Life Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Larry last won the day on 19 May

Larry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

234 of my posts have been liked


About Larry

  • Rank
    Master Member
  • Birthday 1 January

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Manila, Philippines
  • Edit my pics?
    Ask Me

Recent Profile Visitors

959 profile views
  1. The EVF lag is there even with the X-T2. As indicated, this is not apparent when using only an MILC. It will become so when you use an MILC and DSLR back to back. It's not difficult to test this out and see for yourself. Mike, I have no such intent as you speak of. If anything, I was trying to answer Dallas' question in as balanced a way as I could by mentioning 3 benefits I see in EVF but as this was not the question, also answering Dallas question. Perhaps I can point out that I am an MILC user and have been one much longer than you. I use multiple MILC cameras from different brands and will likely even add to this in the future. But it seems that my effort in helping balance the facts in this thread is being mistaken as being biased against MILC. In that regard, I am out of here.
  2. This is correct but not necessarily to the advantage of the EVF. In many instances when I take portraits with an MILC, the EVF lag requires that I need to open my left eye while looking with through the EVF with my right eye to better to anticipate what is coming. The EVF lag has continuously been shortened in every generation of EVF but it is still there, even with the Sony A9, Olympus E-M1 Mk2 and the Fuji GFX-50S that I tested. I should add that the EVF lag is not quite as evident when one works solely with an MILC. But when working back-to-back with a dSLR in the same shoot, the EVF lag is very noticeable. It's been a while since you have used a dSLR. Being a current user of both dSLR and MILC, let me recount some of the downside in my use of the EVF. The EVF has many advantages over the OVF (image magnify with focus peaking when focusing manually, review of shots taken when the rear screen is washed out by direct sunlight, articulating EVF, etc.) but as you are well aware of these, let me just recount some of the negatives which you may have become accustomed to since you use only an MILC nowadays. In addition to the EVF lag described above, using the EVF for extended period causes me eye fatigue much faster and earlier than when working with an OVF of a dSLR ... even with the eye diopter in the EVF perfectly dialed in. I suspect that this is true for some people as well. The EVF also does not do much either to help me minimize night blindness even when I dial the EVF brightness to its lowest level when shooting in very dark conditions. Then there is the matter that the EVF is non-functional without turning the camera on. This has an effect in two ways, higher battery drain and the sensor warming up. When working with MILC, I have learned to abbreviate previewing and preframing the shot through the EVF to minimize battery drain ... something that I could do at leisure with a dSLR. To prolong battery life and to keep the sensor cool to minimize noise specially when shooting at high ISO, I power down my MILC until just before I need to take the shot. But the lag and delay in the start up time of the MILC is still much slower than when using a dSLR and I have missed some shots because of this. As Mike G. pointed earlier, there will be continuous improvements in the EVF. On the other hand, there is little that can be done to improve the OVF other than perhaps being able to overlay some useful information over it while shooting. So in this sense, time is on the side of the EVF (though not necessarily against the OVF) and the downsides I list above will be further minimized. Being also an MILC user, I eagerly look forward to this as much as any of you.
  3. The wide interest may have been precipitated by your use of the term "affair" Dallas. I doubt it would have generated as much read had you titlted it "My 5 years with Mirrorless". Ironically, what got me entrenched in mirrorless was the adaptability of the F-mount dSLR lenses I had when native mount MILC lenses were far and few and between ... with not so many of these were good ones. Given the pixel density of the MILC sensors, I needed to use the best dSLR lenses but the results were most satisfying. At a time when all my Nikon dSLRs had fixed screen, the MILCs Iwas using had an articulating screen that was also a touchscreen ... and had focus peaking and electronic first curtain (EFC) to boot. The benefits of EFC in particular was very much appreciated as it made shooting with adapted long lenses an easy chore so long as one used a sturdy stable tripod. I could not quite get the same results as I could with my Nikon dSLR even with mirror-up and 3-seconds delay as I could get with the MILC on EFC even if the MILC sensor at that time still had an AA filter. The MILC ability to shoot completely quiet is priceless in some events. The tide had turned a bit with the Nikon D500 now having an articulating touchscreen and EFC. It still has some ways to go ... and a destination it will never quite reach. Being with a mirror, it will not have the ability to shoot quietly as I can with my m43 bodies. On the other hand, the D500 optical viewfinder is large and bright, and will always be faster and have better DR and resolution than any EVF could ever be made. It's wondeful to have a choice. vive la différence!
