My Journey, 30D+24-105>>>D300s+14-24-70-200>>>>Zeiss ZF>>>>D700>>>Leica R lens >>>M9+M Lens>>>D800E>>>A7R+FE lens>>A7>>RX1>>D810>>>DF>>>S2/S>>>D700>>>A7R>>>?
The system I still have: S, D700, A7R, RX1.
My lessen here:
To me, the most significant purchase is D700, after that none of above really do anything to improve how I see or how I shoot. Now with experience with so many different body, I start realize each system's strength or weakness. and then got a few conclusion:
1. If I have to pick a single system, it will be D700+D810 or Canon. D700 for daily picture, D810 for travel and landscape. At least it stay true for foreseeable future based on what I have experienced from mirror less.
2. I cant imagine a sole system based on Sony or any other mirror-less system include M, but that is just me.
3. It turns out I don't mind Sony UI anymore if it is not my only system. Shooting in Manual(manual exposure, manual focus) almost all the time now, make me realize Sony is actually great. It has more wheel to quick access ISO, shutter time, exposure comp. It is a nice add on for landscape given its sensor performance, LV, manual focus aid WA lens size etc...
4. A7R is dirt cheap as a digital back, A7RII is too expensive for that purpose to me even with 40% off Sony employee discount. but again, that is just me.
5. Fast glass is sexy; fast glass with character is a joy to shoot and will make good impact on photo; Flawless fast lens is really exciting to have, make yourself a proud owner so that you can handle it under night table light (man, that is feel good) but may not necessary for good photos; Slow flawless characterless (f2/f1.8) glass is boring unless it is WA for night shooting. None of above really essential to make good photos.
6. Resolution is good for cropping, so I don't need change lens for tele. but it could be bad depend on how you look at it. It slow you down, steering your priority, mask your vision (If you worry little detail too much. this topic can be very conflict. but for now, let assume I know what I am talking about) For low quality work, I prefer see them in less resolution, the less the better. so none of my image worth or benefit bigger print. Not that resolution is not important but nowadays all digital camera are just good enough to me. Again, that is just me.
7. A good set of fast manual glass is important for my photography no matter they are Leica, Zeiss or Nikon. I need fully control.
Conclusion: I buy gear because it is toy for man. It has nothing to do with photography. nothing more nothing less....
I'm always looking for more resolution and IQ for large prints, which has been a main upgrade driver but even beyond that, I have yet to really feel the sort of synergistic shooting experience with my digital equipment that I experienced when shooting film. Part of that is due to format and finder - I shot 2 1/4 square Hasselblad 500CM and Rollei TLR at waist level - part due to the simple and mechanical feel of the equipment, and likely part due to the slower process of shooting film. It's odd to think that I shot with mostly 2 main cameras for 20 years of shooting film and now often go through that many in as many years.
I buy gear to try and like you figure out it's strengths and weakness. I have settled into a two system bag. Nikon D750 + 300mm f2.8 and a 200-500mm. And a Olympus E-M1 + a couple lenses for travel. I have lost a lot of money switching around and true to form none of it has made me a better photographer, I have just gotten better with practice. Although the switch to the D750 opened my eyes to a few things. If the Oly was better at AF-C I would switch over, but alas it is not.
Ever since I took my favourite photo of all times with a now 8 year old midrange digicam, and did with it everything I could imagine doing with a photo, I feel that I have solved the IQ problem and I just dont care anymore. The sacrifices in ergonomics and UI that I'm willing to make in exchange for more IQ are pretty much zero, now it's all about the pleasure of shooting because my shooting time is limited by work/family/life and I want to make the best of it. The way my gear looks, smells, sounds, feels, fits in my hand and in my bag, chafes my neck with the strap or hurts my back from carrying it, all these things matter now.
Besides I dont think I ever actually cared about Image Quality, it was all more about the Quality of the Image I worried about, if that makes sense. How it fits conceptually with my project, subject, light, composition, timing, that sort of thing. I still worry about that
Edit: having said all that, CA and distortions bother me visually, if I can have a lens that doesnt have them I'll pick that lens. As long as it's small, has a smooth MF ring with distance markings, and preferably a focus tab of course
Photo gear purchase for me is a blend of (a) personal preference in photography, (b) comfort/portability, (c) benefit for better image quality.
