Personal gear review

[rayvonn]

Just a short note because it's been an interesting bit of exploration so far ... A little tale about three Voigtländer 35mm lenses (with a Zeiss in the wings).

The Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 M.C. was my first M mount lens, and in spite of its many weaknesses (it comes bundled with all sorts of aberrations and some considerable focus shift issues), I keep liking it, even though some shots came out worse than expected because of its idiosyncracies. Rendering is "classic" (as the name suggests) mostly because of decidedly wild bokeh (swirly *and* rough) and lower than average contrast.

The Voigtländer Ultron Classic 35mm f/2 represented a breath of fresh air: even smaller, much sharper, and, though much better behaved, still quite a characterful lens in its own right. It's also contrasty and bold in its rendering - very useful, and almost, though not quite, a match for my all-time favourite compact 35mm, the Zeiss C Biogon ... Quite a feat for such a small, yet modestly fast lens!

The Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 II M.C. is my latest acquisition - and in many ways, it actually bridges the gap between the two earlier Voigtländer lenses: It's really quite well controlled when stopped down and sharper and contrastier than its predecessor wide open. Bokeh is a bit softer, but also muddier than the first version; the lens keeps the signature glow wide open that can, at times, be a bit imposing, especially at or near its minimum focus distance. However, what surprised me most is how good this lens is stopped down to f/2.8 or smaller; it outperforms its ancestor by a considerable margin and almost reaches the very solid levels of the tiny Ultron Classic while maintaining a slightly more balanced, less punchy rendering - quite pleasing, actually, and well suited for b&w conversions.

So, while versions I and II look almost the same and nothing major appears to have changed, you really get two distinct characteristics. This is certainly not what I was expecting - I thought the new lens would supersede the old one, not bring a new paradigm to the table ...

That begs the question: Which one of Noktons do I actually prefer? I have to admit that haven't made up my mind yet. I'd say that the original is definitely a keeper because it's so much fun to shoot on the M8 (and I've had worthwhile, if somewhat erratic results with the M10, too). The Mk II's wide open performance, while more predictable, is somewhat less striking ... but overall, optically, it can produce better results.

M.

I've come to appreciate the way the sunrays impose themselves on the images renderd by the Nokton classic.

 

[MiguelATF]

My own tug-of-war between Fuji and m4/3 continues. I very much like the compactness of the X-E2, dated as it is. The only lens I have for it is the old Pen F 38/1.8. It works fine, but from time to time I think about picking up one of the Fujicrons.

The IQ of my G95 + PL 12-60 is excellent, but it really isn't the most convenient combination for cycling. I've considered going back to all Fuji, then I remind myself I sold the X-T2 and 55-200 combo for the same reason; they were just not convenient for cycling. The P 45-150 may not match the 55-200 in IQ, but it's "good enough", and a lot easier to carry when I want to use a zoom. Although I don't use the zoom a lot, I don't want to give up its convenience, either.

Just a quick thought related to your cycling observations - specifically about which lens + camera combo might (or might not) be more (or less) 'convenient' for cycling. There is one other small Panasonic-made (and non-Pana-Leica-branded) zoom that is surprisingly excellent, optically - and crazy tiny and compact. I'm referring to the diminutive 12-32mm zoom which, while it doesn't equal either your PL 12-60 - or my Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 - is still a fine optic --- and turns a small micro four-thirds body like your G95 into a much more bicycling-friendly combo when mounted. And, no, this tiny zoom obviously doesn't have the reach of your current one - but for convenience + tiny bicycling-friendly size, it might be worthy of consideration.