  4. Dallas, I have some ideas and suggestions as to what Nikon (and the other camera manufacturers whose equipment I use) can and should perhaps do and where given an opportunity, I do voice these out. But at the end of the day, one has what one has ... the choice of getting and using what serves one's needs best. Rather than get invested in one system or another, or in one brand or another, I choose simply to consider the camera systems available in the market as tools and get that which works best for me. Admittedly, one cannot but wish that the camera companies would see with clarity what one sees, specially when one has paid much for a system that one is using and which one would like further enhanced. But as I go over the postings of many in this and other groups online, I quickly realize that mine is but one voice out of the several thousands out there ... and the camera manufacturers will continue to go in their own way. With that, I stepped aside and out from the sometimes debilitating argument of one system or one brand or one camera model or one lens or gear as being better than the other .... or from the need to justify why I have adopted MILCs or why I continue to use dSLRs. Instead, I have learned to listened to those whom I believe have the knowledge, experience and credibility of what they speak of with regard to the camera gear I am considering. Recognizing what I need and sometimes also what I want, I make the decision of what gear to acquire and what gear to dispose. No histrionics involved ... no emotional gut-wrenching hair pulling stunts ... no ranting many months or years later ... but rather, just a quiet simple decision made to buy (or sell) something. I simply recognize that I am but a nano-sized cog in the market. The market forces will eventually correct any wrong or misplaced decision camera manufacturers make with regard to their products. I see my role as navigating and finding the best way around such forces at work and do what works best for me. Every once in a while, I may share what my experience has been but only if I feel this will help another. I will avoid saying something that may yet become additional fuel to an ongoing conflagration.
  5. Being a user of both dSLRs and MILCs, I find myself in a unique position where I am interested listener of the rhetoric emanating from the dSLR camp or the MILC camp. I say this because both have specific advantages over the other and like a tool, I use one over the other where one would work best. At times that would be the dSLR and on other times that would be the MILC. On quite a few occasions, I bring both. In the midst of very strong brand or system preference, I choose not to start or inflame any specific system or brand position taken by the members of this group. But out of respect for the members of this group, and also relying on their maturity, I sometimes choose to provide information that I believe would help to enlighten everyone in the group, regardless of their preferences or even biases. With regard to the Fuji-Nikon matter, this link from Thom Hogan may prove helpful: One speaks and use what works best for oneself.
  6. I am going on to my seventh year since I first got my mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (MILC). It was a Panasonic GH2 and while it could also take stills, I acquired it primarily for video. This expanded to include Olympus, Sony and Fujitsu. I started using MILCs for stills by initially adapting my F-mount lenses to MILCs which then progressed to getting native mount lens for the MILCs. My most extensive MILC lens library is for the m43 system and it is a given that I will continue this going forward. I am particularly looking forward to an improved implementation of Olympus' multi-shot pixel shift that would enable an m43 camera to approximate the higher-performance output of a Nikon FX sensor. Throughout this almost 7-years period of MILC use, I continued to use my dSLRs. Each has its strengths and limitations and using both allowed me the option to use that which is best for what I need a camera for. I will likely continue to use both MILCs and dSLRs in the coming years. The very capable but bulky and heavy Nikon FX dSLRs and the compact and light m4/3 were the opposite ends of my camera system choices until the Nikon D500 hooked me back to add a Nikon DX (APS-C) dSLR. The D500 had many compelling upgraded features (e.g., very capable AF and metering system, high frame rate and robust buffer, an AF joystick, bright OVF for a DX camera, etc.) but it also incorporated two notable features which I have enjoyed with mirrorless ILCs ... an electronic first curtain (EFC) and an articulating touchscreen. I