Personal gear review

[drd1135]

The last few days I've been stuck in a following circular dreaming:




I noticed that this cycle does, in fact, repeat.

Was Df’s high iso capability that good that mirrorless alternatives could only get to 95%? I don’t quite get that.

 

[christilou]

Seems like that time of year ...... I've been thinking I have far too much stuff of late. I hardly ever use the Leica M10. My eyesight is not what it was and although I have the evf it's still not practical for daily family photography ..... with a toddler granddaughter and a dog! I sort of feel that it's best suited for travel..... although none of us is going anywhere any time soon That leaves me with the Sony A9 which is very good for it's focussing abilities, a fairly redundant A7RIII and the tiny Sony RX1R II which I also bought for pie in the sky travel purposes. Thinking more carefully now about what I really need.

 

[Bobby Tingle]

As of now, I have the X-Pro2/X-E3/X100F for bodies. With all four Fujicrons and the 90mm F2. Plus we have my son's X-E2 and 55-230. I am well settled into this kit. My plan is to stay with these. Replacing the bodies when/if one breaks down. And possibly getting a telephoto lens down the road.

My GAS will be in the area of lighting, modifiers, backdrops, props, etc.

 

[tonyturley]

It would be silly of me to say what I'm going to do in the future, as I seem to have a history of changing my mind often with my camera gear. But for now, I have an X-E2, X-T2, and XF 18 f2, plus an adapted Pen F 38/1.8. I'm hoping the "epic Fujifilm X summit" (per FujiRumors) on October 15 has some news about the XF 27 Mk II.

 

[agentlossing]

My gear collection is a lot smaller, a little more expensive, but a lot less random than it used to be; it feels honed-in now.

 

[mike3996]

Was Df’s high iso capability that good that mirrorless alternatives could only get to 95%? I don’t quite get that.

Something like that, yes, perhaps.

The truth is that Df's high ISO was overrated from the start. Back in the day Canon 6D that wasn't much of a camera in high ISO department, was compared against Df and when the print sizes were matched, 6D was very close to Df in ISO 25.6k. And thanks to 50% more megapixels, 6D performs much more favorably in low-ISO situations.

But there's that last "5 percent" of high-ISO performance that still keeps Df in the running.

And in any event, while I exclude Sony from consideration, they would probably beat Df left-handed any day of the week.

 

[pdk42]

I've been around the houses a lot of late. I jumped into m43 back in 2012 when it was in its ascendency (from Canon FF DSLR - 5Dii) and found it a very liberating experience. I since built a decent Olympus system (including buying a 75/1.8 from @christilou) and apart from a brief dabble with a Sony A7rii some years back I've been pretty faithful to m43. Then in May this year I upgraded from the E-M1ii to the E-M1iii and was a bit underwhelmed. At about this time I'd been musing (again) about FF and liked the look of the Nikon Z system. Then there was the JIP announcement so it seemed a good time to move on and I bought a Z7 with the 14-30, 24-70 and TTArtisan 11mm fisheye (I like fisheyes). I also ordered the 24-200 but it was on back-order everywhere.

So I ran with the Nikon system over the summer and into the autumn but bit by bit I found that despite its stellar IQ, I just didn't enjoy shooting with it as much as the Olympus cameras. Then I eventually received the 24-200 that I'd had on order for months and was somewhat disappointed in it. I'd hoped for something as good as the 12-100, but it just wasn't. I need (no, I really do!) 200mm equiv FL for landscape and I realised that the only other alternative with the Nikon was the 70-200 f2.8 which is huge, heavy and pushing £2.5k!

I then went back and looked closely at the images I was producing and how I was using them and came to the conclusion that apart from the dubious pleasure of admiring the IQ at 1:1 in LR the Nikon was making no practical difference to my photography in terms of output. Worse, it was actually impeding some of the enjoyment and in fact some of the shooting opportunities (e.g. to get some shots of summer lightning storms I used the E-M1 since the Nikon has no LiveComp mode).

So, the obvious thing to do was to admit my mistake and back-track. So, I sold all the Nikon gear. The financial loss wasn't as bad as it might have been since I bought most of it as grey imports and sold it for only a couple of hundred less on eBay.

So, I'm now back with the E-M1iii, 8mm fisheye, PL 8-18, 12-100, and 40-150. I'm watching the planned Olympus 8-25 as a possible replacement for the 8-18, but other than that I'm not planning any moves at all.

