? Have full frame DSLRs taken over their role to some extent?

I’ve used digital back systems on large and medium format bodies. They are all heavy, cumbersome, slow to use, slow to operate, moody, noisy and extremely expensive. 

They are also exquisite and the only way to get a really big handful of pixels behind the best glass you can get. The combination of true 16 bit capture, large pixels and really top glass is impossible to replicate. It’s also very rarely of any consequence. 

I had a series of big canvases on my wall for years from an Arizona/Utah trip. They were shot on a mixture of digi MF, a Canon 1 series EOS with L glass and my panny LUMIX LX2. No one ever guessed correctly which was from which. 

ThePrettyDamned

Ultimately, bigger sensor will always mean technically better images and less taxing on lens design.

I wish "full frame" cameras would increase vertical resolution. We're losing about 1/3rd of the potential resolution of a square image (I said this on talkphotography and was laughed at). 

So I don't care for huge sensors, but I'd like a square sensor. Lenses project circles and so would cover it anyway. But some lenses have a 2x3 rectangle at the back for some reason, maybe to reduce extraneous light. Seems daft, most lenses don't. 

I usually crop my images slightly squarer anyway, 8x10, 6x7 are typically my preferred ratios. 2x3 is weird because you're choosing a quite panoramic view - micro 4/3 have a better idea as it gives more sensor area in a smaller space. 

/mumblings 

Jimbro66

Doesn't the 2x3 ratio hark back to the days of cinema film? Although I don't own a M4/3 camera I do find that a more pleasing format for many occasions.

RaymondLin

ThePrettyDamned said:

Ultimately, bigger sensor will always mean technically better images and less taxing on lens design.

I wish "full frame" cameras would increase vertical resolution. We're losing about 1/3rd of the potential resolution of a square image (I said this on talkphotography and was laughed at). 

So I don't care for huge sensors, but I'd like a square sensor. Lenses project circles and so would cover it anyway. But some lenses have a 2x3 rectangle at the back for some reason, maybe to reduce extraneous light. Seems daft, most lenses don't. 

I usually crop my images slightly squarer anyway, 8x10, 6x7 are typically my preferred ratios. 2x3 is weird because you're choosing a quite panoramic view - micro 4/3 have a better idea as it gives more sensor area in a smaller space. 

/mumblings 

I know what you mean, get the square image to the limit of the lens then you can always crop.  Or have a square sensor anyway and shoot in 4:3 all the time if you want.

I am not sure why even historically the negative are not true square.    It might be interesting to do some reading on it.

boogieman

Bridgehouse said: I’m now thinking about getting a small large sensor compact to do the same sort of thing with. Problem is, I want to keep it small and have as large a sensor as possible with a fixed FL lens, but I want to retain a viewfinder of some description. It’s not an easy choice. 

Sony RX100? Mostly fits your bill, except for the fixed lens. It’s very compact, decent sized sensor, EVF. I can’t believe the IQ in the one I’ve just bought, it’s almost not worth converting the RAW files as the jpegs straight out of the camera are that good. 

Bridgehouse

boogieman said:

Bridgehouse said: I’m now thinking about getting a small large sensor compact to do the same sort of thing with. Problem is, I want to keep it small and have as large a sensor as possible with a fixed FL lens, but I want to retain a viewfinder of some description. It’s not an easy choice. 

Sony RX100? Mostly fits your bill, except for the fixed lens. It’s very compact, decent sized sensor, EVF. I can’t believe the IQ in the one I’ve just bought, it’s almost not worth converting the RAW files as the jpegs straight out of the camera are that good. 

I’ve considered one - the zoom puts me off a bit, but I’d have to have the MkVII (gear addict) and F me they are pricey!

sev112

Bridgehouse said:

boogieman said:

Bridgehouse said: I’m now thinking about getting a small large sensor compact to do the same sort of thing with. Problem is, I want to keep it small and have as large a sensor as possible with a fixed FL lens, but I want to retain a viewfinder of some description. It’s not an easy choice. 

Sony RX100? Mostly fits your bill, except for the fixed lens. It’s very compact, decent sized sensor, EVF. I can’t believe the IQ in the one I’ve just bought, it’s almost not worth converting the RAW files as the jpegs straight out of the camera are that good. 

I’ve considered one - the zoom puts me off a bit, but I’d have to have the MkVII (gear addict) and F me they are pricey!

Don’t!  Get the simple one and reach back into that creativity we used to have when we only had a prime lens and a fixed focal length  telephoto

dazzajl

Bridgehouse said:

boogieman said:

Bridgehouse said: I’m now thinking about getting a small large sensor compact to do the same sort of thing with. Problem is, I want to keep it small and have as large a sensor as possible with a fixed FL lens, but I want to retain a viewfinder of some description. It’s not an easy choice. 

