'Stop Switching'

[Comments have been added.]

That's the advice of Thom Hogan of ByThom.com, who says your New Year's resolution should be to never switch camera systems again.

He makes the case for it. Charting some of the real switching dilemmas of the past, he concludes, "there's now no clear benefit. All you're doing is showing your angst and wasting money."

I also noted this sentence in passing:

"Oh, you switchers all tried lens adapters, because that seemed to be a solution that kept you from buying new lenses, but I've been amused as person after person attempting that trick quickly tires of it and succumbs to new mount lens buying."

He has further comments along that line, but let's not steal his thunder—you can read his article for yourself. I merely wanted to point out that this has been my observation over many years too. That's why I'm always advising people to make sure that all the lenses they want are available in the lensmount of the camera system they choose. Every time I say it, I hear from those few people who are happy using adapted lenses, bless 'em, but that doesn't change the fact that most people who count on using adapted lenses "quickly tire of it" once they actually have to take pictures that way.

Thom makes specific prescriptions for users of specific brands, too, in which the phrase "just get better at using it" keeps recurring. Sobering thought...that we should just get better at using what we already have. What a concept. The guy's no fun.

Another good recent Thom post: "2022 Is Going to See Changes."

Makes me want to...switch
So, when you read this post, was your reaction a.) to think of course I'm not going to switch, I already have what I want, or b.) to anxiously start thinking about switching again?

I'm in group "b," but then I'm a nut when it comes to cameras. Too old to change now*.  :-)

Mike

*Not really, but that's my handy excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Book o' the Week

American Geography by Matt Black, a great name for a photographer but a terrible internet name, impossible to search. Stan Banos calls American Geography a "handsome, well thought out and put together book." Matt's work is outstanding.

The link is a portal to Amazon. Thank you kindly for helping support The Online Photographer!

The following logo is also a link if you click on it:

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ben Marks: "I had to laugh at Thom's idea, because it contains an unstated assumption that the relevant question is 'either this or that' and not 'why not this, but also that?'

"And let me just tip my hand here: I have Nikons and Leicas, a Fuji XPro-1 and an Olympus OM-D, a Pentax K1 and.... Well, you get the idea. And yeah, I am a bit of a photo gear hoarder. But the mortgage is paid and the kids aren't hungry, so....

"I do endorse the idea that no single piece of gear will be the one that makes you happy. But being able to take pictures in lots and lots of different situations, and with lots of different 'looks'? That has been shown, historically, to make me very, very happy. So when a piece of gear comes along that promises to add to those capabilities? Let's just say I have my eye on you, Nikon Z9."

Steve Biro: "If the purpose of one's involvement in photography is strictly to produce images, if one is a professional photographer or if one is attempting to do photography on a tighter budget, then what Thom writes is absolutely correct. But if photography is also an enthusiasm, if one is also a gear enthusiast or if one becomes bored periodically, one system isn't going to cut it. Over the years, my personal solution was to simultaneously run two systems that were different enough to make it interesting. I would gradually update bodies (usually as a camera maker would bring out the next generation) and add lenses to keep them reasonably current. For a while, when Micro 4/3 came out, I was running three systems. I could afford that at the time but not as I head for retirement. I'll probably go down to one main system (likely Fuji) with one full-frame body and two or three lenses to go with that.

"But if practicality is paramount, Thom Hogan has it right."

John Krumm: "I find that I yearn to switch every so often. The first switch was the hardest. It gets easier from there. I'm neck deep in keywording, re-organizing, and occasionally re-processing all my digital images since around 2008 when I bought an Olympus 420 and a 14–42mm kit lens. I get to revisit my history of switching, from the 4/3 cameras, then Micro 4/3, then Pentax K1, then Ricoh GRII, then various Fuji mirrorless cameras. Each had their charms. Got my eye on a Panasonic S5, which looks pretty sweet, but I'm resisting so far. "

John Krill: "I switched from Nikon DX cameras to Fujifilm X series cameras for one reason only. I wanted to use prime lenses. Wide to normal. And not the fastest (waste of money). I got them and I love them and the cameras. Especially my current everyday camera, the Fujifilm X-E4. I stopped using the X-Pro2 and it is now my backup. Hell of a backup, no? Anyway, I am very happy with Fujifilm cameras and primes lenses and have no desire to switch to anything else."

