pmeheut wrote: gdanmitchell wrotethere’s no ultimate agreement about which system is “best.” Fortunately, people mange to make great photographs with just about all of the options.Well, there is a long lived agreement about people who shoot pictures: the system does not really matter, the photographer does and spending more time practicing, seeing exhibits and reading photo books is more important than changing camera or lens.
But of course the Internet is obsessed by 10 extra mix nobody will never see, etc when one can still shoot excellent pictures with a 30 or 60 years old camera, a film and one MF lens.
This is not to say that I do not appreciate modern tools, I shoot with a A7r V amongst others, I clearly have GAS but I'm always amazed about long discussions about gear and nobody ever posting a picture.
shadow9d9 wrote:
You are confusing feel good platitudes and back patting with reality. Reality is that technology, focal length options, and aperture choices matter.
Maybe but it seems to me you are confusing exchanging with others with being rude.
BTW, I wonder if you read what I wrote: when did I say that those choices did not matter? When did I talked about aperture?
I talked about "the system", i.e choosing brand X vs Y, etc. I'm sorry if I offended you by expressing something too subtle compared to "what gear choice will make me a better photographer" but you should not feel the need to be agressive each time someone does so.
pmeheut wrote: gdanmitchell wrotethere’s no ultimate agreement about which system is “best.” Fortunately, people mange to make great photographs with just about all of the options.Well, there is a long lived agreement about people who shoot pictures: the system does not really matter, the photographer does and spending more time practicing, seeing exhibits and reading photo books is more important than changing camera or lens.
But of course the Internet is obsessed by 10 extra mix nobody will never see, etc when one can still shoot excellent pictures with a 30 or 60 years old camera, a film and one MF lens.
This is not to say that I do not appreciate modern tools, I shoot with a A7r V amongst others, I clearly have GAS but I'm always amazed about long discussions about gear and nobody ever posting a picture....Show more →
Who is agreeing that the system does not really matter? The photographer (operator) is a very different variable from the equipment being used, so never will there be agreement. When I hire a photographer I don't care much about her equipment if the output will meet the job requirements artistically and technically. If I am capturing the images, then the gear is the variable that I can control. Improving skills or doing something different is yet a different variable from gear and of course expected.
I found a major improvement from the A7rV to the A7rVI in capture rates, though it's not quite where I'd like it to be with ES and the silly (not-really-RAW) lossy compressed format is a hassle. Hummers and some warblers and such can sometimes be a bit blurry, but yoiu can always switch to mechanical and it's still better than the a7rV that I used from 2023 on.
I stopped posting images online about 20 years ago. Too many problems with it online and in the real world now.
Unless images are 100% or the full raw file, resized images not showing center to corner don't prove much about IQ other than the borkahs.
EB-1 wrote:
I found a major improvement from the A7rV to the A7rVI in capture rates, though it's not quite where I'd like it to be with ES and the silly (not-really-RAW) lossy compressed format is a hassle.
Let's agree to disagree then because if you think that moving from the A7rV to the A7rVI changes the quality of the images then that's ok but we are not talking about the same thing at all.
We simply define "quality" in a very different way.
aCuria wrote: pmeheut wroteI'm always amazed about long discussions about gear and nobody ever posting a picture.If you think it will add to the discussion... I am happy to post some!
I agree it's nice to have pictures in a gear discussion, but pictures that are related to the topic at hand. I'm not sure what a bunch of Sony pictures have to do with the topic here, or at least contribute to it. They are nice images, but there is a place for them, and either a question or relevance, or a deeper, dare I say more nefarious motive here that I don't want to go into.
EB-1 wrote: pmeheut wrotegdanmitchell wrotethere’s no ultimate agreement about which system is “best.” Fortunately, people mange to make great photographs with just about all of the options.Well, there is a long lived agreement about people who shoot pictures: the system does not really matter, the photographer does and spending more time practicing, seeing exhibits and reading photo books is more important than changing camera or lens.
But of course the Internet is obsessed by 10 extra mix nobody will never see, etc when one can still shoot excellent pictures with a 30 or 60 years old camera, a film and one MF lens.
