Personal gear review

[Brian]

A few years ago I got into photography after big hiatus and I got a Panasonic GX9 with a few lenses, then I caught the Fuji bug.
I got myself an XT-3 with the 35mm f1.4, 18mm f2m, 18-55 f2.8-f4, 50mm f2, 75-300, and a Viltrox 85mm f1.8.
Now in the last year I have used this camera maybe once..

Why? I couldn't let go of my favorite lens, my mitakon 25mm f0.95. I paired it with a Pen-F and it's been just perfect. The crappy AF of the pen-f is a non issue, the EVF is good enough and I am loving the output I get.
If I need AF, I grab my E-PL9 which is a tiny but very capable camera. I recreated my kit of tiny but powerful lenses (25mm f0.95, 10mm f2, P20mm f1.7, P12-32, O45-105R, Sigma 56mm f1.4) and I've not really needed more..

For some reason it doesn't spark joy anymore using the Fuji, I can't quite put my finger on why. Perhaps its the size or weight of the kit.

Every time I leave the house now, I have either a Pen-F with me or my lx 100 or a E-PL9 with some small prime. Or all of those, as they are tiny and don't weight too much.
And the tininess and weight is the biggest factor for me taking a camera.

Should I just sell the Fuji gear? I feel it's just depreciating in value and I've no use for it. I've even shot more with my tiny DxO One than the Fuji this year 😅

Here are my stats of pics taken:

View attachment 410175

Any recommendations? What would you do?

As my wife tells me: If you like it, keep it. If you use it, keep it. If you do not like it, and do not use it: sell it. I have done the latter for equipment that meets the criteria.

There are cameras and lenses that I've sold. BUT- most of those are to friends to get a lens that deserves more use. Or- just give it away.
I have some lenses that if you see them for sale, it means I am dead. This week, someone advised me that some lenses I worked on for a camera collector that I've known for 40+ years were now on Ebay. Meant one thing.

My personal gear review. Right. I'm thinking of buying another 6.5ft bookshelf so I can unpack some boxes of lenses. Adapters to Z-mount opened up use of al least 60 more lenses.

 

[davidzvi]

.....
Every time I leave the house now, I have either a Pen-F with me or my lx 100 or a E-PL9 with some small prime.
.....
Any recommendations? What would you do?

I think this first line answers your last line question.

Yes, you could try an X-E3/4, you might find that what you actually like is the Rangefinder style and dislike the SLR style. There are times I like the SLR style, but in general, I prefer Rangefinder with or without an EVF. I'm more often than not shooting at an angle where eye to the EVF would be uncomfortable anyway.

As for Fuji vs m4/3? I've gone back and forth a few times. Both have their advantages, both have their annoyances. IBIS in a Rangefinder body when shooting at an odd angle is the biggest for me. If the X-E5 comes out with IBIS I might look again, but then OM Systems could release a Pen F mkII sealed with Phase AF. But then.....

 

[Tili]

I think this first line answers your last line question.

Yes, you could try an X-E3/4, you might find that what you actually like is the Rangefinder style and dislike the SLR style. There are times I like the SLR style, but in general, I prefer Rangefinder with or without an EVF. I'm more often than not shooting at an angle where eye to the EVF would be uncomfortable anyway.

As for Fuji vs m4/3? I've gone back and forth a few times. Both have their advantages, both have their annoyances. IBIS in a Rangefinder body when shooting at an odd angle is the biggest for me. If the X-E5 comes out with IBIS I might look again, but then OM Systems could release a Pen F mkII sealed with Phase AF. But then.....

Ugh, so true!

Trigger warning (equipment abuse):
The reason why I enjoy rangefinders more is that I often leave cameras in my shoulder bag, lens attached.
No padding, no lens caps even, but the do have hoods. If cameras have EVF bumps it's much harder to do this. It's bulkier and snags on everything.

Here is an example:

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

This is would be my setup with an additional long lens in there as well (like the sigma 56mm f1.4 or O45-150R)

I agree though, the X-E4, while interesting is too minimal for my taste. And the X-E3 is the about same price as a Pen-F and I don't think they compare.
Xe-4: Fiddling with touch screen gestures to change a setting "quickly" sounds like a pain. X-E3 screen doesn't move.

A Pen-F mk2 or GX9 mk2 will probably seal the deal. For now though, I will just be patient and slowly offload some Fuji glass I rarely use or that didn't spark joy.