Joe Holmes: "I have reached the point where I can't see ever being disappointed shooting with my four-year-old Nikon D850, or my even-older collection of lenses. But to answer your question, yes, that does make me sad. I miss the thrill of new equipment."

Rick Popham: "Thom has an unusually clear-headed approach to gear advice in this age of Internet influencers. But I love switchers! Back in the day when my favorite camera store was still around, and Nikon and Canon kept leapfrogging each other, I got a lot of used Nikon gear in very nice shape. The source was a wealthy dentist who would trade in his gear and switch systems each time one frog would leap over the other. The guys at the store used to call me whenever 'Dr. D.' would start talking about the latest Canon releases (I shot Nikon).

"Nowadays I shoot mostly Micro 4/3, but would really like to trade in my Nikon F gear to try some of the new Nikon Z stuff. I guess that's a big enough change to call it a 'switch.'"

Kirk: "I didn't know that switching systems was a bad thing. I always thought it was fun and kept the process fresh and interesting. I guess I know better now. I wonder what other pursuit we can find to suck the fun out of next."

Mike adds: Kirk has been, um, known to switch from time to time. That's the problem of being a blogger...everybody knows your business!

Zack S: "I have a decent Fujifilm system; an X-T2 and six Fuji lenses which I acquired over a long period of time. Have two different pinholes for it and a zoneplate too, all in Fuji mount. The only adapted lens I have is a Holga lens in a Nikon mount and the adapter for it, but they do not work well together. Never really understood the whole adapted lens thing. When I got into the Fuji system I sold all of my Nikon things to avoid using adapted lenses. After all, what works better with a camera then lenses designed to be used with it?"

Hank: "I shoot a lot with old Leica rangefinders—I have II and a IIIa that I enjoy using very much, and the results, technically anyway, are really top notch. But I also keep my 'old' Nikon FM3a, partially because it really is a much 'better' camera than the Leicas (it does a lot more, more simply), but mostly because I seem to get more pleasing results out of it more often. With digital, I seem to be the opposite—the cameras which do more confound me a little, and they are less enjoyable to use. My little Ricoh GR III (and now GR IIIx) always seem to punch above their weight, and I end up with more interesting shots using them. Maybe it is because I expect less, or maybe because I am just more relaxed shooting them. Whatever the reason, I like 'em!

"All of which means that there is little out there now that appeals to me. I just sold my Panasonic S5. It was an excellent camera, and very good with my old Leica lenses, but never felt 'right.' I see no need to replace it with another camera of its ilk. I am beginning to learn, at nearly 60 years of age, that certain cameras do one thing very well, and once you figure out what it is, you’re golden. It’s a very personal thing, and no reviewer out there has the same needs that I do (apparently!)."

Huw Morgan: "I think the joy is slowly disappearing from the camera market just like it did for the PC market. When technology was advancing in leaps and bounds, switching cameras and computers was fun. Each switch brought a measurable jump in functionality, whether it was autofocus speed, compute speed or portability. Now that we've reached maturity in both areas of technology, a change brings little in the way of any wow factor. Right now, I think anyone would be very hard-pressed to pick a winner between a Nikon z6II, a Canon R6, and a Sony a7 IV. The pain of switching is huge compared to the tiny advantages one platform might enjoy over another.

"On the computer front, I recently upgraded from a 6 year-old desktop with a seventh generation Intel processor to a new desktop with a 12th generation Intel processor. The difference was marginal. Compared to the 'good old days' when Moore's law was in full swing, the upgrade was disappointing. The fun of technology has shifted to other areas like virtual reality and electric cars. Photography is no longer a technology race; it's back to being a profession and an art form where expertise matters more than tech."

Pak Ming Wan: "That comment about the lens adapter is so true. I bought a Pentax-K-to-Micro-4/3 adapter, with speed booster (i.e. it reduces slightly the focal length magnification) and used it for about a week or two. I finished by buying the lens I really wanted in Micro 4/3 (the Panasonic-Leica 15mm ƒ/1.7) and I haven't looked back. I haven't seen any advancements in camera technology that might make me switch. This is also supported by viewing Salgado's exhibition of 'Amazon' in London, where you can see his prints based on 2010s technology or earlier. They look perfectly fine to me."