 

[MoonMind]

A follow-up on my musings (or, as some may have perceived it, ranting) about the Nikon Z 50:

This camera is growing on me for a couple of reasons that become more apparent in use, here are a couple of loosely arranged observations:

• Yes, it's not a Z 6 in terms of build quality, but it *is* put together very well, better than I first thought. That doesn't take away from the fact that I still find the front dial lacking in operation because it's just too stiff (and/or the grip is just a tad small). But all in all, the camera feels better in the hand than quite a number of other cameras, including the Sony A6000, the Sony A7 II (that was bit of a surprise because I quite like that camera in the hand, but it's true), the Olympus E-M5 III and the Panasonic FZ1000. The last comment even holds true when using the Z 50 with the Z 24-200mm. It's a very well balanced camera; the niggles are really minor, considering.
• In spite of the tiniest of noticeable shutter lags, this is an extremely fast camera in operation - switch-on, point-to-point AF, even tracking, all very fluid and positive. In that respect, the comparison with the Z 6 is absolutely warranted. The "shutter lag" is probably not much more than a - perceived - slightly prolonged finder blackout compared to the Z 6; I still get put off by that at times, but it's not bad enough to prevent me from enjoying the camera on the whole.
• The shutter sound is actually not as loud as I felt it was - I've since compared it to many other cameras, and while bodies (especially the GX9) have quieter shutters and the Z 6 sounds more refined, the actual sound level of the Z 50 is quite acceptable and certainly not obnoxious. And there *is* a silent shutter mode if need be.
• IQ keeps surprising me, especially with the kit lens. In general, the lenses Nikon provides for the Z mount are astonishing - and it's very encouraging to see that even the smallest and clearly cheapest of them is this good optically. Caveat: The coatings on the 16-50mm are really less than stellar; smudges resist quick wipes - I put on a proctection filter straight away because I felt less confident cleaning the front element.
• On a side note: I only use protector filters on lenses I intend to use without a hood and possibly even without a lens cap on a regular basis (and, at least at the moment, only on zoom lenses); apart from the Canon G1 X III, this was the lens that needed one most urgently: I don't use lens caps on either because I find them too fiddly.
• The files are very, very robust; certainly better than both the 24MP files from the admittedly dated Sony A6000 as well as those coming from the Olympus E-M5 III (not that surprising - even though the Olympus files are very good for standards); in many respects, they match the output of the Sony A7 II, especially in terms of RAW file versatility. I'm sure more modern Sony sensors would outdo the Z 50 files (of course, current FF sensors are way more capable anyway, no doubt about that), but for my needs and expectations, I'm pleasantly surprised how solid and visually pleasing its results are. That said, Nikon 14bit RAW files aren't the easiest to edit (I find Leica DNGs the most rewarding), but they *are* malleable and have a lot of potential.
• I remember similar experiences with the D5500, a camera which, but for its paltry finder, I enjoyed immensely in almost every way, mainly because its images were constantly better than expected, but also because it was straightforward and fast. In fact, I'd love to see a true hybrid between the D5500/D5600 and the Z 50: flip screen, side card slot (double, maybe?), just a tad bigger with better made dials - the D5500 had a metal back dial that felt great -, and I'd be very happy indeed. The Z 50 cries out to be refined and upgraded in subtle, but decisive ways as well - and actually, the changes involved wouldn't be that big or profound (though I.B.I.S. would be grand indeed ...).

I may have appeared to be less than impressed with the Z 50, but I think I can now say that I don't regret the purchase and am quickly becoming fond of the camera. It has many things to recommend itself, and as to the aspects I'm not entirely pleased with, YMMV. It's, in fact, an easy camera to recommend: No-nonsense, capable (including the kit lens!), quick, small and compact - what's not to like?

A little illustration to wrap things up: Here it is, with three other cameras I'm likely to take out as EDCs (those who know me will notice that the M8 is missing - but that's a totally different camera that demands a completely different approach to shooting; it and the Fujifilm X-E3 cover somewhat different use cases - this may be surprising in the case of the latter, but that's the way I see it):

