« Open Mike: Who Can Do the Biggest Favor for Nikon? | Main | Doug Mills: 'Sending You a Nice Picture Now' »

Friday, 09 June 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

In many ways mirrorless came at just the right time. Boomers are retiring, dslrs have saturated their market, and of course phones killed the small sensor compacts. But I have a feeling they are mostly milking the shrinking dslr market, and will go through their own much smaller bubble (a mirrorless bubble) as people switch and buy lenses and such. It's a good time to buy a good camera with a good build and keep it for a long time, that's my take.

Cameras are getting smaller, but lenses are often getting bigger (particularly with AF and stabilization), ironically causing some to wish for somewhat bigger cameras for better grip and overall balance. And so the circle goes.

There's no question, however, that the options are greater than ever, both within and between systems.

Try mounting your phone on a tripod. It's amazing how good those things can be.

I've read the smaller, mirrorless cameras were still quite a bit behind in sales last year.

I have a Canon SL1 (much smaller than a normal size DSLR) and used it quite a bit. I now use a Canon T6s. A Rebel camera, for sure, but it makes wonderful prints. Heavy? Yes, at times. But did I mention it makes wonderful, large prints?

Each to his/her own needs. Perhaps when I get a bit older and tired of carrying my kit the prices of the smaller, lighter cameras and lens with large sensors and very reasonable prices will be normal.

My problem with cameras like the P900 is packing them for travel. If you go to the camera size comparison website, and look at the overhead view of the P900, you'll see that the lens actually sticks out quite a way. That makes the P900 a substantial 3D object that really doesn't fit very well in typical travel cases, compared to small, flat multi-lens systems like the Olympus or the Panasonic. I can fit a GX8, three f2.8 zoom lenses, a charger and extra battery in a Dopp Kit that slips quite nicely in my travel briefcase. And a 2000mm zoom? You're going to hand-hold that? That is definitely overkill, at least, for me.

And this whole thing about using cell phones...yeah, they're okay for some stuff, especially note-taking. They can also function as cameras for journalists in a pinch -- but they wouldn't be the best choice, given a choice. IMHO, cell phone cameras are like Instamatics and you'd use them for what you'd use an Instamatic for, and not much else. (Instamatics would also work as journalistic cameras in a pinch, but you didn't see many photojournalists carrying them.) And given my problems taking sunset landscapes with my iPhone, here's a money-making idea for TOP entrepreneurs: lens shades for iPhones. Collapsible rubber iShades will make your fortune.

My two cents... I am just a hobbyist, although I do function as the semiofficial in-house photographer for the ship-modelling club I am a member of. Many of the photos I do take are taken indoors, available-darkness style, preferably without flash to keep from bothering other people too much.

I upgraded my way from a Canon 300D/Rebel up to a second-hand 1DsII back in the day, with a number of big heavy expensive fast L lenses both zoom and prime, and it served me well. A big hunk of metal to be sure, carrying it around was not fun but the output I saw from smaller cameras that I tried did not match it for a very long time. The combination of some very good glass and a good, high-resolution fullframe sensor was not to be beaten.

For the past few years I have been using a rather stripped-down Fuji X system instead, it (finally!) matches the big Canon for image quality and is a lot handier (handier, but not cheaper, alas!). I find it behaves much like a film Leica in my hands and that is not a bad thing. I lived happily with only a "fast fifty" equivalent on it for a long time but recently got a macro for it and a midsize flash. My Canon kit has fallen into disuse, I only pull it out when I need something like my 80-200/2.8 that the Fuji doesn't really do.

I've tried and failed to get anything really useful out of my mobile's camera though, it is one bridge too far and the images do degenerate into mush when shooting indoors as I do. And I'm not talking about pixel-peeping here either. In daylight it would probably serve with some postprocessing, neither its sharpness nor its contrast nor its flare characteristics are really all that one could want and it does take some tiptoeing to get around the worst pitfalls. I would only use it for anything "serious" in a real pinch.

