My Nikon D810 set up got to be too heavy to travel with as I hit my early 70s. As soon as the Z mirrorless came out, I traded "up" to a much lighter system. I don't regret it at all. We were on holiday in Banff and went up to lake Louise on a rather cloudy day. I was looking for a good location to shoot and as I made my way to the lake there was pleasant Englishman who had his D810 mounted on a tripod. He saw my Z5 and asked how I liked it. I handed it to him and he marveled at how light it was.
You may want to discuss your lens choices for a smaller lighter system. I am far less enamored with full-frame mirrorless as a size/weight improvement than most as from my experience unless you choose VERY different glass than you did the body is the least of the size/weight issue. In fact I see high speed primes and zooms to be larger now than ever.
I still have all my old Nikon lenses and bought the adapter for the Z system so I can use them with that body. If I am doing local work, I have my tripod and don't feel too encumbered. However, when my wife and I travel, things need to be as light as possible. I stick with the 24-70 f4 zoom which for my purposes is just fine. I've done some pixel peeping and unless I am doing severe cropping and then printing big, the images look fine.
I'm at the stage where I'm taking pictures for myself and don't sell much these days so I don't need to print as big as I used to. Print size is 13 x 19 max right now and I find the resolution of the zoom lens is just fine.
Alan, your comment reinforces another point. Every photographer needs to parse this out for him/herself and find a solution that works. For example, your system works for whenever you travel. I travel quite bit for my own work and to lead photo workshops, so I need to carry a bit more than most casual photographers. But the one thing I can't deal with is multiple button and menu systems.
I understand just making a point for other readers if you select lots of giant fast new lenses as you did with DSLR's rather than modest aperture more compact lenses (and reduced in number) you're not buying much size/weight savings. It's all the other stuff, I don't know anyone that only carries a body and one small lens attached that complains about any particular camera (beyond the 2x large body built-in vertical grip D4/5 and Canon 1D series... or for that matter the EOS R3 which are kind of ridiculous to put a small prime on.
I think this is correct. Each of us has to define our needs with respect to what we photograph and how we print. Someone doing wildlife photography has very different needs from one who does static landscapes. I do a variety of different subjects other than wildlife and if I'm on a trip with my wife, stopping to change lenses is usually out of the question . I glad Nikon which I have been using since I got my first SLR back in 1969 makes a variety of fixed and zoom lenses. I've not been a situation where an f4 zoom is problematic as the newer cameras can shoot at a higher ISO without loss of quality.
Sony mirrorless for the small size and weight when in the bush (my zooms are all f4 and I carry a fast prime). Technically covers everything I want to do. But we are not automatons and part of the joy of this craft is the interaction with our gear and how it changes our thinking about the task at hand. I use a Leica D-Lux 109 (thank you Panasonic ;-) for shooting events because the Leica logo conveys to them that I’m serious about my craft. Another thing is the tonality of the sensor is different from the Sony and it becomes a creative act to think about which one might be best for the subject. As for menus, a pox upon them all!
OMG, Chris! I actually laughed out loud at your comment: "As for menus, a pox upon them all!" With all the constantly changing conditions "out there", decoding 2 or 3 different menu systems would drive me batty, let alone button placements, etc.
My wife and I went to Italy for a month back in 2015. I took the Nikon D700 and 3 lens in a backpack. In addition I took a Nikon J1 as a back up. Want to guess which one I carried around while we walked the streets? It was about weight. I used to carry a Linhof Karden Kolor 4x5 in a case with a big Majestic tripod, as a student. Later progressing to a Hasselblad 500c with all the backs,lens and flash units. On the shelf is a Mamiya Press with all the parts, but even that is heavy.
Now it is a Nikon D800 with one zoom lens and a carbon fiber tripod. At 75 I am still shooting but I am smart enough to know for most shooting situations, what I carry will cover most of the bases.
I am not that old (but I am catching up) and this is exactly why I have my Fuji X-pro and ONLY two very small primes of which I typically only take one mounted on that camera (an 18mm and 35mm = 28/50 equiv to full frame).
I've actually toyed with the idea and camera of just using a Ricoh GR or a Olympus OM-5 but for the moment I like the X-Pro better.