 

[Bobby T]

I spent a lot of time shooting with the Fuji 27mm 2.8 and 50-230 on a recent family trip. I've known that the 50-230 was one of Fuji's lenses which offers a lot of bang for the buck performance. But I never got along well with 27mm(40mm FF). Now that I have spent some quality time with both, I realize what a great kit these two lenses make. At first, my thought was to say these lenses paired with the body of choice make an excellent travel kit. But my brain amended that to be a great light weight kit at any time. Especially if paired with a smaller XE body. But even on the X-T3 it was very light weight. Aside from being light weight, these lenses are capable of delivering really good images.

Of course, with lower cost lenses there has to be some possible cons. Despite having great marks in the pros column. For me, the lack of an aperture ring on the lenses is a big one. Using the camera dials to change aperture on a Fuji feels a lot more clunky than it did on a DSLR. Plus my Fuji muscle memory had me grabbing for the non existent aperture ring a lot. Next con for me was the lack of weather resistance/weather sealing. Not a deal breaker. But at times I do take my gear into bad conditions. Although there are now two 27mm primes for Fuji with weather sealing. And the last one for me is a prime only going to 2.8. I understand Fuji did this to keep the lens small. For me, the small size doesn't matter. I'd prefer to have a f1-f1.4 aperture. If I were going to go with a 2.8 prime. Fuji has one lens with several 2.8 primes built into it in the 16-55 2.8.

 

[rayvonn]

I spent a lot of time shooting with the Fuji 27mm 2.8 and 50-230 on a recent family trip. I've known that the 50-230 was one of Fuji's lenses which offers a lot of bang for the buck performance. But I never got along well with 27mm(40mm FF). Now that I have spent some quality time with both, I realize what a great kit these two lenses make. At first, my thought was to say these lenses paired with the body of choice make an excellent travel kit. But my brain amended that to be a great light weight kit at any time. Especially if paired with a smaller XE body. But even on the X-T3 it was very light weight. Aside from being light weight, these lenses are capable of delivering really good images.

Of course, with lower cost lenses there has to be some possible cons. Despite having great marks in the pros column. For me, the lack of an aperture ring on the lenses is a big one. Using the camera dials to change aperture on a Fuji feels a lot more clunky than it did on a DSLR. Plus my Fuji muscle memory had me grabbing for the non existent aperture ring a lot. Next con for me was the lack of weather resistance/weather sealing. Not a deal breaker. But at times I do take my gear into bad conditions. Although there are now two 27mm primes for Fuji with weather sealing. And the last one for me is a prime only going to 2.8. I understand Fuji did this to keep the lens small. For me, the small size doesn't matter. I'd prefer to have a f1-f1.4 aperture. If I were going to go with a 2.8 prime. Fuji has one lens with several 2.8 primes built into it in the 16-55 2.8.

I personally found the 27mm to be delightful in daylight and curiously found the bokeh to be very good, the fact that it was an F2.8 lens on an APSC system never seemed to matter. I suppose size is the major consideration when considering a purchase like this.

 

[MiguelATF]

I spent a lot of time shooting with the Fuji 27mm 2.8 and 50-230 on a recent family trip. I've known that the 50-230 was one of Fuji's lenses which offers a lot of bang for the buck performance. But I never got along well with 27mm(40mm FF). Now that I have spent some quality time with both, I realize what a great kit these two lenses make. At first, my thought was to say these lenses paired with the body of choice make an excellent travel kit. But my brain amended that to be a great light weight kit at any time. Especially if paired with a smaller XE body. But even on the X-T3 it was very light weight. Aside from being light weight, these lenses are capable of delivering really good images.

Of course, with lower cost lenses there has to be some possible cons. Despite having great marks in the pros column. For me, the lack of an aperture ring on the lenses is a big one. Using the camera dials to change aperture on a Fuji feels a lot more clunky than it did on a DSLR. Plus my Fuji muscle memory had me grabbing for the non existent aperture ring a lot. Next con for me was the lack of weather resistance/weather sealing. Not a deal breaker. But at times I do take my gear into bad conditions. Although there are now two 27mm primes for Fuji with weather sealing. And the last one for me is a prime only going to 2.8. I understand Fuji did this to keep the lens small. For me, the small size doesn't matter. I'd prefer to have a f1-f1.4 aperture. If I were going to go with a 2.8 prime. Fuji has one lens with several 2.8 primes built into it in the 16-55 2.8.

