« How the (Camera) World Changes | Main | The Sally Mann Article »

Thursday, 16 April 2015

Comments

The Fuji lens line now has a 23mm (35mm-e), 27mm (40mm-e), two 56mm (85mm-e) and 60mm (90mm-e). There is a rumor about a 23mm f2 coming together with the X Pro 2. Even if you consider all possible lenses from all manufacturers that can be mounted on the Sony, the Fuji system still looks better at your preferred focal lengths considering that you do not need to mess around with adapters, AF works as designed and there are no color casts as you move away from the center of the frame. Not to mention that you like the X-T1 as a camera.

Giving up image stabilization for that seems worth it.

You might be tempted to use the argument that a Sony A7II would allow you to review a huge swathe of lenses. But would the reviews be valid given that those lenses were no designed to work on the A7II?

Just pre-ordered the new Fuji 16/1.4. (I went through the link here -- I hope that works for pre-orders too.) Added to my other lenses, it'll make a killer set of fast, sharp primes for my daily assignments (16-23-56) along with a set of smaller lenses for travel (14-18-35). And the Fuji zooms are no slouches either.

After almost thirty years of shooting monster DSLRs, I've never been so excited to go to work every day.

The only camera where I had multiple lenses was my old Nikon F. I would have done the same thing with my current Nikon DX bodies but Nikon never came through, for me anyway, with DX primes in the wide to normal range.

So now I have moved to the Fujifilm XPro-1. Only one lens currently the 27mm f2.8.

The 56mm f1.2 is next. I can't wait.

Makes sense. I use the original A7 with my legacy Yashica/Contax SLR lenses and Leica M and screw mount lenses. Haven't even bought a Sony FE mount lens yet.

I feel you, as they would say in "The Wire". Sooo tempted to see my OM Zuiko 50/1.4 on one of the A7 family...

The Fuji primes are amazing lenses. The 56mm lens is the first lens in a long time that has really blown my mind with performance. http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2014/08/fuji-56mm-f1-2/ And when you compare that performance against the cost and realize you get Leica levels of lens performance with autofocus its kinda a no-brainer.

But the thing that will really blow your mind is that Fuji is getting prime level sharpness out of their zoom lenses too: http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2014/02/stellers-jay-with-the-fuji-x-pro1-and-fuji-55-200-zoom-lens/ The autofocus performance of the Fuji cameras is still not up to the say, Canon 1DX level, but the image quality and lens performance are amazing.

I'm thinking of something similar. What five lenses would you pick for the Fuji?

This is an interesting counterpoint to your April 14 post. It's entirely possible to have a favorite camera body while not liking some or all of the lenses available for it; so I suppose it's equally possible to have a favorite lens or group of lenses that one would want to use regardless of what body they're attached to. They'd have to be some damned sweet lenses though and they'd really have to suit my style of shooting.

I have an A7 II. I tried a friends for an afternoon. I bought one before giving his back to him. I think it's that good. My Leica lenses are getting used again, and again, and again. And Nikon. And soon, some old FD ones. It's a camera that has given me huge amounts of freedom and with that some great images.

It does something that all cameras should do, it makes me want to make work.

This is the exact reason I bought into the A7 system, to be able to pick and choose from a variety of lenses. I now have an A7II for travel (thanks to better ergonomics and IBIS), and an A7 (bought used) for landscapes.

I use them with 3 lenses: Nikkor 24 f2.8 AIS (used); Zeiss C Sonnar T 50 f1.5 ZM; Leica Tele Elmarit M 90 f2.8 (used).

So I have a wonderful trio of lenses, and I am having a blast using this kit.

From what I've seen of your photography (too little, hint, hint !) it's hard to imagine you using 4-5 lenses.

Fuji does seem like a great system for lens-oriented folk. The A7II in a different way, of course, but I suspect that if I ever wanted to build a nice lens kit for use on an FE body, I'd want them to be all from the same system for consistency, usability, and a degree of anal-retentiveness that I'm not normally prone to :) I don't think I'd be satisfied with a Nikon and a couple of Canons and a Contax and a Zeiss. (On the other hand, I don't think my wife would be happy if I bought 4-5 ZF lenses).

