Does anyone feel like people overrate Fuji's classic SLR

>>3114103

A labeled shutterspeed dial is kinda nice, but not make or break, really. I tend to shoot aperture mode more often.

The higher level Sony bodies are just as good when it comes to controls.

You'll feel like they're overrated until you use one, and then you'll wonder how you ever made do without.

>>3114198

Also this is doubly true for the x100 series with the beautifully built aperture ring.

The shutterspeed dial is redundant, and difficult to operate with your finger on the shutter. The command dial is better suited for shutter speed control as your thumb is ready between AF-on or the dial, and has third stop control.


The aperture dial on the lens is vastly superior to a command dial though. I find using the middle finger poorly suited for aperture control, the index finger is busy on the shutter, and the command dial doesn't have any muscle memory for what aperture you might be at. Soft third stop and hard full stop clicks on the aperture dial, operated by your largely unfettered left hand in the autofocus era, is wonderful.

It makes me wish Nikon still made AF-D lenses but with rings that felt more like the AIs lenses of old.

>>3114104
>sony
>good controls

>>3114103
Is that set to auto iso and auto shutter or iso 5000 shutter 500? Are all the apertures on the lens?

And is there an x by the 180 because it isn't a full stop? Why was the 180 included?
>>3114200
No zone focusing meter though

>>3114214
I agree on the middle finger part.
I normally use my index finger instead, even though it means taking it off the shutter. - it's not ideal.

I don't think an aperture dial on the lens is any better though.
It's not that easy to use while keeping your camera steady, especially with big lenses.

More on topic: The Fuji "retro" stuff is clearly not designed to change settings quickly while shooting.
I'm sure it's fine for slow paced photography, but not for sports/action/anything spontaneous.

>>3114238
I find no issue with aperture dials on primes, since the balance is fine and is similar to my film camera.

As for the other point, Fuji gives us what nobody else does: choice to use whichever control scheme or combination thereof. I'm looking at you, Df.

File: 17458347_445023962504955_2522009461381899871_n.jpg (57KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 960x540px

>>3114198

this

>inb4 hurr shoogar you posted it again

i've gotten to the point to where I can set stuff without looking at it, just feel the clicks and go. it's great for tough lighting situations where you have to use manual exposure, just set it and forget it.

>>3114214

some of the really early AF lenses, not AF-D, have that AI ring, and most of them even have the pilot holes for an AI coupling prong.

>>3114342

triggered cactus

I do prefer the Df layout though. Literally every manual function but aperture can be controlled by a dial on the top of the camera. Exposure bias, shutter speed, ISO, although I don't know why they added a PASM dial, I do like it though but you have to use both hands to use it, one to hold the camera down and the other to pull up on the dial to change it

>>3114350
No, I mean how an AI lens' aperture ring feels as it clicks from stop to stop, instead of that awful, bargain bin plastic scrape of a 1 cent ring that bends when you squeeze it, eliciting that feeling of no, you're not /supposed/ to use it.

>>3114362

My 85 1.8 doesn't feel like that.

I do know what you're talking about though I bought an N60 with a Nikkor 28-80 and it feels like that

>>3114365
There is hope yet for my AF-D dreams then.

For what it's worth, the 300/4 AF wasn't great. Not that smooth, none of the smooth, rounded bumps of resistance at full stops or subtle third-clicks that AIs lenses have.

>>3114368

That was one of the big selling points of the Df was to be able to use AI manual focus lenses natively and with a FF digital body that has the same general function of my FM, I have a few AI-s lenses they feel like they were made for this cam.

Some of the best Nikkor lenses were made in the AI-s era.

File: 1496832241631.jpg (70KB, 627x680px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 627x680px

>>3114103
>using on full stops is retarded
>he doesn't shoot raw

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Greenshot
Image-Specific Properties:

File: x100set.jpg (831KB, 1023x767px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 1023x767px

>>3114223
>No zone focusing meter though

So you've never used one? I believe you can also have it set up to show up in the OVF too, I believe

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	plasq skitch
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1023
Image Height	767

>>3114378
>>3114378
Is it actual focus or focus by wire?

>>3114382
It's focus by wire but it stops at the ends still so its good

I have mine set up so that the afl/ael button swaps to manual focus only and turns on peaking and the distance scale so you can swap to zone focusing faster

>>3114385
>It's focus by wire but it stops at the ends still so its good

Nevermind it doesnt stop but the throw isnt that far

I've had other focus by wire lenses that had a long throw that were annoying but the x100 its pretty short

Would do nicely with a focus tab actually

>>3114382
Why would it matter? The elements are physically being displaced either way?

>>3114386

The x100 series has sort of a weird logarithmic focus that goes by speed. The same throw can focus different amounts by how fast you twist it. Works beautifully in practice.

>>3114401
my manual only lenses with the zone focusing gauges are so much nicer to manual focus than my af lenses

>>3114408
Personally I like it more on the x100 because I dont have to look at the top of the lens to see the distance scale

I can see the distance scale while im focusing in the viewfinder

>>3114371
Well, it's a good thing Fuji RAW files are so well supported then!

>>3114422
they are now

it's been a few months and a few updates from adobe. It's not quite up to xtransformer output but its definitely usable now

>>3114408
Focus by wire means you turn a eletronic dial that makes a motor turn your lens. In an AF canikon lens you are actually turning the lens. Some newer lens with step motors like nikons AF-P is actually focusing by wire on MF mode.