immediately knew that I will would like a D500-sized and featured Nikon FX. Nikon is expected to repeat the D500 formula in its next FXs (D8xx-replacement and possibly D700-replacement). To that, I add my wish list for these new Nikon FXs to includes features that I enjoy with my MILCs, e.g., focus peaking support, support for an optional articulating EV. While I would like Nikon to incorporate OSPDAF for a much improved AF in live view, I realistically expect to see such only in a F-mount mirrorless Nikon FX and DX. The prospect of a Nikon mirrorless by 2018 is keeping me from adopting the Fuji GFX but if Nikon still has not released an F-mount FX by the end of 2018, I will be taking a serious look at the Fuji GFX. What this means is that while I will continue to have dSLRs, there will be now a mirrorless camera in both ends of my choice of camera systems, bulky and heavy versus compact and light.
  7. Mike, fast and slow is most perceived when one is using two different gears side-by-side for an extended time. In absolute terms, I do not think that the Fuji XT-2 (or Nikon D8xx) is slow. The quicker D500 just seems to make the XT-2 slow. I am familiar and have used the Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 and the 10-24mm f4 OIS with the XT-2. Both are good lenses, with the former comparing quite well with my Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G. Though heavy and now older, I still appreciate the toughness and ruggedness of the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 design. It is rugged and tough and once again in making a comparison of one to another, the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 makes my Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G feel like a fragile lens. Fuji makes many excellent lenses that I wished Nikon would make. I like the optical qualities of the Fuji 14mm f/2.8 even while the 10-24mm f/4 is a more practical choice for most. I also like the Fuji 24mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2, and the 90mm f/2.0. These are some of the lenses that I would likely get for myself if I focus on Fuji. But I cannot complain much as I have these and a bit more in Nikon F-mount FX lenses.
  8. I concur. I waited for Nikon to release a new Nikkor 135mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 as also expected by Bjorn Rorslett some years back. But the lack of news and Zeiss release of the 135mm f/2.0 APO made me jump and I got that immediately. I am extremely happy with that purchase and the decision not to wait for Nikon.
  9. Do you still have the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8? I still have mine and it made for a nifty 16mm on FX for night shots, or 19mm f/2.8 (used at 16mm and 1.2 crop on the D8xx) for daylight shots. I stopped using the Tokina on my FX bodies when I got the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G as this is lighter and faster than the Tokina. The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G also pairs well with the DX D500. I am interested in the Nikkor 10-20mm due to its light weight and compact size. While I have option of using an Olympus E-M1 or the Panasonic G85 along with a 7-14mm f/4.0, 12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100mm f/2.8 (or 12-40mm f/2.8 or 40-150mm f/2.8), I find myself preferring to bring the D500 more due to its excellent ergonomics and responsiveness, along with its very well matched Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0E VR zoom. Having a light and compact Nikkor 10-20mm VR (along with the 70-300mm with VR) would provide me with a setup with better image quality but still acceptably light. I like the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 but balk at its weight (550g vs the 230g of the Nikkor 10-20mm) and lack of VR when shooting handheld stopped down at low shutter speeds.
  10. Alan, I am happy that you have made such a big progress with the Foveon sensor since when I first brought this up years back @NikonGear. I on the other hand have not been able to pursue this much due to my own circumstance. While I try to spend a bit of time in photography as a hobby, the bulk of my waking time is still spent on work so I have not been able to pursue using some of my photographic interests as much as I would have liked to, e.g., using a Foveon sensor camera, the Pentax K-1 with its full frame sensor and the pixel-shift multi-shot capabilities.