• The E-M5 III is the more complete camera than the Z 50 with loads of useful and very well implemented features, I.B.I.S. being the most prominent, but also a compact, fully weather-resistant body, and of course, the same goes for the most suitable lens for it I've ever shot with, the 12-45mm f/4 PRO. The camera itself tends to feel a bit fiddly, though, and I still find the position of the on-off switch unforgiveable, but it's still smoother in operation then the Z 50 overall (not quicker, just a tad more positive and intuitive, with better controls). But of course, it's also a bigger package, and it's not as well balanced in the hand (that's why I felt the need for a wrist strap - in spite of its low weight and size).
• The Z 50 - clearly the most compact package of the group. After everything I've said so far, not a lot to add except: considerably smaller and lighter than even the E-M5 III setup, better in the hand overall, just as quick, if a bit rough around the edges (the control dials ...). And the kit lens almost (though not quite) matches the Olympus PRO zoom while the files are just a tad cleaner and of course more robust when it comes to higher ISOs.
• The A7 II - when paired with the Sigma 45mm f/2.8 C, a very rewarding camera in spite of its age and other limitations. It's considerably slower than the Z 50 (sometimes, downright sluggish by comparison - and inconsistently so) and can feel a bit cramped (not fiddly, just a bit too small for its weight). However, the package is surprisingly versatile and constantly performs above expectations when it comes to results. The fact that the camera provides a solid base for the lens speaks for Sony's original concept in many ways - though I wouldn't want to pair it with bigger lenses (and trust me, I've tried!). The Z 50, on the other hand, has no issues with that whatsoever: I've taken it out with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6E on the FTZ adapter - it felt very natural and balanced; I still prefer that combo on the Z 6, though - but only just. One big concern on the A7 II is battery life - as you will know already, it's just atrocious. I.B.I.S. is just adequate as well - nothing to write home about, in stark contrast to what the Z 6 provides (which is downright amazing in that respect!).
• Finally, the G1 X III. Yes, it's smaller still, but it's again slower in operation than the Z 50 (mostly due to the power zoom). It does have some redeeming qualities (super-quiet leaf shutter, weather resistance, flip screen), but its lens is no match for the 16-50mm kit zoom, the EVF is considerably smaller and battery life is not as good. It remains more pocketable, handles really well and puts out pleasing files - however, they're not as good as the Z 50's in most ways, especially not at higher ISOs. And of course, it's no ILC - so, in the end, it'll never win when it comes to versatility. Still, the only competitive compact camera in this group!

I think it's quite obvious how well the Z 50 compares - and also that it is by no means a sub-par entry into the market. It's a solid package in and by itself, and it actually does very well even when compared to other cameras in my collection - cameras I would consider its competitors for a specific use case. I'd say that the E-M5 III still fits my requirements best - but the Z 50 comes in a close second because of its size advantage, superb balance and convincing overall shooting experience; and of course, it's the more future-proof camera ... But that's purely my personal view.

The arrival of the Z 50 marks another nail in the coffin for the Sony E/FE cameras in my collection - it's just a much more convincing camera than the A6000 (itself a marvel when it comes to its price/performance ratio) as well as the A7 II, in spite of the many merits of the latter. Now, if only Sigma could get their act together and release Z mount versions of their lenses ... (I know its none of their fault because Nikon is so uncooperative, but still, it'd change the game *in favour* of Nikon; I hope that at some point in time, they figure that out). I think I can proclaim that to be my "ceterum censeo" for the foreseeable future ...

All this said, I have a somewhat surprising insight to share: Comparisons only take you so far. Actually, I think this is where a lot of professional reviews fail: They tend to compare cameras to other models early on instead of judging them on their own merits. I fell into the same trap initially. Luckily, the Z 50 is doing a good job at helping me out of it again.

M.

 

[drd1135]

Just curious: how is the shutter sound on the A7ii ? The A7 was the loudest shutter I have heard in a long time. I used to think of the shutter release as the detonator.

 

[Craig C]

Just curious: how is the shutter sound on the A7ii ? The A7 was the loudest shutter I have heard in a long time. I used to think of the shutter release as the detonator.

Not nearly as loud as the original, but still loud for my liking. Plus the sound isn’t pleasant either.

Really wish Sony had Fuji-esque shutter sounds.

It does appear the each Sony version gets better though. The new A7c that I am seriously considering, sounds more like an a6xxx series from what I’ve heard, which is more subdued than the FF counterparts.

 

[MoonMind]

Just curious: how is the shutter sound on the A7ii ? The A7 was the loudest shutter I have heard in a long time. I used to think of the shutter release as the detonator.

