Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
Thread started 07 Apr 2019 (Sunday) 18:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I just switched to Fuji

 
Owain ­ Shaw
Some of my best friends are people.
Avatar
2,190 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 823
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Valencia, Spain.
Post edited 10 days ago by Owain Shaw.
     
Apr 15, 2019 14:06 |  #46

I could see a difference in the swirly bokeh, but wouldn't have been able to say which lens shot which picture ... probably because that part doesn't really bother me.

In any case, am I the only one who quite likes swirly bokeh? That should be okay because bokeh is a subjective concept anyway. Who was it (maybe Jaron Schneider in his podcast with Ted Forbes) who said that camera manufacturers are making way more on bokeh than they make out of selling us sharpness these days? Now most lenses are so sharp it's hardly worth fighting over, along comes bokeh to feed the GAS monster.

To the OP/TS: enjoy your new camera, I'm glad you're excited about it and hope that your absence from this thread means you're out taking photographs with it and enjoying yourself ... which is definitely the best thing to do.


| New website. (external link) |
| Gear | Flickr (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,097 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Likes: 995
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 15, 2019 16:34 |  #47

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18845807 (external link)
I read that too, didn't see the bit were that manager says 'good enough' anywhere totally #fakenews on your part :-P

Good enough" is my choice of words..my bad!! Given my quick read of the Fuji interview my interpretation was that the tone of that comment is quite casual/hobbyist sounding.

"we want our customers to take their camera everyday and enjoy photography. This is the concept of our APS-C system
but Fujifilm knows that some customers want a system with a higher resolution and a larger sensor. For them, we have a system with a larger sensor than the full format and it’s the GFX
"


Take it from me they value all their customers, even the many pros who use their app-c line of cameras, they all use the cameras some for pay some for fun, Fuji don't mind what you use them for they just make them. Some small lenses some bigger lenses. Did you see the bit were he mentioned 31+ XF lenses how many are oversized to your mind Alan?

It's not a matter of size in all cases. All of the newer small f/2 primes provide f/3 dof FF equiv. A relatively manageable weight of the Sony A73 my Gmaster 16-35mm has incredible battery life an provides f/2.8 dof with 16-35mm variety. More control of perspective than a single focal length fuji prime providing f3 FF dof equiv. Worthy Fuji ownership would be the 16mm f/1.4, 23 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 56mm, 80mm f/2.8 (for macro and portrait applicaton f/4 dof ff equiv) and 90mm f/2. If your a primary fuji guy a well received lens to "own" would be the 8-16mm, 16-55 and 50-140mm. If your a wild life shooter/sports the 100-400 is a great lens too. Fuji does have a big lens selection!! Some big ...some small.

Still waiting to hear why you consider the GFX a clunky medium format system. Still laughing too, ah that made me chuckle. The GFX should have the 4core processor, it has 100% PDAF too - looking forward to hearing your thoughts after you buy one so.

Clunky large body in general. Nothing to do with having a MF sensor inside. There maybe a potential in purchasing a GFX100 one of these days. However cost wise I'd benefit more purchasing a Sony A9mk2, 5dmk5 or Canon EOS R mk2,3,4 etc with some killer RF mount glass for the $$$ expenditure. I see benefits in a GFX if I needed the high resolution images but acquiring the image with Sony's blazing fast AF/eye AF, sensor performance and lens lineup will meet both Portrait and fast action needs. Same applies with a future Canon FF mirrorless or mirrored 5dmk5 if they produce it.

Not talking about me purchasing the 200/2, I asked you why you think it was expensive & reminded you of the price of other 200/2 lenses out there. Well?

Fuji users are happy that the 200 f/2 exists but very unlikely a high percentage of POTN members will buy it due to cost. Bragging rights while there is no ownership. Just joyous it's in the fuji family :)

I do see your trend over the forums, posting negative 'thoughts' about your Fuji at any given opportunity then offering up how much better your 135mm cameras are, many of those 'thoughts', valid as they are as your opinion, are based on miss-information for the most part. Information that many on here have pointed out to you as incorrect & offered a solution with images to boot. Still entertaining to read in a strange way.

