Nikon's 58mm is an overpriced standard lens. The Sigma clobbers it, at less than 1/2 the price. My favorite 50-ish lens was the Voigtlander 58mm Nokton, but it's not as good as this lens.
And now NASA can't even launch people, without Russian rockets...
Fixed lenses = boring and limited. Nikon and Canon continue to treat mirror-less system cameras like a rabid dog.
Fuji, I hereby arrest you for molestation...of RAW files.
MV Atlanta: I am trying to decide between the E-M1 and X-T1 with a focusing speed (both outdoor and low light) being a priority. It is frustrating to repeatedly read "focus improved over X-E1" or "fastest focusing Fuji so far" - This is virtually useless information for comparing the two cameras. Both I and Usain Bolt are faster than a sloth but saying that "I am faster than a sloth" does not inform anybody how I compare to Usain. This is beyond obvious I have seen a virtually similar language in other professional review sites and no discussion on how it compares to E-M1 focusing speeds in REAL LIFE settings.
The only logical explanation is that the manufacturers sensor some observations in exchange of providing free samples, early access, etc. Nothing negative about the DPR staff, the site is great; this is just a reality of life.
I've used both, but obviously with different lenses. The M1 IMO is faster.
himmelblaugrau: It is insane to give an award to images of human tragedy.
How often would a helping hand be better than the cold glass of a camera lens ?
Can a Pulitzer winner ever sleep with a quiet conscience?
A lot of questions occur.....
Pulitzer isn't a ART photography prize!! Jeez!
Henrikw: Boston bombing, Kenya mall attack, Syria - interesting how many of the entries relate to the suffering caused by religious brainwash
Heh. Nothing changes over time, does it?
Jobs. "640k is enough memory for anyone." "No one is going to buy a big smartphone." Sure he was such a god visionary he's purported to have been?
J2Gphoto: "A high-end camera is nothing without optics to match, and while the X-system is little more than 2 years old, the lens line-up is starting to look distinctly mature."
Personally the lens line up and the price of their lenses are what are steering me toward going with the E-M1. Also does anyone else think the white balance is way off on the E-M1 sample images? I've used the E-M1 and have never seen whites look so yellow.
Using AWB with incandescent sources? There is only so much AWB can do. You'd have to look at the EXIF data.
Why do Fuji RAW's at high ISO look like other camera's JPEGs? What I mean is that although their RAW's look clean, they look NR washed, for lack of a better term. The grain is massaged away. If I look at the RAW's and switch on other camera's JPEGs at 1600 or higher, in the studio scenes, I see more commonality.
The EVF updating IMO, seems very slow on panning. It produces a real juddering effect at pan speed, though I noticed very little colour skewing. I don't see that juddering with the Sony and Olympus EVF's, especially when the Olympus is set on 120Hz. Is the EVF refresh rate adjustable on the X-T1?
This is not a sports camera. Time for Pentax to go mirror-less here.
Lee Jay: "The large apparent size of a moon low on the horizon is partially an optical illusion."
"The longer lens you can get, the better. "
Filling the frame with the moon will require about 2500mm equivalent.
"With a big lens and a subject at such a distance even a small amount of motion results in an out of focus photo. "
Not "out of focus", motion blurred. They are different.
"The moon is very bright, even during an eclipse."
At totality, it will be very dark.
"...the moon is bright white"
The moon is a dark charcoal gray.
"Even a little bit of ground light can ruin a shot of the moon."
That's just total baloney. The moon (except during totality) is far, far brighter than the worst light pollution.
"Bring a flashlight with a red bulb or gel."
You don't need good dark-adaptation for the moon.
"Shoot with manual focus. The moon is tricky to focus on and it’s best to rely on your eyes instead of the camera’s autofocus."
That's almost total baloney too.
Also, if you are using a long lens (1000mm plus) and you are shooting what can be a very dark totality, the motion of the Earth's rotation can be enough to blur the moon's image because the exposure may be too long. In this case, the only solution is to use a high ISO, or a driven mounting.http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/30263/what-is-the-rule-of-600-in-astrophotography
What happens when general science writers and (eesh!) non-science writers attempt to tell people specifics about any kind of astrophotography.
Biowizard: Lovely clear weather for once ... just happen to be in the wrong time zone! :-(
This one might be better for you:http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/OH/OH2014.html#LE2014Oct08T
Use the longest lens you've got, unless you are shooting against a background for effect. To fill the frame with the moon (top to bottom) you need the equivalent of 2000mm on a FF Camera. So, 1000mm on a m4/3 and 1500mm on an APS. Meanwhile, after a few warm, sunny days, the outlook in the U.S. NE is rain/snow and 2 degrees for the eclipse!
Recycling is now a $500 billion year business. It's also a monumental scam in some cases, making money for select companies while taxpayers subsidize collection. The business is so large now that Hillary Clinton was at a meeting of recyclers the other day.
Why would you need a grip that deep, as opposed to the NX20 grip? So you can get your fingers stuck between it and the lens?
Karroly: Unless you are a spy, or for video surveillance purpose, what is the advantage of shooting this scene @ 409.600 ISO ? This, by far, does not match what your eyes can see. You do not record the true "mood" of the scene...Personnally, when I shoot in low light, I set the camera so it records what I can see actually. In other words, I underexpose most of the time. I do not want the picture to look as if it was shot under bright sun !
Why not? People pay tens of thousands of $'s for night vision gear, which has much poorer resolution and no colour. But I agree that I prefer shots that look like what I saw. I can however see the value in going beyond that.
Even if the lens is ancient, and slow, Sony users will be ok, it's probably a lot better than the NEX 16mm...