olegkin wrote:
I would have a lot of different cameras if money were no object! And 35mm lens for each of them
In addition to the Z8, GFX, OM-1, and a bunch of film cameras, I’d get the latest Hasselblad for the leaf shutter, a Leica M for the rangefinder experience, a Leica SL3 because Nikon doesn’t seem interested in making a new Z7, and a Fujifilm GX680 III, because I’ve always wanted to experience it, even though it’s expensive and not very practical.
I already have pretty much all the Nikon and Fujifilm lenses I wanted.
It's a bit off topic, but if the money isn't an issue,
I would pack what I have, and I would travel to some exotic places in this world,
where I can take some real nice pictures.
I'm a bit tired of this season in Ontario, I guess..
I already have an amazing kit (in my profile), way beyond my talent an ability to use it, from different prospectives.
I already have this kit, along with another Z8 and a Z63, the 24-200 and the 24-70 f4. I guess I should have the 24-70 2.8 but the cheaper lenses are really that good....
If money were no issue, I would ask Nikon to design me a 12-24mm f2, 24-100mm f2, and a 100-800mm f5.6, and then probably hire an assistant to help carry my gear
You know, this probably just means I own too many lenses, but I really couldn't think of many "if money was no object" lenses I'd buy. I'd love to complete my collection of Voigtlander SL lenses [the first gens with the stainless steel], but I'm already most of the way there. Probably be cool to say I was one of the owners of that famous Nikon 13/5.6 rectilinear, but like a priceless classic car I'd be afraid to use it. I could replace my bought-well-used-500/4G with a new 600 TC, but honestly I know I'm never gonna be serious enough about wildlife for that to be the right way to allocate my hypothetical wealth.
I have long wanted a Schneider 28 PC-TS to go with the 90 I already have. I just really like the mechanical way those operate with the self-locking rings better than fiddling with all the little locking knobs on most tilt/shifts. Maybe that plus upgrading my GFX 100 to a 100 II, and for when I really need autofocus performance add a Z8, 24-70 II, and probably-coming-soon 70-200 II. There, I think that's two bodies and three lenses.
speedgraphic wrote:
So many variations on 24x36 bodies...we need some outside the box thinking when it comes to sensors.
I'd take the Chamonix 11x14 and the Cooke XVa + Schneider 550/11 XXL.
It's a sexy beast, but I ended up going to the 8x10 version due to film and lenses availability. But even then I must confess that my 8x10 cameras (I have a Gibellini also) stay home most of the time. Even the P1 and Arca have been put on sale.
This is such a true and solid answer. I am financially in a spot to be able to afford a lot (not everything, no sampling the 5 figure gear) and I must say I am very happy and the only real improvement is a bit more time here and there and finances to take the time off for more shooting locations and o the ra that are out of reach.
I don’t lament that there are places that I can’t afford but at this point the capability of equipment at such low prices as we have reached certain thresholds in digital sensors, focus, optical development is just silly.
If there is anything else I would like, it is a 4x5 film camera and darkroom. That will only happen when I no longer have small children and have the space in a home to setup darkroom supplies again.
Todd Warnke wrote:
If money wasn't an issue the kit would not change from what I currently shoot, but the places I shoot would greatly expand.
If money were no object, I'd be inclined to have a manufacturer develop and build a custom camera system that is exactly what I want, perhaps a true 2:1 (or wider!) panoramic camera with a few primes.
If we're constrained to off-the-shelf cameras, then I'd opt for a Phase One XF body and wide, normal, and telephoto prime set.
Either way, I wouldn't care that the camera and lens kit are big, heavy, and impractical... with no budgetary considerations, I'd no longer need to use it for paid work!
DWOfPaul wrote:
If money were no issue, I would ask Nikon to design me a 12-24mm f2, 24-100mm f2, and a 100-800mm f5.6, and then probably hire an assistant to help carry my gear
PixiPhotography wrote:
12-24 F2 would be some big and heavy glass
Ya, that might not be that realistic unless we figure out something like Meta lenses. My thinking was that the Sigma 14mm f1.4 isn't that hard to handle. So if it were 2mm wider and f2 instead of f1.4, would it really have to be much larger? f2 vs f1.4 allows for about a 1/3 smaller front element. But admittedly, I don't know how exactly that math would work out.
Lance B wrote:
I guess if money wasn't an issue, I wouldn't confine myself to either option 1 or option 2.
Yeah, lot of people on these forums saying "Four lenses?! Why would I sell 156 of my lenses?". I was tempted to tag a few of them but they know who they are. (Not me though I only have about 16 which is a totally practical and necessary amount).
