Rangefinder

File: image.jpg (95KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1920x1080px

>>2933515
Bumping for knowledge

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080
Scene Capture Type	Standard

The xpro1 isn't a rangefinder per se, (inb4 isi) and doesn't require dramatically different technique than any other camera.

I use an x100s, which I imagine works the same way, but here's my advice either way: shoot with the optical viewfinder for maximum versatility. I turn image review off so that I don't get any blackout. Learn to be patient, anticipate the moment, and then take lots of photos.

There's really not much else besides that.

>>2933515
Older film cameras had distance marking on the lens so you know where the zone of focus is. Start with that in the OVF mode and use a tight aperture to get more in focus. This will really really teach you about focus and depth of field control. My first camera was a fed 2 and it had the DOF markings on the lens for the different apertures and that taught me quite a bit.

Otherwise use the EVF, which sends you the picture from the sensor. Xpro should have focus peaking, no? That should help you out.

>>2933515
X-Pro doesn't have a rangefinder mechanism, so you can't, in fact, do the rangefinding thing.

>>2933515
>how do I rangefinder
start by getting a rangefinder

>>2933515
Should have just got the xe1, the evf is much better, the one in the xpro is cat penis.

Everything about the xpro's is pretty cat penis desu.

Have you checked out what a rip off the lenses are and their fuck ugly rendering of oof areas yet?

But to focus with a rangefinder, you look at the rangefinder patch to focus and the framelines to frame, yours is more akin to the viewfinder on a disposable camera.

>>2933719
What in your life made you equate cat penis to bad, and further, to expect other people to share this association?

>>2933732
>implying you like cat penis
The fuck is wrong wit you anon

>>2933736
I don't like cat penis. I don't dislike it either. Until these posts, I'm not sure I ever even really thought about cat penis in any significant manner to form an opinion on them.

>>2933740
>being this ambivalent towards cat dicks
Newfug, get out

>>2933515
>>38855536
prove me wrong, you haven't. trump wouldv'e destroyed bruce lee and made china pay for the wall across the pacific

>>2933742
Nah. I think I'll stay and continue to not really give a shit about cat penis.

>>2933719
>Should have just got the xe1, the evf is much better, the one in the xpro is cat penis.
Yes, it is. But, you have the glass optics option on the x-pro, which you don't get on the xe1.

>>2933515
>how do I rangefinder
It's a focus peaker like the Sonys i use.

You use that if you MF on this machine.

>>2933785
Which is just a viewing hole.
Not a rangefinder.
Why the fuck would i want to look through a smeary piece if glass, that doesn't represent what I'm actually taking a photo of, doesn't aid in focusing and the bottom right corner is obstructed by the lens.

As far as shitty useless meme features, the xpro takes every fucking cookie.

Is it even a decision between only having a barely usable evf, or having a completely useless evf, and a completely useless viewing window.

And the xpro2 wants like $2000 for this horseshit. Lollercakes, people that buy higher end fuji stuff are mugs.

File: _0001_.jpg (472KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 1000x667px

>>2933791
>Lollercakes, people that buy higher end fuji stuff are mugs.

Hello sweetie

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X100S
Camera Software	Digital Camera X100S Ver1.20
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016-05-31T17:01:13+10:00
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	-3.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2933800
>Buy box full of shit
>buy a7ii and trio of primes

hard decision, it's not like I'd want that FF rendering & low light performance, or IBIS, or a FAR superior EVF, or weather sealing.

I own both Sony and Fuji products, the fuji is great for snapshittery, but is so lacking as a proper tool.

You even got an off camera HSS flash solution yet? And how's the lens release lineup looking?

>>2933806

Lmao, the salt is real. You act like the Sony is a serious option for anything but video.

>>2933807
Implying fuji does anything well, or at least to the same standard as sony.

Oh son.

>>2933808

They're both playing second fiddle to serious dslr's. Get real.

>>2933806
>how's the lens release lineup looking?

What do you think is missing?

