The Online Photographer

...Now I got myself looking at the A6500 files and I've started pining for that. A6000/A6300/A6500, same sensor, and the files really do look good. Just no bad habits, solid high quality, no drawbacks in any way. They seem to play nice with ACR too.

Dang it. I hate it when I get a burr under my saddle like this. A flareup of my "TOCD"—techie OCD.

Mike
(No thanks to Ken for his comment!)

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

John Krumm: "Sometimes I wish I could buy a version of Lightroom or Photoshop that had the 'zoom to 100 percent' feature disabled. That might help with digital GAS.

"Perhaps not film GAS. I had a good laugh at myself the other day when I got back a roll of HP5 that was commercially 'superscanned' at pretty high resolution, close to the resolution of my K-1. There's nothing like a close up view of mush to bring things down to earth. Fortunately that was only an extra six dollars.

"I'd suggest that you read a couple of your recent posts to help with your GAS, but doctor, heal thyself has never been a good prescription."

Jeff: "Now you've tortured Bob Travaglione."

Olympus's three new gee-whiz toys:
the over-the-top 17mm ƒ/1.2, 25mm ƒ/1.2, and 45mm ƒ/1.2

An ancient meme (from before the word "meme" entered popular currency thanks to Richard Dawkins) popped into my mind this morning: "people who love people are the luckiest people in the world." It comes from Barbra Streisand's first Top 40 hit, the annoying, cloying song "People," written by Jule Styne with lyrics by Bob Merrill, from the 1964 musical (and Streisand vehicle) Funny Girl.

I just looked all that up, of course. I haven't heard the song in decades (and would like to keep it that way, with apologies if you're a Streisand fan). Barbra Streisand, in case you've never heard of her, was a big pop star back in the '60s and beyond, with an unusually loyal fan base. Kinda like Celine Dion in more recent times, maybe? I dunno, I'm not good with power pop.

The phrase came to mind because I was thinking that photographers who shoot Micro 4/3 are the luckiest photographers in the world.

The Micro 4/3 consortium sorta boils down to two second-tier companies, Olympus and Panasonic, although there are a few other interesting things out at the edges. But having both those companies both co-operate and also compete with each other has invigorated both of them, and made Micro 4/3 a delightful hodgepodge. There are all sorts of cameras—I tried to count them all and couldn't, either current ones or all-time—and a vast array of lenses that, while decidedly not comprising a coherent, considered system (part of what's good about it, in my view), offer up all the wonderful toys pretty much anyone could dream of. [UPDATE: there have been 50 cameras and 68 lenses not including converters. According to this site, and thanks to Rene Theberge for the tip.] Olympus has been one of the world's special lensmakers since about the mid-'80s, and Panasonic somehow got to partner with Leica for its premium lens line, which is kinda like Buick being allowed to label its upper level cars "Ferrari." You just wouldn't think that would be something that would continue to strike Leica as a good idea.

The three ƒ/1.2 lenses (this is the 17mm) appear to
have been designed specifically for idealized bokeh

Anyway, the claim here is based on functionality and opportunity, yeah—but then, it's not as if Canon, Fuji or Leica don't offer those things. It's really the toy-chest nature of Micro 4/3 that makes its users so lucky. Passionate amateurs and hobbyists just want to have fun (hoo boy, this is bad today—Cyndi Lauper just sprung up uninvited in my ear) and Micro 4/3 (along with everything else it offers) is just lots and lots of fun.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

James Weekes: "Thus explaining my near constant goofy smile. Love the lenses. Just got the Olympus Pro 12–100 ƒ/4 lens (Curse you Kirk Tuck) and have spent hours using it. Wonderful."

Carol Teater: "As a Micro 4/3 user, I am less than excited with how divergent the system is. I see it more as two systems what will mount each other's lens, rather than a single, unified system. For example, I have an Olympus body and mostly Olympus lenses, and if I decided I wanted a Panasonic body, their DFD technology will not work with those lenses; you fall back to old contrast focus algorithms. If you buy any of the ƒ/1.2 primes listed above, same thing. I would think it would less of an issue with these, as the biggest concern is with C-AF, at least to me.

"Of course, it could be that the Panasonic bodies would focus my lenses better than my Olympus, as it is an older model (E-M1 original), but if I was going for the top models, I would guess that the E-M1 Mark II would perform better C-AF with my lenses than the G9. It would be great to see some comparison between the E-M1 Mark II and the G9 using Olympus lenses, but that is not too likely to happen, I think. I guess I could always rent a G9 and an E-M1 Mark II and try them with my lenses if I were planning to upgrade, but I more likely would just get an E-M1.

"That is the biggest concern to me, but there is also the issue of advanced OIS incompatibility and incompatibility of some Panasonic lenses with Olympus bodies for various reasons.

"Most people in the Micro 4/3 world seem to agree with you, though, including some people who have lenses from both companies. Me, I have a couple of Panasonic lenses, but mostly try to stay with Olympus lenses so I don't run into these issues. And once in one system or the other, I am very unlikely to get a body from the other one.

"FWIW.  :-)  "

Benjamin Marks: "Are you familiar with the neologism, 'earworm'? 'Girls Just Wanna Have Fun' is now bouncing off the empty space on the inside of my skull. Agree with you re power pop. Pop music lost me starting as a teen in about 1979, when I stopped listening to AM radio...I am not denigrating it, you understand, it just doesn't make me feel anything significant. And life is too short. But you couldn't escape it either and a couple of short years later Cyndi was prominently played (and re-played) in the running shoe store where I worked.

"Avaunt! Cyndi Lauper, I expell thee! Shucks. Didn't work."

Mike replies: "Earworm" is a calque (repurposed loanword) from the German Ohrwurm. I love the word calque since it is itself a calque, from the French meaning imitation or close copy.

Amy Sedaris says you banish earworm by intoning to yourself the phrase "By...MENNEN" from the old TV commercials. I'd say it works, but I don't want to jinx it.

Peter Gilbert: "From Thom Hogan: 'Did you know we're approaching 30 Panasonic m4/3 bodies [and] over 20 Olympus m4/3 bodies?' (Recent article on his sansmirror website)."

Someone is wrong on the Internet.

Everyone says it over and over: "The best camera is the one you have with you." Not necessarily, and heavy sigh.

What they mean is, any old camera is better than none.

Maybe so. But I can think of many occasions when the camera I had with me was not the best camera.

It started back in the days of film. I'm weird, and in a minority (turns out), and not typical these days, but I actually honestly prefer B&W to color (even though I shoot in color now). Color pictures have to work harder to mean anything. When I do a Google image search or a Flickr equipment search and get a screen full of image thumbnails, my eye lasers in on the few B&W pictures sprinkled here and there. I used to be a custom B&W printer, working for galleries, pro photographers, museums, et cetera. I have highly evolved (can't say "developed"!) opinions about tone and how B&W pictures should look. Tone moves me; colors don't, as much. Can't say why, that's just the way it is with me. When I shot film, I shot B&W. More than that, I conceived of B&W as my "real" work—how I wanted my pictures to be. And in those days, of course, if you only had one camera body, you couldn't shoot B&W and color at the same time.

So all I had to do to have the wrong camera with me was to put a roll of color film in it.

I hated having the camera "all clogged up" with a roll of color. On those occasions, of course, I couldn't help still seeing in B&W. My eyes would sort the world into the sort of pictures I could take, visualizing the field of view of the lens, translating color reality into the tones of B&W, even before I took the picture. I would occasionally look helplessly at beautiful color scenes and think, nope. Not a picture there. Not for me and my Plus-X or Tri-X, anyway. I often couldn't wait to get past that color roll and get proper film back in the camera again. My camera bags would typically be littered with rolls of color film with the leader sticking out, marked "11 exp" or "15 exp" or some such, meaning I had managed to take 11 or 15 color pictures before giving in and going back to black and white.

I've also had the wrong camera with me many times when I was testing gear. I hated photographing with cameras when the results looked substandard to me, or just discordant to the rest of my work, because what if I happened across a scene that I really wanted to take with my real camera? If I was futzing around with a Disc or 110 camera, or a toy camera, or some sort of oddball lens, or a Canon Xapshot (a very early still video camera), I could have a camera with me and still miss the shot. How many times have you seen an image you really wanted but weren't able to get what you wanted because you didn't have the right camera with you? This is a modernist idea, that the results should be true to the means used to create them. (Andy Grundberg has a nice explanation of that aspect of modernism somewhere, but I can't remember where.)