This is not to say that I do not appreciate modern tools, I shoot with a A7r V amongst others, I clearly have GAS but I'm always amazed about long discussions about gear and nobody ever posting a picture.Who is agreeing that the system does not really matter? The photographer (operator) is a very different variable from the equipment being used, so never will there be agreement. When I hire a photographer I don't care much about her equipment if the output will meet the job requirements artistically and technically. If I am capturing the images, then the gear is the variable that I can control. Improving skills or doing something different is yet a different variable from gear and of course expected.
I found a major improvement from the A7rV to the A7rVI in capture rates, though it's not quite where I'd like it to be with ES and the silly (not-really-RAW) lossy compressed format is a hassle. Hummers and some warblers and such can sometimes be a bit blurry, but yoiu can always switch to mechanical and it's still better than the a7rV that I used from 2023 on.
I agree with this entirely, and especially with the operative phrase, "if the output will meet the job requirements artistically and technically." Sometimes in our pursuit of gear we overlook that simple point.
(NOTE: I originally posted this reply without proofreading… and it included some bizarre autocorrect-style typos. I’ve edited and I hope I have fixed most of them.)
EB-1 wrote: pmeheut wrotegdanmitchell wrotethere’s no ultimate agreement about which system is “best.” Fortunately, people mange to make great photographs with just about all of the options.Well, there is a long lived agreement about people who shoot pictures: the system does not really matter, the photographer does and spending more time practicing, seeing exhibits and reading photo books is more important than changing camera or lens.
But of course the Internet is obsessed by 10 extra mix nobody will never see, etc when one can still shoot excellent pictures with a 30 or 60 years old camera, a film and one MF lens.
This is not to say that I do not appreciate modern tools, I shoot with a A7r V amongst others, I clearly have GAS but I'm always amazed about long discussions about gear and nobody ever posting a picture.Who is agreeing that the system does not really matter? The photographer (operator) is a very different variable from the equipment being used, so never will there be agreement. When I hire a photographer I don't care much about her equipment if the output will meet the job requirements artistically and technically. If I am capturing the images, then the gear is the variable that I can control. Improving skills or doing something different is yet a different variable from gear and of course expected…
EBH
Equipment obviously matters to photography, but not in the way that too many people think it does. (Basically, I think I’m in agreement with your perspective.)
Short version of my main point: The brand one chooses doesn’t really matter much if at all. The system one builds around whatever brand they choose does matter and deserves careful thought.
Getting equipment with the features and capabilities that match one’s intended use can make a big difference. Deciding which brand to buy generally does not.
In the first case, we want to match things like cost, size, weight, available lenses and other accessories, feature focus (like higher MP versus speed, etc.), perhaps even what other family members and friends use, etc. to our likely use case. (We apply similar thinking to the lenses we get — primes vs/and zooms, how large apertures need to be, how many lenses do we want to carry, what focal length range shall we cover, how critical is optimal IQ, etc.)
Examples are obvious, but here are a few to illustrate:
- A person looking for a camera to pack for travel (where photography is part of the overall experience) might prefer a smaller camera with a smaller sensor format and smaller/fewer lenses.
- A person planning on shooting landscapes from the tripod may be fine with a larger system, lower burst rate speeds, more pixel density, less high ISO performance, smaller aperture but high quality zoom lenses (or something else?), etc.
- Someone photographing wildlife may be well-served by a camera with faster operating speed (e.g. burst rates, AF, etc.) but perhaps lower resolution, with larger aperture long lenses.
- A street photographer may prefer a smaller, lighter camera and lenses, and perhaps small primes over zooms.
(One could easily quibble with these specific features, but that only reinforces my point about tailoring features to one’s own photography.)
You can meet any of these requirements sets with gear from any of the major manufacturers. This or that feature might be a little better on any of them, but overall each of them is highly capable and none will hold you back in a meaningful way… and we see fine photographers making great photographs with all of them. The brand matters much less than how you outfit yourself with whatever brand you end up choosing.
So when some say “the system doesn’t matter” that isn’t the same as saying “the brand doesn’t matter” — A system can be built based on any of the major brands, and while the brand choice may not be all that important to one’s photography, how we build a system within a brand’s ecosystem can be.
I've had Fuji, an older X-T10 and now have a Sony A6300. I sold the X-T10 to get the A6300 for better AF for a trip to Africa. For me the X-T10 felt more portable, but I had more compact lenses. I also enjoyed using it more than the A6300 and found raws easier to get the colors I was looking for.