I've never used HSS in over a decade of shooting Canon; these days I mostly shoot Fuji and use my Canon flashes wirelessly triggered. Hasn't been an impediment - though I will pick up a few Fuji flashes when they drop

>>2933810
They're not playing second fiddle to "serious" dslr's because they're not dslr's.

yeah a dslr is great if speed is your number one priority, but for exposure control and focusing accuracy nothing beats an EVF and on sensor PDAF.

Sports - I concede, the DSLR is king
landscape, product, low light, architecture - mirrorless are far more suited to the job
Weddings and events - half a dozen of one, 6 of the other, the EVF is great in dim churches and shit, but lacks the fluidity of use of a DSLR.

>>2933813
>What do you think is missing?
Lenses with pleasant renderings
offerings from anyone other than fuji and samyang
an affordable standard fast prime
image stabilization for all lenses, if you plan on pricing them at a premium and not offering ibis

>never used HSS

Sorry to hear you're so basic.

>>2933810
A $1k A6300 is matching your "serious" DSLR minus the $6k models.

A7R II is also matching it's price bracket fine, down to low light.

So no, they're not playing second fiddle.

>>2933821
>Lenses with pleasant renderings
lol

>an affordable standard fast prime
lol affordable

>image stabilization for all lenses, if you plan on pricing them at a premium and not offering ibis
lol

Ok sweetie

>>2933515
>it's a hipster bait thread

File: fujifilm_xf_35mm_f_2_r_1191420.jpg (113KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1000x1000px

>>2933821
>an affordable standard fast prime

But the 35mm f2 is a fantastic lens and I'd say ~400 is affordable

>>2933815

You heard it here, folks: Mirrorless is the choice for beginners who still need assistance with exposure and focus.

>>2933806
>Sony
>weather sealing
>>2933878
not muh nifteh fifteh

>>2933930
>not muh nifteh fifteh

but the fov is effectively that of a nifty fifty on crop?

>>2933930
50 isn't standard on crop

>>2933719
The xe1 vf is laggy af - processor can't handle the additional resolution

>>2933961
50 equivalent is you stupid fuck
Don't argue about gear if you haven't even mastered 35 = 50

>>2933978
The fewer auto settings you use on an xe1 or xpro1, the faster their evfs are

>>2934023
The guy I'm replying to rejected the 35 because it wasn't a 50 you fucking moron

>>2934068
>>2933961
No I didn't.
I didn't even reject it. I just popped in to say muh nifteh fifteh. I'm not even the person the quote was originally aimed at.

I'll have to spell it out for you since you tried to take the comment a different way.
Not as cheap as a nifty fifty. That's why people complain.

You are one dumb motherfucker, that's for sure.

>>2934068
No child left behind lingers on you as if a stale perfume.

>>2934070
>Not as cheap as a nifty fifty. That's why people complain.

In 1971 the release price of an ae-1 with the 50 1.4 was $630 usd

Adjusted for inflation that comes out to $3,743. Now obviously you could get them cheaper but just because you can get a 50 1.4 for around 60 bucks now doesn't mean that modern optics should be around that same price

400 is perfectly reasonable for a fantastically sharp and decently fast normal prime

File: 1450373674424.jpg (32KB, 607x935px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 607x935px

>>2933515
>Just got an X-Pro1 on a breddy gud deal; how do I rangefinder, especially with varied lenses?

File: dscf5188-copy~2.jpg (1MB, 4193x1562px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4193x1562px

>>2933878
But it sucks monkey nuts compared to a sony + 50mm, and doesn't even touch the 55mm. It's oof rendering is even more distracting than canons nifty fifty. Look at those rank leaves and shit, the colours are gross too.

Just a reminder, you can pick up a 5d and nifty fifty for the same price as the fuji lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	X-T10
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:09:27 08:00:12
Image Width	4193
Image Height	1562
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/1.4
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Light Source	Unknown
Exposure Mode	Manual
Image Height	2399
Rendering	Normal
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Program	Manual
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	6441
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Brightness	4.0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec

>>2934568
You realise there are no practical differences between any of those shots?