On a page of thumbnails, my eye tends to find the B&W
first, regardless of the subject

This has gotten better, I think, in the post-modernist era of digital imaging. The look of final results are not nearly so dependent on the qualities and properties of the equipment and materials. You can cheat in various ways to make the results look the way you want them to regardless of what camera you used.

Still, if you are sensitive to the "look" that your preferred equipment gives you, it's very possible to get caught out and about with the wrong dang camera, wishing you had the right one instead. I took this shot on my iPhone, but the technical quality is marginal and I really wish I had taken it with my Fuji.

This isn't a snobby thing, either, necessarily. If you're doing a project with a Holga lens on your Nikon and you're out photographing with nothing but a ratty Nikkor 24–70mm ƒ/2.8 ED, and you see something that would have been perfect for your Holga project but the Holga lens is sitting at home on the shelf, then you've got the wrong lens on the camera and the camera you have with you is not the best camera. Even if it's the same camera as the best camera!

Maybe the expression should be, "The best camera is the one you have with you—as long as you have the right camera with you."

The Internet should stop repeating the first clause of that sentence, before the dash, as if it's a truism. Ain't. Not for everyone, or at all times.

Right is right and not right is wrong. Even if it's all you've got with you.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Art in LA: "Yes!"

Not THAT Ross Cameron: "Couldn't agree more. And I suspect you are in excellent company with your sentiments. I read somewhere—maybe an old photo.net forum—that the 'best camera' quote originated with Sir Ansel. The posters' point was in the same vein as yours—this quote has been misinterpreted, and the original was along the lines of 'the best camera is the one you have with you, so make sure it's the right camera.' Obviously I can't vouch for this, and a quick Google failed to validate whether I'm propagating more garbage or not."

Mike replies: I agree that "always have the right camera with you" might be better advice.

John Krumm: "That expression definitely falls into the 'seems like a truism, but isn't' category. But it kind of fits into what I would call the tradition of optimistic, individualistic American marketing, where slogans like 'Just Do It' are born. It’s also not a statement of truth, so much as an example of Colbert’s genius concept, 'Truthiness.'"

toto: "The best camera is the one you cannot afford."

Jim Bullard: "'Color pictures have to work harder to mean anything.' I like that line. B&W cuts to the essence of a subject in the same way that drawing does with painting. When I first started shooting digital I was often disappointed with the results and recently I have reimagined some of those images in B&W. Now they work. before they were either flat or 'pretty'" but lacking in emotional impact. I find I often prefer the drawings done preparation for paintings over the painting itself. That initial study in B&W gets to the heart of the subject. The rest is just details, often distracting details."

David Littlejohn: "Re 'it's very possible to get caught out and about with the wrong dang camera, wishing you had the right one instead': I agree. I really would like a pocketable, short zoom camera to carry around with me everywhere. I've tried a few. They're great for social occasions and other documentation. But then a 'real' photo appears, you capture it, and you're disappointed when you get home."

Mike replies: It's happened to me too many times to count. You'd think I'd learn.

Rodney Yardley: "If you are like me (which is probably where this misguided quote came from to begin with), the best camera is most assuredly the one you left at home."

marcin wuu: "It was Chase Jarvis I think, the fella who came up with 'the best camera is the one you have with you.' I don't buy it either, by the way. Even though I think Chase Jarvis is a great guy and a very proficient photographer."

Mike replies: The saying predates the book, although cdembrey says Chase did originate the saying way back in the days of usenet newsgroups. Can I give him credit for it without disagreeing with him? :-)

Actually, I would argue that Chase's book (he wrote a book called The Best Camera Is The One That's With You: iPhone Photography by Chase Jarvis, part of Scott Kelby's Voices That Matter series, for those who aren't aware of it) was one of the best applications of the phrase, because you do always have your phone with you (well, I don't, but most people do) and he was advocating making a conscious commitment to creative work with the smartphone, which is fine. It's never a bad thing to have the right camera with you, including when it's your phone.

cdembrey: "Here you go."

Mike replies: So Batman reads TOP! Tell him I liked him better than Superman when I was eight.

Honda That's in Shirahama, Wakayama. Photo by 玄史生.

Maybe it's not a shock that I don't like too many other peoples' camera reviews. I do like Thom Hogan's, and the other day I happened across Thom's succinct explanation of what's wrong (and right) with Olympus cameras—a funny but deadly-accurate little section under the rubric "How's it Handle?" in his E-M1 Mark II review. It starts just a little way down from the picture of the RRS L-bracket.

This might be a wee bit too much to quote legally, but I'll chance it:

"...Coming back to the Olympus menu system and nomenclature is always a shock. Items in the menus such as 'Switches between [three fish icon][one fish icon]' just don't work for the casual user.

"Likewise, the shorthand of using a diamond for anti-shock shooting and a heart for silent shooting is just so Japanese. I guess when your main language is logographic, just sprinkling icons as shorthand throughout the menu system makes sense to you. And I suppose to the millennials picking up this camera, they'll just see this as emoji-menus.

"To me, it's a nuisance, as I have to remember what all those darned icons actually mean when I switch from one of my other cameras to the Olympus. Unfortunately, Nikon has picked up this habit recently, now abbreviating Optimal Quality to just a star icon. It's like we're going back to hieroglyphics."

His larger critique of Olympus's setup menus is spot on (and worth a read). And he's right, it's partially cultural, a dash of misalignment between Japan and the West—as for "just so Japanese," consider that Toyota's new hot hatch is going to be called the Yaris GRMN. What's GRMN? An abbreviation for "GReMliN" perhaps? No; GRMN stands for "Gazoo Racing, Masters of the Nürburgring." That's actually true—Toyota has a racing team named "Gazoo Racing" in Japan, and a Lexus LFA held the Nürburgring lap record for a production car in 2012. (The record is currently held by a Porsche.) This is exciting: ordinary schmucks like moi are soon going to be able to buy and drive a hopped-up econohatch called a Yaris Gazoo Racing, Masters of the Nürburgring. Which is either crazy or great. Or crazy. You could buy a GRMN for the name alone. From the company that once named a delivery van the "Deliboy."

Toyota is not as bad as Honda, though, which has in the past officially named vehicles the "Life Dunk" (it was the turbo version of the Life—what do you think? I say Porsche should call the next 911 Turbo the Porsche Dunk) and the "That's." That's all, just the That's.

In case you thought "OM-D E-M1 Mark II" was a dumb name. Not even!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

NicoJorj: "To be fair (or is it just to justify some purchase?), there is one thing that helps swallowing the Olympus Engineering Kool Aid: it's the very thorough possibility to customize the camera and assign the functions you need to the (usually many) buttons available, something I really miss with other brands. But yes, you have to wrap your brain around these menus to customize it, and yes, headaches may occur."

Timothy Auger: "For similar reasons, marketing the Pentax *istD (their first DSLR) must have been a nightmare internationally. Culturally, the Japanese can be very insular. As a Brit I feel qualified to say that."

Johan Grahn: "Speaking of funny names on cars. Years ago in Tokyo, at the beginning of the '90s, I saw one Japanese car with a name the certainly would not have worked in my country. The car maker was Daihatsu and the small cute car had the model name 'Kissa.' Well, I guess that might even work in an English-speaking country and for a Japanese person they probably would associate it with 'kiss.' In my country, Sweden, however, 'kissa' means 'to take a leak.' Not a good name for a car!"

Tom Kwas: "Six moths later, and I haven't taken one picture with my 'new' Pen F! Every time I spend and hour or so trying to figure it out, I just get mad and give up and put it back in the bag, and pull out my Pana G3.

"I fear that a lot of people are now making cameras that don't have anything to do with photographers and what they want. I recently read a review that the new Hasselblad only shoots RAW, and some sort of truncated low-rez JPEG to be used as thumbnails. I would have thought at least it would have shot TIFF. It's a deal breaker.

"Thank God Ektacheome E-100 is coming back!"

Peter Gilbert: "The best ever Japanese name for a car was Nissan's little delivery van they introduced around 1990. It looked like a snail. It was called the S-Cargo. Geddit???"

Nissan S-Cargo

Peter Wright: "I don't think Thom really 'gets' the E-M1 Mark II coming as he does from Nikon-think. I, on the other hand, having been using an original E-M5 for the last five years, found it fairly easy to set up. You just have to take some time and know what it is you are trying to achieve. The E-M1 Mark II is easily the most flexible (and in some ways most capable) camera I have ever seen. I found the ability to configure almost everything (and that's a lot of things!) about the camera and then assign the set-up to a custom setting (C1–C3) on the mode switch, means that I feel like I have three different cameras in one body. For example: C1 is my 'street' mode: Aperture priority, silent shutter, single shot AF, live boost off (so I can see changes in exposure comp.) and more. C2 is my 'action' mode: Shutter priority, C-AF, 10 FPS, silent shutter, etc. C3 is my 'flash' mode: Manual exposure, regular shutter (needed for flash), live boost on (so I can see the scene in the EVF). etc. The rest of the behaviour that is not peculiar to a specific way of working is set to be consistent between modes.