Not intentional to speak non truths. I have no doubt i'm not a professional reviewer but simply a user.

I use my Fuji cameras everyday, guess that makes me just a

Makes you a loyal, devout happy Fuji user. I know you express hatred to your old 5dmk3 with non OE/native Sigma glass ;)

I like the bit were they say they want to offer different options to different photographers & directly after is say 'It’s our concept' Guess you skipped over that one eh?

And then there is the: 'we believe that the combination of medium format and APS-C is the best option' (talking about their customers needs, note not amateur or professional mentioned anywhere...). They do mention having a more tough body in the X-H1 for those pros who might need it. Choice.

Let us leave the unpopular X-H1 out of the conversation. This is sadly fuji's "mistake". Most users in the Fuji realm want smaller form factor.

I still remember the feeling of joy when I stuck an old Zeiss lens on the first X camera I owned, an X-E1, they images were outstanding. I still have that feeling when I shoot today with them & that is a big part for me, the joy of using is great. No system is going to be perfect that's for sure but on balance Fuji knocked it out of the park for my use, & I say that as a working pro. Might have easily stuck it out with the old turtle slow brand(canon) or perhaps moved over to the movie studio brand(sony) but I got given a taste by a pro photographer friend (big time music and fashion dude, [X100f, X-T3 & GFX BTW]) and that set the path for me. Haven't needed to look back since, but that's my experience you obviously have different needs, that are special to you. Hope you find your path too.

Kim, thankfully we have a choice. I own all 3 you mentioned. I am currently putting Fuji on hold as the X-t3 for my uses only met the AF criteria and missed the mark in sensor performance and Ibis.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
soeren
Whoops Im not updated
565 posts
Likes: 231
Joined Nov 2017
     
Apr 15, 2019 21:19 |  #48

Owain Shaw wrote in post #18846039 (external link)
I could see a difference in the swirly bokeh, but wouldn't have been able to say which lens shot which picture ... probably because that part doesn't really bother me.

In any case, am I the only one who quite likes swirly bokeh? That should be okay because bokeh is a subjective concept anyway. Who was it (maybe Jaron Schneider in his podcast with Ted Forbes) who said that camera manufacturers are making way more on bokeh than they make out of selling us sharpness these days? Now most lenses are so sharp it's hardly worth fighting over, along comes bokeh to feed the GAS monster.

To the OP/TS: enjoy your new camera, I'm glad you're excited about it and hope that your absence from this thread means you're out taking photographs with it and enjoying yourself ... which is definitely the best thing to do.

No and I actually like the f/2,8 shots better than the f/2 one.


If history has proven anything. it's that evolution always wins!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
soeren
Whoops Im not updated
565 posts
Likes: 231
Joined Nov 2017
Post edited 10 days ago by soeren. (6 edits in all)
     
Apr 15, 2019 21:27 |  #49

I just put quite a Lot of money into my Fuji system and I couldnt imagine doing it a again..........twice. Rather have one system learning to to use that well and overcome small quirks than juggling around with three never getting muscle memory 100% and loosing the finesse of knowing exactly how to deal with tricky situations and turning weaknesses into strenghts the Hallmark of truly big photographers who makes greater photography with lesser gear than most can ever dream off making even with the more powerfull gear. All this talk of bokeh, ISO, DR and autofocus has turned photography into a technical exercise rather than art and craft but There is No way greater gear can make up for 10000 hours of work honing your skills, creativity and vision.


If history has proven anything. it's that evolution always wins!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Owain ­ Shaw
Some of my best friends are people.
Avatar
2,190 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 823
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Valencia, Spain.
Post edited 9 days ago by Owain Shaw.
     
Apr 16, 2019 02:41 |  #50

soeren wrote in post #18846239 (external link)
I just put quite a Lot of money into my Fuji system and I couldnt imagine doing it a again..........twice. Rather have one system learning to to use that well and overcome small quirks than juggling around with three never getting muscle memory 100% and loosing the finesse of knowing exactly how to deal with tricky situations and turning weaknesses into strenghts the Hallmark of truly big photographers who makes greater photography with lesser gear than most can ever dream off making even with the more powerfull gear. All this talk of bokeh, ISO, DR and autofocus has turned photography into a technical exercise rather than art and craft but There is No way greater gear can make up for 10000 hours of work honing your skills, creativity and vision.