 

[MoonMind]

I've been paying a bit more attention to the user experience of some of my cameras ... and I have discovered a pet peeve with two quite different bodies that bugs me somewhat, especially since I'm used to putting my focus exactly where I want it:

Both the Olympus E-M5 III and the Fujifilm X-E3 struggle to lock focus (single point, no less) on smaller foreground subjects against a busy/contrasty background in heavy back-lighting. This is quite a nuisance and has cost me a couple of shots in which I discovered the lack of sharpness in post. I'm not used to having to chimp when working on static subjects with single-point AF-S ... Now I'll try to get to the bottom of this; I like that kind of shot a lot and want to be sure to get the desired results. Yes, I know I can focus manually, but I want to know what limitations apply - after all, I own a couple of bodies precisely because they have AF - like the X-E3 ... If I want that gestalt for manual focusing, I pick a Leica. Next up is the Panasonic GX9 ... probably with the Olympus 12-45mm f/4, in order to cover that lens' behaviour, too (it was on the E-M5 III when I discovered the issue).

On a different note, I'll do a crazy comparison (not so crazy, come to think of it) soon: The Fujifilm 90mm f/2 WR on the X-E3 against the Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S on the Z 50. Very close in size and weight - let's see about performance. As much as I like the 90mm, I think the 85mm has a lot of potential ...

M.

 

[MoonMind]

The heat is on ...

M.

 

[mike3996]

I hope my house hunting, moving, settling in will postpone things for the next 3-4 months. Dark winter is an apt time to move.

My assumptions for 2021:

I will probably be buying both Nikon Z6 and Panasonic G9. Probably not the same time though!

If I'm being weak in the spine (and the head) perhaps Leica M10R, who knows. Hopefully not!

Ultimately my strategy is to fight off Leica M upgrades until M11 or an EVF-M specs emerge. You may know this already, my biggest dream is to have a Leica M -sized FF camera that would have very suitable live view capabilities for an occasional adapted lens. The sad thing is that M10(R) may already fulfill my dream but I don't have anywhere to test the camera out so the wait is on.

 

[Bobby Tingle]

I found the one area my gear was lacking in for my work was low light AF performance. The X-Pro2 and X-E3 do pretty well in low light. With the X-T2 being a little better. But as I have already mentioned in other threads. The opportunity to make a huge jump in low light AF performance presented itself. I can say, now that the X-T3 is in hand and updated to firmware 4.0. It was the right decision to make. Despite photography not being and area currently to throw money at. But life has taught me to get while the opportunity is there. And now I'll have for when I can shoot bands/events more regularly.

 

[agentlossing]

Lately I have been hankering after a Rollei 35, because the G.A.S. never sleeps! I got a photobook published by someone on another forum where he used the 35 for a long time with the same film and processing, resulting in a body of really cool impressionistic B&W work. I always like the idea of truly tiny 35mm cameras, and had a Minox 35 for a while, but could never get along with it since manipulating the tiny controls was unpleasant. The aperture ring on the lens had no click stops and was very small and fiddly, you couldn't access it from underneath since the fold-down lens cover was in the way, and the shutter release had basically no feedback. I parted with the Minox after very little use.

The Rollei looks like a much more robust tiny camera, and the CLA'd ones available from Film Furbish are actually a good deal, along with a warranty. Scale focus is fine, I enjoyed that when I had a working Konica C35 Auto years ago. But... my Ricoh 500G is only a little bigger, and I seldom use it now, even though I've been really happy with the photos I've taken with it. The responsible thing to do is to carry around and shoot the 500G for a while, before making any more purchases, so I'm going to make myself do that.

The one expenditure which I feel like could make sense is a better film scanner. Since I only shoot 35mm right now, I've looked at a couple of the Plustek models and the Pacific Image Powerfilm CCD. All are expensive for single-purpose machines, especially the Pacific Image, but the appeal of putting multiple film strips into a feeder is quite strong, after fiddling with the poor film holder in my Epson V550 for so long. These machines all get very mixed reviews, it seems to me that it takes some time and determination to get one working well, and maybe a little luck as well. But if I could speed up the scanning process as well as obtain better scan quality, that would really fix the pain point I feel when shooting film.

 

[Bobby Tingle]

I came to realize this week. That while during nearly all of my time in photography. I have always gravitated to primes. Using zooms sparingly. But somewhere along the way, due in no small part to one amazing lens from Fuji. I keep gravitating back to a zoom. Specifically the 16-55. This time around I ordered a new one. Which is only significant due to the cost, even with rebate, doesn't allow for selling without taking a big loss. So I'm staying with this one.