"It took a bit of trial and error to get all this just the way I needed it, but now it's done, it's like I say; three cameras each designed by myself. And that is worth the effort with the menus. (Still not sure about what the fish icon does, though.)"

Robert Roaldi: "Life should not be easy, nor should menus. It's exercise, it hurts, but it's good for you."

Roger Overall: "Having just switched from Canon to Sony, I have to take to a bed in a darkened room with a vinegar bandage draped over my pulsating forehead every time I go near the menus on the a6500."

Ari: "The Chevy Nova doesn’t work too well in Spanish either. Kind of a deal-breaker for a car to not go...."

A couple of days ago, a reader named Brian commented that "people rarely buy a new digital camera because the old one stopped working."

What say ye? Is that true? Have you ever had to buy a new camera because the old one stopped working?

It's happened to me twice—and in both cases I wasn't done with the camera I had to replace when I had to replace it.

The first was with my original Exakta 66, back in the '80s—the one I recently replaced in a fit of rosy-glow nostalgia. The camera started having trouble with overlapping frames. I was bearing up under that, but then I lost a shot I really wanted to poor film flatness, and I decided I had to have more trust in my camera than that. So I de-accessioned it.

Missed that camera for years. I later learned that both of the problems I had with it were known issues, and there are workarounds and also permanent fixes for both problems. But I didn't know that at the time.

The Konica-Minolta 7D introduced at the end of 2004—this is the non-U.S. version, which were called Dynax. I bought mine used in 2006, and this was the lens I used with it, the first time since boyhood I had used a zoom lens for any appreciable period of time. My son is still using the lens today, on a Sony A900.

The other was my first DSLR, the Konica-Minolta 7D of sainted memory. I loved that camera, and took lots of great shots with it. Although only six megapixels, the files were beautiful and the color was very accurate. And of course it was my first experience with IBIS (in-body image stabilization), which made a huge difference for my photography. (IBIS is also what I'm chasing currently, although cutting down my coffee consumption has made a difference with my "yips" problem.)

Two pictures taken with the K-M 7D

Alas, something went wonky with that camera—it got infested with electronic gremlins. Things like settings spontaneously changing. The biggest glitch was that often it would refuse to fire because it thought there was no lens attached even when there was.

Years later, I learned that you can reset digital cameras—like rebooting a computer. That might have been all my 7D needed. But at the time, K-M went out of the retail camera and lens business (it's still an OEM behind the scenes), and Sony had purchased K-M's camera division assets. And Sony was not repairing the 7D. For a time, it would replace K-M cameras sent in for repair with the then-current Sony equivalent, but that wasn't what I wanted—I just wanted my 7D fixed.

So in both cases, I did buy a new camera because the old one "stopped working," or stopped working correctly. But in both cases I might have jumped the gun and acted too soon.

I'm sure Brian's right, generally—what he says is true for me overall—but I wonder how many people have to get a new camera because the one they have simply stops working?

Mike
(Thanks to Brian)

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Like what you read?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Andrew: "My current camera is a Sony A700, bought when (you guessed it) my K-M 7D died in 2009. I alternate between hoping the A700 will bite the dust so I can justify a replacement, and dreading the day I have to choose a new camera. This trait has definitely been passed on from my parents: my mother just replaced her car after 17 years because the chassis had a hole in and it was pronounced unroadworthy."

JG: "I bought a second used RX1 after my first used RX1 rolled off the bed the day after I bought it and its autofocus refused to work for the next 18 months, at which point it mysteriously repaired itself and began working again...does this count? I'm also on my third A7R body, because the sensor in the first one was damaged when I had Kolari replace the sensor's cover glass with their thin-filter version. Then I dropped its replacement and it too was damaged beyond economical repair...do either of these count? Oh, and way back when, I left a Sigma DP1 on the roof of my car and it fell off at 30 mph, smashing itself to smithereens when it hit the pavement. So, Yeah, this has happened to me...four times now! 8_^(  "

Pak-Ming Wan: "I bought a Leica M-E new. It has served me for the better part of nearly five years...(maybe six, I can't remember). I'm not going to replace it until it dies, although I must admit that I have had a shutter unit plus sensor replacement under warranty. It has done over 50,000 actuations, so I guess here's to the next five years...I don't see another focal length (I like 35mm) nor type of camera (SLR or compact) suiting me. And in the meantime, my phone takes amazing photos, so the need for a second backup camera fills a very small space in my life. My purchase considerations for a new camera whilst I have these two functioning devices always converges on these points."

Herman: "No, but I had a boss once who had to hire a new photo lab technician because the old one wasn't working."

I said yesterday that I tend to replace my main camera every three years.

You remember the old Hollywood joke about the stages of an actor's career?

1. Who is Johnny Doe?
2. Get me Johnny Doe!
3. Get me a young Johnny Doe.
4. Who is Johnny Doe?

(I've seen versions of the same joke applied to both models and photographers.)

You could construct something similar about the lifespan of a digital camera:

1. The Anonycon ZXXXiii is coming! It should be amazing*.
2. Here's what we know about the upcoming Anonycon ZXXXiii so far.
3. The Anonycon ZXXXiii is shipping. We hope to get our hands on a review sample soon.
4. The reviews are ecstatic, and the new Anonycon ZXXXiii is selling like hotcakes.
5. Two newer competitors have appeared that are taking the wind out of the Anonycon ZXXXiii's sales**.
6. User reviews of the Anonycon ZXXXiii are mixed, and there are several known problems***.
7. No one is talking much about the Anonycon ZXXXiii any more.
8. The Anonycon ZXXXiv is coming! Time to dump your old Anonycon ZXXXiii before its value tanks.
9. "I'm waiting for the Anonycon ZXXXiv to ship so I can pick up a used Anonycon ZXXXiii for next to nothing."
10. The Anonycon ZXXXiii is on closeout for 40% off.
11. Available used.

*I love "should bes."
**Get it? Wind? Sails? I crack myself up.
***Even if they aren't really problems.

Okay, that's not funny or clever like the Hollywood joke. But how long does that cycle take? I'd say 2–5 years, just looking at past cameras. There are exceptions, like the long gap between the Nikon D300 and D500 (August 2007, refreshed with an "S" in July 2009, to January 2016, according to DPReview.com—so 77 months from the D300s to the D500) and the short one between the Sony A6300 and A6500 (February 2016 to October 2016, eight months). But 2–5 years covers the majority of cases I'd say.

But that's just one view of lifespan. What about all those happy Anonycon ZXXXiii buyers who got one at step 4? How long will they keep and use their Anonycon ZXXXiii? Because after step 11, they're using a superseded camera, yesterday's news, not the latest thing, which takes the bloom off the rose.

I tend to keep my cameras for three years, but that's just an empirical observation, and it's somewhat wishful thinking—it's only true of cameras I actually "take to" and use a lot, which doesn't include all the ones I buy. I didn't mean to imply that that's the lifespan of a digital camera. I doubt I'm any kind of accurate bellwether, because I'm supposed to use a variety of cameras so I can write about them, and I'm notoriously fickle...

Sony A6500

...And I'm also cheap. I have no doubt I'd buy far more cameras than I do if I had enough money to do so comfortably. Right now it's not just that I want an A6500 or a GX8 or an A7II or an X-T2, it's really that I want all of them. I don't actually want to have to decide.  :-)

But that's not sensible for me. Well, it's not really sensible for anyone, unless it's the way they choose to have fun, but I don't have the spare cash or the income to indulge that kind of thing, let's put it that way.

Let's concede too that the lifespan—I mean the average time we keep our cameras—is likely changing. Slightly older cameras—say one or two cycles old—are much better compared to the newest cameras than was the case in 2009, say, or 2003. Progress in features these days happens more in slight improvements in specs and in ancillary abilities such as video or connectivity than with core competencies. And prices are going up (premium models) and down (budget models), both of which tend to put a damper on upgrade-itis, since it's expensive to buy a new premium model and there are cheap new models competing with your older, outdated equipment, depressing its trade-in value. For example, as a used camera, my outdated NEX-6 that I paid $999 for in 2012 has to compete with a new Sony A6000, which costs only $498, and the A6000 is a better camera. A used NEX-6 body sells for around $175–250 on eBay, and I recently tried to give mine away...unsuccessfully. That's not going to help me rationalize buying an A6500, much less give me much help paying for it.

