What you need is a Sony a7 mk3
The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread
- Thread starter mart77
- Start date
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I was gonna say earlier, the H1 is basically the same as the T2 when it comes to AF. Luckily for me it's about my least priority, which is why the T3 has nothing for me over the H1. But it's nice to have options. I'd probably love the T3, but ... I like IBIS more
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 3,434
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would love to have IBIS. Just hoping for XH2 to be announced soon [emoji3][emoji857]
- Messages
- 9,407
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- No
How did you get to 120mm on a 16-80mm lens?
- Messages
- 15,853
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 8,174
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Final_1As do I, but you need to get the healing brush out on those little white specks
Just as a thought. Have you tried a wooden BG? Might bring a more natural feel to it; I duno.
- Messages
- 9,612
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As do I, but you need to get the healing brush out on those little white specks
Just as a thought. Have you tried a wooden BG? Might bring a more natural feel to it; I duno.
I also picked up a dark green background too, so I may have a play with that tomorrow...
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Good question, as the whole equivalency thing is getting more than tiring. It's 16-80mm ... for APSC ... we don't really need to do this equivalency thing any more really, do we?
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
From what I've read it's not a patch on the 16-55 2.8, which has been around ages. Is it just the OIS impressed you over that or what else by comparison?
- Messages
- 15,853
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can see why it's tiring for you as you don't understand it.
The 1/focal length rule of thumb works with 35mm equivalent. So 1/4s is about 5 stops which is excellent IMO.
The sharpness is comparable to other equivalent 24-105mm lenses.
I bet 16-55mm really sucks at 80mm
Tbh I am not overly impressed by the 16-55mm, it's bulky and I don't see why it needs to be.
Last edited:
Mic
Sam
Sam Jazz Singer
Bass
Sam
- Messages
- 29,903
- Name
- George.
- Edit My Images
- No
Very nice set of candid street style Fujigraphs, love those “Shure 55SH” mics nicknamed (Elvis mics).
George.
- Messages
- 8,174
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It`s always good to try something different, sometimes.
Sould you be interested, I got my wooden planks (last bread n pumpkin pic) from these guys https://photographybackdrop.club/ and am really pleased with it. Good quality vinyl and space saving as it rolls up into a tube
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I can see why it's tiring for you as you don't understand it.
The 1/focal length rule of thumb works with 35mm equivalent. So 1/4s is about 5 stops which is excellent IMO.
The sharpness is comparable to other equivalent 24-105mm lenses.
I bet 16-55mm really sucks at 80mm
Tbh I am not overly impressed by the 16-55mm, it's bulky and I don't see why it needs to be.
I clearly do understand it, that's the point, I'm bored with Sony owners repeatedly bringing it up, they really are the only ones who do. My point is it doesn't matter a damn to those who are only shooting apsc , why would we constantly equate to FF? When it has no bearing whatsoever on our photography, we kind of all know this from the off, seems it's new to the Sony crew gear heads.
Now kindly keep it to the s***ty sony thread where people care about nonsense like this. All 5 of you that post there every 5 minutes can debate the intricacies of equivilance as if it mattered for days, weeks even, and nobody else will care. It bears zero interest in here.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 15,853
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I didn't realise you were the owner of this forum and got to tell people where they can and cannot post.
How about you kindly stop replying to my posts if you don't like what you read AND stop being disruptive like you are everywhere else you go.
My post here was intended to help out other folks who might have been interested in this lens. I was impressed by the consistent ~5 stops of stabilization the 16-80mm provides at the long end which I calculated using the 1/focal length rule of thumb based on it being 120mm equivalent (which is how most people do it regardless of what format they shoot).
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
It`s always good to try something different, sometimes.
Sould you be interested, I got my wooden planks (last bread n pumpkin pic) from these guys https://photographybackdrop.club/ and am really pleased with it. Good quality vinyl and space saving as it rolls up into a tube
Hmm, I was thinking of buying some wooden planks for a similar purpose, to use as a backing for food, macro, general close ups. I do prefer authentic and I do have some already, but I like a bit of variety, must have a look.
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
You know it's not helping anyone out, it's the usual FF lordiness. Nobody in here ever states the FF 'equivilance' because there's no need. Now I'll leave it there, if you persist I'll have to report trolling. I don't care who 'owns the forum' silly posts like yours ruin threads and this one is about the best in here. FF equivilance talk is just not helpful
LC2
Negan
- Messages
- 10,451
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The best of us are
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
For not a whole lot more than an xt2 you can have it, with really nice ergonomics (better than any other ml body I can think of) sturdier build quality and the shutter on the H1 alone is worth the upgrade IMO
- Messages
- 15,853
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How about you try reading what I am trying to convey it has nothing to with equivalence or FF.
Go ahead complain all you want, any one who can read and comprehend will tell you I am just trying to be helpful about the capability of a lens (which by the way I am claiming to have impressed me)
Say something bad you get shouted at and say something good you get shouted at. Just can't win can you! Lol
Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Thank you George.