Comments

[Alan]

I think there could still be a reason to switch systems if it's for a lens you want as even if there's little difference between cameras some systems are missing some lenses and some lenses are different and special enough to justify the change. Maybe.

I do think lenses are usually more interesting than cameras.

Even with cameras there are still reasons to shift if you simply can not wait for your brand of choice to introduce the camera you want as that might come years later or even never. The FF RF style A7c comes to mind as does the high performance but compact Sony A1 and those big inbuilt grip high performance cameras from Nikon and Canon.

[Daniel]

I know from experience that most of the cameras now will produce excellent results. I do want low ISO settings as we had with film. Nikon has ISO64 available on some of their models - with excellent quality. For me - that is worth it even as I wish ISO25 and lower was available.

Then, native lenses. Some specific lenses make it worth a switch at times.

AutoFocus and 'motor drive' speed also comes into play for many.

Almost any newer camera will give great results but the small things can make a switch worth it.

[AN]

I think Thom is a little too harsh on adapted lenses. Sure, they tend to be less practical and functional than native lenses, but there are some situations where they make sense (aside from just the fun of it). For example, if you are new to a system and can’t afford to buy everything immediately, some adapted lenses can tide you over as you gradually replace them. Similarly, if you are an early adopter of a new system (someone has to be), an adapted lens or two might be legitimately helpful while the manufacturer fills out the line. Is there really anyone who buys a Sony A7 and thinks they are going to use nothing but adapted Canon EF lenses indefinitely? Maybe someone likes everything about the Sony system but occasionally wants to use tilt shift lens?

His advice makes sense if you are a commercial pro or something, but for almost everybody else (which is most people), I don’t see any problem with switching systems, mixing and matching lenses, or whatever floats your boat (and fits your budget). I guess I would modify his advice from “don’t do X,” to “if you want to do X, manage your expectations.”

[Aaron]

The best way to keep from switching camera brands/formats is to own and use more than one camera brand/format. Not that I would do that. Ahem.

[William A Lewis]

After the last year, I can't afford to switch again! :)

Last year was the year of Leica to me. I got an inheritance and did various buying and trading and repairing and so on. I got curious and wrote up a spreadsheet. On it I listed all the purchases and cost with tax and shipping of everything related to the Leica that I bought this year. Camera, lenses, accessories, repair jobs and so on.

Nothing new except the leather half case. A dozen LTM lenses (only one from Leica, a Elmar 90/4) all bought used.

I look at that number in shock. I won't say what it is, simply that since January I've spent about 1/5 of my total rather modest income on this camera and the lenses to use on it. The only thing I spent more money on is my rent. (Don't let my GF see this sheet!!!)

My resolution for this New Year is very simple - to not buy any lenses for as long as I can hold out, preferably all year. The time is here to ONLY work with what I have, to get to know each of these lenses and how well they work (or not) for me here and now.

Perhaps a year from now I can look at that list and say - ok, perhaps I can justify a super speed 50 because of shots I missed in darkness or perhaps find that 21mm isn't too wide after all. But it's clear I need to spend the time just finding out and only buying anything if I have too - perhaps I need a second battery for the 240 and while they aren't cheap, it's not like getting a dozen lenses either. I enjoy window shopping and will likely continue that. But I'm going to remind myself of this every time I think of possibly buying a lens and think hard about Need vs. Want.

This goes even more for system level thinking. I am fully committed now to this Leica and can't even imagine what it would cost to change systems again. I still have my previous system (a Nikon D7100 & lots of lenses) because there are things a DSLR can do better than a rangefinder. Between them, they'll have to suffice ;)

[Rob L.]

I was just talking to someone today about their next camera, and had to admit I swap things around because camera gear is part of my photographic hobby. Switching is fine if you understand the cost and are okay with it, just don't think it's going to fix much. And I did learn two things about adapters - they're great for niche projects and fun, annoying for everyday use - but having the option to adapt almost anything is what makes mirrorless cameras so attractive to me. Being able to shot my Leica glass and 105 2.5 AIS using autofocus on my Z6? That's fun.