In digital photography, I started off with a Canon Rebel XT in 2005 because it provided me with a good price/value ratio. I bought a few lenses step by step, later in 2009 finally my first digital full frame camera, the Canon 5D MkII. I sold the Rebel XT together with all my cropped sensor lenses three years ago. At this point I found myself quite well vested with Canon gear, and would have loved to upgrade to a high MP FF Canon camera when the D800E made its appearance in 2012. I held off until last year when I bought the Sony A7R instead which itself opened the access for me to use small rangefinder lenses from Leica and Voigtlander. I prefer to use smaller camera and lenses whenever possible without giving up on full frame sensor size. I am well set right now regarding photo gear for my needs, but would consider getting the A7R II at a lower price tag and having my current A7R converted for infrared. But I am not in a hurry with this.
Recently I used a 6D + 5D3 on a long landscape trip, and enjoyed the combination more than just 1D X alone, which I didn't miss on that trip. 2 days ago I used 6D when I should have used 1D X, because the frame rate, focusing speed and rain resistance wasn't as good. All of these are full frame and that's important to me, the bigger the original capture area (sensor size), the better.
Lens wise, it also depends on the subject. 16-35mm f/2.8 II for starburst, but 16-35mm f/4 for reflections and anything without sun head on. Then 400mm f/5.6 for head on sun shots. And 24-70mm f/2.8 II for fall colors. 135mm f/2 for portraits or even triathlons, more so than 70-200m f/2.8 II, which is better for landscapes though.
I always avoided long range zooms, even 24-105mm, trying to use primes but it's not always convenient, so then the above mentioned zooms. Sometimes it's better with just bringing just 2 lenses and 1 body, to keep things light, limit your choices, but have you work harder to use them.
But it should always be about light, and then you just know the right lens, and for camera body, bodies.. I prefer 2 bodies mounted for landscapes because conditions can switch so quickly and variety is good, switching lenses is not.
I used Nikon, then I used Canon, got used to Canon (since 2010), and I would miss 135mm f/2 and 400mm f/5.6 and the bigger lenses 500mm+ are easier to find/rent/etc, and the 8-15mm f/4 fisheye is great too. I get all the variety I want with Canon (of lenses) and being able to share lenses among 2 bodies.... it's about variety for me and then trying to keep a light load and finding the light and right spots, and coming back in the future.
A Hasselblad 500CM with 60/3.5 Distagon & 100/3.5 Planar lenses was the gear I most enjoyed using (at waist level) which also delivered the results I liked the best. I'm hoping to get a similar feeling with an RX1R II.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I'm always looking for more resolution and IQ for large prints, which has been a main upgrade driver but even beyond that, I have yet to really feel the sort of synergistic shooting experience with my digital equipment that I experienced when shooting film. Part of that is due to format and finder - I shot 2 1/4 square Hasselblad 500CM and Rollei TLR at waist level - part due to the simple and mechanical feel of the equipment, and likely part due to the slower process of shooting film. It's odd to think that I shot with mostly 2 main cameras for 20 years of shooting film and now often go through that many in as many years.
I love lenses, so I want many different ones :-)
Additional I like to open lenses, repair or modify them. I am not allowed to do this at work. Once a lens supplier who lend me ~40 lenses for testing purposes said I shall not open them - he knows my interest in lens internals ;-)
I love lenses with character for the images I love. For example the Meyer Trioplan 100 got my some of my best images. With my Zeiss Contax Distagon 35mm/1,4 or unmodified Canon FD 400mm/2.8L I do not get that good images.
For images with less character I use a lot different lenses, like some Zeiss Contax, Canon FD, Nikon F and many more.
I hunt for lenses with character - and for fast lenses. And since few years I do build my own special lenses, for example like a DIY 150mm f/1.2 fast lens.
Cameras are less interessting for me, I worked about 6 years with my EOS 5D cameras. When the Sony A7II was shown I knew this is a reason for an upgrade, in camera image stabilization and short register distance. The latter is essential for some of my DIY lenses.
Once, I owned an Epson R-D1 digital RF with M glass. It was the first camera that was not in between me and my photography. I sold it for necessary reasons at the time.
I have been buying gear ever since, to find another system that will become invisible in use.
looking back the most important pictures for me i made with the canon 5D
and the conorus contax N zeiss 24-85.
but i always wanted to have something better, but never caught it.
so the next upgrade plan is ...... lets see ....
right now i have an A7 and the voigtländer 40 1.4 and cheap but good lenses 24,28,50,100,135.
that enough. for now. 4 weeks. 3 days. 2 hours. ....ebay.d....