Definitely.

When you look at the history of photography and great photographs, the limitations that those photographers were working with while producing outstanding photographs were so much greater than the issues we face today with the cameras available to us. The onus is on us to go out and use our cameras to make great photographs.

If I'm photographing something interesting, and doing it well, it shouldn't matter if I have "that Full Frame DoF", because if my work being good depends on that technical aesthetic quality (I get that it can add something, but if I'm reliant on that, using it as a crutch for uninteresting work), what's in the photograph can't be that interesting. And this goes for me as much as it does anyone else.

"If you want to take more interesting photographs, stand in front of more interesting things."


| New website. (external link) |
| Gear | Flickr (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cug
Member
140 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Oct 2015
     
Apr 16, 2019 11:27 |  #51

Owain Shaw wrote in post #18846314 (external link)
If I'm photographing something interesting, and doing it well, it shouldn't matter if I have "that Full Frame DoF", because if my work being good depends on that technical aesthetic quality (I get that it can add something, but if I'm reliant on that, using it as a crutch for uninteresting work), what's in the photograph can't be that interesting.

I disagree with your assumption that shallow depth of field is used (mostly?) to make uninteresting photos more interesting.

If your work relies on that technical aesthetic quality and you're not getting it because you use a different system, you preparation was bad – you bought the wrong system. Either you need it for what you want to achieve and then there's not discussion about whether or not to buy accordingly or you don't need it and then you have the freedom to chose other options.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Owain ­ Shaw
Some of my best friends are people.
Avatar
2,190 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 823
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Valencia, Spain.
     
Apr 16, 2019 14:08 |  #52

cug wrote in post #18846494 (external link)
I disagree with your assumption that shallow depth of field is used (mostly?) to make uninteresting photos more interesting.

If your work relies on that technical aesthetic quality and you're not getting it because you use a different system, you preparation was bad – you bought the wrong system. Either you need it for what you want to achieve and then there's not discussion about whether or not to buy accordingly or you don't need it and then you have the freedom to chose other options.

Disagreement is absolutely fine. :-)

It is a technical and aesthetic quality one can choose to use in one's work, for sure. You're right that if one decides to pursue that aesthetic then suitable equipment should be chosen or the desired effect will not be achieved. No disagreement there.


| New website. (external link) |
| Gear | Flickr (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,097 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Likes: 995
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 16, 2019 19:04 |  #53

Owain Shaw wrote in post #18846595 (external link)
Disagreement is absolutely fine. :-)

It is a technical and aesthetic quality one can choose to use in one's work, for sure. You're right that if one decides to pursue that aesthetic then suitable equipment should be chosen or the desired effect will not be achieved. No disagreement there.


There is just more control of dof using a FF in some cases.

On the topic of interesting things...... you can take a photo of an extremely attractive female model and you'll get a tremendous amount of "likes". This is even when you use an iphone and posting it on instagram. Technical skills and creative composition is a factor..But an attractive model that knows how to pose can make a photographers job much easier due to instant eye candy. One the same hand put a male model on instagram and you'll get comments of great light or nice composition. This is just the way it is.

Your average real life wedding couple does not look like they are from GQ or Vogue magazine cover pages. Also location of your regular $2000 wedding venue will not look like a lavish $60,000 wedding. Sometimes you have to blow out the environment or do crafty angles to hide "not so nice" looking venues.

I'll use my tools....be it aps-c or full frame. Brand loyalty is always a strong "thing" and the topic can go wild. If Fuji users had FF sensors in the X-t3 they would not be having any topic about dof vs dof. Fact is using f/2.8 zooms there is some more control over dof with a full frame or MF. More pop factor with an f/2.8 zoom but some say an aps-c with f/2.8 is negligible which I find odd. However I'll shoot with aps-c or FF so its just tools to grab out of the bag.

Fuji render is entirely different from Sony. I'll add my Canon 5dmk4 files look different too!!! I'll pick a different paint brush as I see fit :)


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,495 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 3523
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
Post edited 9 days ago by EverydayGetaway.
     