When I don't have time to shoot, I juggle gear. When I have time to shoot, I don't change _anything_. Costs a bit more but keeps me sane, so, it's well worth it!

[James]

I am very fortunate that I got into Fuji when the original X100 and X Pro were released. I have stuck with them because they have released the lenses I want. The cameras work they way I want them to work with minimal need to ever look at the menus, the colors come out of the cameras the way I like them, and they have held up very well. I still have my original X100 and X Pro. They still work perfectly. I have upgraded the bodies over the years to where I now have an X Pro 3, X100 V, and XT4. I have never considered switching since I got my original Fuji cameras. In fact I cannot foresee a single scenario where I would "switch." I am considering a GFX 50S II though. In fact I still use the original three lenses (18, 35, and 60) I got with the original X Pro frequently. You can do an awful lot with those three provided you aren't shooting wildlife or sports. Now I will admit to probably having too many Fuji lenses, including two different 18mm, 16mm, 23mm and 35mm lenses.....sigh....... The big ones go on the XT4 the small ones go on the X Pro and the X100 goes with me everywhere.

Also, the Matt Black book is very good. I was disappointed to see it's now going for $150. I ordered when it was released and paid $40. I suppose it's like Steidl books which I order immediately if it's something I want. They seem to go up in value.

[Brian]

Talking of tiring of adaptors, I quickly tired of moment lenses on my iPhone which actually prompted my last switch from a canon ps to a Sony rx109vii . Not that the moment lens were bad, good quality in my humble opinion, was just more stuff rattling around in my pockets and a pain to clip on when needed. I kept the gold anamorphic lens for laughs.

At the time when I had Nikon dslrs I lusted after the canon ts 17 and naively waited in vain for Nikon to make one. Silly me.

[Dan Khong]

Adapters don't make ideal solutions when changing systems. Adapters are indispensable when they are used to marry the mind boggling varieties of vintage lenses to mirrorless cameras e.g. M42 adapters.

[keith]

I am currently shooting a Canon 6D Mk2, with a couple of Canon L lenses and some Tamron and Sigma Art lenses. Any shortcomings in image quality are from operator error.

My plan is to shoot this camera till it dies, then see what the state of the market is. Some buddies are very pleased with their Canon R5 or R6 cameras and associated lenses, even as they wince at the price. I admit to being tempted, but could easily see myself buying another 6D Mk2, or a 5D Mk4 as the stores clear out the last of them, at obsolete inventory prices.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I am, for the most part, happy I switched to Sony Alpha from Nikon DSLRs four years ago. Going mirrorless was going to require all new lenses anyway.

However I'm not planning to switch lens mounts again, though getting a medium format digital as a second system would be nice for some types of shooting. So (a) and (b) for me.

[Stephen Scharf]

I'm not switching. I don't need a new camera, and with all due respect, I don't think you do, either, MIke.

A new camera will not make you feel any more fulfllled. I see this same behavior with my high-end audio friends..."Gee, if only I had that new Aurender N30 with separate external power supply instead of the N20, I'd be so much happier...." Always the focus on gear, rather than foundational things like...making the room itself the best it can be. Or...obtaining well-mastered recordings. Imagine that.

True fulfillment comes from having a clear vision, "seeing", understanding light, gesture, and nuance, and executing on that vision to create an image that is compelling and engaging for the viewer.

It doesn't come from a stacked sensor, 469 AF points, or "eye-focus", etc. That's frou-frou. You already have a great camera. All you need to do is get out and shoot.

It's the photograph that matters at the end of the day.

No looks at one of those amazing war photographs by James Natchwey and asks, "I wonder if that was shot with a stacked-sensor Sony?"

[robert e]

How about c.) "I should switch ASAP to something I can stick with from now on."

[Doug C]

An amusing article, thanks for the link. Amusing but I feel there are certain areas where I don't agree.

There were times when as Thom pointed out, it made sense for pros in certain specialties to switch from Nikon to Canon.