I am thinking of switching back to Fuji with like an X-T2 or X-T3 or Olympus E-M1 mii or E-M5 miii. I understand the AF may not be as good, but looking for something I enjoy using more. In general I am a very logical person, so it's hard to get past the specs and more into the intangibles.
Ha .. had to go to page 1 to read the original post i.e experiences with Sony & Fuji APS-C
I have used the NEX-5, a6000 and a6700 w/ a variety of Sony and Sigma APS-C lens. (FWIW - I also owned a lot of Sony FF bodies and e-mount lenses)
I now use the X-E5 w/ the Sigma 12/1.4, XF23/2.8 and XF 16-50.
I am a casual shoot-as-it-happens photographer taking pictures during hiking, backpacking, kayaking, X-country skiing & snowshoeing and travel. Rarely wildlife or action and no video. No interest/need for a telephoto lens
I always shot raw but recently decided I wanted to shoot jpg+ raw to potential minimize my PP time after an adventure or trip.
I recently bought the X-E5 because after comparing, I prefer the Fuji jpgs.
I also like the versatility of the X-E5 40mp sensor for cropping and the compactness and internal zooming of the XF 16-50. I have taken handheld images @ f/2.8, 1/8 sec and 12k ISO that look really good SOOC.
If people enjoy the retro style controls and jpeg film sims, Fuji.
If people want a camera to get out of the way and give good IQ with accurate and consistent focus, Sony.
Since getting an A7cII I've lost interest in the smaller sensor systems (in my case MFT) as none of these are pocketable and are almost certainly going in a bag so any additional bulk or weight a smaller FF mirrorless system brings over a smaller sensor system is likely not going to be that much of an issue so might as well go FF for the image quality.
Jonas B wrote: patotts wroteGet a Leica Q3 of choice and be there! And now you'll have 4 systems! :-)That may be considered to be a "Dismissive Response".
Wasn't meant like on - my advice is to look into the Q3 as a travel camera. The last part was meant to be funny :-)
How have you liked your Fuji for these purposes? I’m in a similar use case except young kids too, occasional wildlife & action. Contemplating an EM 5 miii or OM 5 as well.
offtraildog wrote:
Ha .. had to go to page 1 to read the original post i.e experiences with Sony & Fuji APS-C
I have used the NEX-5, a6000 and a6700 w/ a variety of Sony and Sigma APS-C lens. (FWIW - I also owned a lot of Sony FF bodies and e-mount lenses)
I now use the X-E5 w/ the Sigma 12/1.4, XF23/2.8 and XF 16-50.
I am a casual shoot-as-it-happens photographer taking pictures during hiking, backpacking, kayaking, X-country skiing & snowshoeing and travel. Rarely wildlife or action and no video. No interest/need for a telephoto lens
I always shot raw but recently decided I wanted to shoot jpg+ raw to potential minimize my PP time after an adventure or trip.
I recently bought the X-E5 because after comparing, I prefer the Fuji jpgs.
I also like the versatility of the X-E5 40mp sensor for cropping and the compactness and internal zooming of the XF 16-50. I have taken handheld images @ f/2.8, 1/8 sec and 12k ISO that look really good SOOC.
patotts wrote: Jonas B wrotepatotts wroteGet a Leica Q3 of choice and be there! And now you'll have 4 systems! :-)That may be considered to be a "Dismissive Response".Wasn't meant like on - my advice is to look into the Q3 as a travel camera. The last part was meant to be funny :-)
Yes, I got that - but the OP isn't known for appreciating such comments (you may have seen another current thread by the OP). It was funny and it made me reply in this thread which I earlier decided to stay away from.
Jonas B wrote: patotts wroteJonas B wrotepatotts wroteGet a Leica Q3 of choice and be there! And now you'll have 4 systems! :-)That may be considered to be a "Dismissive Response".Wasn't meant like on - my advice is to look into the Q3 as a travel camera. The last part was meant to be funny :-)Yes, I got that - but the OP isn't known for appreciating such comments (you may have seen another current thread by the OP). It was funny and it made me reply in this thread which I earlier decided to stay away from.