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Sounds just like the Sony thread then? Just posting anything in there has the clique hound you because you don't own a Sony camera! I don't really care what you post but it's not in the spirit of this thread. Why would equivilance matter? And why do you imagine that nobody here understands it already? It's just not helpful IMO. I don't even get why it gets discussed by FF owners, we could get real silly and start talking greater dof and why m43 is the best system to use for that. Should we reverse equivilance in that sense? When talking macro or landscape? People generally only care about what they're using at the time, this is why the whole equivilance is nonsense. Can you use the apsc and more importantly Fuji specific 16-80 on your Sony? Or any other FF body? No. So why the equivilance? If I wanted FF dof, I'd have it. Simple.
Last edited:
Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Thank you George, I was chuffed using the Xpro2 and will be shooting another gig later today with it too.
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I couldn't get on with the xpro1, it felt nice enough and I like the results it had a different feel completely in every way to the XT1 I also used at the time. But left sided evf just wasn't for me and I wished it had better grip. Glad to hear you're enjoying it though, a nice addition to your collection. Will you consider an xpro3?
- Messages
- 15,853
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You are completely going off-topic to what I posted. I did not mention any of this. Please go read what I posted. If you can't understand then I can't help you.
Do you understand how the amount stabilization a system (lens, camera or both) provides is generally calculated? If you do as you claim then we have nothing more to discuss.
Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
For me and me only on APSC, I had the best Fuji glass you can get. XF56mm f1.2 XF50,140mm XF16-55mm XF90mm won`t count the 35mm or 50mm. To me only they were and are the best, got rid of the XF16-55mm yes it was a cracking lens and in the near dark of a small jazz night club it picked out my subjects faces very quickly as it should do for a Red Badge lens. Traded it in as I only want prime lenses now for me only. I have seen some reviews on the XF16-80mm but at f4 I think the 16-55mm would show how it`s done. Some members on another forum I use are not happy with 16-80mm as it`s soft at the edges.
Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
You didn't post any 'topic' you were trolling. You mention Fuji's newest lens and can't help yourself stating the 'equivalence' as if it mattered to anyone. I understand more room = better IBIS and smaller sensors win that one easily, this is why 43 has IBIS that knocks the sheet out of any APSC let alone FF IBIS out there. Even their older models, take an em5 mk1 ... it has better IBIS than your A7III. Maybe take this up in the Sony thread where the gear heads who never actually seem to take any photos might care more? see you there
.... not really, that thread is actually depressing
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,647
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not nonsense Keith, at least not for some of us.
I grew up with film and equivalence does help me with focal length and DoF and even if people have never used film or a FF camera I think thinking about it can help to get the best out of your kit as IMO when using APS-C or MFT applying equivalence helps to keep the image quality up to the point you're close to or even matching a larger format.
And while I'm here why not try and take people at face value now and again and even assume a bit of humor and leg pulling rather than cliques and nastiness? No need to answer keith, I very often read this thread and I often like your posts here and elsewhere (as like me you seem to be mostly brand agnostic) but I think it's a shame that threads often decent into what isn't nice reading so that's me out of here for a week or so
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
I've seen some bad reviews on the 16-80 too, from people who have actually bought it. I think hype is a great thing, and when people are eager for just about any new release for a system it is going to get over-hyped. I've seen nothing about the lens that would make me want it, tbh it's making the 18-55 look like a steal right now! if all you need is a casual zoom - which is what people are saying the 16-80 is best for. The 16-55 eats it alive at f/2.8 also
- Messages
- 15,853
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I saw Christopher Frost's review on YouTube which also said the same i.e. soft at edges especially at long end. But the copy I tried had great sharpness at both ends in edges too. May be there is some variation but based on what I used it's an excellent performer.
Sure the 16-55mm might be better in that range at f4 but that's different kind of lenses. Horses for courses
Anyway if I can get hold of a copy that's as good as the one I used I may swap to using this with X-T30.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not nonsense Keith, at least not for some of us.
I grew up with film and equivalence does help me with focal length and DoF and even if people have never used film or a FF camera I think thinking about it can help to get the best out of your kit as IMO when using APS-C or MFT applying equivalence helps to keep the image quality up to the point you're close to or even matching a larger format.
And while I'm here why not try and take people at face value now and again and even assume a bit of humor and leg pulling rather than cliques and nastiness? No need to answer keith, I very often read this thread and I often like your posts here and elsewhere (as like me you seem to be mostly brand agnostic) but I think it's a shame that threads often decent into what isn't nice reading so that's me out of here for a week or so
You're never convincing [I know you're not but in general anyone trying] me that I should run equivalence on every lens I buy or own though, because it doesn't matter. Nobody does it in relation to meduim format, because that would go against the point they usually try to make.
Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
I've seen some bad reviews on the 16-80 too, from people who have actually bought it. I think hype is a great thing, and when people are eager for just about any new release for a system it is going to get over-hyped. I've seen nothing about the lens that would make me want it, tbh it's making the 18-55 look like a steal right now! if all you need is a casual zoom - which is what people are saying the 16-80 is best for. The 16-55 eats it alive at f/2.8 also
If I tried to I still could not fault the 16-55mm at all and think it is one cracking lens, but I knew I was going to use it to trade in.
- Messages
- 15,853
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Typical case of pot calling the kettle black.
- Messages
- 16,745
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Nice try, now show proof of this
Show proof!
if you lefties are teh best, let's see those left-shot images