The nice thing about the FE bodies is that you're not committed to Sony lenses. The downside is that if you buy a set of lenses to use on FE bodies, you're kind of committed to Sony bodies (presumably, you bought them for use on a FF sensor; not APS-C). And "Sony" and "commitment" just don't go together.

So I'm guessing that the announcement of the new 16mm WR lens has gotten you excited?

I think not owning too many lenses for a system says that you know well what you want to do in photography and you know what you need to do it. Desire for anything more is either your wandering wallet or, less likely, the signal of a change in your modus operandi.

I'm also feeling the pull of the A7II, but I'm unable to figure out how to get color that pleases me from Sony raw files in Lightroom, whereas Olympus is no work at all. And the shutter is reportedly loud with no e-shutter option... attention is the last thing I want when walking around with a professional-looking camera.

After selling my Sony A900 and meager collection of Sony glass I purchased the Fuji X-T1 and Kit lens (18-55). I have also started collecting old glass (Zeiss Jena, Voigtlander, Helios, Jupiter-11, and even a new Rokinon) and use with various adapters. These lens are generally of very high build quality with wonderful optics, comparatively inexpensive, and offer a unique look; coupled with the X-trans sensor, that I like very much. I shoot and print square in B&W. What do I miss and why would I consider the Sony A7 MkII: 1.). In-camera image stabilization, and 2.). the larger sensor mitigates the reduced file size when shooting square (although for the life of me I don't understand why Sony won't add a 1:1 aspect ratio). Although it seems that Sony has finally decided they need to fill out their lens line (I'll believe it when I see it) and there is expensive glass from third parties, I am more interested in adding to my collection and buying adapters as needed. Using these lens with adapters I am able to keep the look I like in my prints. As image capture and mechanical technologies improve I am no longer locked into one camera manufacturer and can select as desired. This seems the best way to future proof my photography equipment needs.

Mike I bought into the Fujifilm x-t1 system some time ago, despite being a lifetime Nikon user. I'm yet to be disappointed whereby the move would be considered a mistake. Currently using the 35, 60, and 18-55, the latter being my favorite. Would like the 23 1.4, however have a 23 on my x100, (an expensive duplication). The longer zooms are expensive and for me, not of frequent use. Maybe an adapter to use my Nikon long zooms would be cost effective, as the need rarely arises. In any case please post your thoughts =/- if you do go ahead.

Unless you're a pro with special requirements, three lenses will be enough for your needs. We all daydream about owning a cornucopia of lenses, but my experience taught me all we really need is a wide-angle, a standard and a short(ish) telephoto lens. It goes without saying all of them will be fast primes. Even if we think we need special lenses - say, fisheyes or perspective correction lenses -, we might find ourselves not giving them enough use to justify their ownership. My words of advice for young people are: keep it simple and do not fall prey of GAS.

There's just something about Fuji that made me go "all in" on their lenses as well.

Great post, Mike.

I have a Fuji X camera along with every Fuji lens that's made for it: the Fujifilm X20. (Should I upgrade, it will be to an X30, with no change in lenses.)

I know that there are "better" cameras out there, even within the Fuji brand. But this little fixed zoom Fuji X20 gives me more of what I want overall in a camera than any other I've found:

• High enough lens quality;
• Wide enough/long enough zoom;
• Large enough/good enough sensor;
• Well configured and located controls;
• The right array of features;
• And finally, the size and feel, heft and balance, to make the X20 an almost effortless extension of my personal vision, a veritable save button for my mind's eye.

I love the way I can reach out through this little camera and bring back interesting pieces of the world.

Any meaningful improvements in my photographs will require my becoming a better photographer, not getting a better camera.

Is is just me, or do I feel like a lot of people are doing what you are doing. They are recovering from G.A.S. and settling down with one camera and selected lenses.