...And the prices of several new cameras are keeping me from considering them, just speaking personally. The Olympus E-M1 Mark II makes a lot of sense for me, for example, but "2k, no way."

So is it fair to say that the span of time for which people keep their cameras is lengthening?

We tend to hear from constant switchers, upgraders, and gearhounds, such as myself and our friend Kirk Tuck, on the Internet. But that hardly reflects the average user. As a total seat-o'-the-pants WAG (wild-assed guess), I'd say that "normal" people these days are in the process of keeping their main cameras for three to seven years.

But you tell me. How long do you think you're likely to keep the camera you're currently using? Would it fall within that 3–7 year estimate? Do you think that estimate is fair?

But as for "replacing my main camera every three years or so"—that's not the product's fault. That is, as they say, just me.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Top it off.
Give us a “Like” or Buy yourself something

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Dennis Mook: "Two to three years. Those doggone manufacturers keep coming up with new and very desirable features as well as image quality improvements. It's their fault!"

Speed: "I used to buy a new car every two or three years. Now I buy a new camera every two or three years and my car is 12 years old. I have my priorities."

gary bliss: "Oh gosh, equipment refresh intervals in the face of changing technology: a subject to which I have given some thought and, sadly, I do so professionally in another domain (defense products). I must start at the ends; what are benefits I get from the gear? In my case it is 8x10 photo essays (which any modern gear can yield) and the dozen odd 20x30s that are displayed on my windowless office walls. Subjects range from landscapes to dynamic in-motion targets. Finally, I am more of a lens man and do not like changing bodies; it takes me many months to 'learn' new gear.

"And I am an economist, so 'it depends on the prices.' I am not really fiscally constrained in this field. The short answer for me is 'every other body generation, or about five years.' I need to have an increase in sensor DR/ISO or AF/use case operations big enough to justify the trouble of changing bodies. Between selling my old body at give-away prices to colleagues and the price of the new body, that works out to $25 to $35 per month for body depreciation or less than my three roll/month film and processing bill 20 years ago.

"I don't like the learning required changing bodies; it is not my job any more and a bother. But I've loved the improved files I've gotten from every upgrade. I now use a D810 (love it) and D5500 (hate the viewfinder). I sense technology is slowing a bit, so will likely stay there for a while."

Stanleyk: "I upgraded when the X-Pro2 was released. Undoubtedly when an X-Pro3 becomes available I will probably upgrade. I kept my X-Pro1. I am too attached to it to ever sell it."

Rod Purcell: "I wonder if things are changing? Thom Hogan, as well as some others, suggest that we are now in the era of 'good enough' cameras. As you say premium new models are expensive and often just offer incremental change that in practical terms you don't notice. If you see cameras as tools (rather than a status good) then why upgrade?

"So is your current camera your last camera? Or is it that you just think it's your last camera? I'm on my third last camera. The first one was a Nikon D600, then a Fuji X-T1, and now it's a Nikon D750 (yes, I know this is not rational). I can't imagine I will need anything 'better' than a D750 so (for now) it's my last camera. But who knows...?"

Mike replies: I can't tell you how many times over the past thirty years I've had someone say to me, "This is it, this is the last camera I'll ever buy"...even though it wasn't.

If I had a dollar for every time it happened, I bet I'd have enough to buy a new camera!

Ken (partial comment): "If photographic gear acquisition is like riding a series of escalators up, I've reached my floor. No new gear for me until something breaks or stops working irreparably."

SteveW: "Cameras seem to me on the same path as personal computers. Back in the day it was pretty common to upgrade your PC every 2–3 years to keep up with the technology, faster processor, more RAM, and you usually had to update to keep up with software iterations too that demanded the faster processor and increased RAM. There is a similar 'curve' with cameras that has already peaked. I am able to use my computers much longer now with no issue, five years easy. I think it is the same now with cameras—the sensors are topped out, the images are all fantastic, now we're being hit with features (some pretty awesome no doubt) when the cameras iterate. If you don't need the features, there's really not much, if any difference in image quality. I think I can cruise a long while with my current camera (Nikon D750) with no complaint for many more years."

Peter Wright (partial comment): "I really prefer just to get something I love and then to keep it for a really long time (just ask my wife of 44 years: no updates possible—or allowed!)"

The Terrified Dad: "There is one great thing about being poor—your cameras last longer! My Rebel t5i has been with me for almost two years. The Rebel XS that it replaced lasted six before it died. I'm worried the current Rebel won't last as many years since I have recently gotten into time-lapses and I'm putting a lot of shots on it. I have been scouring Craigslist for an older Rebel on the cheap to help ease that burden, but so far no deals. I would love a 'really cool fancy camera,' but as a landscape photographer who shoots stopped down from a tripod, there's just no way to justify the cost."

Michael Perini: "I'm basically the opposite, while I do read about all the new cameras and technology, I basically hate learning a new camera (to the point where I can use it in the dark). I bought a Canon 1Ds Mark III in 2007 (it was a $7,995 FF 21MP camera when Nikon's top camera of the day was the 12MP crop-sensor D2s). It remained my main camera until this year, when I added a 5D Mark IV which is superior in every way, and cost less than half of the price of the previous camera. What I notice is that it makes a few things easier, but my pictures are not 'better.' If you grew up with film, today's digital cameras are all vastly more capable than 35mm film cameras. New technology enables things to be done easily that were difficult or impossible with film. So my 'system' is photographer-limited rather than camera-limited.

"Not having to learn a new camera is a major benefit to me and results in better pictures. Lenses are a different story , I have tons of those."

BJ: "You left a step out of your digital camera life cycle. This probably should be inserted between steps 4 and 5:

"4.5. The Anonycon ZXXXiii is on backorder at B&H, Adorama and Amazon. B&H reports that their first shipment sold out immediately, and they expect it will be at least six months before they receive their next shipment."

ADDENDUM by Kevin Purcell:

12. The Anonycon ZXXXiii is difficult to find used. Used price drops. Nobody sells them because they're not worth the effort to get rid of. Some years pass as Anonycon ZXXXiii sit in closets all over the world.

13. A camera user of a certain age posts on a forum: "Remember the Anonycon ZXXXiii? I really liked/wanted that camera." "Hey, I still shoot with mine. Works great for me."

14. Small online collective shooting odd street/landscape/documentary images with the weird old Anonycon ZXXXiii is picked up by art photography blog. "I got my one from my uncle. You don't see them around much anymore. It's not like a modern camera."

15. Art students pick the Anonycon ZXXXiii for photography projects because they're cheap, hip and have the retro "Anonycon glow" that everyone likes now.

16. Hipsters seen carrying the Anonycon ZXXXiii. Price starts to rise.

17. A fashion photographer shoots magazine spread with Anonycon ZXXXiii. "These old cameras have a unique look." Price climbs on the used market.

16. Celebrities seen carrying the retro The Anonycon ZXXXiii. Prices are becoming insane and its harder to get compatible lenses.

17. Anonycon ZXXXiii displayed in MOMA. "A classic of its time."

18. Canoikony announce the Canoikony XYZZY is coming: "A retro-styled camera inspired by the classic ZXXXiii but with the modern features you need for today's photography."

[Thanks to Kevin.]

Brian (partial comment): "People rarely buy a new digital camera because the old one stopped working."

Bernard: "My Canon 400D had his 10-year anniversary this year, and that's still my primary digital camera.... Granted, I mostly shoot film, so the Canon only comes out when the end product needs to be digital, and that's pretty much always in a situation where I can control everything and tripods are an option. Still, at 10MP and with good glass, that camera still functions perfectly well at ISO 400. 800 in a pinch, just like with film."

Portrait photographers, which digital cameras are reputed to give the best skin tones? It ain't my Fuji.

Just askin'.

Mike

UPDATE: Sorry for the too-short, too-cryptic post. I've been jammed up this week. I guess my question here really is: what camera's raw files are most easily manipulated to render colors that will be pleasing to clients? No particular skin color specified.

It's an idle question, however. I didn't expect to get definitive answers. I just wanted to hear the thoughts of people who have wrestled with it. Thanks for all the comments!

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Like what you read?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Bahi: "Mischief and provocation, Mr. Johnston. How many forums have melted or burned over this very subject? So where exactly am I expected to find great photo writing next week?"

Mike replies: Ha! Wait, what?