To be just, I must add that the phone is absolutely superb for snapping shots of serial number labels and suchlike in confined spaces that I cannot possibly fit my head or a proper camera into!

I've smallered and lightened, kinda full circle. As a teen, I shot a nice small Yashica SLR of some kind with a 50mm lens. Couldn't tell you the model number or max aperture...didn't care when I was 14. Camera was with me always, and I went through lots of Tri-x. As an adult, I dipped hard into Canon full frame DSLR cameras and lenses, and that was fine for a while, but I never loved the bodies and lenses, primarily for their size and weight. Used m4/3 for a while which was a nice size, but now I've settled on Fuji's system...a Goldilocks solution for me as the best mix of size and quality. Love it. Happiest I've been with the feel of the camera since I was 14. Really fun, and with me everywhere.

Well...I smallened and lightened when I came into digital, then went larger, then rolled back slightly, and now find that the right size for me is the Pentax K1 for daily prosaic work, it's "compact-ish", and the 645Z for the best stuff.

The issue for me in the end is haptics: if I can't hold it correctly, or if the controls are pinched together so far it's awkward for me, then my shooting experience becomes impinged, and that makes for being more self-conscious of myself and the interface with the gear, to the detriment of being "in the scene" with my mind.

It's the flip side of you friend Sue, for whom the weight and cumbersome-ness of the larger gear became the thing that got between her and what she was shooting.

This is pretty much the case with all tools in all trades.

Mike, Knew if I hung around long enough I would hear you mention my home town, beautiful place (chosen spot).
Canadaigua, New York

Great town, lots of history.

This is exactly why I kept waffling on the K-1. I rented it, and it's a marvelous camera. Everything a person could want.

Still I waffled.

And then Pentax released the KP. I'm almost never an early adopter. This camera just seemed like everything I needed. It even has a small on-board flash (if you're looking to carry a small kit, dragging along a mounted flash is counterproductive).

The KP is a delight. I can keep my lenses (and I added the DA 20-40 Ltd*, a perfect lens for hiking), and it's so light to carry. I hadn't upgraded since the K-5 (which I've passed on to my son), and this camera is a gem. Though it's not as tiny as a mirrorless camera, it just feels right in my hand.

*through your links, of course

Generally, my transition in cameras has moved from large to small, though not in a smooth straightforward fashion. I started with 35mm and then went to 4x5 and then to 2 1/4 and then to 8x10, and next I switched to digital with an APS-C, then a full-frame, and now a Micro 4/3s. I tended to use all the film formats at the same time for different projects. Like I didn't stop using 35mm when I picked up a 4x5. With the digital cameras, I now use the full-frame for commercial work and the M 4/3s for personal or casual use. This last move was prompted by a desire for a lighter smaller system. As an aside, my current M 4/3s is a GX8, which replaced a GX7. It seems to be an improvement to the GX7 in most ways other than a slightly bigger size. I'm very happy with it.

As a hobbyist with an interest in photographing wildlife, birds and more, over time I ended up with 3 Nikon bodies and multiple lenses. Although I often swore - swore - I'd never part with my OVF Nikons, I just sold one body + some lenses and ordered a Fuji XT-20 with a 16-50 kit lens. I haven't received it yet, but expect the Fuji to suffice for all my non-wildlife photography. If it does, I plan to sell everything else except one body and a wildlife lens.

So why am I "smallening and lightening"? One, on recent travels, I got sick of hauling so much weight around - even a single DSLR & lens weighs more than twice the XT-20 with the kit lens. And two, the big, bulky DSLRs really stick out, particularly in travel photography.

I have to pipe in to add that I'm going the other direction. I just bought a new-to-me Fuji 6x9 medium format camera, up from last year's RB67 acquisition. I tried a smaller camera, a sony RX100/IV, and while I made some good images with it, it wasn't the right kind of machine for me. The smallest camera that's ever really felt right in the hand for me is a Leica M4.

As you probably knew when you started your article, for many years the design philosophy for racing cars has been "Simplificate and Add Lightness".

