johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Anarchy is in my system, without me knowing how it got there: I moved (up? down?) to a 4x5" camera this last year...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I found one with few bids at 8 days for under 2200.
I can't look at something which was sold on e-bay for some reason. It doesn't show me anything like this. I can't even see trading (average) price for M9.
I think my IP is getting blocked for M9 search by Fuji guys!
Timmyjoe
Veteran
For the majority of what I do for work, shooting sports, there still isn't a substitute for a full frame DSLR. Especially High School sports where the lighting is horrible. High ISO quality, high frame rate, instantaneous focus, all necessary.
For everything else, I love using a smaller package. Currently that's a couple Nikon 1 V2 bodies and a bevy of lenses. If I can take my time with a shot, I can get really good quality out of this package. Would dearly love for some manufacturer to come up with a High ISO, high frame rate, instantaneous focus package the size of this V2. I'd sell off the DSLR stuff and never look back. Alas, we're not there yet.
Best,
-Tim
For everything else, I love using a smaller package. Currently that's a couple Nikon 1 V2 bodies and a bevy of lenses. If I can take my time with a shot, I can get really good quality out of this package. Would dearly love for some manufacturer to come up with a High ISO, high frame rate, instantaneous focus package the size of this V2. I'd sell off the DSLR stuff and never look back. Alas, we're not there yet.
Best,
-Tim
You have to be logged in.
I think my IP is getting blocked for M9 search by Fuji guys!
That might be a good thing...
MCTuomey
Veteran
and this is where fuji is displacing leica M for me. i can spend about a 1/5 or less of my investment in an M kit (strongest for me only from 28 to 75) on fuji X (where I can be covered from FF equivalent 15 to 200/300 by some fine glass, not leica fine but still fine enough for me). about the same weight. nothing like an M in the hand and for MF. stellar files from the M. but the fuji is fun to shoot too. great high iso files. intially didn't do well for low iso landscape and general shooting, but i'm doing better with xtrans in LR these days.
i used to shoot M gear exclusively in clubs (music). i became frustrated because other shooters were able to go wider or tighter than me (shooting from limited, fixed positions) with their dslr gear. they had better shots sooc, at the end of it. with my mirrorless kit, i'm light and mobile (much more than the Canikon guys anyway), and can get the tight or wide stuff that a traditional dslr can. best of both. i've shot M once in the last 6 months in a club, and only because i could get within several feet of the musicians at that venue. took me awhile but i get why some event/docu/wedding guys migrate.
i can see myself migrating to fuji, keeping a film M and a lens or two because i'd miss it, and being pretty capable. i could do the same on the sony mirrorless platform, i'm sure, just don't know it well and find some of the native glass pretty large. maybe i'm just getting old and lazy and cheap and like the dslr-like flexibility of the mirrorless gear at a considerable savings in weight and size.
interesting thread.
willie_901
Veteran
Risks of Switching
Risks of Switching
Switching systems can be expensive and it is stressful. When a trend begins switching systems has more risks. In my case ditching the mirror box and, or adopting an APS-C system after using a 24 X 36 mm system was more risky than expensive. I made this switch from two D700 bidies to two X-T1 bodies as soon as Fujifilm delivered the 10-24/4 X-mount lens to the US as this is the lens I needed for gigs. I received reasonable trade-in value for the Nikon FX bodies (D700) and lenses at my local camera shop. About 18 months years later, a friend wanted to trade a D700 and 70-200/2.8 Nikkor G lens to the same shop. They refused to take his D700. This surprised me as this shop has an active used camera business.
I switched because I could cary my gear from the car to the gig in one trip. The reduced size and weight of the new gear meant I could replace eliminate a large roller bag with a normal sized (and much lighter) backpack. So my large lightstand roller bag, tripod case and backpack got the job done. Life was easier and the IQ was actually a bit better... especially in terms of shadow detail. The lens was superior to any Nikkor DX or FX ultra-wide angle zoom as well as the Tokina F-mount 11-16 lens... especially at shortest focal length. I spent less time in post production.
When I switched I owned about 5 Fujifilm primes and all of them were as good or better than the Nikkors I owned. I had owned an early X100 and used a X-Pro1 for non-commercial projects. This minimized the risk as I had prior experience with the Fujifilm X system. Still, while switching is irreversible, it os expensive. I was a long-time Nikon fan and there was some degree of sadness that Nikon didn't make what I wanted to buy.
Something is up. Nikon will not cannibalize their DSLR DX and FX products. Instead the offer the sub-APSC V and J systems. Canon is less protective.
At the same time, the m4/3 consortium and Fujifilm are filling the void. They are beating Nikon to market with WiFi and other features. Some will insist WiFi is a gimmick. I can tell you that when a interior decorator client can walk around a room holding an iPad and see how the camera sees they are very pleased and they tell their friends.