>it's all in your head.exe

>>2934568
But that's the 35mm 1.4 xf not the 35mm f2 xf

Personally I like the look of the f2 more but looking at the example you posted for a completely different lens I still have to disagree. It's definitely better than the 50mm 1.8 and while I think the 55mm 1.8 is better it's twice as much

>Just a reminder, you can pick up a 5d and nifty fifty for the same price as the fuji lens.

But both of those lenses are 400 dollars?

>Look at those rank leaves and shit, the colours are gross too.

I don't even bother why I'm discussing this because you're just going to use vague subjective terms to disregard it anyways

File: 1439492661501.jpg (1MB, 3000x3420px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x3420px

>>2934568
>posting an image showing the fuji looks better than a sony lens that costs twice as much

>>2934573
I love the way the branches turn purple and everything out of focus has a doubled/ghosted effect. So spooky.

>>2934571
If you can't see the difference, you're new.

>>2934587
if you care about the difference, you're new and have no content
post your content if Im wrong

File: IMG_3744.gif (1012KB, 225x135px) Image search: [Google]

1012KB, 225x135px

>>2934433
>Adjusted for inflation that comes out to $3,743.
>And this was without based wideo feature

>>2934589
Already have an active thread up, thanks.
>caring about image quality is for noobs
Says the poor fuji user.

>>2934568
Thanks brother,
I was choosing between fuji and sony, this made my mind up, that fuji shot is fugly in comparison.

>>2934604
You've clearly got some bias against fuji. There is definitely a bit more aberration with the fuji lens compared to the 55mm 1.8 but its marginal

If you're labeling people as poor for getting a lens that's half the price that has 85% of what you think is a good lens you've clearly got some issues with the brand itself

that being said if I'm wrong and you are looking at it objectively I highly recommend you check out the 35mm f2 xf lens as it's absolutely fantastic

>>2934587
If you don't understand the word "practical" you're illiterate.

>>2934628
Whats not practical about wanting aesthetic bokeh? Noob.

>>2934618
I own both fuji and sony bodies, just never put on a fuji lens and not instantly gone back to a better, cheaper adapted ff lens. The sony nifty is $150.

>>2934636
But in that photo you posted you can clearly see the 35mm 1.4 is sharper and has better bokeh than the sony 50 but the difference between it and the 35mm is far more noticeable than between the 35mm and the 55mm

The 50 isn't bad and is definitely priced nicely but I'd rather shell out a bit more for a lens that performs nearly as well as that 55mm

What adapted 35mm outperforms either the f1.4 or f2?

>>2934636
>I'm demonstrating aesthetic bouquet

...

>>2934644
Spot the poor crop fag

>>2934639
My rokkor 35 1.8 has a much more pleasant oof rendering

>>2934668
Are you the same guy? I'd love to see a side by side

>>2934670
I can probably sort that out a bit later, the 50mm will be a nikon 50mm 1.4 pre ai. I no longer own any fuji lenses and i sold my sony nifty until i pick up the 55. Can also compare to asahi 50 1.4, 1.7, 55 1.8, rokkor 58 1.4, chinon 50 1.4, canon fd 50 1.4, helios 58mm.

I have a canon fd 35mm and nikon shift 35mm, but they're a bit slower than the rest, so not a great comparison

>>2933515
the xpro 1 isn't actually a rangefinder, is it?

>>2934894
Nope, the second 'window' is an AF assist lamp

File: slowpoke_pokemon.gif (15KB, 275x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 275x300px

>>2934894

>>2934587
>>2934608
Enjoy your new career as a bin photographer.

Sometimes I need to remind myself that bokehfags and pixel peepers really exist. What I don't get is why the fuck they don't all shoot digital medium format or really up their game and start shooting large format pictures of bins.

>>2934936
Sometimes i need to remind myself that some people cant grasp the very basics of aesthetic.