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

 
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,434 posts
Likes: 1614
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited 6 months ago by bobbyz.
     
Apr 17, 2019 09:43 |  #61

AlanU wrote in post #18846864 (external link)
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 :)

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=188​46864&i=i230751465
forum: Changing Camera Brands


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.

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=188​46864&i=i187338506
forum: Changing Camera Brands

Nice one of the Beetle but for the 2nd one, why not use 200mm f2 then, why settle for the f2.8:) BTW - I just got an adapter for my GFX. Will be putting 85L on it for the next shoot. Let us see what f1.0 does. f2.8, too slow.:)


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,452 posts
Gallery: 126 photos
Likes: 1276
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 17, 2019 09:48 |  #62

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18846913 (external link)
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.

Kim, If you are one of the top 5% top tier extremely profitable wedding photogs I commend you!!! Weddings photog documentation under $5,000 is busting out of the seams and regardless of being a pro is a tough gig in a severely saturated market. On the other hand there are plenty of semi pro wedding photogs (not full time) making as much money or more than a Pro (Pro is defined as primary source of income ) NOT to twist words but this is where being a "PRO" is defined as a primary source of income and being busy or NOT busy in bookings. It's hard for a Gov't to designate a mandatory regulatory license or high level schooling in ART for a "professional photographer". In fact being defined as a hobbyist has nothing to do with skill or artistic merit as it simply means its not a main occupation. But I do get the gist of what your implying. Skill is skill..... What what?? Go Canucks? you like hockey kim?? (I get the ribbing LOL!!)

Spinning the word "creative" is fine. Real world "we" can do so much. I'll leave it at that. You can do crafty angles but there is only so much you can "hide" and document. Having a couple that looks like runway models and an elaborate high dollar 50,000+ venue makes documenting effortless. Have a real world client/couple and a community average "Hall" is a different story. Just keeping it real in the world of the average wallet and not high dollar wedding magazine spreads. Every situation is different. The "moments" is what is priceless but environmental background is a different story.

Your shooting style and composition is just a part of the collection of images you make. Hardware is just a part of it too! That should be fully understood amongst photogs. Pro or hobbyist it has nothing to do with artistic nature and skills of creative gorgeous photos. A good/skilled photog is a good photog be it with a Fuji, Canon, Nikon, micro 4/3 or point and shoot. It just helps using different tools .


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 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 - gone
Sony 2 x 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 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,434 posts
Likes: 1614
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Apr 17, 2019 09:49 |  #63

I am not wide angle zoom shooter. When I had canon 24-70mm f2.8 II, I think I used it maybe once or twice. The f1.4 primes definitely better in that regard. But for my typical needs Fuji APS-C line works fine. here is an old shot with 56mm f1.2 @f2. So f2.8 DoF. Looks fine to me.

IMAGE: https://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s/v-2/p1269233641-6.jpg

5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
3,307 posts
Gallery: 341 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 3634
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
     
Apr 17, 2019 14:19 |  #64

AlanU wrote in post #18847040 (external link)
Kim, If you are one of the top 5% top tier extremely profitable wedding photogs I commend you!!! Weddings photog documentation under $5,000 is busting out of the seams and regardless of being a pro is a tough gig in a severely saturated market. On the other hand there are plenty of semi pro wedding photogs (not full time) making as much money or more than a Pro (Pro is defined as primary source of income ) NOT to twist words but this is where being a "PRO" is defined as a primary source of income and being busy or NOT busy in bookings. It's hard for a Gov't to designate a mandatory regulatory license or high level schooling in ART for a "professional photographer". In fact being defined as a hobbyist has nothing to do with skill or artistic merit as it simply means its not a main occupation. But I do get the gist of what your implying. Skill is skill..... What what?? Go Canucks? you like hockey kim?? (I get the ribbing LOL!!)

Spinning the word "creative" is fine. Real world "we" can do so much. I'll leave it at that. You can do crafty angles but there is only so much you can "hide" and document. Having a couple that looks like runway models and an elaborate high dollar 50,000+ venue makes documenting effortless. Have a real world client/couple and a community average "Hall" is a different story. Just keeping it real in the world of the average wallet and not high dollar wedding magazine spreads. Every situation is different. The "moments" is what is priceless but environmental background is a different story.

Your shooting style and composition is just a part of the collection of images you make. Hardware is just a part of it too! That should be fully understood amongst photogs. Pro or hobbyist it has nothing to do with artistic nature and skills of creative gorgeous photos. A good/skilled photog is a good photog be it with a Fuji, Canon, Nikon, micro 4/3 or point and shoot. It just helps using different tools .


Paid or not, pro to my mind means one who can repeatedly deliver the results in any given environment and do so in a manner fitting to those around them. I know plenty of very talented amateurs, and plenty of no so talented 'pros' too. Life eh.