Two things are important. You have to enjoy all aspects of using the camera/lenses. The camera/lenses must be appropriate for the task at hand. If I was shooting sports instead of interiors, I would have never switched. If I was selling large fine art prints I would have switched to a system with much more sensor area than 24 X 36 mm.
Risks of Switching
Switching systems can be expensive and it is stressful. When a trend begins switching systems has more risks. In my case ditching the mirror box and, or adopting an APS-C system after using a 24 X 36 mm system was more risky than expensive. I made this switch from two D700 bidies to two X-T1 bodies as soon as Fujifilm delivered the 10-24/4 X-mount lens to the US as this is the lens I needed for gigs. I received reasonable trade-in value for the Nikon FX bodies (D700) and lenses at my local camera shop. About 18 months years later, a friend wanted to trade a D700 and 70-200/2.8 Nikkor G lens to the same shop. They refused to take his D700. This surprised me as this shop has an active used camera business.
I switched because I could cary my gear from the car to the gig in one trip. The reduced size and weight of the new gear meant I could replace eliminate a large roller bag with a normal sized (and much lighter) backpack. So my large lightstand roller bag, tripod case and backpack got the job done. Life was easier and the IQ was actually a bit better... especially in terms of shadow detail. The lens was superior to any Nikkor DX or FX ultra-wide angle zoom as well as the Tokina F-mount 11-16 lens... especially at shortest focal length. I spent less time in post production.
When I switched I owned about 5 Fujifilm primes and all of them were as good or better than the Nikkors I owned. I had owned an early X100 and used a X-Pro1 for non-commercial projects. This minimized the risk as I had prior experience with the Fujifilm X system. Still, while switching is irreversible, it os expensive. I was a long-time Nikon fan and there was some degree of sadness that Nikon didn't make what I wanted to buy.
Something is up. Nikon will not cannibalize their DSLR DX and FX products. Instead the offer the sub-APSC V and J systems. Canon is less protective.
At the same time, the m4/3 consortium and Fujifilm are filling the void. They are beating Nikon to market with WiFi and other features. Some will insist WiFi is a gimmick. I can tell you that when a interior decorator client can walk around a room holding an iPad and see how the camera sees they are very pleased and they tell their friends.
Two things are important. You have to enjoy all aspects of using the camera/lenses. The camera/lenses must be appropriate for the task at hand. If I was shooting sports instead of interiors, I would have never switched. If I was selling large fine art prints I would have switched to a system with much more sensor area than 24 X 36 mm.
willie_901
Veteran
The Equivalence Quagmire
The Equivalence Quagmire
The physics says there is no significant advantage to relatively small increases in sensor area. This is because the lens and sensor must be considered together. An increase in lens surface area can compensate for a decrease in sensor area.
This is a rather controversial topic and often incites vicious flame wars and general ugliness in other forums. This is not my purpose here.
All the technical benefits of 24 X 26 mm sensors compared to APS-C sensors can be overcome if fast enough lenses are available for the APS-C system. This data shows how. These simulations also show that 24 X 36 mm sensors will always outperform (in terms of signal-to-noise ratio) smaller sensors with very fast lenses. The same goes for subject isolation.
A f 1.2 (or faster) lens on a 24 X 36mm camera is unbeatable.
However, the 56/1.2 Fujinon will deliver approximately the same light amplitude (signal) and DOF as a 85/1.8 lens with a 24X 36 mm sensor. The same holds for the 18/2 lens and a 28/2.8. This is not fanboy loyalism; it is simply a fact.
There is a large sensor advantage for photographers who make the most of the fastest lenses available for 24 X 36 mm mounts. For photographers who use slower lenses ( f 1.8, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0) the increased sensor area advantage diminishes.
Older systems with 24 X 38mm sensors often have more read noise than the newest systems with smaller sensors. Technical IQ is a function od signal-to-noise ratio. The difference in analog noise levels can cancel the larger sensors' increase in signal level (surface area).
This analysis ignores several very important factors.
o Many of us purposefully curate a collection of lenses over a long span of time. In this case using the APS-C format is limiting or even completely impractical and even undesirable. Light level is only one aspect lens performance and can be the least important compared to other rendering properties. Likewise DOF equivalence may hold for subject isolation, but this is not necessarily the case for out-of-focus rendering aesthetics.
o Few, if any APS-C cameras are designed with focusing analog lenses as a high priority.
o For some using an EVF is completely unacceptable.
o APS-C lens selection and diversity is severely limited in scope compared to lenses available for 24 X 36 mm systems
o The edge sharpness of faster lenses is often inferior to slower lenses'. Just because a fast lens is available for a smaller sensor system doesn't mean it will deliver the same aesthetic result.
