cputeq wrote:
You have either amazing physique, or have never gone serious mountain biking with SLR gear. It gets heavy after a while and more annoying to carry than useful.
I am 6 ft, 207 lb in shape, but why should I carry bulky gear for no extremely overwhelming benefit? ( for my shooting).
Sure, I spent 2 months hiking in the Rocky Mountains with full SLR gear. Sure, I take weekend (2 day) hikes with three to five heavy lenses. Actual \"mountain biking\" I probably would not bring a camera at all. But I spend full 10 to 14 hour days riding a bicycle with just whatever lenses I like. For about a month last summer I spent almost everyday 10 - 14hrs per day, carrying around a Linhof tripod, the nFD 300/2.8L and one other lens (usually the ~1kg TamronSP 60-300mm F/3.8 Macro.
My physique? I dunno, most girls beat me arm-wrestling. I\'m over 6 feet. I dunno how much I weigh but I\'m pudgy and soft around the middle. But I don\'t con myself into thinking that 500 grams one way or the other is going to make any difference. I\'m NOT a weight-wimp!
Even in normal travels, I just dont want the overall bulk of an SLR system. OMD and prime native lens are small, great IQ, unobtrusive, and quiet.
Yup, finally a decent native µ4/3 lens with nice IQ - or so it looks like so far. That it happens to be a lightweight combination is an extra benefit (maybe) in some situations. It can also be a negative in other situations. That it\'s quiet is nice if you\'re sneaking shots at a stage play, in a museum, or at another venue which doesn\'t allow photography.
When hobby turns to hassle, it is time to reasses the situation.
So I should give up biking because I have to wrench on it every sunday and fill it with gas?
I should give up hang gliding because of all the gear I have to pack, unpack, and pack up again every time?
I should quit rock climbing because managing, maintaining, and hauling around about 150 to 200 ponds of gear is by your standards \"a hassle\"?
I guess by your standards I should lay in be and die because even lifting a fry-pan to cook food to feed myself is a hassle.
I call BS!!! I like playing with photography enough that I don\'t care about an extra kilogram - I don\'t even think about it except in discussions like these.
I plan to keep my DSLR for some siuations, but I am expecting it will be gathering more dust than photos.
I think you should sell it. Actually you should sell your µ4/3 system too. It\'s too much hassle to point the thing and press the shutter button after all. Instead you should just buy or download other peoples pictures. These days everything and every place is photographed - so you don\'t need to bring any camera at all - it\'s just too much of a hassle!
OK, I\'m being sarcastic now but you get the point right? Ansel Adams loved large format B&W film photography so he made a hobby and a living out of it. He loved it so he found a way. Usually a pack mule or a donkey. And station-wagon with a strong roof to get there in the first place. He didn\'t think of the logistics involved as hassles - they were part of it. Instamatics were available at the time but he didn\'t switch and I bet he didn\'t care that much that his gear weighed 100 to 150 pounds either - again that was part of it. I can compare myself to Adams in that singular way: When I like doing something I do it and in the doing is the man made. I don\'t go trying to find ways around doing it or complain - neither do I spend thousands to get the newest, lightest, coolest substitution for what I already have or for what I can get at a fraction of the cost instead. I like playing at photography and mostly my goals are either to get clear highly detailed images or to make creative art. If I can do that with a $400 GH2 and a $15 TamronSP 60-300mm F/3.8 Macro then \"why in hell\" would I spend $400 to $800 for the same lens (with lower IQ in most cases) and another $1,200 on a different camera body because it was 8mm narrower and 62 grams lighter? It boils down to $1,700 or $415. And when the main difference is only a little weight and a few centimeters I\'m not so stupid as to spend that much more and end up with same or worse results because I\'ve conned myself into becoming a weight-wimp.
YMMV.
Aug 03, 2012 at 03:53 AM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #10854016 « OM-D Questions and a comment »
I\'m over 6 feet. I dunno how much I weigh but I\'m pudgy and soft around the middle. But I don\'t con myself into thinking that 500 grams one way or the other is going to make any difference. I\'m NOT a weight-wimp! 