eric_brody

I had the original RX100 and sold it. The images were fine for what I used it for but I could not stand not having a proper finder. I then got a Fuji X100S, superb camera, good finder, but I sold it because having a fixed focal length was not tolerable. I now have the RX100 M3 and am having a great time with it. I really do carry it almost everywhere. I have a good iPhone but really prefer the images from a real camera. Assess what is really important to you, rent if necessary, and then it won't take you three purchases to get where you want to be. When I do "photography," e.g. rocks, trees, landscapes, "serious stuff," I use my Fuji X T-2 and 10-24, 16-55, and 50-140 zooms, rather a bit more to carry than the RX.

<p>I have had Fuji X cameras since the X E-1 and now have an X T-2. I've had the 60 macro for quite a while. Autofocus and macro go together like fish and bicycles. It is certainly a slow focuser in autofocus but that has never mattered since I rarely use it except on a tripod and usually for close or macro purposes often with a Really Right Stuff focusing rail. Often I use focus stacking with Zerene Stacker and have made some images that please me. I occasionally use it with the extension tube and it is sharp and contrasty. I have used the X T-2 also with the Nikon 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor and it too works well. I actually prefer the look of the Fuji but that is strictly personal preference. Good luck whatever you choose.</p>

<p>Has no one heard of or read "Lenswork?" It is the ONLY magazine that focuses (pun intended) on photography, IMAGES, not gear or the latest techniques for whatever? "Lenswork" consistently publishes superb portfolios by excellent photographers. Traditional magazines like Popular Photography and Modern Photography were killed, perhaps justifiably, by the internet. Real photography lives on in "Lenswork" and a few British magazines and perhaps a few other small ones I'm not aware of. And, regarding "post processing," if you won't do it because of some "anti-Photoshop bias, your photography will suffer. Take a look at the original negative, and an unmodified print of Ansel's "Moonrise," you'll instantly see why "post processing," then burning and dodging, now Lightroom and Photoshop are essential to art. As Ansel said, "the negative (now the RAW digital file) is the musical score, the print (modified in the darkroom or Photoshop) is the performance. If you don't print, you may as well just stick with your iPhone (though some superb work, printed, is done with these as well.)</p>

<p>I've used Moab Entrada Natural 190 for years. It's slightly warm, can be printed on both sides for work prints and is quite lovely. Not too expensive either. For an even warmer tone, Hahnemuhle Bamboo is wonderful paper.</p>

<p>I believe that many people who have a bunch of other lenses buy mirrorless bodies with the intent of using the "legacy" lenses with an adaptor. When I got my first Fuji I was quite excited about using my excellent Nikon glass with it. However, for many, the use of an adaptor, even one with electronic pass through ultimately proves to be more trouble than it's worth except for special lenses and circumstances. While your current lenses will certainly get you going, I predict you'll eventually sell off your EOS lenses for native mount Sony lenses if you stay with the Sony system. I might, and often am, wrong but I've spoken to a fair number of people who've been down the same road. Good luck and have fun. </p>

<p>Ilkka, you're correct. I may have wrongly assumed that since the OP is using an older body, not some new hot shot one, that his interests are more modest. Good point.</p>

<p>While it is true that current mirrorless cameras don't do well in serious sports or wildlife, this does not sound like what the OP, (remember him?) is interested in. He's using a venerable and excellent 8 year old DSLR.<br> I hear this sports/wildlife lament often but see very few people with Nikon or Canon 300mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 lenses. Professionals will choose the appropriate tool for the job, almost regardless of the cost, the rest of us...manage.</p>