It's bearable, but that's it. It's pretty audible and gets noticed - and furthermore after a longer period (a couple of days) of unuse, its minute-long wake-up ceremony can be frightening (freezing up after shut down, then rattling its way through what I can only call its morning ablutions ...).

I agree with Craig that the shutter sound even of the A6000 is quite a bit less intrusive. Compare it to modern cameras like the Z 6, and the A7 II appears even louder.

Even though the shutter of the A7C is not quite as potent (only 1/4000s at its fastest), it appears better dampened (or just less of a beast). The trouble is, even though I know how much more refined the A7C is, I have trouble imagining a A7 II/A6000 hybrid that's nice to carry ... One of the redeeming properties of the A7 II is its grip, and its EVF is quite nice (still competitive in its class - considering that it's body-only price is more or less that of a Z 50, maybe $100 more ...). I really wish they hadn't dumped down the handling paradigm of the A7C quite as much, anyway ... As far as size and internals go, I'd be sold, and while I'm not as much of a fan of the A6000 in the hand compared to the A7 II, it's okay to carry. Not very comfortable, but due to diminuitive size and weight, no trouble.

The real contenders as far as ergonomics go are the Nikon and Canon cameras, though. I've never held the RP, but that lacks I.B.I.S. anyway, so it's less of direct competitor to the A7C. But I own the Z 6 - and with it and the Z 5 being available, it's very difficult to stomach the price of the A7C - you really have to want the size and the flip screen to choose it over the Nikons or the A7 III (or be seriously into video). The R6 is just a bit too expensive, and the same goes for the S5 - though both cameras look to be impressive packages. So, Sony has something unique there, no question about it, but it comes at a steep price.

But ... well, here goes: After handling the Z 50 extensively for a couple of days now, I think I don't want to miss any of its advantages - and it handles considerably better, works a lot faster and *is* quieter (though not quiet) compared to either the Sony A7 II as well as the A6000 without being a lot bulkier and heavier than the latter. Which, if Craig's right, means it's also quieter than the A7C ... Yes, I know, no I.B.I.S., APS-C, yada, yada, yada - but its files are really nice, it's definitely small and light, and it's superb in the hand (in spite of the darned front dial I have to mention again).

The A7C is still the only new camera I itch to go hands-on with ... but the Nikon bodies really make Sony feel dated and rough around the edges, no matter how nice they may(!) look (at least to some).

M.

 

[Craig C]

Matt’s on point, as usual - and not because he agreed with me on my comments. Lol

I’ve handled the Z6 and RP and both definitely feel much better than my A7ii. I know my camera so well, that it works excellently for me, but there is no doubt those two other brands have the ergos down.

The main draw for me though, is the lens selection Sony offers. In particular their compact, high IQ options. No one can compete. Nikon’s 1.8 S primes are beautiful optically, but they are huge (size & weight) by comparison and Canon has that little beast the 35 1.8 macro, but not a fan of the external focusing and the fact that most of the RF lens are optical powerhouse boat anchors.

For my use case, I want as compact as possible, while still providing high IQ and excellent AF.

 

[drd1135]

I'm not bothered by small grip ergonomics. I will grab my X100V in favor of the XH1 if the 35 mme FL works for my intentions and, mainly, because of size. Of course, this is exactly the argument for the A7C. Another factor for the Sony is that AF is excellent, especially the sticky tracking AF which I would love to try with my grandkids. I have mixed feelings abut the price. I know that Sony is trying make some money off the early adopters and I accept that as part of being a business. Is that price justified on its own? Despite complaints about the slots and especially the EVF, this is a high end enthusiast/vlogger camera. I don't think that this was intended to directly go against the "Gang of 5s", which is why Sony left the A7 designation.

I also freely admit that I view the A7C and the coming Fuji X-S10 as a code-red threat to my checking account.

 

[mike3996]

I'm not bothered by small grip ergonomics. I will grab my X100V in favor of the XH1 if the 35 mme FL works for my intentions and, mainly, because of size.

I always loved the ergonomics of X100T. I did recognize that the camera remains ergonomic mainly because of its light weight. Doesn't matter, it is one of the more ergonomic cameras I've shot.