Thanks for posting this Bobby, it contains a lot of interesting food for thought.
Just one brief note about the small 27mm lens - if I'm not mistaken, the newer (v.II) version of the lens is both weather-sealed and has an aperture ring, two big pluses in my book.

 

[Bobby T]

I personally found the 27mm to be delightful in daylight and curiously found the bokeh to be very good, the fact that it was an F2.8 lens on an APSC system never seemed to matter. I suppose size is the major consideration when considering a purchase like this.

I think for me, since I've had the 16-55 anytime I need a zoom. It seems like it makes more sense than a single focal length lens at 2.8. But that is a personal choice which doesn't apply for most. Also, the 27 2.8 has the major advantage in size/weight.

Thanks for posting this Bobby, it contains a lot of interesting food for thought.
Just one brief note about the small 27mm lens - if I'm not mistaken, the newer (v.II) version of the lens is both weather-sealed and has an aperture ring, two big pluses in my book.

It is. As is the Viltrox 27mm Pro which was recently released. Although that lens is as big as the 50 f1.

 

[drd1135]

I think this first line answers your last line question.

Yes, you could try an X-E3/4, you might find that what you actually like is the Rangefinder style and dislike the SLR style. There are times I like the SLR style, but in general, I prefer Rangefinder with or without an EVF. I'm more often than not shooting at an angle where eye to the EVF would be uncomfortable anyway.

As for Fuji vs m4/3? I've gone back and forth a few times. Both have their advantages, both have their annoyances. IBIS in a Rangefinder body when shooting at an odd angle is the biggest for me. If the X-E5 comes out with IBIS I might look again, but then OM Systems could release a Pen F mkII sealed with Phase AF. But then.....

Now there’s a source of speculation. Fuji releasing an X-E5 vs. OMS releasing a Pen F II. I’d lean toward Fuji. The last Pen (EP7) didn’t even get released in the US.

 

[davidzvi]

Now there’s a source of speculation. Fuji releasing an X-E5 vs. OMS releasing a Pen F II. I’d lean toward Fuji. The last Pen (EP7) didn’t even get released in the US.

Not officially, but an X-E5 would only even reach the level of "worth a look" for me if it had IBIS.

 

[agentlossing]

I'm considering whether my experiment with the little Soviet LC-A might be near an end. I developed another roll (albeit of 100 speed film, Acros II, which doesn't help) and was again disappointed with the results. It's hard to get anything clear or sharp, or in focus, because of the automatic shutter and aperture always picking settings which aren't ideal.

If the camera was capable of using high speed film, I'd shoot HP5 at 800 or 1600 and probably get some cool high-contrast images that I think would fit the lens aesthetic well, but it's stuck at under 400 due to the old GOST setting. That's the only true Achilles heel to using this old camera the way I'd like to. As it is, it's hard to bring it out knowing that I'd get a better shot with any of my other options.

 

[agentlossing]

To append to the above thought, I'm very interested in the compact film camera project which Mint is working on... it might replace the LC-A as a small, easy to carry film camera... though it isn't likely to be inexpensive.

 

[MoonMind]

I'm considering whether my experiment with the little Soviet LC-A might be near an end. I developed another roll (albeit of 100 speed film, Acros II, which doesn't help) and was again disappointed with the results. It's hard to get anything clear or sharp, or in focus, because of the automatic shutter and aperture always picking settings which aren't ideal.

If the camera was capable of using high speed film, I'd shoot HP5 at 800 or 1600 and probably get some cool high-contrast images that I think would fit the lens aesthetic well, but it's stuck at under 400 due to the old GOST setting. That's the only true Achilles heel to using this old camera the way I'd like to. As it is, it's hard to bring it out knowing that I'd get a better shot with any of my other options.

It would have been lovely to hear that this nifty little camera was capable of satisfactory imagery - but I have to agree that only "Lomo" level results hardly ever justify comparable prices.

I think it's quite interesting though that its 120 format sibling, the LC-A 120, is capable of really appealing images. Its build quality is atrocious, though - pity, because form factor, concept and lens are all great. It's just about three times the price it should command, considering materials and manufacturing.

Indeed, Lomography is very much a "concept" company IME: mostly great ideas, mostly (though, somewhat irritatingly, not always) flimsy or even crappy execution.

That said, my results with their Instax cameras (Lomo'Instant series) were somewhat better than expected - but they're capricious as well. The Lomo'Instant Automat Glass (for Instax Mini) is a nice camera - one that would be actually compelling if it had a shutter that enabled it to work in bright daylight and didn't force me to always carry a 3-stop ND ... The Automat Glass has a much better lens than the Leica Sofort, but the latter gives me reliable results in most lighting scenarios the film can handle. With the Automat Glass, experimentation is the name of the game - including many botched frames on expensive instant film. I prefer reliability to excitement in such a case ...