I have divested of Canon and Pentax bodies and lenses and have a tight little set of Micro 4/3 bodies and lenses. They are more than enough as far as print quality goes, and yes, I do print on a daily basis, and seem to be mature enough so that I won't have to jump when they go to the rumored 20mp sensors.

Don't feel too bad. I have virtually every Canon L lens up through 400 mm as well as many non-L lenses. Every one was a must-have purchase when I got it. They may be fun to play with, but 98% of my photography is done with just a couple of those lenses. I don't even use the best lenses because convenience and readiness are often more important than quality (especially when they are all pretty awesome despite what an enthusiast might conclude). For example, it's really hard not to use a 24-105 for almost everything even though it is an f4. And, although dust is not the issue it once was, not having to change lenses can be a good thing. I have about 6 micro 4/3rds lenses, but the Panasonic 12-35 is always on the camera. And my Sony 7r has never had any lens on it except the 35mm f2.8. So, I could probably be just as happy doing photography with many fewer lenses.

After reading this it may sound a little like "humblebrag," but it is not meant that way. I am just easily excited and am not as careful as I should be with my purchases.

If you don't mind working in manual mode, which I often do anyway, there are adapters which permit using lenses from one system on different system cameras. For example, I have a Fotodiox adapter to permit me to use my Pentax 67 lenses on my Nikon DSLR. It works well, and sure saves a lot of money over buying all new lenses if you change cameras.

Lynn, I would get the 23mm, the 56mm, the 14mm or new 16mm, and lastly the new pro zoom. So far I only own the 23mm but have been very happy with it.

--Mike

I have a Sony A900 and A99 with about 15 lenses that I've acquired over many years starting with Minolta film cameras. I'm interested in the A7II, not because if gives me access to even more lenses, but because it's a chance to start over with only one or two!

I'm one of the least qualified to comment here (take my word for it), but that's never stopped me before.

I "backed" into the Fuji system earlier this year after shooting film since the mid-60's, followed by a decade with simple(r) digital cameras.

I have a stable of old Konica glass that seems pretty good with my X-T1 cameras, plus the Fuji 10-24, 18-55, and 55-200. By any reasonable standard I'm photographically set for life (or what's left of it). All I need to do is to learn to use this gear, and to SEE.

You might need a twelve step, not a twelve lens program. Major GAS attack going on here.

I once used a view camera with a triple convertable lens. Use of the front or rear elements alone or together gave three different focal lenghts.

Yup. I have several adapters an use Contax c/y, Contax G, Canon EF, Canon FD and Olympus OM lenses...

I'm really enjoying not worrying about lenses at all: I have my Fuji X100 and its little built in lens, and that's it. I like just forgetting about it all and just taking the odd, simple photo. Bliss.

Someone at another website suggested a three lens kit for the Sony A7 series: 21/f1.8 Voigtlander with Voigtlander's adapter (the one that allows closer focus); a 50mm Zeiss Sonnar (personally I would opt for the new 50mm/f2 Zeiss Loxia); and a Leica Elmarit-R 135mm/f2.8 along with a Novoflex Leica R to E adapter.

With my Fuji X-T1 I have 14-23-35-60 and I plan to get the 90 when released later this year (or so I'm told). For landscape work, I think the 60 is fine (compared to the 56) but yes it does focus a bit slow. Some wag over at that other website commented on the 60's focus speed by telling someone if you point the lens at a caterpillar, you'll get a sharp picture of a butterfly.

"... three lenses will be enough for your needs. ... Unless you're a pro with special requirements, three lenses will be enough for your needs. We all daydream about owning a cornucopia of lenses, but my experience taught me all we really need is a wide-angle, a standard and a short(ish) telephoto lens."

This generalization doesn't work for me, Manuel. Had you written "... three lenses are enough for my needs. ...... but my experience taught me all I really need is a wide-angle, a standard and a short(ish) telephoto lens." I'd have no argument.

I shoot at least hundreds of images a year at 600 mm (FF eq.) and would feel severely deprived with nothing longer than a short(ish) telephoto. I also shoot a lot with macro. One of the ways I see the world is in small/tiny extracts of the wider visual field.