 

[drd1135]

I always loved the ergonomics of X100T. I did recognize that the camera remains ergonomic mainly because of its light weight. Doesn't matter, it is one of the more ergonomic cameras I've shot.

It's hard to explain why, but it works. I did a comparison over on the Camera Size website between the X100V and the Sony A7C. The C is heavier (if you insist on using a lens), but has a better grip. Otherwise, they are very similar in size.

 

[mike3996]

So to recap I currently own three different systems (and one nonserious point-and-shoot):

• Leica M + 7 M/M39 lenses
• Panasonic GX80 + 3 lenses
• Nikon Df + 3 F-mount lenses

In a sense this is a pretty swell collection because this offers some of the best what's to offer by rangefinder, DSLR, and EVF style cameras.

But when someone asks about the best mirrorless camera out there the 2016 Panasonic GX80 is hardly anyone's first choice.

The camera is a keeper for sure. But I still think about G9 for lack of a proper GX8 successor. G9, in many senses, can very well be described as a best-of camera in EVF world, easily. Of course I don't choose cameras from a popular vote but G9 is well deserving the praise it gets.

But then I have to think about whether I'm ultimately content with M4/3.

I see interesting FF systems out there:

• Panasonic S5
• Leica SL
• Nikon Z5 or Z6
• Canon EOS R

They all have their pros and cons. Some systems are currently handicapped (Canon CR3 raw files are inoperable by free software as the propietary format is still locked) but interesting. Others are a known good quantity but big and expensive (Leica SL) or too "cheap" (Panasonic S5) then CaNikon are both attractive options but they're unknowns to me -- how will they handle in the software.

I am not having GAS about any of it at the moment. Having Nikon has taught me things about the SLR world. How the lenses are big and heavy and ultimately not very good compared to old Leica lenses or any contemporary mirrorless lenses. In this sense Canon's ability to fluently adapt EF lenses is not as big of a thing to me even though it's a super desirable thing on paper.

Panasonic S5 is actually a very interesting camera because I know Panasonic software to be good and usable. Panasonic's L-mount 20-60 plastic kit zoom greatly resembles the great 12-32 m4/3 equivalent. But the discussion would always turn to, "why not spend the same two grands on a well kept preowned Leica SL".

In turn, Leica SL is a big hulking camera that's not going receive any more firmware updates. I consider Nikon Df a tad too big so Leica SL sadly would be also that. It's also heavier and being all-black body maybe a little bit less friendly looking thing, when pointing at strangers.

G9 then, it's funny how full frame Nikon goodness can be had for way less money than some of these M4/3 lenses. G9 itself is almost the same street money as Nikon Df. A cost effective shooter will most definitely keep shooting DSLR for times to come. Maybe consider the EOS R. The market is flooded with those cameras, a buyer's market to be sure.

So, compromises and ponderings and everything.

 

[gordo]

I've been doing a personal review of my own the last few months, and have been down-sizing/ consolidating. Down from two full systems and a partial third, to two smaller systems. Depending on what Pentax actually releases with their upcoming APS-C, I may be down to one system (or 1 main system and a smaller secondary).

Nikon Z - gone. Only had the Z6 and 50/1.8, hated to let it go because the ergonomics were much better for my hands/ fingers than the X-H1. But the cost of going back to Nikon and replacing the glass I would need to shoot what I enjoy shooting, was significant. Purely an economic choice.

Fuji X - down from 4 bodies and 11 lenses, to 3 bodies (incl X100F) and 4 lenses.

Pentax - down from K-1 and 9 lenses, to K-1 and 7 lenses with 3 more possibly leaving.

More changes coming, doing the waiting game now to see what gets released before making any further decisions.

 

[agentlossing]

So, a few things have fueled my decision to take a break from M4/3, and largely they're just observations about what I feel when I pick up, carry around and use the cameras I have.