- Tom -

Ignoring the fact that all this "smallening and lightening" sounds a bit like he whose name I shall neither speak nor write, there are degrees of small. As a spreadsheet nut, I looked at the respective weights of my former Nikon D800E system with the trinity f/2.8 zooms (14-24, 24-70, and 70-200) and compared it to the Sony A7RII with equivalent Sony zooms and then to my current system, the Fuji X T-2, with the 10-24, 16-55, and 30-140. I'm fully aware of the f-stop differences and the implications for depth of field. The Nikon is 9.8 lb, the Sony 8.2 lb, and the Fuji 5.6 lb. Starting with the Nikon, the Sony is a 17% savings, the Fuji a 43% saving in weight. Clearly there are lots of other issues, but these are all facts, real, not fake news, unless I made a math error.

Emsmallening and enlightening, perhaps?

I have my Nikon P600 in my 9"x6"x3" Pajaro Grande shoulder bag when I go birding. It shares space with a "small (Western) Sibley", notepad, cards, pens, voice recorder, glasses case and a few other odds and ends.


When I go birding I grab my binoculars and that bag and I'm ready to leave with everything I need.

The Nikon P600/620/900 the right tool for recording interesting birds (you never know when you'll see a casual or a vagrant) or butterflies or fungus or flowers. It's JPEG only but it suffices.

I have read that Clyde Butcher (mentioned in the JG's comment) is recovering from a recent stroke. This info is from an email I received from his Florida gallery.

I'm sure we all wish him a speedy recovery.

I've been happy with m4/3 for the reasons discussed, but find changing lenses to be the next irritation to overcome. I use my Olympus OMD and Oly 14-150 lens about 98% of the time, while the rest of my Oly lenses sit idle.

I just don't want to carry more than one lens on one camera as I traipse around looking for a shot. No bag, no other gear. And I dislike trying to change lenses while out and about.

This has me considering the Sony RX10iii, which I've used a bit and found to be great fun. It's a bit bigger than my OMD plus 14-150, but getting rid of the kit would seem to have the same advantages as smallening and lightening. One camera with lens affixed that can do just about everything I want to do, with my iPhone 7 (or maybe an RX-100) for when I want something pocketable.

Here is an interesting review of the Nikon P900 with even some comparisons with a Nikon D810 + 800mm f5.6:


I can fit my Sony A6000 plus the three Sigma DN lenses (19, 30 and 60 all f2.8) plus of course a spare battery and filters into a Domke FX5B bag that I wear on my belt (no shoulder strap). Small enough to go almost everywhere and still flexible and high quality.

Pro photographer Tim Clinch, who writes a monthly column about smartphone photography for Black & White Photography magazine, recently did a shoot in Mexico and used only iPhones. I think he took his Fuji gear as back up. He also scored a magazine cover, which I believe is the first time the magazine used a smartphone shot for a cover:

Any recent 1" compact sensor beats my old Oly PEN m4/3rds handily in every metric according to dxomark. Technology marches on, and the "good enough" experience gets delivered in an ever smaller and lighter and cheaper package. Good enough isn't to be sniffed at!

I started out with a dSLR and dozens of lenses, switched to the Olympus with a 20mm and used only that for er 8 straight years. I am now on the lookout for a beater RX100 or GX7 which, if I keep it for another 8 years will probably be the final digital camera I own given the pace of development in mobile phone camera tech. This is fine.

Yes me too. Had a sony dsc-w5 5 megapixel. Awesome little zoom lens,compact, 5 big megapixels. Great pictures while motorcycle camping. Then I figured I'd get a "real" camera. Nikon D300, bunch of huge lenses. HEAVY...Hmmmmm. It sits collecting dust. Now my Oly EM5 with 9-18 zoom go everywhere. One camera, One lens. Go figure.