I'll disagree with his take on lens adapters. There was a time when Sony full frame mirrorless camera worked well but their lens line was pathetic. A friend bought a Sony and an adapter for his Canon lenses and he said it worked beautifully. As well or better than the Canon lenses on Canon bodies. And it helped him decide whether to move to Sony without a huge investment.

The Nikon FTZ adapter OTOH is pretty pathetic. Nikon chose to force us to focus with manual lenses stopped down, and that simply does not work very well in many circumstances, though most people don't really notice that their hit-rate went way down. And it does not auto focus with AF-D lenses, and those lenses are much better for manual focus than the later focus-by-wire lenses.

[PaulW]

I'm in group A, but I long ago tempered my desire to switch systems by simply owning two different systems. The best of both worlds.

[PDLanum]

I am not going to switch. I am too old, it would cost way too much money and I have a nice collection of lenses that for the most part would not be adaptable.

Now, a silent shutter would be nice to have, but I am not going the throw out 50+ years of equipment for one little thing.

[SteveW]

I get what Thom is saying, the gear is all pretty much well into the range of being sufficient. That's rational thinking, definitely Thom.

Last February I switched to Fuji after a lifetime of Nikon. I took some advice found here at TOP, and chose Fuji because of the lenses, specifically the Fujicrons. After that the choice was the X-T4, primarily for the viewfinder (I'm an old dawg who wears glasses), but also the IBIS, WR, and larger battery.

And another thing I have read here on TOP: the notion that it takes a year to know a camera? I was kind of skeptical, but it's turned out to be accurate. I'm still reading the manual, setting up the custom buttons, dials or what not. I'd say I'm about 90%.

From this (personal) standpoint? No, I'm not wanting to switch systems. The X-T4 and Fujicrons is a blast, exactly what I was hoping for. Something that Nikon did not have, compact primes and (to me) a compact camera.

The Nikon Z system has been releasing more cameras and lenses over 2021 and more will be coming in 2022, but there is no appeal to me, other than nostalgia and good memories of the Nikon brand. But there are nothing like those compact Fujicrons, and so it is with Fuji I'll stay.

For now.

[Nigel Voak]

Sound advice,mostly. I can see a point if you change format, and that format brings with it a some big advantage. My return to Nikon FF from M43 is a case in point.

Adapting lenses is for me something that I just cannot get on with. My Z7 came with the FTZ adaptor, but I find myself using my old F lenses on my D810 which I will keep and use along side my newer Z camera most of the time. In fact I am buying a D850 to use with my F lenses.

For me lens adapters are something we buy, thinking they might be useful and will save money on new lenses, but I find them impractical in the field and end up just buying the "native" lens I want, if it exists.

Since 1974 I have changed systems three times. An already obsolete Pentax M42 screw mount for Nikon once I could afford it. I stuck with Nikon until 2014 when some quality Nikon control issues and a good salesman, led to me adopting the M43 system with the then unique IBIS.

A cheap second hand D700 and the old Nikon PC lenses that I bought to do architecture in 2018, brought me back into the Nikon fold, as the D700 highlighted the limitations of the small M43 sensor. But most of all it was a coming home, "everything was were it should be" when I operated the D700.

I am now on a Nikon Z and F mix. I wonder if the foray into M43 was a big mistake, and I think I might have got swept along with the hype back then when it seemed that M43 would be the "DSLR killer".

Incredible claims were, and are made for M43 IBIS, but I found the VR in my F lenses that bought soon after getting the D700 was very good too if used with care. This reinforced the idea that I was hyped into a wrong turn.

The Z and F system works well in parallel, I share flash and other accessories. The FTZ adaptor does work when I do really need IBIS with my shift lenses, so I will not be changing anytime soon.

[Tom Burke]

I agree with Thom. I've been a Canon EOS user since 1988 when I bought an EOS 650. I did buy a Nikon D70 and a lens at one point - that seemed to be a better buy than the equivalent Canon, the 10D - but that didn't last. I was back to Canon quite quickly; indeed, I had probably kept my Canon lenses (such as I had) during the Nikon phase.