Yes I'm a hockey fan, use to play before we lost our ice rink, I go to the odd game in Belfast from time to time - friend of a friend owned the team. Recently I had the kids out at a sports try out day, the kind where you can have a go at loads of different sports, got nabbed by a guy while walking past the hockey club bit. The kids had a go & the guys were slagging me to have a go... Goalie didn't think it was so funny after the second shot snuck inside her elbow. Boom. The first one she got as I only lifted it about a foot up and no to much power, had to ask her if she was OK for the third, she was. Got mobbed with requests to join their team but i'm to old for al that lake these days. Vancouver still looking good, hoping to get back over there for next summer, well Prince George too but I'll spend a few days in Vancouver anyway, we could meet up for a coffee one day perhaps. Cameras, cars, sounds...


Fujifilm cameras and lenses.
Get 5% off Fuji from Kim ;) (external link)
Gear & Discounts (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)YouTube (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,499 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 277
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Apr 17, 2019 19:50 as a reply to  @ bobbyz's post |  #65

With 24-105, 28-75 and 16-35 I'm at the wide end most of the time. On FF.
50 on it is the tele for me.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Osa713
Goldmember
Avatar
1,425 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 987
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Houston, TX
     
Apr 17, 2019 22:37 |  #66

I saw the thread title and knew Alan would be going in lol.

OP enjoy your new setup!


LIGHT>LENS>BODY

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,482 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 495
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Apr 18, 2019 09:56 |  #67

"EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18846798

The thought that one extra stop of DOF is going to completely make any image is still laughable to me."

Ok.... I hate these kind of threads because nobody here does all types of photography. No one. So some of these statements about things being categorically one way or another - are indeed laughable.

To a sports photographer like myself, 1 stop is critical. It makes the difference between your images being selected, and not being called back to do another event in the future. It makes the difference of a player being the focus of a shot, or there being too much visual noise in the background.

Looking at the shots that EverydayGetaway has posted, most of them wouldn't be that effected by 1 stop +/- either way. But to make statements that someone can represent all photographers styles and needs, and deem what is laughable or not, is in of itself laughable. If everyone shot the same way, this would be an effort in futility. Everyones images would look the same.

An example. I do very little birding at all. But this year in my backyard I put up a bird feeder. Hundreds of birds became my new best friends. At first I shot high iso, high shutter speed. I got tons of frozen in air shots of birds that bored the heck out of me. So I opened up more, lowered my shutter speed to being always below 1/800, and ended up loving the results. I love the motion in the shots. Most would argue I'm doing it wrong. But I have achieve a lot of motion in the images... my style.

DoF is a personal thing. There is a visible difference between images shot at f4 and f2.8, and again between images at f1.4. How important that is depends of what the photographer is trying to show. Saying that is "laughable" is laughable. Or maybe I misunderstood the point trying to be made.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cug
Member
140 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Oct 2015
     
Apr 18, 2019 15:38 |  #68

Croasdail wrote in post #18847519 (external link)
Ok.... I hate these kind of threads because nobody here does all types of photography. No one. So some of these statements about things being categorically one way or another - are indeed laughable.

Yep. That's forums (and humanity in general).

It's the same thing as people saying "f/2.8 is f/2.8 and it let's in the same amount of light no matter the sensor size". That's like saying a full two seater car transports as many people as a full four seater, just because every available seat has exactly the same number of people in it. Many people ignore context or bend the context to their argument – generally by leaving out part of the information that doesn't support their argument.

It's why I've given up reading Fuji specific internet forums – you just can't argue with stupid, and it's feels more abundant there. I don't read many other forums either for similar reasons.

The downside (and the upside) of the internet is that is has given everybody a platform to (potentially) the world stage – no matter whether they know what they're talking about or not. Sometimes I wish we still had the good old times of printed publication where you at least had to work a bit to get your sermon out in the wild.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,584 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 3775
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Apr 18, 2019 16:41 |  #69

Croasdail wrote in post #18847519 (external link)
"EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18846798

The thought that one extra stop of DOF is going to completely make any image is still laughable to me."

Ok.... I hate these kind of threads because nobody here does all types of photography. No one. So some of these statements about things being categorically one way or another - are indeed laughable.

To a sports photographer like myself, 1 stop is critical. It makes the difference between your images being selected, and not being called back to do another event in the future. It makes the difference of a player being the focus of a shot, or there being too much visual noise in the background.

Looking at the shots that EverydayGetaway has posted, most of them wouldn't be that effected by 1 stop +/- either way. But to make statements that someone can represent all photographers styles and needs, and deem what is laughable or not, is in of itself laughable. If everyone shot the same way, this would be an effort in futility. Everyones images would look the same.

