GAS GAS: Please Share your Latest Desires Big and Small

I tried the X-T5 and will again. REALLY like the 2 way tilting LCD. I do a lot of off-angle shooting, so that's great. Didn't like the grip when holding it up to my eye.
I currently use an X-S10 and have become comfortable with the FA screen. I'll be honest that I want the sensor and the better AF of the XT5. I haven't quite ruled out the XH2 since used ones are now the same price as the new XT5, but the big advantages over the XT5 are mostly video, which I rarely do. I'm sure 4K 30p from the XT5 wouldn’t be the main reason I don’t get the Oscar for cinematography.
 
Last edited:
I'm still holding out for the Fuji X40, with a 1" Sony sensor and sharp f/2-4 24-85mm manual zoom lens.

I say this mostly in jest, because I doubt I could tell the difference in images between my X30 and the mythical X40. Besides, I finally realized just how easy it is to wirelessly transfer images from my 2014 X30 to my 2022 Galaxy tablet.
You aren't the only one that would like an X40 + 1" sensor with the manual zoom lens.
 
Not because it were sensible in any way (it isn't), but I feel a certain fascination for the Z 8; as long as I keep the Z 6, it could replace my Z 7 II ... I'd add all the benefits of the Z 9 without the whole of the bulk; it'd also differenciate between my everyday and top-of-the-line bodies better ... But of course, it's utter overkill, especially considering the merits of the Z 7 II - in many respects, they also exceed my needs. So, this'll probably never happen - in fact, if anything, it makes the GFX-100S worthy of consideration again. And thinking about that camera always leads me to the same conclusion: In the light of what the Z 7 II can do, it's just not necessary to go any further.

M.
 
Not because it were sensible in any way (it isn't), but I feel a certain fascination for the Z 8; as long as I keep the Z 6, it could replace my Z 7 II ... I'd add all the benefits of the Z 9 without the whole of the bulk; it'd also differenciate between my everyday and top-of-the-line bodies better ... But of course, it's utter overkill, especially considering the merits of the Z 7 II - in many respects, they also exceed my needs. So, this'll probably never happen - in fact, if anything, it makes the GFX-100S worthy of consideration again. And thinking about that camera always leads me to the same conclusion: In the light of what the Z 7 II can do, it's just not necessary to go any further.

M.
I understand. It looks like an amazing camera that would be oh so satisfying to shoot with.
 
Last edited:
I've just read this review of the Leica Q3. I've had to wipe the drool off this tablet before I could post this. Oh, if only I had a spare £5300 (plus case, etc, etc...). Maybe the Euromillions will be my friend tonight.
'News about your lottery ticket!' said the email...so I quickly logged on, and yes, I am £2.90 better off. Only £5297.10 to go!
 
I was scouring the evilBay, just out of curiosity, for a replacement for my departed Jimmy Bo 500 camera bag and I received 2 offers, and I want to ask you peeps which one should I go for:

1.jpg

The colour is the same as my old one but it's smaller, it will fit my Tamy 28-75mm f 2.8 G2 with my Sony A7 IV but nothing else.


2.jpg

This one is bigger and I might (not 100% sure) be able to fit both my Tamy f 2.8 zooms in ... but red is not exactly my colour and is very noticeable. But I mean for 19 £ it wouldn't be the worst bad purchase if I don't like it/use it.
 
I keep mulling over film bodies, as if there's nothing out there to satisfy my film shooting cravings, which is dumb. I just need to get something and use it and be somewhat satisfied with it for a while! Easier said than done.

I am considering a rangefinder again, but this time I am not really interested in a fixed-lens, and the options are all rather expensive for my taste. A Voigtlander M-mount rangefinder with an actual rangefinder-viewfinder (as opposed to my previous Bessa-T) has the advantage of newer materials, newer meter, etc. But they are expensive, not to mention the expense of the M-mount lens ecosystem. No matter how old or affordable M or even LTM lenses ought to be, they are always being driven up by Leica shooters who have a lot more disposable cash to burn than I do. In the vein of Leica, none of the Leica bodies really fall into my price range when I consider that I already have a full-fledged FF system camera (the K-1 II). It doesn't make sense to have two expensive systems at this point, I realized that right away when I got the K-1 and that's why I parted with the Bessa-T and 35mm Skopar, which I quite liked. LTM cameras and lenses are a tad cheaper, and I went as far as buying a Leica IIIf from a shop, but I'm returning it for some unlisted issues (don't want to pay separately for a CLA for the dim RF and nonworking slow shutter speeds). A good condition LTM Leica might be a good option still, but they come with the (slight) hassle of no meter, or using a hotshoe meter which I wouldn't be opposed to, but it's another expense. We'd be looking at several hundred minimum for a working body and several hundred more for a 50mm lens, since even the older LTM Leica fifties seem kind of expensive nowadays.

Counterpoint, there are SLRs I could use which would stay within the Pentax lens ecosystem. I do like that. My MX is exhibiting several recurring issues which lead me to think it's not reliable enough to put film into: film often gets stuck on transport, meter seems to work sometimes but not other times, transport lever doesn't reset unless you push it all the way in before cranking it. So, I could get another MX in better shape (a black one would be nice). I have also been looking at the MZ-3 for a lighter, comfortable autofocusing Pentax. But the viewfinders aren't quite as nice on that era of camera. Or, there are M42 mount cameras, some really nice Spotmatic models which would be very fun to use, with the bonus of M42 lenses being adaptible to the K-1 with the Pentax adapter, kind of pricey but not too out there as a one-time purchase. However, Spotmatics really suffer from the age and condition issue which plagues older film cameras at this point. My recent, as well as less recent, forays into Olympus OM cameras reinforced that since each of the ones I tried had issues (I could keep trying with those lovely OM cameras and lenses, but, again, the new system comes with the expense of adding lenses which can't really be used on other systems). M42 bodies do have the advantage, though, of really affordable lenses with some great optics and unique character in many cases.

