« Wednesday Open Mike: Positive Criticism | Main | Last Chance! »

Wednesday, 06 December 2017

Comments

This sounds less like GAS, and more like... intervention.

Mike, you need to stop obsessing about equipment and take more pictures.

A local camerastore has a Leica IIIa with a SCNOO rapid winder and a 5cm f2 Summar lens. I've been resisting this for several months, but that SCNOO rapid winder sure would do a lot to reinforce my angry-old-artist image 8-D By the time the camera, SCNOO and lens were CLA'd/overhauled I would be into it for over $1,000.00. That money would be better spent replacing my recently obsoleted iMac.

I recently cancelled my order for an a7R3, deciding instead to keep using my a7R2 for landscapes and purchased an a6500 to use for event photography. At the risk of feeding your GAS, I am really impressed with this little camera. Everything is faster than the R2: focus, frame rate, IBIS. IBIS seems to be considerably more effective. Raw file quality is excellent at lower ISOs, but can't keep up with the R2 at higher ISOs (>1600). All of this is subjective of course, but I think this is a sweet little cam for photographing people outside of the studio.

Forgot to mention the update to MacOS High Sierra finally killed Lightroom 6. But the good news is Capture One v11 is a significant improvement in the color rendering of Sony raw files. Better than C1 v10, and in my opinion better than Lr. DxO Photolab v11 is a contender, too.

Oh, for heaven's sake!

I have a Pentax K-5 and a bunch of lenses (including three Limited primes), and a couple of years ago I bought a secondhand Sony RX10 (mk I); the Pentax (a beautiful camera) hasn't seen any use since. The purchase was under the malign influence of reading Kirk Tuck's blog: https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.ie

Recently, I sold the RX10 to a friend and bought an RX10iii at a substantial discount (due to the launch of the RX10iv), and it's pretty much a universal camera. Raw files at ISO 3200 render perfectly in Capture One Pro (not the Sony version). In the days of B&W film, 3200 ASA was pretty much impossible (I could push Tri-X and HP4 to 1250 ASA, with grain like golfballs).

My friend is disposing of his Nikon DSLR gear and is delighted with the RX10: superb optics, great image stabilization, the 1" sensor will cope with any lighting condition he's yet to experience, and no dust blobs on the sensor from when you've changed a lens.

So, Mike, perhaps you should just go and buy an RX10ii (that model because of the constant-aperture zoom).

I suggest curing you GAS with:

1. Used Sony ILCE A7II;

2. Zeiss Loxia lens (35 f2 or 50 f2).

In reply to Mark Muse, who says the update to MacOS High Sierra finally killed Lightroom 6 - I'm on 10.13.1 and Lightroom 6 works.

Resist. There will always be something else to buy.

"They seem to play nice with ACR too". A few years ago I began evaluating a switch to mirrorless from Nikon due to frustration over their lack of DX (aps-c) lenses and eroding customer support and quality control. I compared Fuji, Sony, and Olympus. Fuji was eliminated primarily due to X-trans sensor (I utilize DXO in my workflow which does not support those files) and secondarily to lack of IBIS. Sony was eliminated primarily due to failure to grow the lens line (already down that road with Nikon) and secondarily to lack of IBIS. Olympus had (or was seriously growing) the lens line, a good sensor that was compatible with Lightroom and DXO, and IBIS. The only drawback was sensor size. Since I was primarily interested in prints up to 22" I didn't see that as an issue. Nearly four years later and about 50 or more finished prints on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag up to 22" (and a couple of 30") no regrets. Reading some of your recent posts I see two distinct discussions. The first is the experience of taking a photograph, wherein the camera/user experience is a significant part. Secondly is the experience of making a print, where once the sensor/lens paring is sufficient for the desired output, everything else about the camera becomes irrelevant as long as the camera doesn't get in the way of taking the photograph in the first place. So you have to decide which is most important to you; the experience of taking a photograph, or the tangible of making a print. Only then can you evaluate whether the Fuji or Sony is the best option. As a side note, considering your a prime lens kind of guy, there currently seems to be enough good options (factory or otherwise) available for Sony that lens selection between the two shouldn't be a significant determining factor. Oh, and Sony 6500 has IBIS.

" the malign influence of reading Kirk Tuck's blog:" We attempt to invite and then repress G.A.S. interchangeably during each day.

Constant challenges make life more interesting. A good reason to change camera systems at least once a year.

I’ve thought recently about the A6500 as well, but I can’t for the life of me figure out which lenses to use on it. Most of the Sony lenses for the APS-C system seem to get mediocre reviews with regard to build and image quality.
Is there anything, lens-wise, that is stellar? And compact?

Funny you should mention the A6000 line. It's the camera that showed me I could sell my old, heavy DSLRs and never ever have to look back in regret.

I may be a bit odd (an opinion put forward by at least one close friend of mine!), but I find these GAS articles quite amusing. All these people trying desperately hard not to lash out large amounts of loot on the latest gear.

The last camera I bought, a few weeks back, was a Pentax K10D. Before that, a couple of months ago, a Nikon D80. Neither was new, neither cost much more than GBP100, neither has more than 10MP and neither is great above ISO400. But both have CCD sensors, which is why I bought them, for the colour handling.

Because I like the pictures I can make with them.

[You are a lucky man Sir! --Mike]

Honestly, Mike, I think you've found a good home with Fuji. The X bodies and lenses seem to give you joy and their images are just fine. That X-T2 is truly terrific camera that I love to use. You're not going to miss a shot for not getting the A6500.

Now that Fuji GFX 50s is another story....

(Just kidding!! Finally finishing-up my long-promised supplemental notes for you now.)

I suspect they will soon come up with a6700 or a7000.
Sony has been putting its latest magic formula into all his camera lines. First was RX100 V, then a9, then RX10 MIV. And now its time for APS-C cameras to get the magic dust.
Also, that will make it a top end sports body which can compete with D500 etc.
Sony has an interesting way of selling cameras. While Canon/Nikon will replace the last canera with a new body, Sony keeps adding new bodies without discontinuing the older ones. So you have:
a6000 for the value conscious
a6300 with better build and speed
a6500 with IBIS and touchscreen
a6700 (APSc version of a9)

Similarly, you have RX100.....RX100 V.

I think you should wait for the next one. That should have an improved IBIS which you like so much.

Still using my Sony a900, mostly for economical reasons, but also an acknowledgement that my armature photograph wants, for updated technology is really in the group of nice-to-have, than really valid needs

But I have tried Phase One 10 free version for, and its RAW conversion quality is impressive going from Lightroom 4

I know you will never go for it, but the a5100 also has the same sensor, and takes equally beautiful shots. I use the 20 pancake, the Sigma 30, and the SONY 50 with it. I bought mine used, and am more than satisfied with it, shooting in raw, pp in LR5. It is small, light and easy. It reminds me of the Nikon N1 series; you can just go out and shoot with it.

The comments to this entry are closed.