Your vision was the standard back when I started with 35 mm in the 60s, but I never felt the real freedom to capture the world as I see it until I got true macros and long teles.

I see nothing to criticize in the choice of lenses you find fulfill your needs. Why do you feel the need to sell your version to others? We all have different visions of the world that we wish to capture. Different lenses are required to realize them.

I have a range of primes, mostly for speed, but prefer zooms when there's enough light. That's just what works for me.

Are you really doing anyone with a different way of seeing a favor by recommending that they only use the tools that work for you?

"five lenses that all fit on the same camera, all at once."

Ok, I waited all day for someone else to comment on this. I spent part of the time trying to imagine what a sketch of this would look like, but I decided to leave it to your imagination. :-)

Thanks, Edward Taylor. I got a good chuckle, recognizing myself in your story.

Back in film days, I managed to accumulate way too many OM mount lenses, 12 distinct prime focal lengths of Zuikos alone, along with many zooms, mirrors, etc. I had 18-1000 mm covered.

In my detour in Canon land, I didn't accumulate many lenses. Now, with µ4/3, I must be at home again, as the big brown truck will be delivering my 14th. 'real' µ4/3 lens (plus the 2 lens cap lenses) today.

Uses are more variable than with my OMs, though. Two lenses have IS, to go with the tiny GM1 that has no IBIS, for example, but are otherwise focal length duplicates.

I have sold off one redundancy, and should clear out a couple of others - but buying and playing with new ones is more fun than selling. \;~)>

Herman said "I once used a view camera with a triple convertible lens. Use of the front or rear elements alone or together gave three different focal lengths."

I still do. The longer element makes a great portrait lens on mine.

Mike, I was _just_ getting ready to follow the one camera + one lens idea...a new (old) Canon EF 35mm IS on a new (old) Canon 6D...are you trying to confuse me? :-)

Mike,
Your choice of lenses for the X-T1 sounds right on the money. I own the 14mm, and it is as every bit good as the 23, FYI. I used the 56mm briefly and was very impressed with it. I don't really do portraiture, so I am not sure how often I would use this lens (though I would love to have it).

You refer to the new pro zoom, but I'm assuming you're referring to the new 16-55/2.8, rather than the 55-140/2.8 (equivalent to the classic "70-200/2.8")

FWIW, I recently bought the 55-140/2.8 pro zoom and it is nothing less than spectacular.

For BW Jones: The AF performance on the X-cams is not quite yet at 1DX level, but it's getting usably close. I've been shooting motor racing with my X-T1 and the 50-140/2.8 and getting superb image quality and focus performance:

http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/generalfujixphotos/Jack%20Beckman.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/generalfujixphotos/Maggie.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/generalfujixphotos/_DSF6976.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/generalfujixphotos/_DSF8184.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/puma_cat/generalfujixphotos/_DSF8335.jpg

The times they are a'changin'....

The fact that the camera you use has a ten-million-lens compatibility doesn't necessarily mean that you should or even will buy anything more than jut the right one to cover your needs.

When I bought my EM5 I got the 17mm and a basic zoom lens.
When I change those, if ever, I will get the same focal lenghts with a better glass.

When the Xpro2 is released, it may just convince you to stay around....