For those of you following this thread, I suggest you not believe a word Bob said. Sure he may MAINLY use one system, but I've never met any photographer who knows - really knows - more about cameras and lenses than Bob. His brain is wired with futuristic chips that enables him to switch from one camera system to the next in about 3 nanoseconds. Very frustrating for an old guy like me... but he's damned good to have around!!
You've never noticed whenever I have to touch your camera I am EXTREMELY annoyed at "custom buttons", I despise custom buttons... hoo-ray no camera in the world works the same way any more. How wonderful. Bah humbug... shutter, aperture, focus, button to take picture is it for me.
Having two cameras does not need to be as complicated. I have two Fuji's, a GFX50R and an X-H1. The workings of the cameras are identical so no issues switching between them. The smaller camera serves as a backup (don't want to be without if one fails) and it's the one that I use when I need a large telephoto (the lenses are lighter, smaller, cheaper and there's a wider choice). Last time I traveled, I did so with 2 bodies and 3 lenses, all in a small backpack.
When I shot film professionally, I stuck with Pentax for 35 mm since I was used to it and I was quite satisfied with the quality of the images that I could make with their cameras and lenses. I also worked with 4x5 and 120 cameras, depending on the jobs--Rollei TLRs for most 120 and Toyo monorails for 4x5. With digital, I have stuck with Pentax despite its limitations since most of my lenses were still useable on the DSLR bodies and the quality has been good enough for my professional needs. The K 1 doesn't need any apologies for quality and the viewfinder is one of the best that I have ever used. Menus are one of the reasons the I have stuck with Pentax--I also teach at a community college and have been appalled at some of the menu choices from other brands. For me (and many of my students) doing routine things seems to require way too many steps into some really obscure menu items. I realize that this is personal and that others might find my choices not to their liking.
Ps. I still have one view camera but never use it, still have a couple boxes of film but it's so expensive per sheet I am scared to actually shoot it. I've been "saving" that film for some unknown subject/project or so I though going on the better part of a decade.
I'm afraid my Toyo 4x5 G is also a shelf queen at the moment. It has been loaned out to a couple of students over the last few years, but I have also been reluctant to put it to use due to films costs and the (not) fun of carrying 30+ pounds of gear to go out and shoot landscapes. In my current studio space I process film fairly often but I don't have a good place to set up my Zone VI enlarger which is a 150 lb. beast. Printing at the community college where I teach a class or two a year is a possibility but I've never been a fan of shared darkroom space, especially with students who don't always know when they are messing things up. I still shoot a fair amount of film, but it is in 1930's and 1950's vintage Contax rangefinder cameras with their respective Zeiss and Nikon lenses. Incidentally I also looked at and rejected the 1990's versions of the AF Contax. Some great lenses but ridiculous focusing, and the 90 really needed to be f/2 for me to have considered it for the work I might have done with it.
I am right with you on the menus but more generally - first, simplicity!!! Second, use what you know and can get out of your way. Cameras that feel like you are fighting with them in just about any way (comfort, controls, menus, knobs, buttons, whatever) takes away from your ability to see and concentrate on what is in front of your camera.
I've had many, many cameras that I "wanted to love" but just drove me nuts when actually using them. The first that came to mind was the Contax G series cameras... wanted to love them, and did love the Hologon, Biogon, and two Planar Zeiss designed lenses but the focusing system and viewfinder drove me absolutely crazy in use, even the "manual focus" was useless as it reset to infinity with every shot. Beautiful camera, tiny, compact, gorgeous concept but horrifically executed in use.
I still love my 500 series Hasselblads pure simplicity, fantastically well thought out in use, I still use them for many things. My "workhorse" cameras are my Canon 5Ds's, I literally never have to use any menus and they just work end of story.
Yes to this, especially the point about multiple menu systems. It's like being a Mac person and a PC person at the same time -- probably good mental gymnastics, but not necessarily good for making your own best work.
I agree. There is one more reason: the more you use your only camera, the better, faster, and more accurately you'll be able to handle it, so results will be better. Of course is nice and good to have known and used different cameras.
My Nikon D810 set up got to be too heavy to travel with as I hit my early 70s. As soon as the Z mirrorless came out, I traded "up" to a much lighter system. I don't regret it at all. We were on holiday in Banff and went up to lake Louise on a rather cloudy day. I was looking for a good location to shoot and as I made my way to the lake there was pleasant Englishman who had his D810 mounted on a tripod. He saw my Z5 and asked how I liked it. I handed it to him and he marveled at how light it was.