Apr 16, 2019 22:09 |  #54

AlanU wrote in post #18846728 (external link)
There is just more control of dof using a FF in some cases.

On the topic of interesting things...... you can take a photo of an extremely attractive female model and you'll get a tremendous amount of "likes". This is even when you use an iphone and posting it on instagram. Technical skills and creative composition is a factor..But an attractive model that knows how to pose can make a photographers job much easier due to instant eye candy. One the same hand put a male model on instagram and you'll get comments of great light or nice composition. This is just the way it is.

Your average real life wedding couple does not look like they are from GQ or Vogue magazine cover pages. Also location of your regular $2000 wedding venue will not look like a lavish $60,000 wedding. Sometimes you have to blow out the environment or do crafty angles to hide "not so nice" looking venues.

I'll use my tools....be it aps-c or full frame. Brand loyalty is always a strong "thing" and the topic can go wild. If Fuji users had FF sensors in the X-t3 they would not be having any topic about dof vs dof. Fact is using f/2.8 zooms there is some more control over dof with a full frame or MF. More pop factor with an f/2.8 zoom but some say an aps-c with f/2.8 is negligible which I find odd. However I'll shoot with aps-c or FF so its just tools to grab out of the bag.

Fuji render is entirely different from Sony. I'll add my Canon 5dmk4 files look different too!!! I'll pick a different paint brush as I see fit :)

The thought that one extra stop of DOF is going to completely make any image is still laughable to me. I owned and shot FF, I had fast lenses, I don't miss the DOF advantage... like, ever. I really only miss FF for my vintage lens collection, but speedboosters do an OK job of taking care of that (though admittedly not perfect). In fact I just bought the 56/1.2 and so far I still prefer the slower 60/2.4.

If it absolutely matters to you and you use it all the time, fine, that's a decision you'd have to make. But to pass it off as something that every photographer needs and if they don't have it they're in some meaningful way at a disadvantage is just pure nonsense.

It's also nonsense that you constantly act like the only reason people constantly argue with you in threads is because of their "brand loyalty"... I hate to break it to you, but have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe... it's you?

I enjoy a healthy debate, but please keep your false assumptions to yourself. I've said it before and I'll say it again; I don't have any "brand loyalty", if someone makes a camera I enjoy significantly more than my Fuji system I'll give them a try or even jump ship, I don't owe anything to Fuji (in fact, I'm still scratching my head as to why Canon or Nikon haven't come out with a full featured body the size of a rebel... that would definitely peak my interest, I've even given serious thoughts about getting a Pentax KP to play around with, but I'd prefer a camera that I could use my old vintage lenses with at their original FOV).

PS; still waiting (been years now, I think) for some examples of where your extra stop of DOF made an image work that simply wouldn't have without that extra thin DOF.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,097 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Likes: 995
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 17, 2019 01:22 |  #55

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18846798 (external link)
The thought that one extra stop of DOF is going to completely make any image is still laughable to me. I owned and shot FF, I had fast lenses, I don't miss the DOF advantage... like, ever. I really only miss FF for my vintage lens collection, but speedboosters do an OK job of taking care of that (though admittedly not perfect). In fact I just bought the 56/1.2 and so far I still prefer the slower 60/2.4.

If it absolutely matters to you and you use it all the time, fine, that's a decision you'd have to make. But to pass it off as something that every photographer needs and if they don't have it they're in some meaningful way at a disadvantage is just pure nonsense.

It's also nonsense that you constantly act like the only reason people constantly argue with you in threads is because of their "brand loyalty"... I hate to break it to you, but have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe... it's you?

I enjoy a healthy debate, but please keep your false assumptions to yourself. I've said it before and I'll say it again; I don't have any "brand loyalty", if someone makes a camera I enjoy significantly more than my Fuji system I'll give them a try or even jump ship, I don't owe anything to Fuji (in fact, I'm still scratching my head as to why Canon or Nikon haven't come out with a full featured body the size of a rebel... that would definitely peak my interest, I've even given serious thoughts about getting a Pentax KP to play around with, but I'd prefer a camera that I could use my old vintage lenses with at their original FOV).