 

[mike3996]

• ⤹Nikon Df and optical view might not be for me.
• ⤹Mirrorless FF is great: 95% of Df's high-ISO capability and adaptability combined with wysiwyg exposure and stabilization.
• ⤹No mirrorless FF camera really tickles my fancy. All have their flaws and unknowns.
• ⤹The one mirrorless camera that does tickle, despite not being FF: Pana G9. The major selling point: the lightweight M4/3 lenses. <= MIKE IS AGAIN HERE
• ⤹M4/3 lenses are quite expensive after all, when put against legacy SLR lenses.
• ⤹Nikon Df is the best platform (DSLR with automatic aperture stopdown) that can take pre-Ai lenses

And the cycle it keeps repeating... So funny in a way.

Last week I was all about Z6: affordable, cool, compact. Then on Saturday I turned towards S5 because I think it's a better fit, software-wise: over night it transformed into this magical box of perfection that'll do everything for me. And then come Monday I started to realize it's still a digital computer that simply won't offer me the fun factor of Leica M so why bother, at that cost (€2k+).

M4/3 is inherently digital platform so digitality matters less. And the lenses weigh so much less. And the picture doesn't threaten my Leica M.

Give it a couple of days and I start to realize again how the M4/3 lenses cost a fortune compared to (D)SLR lenses and I get back to Df or Z6 or S5.

 

[mike3996]

Having a walk in darkness I had a moment of clarity about what I should do about the camera circus.

1. Buy a lightweight but sufficiently sturdy tripod;
2. Buy the G9;
3. Enjoy.

On the matter of Tripods

It has been sheer idiocy on my part to even remotely let myself wish that whatever camera I happen to buy would be perfect up to any ISO sensitivity. Or that an IBIS can sensibly replace a tripod.

As much as I hate being confined to a tripod and hauling it with me unnecessarily it's the only sensible way to capture sharp exposures at low ISO.

I do own a tripod and hate working with it. But it's a super cheap penny-store tripod -- no wonder it won't cut it for me. Spending a hundred or three on a smooth ballhead tripod is surely a smart investment. It'll be useful with G9; it'll be useful with Leica M.

I thought M was not very good with tripods with its limitations with the live view. But it is a most reasonable assumption that a better tripod will cover over the issues much better.

In fact I just ordered an L plate for my Leica M. It shall perhaps trigger more actions on my part, once it gets here in January.

On the matter of mirrorless cameras

G9 is the thing that I need the most. For real reasons of "need", not just wants. These full frame cameras are more obviously in the "want" column and I also have a strong feeling that should I buy one of them, they'd quickly fall into "I don't care" column. Sad to say, much like the fate the Nikon Df has suffered.

If I play this scenario in my head, I buy a Nikon Z6 and am impressed with the performance. Now what lenses shall I buy for it? UWA? Tele? Telezoom? Superzoom?

UWAs are nice but is any of them as nice as the TTArtisan offerings for Leica M? And teles and telezooms, aren't they big and heavy?

M4/3 is the promised land for zooms, is what I always say. M4/3 telezooms not only are small but also offer pleasant amounts of DOF control to play around with bokeh. The same can't be said for M4/3 normal zooms or UWA zooms but mid/tele zooms are the zooms that most speak to me.

When it comes to primes Leica M is here to stay.

Am I excited about a Panasonic 85mm f/1.8 L prime? Am I excited about the Nikkor Z 85? Not really, no. I am excited about lenses such as Leica Summarit-M 75, Voigtländer 75 f/1.5, 75 APO, Voigtländer 90 Apo-Lanthar, Leica 90 Tele-Elmarit-M, even the 90 APO.

I want to buy more M mount glass. It's been 14 months since my last purchase!

Leica primes are here to stay. I own them, why not use them. Nikon Z6 and certain other cameras have suitably thin cover filters on their sensors to make M lenses somewhat tolerable on them. But it's going to be suboptimal anyway. Even with Leica SL, it's a suboptimal adaptation. No camera other than a genuine Leica M will fit these lenses the way they should be fit.

The idea of adapting lenses on a good host body has always intrigued me but those cameras, when used with adapted lenses, are at best jacks of all trades. They are masters of their native lenses at best.

Maintaining Panasonics as a good secondary system is good. It can live its own life next to Leica. With L mount or Z mount systems it is much the same story as with Df currently -- heavily underutilized.