Sony RX100? Mostly fits your bill, except for the fixed lens. It’s very compact, decent sized sensor, EVF. I can’t believe the IQ in the one I’ve just bought, it’s almost not worth converting the RAW files as the jpegs straight out of the camera are that good. 

I’ve considered one - the zoom puts me off a bit, but I’d have to have the MkVII (gear addict) and F me they are pricey!

So you’re looking for a small camera with a big(ish) sensor and a built in prime lens? 

I know the x100 series gets a lot of love but it’s no smaller than very similar bodies for the XF lenses. Then you can choose the prime that suits you mood on the day. 

boogieman

Bridgehouse said:

boogieman said:

Bridgehouse said: I’m now thinking about getting a small large sensor compact to do the same sort of thing with. Problem is, I want to keep it small and have as large a sensor as possible with a fixed FL lens, but I want to retain a viewfinder of some description. It’s not an easy choice. 

Sony RX100? Mostly fits your bill, except for the fixed lens. It’s very compact, decent sized sensor, EVF. I can’t believe the IQ in the one I’ve just bought, it’s almost not worth converting the RAW files as the jpegs straight out of the camera are that good. 

I’ve considered one - the zoom puts me off a bit, but I’d have to have the MkVII (gear addict) and F me they are pricey!

Unless you want the longer length zoom, the extra f stop or two and a few extras like touch screen and Bluetooth then there doesn’t seem much point in going for anything beyond a mkIV (or maybe a V?) Otherwise I can’t really see the point when the sensor is exactly the same. I bought a used and mint condition mkIV with extras for £375. What’s a mkv11, £1200? Personally I’d rather save £800 and live without the bells and whistles. 

Bridgehouse

dazzajl said:

Bridgehouse said:

boogieman said:

Bridgehouse said: I’m now thinking about getting a small large sensor compact to do the same sort of thing with. Problem is, I want to keep it small and have as large a sensor as possible with a fixed FL lens, but I want to retain a viewfinder of some description. It’s not an easy choice. 

Sony RX100? Mostly fits your bill, except for the fixed lens. It’s very compact, decent sized sensor, EVF. I can’t believe the IQ in the one I’ve just bought, it’s almost not worth converting the RAW files as the jpegs straight out of the camera are that good. 

I’ve considered one - the zoom puts me off a bit, but I’d have to have the MkVII (gear addict) and F me they are pricey!

So you’re looking for a small camera with a big(ish) sensor and a built in prime lens? 

I know the x100 series gets a lot of love but it’s no smaller than very similar bodies for the XF lenses. Then you can choose the prime that suits you mood on the day. 

Believe me, I’ve done a lot of research and thinking. 

I don’t want to invest in another ILC system - given I’m balls deep into Nikon Z which is £££

Going into another system will just mean I end up buying more and more lenses. And they aren’t small enough. 

The XA2 is pocketable - an X100 isn’t - I’d say the GR series is, but there’s no EVF. I’d say the old sigma DP series was, but no EVF. 

Broadly, I’m odd and the market doesn’t produce what I would like to buy...

dazzajl

Bridgehouse said:

dazzajl said:

Bridgehouse said:

boogieman said:

Bridgehouse said: I’m now thinking about getting a small large sensor compact to do the same sort of thing with. Problem is, I want to keep it small and have as large a sensor as possible with a fixed FL lens, but I want to retain a viewfinder of some description. It’s not an easy choice. 

Sony RX100? Mostly fits your bill, except for the fixed lens. It’s very compact, decent sized sensor, EVF. I can’t believe the IQ in the one I’ve just bought, it’s almost not worth converting the RAW files as the jpegs straight out of the camera are that good. 

I’ve considered one - the zoom puts me off a bit, but I’d have to have the MkVII (gear addict) and F me they are pricey!

So you’re looking for a small camera with a big(ish) sensor and a built in prime lens? 

I know the x100 series gets a lot of love but it’s no smaller than very similar bodies for the XF lenses. Then you can choose the prime that suits you mood on the day. 

Believe me, I’ve done a lot of research and thinking. 

I don’t want to invest in another ILC system - given I’m balls deep into Nikon Z which is £££

Going into another system will just mean I end up buying more and more lenses. And they aren’t small enough. 

The XA2 is pocketable - an X100 isn’t - I’d say the GR series is, but there’s no EVF. I’d say the old sigma DP series was, but no EVF. 

Broadly, I’m odd and the market doesn’t produce what I would like to buy...

I think ‘Bridgehouse’ would be an excellent brand name for a new line of niche cameras that are small in stature and mighty in resolution