Of course I've 'upgraded' my cameras many times within that ecosystem. Is that the same thing? Actually, maybe - at standard focal lengths running both a full-frame and an APS-C system from the same manufacturer (which I've done) requires two complete systems, especially with Canon and their EF-S lenses which don't even fit on full-frame bodies. Those L lenses for my 5DIV were wonderful on that body, but were just wrong on the 750D/T6i I also at the time. Now I'm down to just one body - a 90D - and quite a small collection of lenses, of which I really only use three.

Actually, to be absolutely truthful I might well be on the verge of switching - to the iPhone. Increasingly that's the camera I'm using. (It's interesting to note that in the whole 'One device' presentation, Steve Jobs spent maybe 10 seconds talking about the camera. Today, of course, smartphones' photo & video capabilities are key features and areas of competition between different models.)

[Roger Bradbury]

I'm in group a). I have all the lenses I need, and the lenses I'd like but which aren't really essential are already available for my system.

One reason I chose this system was that the f/2.8 standard zoom was about the only one available at the time that started at 16, not 18mm. When choosing my first digital SLR in 2009 after decades on 35mm, I had to have the field of view of a 24mm lens on the 35mm format.

The trouble with switching is that I'd have to get used to a different way of doing things, which might take 18 months before It stopped being a distraction. By that time new gear could have come out in the system I already use.

I don't imagine my photography would magically improve if I just had an outfit that had a certain lens/camera body/"as used by professionals" reputation. Though I did in the early days when I believed all the adverts.

[Ken Brayton]

Rather you are switching manufactures or mount systems, you are still switching. With all the costs and travails associated with that. A pro can write it off. A hobbyist not so much.

[mike]

I was out of my mind when I was young, switching camera systems like mad, looking for an answer in gear that would have better been addressed by looking in the mirror at the buffoon staring back at me.

Gear is a fetish that some use to feel more exalted than someone using what he or she considers lesser gear. For many, it's the photographers version of a boob job, go big or go home. Get over yourselves. Gear won't make our dull ideas, or you, any more interesting.

Too many photographers place the responsibility of the quality of their photos on their gear. They see interesting photos that they'd like to copy being made by someone else with different gear, and think, if only I had that same gear, I could make that same picture. When what they should be thinking is about making pictures that are about who they are as a person, and finding their own voice to express their own point of view about the world in which they live.

Find your own ideas, make photos only you can make with whatever camera you have, because whatever you have is probably just fine.

[MarkB]

"Been there, done that," is the phrase that comes to mind. Somehow I ended up a modern-day Pentaxian (as opposed to the legions who started with a K1000) and have learned to love it for what it is; no mirrorless option, no leaps in AF or video, glacial release of new gear, and the constant dirge of the brand's imminent death from all corners. Somehow Pentax (and I) just keep taking photos.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't *rent* a fancy Canon, Fuji or Sony when I feel like it, or dabble in m43 or medium-format for fun and distraction. I'm just not switching brands or systems, even if I don't get everything I want from Pentax, I have everything I need.

[c.d.embrey]

During 1963 American Tobacco Company said: "Us Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch!"

This long time (1993) Canon user sees no reason to switch. On my 21.5" iMac I can't see any difference between a real camera and my 2016 first-generation iPhone SE. I would prefer fighting to switching to a 61 megapixel Alpha 7R IV.

By staying with Canon SLRs I can keep using my present EOS lenses. What a good, and inexpensive, idea.

[Dennis Ng]

I continue enjoy my nikon 14-24 and using large format lens on 4x5 body, as adapted lens under Hasselblad 907x. It is all fine.

[Fred Haynes]

Hah! I wouldn’t switch, but I’d love to have a Fuji with a couple of primes. And that’s largely your fault Mike, since you’ve ignited my interest in Fuji lenses! But I am old, with poor vision that ain’t gonna get better, and living on high tax Long Island. So that’s that!
The wisdom about lens adapters is so true. When I bought my Oly OMD, I had a few OM lenses that I thought I could use, principally a 70-150 zoom which I think was their first contribution to the OM lense line up. Oh great I thought, at last I can get some use out of this lens, and not spend a lot to do it! It was okay enough on the OM, but just terrible on the OMD! Manual focus, lacking in sharpness and contrast. Well built but terrible!
I’d have been better off buying a kit zoom!
Lesson learned!