>>3114369
What, like any other camera at D7000 or above tier? (Bar the D7500)

>best nikkors ever
>film era
They have their qualities, some are damn sharp, ahead of the competition, or innovative, but from an optical engineer's point of view, newer is always going to be better.

>>3114350
>I do prefer the Df layout though. Literally every manual function but aperture can be controlled by a dial on the top of the camera.

And with the regular top LCD you can do the same PLUS it all works while you look through the viewfinder.

It is as if Nikon's professional cameras were designed to be useful......

>>3114103
>full stops is retarded

Why? Perfect, exact exposure isn't even needed or wanted. I would prefer if full stops for manual selection, and stepless for when the program is selecting during an automatic exposure program (ie. stepless shutter value in aperture priority)

File: DF and FM2.jpg (252KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1024x678px

>>3114350

>>3114441
You want finer control over your shutter speed. The difference between the range of 1/60 to 1/500 in full stops is rather large.

>>3114442
>just pigfat things
DFPD

>>3114422
Stop giving shekels to adobe.

>>3114447
No, it's not. Why would you need exactly 1/368s to shoot a bird or a car?

>>3114480
>implying I didn't torrent it
Capture One Pro and Iridient on the other hand hardly have any ways to pirate the latest (or even the versions that support the latest lens)

>>3114442
fat

>>3114200
>dedicated dial for exposure variables with marks and clicks
>focusing ring is unmarked by-wire trash
Come oooooon

>>3114546

it makes sense when you actually use it, my man. as noted earlier in this thread, the same distance thrown on the focus ring does not focus the same distance every time. it depends on how fast you turn it. turn it slowly for terrific precision, and a quick jerk gets you out to infinity. you can also reverse the direction in case you're using to counter-clockwise, or vice versa. it's pretty great in practice.

>>3114223
>And is there an x by the 180 because it isn't a full stop? Why was the 180 included?
the x signifies the flash sync speed

>>3114549
also im pretty sure if you set it up so you're toggling between mf and af you can set the distance it defaults to or something but I havent tried it

what I usually do is use af + mf and focus to where I want and then toggle af off

>>3114549

As someone who has used thr by wire focus extensively, I can tell you that while great in theory, in practice it is a hot mess. You can never get the speed/accuracy right with a fast turn, an actual ring ends up being way faster.

>>3114447
>>3114441
>>3114103

Are 1/2 and 1/3 stops just a thing that came about with the digital age? Like does it matter much or at all on film if you are less than a stop off?

>>3114589

There have been 1/3 stop adjustments on cameras since the early 80's. It makes a bigger difference with slide film than digital.

>>3114103
It's retarded.

Try using a fuji with one hand.

We put dials on top because that was the only place for them to go due to manufacturing limitations, now we can put dials where our fingers rest. Fuji didn't get the memo.

>>3114593
Don't forget we also have computer chips, meaning a dial can perform more than one task, unless you put it on a physical limit and engrave settings into the top...

Their ergo guy is a fucking tard.

>>3114593
you realize there's still two dials on the front and back for use with your finger and thumb as well, right?

>>3114592
Really? I thought film had more stops of dynamic range and you were able to fix fuck ups in film exposure easier than on digital?

>>3114631

It depends. Slide film gives you about five or six stops of usable range, which is slightly less than your average jpeg. RAW files will give you dynamic range roughly equal to negative film with normal development.

File: 5-Stops.jpg (97KB, 640x469px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 640x469px

>>3114633
No senpai.

5 stops of dr would render nearly everything as a silhouette, it's more like 11 - 12 stops. Negative film is in a different league, pic related is 5 stops overexposed, processed normally (no push), yet still has plenty of detail in the sky and highlights. See what happens to a raw at +5...

>>3114214
>The aperture dial on the lens is vastly superior to a command dial

That depends on your style. For shooting one-handed, you want a finger dial, not a ring on the lens.

>>3114405
It's not weird, it's how focus by wire should be. Otherwise it's just a less responsive version of mechanical focus.

>>3114636
Now try underexposing the same film by 5 stops.

You can't directly compare DR between digital and film since one clips highlights and the other messes up shadows, you need different shooting techniques to get the most of both.
Also, push/pull latitude does not necessarily equal DR.

>>3114652
>go 5 down on film
If you go 5 stops in either direction on digi you get fucked results.

Film only really has a limit in one direction.

>you can't compare them
You can directly compare them because it's an objectively measurable variable.

>push/pull latitude does not equal dr
That shot wasn't pushed, and no, push/pulling != dr, latitude does though. Learn your words better, you're using terms incorrectly.

Gonna go for round 3?

>>3114636

Exposure latitude is not dynamic range familama.

>>3114636

Also, you don't think that slide film has 11 or 12 stops of dr, do you?

>>3114198
this. i cannot go back to a camera without dedicated shutter/iso/aperture dials.

>>3114442
jesus christ i never thought df is THAT THICC

>>3114647
Muscle memory, motherfucker, do you use it? If I move my ring 30 degrees, I should expect it to go to the same spot every time, not depending on how fast I twist it.

>>3114646
Alas I've always been a two handed shooter.

>>3114442
real cameras weigh more, get used to it sissybois

>>3114214
Get a Canon.