Paulo Bizarro: "I will fetch the popcorn, this will be interesting to follow.  :-)  "

Thom Hogan: "This is like asking what camera gives the best images. The answer is the same: the photographer, not the camera.

A quick question for the non-math-challenged amongst ye: Re Gary's question in the Comments to the "Telephoto Reach" post, how many pixels would a full-frame sensor have to have to have the same pixel density as a 20-MP Micro 4/3 sensor?

Mike
(Thanks to Gary)

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Like what you read?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

William Schneider: "It boils down to a problem of comparing sensor areas between the two chips. A full-frame chip has dimensions of 36x24mm. Multiplying these numbers together provides a sensor area of 864 square millimeters. A Micro 4/3 sensor has dimensions of 17.3x13mm. This provides 224.9 square millimeters of area. Dividing 864 by 224.9 shows that the bigger chip is 3.84 times the area of the smaller chip. With the same pixel density (pixels per square millimeter), the full frame sensor would then be 76.8 MP (3.84 times 20MP)."

Mike replies: Lots of different answers, no doubt because people adopt somewhat different premises rather than because of any deficiency in their math. But most of the answers are running in the range of 76–80 MP. I don't know if this gets us any closer to the question of whether a smaller sensor overcomes its deficiencies to be better for long-telephoto work or not; because certainly the greater pixel density also comes with disadvantages as well as advantages. But I think if I were photographing birds in trees I'd rather have a smaller-sensor camera.

Eliot Porter, the great nature photographer, shot mostly with an 8x10 but did his bird photography with 35mm. So there's one vote, at least, for a smaller sensor for distant small subjects like birds! Heh.

Bruce Rubenstein: "Pixel pitch is linear value, such as pixels/mm. It establishes the spatial frequency, from which the Nyquist frequency of the sensor. (This sets the smallest detail the sensor can record.) Anyone latching on to area, e.g. mm², should stick to whatever it is they do for their day job."

Mike replies: ...Which still leaves me on the hot seat, because this is my day job. I will admit that I only understand such differences in terms of visual results, and I have no data bank in terms of visual results when it comes to long teles, never have had....

Michael Perini replies to Bruce: "You are correct that pixel pitch is a linear value and determines resolution. But the question was, How many pixels would fit on a FF sensor with pixels the same size as a 20-MP Micro 4/3? Since the formats have different aspect ratios, it becomes an area question. (Which is separate from resolution.) So the area is 3.82 times greater, but the resolution is about 2X greater. He didn't ask about resolution, so using area was correct in this case."

John Merlin Williams: "Sounds like a great question for Roger Cicala."

Roger Cicala: "Well, I'm told the meaning of sensors is 42.

"My math says a 20.3-MP Micro 4/3 camera has pixels of with 3.34 micron edges. If you line up 3.34 micron pixels to fill a 36mm by 24mm sensor, you get a resolution of 10,900 x 6500 pixels, or 79 megapixels, give or take a few chopped off for edging and a few more for an on-sensor phase detection array. But I'm old enough to have once used a slide rule, so all my math answers start with 'about.'

"As an aside that might strike fear into everyone, I'm doing some research for a company with a working 150-MP sensor. Better buy some more RAM, everyone."

I'm not talking about why DSLRs sell. There are lots of reasons why they do, and I'm aware of a lot of those reasons. And I know that some people are corralled into buying one for personally practical reasons: they're used to that user interface, or they're invested in a particular lens line.

But speaking rationally, and from an enthusiast standpoint, and at this moment in time—the Summer of 2017—what's the reason for buying a DSLR?

What it boils down to for me is the OVF (optical viewfinder) vs. EVF (electronic viewfinder) question. Personally my allegiance shifted to EVF when I bought the Fuji X-T1 a few years ago. However, it's not like I suddenly became a passionate partisan of the EVF...it was just that the balance shifted, subtly, and went the other way, like a few votes in a governing body shifting the majority from one side to the other.

There are still areas in which one or the other comes out ahead. Follow-focus is still a win for DSLRs, and lens adaptation is a win for mirrorless, to name just two examples. There are others. But the wins for the flipping mirror are narrowing as mirrorless gets better and better.

I can still see the sense in preferring an OVF. OVFs are beautiful. You're seeing the real world in real time. No clutter in the picture area (usually). No brightness to set. Previewing D-o-F can be meaningful.

If you do prefer an OVF, though, wouldn't you want a good one?

So who, these days, all other things being equal, would choose an entry-level DSLR with a small mirror-box finder? You get a tiny little prison-window-at-the-end-of-a-tunnel view, so small that details can be hard to see, plus the disadvantages inherent in an OVF to boot.

If I were going to buy a camera with a flipping mirror and an OVF, I would want a big, beautiful OVF, is all I'm saying. And that probably means full-frame, or at least one of the APS-C cameras with the best-implemented finders.

Mirrorless vs. the flipping mirror might not come out as a win for mirrorless all the time and in all ways, but good mirrorless EVFs vs. the lower standard of entry-level flipping mirrors does seem like an obvious choice.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP/Yale Spring Photo Book Offer
(Ends June 30th or when supplies run out)

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ken Tanaka (Posted from 33,000 ft. above the Pawnee National Grasslands in the American West): Why Buy a DSLR? In brief, because they're nearly perfected picture-taking gadgets, the most highly refined, functionally rich, and most versatile cameras in the history of the medium. That, in a nut, is the most powerful reason to buy a good DSLR camera today, especially if your ambitions in photography are highly general or unknown. There are many strong possible specific reasons for buying that DSLR too—durability, operational speed, service and support primary among them.

"But this may very well be the golden moment to buy a DSLR for most photography. Speaking personally, when I absolutely have to get a shot and I'm uncertain of the conditions I may face, I'll always bring my Canon 5D Mark IV. The 'best' image doesn't always, or even usually, come from the best or latest sensor. It comes from the shooter whose camera got the job done."

Carsten Bockermann: "I used mirrorless cameras long before the term was coined. They were called rangefinders at the time (Leica M6, to be specific). For what I shoot, big SLRs were not necessary. As I never took to Leica's digital offerings, I bought DSLRs more or less because there was no real alternative. I switched back to mirrorless when the Fuji X system was introduced. Since the X-Pro2 hit the market, my Nikon D800's sit in a closet most of the time. But then, I know wildlife and sports photographers who need the AF capabilities of DSLRs. I guess a term used by the great philosopher Mike Johnston sums it up: YMMV (your mileage may vary)."

Steven Willard: "Hmm. Using both OVF and EVF, I'd have to vote that currant EVF is much easier to focus manually. Magnified view and focus peaking beats the hell out of OVFs on even the best DSLRs which, unlike the old Nikon F4 and Canon and Pentax equivalents, just aren't optimized for manual focusing."

Steve Jacob: "DSLRs are gradually specialising in the performance market. Nikon's latest releases, the D5, D500 and D7500, have all sacrificed low ISO dynamic range to eke out a little more high-ISO performance. Canon has have never had much low ISO DR to speak of. The D810 struggles on with its old sensor, which is good but running out of development room. So I think the real question is whether you need fast frame rates at high ISO, and all those sports and birding lenses that Nikon and Canon make, or whether you a more of a landscape, studio, travel, or street shooter. In the latter cases, there is no downside to using mirrorless, and plenty of upside. The A7Rii is certainly the IQ king, and all the Micro 4/3 or APS-C mirrorless cameras can do anything that any entry level or midrange DSLR can do, but in a more compact form-factor with WYSIWYG viewfinders. They generally beat them for video as well, not least because of the full-time live view. The A9 seems to be snapping at Canon and Nikon in the sports market as well.

"We are now over the curve which used to give DSLRs such an advantage in terms of frame rate and continuous AF. A major announcement of a full-frame mirrorless from Canon or Nikon is just a matter of time, probably with an adapter to allow use of legacy DSLR lenses, but with a new mount optimised for mirrorless."

I had a camera go wonky on me a ways back. It was my first DSLR, a 6-megapixel Konica-Minolta 7D that I bought used in 2006. It served me very well for a few years but started developing "glitches" at some point. I can't even tell you exactly all that went wrong or when, but I remember waiting for a train to pass and pressing the shutter at just the right moment only to have the camera complain that there was "NO LENS ATTACHED."

Portrait of Xander age 13 made with the old K-M 7D, which
actually had a lens on it at the time

Now, I am absentminded—I drove away from my friends' house last weekend with the Fuji X-T1 sitting on top of the car for example. I haven't done that in a very long time, but only because I'm usually careful to set the camera down on the hood of the car, right in front of the windshield on the driver's side. It's hard to drive away with the camera sitting on the car when it's right there in your line of sight. The X-T1 is all right, by the way—I noticed the strap flapping around before I got up to speed.