[s.wolters]

I usually stick to the brand I have, but…

From 1974 on I used the Canon FD system until it was discontinued in the early nineties. Then I switched to Nikon F, but after changing to digital the only affordable cameras with that mount had APS-C sensors. It made most of my lenses pretty useless. Like so many of us for years and years I have been waiting in vain for a full frame digital FM2 or something similar.
In the meantime I also had bought the sweet Contax G1. Couldn’t help it, love at first sight. That system was as we know also discontinued, but because I liked that smaller size so much I sold all my DSLRs and the whole shebang ten years ago and moved to Olympus MFT. But as much as love that system, dark clouds show up at the horizon once again.

And of course my car brand for the last thirty years has been Saab.

[Eric Brody]

This is a good example of choosing a topic about which almost everyone has an opinion, ? clickbait? I'm one of those who is guilty of multiple switches in my relatively long photographic life. I started with Nikon in 1969, added 4x5 (Arca-Swiss) and 6x6 (Hasselblad). Too many choices. I once went out with a workshop group in Canyon de Chelly with a Nikon D200, a Hasselblad 500CM, AND my 4x5 Arca. It was total insanity. Didn't get many decent photos, spent too much time trying to decide which camera to use. In my defense, in those days there were real and noticeable differences between the formats, 35 was "ok" but 6x6 and 4x5 really were noticeably better, though it was hard to tell the difference between a print from the Hassy and one from the Arca. But... only the Arca had swings, tilts, and shifts, invaluable.

In the digital age I had some Nikons up to the D800E, but then fell for the lovely petite Fuji's, X-3, XT-1, and made some lovely prints. Then I had an acute attack of megapixel lust and got a Sony A7RIII. Those 43 megapixels were a genuine joy. Yes, there were not a lot of lenses in the beginning but most of us have more than we need anyway. Now I am happily with one system, one camera A7RIV (tho I still have the A7RIII as a backup), and way too many lenses.

But, I'm happier with my inkjet prints than I ever was during the 40 or so years I printed in the wet darkroom. Bottom line, it's my money but I do feel a bit silly as should we all, when we think that a piece of gear will make us a better photographer. When seeing my prints, no one, even photographers, cares what camera or lens I used except as simple curiosity. If it's a good image, its a good image, if not, it's not.

[Albert Smith]

Stephen Scharf says, "...You already have a great camera. All you need to do is get out and shoot."

Yes, so obvious, so clear and so true. Maybe this should go in the "resolutions" thread, but I vow in 2022 to not spend a single cent on any photographic hardware.

[Barry Reid]

I can only agree with Thom. I went to Sony in the first gen of A7r cameras, but switched back to DSLRs when the costs of going all-in became apparent, plus the fact that my older Canon EF TS-E lenses (particularly the 45) just didn’t work reliably via adapters. I also has some issues with other adapted lenses, and when an adapter goes south during a shoot it’s no fun at all. I am still using the Eos 5Ds I switched back to and it gives me entirely reliable results.

Even then, we are way past the point where you can wring great results out of any camera. Even my 12mp Eos 1Ds from the early 2000’s was quite capable of making A1 size prints when used correctly with good lenses. In fact, I would say the move from the original 24mm shift to the Mark II version was a bigger upgrade than going from that 1Ds to a 21mp 5D ii.

So, yeah, stick where the glass is good for your needs and stop worrying about differences that may not make such a big deal in the real world.

On the other hand one of my favourite lenses is adapted, my Zeiss C/Y 35mm PC Distagon and I’d probably consider switching for a good modern 35 shift…

[Soeren Engelbrecht]

As many others here, I have several systems: Leica M, m43, Olympus OM, and Nikon F are the most used.