I've been through a ton of cameras trying to find a pocketable camera that won't make me cry- the Canon G15, great camera but the pics just didn't hold up, then several more until the amazing x100 series, which were honestly bigger than I wanted for Disney duty but the pix made me happy:) I almost kept a Coolpix A as my everywhere machine, but it was just a little lacking, so it became the everywhere IR camera, and after a very disappointing tour of 1 inch sensors, the Fuji x70 is the champ. It's a brilliantly laid out little machine, and since I've been working with some version of the Sony 16mp sensor since the D7000, I know what to expect. Plus, pairing pics with my XT-1 is easy.

There's a lot of choices out there, although I'm still lamenting Nikons stillborn DL series- that would have be an interesting choice.

The biggest trend I'm seeing in London is smartphone + film camera. I'll see more kids with Canon AE-1s than Mirrorless cameras. Check the eBay prices for AE-1 bodies and Pentax MXs which have both doubled or more where they were a few 4/5 years back. The rises have been less dramatic in for Olympus OM-1/2/10s but they exist.

eBay still has a rich and largely untapped seal of Pentax ME Supers and Minoltas but if the trend continues then, just maybe, we're not too far from the point where it will be economical for a low-ish cost Chinese manufactured 35mm film SLR to join all the Manual lenses being launched.

My trajectory began with small and light: An Olympus rangefinder led to my first SLR, an Olympus OM-1. I was pretty satisfied with its small size. Many of my friends had those humongous film SLRs such as Canons or Nikons and I was pretty proud to be different.

Then came digital about 25 years later and I got a Nikon D70 as a first dSLR, followed by a Nikon D300 a few years later and then to the Olympus EP3, Fuji x100, Panny GX7, and a Fuji XE1.

Somehow I carried the D300, a couple of heavy lenses and a tripod around in the mountains a weekend or two a month for a few years. I'd also walk to the Tama River about 1 mile each way from my home several times a week with a heavy lens or two for waterfowl photography and never really noticed its weight.

Then, about 2 weeks ago, I took my Nikon and a few lenses (a 105mm macro and a 70-300) to a nearby park and was shocked at how much weight it had gained. It was not only the weight, the camera was so big and bulky it felt clumsy to carry. And the size of the camera bag! How did that thing get so big? Makes my other cameras seem so very light and easy to carry. With good image stabilization, I can even get away without the tripod many times.

Just going by what I see, I'd say that in Tokyo most big and expensive dSLRS (D500s D5s and Canon equivalents) are in the hands of late middle-aged men and Chinese tourists. The average person is of course using a smartphone of some type for photos and everything else. Can't really say what type of folks I see with mirrorless cameras. Some young women with cute little Olympus OMs and EPs, a few guys with Fuji X-types, but it is hard to generalize these users.

Tough to say. As we age, we might tend to see trends among our peers. If I go back 30 years, I shot with an SLR and knew precious few other people who did so - fewer people took so many pictures back then and most used p&s or disposable cameras. The biggest trend I see related to phones isn't that people are switching from big camera to them, but that everybody is taking pictures nowadays.
Several of my coworkers are into photography - and increasingly so over the last several years. They're DSLR shooters (now I'm the outlier with a mirrorless body) and one actually bought a FF setup. For years, I've shot my daughter at dance recitals, school concerts, plays, hockey games where I was the only parent with a "real camera". Now she's in high school and part of the robotics team, so I've been shooting robotics tournaments and I can tell you that DSLRs are very prevalent at those events (as are 70-200/2.8s) and they outnumber mirrorless significantly (though I did see an EM1-II and 40-150/2.8 that looked nice & handy). This is a tech-savvy group and at the last meet (regional championships) I saw a lot (20-30) of camcorders on tripods including a few pretty serious rigs.
Camera sales data shows a trend in sales, but doesn't indicate how many people actually still shoot DSLRs - for example, my camera purchases would have shows 1 new and 1 used mirrorless in the last several years, but the DSLR I bought 5 years ago still gets used for half of my photography (usually with a VC grip and 70-200).

I swam against the tide (again) with regard to smaller and lighter by moving (in stages) from a Fuji X-E2 to a X-T2. I tried the X-T20 but it was too small for my medium-sized paws. I bumped buttons and just didn't find it a good fit.