<p>I agree with JDM. Stocks are, hopefully, an investment, with at least a probability of rise in value. Cameras, lenses, and cars are most definitely not. There are of course exceptions but they are few. My approach has been to buy what I can afford without taking funds away from the really important things, enjoy them, and when it's time to sell, take the loss and move on.<br> If you enjoy and use your Canon gear, just do so and don't worry about keeping up the the Sony-ites. While I keep reading about the weaknesses of Canon sensors, an awful lot of really excellent photos are made with Canon gear and it is used by many of the most creative and skilled photographers I know. Many of us are equipment junkies; most of our cameras are way better than we are.<br> You should do what YOU want. If the weight of your gear is not a problem don't worry about it. Anyway, by the time you put fast zooms on a Sony, it weighs as much as a Canon or Nikon, or is so close that it's not worth the difference. Micro 4/3 and APSC cameras actually do save some weight, not full frame ones. No question Sony has a technologic edge. I have used Nikons forever, up to the D800E, with excellent glass. I gave it up for the Fujifilm X cameras and am happy, but I've also saved almost half the weight. My prints, and yes, I actually do print, are plenty good enough for me. I rented the Sony A7RII, to get it out of my system, and found the image quality excellent, the menus horrible, the weight savings negligible, and decided to stick with my Fuji gear. I've sold off most of the Nikon stuff, at a loss, no surprise, but I bought it new. <br> Enjoy what you do; competition can be healthy but it can also wear you down. I no longer compete, just have fun, and answer to no one but myself (and my wife, who is remarkably tolerant).</p>

<p>I've been a long time Consumer Reports subscriber and find their information invaluable. They have been ahead of the curve on many issues. They have saved, or more properly, lengthened countless lives with their safety recommendations for many items, not just cars. Sometimes they seem to worry about different things than I do, on cameras for example, but on safety, from cars to window blinds, they're spot on. Safety is not political.</p>

<p>At MacRumors there's an article that goes into some more detail on the test and says that Phil Schiller is negotiating with them, interesting. There's something about a battery life difference between using Safari and using Chrome, even more interesting. As the famous Tallulah Bankhead or someone else may have said, "There may be less to this than meets the eye."</p>

<p>Andrew, is this the new one? Enquiring minds would love more details.</p>

<p>While I have not done any scanning in some time, I have a fair experience scanning everything from 35 to 4x5. My current scanner, a Nikon 9000 does a terrific job, but everything I do now is original digital. I keep the scanner to have access to my extensive library of mostly black and white negatives since I no longer have a wet darkroom. When I scanned, I tried to do as little as possible in the scanner software, trying for a clean, flat, low contrast scan. At least then, Lightroom and Photoshop had far better tools especially for sharpening, which is pretty important in scanning, especially small film. Good luck, have fun.</p>

<p>$1,000 for a pocket camera. Regardless of how good it is, and it's likely very good, that's a rather large chunk of money.</p>

<p>If you can disable the LCD on the back and use an "eye sensor" which turns on the EVF only when it senses an eye at the finder, you can have considerably less battery drain in some mirrorless cameras. This is how I set up my Fuji X T-1 and X T-2. I cannot comment on "wake up time" as I'm never in that much of a hurry. I cannot comment on other brands as I've not spent time recently with the Sony, Olympus, or Panasonic cameras. I turn the camera off when I can, my personal style does not usually favor the quick shot approach the op seems to favor, but if that's what he likes, he should be able to figure out a way to do it. I also always travel with 5 batteries, they're small and while I've never used all five, it's good to have spares. A digital camera without a functioning battery is not terribly useful.</p>

<p>I'm not a current Sony owner but admit to being an equipment junkie so read a lot about gear I don't have and will not have. I'm a former Nikon D800E user now firmly in the Fuji X T-2 camp. I cannot understand why you or anyone else would get a camera that has a fundamentally flawed shutter. If you're shooting fall color, is there not a risk of resolution loss in the leaf detail with the A7R?<br /> I just googled "sony A7R shutter," and found a surfeit of articles from reputable sources on this subject. Though this is obviously your choice to make, I agree with Robin Smith that selling off some of that gear will allow you to have that at least I would consider essential were I to get a Sony (and I've gone so far as to rent an A7RII and was favorably impressed with the image quality). The essentials are a vibration-free shutter, and IBIS. <br /> Have fun whatever you do.</p>