I do suffer from GAS, but have a very solid principle: No more new bayonets (as in: lens mounts). That works pretty well - especially to keep my lust for a Leicaflex at bay :-)

[brian]

if the comments above are any guide to the future buying habits of the general camera owning population, the camera industry is in for an extremely tough time. i would hazard a guess that of late switching has driven a ton of sales much as the digital revolution did in decimating film cameras.

the current Sony EF mount system keeps me very happy now that some of the haptics of the older bodies have to some extent been tackled and like some i still have a vestige of fond reminiscences of my nikon d800/d700/d300 gear but realistically at 71 years young i cannot justify nor will my body/mind be able to relearn the controls of reverting to nikon no matter how tempting. Never mind the pension fund decimation.

perhaps all this reluctance to switch will usher in a golden age of more people developing the photographic art form rather than debating gear.

[Pedro Aphalo]

I am definively in group a) with respect to camera systems. My first "real" camera was a second hand Yashica TLR. Then I used Contax/Yashica SLR's from 1976 until about 2008 (well past the demise), and since then Olympus FT and then Olympus MFT. I used FT/MFT adapters until a month ago when I swapped my last FT objective, a Zuiko 7-14 mm f:4 for the new M.Zuiko 8-25 mm f:4.

I enjoy taking photographs most when I do not need to think about the camera, so even thinking about switching systems feels painful. I guess I find more pleasure in using a tool that I master than in going through the long learning process. On the other hand, within the MFT system I find new M.Zuiko objectives frequently very tempting.

I have played to some extent with manual adapters for M42, Olympus OM and Nikon F objectives on MFT. I never use them when I have another choice, but occasioanly they are the only option I have.

[Rod S.]

Thom, like many camera enthusiasts, must live in a photography box occupied solely by Nikon and Canon. His assertion only makes sense that way.

I resisted the prompt to read the article because it just sounded too much like the usual Nikon versus Canon nonsense that has captured the attention of so much of the photography enthusiast cohort for the last 50 years. But I just caved and read it. Sure enough, the article is confined to Nikon and Canon. Isn't that a surprise. Not.

I despair that Nikon and Canon have, together, denied so many photography enthusiasts a wider perspective and involvement in photography over these last 50 years. Seems it's all about them.

There are signs of hope. Many young people are experimenting with other forms of photography. Good on them.

[Ilkka]

How about switching to GFX or X1? Is that also banned? Larger format digital is finally reasonably affordable and can get good quality 50-100mp, something that is not really available from most other systems.
PS. Mike, we are still waiting for that review you promised. How can we otherwise decide if it is worth it?

[Don Parsons]

I'll stop switching when the manufacturers stop changing their lens mounts! It seems like they change mounts every 5 years or so forcing us to either use our cameras until they break (or my case, wear out) or use lens adapters.

I'm using M43's and a single Fuji X100F and couldn't be happier. No need for me to spend thousands of dollars on a mount that's going to go away in 5 years. And have you seen the size and weight of the new camera/lens? Not for me.

[Dave]

Mike,

First off; I'm surprised by the snarky comment by Kirk. ("what other pursuit we can find to suck the fun out of next.")

(Not that I've never made snarky comments.)

Thom was only suggesting a way to save money by not jumping from this lens to that lens -- at least how I read it.

Thom also summarized, "Pentax DSLR user: you've already stuck with them past the funeral, why are you contemplating changing now?" :>)

That's right. I waited for the Pentax full-frame, er 35mm-sized sensor, so that I could use my film lenses -- even the screw-mounts. Sure, it takes some time to install the (K to screw-mount) adapter and screw on the old Super-Takumar, but I'm generally not in that much of hurry.

The K1 already had a 36MB size, so there wasn't a need to upgrade from a body with a 16MB or 20MB size image.

As long as I don't get a bunch of purple fringing, I'm plenty happy with the old lenses.

The SLR with a penta-prism shows exactly what the lens sees. Has that ability really been superseded? (Sure, you can dial up the display brightness with a mirrorless camera, but the "old way" with the brighter digital SLR camera display, compared to my old film camera body, makes my old lenses seem brighter.)

If I can't see well enough to focus, I just try to get close and the high-ISO capability of the K1 II will give me a brighter image, so that I can see where the in-focus zone is and make an adjustment.

If a newer camera can take the "black cat in a coal mine" photo, well, that's great. I don't believe I'll ever shoot something like that.

Thanks for that post and the links to Thom's articles. Now to read the other comments.

[Steve C]

What year did Ralph Gibson commit to the Leica M system?