An example. I do very little birding at all. But this year in my backyard I put up a bird feeder. Hundreds of birds became my new best friends. At first I shot high iso, high shutter speed. I got tons of frozen in air shots of birds that bored the heck out of me. So I opened up more, lowered my shutter speed to being always below 1/800, and ended up loving the results. I love the motion in the shots. Most would argue I'm doing it wrong. But I have achieve a lot of motion in the images... my style.

DoF is a personal thing. There is a visible difference between images shot at f4 and f2.8, and again between images at f1.4. How important that is depends of what the photographer is trying to show. Saying that is "laughable" is laughable. Or maybe I misunderstood the point trying to be made.

Your argument is fair, and I see what you're saying, but I still maintain what I said. I have yet to see any image that would be completely ruined by having one stop less DOF, but again, that's my take (as I clearly said was MY take). My whole point was that if the TS clearly has experience and bought the 50-140mm they likely know the difference they'll see compared to FF and are fine with the "compromise".

I've stated on numerous threads (including this one) that there are niches where that might be their thing and they "need" it, doesn't mean it makes sense to me, but that doesn't matter... I'm not the one using the equipment. The point is that blowing a stop of DOF out of proportion like it's going to have a massive impact on the average person's photography, is indeed, laughable (at least to me, still waiting for someone to change my mind).

cug wrote in post #18847678 (external link)
Yep. That's forums (and humanity in general).

It's the same thing as people saying "f/2.8 is f/2.8 and it let's in the same amount of light no matter the sensor size". That's like saying a full two seater car transports as many people as a full four seater, just because every available seat has exactly the same number of people in it. Many people ignore context or bend the context to their argument – generally by leaving out part of the information that doesn't support their argument.

It's why I've given up reading Fuji specific internet forums – you just can't argue with stupid, and it's feels more abundant there. I don't read many other forums either for similar reasons.

The downside (and the upside) of the internet is that is has given everybody a platform to (potentially) the world stage – no matter whether they know what they're talking about or not. Sometimes I wish we still had the good old times of printed publication where you at least had to work a bit to get your sermon out in the wild.

:rolleyes:

Go back and read the whole thread, carefully.

Saying something like "you just can't argue with stupid" is a really stupid statement in general that really just a way to dodge any actual debate.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cug
Member
140 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited 6 months ago by cug.
     
Apr 18, 2019 17:52 as a reply to  @ EverydayGetaway's post |  #70

@EverydayGetaway

I wasn't explicitly referring to you with this. I was referring to what happens on most Fuji forums I used to read.

"Saying something like "you just can't argue with stupid" is a really stupid statement in general that really just a way to dodge any actual debate."

Actually, I have plain given up arguing with morons, it's not worth my time. People don't realize that you independently just picking DoF equivalence or exposure equivalence or size of lenses or sensor plain doesn't work. If you argue in a generic sense, you always have to look at the whole system. If you don't care about part of the whole system you're argument is not generic.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,482 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 495
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Apr 18, 2019 18:32 as a reply to  @ EverydayGetaway's post |  #71

In reality, in many ways it doesn't make a difference. I have camera bodies that cost me 4K plus, for very specific purposes. But that said I do a lot of shooting with a lowly A6300 because in "Most" circumstances it can deliver an image that is negligibly different than what the expensive one can do - and that difference doesn't matter.

Likewise I see people say they need the fastest (focusing speed lens) possible or they will miss the shot. Perhaps. But as someone who started shooting sports some 40 years ago where the whole concept of auto focus was just some kind of wild fantasy, some how we managed. Would I like to go back to manual focus - nope. But I bet I can some pretty good images with slow focusing cameras. My first digital camera I used for sports was a 10D. Then the early 1D - at a whopping 4.7 mpx.

If you can't get the shot.... I really doubt its the camera that is the bottleneck. You can learn to get shots with timing, not needing to crank out a dozen frames to get that one keeper.

So yes, I agree. Most hardware can get the job done, and rarely holds someone back. But there are times it makes a difference or things easier.

Love the debates about "oh, the left eye is in focus, but the right eye is the one that should be". Those kind of conversations point to people who have completely forgotten what photography is about..... as well calling peoples opinions laughable or stupid.

(0ff my soap box now... moving on)


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,584 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 3775
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
Post edited 6 months ago by EverydayGetaway.
     
Apr 18, 2019 20:30 |  #72

cug wrote in post #18847720 (external link)
@EverydayGetaway

I wasn't explicitly referring to you with this. I was referring to what happens on most Fuji forums I used to read.

"Saying something like "you just can't argue with stupid" is a really stupid statement in general that really just a way to dodge any actual debate."