You may want to discuss your lens choices for a smaller lighter system. I am far less enamored with full-frame mirrorless as a size/weight improvement than most as from my experience unless you choose VERY different glass than you did the body is the least of the size/weight issue. In fact I see high speed primes and zooms to be larger now than ever.
I still have all my old Nikon lenses and bought the adapter for the Z system so I can use them with that body. If I am doing local work, I have my tripod and don't feel too encumbered. However, when my wife and I travel, things need to be as light as possible. I stick with the 24-70 f4 zoom which for my purposes is just fine. I've done some pixel peeping and unless I am doing severe cropping and then printing big, the images look fine.
I'm at the stage where I'm taking pictures for myself and don't sell much these days so I don't need to print as big as I used to. Print size is 13 x 19 max right now and I find the resolution of the zoom lens is just fine.
Alan, your comment reinforces another point. Every photographer needs to parse this out for him/herself and find a solution that works. For example, your system works for whenever you travel. I travel quite bit for my own work and to lead photo workshops, so I need to carry a bit more than most casual photographers. But the one thing I can't deal with is multiple button and menu systems.
I understand just making a point for other readers if you select lots of giant fast new lenses as you did with DSLR's rather than modest aperture more compact lenses (and reduced in number) you're not buying much size/weight savings. It's all the other stuff, I don't know anyone that only carries a body and one small lens attached that complains about any particular camera (beyond the 2x large body built-in vertical grip D4/5 and Canon 1D series... or for that matter the EOS R3 which are kind of ridiculous to put a small prime on.
I think this is correct. Each of us has to define our needs with respect to what we photograph and how we print. Someone doing wildlife photography has very different needs from one who does static landscapes. I do a variety of different subjects other than wildlife and if I'm on a trip with my wife, stopping to change lenses is usually out of the question . I glad Nikon which I have been using since I got my first SLR back in 1969 makes a variety of fixed and zoom lenses. I've not been a situation where an f4 zoom is problematic as the newer cameras can shoot at a higher ISO without loss of quality.
Sony mirrorless for the small size and weight when in the bush (my zooms are all f4 and I carry a fast prime). Technically covers everything I want to do. But we are not automatons and part of the joy of this craft is the interaction with our gear and how it changes our thinking about the task at hand. I use a Leica D-Lux 109 (thank you Panasonic ;-) for shooting events because the Leica logo conveys to them that I’m serious about my craft. Another thing is the tonality of the sensor is different from the Sony and it becomes a creative act to think about which one might be best for the subject. As for menus, a pox upon them all!
OMG, Chris! I actually laughed out loud at your comment: "As for menus, a pox upon them all!" With all the constantly changing conditions "out there", decoding 2 or 3 different menu systems would drive me batty, let alone button placements, etc.
My wife and I went to Italy for a month back in 2015. I took the Nikon D700 and 3 lens in a backpack. In addition I took a Nikon J1 as a back up. Want to guess which one I carried around while we walked the streets? It was about weight. I used to carry a Linhof Karden Kolor 4x5 in a case with a big Majestic tripod, as a student. Later progressing to a Hasselblad 500c with all the backs,lens and flash units. On the shelf is a Mamiya Press with all the parts, but even that is heavy.
Now it is a Nikon D800 with one zoom lens and a carbon fiber tripod. At 75 I am still shooting but I am smart enough to know for most shooting situations, what I carry will cover most of the bases.
I am not that old (but I am catching up) and this is exactly why I have my Fuji X-pro and ONLY two very small primes of which I typically only take one mounted on that camera (an 18mm and 35mm = 28/50 equiv to full frame).
I've actually toyed with the idea and camera of just using a Ricoh GR or a Olympus OM-5 but for the moment I like the X-Pro better.
For those of you following this thread, I suggest you not believe a word Bob said. Sure he may MAINLY use one system, but I've never met any photographer who knows - really knows - more about cameras and lenses than Bob. His brain is wired with futuristic chips that enables him to switch from one camera system to the next in about 3 nanoseconds. Very frustrating for an old guy like me... but he's damned good to have around!!