But my K-M 7D was wrong about itself. I'm not that absent-minded. I have never once tried to take a picture with no lens on an interchangeable-lens camera. Taking the lens off and remounting it solved the problem and made the camera happy. But by that time the train had passed, of course. The world is not the poorer, but I was annoyed at the time.

That was the start; the 7D got more and more "glitchy" until it was nearly impossible to use. I retired it with great regret; I really bonded with that camera.

Restart your camera
Our friend Carl Weese wrote a very valuable article here a while back called "Special For You: Custom Modes." When I got my new-used Panasonic GX8, with which I am having very many troubles, he recommended that I take the time to set the Custom Modes. An underused but very handy feature, Custom Modes allow you to program a suite of settings into the camera and assign the setup to a single command or dial position—very handy when you want to set the controls to your own most-used combinations instantly and repeatedly. (I'm sure some of you have been using Custom Modes for years and just as sure that others have never tried them or even thought about them.)

Recently Carl wrote to me that his current camera had developed an annoying glitch—again and again it spontaneously turned on touchscreen AF, even though he had told it to do no such thing.

The cure was a reset. Most cameras have a menu command to reset all the settings back to "factory default."

This makes sense, when you think about it—most computery-type thingys need a reset every now and then. You reboot your computer and restart your tablet or smartphone and refresh your Internet browser from time to time. Why not cameras?

In Carl's case, a reset cured the camera of the spontaneously-appearing rogue command. Of course, he did lose all his Custom Settings, too, so he had to spend some time setting them up again. Custom Modes are an invest-and-repay type of thing—it takes some time and work to set them up, but your effort is returned to you many times over.

A reset is a good idea when you buy a used camera, too. You have no idea what settings the previous owner chose unless you go through every single one of the camera's zillion and three settings. Even then you'll probably miss one. So it's a good idea to reset the camera and start over again.

As Carl puts it, any unexpected problem calls for a reset first, before rejecting the sample. Your broken camera might not be broken at all.

Makes me wonder about that old Konica-Minolta. Would it have been okay if I had simply reset it to the factory defaults? I didn't know to try that back then. You know, I do still have it in storage somewhere. Hmmmmm....

Mike
(Thanks to Carl)

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Time to restart
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Dennis Mook: "I had never before used the available custom settings feature on any of my cameras until I recently purchased an Olympus E-M1 II. Olympus offers three custom settings. I set the first for those settings I use the majority of the time using aperture priority mode, the second centered around stopping action and for fast moving objects with shutter priority and the third in such a manner that if I hand the camera to just about anyone, all he or she would have to do is point it and press the shutter and a successful image will be recorded. Makes it easy when handing the camera to someone and not having to try to explain how the camera works and what they need to do. I now am sold on the custom settings feature as it allows me to instantly make numerous changes during fast moving situations. Just a click and it's all done!"

Speed: "In the early personal computer days the first solution for a computer problem (after a re-boot) was to remove and reseat all the boards. You fixed the NO LENS ATTACHED problem by 'reseating' the lens."

Richard Jones: "Regarding having to reconfigure your Custom Modes following a camera reset: If you keep your configurations in a notebook (I use three Custom Modes), it's rather quick to re-configure them."

Keith B: "Considering the labor involved in restoring a complete suite of settings, plus the bizarre settings the camera manufacturer sets as default(small basic JPEG, Auto White Balance, etc.), one of the most important measures of 'how good' a camera is is: Will I ever have to reset it? Four point five years with Nikon D3's: Never. Four point five years with a Nikon D800: Once, but I'm not sure I had to go as far as a full reset that time. Four years with a Fujifilm XE-1: Never. I like never."

Ernie Van Veen: "I once bought a used 7D and never bothered (or thought) to reset it. It was only some months later, looking at my recently updated portfolio online, that I noticed the EXIF for each photo displayed copyright and authorship information for a complete stranger. Most embarrassing. I have overcome this problem by only purchasing new cameras. So far it's working beautifully."

Words and pictures by Darlene Almeda

As I was assembling my Fuji X-Pro2 kit, I began looking for a lightweight bag to store it all in. I wanted the bag to carry my lenses in cases, and be easy to work out of from the back of a vehicle. I also use the X-Pro2 in the studio, so the bag had to offer something there as well. Would it be possible to find such a versatile bag?

My Fuji mirrorless kit

Kit packed inside lens cases and pouches

I use a silver metallic Sharpie for writing the focal length on the top of each lens case. This helps me easily find what I am looking for and helps to keep my gear organized. The lens case sizes I use for my Fuji mirrorless lenses are the Lowpro 8x6cm and 9x9cm, and the 9x13cm case for the X-Pro2 camera body. Lowepro offers a good selection of lens case sizes and I like the protection they offer.

Fuji XF 56mm ƒ/1.2 APD lens, hood and ND filter Inside Lowepro 9x9cm case

When B&H Photo had the Think Tank Photo CityWalker 30 Messenger Bag on special, I decided I would give it a try [the link is to Amazon because B&H is closed for Shabbat this afternoon and during the daylight hours tomorrow. Here is the link to B&H. —Ed.] I find the removable main insert very convenient and work out of it when shooting in the studio. I own several Think Tank bags, and the City Walker is the lightest of their bags I have, but it has the same quality and design I have grown to appreciate from them. I have used backpacks in the past, but I do not want the weight of a backpack for this kit. I have been using this bag for six months now and so far, it is working out well. It is lightweight, well made, and accommodates my gear the way I like to organize it.

Think Tank CityWalker 30 with my kit inside the removable main insert

When scrambling to grab gear out of the back of a vehicle, I do not worry if the gear rolls around in the lens cases as I toss them in and out of the bag, plus I can easily see if I might be leaving something behind when it is time to pack up. When working on the road, I will often place a lens on the camera and another on my fanny pack for easy reach. The lens cases I use allow me to securely add lenses to my fanny pack or belt.

Think Tank CityWalker 30 packed with Fuji mirrorless kit

My mirrorless system bag is not too heavy to carry, but more importantly, my gear is organized to my needs. No matter what type of shooting you do, taking care of your gear should be number one, and being organized is the first step towards creating the versatility you may need.

Darr
(illustrations made with the Fuji X100t)

©2017 by Darlene Almeda, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Organize!
Give TOP a “Like” or Buy yourself a bag

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Lance Evingson: "Hilarious—I used some white nail polish my wife had on hand to label the exact same lens cases. For a moment I thought I was looking at my own kit! Some of the same lenses too. I use a variety of bags, from messenger to day-pack-size backpacks, depending on what I want to carry. I never use photo bags that telegraph 'Here's $$$ in the form of cameras' at a distance.

"I will have to get that silver Sharpie pen though. Thanks, that was fun."

Trecento: "Oh, I like those lens pouches, particularly the silver marker on them. I've been using a combination of 1980s padded drawstring pouches (Nikon, maybe?) and the Panasonic drawstring pouches that sometimes come with their lenses.

"Ah, but for a bag to put them in...you know those cheap trade show drawstring backpacks? Like this thing.

"Yeah, I put my lenses in a pouch into a gallon Ziploc bag (generic ones to boot), and my camera into another, and carry the whole thing in one of those polyester drawstring bags. If I carry water or snacks, they get their own gallon bag. When the weather permits, I prefer to keep a lens in one coat pocket, a camera in the other, and a battery or two in a mini Ziploc bag in small pocket. When I travel, I use this, an L.L. Bean kids' book backpack that has been in continuous use for thirty years. (Though it is showing faint signs of chemical deterioration of the fabric.)

"But, my kind of work is as different from Darlene as could be imagined. My task is documenting the world I come across and the daily lives of my family, so my gear is almost all compact Micro 4/3 bodies and lenses. My goal in using these cheap bags is mostly that they work and I already have them, tempered with the idea that I don't want to carry around my camera stuff in anything that looks like it might hold camera stuff. I really enjoyed using a diaper bag when the kids were smaller. Nobody is tempted to walk off with one of those. The other design factor that I'm sensitive to is that I get lower back spasms when I use shoulder bags instead of backpacks.

"I'm certainly open to looking at better alternatives, and this article was helpful for that. Thank you Darlene."

Eric Perlberg: "I always struggle with articles about gear which don't refer to the kind of photography one does. Natural landscape photographers who shoot from cars have much different needs than street photographers who walk, not to mention that sports, wildlife or wedding photographers have yet different needs that require different solutions.