Actually, I have plain given up arguing with morons, it's not worth my time. People don't realize that you independently just picking DoF equivalence or exposure equivalence or size of lenses or sensor plain doesn't work. If you argue in a generic sense, you always have to look at the whole system. If you don't care about part of the whole system you're argument is not generic.

Fair enough, and I sort of figured you weren't, but you quoted me directly so I responded in turn.

As for your second part; I don't think anyone in here would disagree with needing to look at the whole system, which is half the reason these arguments go on and on in the first place, so to a certain degree I get what you're saying and agree with you. I still think it's better to have both sides of an argument/conversation left ready to see, ignoring a point you see as foolish just because it's "not worth your time" can negatively impact someone else reading into a thread. Shine a little light on someone's faulty argument and it's easier for on-lookers to see the cracks.

Also, please note that I'm not offended by what you said and I certainly hope I haven't offended anyone either.

Croasdail wrote in post #18847739 (external link)
In reality, in many ways it doesn't make a difference. I have camera bodies that cost me 4K plus, for very specific purposes. But that said I do a lot of shooting with a lowly A6300 because in "Most" circumstances it can deliver an image that is negligibly different than what the expensive one can do - and that difference doesn't matter.

Likewise I see people say they need the fastest (focusing speed lens) possible or they will miss the shot. Perhaps. But as someone who started shooting sports some 40 years ago where the whole concept of auto focus was just some kind of wild fantasy, some how we managed. Would I like to go back to manual focus - nope. But I bet I can some pretty good images with slow focusing cameras. My first digital camera I used for sports was a 10D. Then the early 1D - at a whopping 4.7 mpx.

If you can't get the shot.... I really doubt its the camera that is the bottleneck. You can learn to get shots with timing, not needing to crank out a dozen frames to get that one keeper.

So yes, I agree. Most hardware can get the job done, and rarely holds someone back. But there are times it makes a difference or things easier.

Love the debates about "oh, the left eye is in focus, but the right eye is the one that should be". Those kind of conversations point to people who have completely forgotten what photography is about..... as well calling peoples opinions laughable or stupid.

(0ff my soap box now... moving on)

I completely agree with you, and in hind sight saying it was "laughable" was probably a bit too facetious. I'm not trying to completely shun away or discredit those who feel they need that DOF for their work, I just think it's brash to push it on to every other photographer as though they're photography will always be "lesser" just because of a lack of that one stop of DOF.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cug
Member
140 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Oct 2015
     
Apr 18, 2019 21:55 |  #73

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18847786 (external link)
I don't think anyone in here would disagree with needing to look at the whole system, which is half the reason these arguments go on and on in the first place, so to a certain degree I get what you're saying and agree with you. I still think it's better to have both sides of an argument/conversation left ready to see, ignoring a point you see as foolish just because it's "not worth your time" can negatively impact someone else reading into a thread. Shine a little light on someone's faulty argument and it's easier for on-lookers to see the cracks.

Fair point, I've done that for a few years and hope someone picks up the baton I dropped when I left. I use various systems and for me it's important to understand how they are different and how the compare and how to get results I want/need. Therefore understanding the physics behind creating a certain image is not something I can ignore. But I have found that the secret of happiness is not to deal with certain characters anymore. Or, to put it this way: happiness and relaxed attitude starts with four words: "not my frigging problem". I'm not a teacher, I'm not a patient person, I have the freedom to select who I communicate and spend time with. I've also given up to be polite with willfully ignorant people. Again, same reason behind it, it's not worth my time. I have limited time in my life and prefer to spend it interacting with people who have the desire to understand and have a meaningful, fact based discussion.

It was also not my intention to offend you.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,233 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3603
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Apr 18, 2019 22:00 |  #74

I think we scared the OP away. ;-)a


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,584 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 3775
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Apr 18, 2019 22:25 |  #75

cug wrote in post #18847823 (external link)
Fair point, I've done that for a few years and hope someone picks up the baton I dropped when I left. I use various systems and for me it's important to understand how they are different and how the compare and how to get results I want/need. Therefore understanding the physics behind creating a certain image is not something I can ignore. But I have found that the secret of happiness is not to deal with certain characters anymore. Or, to put it this way: happiness and relaxed attitude starts with four words: "not my frigging problem". I'm not a teacher, I'm not a patient person, I have the freedom to select who I communicate and spend time with. I've also given up to be polite with willfully ignorant people. Again, same reason behind it, it's not worth my time. I have limited time in my life and prefer to spend it interacting with people who have the desire to understand and have a meaningful, fact based discussion.

It was also not my intention to offend you.

You didn't offend me at all ;)

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18847827 (external link)
I think we scared the OP away. ;-)a

Hahaha, that happened pages ago :lol:


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

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

6,259 views & 86 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 dayuan99
1066 guests, 323 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.