Blanket statements that 24 X 36 mm systems are always superior to systems with smaller sensors, or a high performance APS-C or m4/3 sensor is just as good as a 24 X 36 mm system are both misleading. They are misleading because they ignore the context of the photographers' priorities and interests.
The Equivalence Quagmire
The physics says there is no significant advantage to relatively small increases in sensor area. This is because the lens and sensor must be considered together. An increase in lens surface area can compensate for a decrease in sensor area.
This is a rather controversial topic and often incites vicious flame wars and general ugliness in other forums. This is not my purpose here.
All the technical benefits of 24 X 26 mm sensors compared to APS-C sensors can be overcome if fast enough lenses are available for the APS-C system. This data shows how. These simulations also show that 24 X 36 mm sensors will always outperform (in terms of signal-to-noise ratio) smaller sensors with very fast lenses. The same goes for subject isolation.
A f 1.2 (or faster) lens on a 24 X 36mm camera is unbeatable.
However, the 56/1.2 Fujinon will deliver approximately the same light amplitude (signal) and DOF as a 85/1.8 lens with a 24X 36 mm sensor. The same holds for the 18/2 lens and a 28/2.8. This is not fanboy loyalism; it is simply a fact.
There is a large sensor advantage for photographers who make the most of the fastest lenses available for 24 X 36 mm mounts. For photographers who use slower lenses ( f 1.8, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0) the increased sensor area advantage diminishes.
Older systems with 24 X 38mm sensors often have more read noise than the newest systems with smaller sensors. Technical IQ is a function od signal-to-noise ratio. The difference in analog noise levels can cancel the larger sensors' increase in signal level (surface area).
This analysis ignores several very important factors.
o Many of us purposefully curate a collection of lenses over a long span of time. In this case using the APS-C format is limiting or even completely impractical and even undesirable. Light level is only one aspect lens performance and can be the least important compared to other rendering properties. Likewise DOF equivalence may hold for subject isolation, but this is not necessarily the case for out-of-focus rendering aesthetics.
o Few, if any APS-C cameras are designed with focusing analog lenses as a high priority.
o For some using an EVF is completely unacceptable.
o APS-C lens selection and diversity is severely limited in scope compared to lenses available for 24 X 36 mm systems
o The edge sharpness of faster lenses is often inferior to slower lenses'. Just because a fast lens is available for a smaller sensor system doesn't mean it will deliver the same aesthetic result.
Blanket statements that 24 X 36 mm systems are always superior to systems with smaller sensors, or a high performance APS-C or m4/3 sensor is just as good as a 24 X 36 mm system are both misleading. They are misleading because they ignore the context of the photographers' priorities and interests.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Just when I had finally achieved the "ideal" Nikon FF body with the awe-inducing holy trinity of f2.8 zooms . . . just then and not before . . . I realized that for my personal applications and my microstock income, I didn't really need that big bag of equipment. I simultaneously realized (funny how that works) that my aged body did not like carrying that stuff around.
This year I have two X-Pro1s with 14, 35 and 90 primes plus an 18-55 zoom. The zoom stays on one camera in one bag and often I just go with that little outfit. Under more serious usage I take the other bag with camera and three lenses.
The whole shebang is still much lighter than the old Nikon outfit.
P.S. I kind of like the way Fuji images look.
This year I have two X-Pro1s with 14, 35 and 90 primes plus an 18-55 zoom. The zoom stays on one camera in one bag and often I just go with that little outfit. Under more serious usage I take the other bag with camera and three lenses.
The whole shebang is still much lighter than the old Nikon outfit.
P.S. I kind of like the way Fuji images look.
_goodtimez
Well-known
To me the size is not the most important factor and comes only after Ergonomics and practicality.
Example is that I enjoy using the M8.2 for it's nice output and body shape but I equally enjoy using a big Nikon F-36 or the F4S.
To the general ergonomics I often include the quality of the material that can be feeled while holding the camera; I do not like the modern coverings which are semi-rubber like and almost sticky.
Indeed a Nikon F with a small 50mm f2 is nicer to hold than a modern interchangeable lens compact with a big lens upfront.
Example is that I enjoy using the M8.2 for it's nice output and body shape but I equally enjoy using a big Nikon F-36 or the F4S.
To the general ergonomics I often include the quality of the material that can be feeled while holding the camera; I do not like the modern coverings which are semi-rubber like and almost sticky.
Indeed a Nikon F with a small 50mm f2 is nicer to hold than a modern interchangeable lens compact with a big lens upfront.
harpofreely
Well-known
This is a good observation - balance can sometimes trump size and weight. As much as I like the results of my Canon FD 135mm f2 on my Fuji X-E1, it handles a lot better on my F1 w/ winder grip.
pluton
Well-known
I have no plans to eliminate my Nikon D800 cams, but I use them way less since I got the Fujifilm XE1 a couple of years ago. The Fuji image quality mimics the look of the very finest grain 24x36 films, except it maintains that look at ISO 800. The Nikons remain for their hi-res, sort of "medium format" functionality.