"As someone who walks with his camera and photographs situations in an urban landscape, I prize light weight. I hate that camera bags with all of their padding and dividers often contribute more weight than my cameras which I carry around. I doubt if any TOP readers use my solutions so I'll mention them here.

"My cameras are lightweight mirrorless cameras. Some have fixed lenses and others are interchangeable-lens cameras. I keep my smaller cameras and my lenses in rock climber's chalk bags. Rock climbers keep powdered chalk in nylon padded bags with pull string closures, which are very light weight. When climbing, climbers need their fingers to securely grip tiny rock crevices so they dip their hands into the chalk in their chalk bags to dry their fingers to get better grip. These chalk bags come in an array of different colours and sizes. Many of them are nicely padded and are perfect for small cameras or their lenses. At home I hang these bags by their drawstrings (lens or cameras inside them) from S hooks hanging from a metal rail. I grab the chalk bag or bags I need for the day (I'm basically a one lens/camera/day shooter but occasionally I'll carry two small cameras or a few lenses) and toss the chalk bags into one of my Freitag messenger bags.

"What I hate about normal camera bags is there is no real room for a jumper/sweater, some food, a scarf and knit hat, etc. I also hate that camera bags look like camera bags. YMMV. Freitag bags are made in Switzerland cut from tarpaulins from large lorries, are quite well made and don't look like camera bags. They're not too heavy, have a wide carrying strap and very water resistant. You can look at them at Freitag.ch and Freitag ship anywhere."

kirk tuck (partial comment): "You can be too careful...."

Patrick J. Dodds: "I have a horrible, expensive and bulky Kata backpack. I've disliked it almost since leaving the shop with it. Since rolling my car on the way back from a wedding a while ago I've liked it a bit more however: the car was a write-off, I found my glasses somewhere under the seats in the back, but cameras and lenses were unscathed."

Darlene Almeda adds: Thank you everyone for responding. I think I’ll add a few more comments that may answer some responders’ questions and give more reasons reasons why this bag system works for me.

The lens pouches are how I store my gear between shoots on a shelf or studio cart. It is not unusual for me to grab one or two lenses from the shelf or cart and toss them into a smaller bag for a shoot elsewhere. Having the lenses identified in the pouches makes my life easier, and keeping them protected from drops and rough transport is another reason.

I use light-weight bags, not padded bags, and if anyone uses a Think Tank City Walker bag, they understand these bags are not padded, except for the main insert which is removable. I work out of the back of a vehicle a lot, and I am rushed because we are usually on the side of a road. I do a lot of small town and rural shooting, so being able to toss lenses in and out of the bag while grabbing a tripod and other stuff just frees me up. Believe me, the back of the vehicle can be a mess by the time we call it a day.

I do not change lenses a lot. If I did, I would resort to zoom lenses. I know pretty much what lens I want to use when I see what I am going to shoot. I will have the next focal length available just in case the perspective changes.

In the fourth photo, the camera bodies are stored underneath the 23mm (X-Pro2) and next to 56mm (X-E2) outside of the removable insert.

I do use Domke bags. I use the F-5XB for my X100t kit with the conversion lenses and enjoy it a lot. I have an older Domke Journalist (J-?) bag but find the metal clasp to be a poor design choice. It makes it hard to get into the bag, and I have scratched the back of a camera with it in the past. So even though it is a cool bag in some respects, I only use it to transport things other than cameras.

@ Kenneth Tanaka: Ken, I googled “bandalero” but could not find anything that would help with the lenses. Instead, I saw pictures of guys wearing Spanish cowboy outfits. Although I enjoyed looking at those handsome dudes, my boyfriend would probably frown upon them when we travel. But, I do appreciate the suggestion. Now I know you would never carry all that gear, but neither do I! The bag sits in the back of a vehicle. If I am walking around and shooting from the hip, it is the x100t I am using. I do use wraps mainly with my medium format lenses, but I see your point. By the way, it is not my sock drawer, but another drawer.  :-)

Thank you again everyone!

Two particularly nice things that are price-reduced right now:

1
I'm a semi-retired lens nut, and 35mm[e] is my "home" focal length, the lens type I've used more of than any other—and this one of my all-time favorite 35mm lenses. I've never owned it, and I've never used this ZE version—I rented the Nikon ZF-mount version for a month some years back. If you don't mind manual focus (some people prefer it, with shorter prime lenses) and you have (or want) a FF Canon, this could be a lifetime lens. Currently on sale for $318 off, the best price you're likely to see outside of used.

Check out a few of the reviews at the link and I think you'll see what I'm talking about:

"Once you get past the manual focusing, this is the best 35mm I've ever had, and I've had a lot of them." "Absolutely stunning lens. I have nothing but great things to say about it." "I love this lens. Beautiful bokeh and solidly made." "The color saturation and perceived separation between objects at varying distances is outstanding."

And so on.

2
This is the camera (and lens) I own and use, so naturally I would like it. I endured about four months with a serious case of GAS for the X-T2...two before the X-T2 came out, and two after. But an unusual and even somewhat surreal thing happened...it went away. Really...the GAS went away. I just kept using the X-T1, and I realized it's just fast enough and good enough for pretty much anything I ever use it for. I decided that if I do buy a new camera, it will only be to get in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which I could really use only because, at 60 (wow! Can't get used to that) I'm not very steady-handed any more.

I've come to really like this camera, though, and it's currently on sale (closeout?) for $799, which is a whopping $500 off the regular price, and an even more whop-hopping $800 less than the cost of an X-T2. Yes, you can buy two X-T1's and have money left over versus buying a new X-T2. Which you might still want to do, but I'm just saying.

A reader very kindly donated a hand grip to me when he deaccessioned his own X-T1 (thanks again), and I was chagrined that I had used the camera without it for more than two years. It transforms the feel and comfort of the camera. There's one downside, which is that it makes the viewing screen a little more fiddley to flip up. But overall I like the grip very much. At least try it, like I didn't do.

I have no doubt the X-T2 is better than the X-T1. But I find the X-T1 to be still excellent—the EVF is great, the dial-style controls suit my preferences, and the results are just fine by me. I particularly find that I use autobracketing and CH (continuous-high) quite often. Other reviewers haven't unanimously agreed, but I find the camera easy and natural to use, and I almost never encounter a situation where it can't do something I wish it could do.

I don't think I normally recommend aging cameras highly, but I think I can make an exception here. If your finances are such that you think twice over letting go your grasp of a C-note, the savings are worth it. A stellar bargain right now.

Well worth considering.

I know that people all over the Internet are always hectoring you with ads and ad links, but these particular items are really worth pointing out.

Mike

P.S. Oh, one more thing: if you do get an X-T1, be sure you use UHS-II cards with it (such as this Lexar for example). Not only is dumping the card a lot faster, but camera performance in several parameters is improved...try shooting a bracket with a UHS-I card and waiting for it to clear, then doing the same thing with a UHS-II card. Much snappier.

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Dennis Mook: "Junior, I mean Mike...(after all you are only 60 and I'm 65!),

"You know how much I like my X-T2 and how much better I think it is than the X-T1; however, it is better in only certain ways and if those certain ways, such as faster follow focus, extremely high frame rate, etc., are not meaningful to you, then it really isn't better—for you. So, I'm in general agreement with your post. The feel, haptics and image quality are very similar. The difference in the number of pixels really doesn't emerge until really big enlargements are made, in my opinion. For normal photography it is a moot point.

"As it stands currently, there is only one thing that would make me leave Fuji and that is in-body image stabilization (IBIS). The time will come when I will need it to achieve photographic satisfaction and subsequent personal photographic success. In fact, I was spoiled in the past and I've already missed it enough from years of using my E-M1, that I indulged myself and bought an E-M1 Mark II. Just last evening I was photographing storm clouds clearing after dusk at one full second @ ƒ/5.6 using ISO 200 with the equivalent of a short telephoto lens, handheld! The series of all 10 images were detailed, colorful and quite sharp. No camera movement, even from this old man. Amazing!"

Mike replies: Now cut that out Pops, I mean Dennis! I'll have to stick my fingers in my ears.

Half of what makes a camera good is the camera. The other half of what makes a camera good is you.

No matter how great the camera, you will like it more, and it will be more valuable to you—and a better value, too!—if you get to grips with it. Buying the right camera is only half the battle; just as important is committing to it and using it a lot. The more you use it, the better it will be.

In that sense, the Sony A900 in my camera cabinet ended up being one of the worst cameras I ever bought. I had to have one at the time; it channeled the Contax RTSIII I also always wanted, and it was, when it came out, the biggest, mostest, bestest, meanest, and baddest.