Back home after a two week plus trip to Arizona. I drove so there was unlimited amount of space for cameras and lenses, not to mention tripods, filters,camera bags, backpacks, and other photographic miscellany. I took a Fuji XE-1 and a XT-1 along with five Fuji primes and two Fuji zooms. Then there was a Sony A7 and a Sony A7II with the Sony Zeiss 35mm F2.8 and the Sony Zeiss 24-70 F4. Without listing them all I also took a half dozen, or more- older manual lenses ( Nikon, Zeiss, Voightlander, OM Zuiko, Tamron and Sigma along with adaptors for both brands of camera.Then there was a Noblex 35mm pano camera and a Sawyer Nomad 620.
The Noblex never got film put in it, too easy to shoot digital and splice. I shot one roll with the Sawyer ( had a particular project for it). At least 70% of the pictures were taken with the Fuji XT-1 using a Fuji 50-200 zoom and the Sony A7II with the 24-70 zoom. I did shoot one day solely with the two fuji's- A fuji 18mmf2 and an OM zuiko 85mmF2. This was at the Pima Air Space museum. And I shot one day, in Lower Antelope Canyon, with the Sonys using mostly a 21mmF2.8 Zeiss and occasionally a Nikkor 35mmF1.4.
I am still editing files and may still be when I leave this summer for a similar driving trip to the east coast. At night before I drift off to sleep I go over which cameras and lenses will go with me on that trip. I've been married ( very happily) to the same woman for 37 years, have the 65 Mustang i bought 47 years ago in my garage, and worked in the same field for 40years ( 29 for the same company) But when it comes to cameras and lenses my common sense seems to just evaporate. Its kinda Fun!

Mike, will you stop this please! Right now! You've got me rushing to the store windows two days running. I nearly fell for the Sony NEX7 deal yesterday, even though I'm an Olympus and Pentax man. Now you've got me going again.

Actually, my eye has been caught by the DEO Tech Contax G to NEX adapter, giving AF to these lenses lacking focusing rings. Crumbs, I've just bought the Metabones adapter for m4/3 with its big MF ring around the mount. Now you've got me sneaking glances at Sony Alpha. I don't need it, I don't need it. Stop this.

Jim Henry wrote:

<"five lenses that all fit on the same camera, all at once."

Ok, I waited all day for someone else to comment on this. I spent part of the time trying to imagine what a sketch of this would look like, but I decided to leave it to your imagination. :-)>

Maybe a big version of this ?

http://shop.holgadirect.com/products/holga-iphone-5-lens-filter-case-kit-slft-ip5

- Dennis

Yes, I had some lovely lenses back in the late '80s. For Nikon I had the 24-50mm, 28mm Series E, a Tamron 35-80mm Adaptall (on Herb Kepler's recommendation, and he was right), 55mm Micro, 75-150mm Nikon E, 200mm Micro and 300mm f4.5 ED IF Nikkor.

For Olympus OM I had 18mm f3.5, 21mm f3.5, 28mm f3.5, 50mm f1.8, a Sigma 50-200mm APO, a Tamron 70-150mm Adaptall and the Tokina 500mm f8 I mentioned yesterday. I was pretty well covered. (Most of these were bought second hand. It was one of my great pleasures to haunt the Used windows.)

And they ALL went in the burglary. I was insured, but I never amassed a collection like that again.

Instead, in 2000 I bought the Contax G system G1 and G2 bodies with 28mm, 35mm and 90mm (all used, from Singapore). I thought this would be the ideal AF travel kit, but to be honest, I've never had good results. Still got it, still trying. (The G system fell pretty low on eBay for years but now actually seems to be rising in value. Lucky I held on to it.)

Then digital came along. I bought the Minolta A2 in 2004 and film was relegated to the shelf. Now I only have an old Pentax MF FA 50mm f1.8, Pentax DA 16-45mm and 50-200mm, and Oly 14-150mm and 75-300mm, plus the adapted Minolta 250mm RF Rokkor to either m4/3 or Pentax.

Despite all this, I'm finding the best travel kit is to carry either just one body, the EM1 with the 14-150mm, OR a good quality fixed zoom camera like the Sony RX10. Nothing else. No decisions to make, no fumbling in the bag, no danger of dust on the sensor. Things have changed. The RX10 gives better results than I ever got with film.

My contrarian view is that nothing else matters if the photos aren't in focus and a pro or prosumer CaNikon DSLR has far superior predictive focus tracking that is much faster and more accurate than any of the mirrorless cameras. Not that this would matter to many because they photograph static subjects or take the time to manually focus, but for some photographers who photograph animals (including humans) or moving objects, modern autofocus technology provides the highest success rate ever. I've had the Fujis and m4/3s and while they are nice pocket jewelry, they fail once subjects move. (But they'd be the perfect tools to shoot the sequel to Michael Lesy's famous book about Wisconsin history!)