If Fuji can fix the fact that their cameras cycle faster with an adapted, non-communicating lens than with their own lenses, I'll get more Fuji stuff. Also, the EVF's are still too dim in bright daylight.
If Fuji can fix the fact that their cameras cycle faster with an adapted, non-communicating lens than with their own lenses, I'll get more Fuji stuff. Also, the EVF's are still too dim in bright daylight.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I have resisted any digital camera from the beginning of their availability for two reasons.
First, the bodies didn't work for me. All the weird controls and menus, nothing fell to hand like an OM, a Leica or, for that matter, any other film body. For me all the superfluous buttons and endless menus (aka crap) got in the way of making a picture.
Second, and most important ... digital was in its infancy. Did anyone really expect the technology wouldn't change rapidly? With the price of bodies, with their non-replaceable and expensive sensors, why would I, no longer a pro able to take tax deductions, buy a succession of rapidly depreciating hardware?
The beauty of film was that as film quality advanced, you could buy the new, good stuff in the yellow or white or orange box for the same price, or slightly more, and pop it in your old but still perfect RF or SLR. Now? Not so much. "Oh, you just MUST have the latest 85-sector, left-eye-detection, 1000 fps, 12 Gigapixel body that really needs the latest gravity-defying lens line!"
IOW, Fuji has nailed it. At least for me.
First, the bodies didn't work for me. All the weird controls and menus, nothing fell to hand like an OM, a Leica or, for that matter, any other film body. For me all the superfluous buttons and endless menus (aka crap) got in the way of making a picture.
Second, and most important ... digital was in its infancy. Did anyone really expect the technology wouldn't change rapidly? With the price of bodies, with their non-replaceable and expensive sensors, why would I, no longer a pro able to take tax deductions, buy a succession of rapidly depreciating hardware?
The beauty of film was that as film quality advanced, you could buy the new, good stuff in the yellow or white or orange box for the same price, or slightly more, and pop it in your old but still perfect RF or SLR. Now? Not so much. "Oh, you just MUST have the latest 85-sector, left-eye-detection, 1000 fps, 12 Gigapixel body that really needs the latest gravity-defying lens line!"
IOW, Fuji has nailed it. At least for me.
uhoh7
Veteran
Well, despite the histrionic title, it's a great thread. Love to hear all the different takes.
I shot a musical two weeks ago with very fast glass on A7.mod and M9. All manual focus.
They loved the results, but jeez it was hard. A fast zoom on a D810 would have been a breeze LOL.
But for me personally the M9 is the cat's meow. A little too big and heavy, but all my RF lenses love the thing, and it still stuns me.
I shot a musical two weeks ago with very fast glass on A7.mod and M9. All manual focus.
They loved the results, but jeez it was hard. A fast zoom on a D810 would have been a breeze LOL.
But for me personally the M9 is the cat's meow. A little too big and heavy, but all my RF lenses love the thing, and it still stuns me.
RedLion
Come to the Faire
Unless you need shallow depth of field a Sony RX100 fits the bill. That's what I've gone to for my street, event and travel camera.
ktmrider
Well-known
Am not a professional and in all honesty I do not do a lot of photography on a day to day basis. In fact, most of it comes when I travel. I owned a lot of M mount lenses so purchased a used M9 about two years ago. Am not sure why I did because I still prefer film and liked the X100 over the weight and size of the M9.
I still have a bunch of M lenses and don't see any reason to change to another system. However, I might sell the M9 and keep the M2's but even that seems like too much work.
It is interesting. I have been in the Philippines for almost 3 weeks and have not taken a single photo. Of course, the hurricane and influenza might be factors.
I still have a bunch of M lenses and don't see any reason to change to another system. However, I might sell the M9 and keep the M2's but even that seems like too much work.
It is interesting. I have been in the Philippines for almost 3 weeks and have not taken a single photo. Of course, the hurricane and influenza might be factors.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Huh? I'm sure it wasn't meant that way, but how do you know what's superfluous to someone else's needs? Maybe I missed something.
It's true one can constrain one's photography to one's gear, but personally I think it should be the other way 'round. One's gear should fit one's photography.
Same experience here. Which is why my event/club shooting has moved to fuji x with a small set of fast primes and zooms (and it could as well be sony alpha or you name it). Better tools, plenty fun to use and, no surprise, results that please customers, for whom my gear choice means nothing. But you know, I sure do love shooting Leica M with a 28, 35, 50 or even 75