I like all the responses so far. I mainly to express my personal feeling envolving over the years than generalizing right or wrong about it. I am just finding this is a interesting point keep myself thinking why i always want try new gear, (SL comes into my mind) what I gain from new thing etc...
I agree we should never forget the fun part of acquiring gear It sometimes do bring inspiration to the process. I also agree shooting experience triumph them all at this stage. and shooting experience could means different to different people, could be RF, could be EVF with small body etc.... for me, a bright big OVF, quick access for ISO, shutter speed, A aperture ring, EV compensation and FAST, delay free quiet shutter with minimal frame blank out... Good LV certainly important for landscape as well, but now almost all gear looks good on that. I haven't find perfect body yet but some are really close to that already. D810 comes into mind even I sold it and having no plan to get it in the near future. A7R will do most what I want D810 for.
I also agree with loving lens rendering, I am a serious offender on this, and addict to some Leica R's rendering plus the whole manual experience thing. Enjoy the total control of it. Briefly trying some Nikon AF lens over differnt period make me realize how much I prefer manual focus, and rendering from certain manual lens. I got much less miss focused images and many more well composed images from manual focus with good OVF and suitable screen. I almost never miss focus nowdays,(I should say unexpected missing focus) no matter I use Leica R or Zeiss or Nikon AIS. It is become 2nd nature to me.
Even though I see many better images took with cheap 50mm f1.8 AF lens make me realize it is never the tool but people behind it but I definitely feel the manual focus is just prefered way for me to get better images for myself.
If gear for me is only for make images, D810 with f2.8 zoom and f1.8 prime will do it.
For me when I was young, you buy what you can afford. My first camera was a disposable film camera when I was 5 years old. I was hoping to be able to afford the box brownie camera at the time, but it never eventuated. Later I ended up with the Agfa 35mm camera later the Nikkormat FTN.
For me it is always about the images and how you relate and feel about them. As we evolve our expression of how we wish to express through images does change.
I did enjoy the process of developing film and printing but left me somewhat bored. But with the introduction of digital imaging and PP'ing I had a whole new interest as everything was in the present moment and you could view your images as is, rather than trying to interpret the negatives. Also with the internet, this changed how you can interconnect with people and present your images to a wide audience.
For me gear has to be light, small and fun to use. I like cameras where there is no fuss. In that I do not like to be technically fiddling around with lenses or camera to capture shots, just ergonomically and technically excellent. Much of it comes with practice to make certain cameras work for you like the M9 and RF focusing skills. Nothing frustrated me more than when either the camera or lenses went out of calibration, and then having to be sent in.
After my film camera's last few being the Nikon F1, Hassablad and then the Oly OM1 for size and weight. I lost interest for awhile as I could not find too many good printing labs.
Then the 300D came along and photography was fun again. The ability to take shots and being able to view was wonderful IMO. This probably honed my skills more so as I had immediate feedback and critique. Later I opted for FF with the 5D/5DII and started to enjoy the L series lenses, and it was for the rending of the 50L, 85L and 135L. The only issue I had was the AF and really it was not very accurate. I then reverted to the ZE range of lenses with MF and really enjoyed the Zeiss rendering.
Then arrived the M9/M240/Monochrome with the whole array of M lenses. The Leica system is just awesome and truth the Leica M lenses are still the smallest/lightest and are truly some of the best lenses made when combined with M bodies. The engineering and detail of the decades of Leica lenses is truly amazing. Some of best images are with the M9 and it was an easy camera to use. The M240 came along, and then re calibration of the body just made me loose interest as I would be without a M240 for 8 weeks, just to have it re calibrated.
Then arrived the Sony A7's. This system truly fills my needs for a light/small system and it is just what lens I decide to use for the intended rendering I wish. The A7r had its quirk, but the A7s and A7rII are really my favorites now. I am really liking AF again as the PDAF with A7rII is very accurate and responsive.
In essence, my choices are guided by small, light, FF camera that has great low light capabilities and gel with very fast lenses with unique rendering qualities. My to go kit now is A7rII, Batis 25, FE 35/1.4, 50L, 50 Cron IV, FE 55/1.8, 85L II and ZA 135/1.8.
johnvanr wrote:
I buy because I want something that suits my photographic purpose.
I upgrade to overcome perceived weaknesses in the equipment I own, be it image quality or usability.
dasrocket wrote:
I have been buying gear ever since, to find another system that will become invisible in use.
Still looking..
This sums it up nicely. Especially looking for a modern system that feels like an old one - that enhances the enjoyment of making images. So many modern cameras suffer from 'Close, but no cigar' syndrome.
?