M.

 

[agentlossing]

It would have been lovely to hear that this nifty little camera was capable of satisfactory imagery - but I have to agree that only "Lomo" level results hardly ever justify comparable prices.

I think it's quite interesting though that its 120 format sibling, the LC-A 120, is capable of really appealing images. Its build quality is atrocious, though - pity, because form factor, concept and lens are all great. It's just about three times the price it should command, considering materials and manufacturing.

Indeed, Lomography is very much a "concept" company IME: mostly great ideas, mostly (though, somewhat irritatingly, not always) flimsy or even crappy execution.

That said, my results with their Instax cameras (Lomo'Instant series) were somewhat better than expected - but they're capricious as well. The Lomo'Instant Automat Glass (for Instax Mini) is a nice camera - one that would be actually compelling if it had a shutter that enabled it to work in bright daylight and didn't force me to always carry a 3-stop ND ... The Automat Glass has a much better lens than the Leica Sofort, but the latter gives me reliable results in most lighting scenarios the film can handle. With the Automat Glass, experimentation is the name of the game - including many botched frames on expensive instant film. I prefer reliability to excitement in such a case ...

M.

The Lomography version of the LC-A, the LC-A+, would be an interesting proposition if it weren't more expensive than I'm ready to pay for the what's almost exactly the same camera that cost me $100. $300 for a camera that reportedly feels more like a toy than the already-plastic Soviet version, but goes up to ISO 1600 for faster shutter speeds and/or a more closed-down aperture. I think the aesthetic of shooting a film like HP5+ at 1600 in the LC-A+ could be fun. But it's a little outside of my discretionary "just for fun" range.

 

[Bobby T]

A few words on the Fuji 56mm 1.2r. I reacquired one of these a few months ago. At the time looking to go back to a smallish two lens kit. Having been a favorite in the past, combined with finding one in like new condition for $400. This was a no brainer for the kit. The 56 1.2r is still a great lens for people shooting. As well as landscapes and several other types of shots. While it has the less desirable dc focus motor. Which can be noisy and a little clunky feeling. Size and weight wise it falls well in the middle of the 50mm f2 and the 50mm f1. If one does not need or want an ultra lightweight kit. The 56 1.2r, especially at the $400 price point, is a serious contender.

There are two cons to the 56r. Which will most likely lead to me selling it. Both of these points are not major strikes against the lens. But they hit on my personal wants and needs. The first, which will not be as big to most shooters, is the lack of any weather resistance. Those that have known me on here for some time. Know I on occasion, get out into some really bad conditions to shoot. The WR Fuji gear has never let me down. I like to have that piece of mind that I can go shoot without weather related concerns. The second thing, is that the sunstars are really underwhelming. At some point over the last few years without realizing it. Sunstars have become really important to me. All of Fuji's newest lenses produce excellent sunstars. Unfortunately, the 56r falls short. So, as they would say on Forged In Fire. 56mm 1.2r, it is for this reason we have to ask you to leave.

 

[agentlossing]

Something coming up on the near horizon is a trip to Athens for my wife and I: about a week there, not counting the flights (which sound miserable, but I'll steel myself and hopefully survive being cooped up for so long). This coming January is our tenth wedding anniversary, and Greece seems like one of the decent spots to visit in the winter where we can soak up some old world culture and sights. Obviously, it has me pondering gear, trying to decide where to come down on the balance between size/weight/amount of gear packed to image quality and versatility. Plus, we're going to pack light (carry-on size bags which can be checked if needed, as one of the airlines seems to have more restrictive dimensions and rules than the others).

The first question I have to answer, then, is whether I want to bring my Pentax gear. I asked for advice on Pentax Forums, and also took my K-1 II with the 31mm Limited and new-to-me FA 50mm f1.4 - and threw in the cheap DA 55-300mm which I still have for some reason - on an overnight trip to Victoria, British Columbia. The verdict (from a lot of the PF users as well as my neck/shoulders after lugging the Pentax gear on a lot of walking over the weekend) is that I should probably leave the K-1 behind. It's not a good kit for running around a foreign city (even one where I can read all the signs and understand how to navigate the streets). My Brevite backpack makes accessing the camera somewhat painless, but the straps do disagree with me after a while, changing lenses is conspicuous and takes too long, and it's both noticeable and a bit loud, so I am not about to start taking photos of Athenians when there's a language barrier.