• The GR has the slot of small, super-portable camera. Hands down, there isn't even a question. If I'm taking along a camera but going light, or not making photography a main focus, it's the GR. It's not just the size, lens, IBIS, file quality etc., but it's also the range of options for in-camera RAW processing, which means that it's easy for me to get an image I like and transfer it to my phone. I am happy enough with the GR's JPEG characteristics that I rarely feel the need to do anything with them on the computer. I am also quite comfortable composing with the LCD with this camera. In another post I said that, for me, the LCD gives me a sense of attachment to the final image - I can see an adequate representation on the screen, while my peripheral vision is still able to take in the changing factors of the world outside the camera, which an EVF doesn't really allow for. It's a good compromise in my case.
• The GX9's role was as my more versatile kit camera; the one I'd pick for occasional portrait requests from family, or for more trying conditions where I needed different focal lengths or camera features, like a tilt screen. The problem is, the GX9 is really meant more as a small one-camera solution, for small lenses. Given that I would never go out of my way to pick the GX9 over the GR for small camera needs, it was kind of the wrong man for the job as everything-camera-kit. While its in-camera RAW development is decent, certainly not the worst, M4/3 files generally need a little more fine work, plus the everything-camera is more likely the one I pick up when I need to do something more complicated, meaning post-processing on a computer will be required. Problem with that is, my standalone PC Lightroom 6 doesn't support it, and my DXO program that does is not my favorite. I use it more to host Nik than as a full-fledged RAW converter (maybe I should pay for the Prime NR feature, I feel like I'd get better fine detail with it - yet with LR6 I'm actually happy with the way the noise looks with only slight NR, it's a sort of grain that I can stomach more than the blurriness that comes from using NR in DXO). I do get really nice B&W files out of the GX9, so nice that I'll miss them and have a hard time replicating them. But that's not exactly the versatility that I need form my kit-camera.
• So, instead of replacing the GX9 with a perhaps more fitting M4/3 camera, I decided to go with the Pentax KP. A few reasons (not the least of which that the camera is so good looking and feeling) including the IBIS I'm used to, virtually the same RAW DNG files as the GR (with LR6 compatibility), a very interesting, small and high-quality lens lineup, lots of legacy lenses I can use without a bulky adapter, and fast and useful live view when needed. It might fuel a little GAS as I work through what lenses I want to have (got the 21mm, will probably get the 40mm f2.8, and in the short term probably the cheap plasticky 50mm f1.8 for as-needed portraits), but I think M4/3 tempted me to switch bodies a lot more often, and that's a bigger thing than lenses for me.

Edit: and I forgot to say, while I've been trained (indoctrinated?? ) in the mirrorless concept that cameras must be small, I was only really using my kit-camera when I was being intentional about photographing, so the DSLR? It fits with that quite well.

 

[tonyturley]

Guess I'm not the only one re-evaluating my camera gear. I know I haven't had the G95 + PL 12-60 long, but I'm out of the MFT world. Boxed it all up and shipped it to its new owner yesterday. I really don't see myself going back. Right now, all I have is the X-E2 and XF 18, plus the adapted Pen F 38/1.8. There are certainly limitations, but I enjoyed having a very light, compact setup on this morning's bike ride. Although zooms have their advantages in some situations, I think I am going to stick with primes for a while. Looking forward to seeing what the XF 27 Mk II has to offer.

 

[Bobby Tingle]

I've really settled into my gear. The lesser fiasco I put myself through early in the year solidified it. Having sold the fujicrons I was really enjoying. And getting a 16-55 for the in home head shots, with some portraits, I was working on. Because it was taking off really well. But then died painfully due covid 19. So, being me I sold off the 16-55 and went back to primes. But with a slight detour. Since my dad was selling off his primes, I just grabbed those going 16mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, and 56mm 1.2. Then started realizing I was really missing the fujicrons. So here I am now, back to the fujicron kit plus 90 f2. I love shooting with the X-Pro2. I've recently been pondering over grabbing another Pro2 to have on hand for if/when something finally goes on the current Pro2.

 

[mike3996]

Panasonic S5 is actually a very interesting camera

I guess I neglected to mention why I am looking at FF mirrorless cameras in the first place. I don't have that much of a good time with Nikon Df to be honest. I could write up some thoughts about this some time. (But it summarises down to how I love Leica enough to work around its shortcomings and those workaround-workflows now stick with me.)

