jadot

jadot

Lives in United Kingdom Surrey, United Kingdom
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at http://jlphotography.co.uk
Joined on Aug 27, 2010
About me:

Professional Photographer - Weddings mostly, Portraits of real people are high on the list.

Comments

Total: 551, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

zakaria: Weight and price are the weakest area for this aps/c lens.my dfa pentax 100mm is ff lens and almost half of the price and half the weight.

No. Mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter by default, but that's not the "Main" reason to shoot mirrorless over a mirrored SLR camera.

Here are a couple of other reasons.
IQ might be better - Lots of people will argue for Sony Cameras here
Video Might Be Better - See above, or Panasonic Cameras etc.
No need to Micro Adjust AF - A biggie for me.
Real time image preview - Excellent View Finders.

If I wanted a camera solely because of lower relative weight I'd probably buy an RX100 series camera or similar. Or an Olympus.

My point is, Fuji are only required to make the best possible quality they can which in this case means a bigger lens (than you'd hoped for). In no way are Fuji obliged to make a lens or accessory that comes in under the weight of another brand's lens, according to the size of the sensor.

This is a no compromise, fast macro lens, with quiet AF, OIS, and Weather Sealing. Why cripple it just to have a lighter, less high quality and cheaper lens?

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 13:29 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: No tilty flippy screen no sale.

...to you.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 13:09 UTC
In reply to:

Artem Holstov: This is a polite push from Fuji to point enthusiasts to XT2.

I think you're right, and I think that those enthusiasts will thank Fuji for the encouragement.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 13:07 UTC
In reply to:

BlueBomberTurbo: Fuji giveth, Fuji taketh away...

Come again?

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 13:05 UTC
In reply to:

NCB: Expensive for a consumer-grade camera.

So buy something else that's cheaper?

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 13:05 UTC
In reply to:

Kaso: Fujifilm should simplify its product line: X, X-T, X-P.

Why?

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 13:04 UTC
In reply to:

turbsy: Without a tilt screen this is a non-starter for me. I guess I have to hope Fuji fixes the terrible xt-20 ergonomics in the xt-30. To get a proper mirrorless camera.

How many systems are we talking about here?! You can only hold one at a time, and if your First system has a tilting screen surely you can use that when you need it? In fact why not compromise and live with the "terrible ergonomics" of the X-T20 if it's only going to be used as a "second system" (aka Backup)? Save yourself some cash. Or even better, just have one "system" that does the things you want it to.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 13:04 UTC
In reply to:

zakaria: Weight and price are the weakest area for this aps/c lens.my dfa pentax 100mm is ff lens and almost half of the price and half the weight.

But your Pentax lens won't fit on my Fuji so I don't get the reference. A different camera brand uses different lenses and they might be lighter? I don't get it. I don't think Fuji were thinking about the Pentax lens when they designed this 1:1 / 5 stops OIS / ƒ2.8 True Macro Lens.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 12:50 UTC
On article Hands-on with new Fujifilm X-E3 (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Fat Fish: Does anyone know if it's the X-T2's implementation of 4K or if it's the X-T20's implementation?

If I were a betting man I would put my money on "X-T20 Implementation" - It doesn't make sense for Fuji compete with their own flagship camera.

Think:
X-T2 > X-T20
X-Pro2 > X-E3

that kind of thing.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 12:27 UTC
In reply to:

turbsy: Without a tilt screen this is a non-starter for me. I guess I have to hope Fuji fixes the terrible xt-20 ergonomics in the xt-30. To get a proper mirrorless camera.

Or, buy an X-T2?

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 12:21 UTC
In reply to:

jadot: I had the original RotoLight. It wasn't bright enough and it was way too expensive (£299 back then) for what it was IMO. I replaced it with a much brighter LED for £40 (I think) which worked better for my needs and has a remote for colour balance adjustment and power. It blew the Rotolight out of the water in nearly every respect.

85% power increase in RL 2 looks like a good idea, but it's still too expensive, and kind of redundant as a flash without easily using modifiers. It is potentially fairly impressive as a 'bare bulb' flash unit, if it's powerful enough, and if only for the zero recycling time. I can see the HSS being useful for some, but once you throw in the price of the required HSS Skyport it's very easy to find better options for less money.

Godox AD200 springs to mind.

Sure Jason Lanier will disagree, but I don't need to shoot 11 frames per second for my portraits with a light 3ft from my subject, so...

@pavelR2 - yeah, you're getting ahead of yourself here. Remember, we're talking about the NEO and a possible cheaper alternative. The Aeos £900 - it's a completely different category.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

jadot: I had the original RotoLight. It wasn't bright enough and it was way too expensive (£299 back then) for what it was IMO. I replaced it with a much brighter LED for £40 (I think) which worked better for my needs and has a remote for colour balance adjustment and power. It blew the Rotolight out of the water in nearly every respect.

