Tony Posted December 18, 2014 Report Share Posted December 18, 2014 Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted January 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I did some snapping in the street in Bedford yesterday and rather liked my picture of this elegantly dressed bloke: At the other end of the spectrum, I couldn't resist yet another snap of the Trevor Huddleston bust. I think it's such a strong sculpture and displays his character brilliantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 That is razor sharp, I like that alot Did the guy realise you had taken his photo? Now that you're using a smaller camera do you think it makes you less visible to others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Nice picture..... The guy looks very deep in thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Great photos! Did the guy realise you had taken his photo? Now that you're using a smaller camera do you think it makes you less visible to others? Yep I imagine in quieter places you still probably stick out a bit - in central london there are cameras everywhere, I'm sure I'm in tons of tourists photos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted January 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Did the guy realise you had taken his photo? Now that you're using a smaller camera do you think it makes you less visible to others? I doubt it, he was just walking by and paid me no attention. The Fuji is considerably smaller than either of the Canons that I used to use, but it's not tiny. Yesterday I was using it with a 18mm to 135mm zoom lens and a vertical battery grip so it wasn't insignificant. I'll see if I can take a couple of pics of it so you can see what it looks like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted January 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I set up the camera as it was yesterday. I put it on a small tripod and took a shot through a mirror then flipped the image horizontally. Here's the result. Not invisible? . . . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 That's bigger than I thought it would be. Can't be too far from DSLR size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMARTLY Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 How can you judge the size of that? I'd need something else in the picture to compare it to my cameras, and maybe a side view please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 By looking at the tripod mount. The battery grip is probably half the depth of the camera itself so without that it would look alot smaller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted January 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Read the legend on the lens; it indicates that the filter thread is 67mm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMARTLY Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I wasn't being arsey, just interested. Unless you know cameras you wouldn't realise 067 means "the filter thread is 67mm" would you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 In comparison my lenses have a 52mm thread. I guess the camera weighs alot less than a DSLR but is still bulky? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 In comparison my lenses have a 52mm thread. I guess the camera weighs alot less than a DSLR but is still bulky? My lens is also 67mm - didn't realise there was such a big difference among the more standard DSLR lenses. These mirrorless cameras are quite large but not as large as a DSLR - to add this one is full frame isn't it? I was using my uncle's FX DSLR recently taking pictures back to back with his and mine and the difference was staggering. Ok his was a newer body but the response in low light was just unbelievable, and my guess was that must be down to the size of the sensor? Has got me really wanting to get a full frame camera but I'm now lost between DSLR and mirrorless so I'll probably end up just doing nothing and sticking with what I've got Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liner33 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Oh sorry i'm just reflecting what i know about school events like sports day and nativity plays where no photos or filming is allowed? Maybe it's just a school thing. School premises are not a public place and a school may set whatever rules it likes for its own private domain. But it could not, for example, prevent anyone from taking pictures from a public footpath that passed through or alongside school grounds. Do that at any school around here and the Police would be having a word and your name would appear on a list you wouldn't want it to ! Schools have a responsibility to safeguard the children they can use their own discretion to allow pictures to be taken at school events , if just one parent objects to their child being photographed they have to have a blanket ban on unapproved photographers. You have no right of privacy in a public place though , taking a camera off someone and smashing it could easily result in a charge of assault and criminal damage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam_r Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Yes... And approved photographers are 'always' safe. When i was at school it arose that our photographer who used to do pretty much every school in the area was a pedophile and was caught by the police having child porno on his home pc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liner33 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Wouldn't have been convicted or on any register though , no one knows who is a paedophile until they get caught Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted January 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I wasn't being arsey, just interested. Unless you know cameras you wouldn't realise 067 means "the filter thread is 67mm" would you? Nor was I, but the question wasn't so much about the precise size of the camera - I could have answered that easily. It was about visibility and I was trying to show what an approaching subject might see. It's very subjective and there are far too many imponderables to give any kind of definitive answer. If you want to make a straight size/weight comparison: The Canon 1DIII with the 24-105 lens is 156mm x 157mm x 187mm and weighs about 2,020 gm The Fuji X-T1 with vertical grip and 18-135 lens is 130mm x 135mm x 140mm and weighs 1,150 gm I In comparison my lenses have a 52mm thread. I guess the camera weighs alot less than a DSLR but is still bulky? My lens is also 67mm - didn't realise there was such a big difference among the more standard DSLR lenses. These mirrorless cameras are quite large but not as large as a DSLR - to add this one is full frame isn't it? I was using my uncle's FX DSLR recently taking pictures back to back with his and mine and the difference was staggering. Ok his was a newer body but the response in low light was just unbelievable, and my guess was that must be down to the size of the sensor? Has got me really wanting to get a full frame camera but I'm now lost between DSLR and mirrorless so I'll probably end up just doing nothing and sticking with what I've got The X-T1 is not full frame - it's a APS-C (23.6 x 15.6 mm) sensor but of course, not all APS-C sensors are equal. There's a comprehensive review on the DPR site. Low light performance is certainly affected by the size of the sensor but there are lots of other factors too such as image stabilisation, absence or otherwise of an anti-aliasing filter and the quality and effectiveness of the processing algorithms. The way that cameras handle noise at high ISOs is getting better all the time. I used to think that my full frame 5DII was the bees knees but I am very impressed by the low light results that I now get from the X-T1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 If you want to make a straight size/weight comparison: The Canon 1DIII with the 24-105 lens is 156mm x 157mm x 187mm and weighs about 2,020 gm The Fuji X-T1 with vertical grip and 18-135 lens is 130mm x 135mm x 140mm and weighs 1,150 gm That's actually surprisingly heavy - I'm sure the vertical grip adds a fair bit of weight itself but what you're using is very similar in weight to my D90. On that basis how would the mirrorless compare directly to a smaller DSLR? As you're a Canon user something like a 60D or 70D? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted January 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 If you want to make a straight size/weight comparison: The Canon 1DIII with the 24-105 lens is 156mm x 157mm x 187mm and weighs about 2,020 gm The Fuji X-T1 with vertical grip and 18-135 lens is 130mm x 135mm x 140mm and weighs 1,150 gm That's actually surprisingly heavy - I'm sure the vertical grip adds a fair bit of weight itself but what you're using is very similar in weight to my D90. On that basis how would the mirrorless compare directly to a smaller DSLR? As you're a Canon user something like a 60D or 70D? I have no knowledge of any of the smaller Canons. Weight comparisons depend upon what is attached but you should be able to find all the data. The Fuji X-T1, body and battery only, weighs 438 gm, so you could compare smaller DSLRs to that - body and battery only. I like a vertical grip for street photography, so provision for one affected my buying decision. I also like a large viewfinder and on the day I bought it (something else may have come along by now) the X-T1 had the biggest viewfinder picture available - even including the 1DS. The smaller mirror on APSC SLRs limits the size of the viewfinder picture; there is no such limitation on a mirrorless, but if it depends upon an electronic viewfinder, there must be enough computing power to write the big picture rapidly otherwise the picture gets steppy and lags the movement of the camera. It's the achievment of these technical requirements that drives up the cost of the X-T1. You can buy a D60 kit including a lens for about £500. The X-T1 - body only - costs about £800 including £100 cashback, and there are offers around for a free vertical grip with an X-T1 body giving a price of £900 for body and grip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.