Panasonic S5 probably acts as a good host body for adapted lenses. I see no reason for it to be any worse than Nikon Z6.

Z6/Z5 is on paper a better camera, though. Tilty screen, better EVF, lower base ISO, pretty cool native lenses, cheaper/more availability at used markets at this point. But Panasonic's software is a known quantity and I like many of the things it does. Z6, I don't know.

An example:

Panasonic has a good histogram and it has zebras. I would really prefer to get a most uncluttered view, and blinkies would be the preferred way. If not that, a solid color would do. I can google about Z6 having blinkies but that's not the whole story. Olympus has highlight protection color. Can you view those colors in the main view? No. A totally unfluid system for me.

This was one example. Another thing where many manufacturers fail my preferences is how manual-focus aids are being presented to the user and how they're used.

It's all so tiresome, to blindly buy into a new system.

Addendum:

And I am so having romantic notions towards M4/3 still. I see Olympus shooters just plain having fun with their cameras even though I can't deal with the software.

 

[donlaw]

I have been using the M4/3 system a lot lately. After selling my EP-5, I ended up replacing it with a lightly used one I found on the M4/3 Forum.
I bought a refurb PenF on the spur of the moment at a Olympus 20% off sale. I was initially a bit disappointed about its size and interface. But after using it almost daily for the Day to Day project, I am beginning to really like the PenF.
I also have two other systems;
Leica M (M10P & original Monochrom) + 4 lenses
Nikon Df + lots of Nikkor MF and AF lenses

Then there is my Nikon Coolpix A which is really my only 'serious compact'.
I still like using it, and intend to keep it. But would like to try another fix focal length compact.
It seems to me the Ricoh GIII might be the only option. But I am not sure that it is worth it.
Seems some people love it and other not so much.

 

[MoonMind]

I have been using the M4/3 system a lot lately. After selling my EP-5, I ended up replacing it with a lightly used one I found on the M4/3 Forum.
I bought a refurb PenF on the spur of the moment at a Olympus 20% off sale. I was initially a bit disappointed about its size and interface. But after using it almost daily for the Day to Day project, I am beginning to really like the PenF.
I also have two other systems;
Leica M (M10P & ordinal Monochrom) + 4 lenses
Nikon Df + lots of Nikkor MF and AF lenses

Then there is my Nikon Coolpix A which is really my only 'serious compact'.
I still like using it, and intend to keep it. But would like to try another fix focal length compact.
It seems to me the Ricoh GIII might be the only option. But I am not sure that it is worth it.
Seems some people love it and other not so much.

The GR III is ... the best GR ever, and still just a GR, for better or worse. You have to be comfortable with the concept (very minimalistic). The touch screen *did* change the handling paradigm considerably - but I'm still not sure if I like it better than the original (APS-C) GR. Images can be fantastic - but that's a given with the line.

It's the smallest high-performance compact ever - and as such, an instant classic. But I'm not sure I would recommend it to anyone - I think that's a camera that whoever considers it has to make up their own mind about.

M.

 

[agentlossing]

The GR III is ... the best GR ever, and still just a GR, for better or worse. You have to be comfortable with the concept (very minimalistic). The touch screen *did* change the handling paradigm considerably - but I'm still not sure if I like it better than the original (APS-C) GR. Images can be fantastic - but that's a given with the line.

It's the smallest high-performance compact ever - and as such, an instant classic. But I'm not sure I would recommend it to anyone - I think that's a camera that whoever considers it has to make up their own mind about.

M.

I'm in agreement - the GR line is a specialized camera, not for all uses. I actually drafted a blog post today about how specialized cameras can change you as a photographer, they guide you into the style that really suits them. But I think you have to have a natural bent or interest in the direction they take you in order to click with one. I've had quite a positive experience with mine, but that's because I really enjoy the kind of shooting it does best.

 

[mike3996]

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

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.

⤹

M4/3 lenses are quite expensive after all, when put against legacy SLR lenses.

⤹

Nikon Df is the only DSLR that can take pre-Ai lenses

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