Quite a few people recommended I just take the GRIIIx. It does appeal to me from a simplicity standpoint, and I'd enjoy the challenge of seeing a brand new city purely through the 40mm lens. However, because it's Athens, I think the lack of anything wider would ultimately leave me with regrets, unless I could possibly stitch together wide shots from the GR. I should try that out, in advance of making a final decision, actually. There will be architecture and scenery which I really won't want to be unable to fit into the frame or capture in a way that I like.

Casting my thoughts about, I suddenly remembered that I still have the little Olympus EM5 II, though the only lens I have for it presently is a manual TTartisans 23mm, which is heavy for its size and slow to use. But the excellent IBIS and the still-good output of the 16mp sensor are positives. I am heavily leaning towards getting a versatile zoom for the EM5 II and bringing that along with the GR, and calling that very small but capable setup sufficient. Even if I didn't keep the zoom long-term, it would be a good investment for this need. I'm leaning towards the 12-45mm f4 Pro, which I've tried out in a shop. Extremely nice IQ in a very small size. I initially pooh-poohed this lens as an f4 maximum aperture in M4/3 world is really slow... but when you get sharp, great looking shots at f4 all the way through the zoom range, it gets a little better. 24mm is maybe not even wide enough for some of the opportunities I might find for myself, but it's a better way to capture a church interior in a pinch (on a small, quiet camera with fantastic IBIS) than nothing.

Thoughts still developing. It would be nice to bring film gear, as I feel there's something special about exploring a new place with a film camera, but it comes back to size/weight issues.

 

[John King]

Something coming up on the near horizon is a trip to Athens for my wife and I: about a week there, not counting the flights (which sound miserable, but I'll steel myself and hopefully survive being cooped up for so long). This coming January is our tenth wedding anniversary, and Greece seems like one of the decent spots to visit in the winter where we can soak up some old world culture and sights. Obviously, it has me pondering gear, trying to decide where to come down on the balance between size/weight/amount of gear packed to image quality and versatility. Plus, we're going to pack light (carry-on size bags which can be checked if needed, as one of the airlines seems to have more restrictive dimensions and rules than the others).

The first question I have to answer, then, is whether I want to bring my Pentax gear. I asked for advice on Pentax Forums, and also took my K-1 II with the 31mm Limited and new-to-me FA 50mm f1.4 - and threw in the cheap DA 55-300mm which I still have for some reason - on an overnight trip to Victoria, British Columbia. The verdict (from a lot of the PF users as well as my neck/shoulders after lugging the Pentax gear on a lot of walking over the weekend) is that I should probably leave the K-1 behind. It's not a good kit for running around a foreign city (even one where I can read all the signs and understand how to navigate the streets). My Brevite backpack makes accessing the camera somewhat painless, but the straps do disagree with me after a while, changing lenses is conspicuous and takes too long, and it's both noticeable and a bit loud, so I am not about to start taking photos of Athenians when there's a language barrier.

Quite a few people recommended I just take the GRIIIx. It does appeal to me from a simplicity standpoint, and I'd enjoy the challenge of seeing a brand new city purely through the 40mm lens. However, because it's Athens, I think the lack of anything wider would ultimately leave me with regrets, unless I could possibly stitch together wide shots from the GR. I should try that out, in advance of making a final decision, actually. There will be architecture and scenery which I really won't want to be unable to fit into the frame or capture in a way that I like.

Agree with your above reasoning, Andrew.

Casting my thoughts about, I suddenly remembered that I still have the little Olympus EM5 II, though the only lens I have for it presently is a manual TTartisans 23mm, which is heavy for its size and slow to use. But the excellent IBIS and the still-good output of the 16mp sensor are positives. I am heavily leaning towards getting a versatile zoom for the EM5 II and bringing that along with the GR, and calling that very small but capable setup sufficient. Even if I didn't keep the zoom long-term, it would be a good investment for this need. I'm leaning towards the 12-45mm f4 Pro, which I've tried out in a shop. Extremely nice IQ in a very small size. I initially pooh-poohed this lens as an f4 maximum aperture in M4/3 world is really slow... but when you get sharp, great looking shots at f4 all the way through the zoom range, it gets a little better. 24mm is maybe not even wide enough for some of the opportunities I might find for myself, but it's a better way to capture a church interior in a pinch (on a small, quiet camera with fantastic IBIS) than nothing.