The X-T2 (without grip) fits fine. A little larger (both in size and cost), but no button bumping now.

Too a large extent, my lens choices (10-24 & 16-55) influenced this change.

As another poster said, smaller mirrorless bodies abound, but lock on a decent lens and the "lighter & smaller" body is moot. And awkward to handle.


I've recently picked up the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 pancake lens and have started using my little Olympus epl5 again (after rescuing it from my wife who now exclusively uses her iPhone) its a lot easier to carry in my work bag than the previous Em1 or em5mk2 I carried. love the little lens, it's quite sharp and it can focus quite close in a pinch. On the topic of downsizing, digitally I originally used Nikon d80/7000 with a bunch of heavy glass, eventually several years ago I stopped enjoying photography. My move to m4/3 renewed my love for photo taking as I found the system a joy to use and I was more than satisfied with the image quality.

Not sure about P900 but the Canon Superzoom (with a backout button one) is quite good for bird in a tree shoot. When I walked with those birdwatchers who can spot 100+ species with their bino, whilst I still photo my 5th :-), they all seemed to have that one.

Whenever I read such discussions I am reminded of a conversation between a retired press photographer who spent many years carrying a big Graflex and a young one who carried a Canon 1d series dslr. The young fellow asked the old timer what he thought of the new, smaller cameras. The old timer fondled the Canon for a moment and then said, "Well, I guess it's okay. If ya have to hit a guy with it he'll probably go down. But he probably won't stay down. "

'Smallening and Lightening' are all very well in themselves, but do they embiggen you as a photographer?

Closer to 64 than 63 years old, I'm sometimes tempted to engage in "smallening and lightening." However, still able to carry the 8x10 Phillips and associated 'stuff' in a nice pack for reasonable distances, I've stayed with that largest camera when making landscape images.

Here in the land of slab houses with no basements in which to set up a permanent darkroom, dragging my LPL 4500II out of storage to make a few enlargements from 4x5 is more burdensome than contacting 8x10 negatives. I'm sticking with the smaller and lighter printing process for now.

In a couple of years when Fuji introduces its GFX 100S, and essentially the same pixel count becomes available from a mirrorless system as one gets by scanning an 8x10 negative on an Epson flatbed, I'll consider leaving the dark side. Assuming of course there's still a sufficient market for selling some other equipment to fund purchase of the Fuji. :-)

We had a recent Adams exhibition at the NC Museum of Art, and I was again surprised at how soft the details were in these prints. Perhaps one or two of over 40 prints were as finely detailed as the most ordinary digital these days, the rest would have not passed muster in the detail dept-the artistry remained its usual excellence.

(I was careful to keep my trap shut about my opinion as the crowds would have thought it heresy)

How bout a DSLR not bigger than mirrorless, with gorgeous little lenses, and superb IQ? Pentax KP and "limited" lenses.

“Smallening and lightening” would not have been issues if SLRs and their lenses kept the sizes they had in the seventies and eighties. Might be wrong, but in my perception the average full frame BBPDSLR combo is larger than Ansel Adams' Hassel. However, they must be great, otherwise no-one would use them anymore.

A new camera will always make you fell better. Will your pictures be any better as a result? Perhaps, perhaps not, but you'll still feel better. Until the next new camera fashion comes along.

Well, I had a thought on this post and then I scrolled down and saw the thought above and had a second thought; and yep, I agree, embiggening (me) is about photographs which are really the point of it all.

I last bought a Lumix Fz1000 point and shoot (just for fun) and I love the versatility, 25-400mm, the weight and the focus; but hate the shutter lag and the EVF even though I can take a good photograph with it, I feel like I'm using a new version of windows or trying to understand my wife's, Mac.

So today when I could be with my three-year-old grandson encountering a West Michigan beach and Lake Michigan for the first time in his life. I grabbed the "old" D700 and the old push-pull 35-70mm just because I needed too.