This also speaks to the lameness of the larger camera companies (Canon and Nikon) that they don't market their higher end gear based on its amazing speed and focusing performance. That's the biggest differentiation between DSLRs and mirrorless now.

Mike I'm sure I can remember you once saying that you didn't think the use use of adapted lenses was worth it.

For my m4/3 kit I have the 17mm f2.8, the 25mm f1.8 and the 60mm f2.8 primes and this is for me a great light weight outfit. But for days when I go bush walking, like today, and want to travel light I take the the 12-50 and 40-150 because its a really flexible combination.

I do use some adapted lenses, a couple of OMs and M mount lenses that I just couldn't give up even when they were orphaned. I now use them for video where their manual focus really comes in handy.

Yeah, the A7 very much encourages lens buying. I mentioned to a friend that I had about 20 50mm lenses , and he wanted to know which ones, and when I went through the list and I had about 30 of them.

My current passion is Leica slide projector lenses. The 90mm 2.5 Colorplan CF is a rather amazing portrait lens, and the super curved field is fun to play with. I got mine for a dollar , and have mounted it on a tilting lens mount for even more fun.

There goes your One Camera One Lens One Year project!

Even though I don’t own a Leica I sometimes buy the Leica magazine LFI. In the first issue of 2013 there is brilliant work of Szymon Szcesniak. If I could once make one of such pictures in my lifetime I would be happy. He only uses a 35mm for his lanscapes and 75mm for his portraits. "What a clever guy!" I thought.
I have replaced my DSLR with six lenses by a m43 and already bought five lenses again that have more or less the same angles as in my old system. I wanted to buy Fuji a few years ago because I always loved my F31fd so dearly, but in the shop I fell for Olympus. That was before the X-T1. The grass is always greener in the other system. If I now could make the choice again I probably would go for a Fuji with a 23mm and a 56mm and in addition I would do what Rodger Kingston advises. Buy a Fujifilm X30. Great for back ups and close ups. The Swiss Army Knife.
Nowadays I seldom print extremely large. Poster sizes are mostly watched from a distance anyway. For 99,9% my images are only watched on a computer screen and when the conditions are right it is even hard to keep the images of my Olympus and the old 6mp Fujifim apart.

It's ironic, with mirrorless systems- almost all of them allowing for use of adapters that allow you to use virtually any legacy lens on most any mirrorless camera- all of the lenses designed specifically for a mirrorless system can be used only with that particular system; likely never to be useful in any other way... Should that particular system fade into camera history.

I just purchased a Soviet Union era 300mm lens built in 1959. Here is the adapter arrangement:

1. Smaller screw mount to M42 screw mount
2. M42 to Pentax K
3. Pentax K to Sony E

It is like crack; every great old lens becomes a modern object of desire-even the stuff that came out of Nikita Khrushchev's Russia.

Thank Heaven for focus by wire and electronic aperture selection. Otherwise, how would we stop this nonsense.

The Fuji XF lenses are superb. However I have a set of Voigtlander LTM's that work fine with the adapter on my two Fuji bodies. So to me the Fuji X cameras are very useful for both ways of going.

Plus 1 for John Krill...I was waiting for Nikon to make prime lenses for their APS-C line, and they never did it, I wouldn't have even cared if they made full frame primes in f/2.8 with sub-500 dollar pricing (ala Canon), but they never did...seems like their "fast" lenses are f/1.4 for a lot of money, and their "moderate" lenses are f/1.8, for a little less money (but still a lot).

I ended up testing M4/3rds and starting to switch to that (I currently have 4 primes), but if the Fuji stuff had been out at the time, it would have been a no-brainer. My only wish with M4/3rd's is that someone would make a larger body (something like a Nikon D90), only thin for the format, just 'cause it'd be easier to handle. Some of those Olympus bodies are just too small...