The very latest thing I started browsing is the Voigtlander Bessaflex TM. A recent film body with the reliable, robust mechanics of the Bessa RF cameras, lightweight, great viewfinder, great meter. They're around $400 for a good condition body, plus there are lenses to buy, but again, they are affordable...

Hmm.
 
I keep mulling over film bodies, as if there's nothing out there to satisfy my film shooting cravings, which is dumb. I just need to get something and use it and be somewhat satisfied with it for a while! Easier said than done.

I am considering a rangefinder again, but this time I am not really interested in a fixed-lens, and the options are all rather expensive for my taste. A Voigtlander M-mount rangefinder with an actual rangefinder-viewfinder (as opposed to my previous Bessa-T) has the advantage of newer materials, newer meter, etc. But they are expensive, not to mention the expense of the M-mount lens ecosystem. No matter how old or affordable M or even LTM lenses ought to be, they are always being driven up by Leica shooters who have a lot more disposable cash to burn than I do. In the vein of Leica, none of the Leica bodies really fall into my price range when I consider that I already have a full-fledged FF system camera (the K-1 II). It doesn't make sense to have two expensive systems at this point, I realized that right away when I got the K-1 and that's why I parted with the Bessa-T and 35mm Skopar, which I quite liked. LTM cameras and lenses are a tad cheaper, and I went as far as buying a Leica IIIf from a shop, but I'm returning it for some unlisted issues (don't want to pay separately for a CLA for the dim RF and nonworking slow shutter speeds). A good condition LTM Leica might be a good option still, but they come with the (slight) hassle of no meter, or using a hotshoe meter which I wouldn't be opposed to, but it's another expense. We'd be looking at several hundred minimum for a working body and several hundred more for a 50mm lens, since even the older LTM Leica fifties seem kind of expensive nowadays.

Counterpoint, there are SLRs I could use which would stay within the Pentax lens ecosystem. I do like that. My MX is exhibiting several recurring issues which lead me to think it's not reliable enough to put film into: film often gets stuck on transport, meter seems to work sometimes but not other times, transport lever doesn't reset unless you push it all the way in before cranking it. So, I could get another MX in better shape (a black one would be nice). I have also been looking at the MZ-3 for a lighter, comfortable autofocusing Pentax. But the viewfinders aren't quite as nice on that era of camera. Or, there are M42 mount cameras, some really nice Spotmatic models which would be very fun to use, with the bonus of M42 lenses being adaptible to the K-1 with the Pentax adapter, kind of pricey but not too out there as a one-time purchase. However, Spotmatics really suffer from the age and condition issue which plagues older film cameras at this point. My recent, as well as less recent, forays into Olympus OM cameras reinforced that since each of the ones I tried had issues (I could keep trying with those lovely OM cameras and lenses, but, again, the new system comes with the expense of adding lenses which can't really be used on other systems). M42 bodies do have the advantage, though, of really affordable lenses with some great optics and unique character in many cases.

The very latest thing I started browsing is the Voigtlander Bessaflex TM. A recent film body with the reliable, robust mechanics of the Bessa RF cameras, lightweight, great viewfinder, great meter. They're around $400 for a good condition body, plus there are lenses to buy, but again, they are affordable...

Hmm.

I'm sorry to hear about your MX exhibiting issues, Andrew. I still have fond memories of my own MX's - I had two of them and used them both exhaustively over a few decades, before finally (perhaps foolishly?) selling them when I stopped shooting film regularly. I remember that, the relatively newish ones I had, always felt solid as a rock and reliable as well. Zero issues. But I can well imagine that, today, an MX might exhibit one or more issues. I also briefly owned, much more recently, an MZ-3 - and though I didn't use mine all that much, I found it to be a satisfying and enjoyable camera. In-hand, it felt at least as nice as my former MX's which surprised me, given its more plastic-y construction; but it still felt every bit as solid.

Viewfinders? Hmmm.... Back in the analog days, with my younger eyes, I wasn't as obsessed as I have been lately with viewfinder size, clarity or optics. The viewfinder of the MZ-3 seemed more than adequate to me, and reminded me of the viewfinders of my K200d's: not spectacularly wonderful, but more than good enough. But the Bessaflex TM sounds truly intriguing. Apparently, the Bessaflex possessed one of the brightest viewfinders of older screw-mount SLRs (supposedly "noticeably brighter" than that of the Fuji ST801, reputed to have one of the brightest finders of any 'classic' 42mm screw-mount SLR). And obviously, a decades newer camera hopefully won't be subject to the same mechanical issues of the older Pentaxes. But the best part is... there are a lot of very cool old screw-mount lenses, Takumars and others, that are waaaay more affordable than all those drool-worthy M-mount lenses. Of course, then you find yourself in the middle of the which-do-I-really-like-better debate between rangefinders and SLRs. In my own case, though I appreciate older rangefinders as beautiful bits of machinery, I gravitate toward SLRs as cameras I'd prefer to use. And... damn! those Bessaflexes look very cool.

The other interesting thing about the Bessaflexes are the radically different external body designs of the two colors they came in. Though the innards are the same, the black body Bessaflex was inspired by old Nikons, while the design of the silver-bodied ones take their design cues from Beseler Topcons. How cool is that? Both look quite handsome, in different ways.

If you do find one - and buy it - please share your impressions. I'd really love to hear more. I'll also, at the risk of complicating life, repeat that the MZ-3 is a truly enjoyable camera to use. Will they hold up as well as the newer (and more expensive) Bessaflexes? Who can say?
You've got some interesting choices ahead of you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top