The pics of the little trooper are great. I'll share if you ask.

Over my years with digital I have transitioned from a bridge camera, to DSLR, to M43, currently using an OMD-EM1.

Funny thing is, even that small kit is becoming cumbersome as I'm always bringing at least 2-4 lenses along. The process of stopping to swap lenses while hiking through the woods or walking down a crowded street can be tedious and annoying as it involves finding a place stop, put down my bag, juggle camera and lenses around without dropping them, reorganize the bag, and close everything up before I can start shooting again.

I'm about to come full circle as I have been seriously considering going back to a bridge camera. The thought of never having to deal with swapping lenses again grows more and more appealing to me every day.

It wasn't that long ago the idea of a "mega-zoom" bridge camera producing consistently great images was absurd, there were just too many compromises in terms of physics and engineering. But to my surprise, I stumbled upon the Sony RX10III. I was absolutely amazed by the speed, ergonomics and image quality from that camera, and I'm seriously considering it as my next camera.

Me too. In the 80s and 90s I used to carry a Nikon FE2 with two zooms and a fixed lens or two, plus a flash, and often an OM2SP with a couple of lenses. Add spare batteries and filters and I don't know how I did it.

In 2010 I bought a Pentax K-5, still have it, and two smallish zooms. Then I added the Sigma 120-300mm, a heavy monster, and apart from carrying it in the car a few times, I've hardly used it. I love the Pentax though, but it sits unused now.

It's been replaced by my only travel camera, the Panasonic FZ1000. Glorious images, and at the flick of the mode dial, beautiful 4K video. I grab frames sometimes. The point is, it's got everything my former heavy cameras had in one package. Only 400mm, but that's enough for me.

I have a laptop shoulder bag with this camera, a Samsung tablet PC, a thick wallet (so many cards!), a smart phone and a water bottle. That's heavy enough for me. I'm in Bali again. Nuff said.

My images now go into slide shows (Proshow Producer) and Photobooks. They print as big as 14" x 11" full bleed with ease. Happy as a clam.

You probably already saw this but in case you didn't, there is a brief interview of Doug Mills in the NYT about that photo that Bill Poole refers to, here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/insider/a-photo-of-james-comey-takes-the-internet-by-storm.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0


Found this at 43rumors.com. You could also link it to some other recent articles. I am sure this interests a lot of TOP readers.


Having started with Olympus back in 1973, I came back to them from time spent with Hasselblads, Fuji MF (6x3.4 and Texas Leica 6x9) and almost a decade with the P67, schlepp schlepp schlepp.

Now travel kit is one shoulder bag or sling. Long trip coming up in 2018 in the US southwest, and I will be packing the 12-100 Oly, 100-400 Panny/Leica, a 60 f2.8 Leica macro lens, with the EM1 and an EPL6 for backup. Might toss in the 9-18 or go for a fixed wide-angle.

Right now travel kit is the EM1, EPL6, 12-60 from 4/3 via adapter (great lens), 45-200 Panny and either the 60 Leica or the 50 f2 Oly. In any case (pun intended) excellent coverage from 24-400.

The 4/3 format is, I think, the digital version of 35mm back in the film days: while obviously a compromise, in the right hands and with the right technique capable of amazing results.

And if I need "real" quality, then the EPL6, Leica 60 f2.8 via adapter and the Gigapan 100 robotic panorama head for travel, or if I'm travelling with a car the E30 with the Gigapan Pro with something longer like a 600mm Vivitar Series 1 solid CAT or an Oly 300 f4.5 for extreme results (or the APO for "merely" phenominal results).

In any case, there is no way that I would return to schlepping 50 pounds around like I did back in the day of P67, 40/105/300+2x extender, massive tripod and dozens of rolls of film, filters, hand-held meters and the like. Nope.

Manfrotto BeSmart handles the Gigapan 100, EPL6 and 60 f2.8 Leica beautifully...and the 85 f2 Nikkor is also a dream. YMMV...