It's probable you'll want to pick up an extra body as you build up your lens collection. It is nice having two focal lengths at the ready. Most mirroless cameras are small and light enough so as not to become burdensome. I often take an Oly EPL-5 + 17mm f/1.8 lens and an Oly OMD EM-1 + 45mm f/1.8 along with me.

After having my D700 since it's introduction way back when, I fianlly succumbed to the siren song of the A7 II a few weeks ago. The idea that I wouldn't be limited to the small universe of Sony lenses was key to my decision. Alas, the first camera was defective and I just got the second last night. It should be a fun weekend though.

I've used a Sony A7 for the past year as a lens horse/surrogate DSLR body with Leica R, Nikkor, and the occasional M-mount lenses.

- I find it a clunky body in use, with relatively cheap feel, scattered menu organization, and poor ergonomics.
- It has a good viewfinder and a decent sensor.
- It only works well with a small selection of M-mount lenses shorter than 40mm focal length. No big deal if you're primarily buying it for SLR lenses.
- The EVF has limited adaptation range in brightness for sunny days... I keep a wide brim hat with me or I'm working blind. (Don't have this problem with either the Oly E-M1 or Leica X/M-P with their EVFs.)

Since I acquired a Leica M-P recently, the shortcomings of the Sony A7 have been more apparent. Working with the M-P is a joy, having both a real rangefinder and an EVF, AND much better compatibility with RF lenses is fantastic. Although the M-P sensor isn't quite as sensitive as the A7, I find the quality better and they seem easier to edit.

My A7 is going up for sale.

I just bought a pentax o-gps1 and other than Pentax 67, never got any pentax bodies and lens. And not even touching any and still NOT! Hence, still asking in pentax forum what to get next (the body is fixed at KS-2 for the articulated screen; I used that for my casual astrophotograph hence o-gps1; can do this that patch of sky I can see star in North Point Hong Kong). That may be my one camera body one lens astrophotography project (may be two 50/1.4 and 28/2.x M plus one pentax 67 200mm i.e. three but being lazy, it would be just one).

Other than that the success of the om-d IBIS using Nikon 80-400 VR2 to take small birds in the walk (and tress) make me re-think the whole line-up. Still keeping my Nikon for BIF but really does not need AF in many cases. But old lens with IBIS, it is very good. Got Hessey C, Leica old M/L, Pentax 67 but the best so far is my Nikkor M.

If Sony have 14bit raw, IBIS etc. for the A7S?, I would get that. Not interest in 24 or even 36 Mbps any more. But quite like IBIS and high ISO. It may even be better as I took a few star using just their 6 and did have tools like iOptron and the Scissor-like thing for astro.

Waiting for Sony body whilst looking for Pentax old lens goo enough for "casual astrophotography". (Cannot afford those of Luminous Landscape but I did save up to use iTelescope for serious one.)


@ Dennis, re your reply to my post, see bottom:

<"five lenses that all fit on the same camera, all at once."

Ok, I waited all day for someone else to comment on this. I spent part of the time trying to imagine what a sketch of this would look like, but I decided to leave it to your imagination. :-)>

Maybe a big version of this ?

http://shop.holgadirect.com/products/holga-iphone-5-lens-filter-case-kit-slft-ip5

This is an interesting idea - just filters, of course, although Mike was talking about lenses. (Never mind my over-literal interpretation; I can't help myself.)

But... the Holga thing reminded me of an 8mm movie camera my family had in the 50's that actually had a rotating turret with (I think) 3 different focal length lenses... maybe Mike's dream can literally become true?

Fujifilm did something very straightforward: put out roadmaps that show a lens lineup that duplicates the most popular focal lengths and zooms in full frame DSLRs; and through their interviews, demonstrate awareness on what photographers want to see next in their camera bodies.

That gave me faith that I could invest into their system now and will be closer to what I want in my system in a few years.

When comparing that with the other major players in the key areas including prices, size/weight for a typical kit, lens roadmap and estimated delivery dates, line up "DNA" and overall enjoyment of using the gear, etc., Fujifilm became a very compelling option.

The comments to this entry are closed.