You've never noticed whenever I have to touch your camera I am EXTREMELY annoyed at "custom buttons", I despise custom buttons... hoo-ray no camera in the world works the same way any more. How wonderful. Bah humbug... shutter, aperture, focus, button to take picture is it for me.
Christopher,
It is appropriate to say "Amen" in a public forum?
Les
Having two cameras does not need to be as complicated. I have two Fuji's, a GFX50R and an X-H1. The workings of the cameras are identical so no issues switching between them. The smaller camera serves as a backup (don't want to be without if one fails) and it's the one that I use when I need a large telephoto (the lenses are lighter, smaller, cheaper and there's a wider choice). Last time I traveled, I did so with 2 bodies and 3 lenses, all in a small backpack.
Great solution, Jeanine. Best of both worlds. I also carry two bodies, but they are both GFX (100 and 50S), as we make large prints in our studio.
When I shot film professionally, I stuck with Pentax for 35 mm since I was used to it and I was quite satisfied with the quality of the images that I could make with their cameras and lenses. I also worked with 4x5 and 120 cameras, depending on the jobs--Rollei TLRs for most 120 and Toyo monorails for 4x5. With digital, I have stuck with Pentax despite its limitations since most of my lenses were still useable on the DSLR bodies and the quality has been good enough for my professional needs. The K 1 doesn't need any apologies for quality and the viewfinder is one of the best that I have ever used. Menus are one of the reasons the I have stuck with Pentax--I also teach at a community college and have been appalled at some of the menu choices from other brands. For me (and many of my students) doing routine things seems to require way too many steps into some really obscure menu items. I realize that this is personal and that others might find my choices not to their liking.
Ps. I still have one view camera but never use it, still have a couple boxes of film but it's so expensive per sheet I am scared to actually shoot it. I've been "saving" that film for some unknown subject/project or so I though going on the better part of a decade.
I'm afraid my Toyo 4x5 G is also a shelf queen at the moment. It has been loaned out to a couple of students over the last few years, but I have also been reluctant to put it to use due to films costs and the (not) fun of carrying 30+ pounds of gear to go out and shoot landscapes. In my current studio space I process film fairly often but I don't have a good place to set up my Zone VI enlarger which is a 150 lb. beast. Printing at the community college where I teach a class or two a year is a possibility but I've never been a fan of shared darkroom space, especially with students who don't always know when they are messing things up. I still shoot a fair amount of film, but it is in 1930's and 1950's vintage Contax rangefinder cameras with their respective Zeiss and Nikon lenses. Incidentally I also looked at and rejected the 1990's versions of the AF Contax. Some great lenses but ridiculous focusing, and the 90 really needed to be f/2 for me to have considered it for the work I might have done with it.
I am right with you on the menus but more generally - first, simplicity!!! Second, use what you know and can get out of your way. Cameras that feel like you are fighting with them in just about any way (comfort, controls, menus, knobs, buttons, whatever) takes away from your ability to see and concentrate on what is in front of your camera.
I've had many, many cameras that I "wanted to love" but just drove me nuts when actually using them. The first that came to mind was the Contax G series cameras... wanted to love them, and did love the Hologon, Biogon, and two Planar Zeiss designed lenses but the focusing system and viewfinder drove me absolutely crazy in use, even the "manual focus" was useless as it reset to infinity with every shot. Beautiful camera, tiny, compact, gorgeous concept but horrifically executed in use.
I still love my 500 series Hasselblads pure simplicity, fantastically well thought out in use, I still use them for many things. My "workhorse" cameras are my Canon 5Ds's, I literally never have to use any menus and they just work end of story.
Yes to this, especially the point about multiple menu systems. It's like being a Mac person and a PC person at the same time -- probably good mental gymnastics, but not necessarily good for making your own best work.
Good point, Susan.
Absolutely! The word is just an affirmation of what was said, not always a religious connotation.
I think it literally means "so be it"
Good, because that was the way it was meant.
I agree. There is one more reason: the more you use your only camera, the better, faster, and more accurately you'll be able to handle it, so results will be better. Of course is nice and good to have known and used different cameras.
True. With increasing familiarity comes the ability to relax and focus on your subject and the story you are trying to tell.