PS; still waiting (been years now, I think) for some examples of where your extra stop of DOF made an image work that simply wouldn't have without that extra thin DOF.


Lucas, I've mentioned camera's are simply tools. You probably wont ever hear a Medium format or FF owner emphasize about lack of shallow dof or anything regarding dof envy. I do use aps-c still so it's apparent there's a difference. However some aps-c user will say it's a negligible difference from a larger sensor. Not really laughable if a photog demands better dynamic range, increased high iso performance and more options in dof selection! Some photogs just do not need that difference in performance. If so why make such a statement if it wasn't a characteristic we cannot see visually and other benefits??????? This is quite evident when you're shooting an event (reception) where you can obtain subject separation while running and gunning with an f/2.8 zoom with a larger sensor. I'll leave human subjects out due to privacy but I'll post some cars stuff.

Here's a photo of my 11 second 1965 Beetle. Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART with a Sony. Note I can see a difference in render vs my Fuji 16mm f/1.4 which provides f/2.1 FF equiv dof. My favourite fuji 16mm f/1.4 Cannot do this shot. Not in this particular photo but my 16mm cannot keep up in retaining clean images in low light vs my A73. Not about brand loyalty but simply picking up different hardware that does the job for a selected purpose in mind. Not negligible or laughable as tools are chosen and purchased based on a photogs demands and needs. If I did not demand this kind of render I would have used my Fuji 16mm prime aps-c setup.

I've posted on occasion...... you've waited a year LOL!!! Sorry no photos of cats :)


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Sometimes a simple photo you'd want some "pop" factor with an f/2.8 zoom with FF. Just that 1 stop of thinner dof makes a difference you can see. I do not get this pop with my X-t2 with 50-140mm f/2.8 that provides f/4 FF equiv dof.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,495 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 3523
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Apr 17, 2019 01:56 |  #56

AlanU wrote in post #18846864 (external link)
Here's a photo of my 11 second 1965 Beetle

Weird flex, but OK...

As for everything else you wrote... once again, go back and read what I said... carefully this time.

In fact, here, I'll help you...

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18846798 (external link)
The thought that one extra stop of DOF is going to completely make any image is still laughable to me.

See how I never said anything about ISO, DR, or any other metric you want to measure over? I said only what's above... and it only had to do with DOF... stop reading into things that aren't there.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18846798 (external link)
If it absolutely matters to you and you use it all the time, fine, that's a decision you'd have to make. But to pass it off as something that every photographer needs and if they don't have it they're in some meaningful way at a disadvantage is just pure nonsense.

Only you seem to read posts like these and extract from them the summary of "There's no reason anyone should ever use a FF camera, there's absolutely no difference", as seems to be what you somehow got out of it :rolleyes:

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18846798 (external link)
PS; still waiting (been years now, I think) for some examples of where your extra stop of DOF made an image work that simply wouldn't have without that extra thin DOF.

I'm sure in your mind the two examples you posted were "Ah, ha!" type pics to prove your point... but I'm still waiting. I shoot some car events each year, have for a few years now (back when I had FF included), not one of my clients, friends, followers on social media has ever noticed a difference in how my images "popped", nor have I. Once again... one stop of DOF does not make or break an image. If you'd like to try harder at proving it does, please feel free to do so... I'm still waiting.

Also, nice humble diss with the cat thing... strange to me how in your mind if someone photographs pets that must make them somehow lesser of a photographer (this is not the first time you've implied this) :lol:


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
soeren
Whoops Im not updated
565 posts
Likes: 231
Joined Nov 2017
Post edited 8 days ago by soeren. (3 edits in all)
     
Apr 17, 2019 02:36 |  #57

If DOF really is so important then how about the FF eq 57mm f/0.8 TS lens? Dont you know it? Hint it's a kodak:-P


If history has proven anything. it's that evolution always wins!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
3,029 posts
Gallery: 325 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 3120
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
Post edited 8 days ago by Two Hot Shoes.
     