Well, I spent a couple of hours over the past two days in 100˚F and the Southern Arizona sun with a Nikon D800 and two large zoom lenses; the 14-24 f2.8 & 24-120 f4. And it was a blast. The loud “clack” from the reciprocating mirror was actually comforting. The D800 is a refreshingly unapologetic no-doubt-about-it photography machine.

I'm not thumbing my nose, since I enjoy a Nikon Coolpix A quite a bit. But I do happily use my DSLR gear. Some disclosure, I’m 60-ish.


As an octogenarian I've certainly had to follow this trend, but with insistence on no diminution of image quality. I began wondering how close I could come to 'classic' BW view camera standards with digital equipment. I first worked with a Leica Monochrom and stitched files, but discovered I could get the same image quality from an A7rII with Kolari mod, so it would produce clearer corners with Leica lenses. This let me work with a color file and use the color sliders in BW conversion - IMO a big advantage. This was the result, presented as a book of original / archival prints (which are less contrasty than the web version): www.thompsonkirk.com/shadowscapes
Next came an ankle injury that meant I couldn't even carry a tripod, so I regressed to a 'pictorial' style carrying nothing but A7rII and Noctilux - down to one lens, hand-held and wide open (same site, /darkscapes).
Now that I can carry a tripod again, I'm inclining toward even less camera weight with Fuji GFX, one (lighter!) lens, and much anticipated stitching.
In sticking with the idea of yielding little or nothing in BW image quality I've also joined the cult of Piezo printing. The shadow detail is as good as large-format, but the endless challenge is to extend the delicacy of the highlights.
I'm not sure how much I'm commenting here on improving / shrinking / lightening technology, and how much on the process of aging. But from an image-quality point of view, the results of evolution / devolution don't look markedly worse than those with Rolleiflex and Wista.

On the Pentax front the KP is fine but like the guys at the camera store I found all the grips uncomfortable.
The K70 has a fully flexible screen is weatherproof 23mp and smaller than the KP at not much mor than half the price!

I have a Nikon D700 with a bevy of manual focus and some autofocus glass. In the past, I have traveled with it and the 35 f/2 AF-D. Sometimes I'll include the 28 f/2.8 AIS. It's a fine setup for 1-2 week trips or car trips.

We are just finishing a five-week trip to Europe and I did not want the weight of the D700 so I have been using the Nikon 1 V3 with 6.7-13 lens, and it has worked great.

I'm not getting rid of the D700 though. As someone who started in film, I am still too used to the compression and bokeh that I can expect from full-frame lenses.

Hmmm.....she used to walk around with this kit 8 hours a day. I thought people were supposed to be more fit these days.... :-)

See: http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/fashion/daily/2016/07/11/diane-arbus/12-lede-diane-arbus.w750.h560.2x.jpg

Couple of thoughts on who is downsizing - I agree it is mostly the more serious enthusiast, perhaps because they are less influenced by marketing hype and have a better understanding of what they actually need.

At the amateur level, I suspect buyers are still swayed by slick salesmen and high street multi-lens package deals - you appear to get a lot for your money.

At the pro end, many will have a large investment in the system - lenses, flashes etc. which will all need replacing. Unlike non-pros, changing systems should show a financial benefit. Good as smaller systems may be there are probably few situations where the cost of switching makes sense on the financial bottom line.

I think my general shooting rule of thumb is if the camera or gear gets in the way of getting the shot, it's too big and/or complicated. The equipment has to "disappear" in the process so one can think about the visual. On the other hand, if I'm just taking a particular "car" out for a spin to hear it move through the gears, any camera of the moment will present itself.
-Bob G.

I went from my Canon 5DMkII and gear totaling 26 pounds to the OMD-EM5 that was too fiddly (but great photos, mostly) to the Fuji x100 series. Now my pack is just a pound or so, plus my Holgas and whatever film camera my GAS demands as homage.
I don't miss the 5d weight and bulk in the least!

Is there a point on the smallening and lightening scale at which it becomes impossible to 'make' a photograph though? :)

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007