Personally, I find that my 12-100 rarely leaves my E-M1 MkII. With (relatively) modern sensors and modern PP software, f/4 is perfectly usable.

Combined with an f/1.8 prime of choice for dark times.

I also take my 8-25, f/1.8 25 and 75-300 MkII.

Or, the f/4 12-45 plus the f/1.8 75?

Thoughts still developing. It would be nice to bring film gear, as I feel there's something special about exploring a new place with a film camera, but it comes back to size/weight issues.

KISS, mate.
When you start talking about "taking film gear", that starts to sound complicated to me!

 

[agentlossing]

KISS, mate.
When you start talking about "taking film gear", that starts to sound complicated to me!

True, true! I enjoyed walking Boston for the first time with the little Ricoh 500G and B&W film, and I'd love to recapture that sometime. The Pentax MX and 50mm f1.7 wouldn't be a whole lot of extra gear to pack... but you're right, simple is better. Even just having the Pentax MX along for the ride would present me with the agony of choice when setting out for the day. A small Olympus paired with a GR that's small enough to ride in a pants pocket without even thinking about it is a pretty freeing kit, methinks.

 

[MoonMind]

Casting my thoughts about, I suddenly remembered that I still have the little Olympus EM5 II, though the only lens I have for it presently is a manual TTartisans 23mm, which is heavy for its size and slow to use. But the excellent IBIS and the still-good output of the 16mp sensor are positives. I am heavily leaning towards getting a versatile zoom for the EM5 II and bringing that along with the GR, and calling that very small but capable setup sufficient. Even if I didn't keep the zoom long-term, it would be a good investment for this need. I'm leaning towards the 12-45mm f4 Pro, which I've tried out in a shop. Extremely nice IQ in a very small size. I initially pooh-poohed this lens as an f4 maximum aperture in M4/3 world is really slow... but when you get sharp, great looking shots at f4 all the way through the zoom range, it gets a little better. 24mm is maybe not even wide enough for some of the opportunities I might find for myself, but it's a better way to capture a church interior in a pinch (on a small, quiet camera with fantastic IBIS) than nothing.

I can attest to the fantastic quality of the 12-45mm f/4 PRO; what I'd do (but that's also a question of budget, of course) is combine that lens with the OM System 20mm f/1.4 for low-light shooting and the equally wonderful Panasonic 9mm f/1.7. In fact, that's very similar to the setup I'm packing for impromptu city travel on my own if (and that's important) it's going to be photo-centric: OM-D E-M5 III, 12-45mm f/4 PRO, Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 II (because that's what I have - and I love the rendering; I know that the 20mm f/1.4 is the better lens in all respects, though), Panasonic 9mm f/1.7. Fits in the smallest of bags (literally, i.e. ThinkTank Retrospective 4, though I usually pick the 5 because it also has room for the e-reader and some additional odds and ends).

The lens I wanted to mention specifically is the Panasonic 9mm f/1.7 - that'll take care of all ultra-wide needs. And it's fully capable of keeping up with the little PRO zoom.

M.

 

[MoonMind]

On a totally different note, my Leica M 262 has developed a sticky rangefinder coupling lever - time for a serious overhaul; I hope it can be done "in shop" or at least in Switzerland, or I'll have to wait for months to get it back; irritating because it's both my silently favourite Leica body (not my best - the M10 firmly holds that spot and thankfully is also rewarding to shoot) and the one I consider to be a backup, not one I kind of need a backup for. But it's what it is; since I don't know why the stickiness happened, I'll have to have a specialist look at it. It's still possible a little lubrication will solve things - that's something I could probably do myself. But if the coupling lever is damaged, it's a completely different kettle of fish, unfortunately. I'll have to see ...

M.

 

[John King]

True, true! I enjoyed walking Boston for the first time with the little Ricoh 500G and B&W film, and I'd love to recapture that sometime. The Pentax MX and 50mm f1.7 wouldn't be a whole lot of extra gear to pack... but you're right, simple is better. Even just having the Pentax MX along for the ride would present me with the agony of choice when setting out for the day. A small Olympus paired with a GR that's small enough to ride in a pants pocket without even thinking about it is a pretty freeing kit, methinks.

Andrew, these days, I almost always travel by car, so carrying 3 kits on the back seat is hardly a problem.

My good lady wife is reconnecting with ILCs, using my E-M1 MkI + 12-50 macro and 40-150R.