Apr 17, 2019 03:27 |  #58

Sitting around in the dark, on your own, looking at the small difference in DOF between APS-C and 135mm, so you can prove to yourself you have the best camera... [BTW you don't ;-)a]

I'm shooting an event today, then a headshot of a TD [government minister]. Not once will I be worried that I have the wrong DOF or not enough DOF or whatever, cause that's really not important enough in the bigger picture. Once I have enough DOF to cover the subject I'm done with that.

Also the crappy wedding venue thing is also a non argument, there is always a good scene to have as a background if you are the kind of photographer who is even a tiny bit creative, you just have to look for it. Relying on blowing out the background means you could have been shooting them anywhere, much better to get creative after all that is part of the art that separates a pro from a hobbiest and the reasons that pro will continue to get the bookings, get to charge more and get to those better venues. Although I really doubt the couple would care to much as long as the shot is good they look awesome. And something about if your photos suck you are standing in the wrong place or Go Canucks! or something.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T3. 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8.
Pelican, Ona, ThinkTank, Matthews Grip, Elinchrom

Gear & Discounts (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)YouTube (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
soeren
Whoops Im not updated
565 posts
Likes: 231
Joined Nov 2017
Post edited 8 days ago by soeren. (4 edits in all)
     
Apr 17, 2019 03:51 |  #59

Yes I don't see much blurred out backgrounds in older pics, not just because they didn't have the large appertures but mostly because they understood how to incorporate the whole scene to make interesting photographs. There must be a reason for the "f/8 and be there". The use of negative space in photography e.g. blurred out background is offcource a tool nice to have for some occasions but relying on blurred backgrounds exclusively for making the shot...... :oops: and again it's not like it will fall caused by that tiny difference.


If history has proven anything. it's that evolution always wins!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,097 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Likes: 995
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 17, 2019 08:35 |  #60

Soeren,

Smaller apertures is definitely my style as well. I’m not a bokeh junkie!

There are times you demand story telling as seen with this VW bus on the strip!

The night photo I posted is not anything to brag about. However this image actually turned out killer on print. Pitch black and where I demanded UWA. My Sony A73 with adapted canon 16-35f2.8 worked while running and gunning utilizing ibis and requiring just enough shutter speed to stop some motion without blur. This was a situation of "better than nothing at all" and barely usable. My Fuji with 10-24mm (1 stop slower) revealed weakness in obtaining these photos. This was the time the 8-16mm was still as expensive as the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 mk3 and I did not own the GMaster 16-35mm at the time. My Fuji 16mm 1.4 and Canon 24L mk2 (or maybe it was my Sigma Emount 24mm 1.4 ART??)was sitting in my backpack. I demanded UWA so I wanted to push the limits and experiment with the Sony. Odd situation but grabbed the tool the worked the "best" in such incredibly challenging low light during the forest light show. This was deep in the forest at Whistler Mountain BC. I am displaying real life situations where I am NOT posting the "best of the best" This is an image where in my circumstance and demands I rolled with what I had.

Many seek f/2.8 glass for the zooms. The difference in a 70-200 f/4 zoom vs f/2.8 is only 1 stop but it's what majority of pros to hobbyists want for a better tool for more light to the sensor and having shallower dof when demanded. My Fuji 50-140mm has the same capabilities of f/2.8 of light hitting the sensor but physical size of sensor I'm getting approx the f/4 FF equiv dof. It is what it is but my other tools get the same amount of light and "potentially" more creative control in more blurry bokeh. It this wasn't a big thing pro's would save money an use 70-200 f/4 and simply push the limits of the sensor's high iso capabilities in the FF world. In the real world this is not the case.

I've mentioned earlier this has nothing to do with brand favourites and loyalty. Just like my old toolkit with MAC or SnapOn tools I chose what too was needed. If my x-t2 simply performed identical to my 5dmk4 and Sony A73 in the features and performance I demand during challenging times ....I'd use my Fuji a lot more. There are times I compromise and there are times I dont. I do not have heated discussions/debates amongst friends/colleagues that shoot multiple systems discussing pros/cons of the tools we use.

Simply an open topic like this can be interesting.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,432 views & 80 likes for this thread
I just switched to Fuji
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Josh Line
290 guests, 255 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.