Trouble was, I never used it much.

I keep it now as a sorrowful monument to a vanished $2,300 I foolishly turned from real cash into a memory. And it's not like that didn't matter—I've never had $2,300 to burn.

But it was my own fault, really.

Right around now is the tenth anniversary of the A900's first announcement. Can you believe that? It was a while before it shipped, and it wasn't discontinued until 2011, but we first heard of it early in March of 2007. The years they do get behind us, don't they, my brother, my sister?

Micro 4/3 has now caught up
Having used both quite recently, it's my judgement and opinion that the newest 20-MP chip in the latest top-o'-the-line Micro 4/3 cameras more or less equals the image quality of the Sony A900's full-frame, 24-MP sensor that was SOTA back in '07.

(As I wrote that, it occurred to me to check the DxOMark Sensor ratings...sure enough, they give the sensor in the A900 an overall score of 79 and the sensor in the new Olympus E-M1 Mark II an overall score of 80, nicely corroborating my purely subjective impression.)

There are differences, yes. The older camera still has slightly better resolution and enlargeability at base ISOs. But the newer, smaller sensor has better shadow noise and DR. (I'd take the sensor in the Olympus if I had to choose.)

Granted, development is unlikely to continue at the same pace for the next ten years as it did for the previous ten; growth in the industry is slowing. But small sensors are getting very good, and will surely get even better.

The popular push these days among hobbyists might be toward full-frame and medium-format sensors. But how smart is that? Go to Flickr and type "Olympus E-M1 Mark II" or "Panasonic GX8" into the search field and look at some of the pictures that come up. Look good to you? Great sensors are going to be getting smaller, not larger, in the long run.

It's not as much fun, I grant you, but the smart money might be to go against what's currently hot and settle on Micro 4/3 or APS-C, or even 1". All of those are good enough now, and they'll only be getting better in the future.

Back to the point...
In any event, if you do drop the bucks for the Hasselblad X1D-50c or the Fuji GFX-50s, the gleaming new medium-format mirrorless marvels, be very careful. Remember that the camera itself is only half of what makes a camera good. How dedicated you are, how hard you work, and how many good and great pictures you get out of it are the other half. How much you use it is just as important as whatever it is.

So go for it, my brother, my sister, if you really want to, and if you can. But be sure you go whole hog and really commit, too. Use that medium-format mirrorless marvel a lot, and it will be a good value. Get to grips with it, make it yours, take it everywhere, and you'll never regret the expense.

Otherwise...well, take it from me. You won't want that thing sitting there staring at you from the shelf ten years from now!

Cheers,

Mike

"Open Mike" is the editorial page of TOP. It appears only, but not always, on Wednesdays.

Link to this post: http://tinyurl.com/hwuz7tz

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

No regrets
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

James Moule: "I have to agree. The sharpness that I am getting with my Olympus E-M1 Mark II and a high quality lens (such as an Olympus PRO or Panasonic Lumix/Leica) is simply stunning. A total surprise. And I usually shoot with a Sony Alpha 7RII and a Zeiss prime. As a point of reference, I always shoot raw, process in Adobe Camera Raw, and never sharpen (unless I am making a print)."

Moose (partial comment): "Re 'It's not as much fun, I grant you,' ohhh, but it IS more fun, really. The last several years since the E-M5 came out and I switched to Micro 4/3 have been the most fun in my photographic life—and the most productive of work I really like."

Hugh Crawford: "Re: 'Having used both quite recently, it's my judgement and opinion that the newest 20-MP chip in the latest top-o'-the-line Micro 4/3 cameras more or less equals the image quality of the Sony A900's full-frame, 24-MP sensor that was SOTA back in '07.' Not to nitpick, but isn't that sort of the same thing as 'Micro 4/3 is 10 years behind in quality'? I know what you mean, but I'm not so sure about what that bold subhead 'Micro 4/3 has now caught up' means."

Mike replies: Well, it speaks to another post I wrote, in 2009, "The Point of Sufficiency." That is, we won't have to keep chasing larger and larger sensors, because as time goes by, increasingly smaller sensors are going to be sufficient and more. Time is on the side of smaller sensors, not larger ones.

Hugh: "Time is on the side of smaller sensors thanks to Moore's law and the fact that the problems of small sensors are solvable in software. Time is on the side of large sensors because manufacturing keeps improving the yield of large sensors without flaws and there are some problems that are for the time being more easily solvable by brute force than finesse. It was much the same in the film era where 35mm started as a novelty format and became the de facto 'good enough' format thanks to advances in chemistry and the fact that the cost of optics cubes with size whereas the cost of sensors and film squares with size. Big cameras produce a different looking image than small cameras and the fashion for big camera artifacts will die soon I hope. I have a big interest in artifacts that say 'these are clues that explain how this image came to be.' I'm less of a fan of 'this image is full of signifiers of my equipment budget.' Of course the paradigm of one lens , one exposure , one image is a holdover from the chemical photography era and is about to be replaced whether we like it or not. I suspect that time is on the side of many tiny sensors."

Mike: I agree with that. It's always risky to extrapolate the future from current assumptions. But I do think the days of the single chip are probably numbered.

John: "Re 'Micro 4/3 has now caught up': I'm skeptical. I recently created a gallery wall in my home of many B&W prints from multiple cameras, including Micro 4/3. They confirm what I see in my other Micro 4/3 files: they have less depth compared to APS-C and FF. Granted, my Micro 4/3  body was a few years old and that technology certainly has advanced. But bigger sensors have advanced, too. Is Micro 4/3 sufficient? Probably. But only if you don't display side-by-side. Physics is on my side. I spent several years with Panasonic cameras, pursuing cheaper, smaller, lighter, and have many photos I like very much. But I now can't help but wish I had stuck with FF and had larger sensor version of all of those images."

Mike replies: I don't think we're really arguing. All I said was that the very latest, most up-to-date Olympus more or less equals the 2007 A900, not that an older Micro 4/3 won't be weaker in comparison to a more recent FF.

bencr: "The Olympus E-M5 reached the point of sufficiency for me. I bought it when it first came out and it is still my only (non-cellphone) camera. I use it 75% of the time with the 20mm ƒ/1.7 and the other 25% of time with the Panasonic 100–300mm for birding. For both scenarios I have my favorite settings and techniques and mostly don't notice the camera at all anymore—just the pictures."

Martin: "Re 'The more you use it, the better it will be': I agree wholeheartedly. How do I know that I don't use my camera enough? I get recurring episodes of temptation to buy new gear that evaporate whenever I spend more than a few consecutive days shooting with it. The best cure for GAS turns out to be 'getting to grips' with the great gear you've already got."

Steve Jacob: "The latest Micro 4/3 sensor is indeed very good. It falls almost exactly where you might expect. Slightly behind the latest 24-MP Sony APS-C, but not enough to matter. Equal to 2007 FF? Sure, but because 2007 is pre-EXMOR; it is antique in digital camera terms. I would be amazed and disappointed if it were not. But you only have to roll forward to late 2010 and the development of the Sony 16-MP APS-C EXMOR sensor (D7000, D5100, NEX-5N...) and you can see the beginning of a plateau. All the features of a modern 4T sensor were in that chip. Since that architecture emerged, improvements have been incremental. Sensors based on the same architecture included the one in your X-T1, so it is a venerable design, and still 'relevant' nearly seven years later. That's a long time in dog years. The D800 (2012) used an almost identical architecture, just expanded to FF, and the D810 (current) is a development of that with the dual-gain pixel architecture now also found in the A6500, X-T2 etc. This cuts read noise from about ISO800 and has improved high-ISO DR by a fair margin. Sony did very well with the A7RII 42-MP BSI sensor, but I shudder to think what it costs per unit, and all for a small improvement in SNR at higher ISO. Not surprised that camera is expensive. So yes, almost any modern sensor is a good step up from 2007, or even 2009. Since 2010, not so much. Its all a little bit predictable now."

Mike replies: You know more about this subject than I do.

Simon Miles: "For what it's worth I find my new E-M1 Mark II matches my Nikon D810 in print quality up to A2 (the E-M1 was close but was at its best at A3+). This is a big deal to me, as I don't print bigger than A2. In all other respects I prefer the smaller size, lighter weight, EVF viewing, native 4:3 aspect ratio and deeper DoF (I usually want more, not less) of the E-M1 Mark II. Of course, the D810 is better in absolute quality terms but, as Mike says, it all depends on your point of sufficiency. The E-M1 Mark II has now reached mine."