X-T3 coming soon
Nov 28, 2018 11:18:58 #
Thanks for your reply. I currently shoot both FF and cropped with Nikon bodies and have several lenses both cropped and FF. It would make sense to stay with Nikon, but I am intrigued by the Fujifilm XT3 and all of the positive comments from former Nikon users. It is probably G.A.S. though!
Nov 28, 2018 11:19:01 #
Thanks for your reply. I currently shoot both FF and cropped with Nikon bodies and have several lenses both cropped and FF. It would make sense to stay with Nikon, but I am intrigued by the Fujifilm XT3 and all of the positive comments from former Nikon users. It is probably G.A.S. though!
Nov 28, 2018 11:45:50 #
The Fuji is fun to use. There will be a uphill learning curve is this is your first mirrorless camera. Be prepared to sit down with user manual in hand along with Dan Baily's online guide. It's an interactive guide so you can easily bounce around. He will go through all the settings and he has updated it to include the X-T3.
I am also a Nikon user. I love my d7500! Excellent, dependable performance and IQ. My Fuji does not supersede the Nikon. Fuji does not have a lightweight long lens - closest is their 100-400 mm lens that weighs more than the Tamron 100-400 mm lens.
So don't overthink it- just get it. Returns are being extended to mid January so if you don't like the X-T2 after all then you aren't stuck.
I am also a Nikon user. I love my d7500! Excellent, dependable performance and IQ. My Fuji does not supersede the Nikon. Fuji does not have a lightweight long lens - closest is their 100-400 mm lens that weighs more than the Tamron 100-400 mm lens.
So don't overthink it- just get it. Returns are being extended to mid January so if you don't like the X-T2 after all then you aren't stuck.
Nov 28, 2018 13:01:43 #
I am looking at getting the 18 - 55 lens starting out. Is this a good place to start?
Nov 28, 2018 13:17:32 #
It gets overall good reviews and many like it at UHH. I do not have it. Instead I opted for the 23 mm f2 and 35 mm f2- both are great lenses, weather resistant, sharp, compact. Neither are stabilized if that makes a difference to you. The 18 mm f2 is also a very nice lens. I have the two primes plus a 55-200 mm lens which is pretty good although I think the 50-230 mm lens produces a much nicer image and is about half the cost. It does not have as robust build but then it's priced accordingly.
If I was going to get a zoom it would be the 16-55 f 2.8- especially to take on vacation. It's a fast lens and wide enough and long enough as a carry around lens. Also weather resistant and stabilized. Pricey though.
If I was going to get a zoom it would be the 16-55 f 2.8- especially to take on vacation. It's a fast lens and wide enough and long enough as a carry around lens. Also weather resistant and stabilized. Pricey though.
mymike wrote:
I am looking at getting the 18 - 55 lens starting out. Is this a good place to start?
Nov 28, 2018 13:21:24 #
Nov 28, 2018 13:32:49 #
OK, one more question for you...if the lens is not stabilized and the body is not stabilized, how do you avoid camera shake? High ISO? High shutter speed? I have slight tremors in my hands...old age I guess.
Nov 28, 2018 13:54:54 #
All that you mentioned- plus the aforementioned primes are lightweight and compact. And you could use whatever was available to work as a impromptu tripod- lean against a wall, steady camera on a flat surface, etc. I have never had a problem. Some of the longer lenses you would probably want to buy stabilized. And the 18-55 is always an option.
Maybe you would want to consider the 18-135 mm- it has stabilization.
Maybe you would want to consider the 18-135 mm- it has stabilization.
mymike wrote:
OK, one more question for you...if the lens is not stabilized and the body is not stabilized, how do you avoid camera shake? High ISO? High shutter speed? I have slight tremors in my hands...old age I guess.
Nov 28, 2018 13:55:02 #
suntouched wrote:
OOPs- not stabilized. But still...
My experience with shorter focal length lenses is that OIS, VR, IS or what ever you call it is not needed as much as with longer focal lengths.
Also, 2 mm wider doesn't seem like much, but at the wide end it makes a bigger difference than most seem to think.
The 16mm length translates to a 24mm equivalent on full frame vs the 18 being like a 27mm on a full frame.
I have the 18-55 and it's quite good (and has OIS).
I have handled the 16-55.
It's quite a bit bigger, about twice the weight and more expensive andit gets better reviews, though the 18-55 is no slouch.
One review HERE.
Nov 28, 2018 13:55:37 #
Regarding video, I would use the 4K 60fps setting as that is the highest video quality. I bought a Coolpix B700 mainly for the 4k video and there's no way I'd shoot anything else for video. Even with the tiny B700 sensor, it beats 2K on any of my Nikon APS-C dslrs. I'd love it if I had 4K 60fps on a 1" or APS-C sensor camera. The only accessory I have for video is an inexpensive tripod. I do use CS6 premiere pro for video editing and CS6 Adobe audition for audio editing. I find as a general rule of thumb I spend about 1-2 hours of editing for every minute of video. With Premier Pro there is so much you can do to create a finished product from your video, simulating zooms and pans and close ups and split screen views from a single stationary camera, changing the light, cleaning up and enhancing the audio, etc. Talk about getting hooked!
Nov 28, 2018 14:03:28 #
I agree that there is quite a visual difference between 16mm and 18 mm- translated to 24 mm and 27 mm. Especially if you are traveling and wanting to do inside shots. I think if you had the 18-55 mm lens you might still wish for something just a little bit wider. It's also faster.
GoofyNewfie wrote:
My experience with shorter focal length lenses is ... (show quote)
Nov 28, 2018 15:40:15 #
suntouched wrote:
I agree that there is quite a visual difference between 16mm and 18 mm- translated to 24 mm and 27 mm. Especially if you are traveling and wanting to do inside shots. I think if you had the 18-55 mm lens you might still wish for something just a little bit wider. It's also faster.
I have the 14 as well, so yes.
Nov 28, 2018 21:49:50 #
That should be wide enough :)
GoofyNewfie wrote:
I have the 14 as well, so yes.
Nov 28, 2018 22:02:30 #
suntouched wrote:
That should be wide enough :)
Wide enough for me!
21mm ff equivalent and it’s razor sharp. Also a popular lens for doing infrared with Fuji cameras. No hot-spots! Looking at getting a LifePixel IR converted XE-1 just for fun.
Nov 28, 2018 22:13:50 #
1-2 hours of editing for every 1 minute of video-I wouldn't get anything else done. Yikes! Yes, I can see how one would get hooked. My idea is to do really simple, short video but quality. The only video editor I have used is Apple's iMovie. It's free to me. Premiere Pro is very expensive. I did not find iMovie very intuitive but I managed to muddle through. Video editing is simply nothing like photography editing. My main video experience is on a Panasonic Gx8- easy to record quality video. Fast forward to Fuji- a couple of years more advanced and more complicated. I see that the shutter speed has to be set accordingly which will require ND filters to avoid overexposure. Apparently then exposure is controlled with aperture/ISO/+/- compensation. So much to learn but I will get it. Thanks for your input.
Bobspez wrote:
Regarding video, I would use the 4K 60fps setting... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.