  11. As a starting point, the joystick. Moving the joystick on the D500 has an instantaneous effect on moving the focus point. So is pressing on the center column of the joystick to activate AF-on. Not so on the X-T2. I move on the joystick, I wait a micro-bit, then I see the AF-point on the XT-2 EVF move. As a perspective, the D500 has up the ante in terms of responsiveness to the point that I now find my D8xx slow. This is noticeable when I am using both back-to-back. This is why I am so looking forward to Nikon's releasing its next FX (D700-replacement and D8xx replacement) based on the D500 body. As to the lens offering, the XT-2 with the 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 OIS is small, light and compact. It's a wonderful combo. The Nikkor D500 and the Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0E VR is bigger but feels lights because of its excellent grip. I hold the XT-2 with my fingers, while I grip the D500 with my fingers so I find the D500 much more comfortable after a whole day's use. My Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0E VR is sharp, and provides a more useful wide-end and long end than the Fuji 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 OIS. The overall effect when using the D500 and the XT-2 side-by-side is inevitably the impression that the XT-2 is less responsive and slower. As to the m43 option, it is my small and light option when size and weight predominates over image quality.
  12. Alan, more on the Sigma Quattro H from dpreview. Your opinion on this?
  13. Mike, Thom just replied to a post I made at NikonRumors. Here is the link. But as there are now many more comments there, I will just quote part of what he said in relation to my view: "Nikon has a compelling case for the D3400 with the three AF-P lenses for an entry DSLR user. I can't think of any way to get that level of image quality out of anything else that approaches that combo at its price. Not even close, I think. The image sensor is excellent. The AF-P lenses far outperform what you'd think any low-cost lens could do. So you can have a 15-450mm equivalent set in a reasonably small size, at an excellent price, and blow rings around a lot of people buying more expensive gear if you know how to photograph. The problem is that Nikon's marketing is basically "look how low the price is." It's not "spend US$800 and blow people's minds with how good your images are."
  14. Indeed we agree to disagree. As to your comment on plastic bayonet mount's longevity, perhaps I should share with you this encounter. Last year, I met several photographers from a small local town that we were touring. Despite the ubiquitous camera phone being sold at USD $100 locally, they were making a good living as photographers. The Nikkor 18-5mm is their one and only lens and they use it daily day in and day out for many years for a living. I learned so much from just listening to them recount their experience. It's amazing how well they know their craft and how they earned a living and support their family using such basic gears. The cameras I saw them using were mostly D3100 with one D3200. That encounter with them gave me a much greater understanding and respect for the Nikon gears that they were using .. including the plastic mount Nikkor 18-55mm. In addition to the well-respected optical performance of the Nikkor 18-55mm, here is another lens that comes with a plastic bayonet mount, the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 AF-P VR DX. There are many good reviews of this lens and Thom Hogan's review echoes this. Here is a link to Thom Hogan's review of this plastic mount lens: Finally, for me, if the image quality is good, cheap (and light) is very very good! Edit: Oppps ... I just realized that the Nikkor 70-300mm AF-P sold with the Nikon D5500 does not have VR. This makes buying this kit a no-go for me. Why did Nikon even make a version of this zoom without VR? Hmmm ... IBIS on its future mirrorless F-mount DX?
  15. Mike, I am of a different view with regard to the Nikkor 10-20mm. The plastic bayonet mount does not really matter unless you intend to use this lens as a substitute for a hammer. The Nikkor 10-20mm VR is a very light, compact and inexpensive lens. I have access to my brother's Nikkor 10-24mm but this Nikkor 10-20mm is practically just 1/3 the price of the Nikkor 10-24mm and 1/2 its weight. In addition to being lighter and smaller than the Nikkor 10-24mm, it has VR which the Nikkor 10-24mm does not have. The MTF of the Nikkor 10-20mm looks good. Since I mostly use the DX UWA at f/5.6 to f/8.0, the one-stop smaller aperture of the Nikkor 10-20mm will not matter much. I currently use the Nikon D500, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4,0 and Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 as my extended overseas travel dSLR kit. The total weight is 850g + 550g + 480g + 1,021g (with lens collar), for a total of 2,901g (2.91 kgs). I am thinking of getting the Nikkor 10-20mm ($310) along with the discounted Nikon D5500 kit ($597) that comes with a Nikkor 18-5mm and a Nikkor 70-300mm AF-P zoom, as an even lighter extended-overseas travel dSLR kit. The D5500, plus the 10-20mm, 18-55mm, and 70-300mm is light, compact, and inexpensive - totaling $907. This price is less than one UWA Fuji zoom; the Fuji 10-24mm f/4 OIS lens currently sold at $999 at BH Photo. This D5500 / 10-20mm / 18-55mm / 70-300mm kit weighs in at 420g + 230g + 205g + 400g = 1,255g (1.255 grams) or less than half my current DX dSLR travel kit. If I sell the Nikon 18-55mm and use my Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0, the total weight will be 1530g ... still approx. half my current DX dSLR travel kit. An added bonus is that I now have VR on my UWA.