85% power increase in RL 2 looks like a good idea, but it's still too expensive, and kind of redundant as a flash without easily using modifiers. It is potentially fairly impressive as a 'bare bulb' flash unit, if it's powerful enough, and if only for the zero recycling time. I can see the HSS being useful for some, but once you throw in the price of the required HSS Skyport it's very easy to find better options for less money.

Godox AD200 springs to mind.

Sure Jason Lanier will disagree, but I don't need to shoot 11 frames per second for my portraits with a light 3ft from my subject, so...

Try This one : https://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer-Dimmable-Control-Filters-Camcorders/dp/B06WGPV79Z/ref=sr_1_8?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1504704002&sr=1-8&keywords=neewer+led

It's something like that - maybe not the exact same model but close enough.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 13:22 UTC
In reply to:

jadot: I had the original RotoLight. It wasn't bright enough and it was way too expensive (£299 back then) for what it was IMO. I replaced it with a much brighter LED for £40 (I think) which worked better for my needs and has a remote for colour balance adjustment and power. It blew the Rotolight out of the water in nearly every respect.

85% power increase in RL 2 looks like a good idea, but it's still too expensive, and kind of redundant as a flash without easily using modifiers. It is potentially fairly impressive as a 'bare bulb' flash unit, if it's powerful enough, and if only for the zero recycling time. I can see the HSS being useful for some, but once you throw in the price of the required HSS Skyport it's very easy to find better options for less money.

Godox AD200 springs to mind.

Sure Jason Lanier will disagree, but I don't need to shoot 11 frames per second for my portraits with a light 3ft from my subject, so...

Sorry - I can't remember! I think it's a Neewer light but it's all wrapped up in a drawer somewhere. I don't use it very often. There are loads on Amazon - often the same light with a different brand name - you know the drill. Same with the "Ice Light" I bought for £60 - made by pergear I think. I'm not too interested in what the light's called - just that it works for the few times that I might need it.

Since switching everything to Godox Flash unites i haven't had much use for continuous LED lighting, though I'm shooting more video these days so that is up for review.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 13:18 UTC

I had the original RotoLight. It wasn't bright enough and it was way too expensive (£299 back then) for what it was IMO. I replaced it with a much brighter LED for £40 (I think) which worked better for my needs and has a remote for colour balance adjustment and power. It blew the Rotolight out of the water in nearly every respect.

85% power increase in RL 2 looks like a good idea, but it's still too expensive, and kind of redundant as a flash without easily using modifiers. It is potentially fairly impressive as a 'bare bulb' flash unit, if it's powerful enough, and if only for the zero recycling time. I can see the HSS being useful for some, but once you throw in the price of the required HSS Skyport it's very easy to find better options for less money.

Godox AD200 springs to mind.

Sure Jason Lanier will disagree, but I don't need to shoot 11 frames per second for my portraits with a light 3ft from my subject, so...

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 11:31 UTC as 8th comment | 7 replies

This is just about the best use of photography I can think of.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2017 at 16:07 UTC as 51st comment
In reply to:

jadot: Tape a few Ice Lights together? Lot cheaper.

Yep - I've got a couple of the 'cheaper knock off lights' - don't even know who it's by, as it happens. Colour accuracy seems pretty good. If not use a grey card, and set the white balance in Capture One Pro. They're rarely, if ever, look that bad anyway. I think they were £60.

I only suggested "Ice lights" because I couldn't remember what they [5 or 6 different companies/badges] were called. My bad.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 18:31 UTC

Tape a few Ice Lights together? Lot cheaper.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 11:52 UTC as 2nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

dr.noise: The price is crazy, I don't think sensor alone would justify it. By the specs (except sensor) it is much like JVC XA-1 which also does have HDMI output. JVC's image quality is poor but then it only costs $100 or less.

Haha - you said 'the JVC image quality is poor, but it is cheaper'. That's pretty funny.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 07:54 UTC
In reply to:

dr.noise: The price is crazy, I don't think sensor alone would justify it. By the specs (except sensor) it is much like JVC XA-1 which also does have HDMI output. JVC's image quality is poor but then it only costs $100 or less.

So the JVC is much better, but Sh*t, but cheaper, so this Sony, which is better (on paper) shouldn't be more expensive, which makes it worse, but the IQ is actually usable?

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 06:54 UTC
In reply to:

Koenemans: An f4 lens (and in such a small case!) isn't focused on professionals...rather enthusiasts, right?
And 24mm wide-angle lens while an equivalence of 35mm is written on the lens.

I'm unsure why people are downrating this camera compared to a full frame professional body [plus lens] anyway. It's likely that the RX0 (at least according to theory from specs) will out perform the best 'action cams' on the market today - surely that's what counts in the market it's targeting?

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 18:12 UTC
Total: 551, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »