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>

<p>All these sizes are the legacy of the film era, of course. There's some interesting history about how the 24x36mm size became the standard, what we now call "full frame," but it's all ultimately arbitrary. When I shot film, I thought of 24x36 as small format, 6x6 as medium, and 4x5 inch as large. What's medium format? Well, there was 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, and 6x9. If one looks at the areas, they're quite different, 6x4.5 is 27cm square wherein 6x9 is 54, twice the area but still "medium format. What's "large format?" To some of us it meant 4x5 inch film, to others 8x10 and even larger. The Fuji/Hassy/Pentax/Phase sensor is 4x the area of APS-C, that's a pretty decent difference, albeit only 1.7 x the area of "full frame. Pick the format that works for your system. <br> In my youth, only 4x5 inch film and larger was "real" photography, the rest, puny :-) though I did make some decent images with puny 6x6 and 6x7cm film in my day. Now I'm happy with what I can achieve with APS-C. Times change.</p>

<p>Who really prints large? None of us really know. None of us know how many people have really large printers. We ASSUME that because large printers are expensive, ink and paper costs are as well and, perhaps most important, that we have limited wall space, only a few print large. Unless someone has data, I'm not sure where this is going, and I'm guilty of participating in starting it, oops. Anyway the OP was trying to decide on a camera and lenses, he did not mention print size, as I recall... 6 pages ago :-)</p>

<p>Since you do not seem to be in a hurry, I'd wait a month or so and see what the camera companies have to offer. Photokina, the big show, is less than a month away. Usually I recommend getting what you want/need now because there will always be something new down the road but with this event within a month, waiting might just be prudent. It would be painful to make a purchase and then three weeks later have the camera of your dreams be released. Good luck and have fun.</p>

<p>All these interesting and excellent responses indicate a couple of things to me and also from the other recent thread, "make the switch" by Glenn Cunningham. Full frame mirrorless cameras with fast zooms lose much of their weight advantage over DSLR's. With small primes or first quality slow zooms some of that advantage returns. It's a different order of magnitude for APS-C and micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras. One can have a pretty light weight and compact system with M4/3 and also, but less so with APS-C.<br> My Nikon D800E and the "trinity," 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 weigh just short of 10 lb. My Fuji "trinity," albeit with a slower wide lens, of 10-24, 16-55, 50-140, are around half the weight of the Nikon set. I no longer use M4/3 so have not calculated their advantage.<br> So, it all really comes down to sensor size, and its related correlate, lens size. Some argue that even full frame 24x36mm is a compromise and that one needs medium format digital, eg Phase One, Hasselblad or Pentax. Most do not. Some say APS-C is just too small for really good prints. I won't go into the "ability to crop" argument because if you're cropping a lot and often, you need a photography course, or new lenses, not a new camera.<br> I am personally with the group that finds APS-C to be the sweet spot. Large enough to make decent, not huge prints (and people talk more about big prints than actually make them), but small enough to be portable on a hike or trip. I'm one who found a bit more noise than I like with M43 though many people make excellent images with them. In my heart I'd like to justify full frame because... it's FULL FRAME, but cannot based, on comparing my D800E to my Fuji X T-1 at the sizes I print, usually 9x13 and occasional 13x20. <br> We are fortunate to have so many choices today, limited for most of us only by cost. Some become almost paralyzed by the dizzying array of cameras and lenses that make pretty darn good images from cameras like the Sony Rx100 with its 1" sensor to full frame beauties like the Sony AR7II with its 42MP full frame sensor, and ultimately to the Phase 100MP sensor. It's easy to get caught up in the frenzy and forget that enjoying oneself and making images is what it's really all about. I'd recommend a recent podcast by Brooks Jensen, editor and publisher of "Lenswork," LW0964, 7/29, "My Camera Philosophy," in which he makes HIS case for what HE wants in a camera. It may differ from your desires but it is thought provoking nonetheless. Enjoy.</p>

<p>Hi Barry, I've used Fuji's 60mm f/2.4 macro lens extensively, with and without the Fuji extension tube. I've made many focus stacks with Zerene Stacker and many images non-stacked and it is nothing short of excellent. It is a 90mm full frame equivalent and gives me decent distance. I have worked both in my "studio" as well as in the field.<br> I am looking forward to the upcoming 80mm macro to see if it is better but this one will be hard to beat. When used as a general purpose lens, eg for portraits, it is slow to focus but for macro I use manual focus exclusively.<br> There is a trick to using filters larger than the tiny 39mm ones but it is cheap and easy. I bought an inexpensive 39mm UV filter, took out the glass and use it as a spacer so I can use my 39-77 step up ring with my set of 77mm ND and polarizing filters. If you do not have the spacer, when the lens retracts upon shutting off the camera, or using autofocus, the camera hangs up. <br> I'm not a Fuji fanboy, I believe in choosing the best tool for the job but as an amateur, I choose to be careful in my expenditures. I do not believe in cameras and lenses as "investments," they are an expense. I've not yet sold a piece of camera gear for more than I paid except for some older Leica gear that I had purchased used to begin with. It's just that the Fuji seems to fit my needs. It may or may not fit some one else's. That's why there are Nikons, Canons, Sony's, Pentax's and everything else. I dearly loved my 4x5 but have not used it in some time simply because it is too difficult (film, processing, scanning etc, not the camera itself) and I'm happy with my prints and with the handling of my Fuji.</p>

<p>I'm talking about the highest quality lenses, be they primes or zooms and that's what the Nikon or Canon lenses can be. I'm happy that Shun has both the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 AND the f/4 version, but I could not justify that. Others may disagree but I think how large one expects to print is among the most important considerations. If one just posts on the web, almost any point and shoot will do the job. But if one wants to print for exhibition or oneself, the lenses are the most important part of the decision equation and Fuji's are among the best. I also tried micro 4/3 but found that there was a bit more noise than I liked even at base ISO. Many excellent images are made with micro 4/3 and I'm certainly not dissing it. Many people, myself included feel that sensor real estate is the ultimate arbiter of quality and if I could, I'd have a Phase or Hasselblad but cost and size preclude that. I have found that, for me at least, APS-C is the sweet spot between too big and too small with all the other implications. Do what feels right for you.</p>

<p>I went from a Nikon D800E with its 36MP of impressive resolution to a 16MP Fuji X T-1 and have not looked back. I regularly print 13x20 images and find them to be impressively sharp and detailed. My Nikon "holy trinity" zooms, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 plus the D800E body weigh almost 10lb, the equivalent Fuji set, 10-24, 16-55, and 50-140 weigh about 4lb less. That difference is pretty noticeable when hiking or traveling. I understand the depth of field differences with APS-C, and that the 10-24 Fuji is an f/4 lens but it all works pretty well. I looked carefully at the Sony A7RII, even rented one, and thought it was a great camera and system but it is true that their top of the line full frame f/2.8 lenses are large, heavy, and expensive. Sony is not really a major difference in weight from the Nikon/Canon equivalents. I agree with other posters, rent or buy a Fuji (wait for the X T-2 with its 24MP and its other great features such as dual card slots, which Sony does not have...yet) and see if it meets your needs. Unless you do sports, it's likely the Fuji will meet your needs. I also have a bunch of Fuji primes some of which are jewel-like in their size and construction, and super sharp. Take your time, as someone else said, if you buy, don't get a full set of lenses right away. You might like the Sony too, there might be something exciting at Photokina in September, only a month away. Whatever you do, have fun.</p>

<p>When I travel to do photography, I carry a laptop, and two 2TB hard drives that are each the size of a pack of cards. I do not trust "the cloud" and do not like the idea of relying on internet connections in unusual places. Each night I download the day's images and back them up. Even with large 36MP RAW files and high volume of images, it did not take long at hard disk speeds.<br> Fortunately, I have not lost data... nor have I lost or had stolen the laptop or the drives. I have my wife carry one of the drives and keep the other drive separate from the laptop. All these solutions proposed here have their merits but there's nothing like having your own data on your own terms. Good luck to you Paul, have a wonderful and safe trip, and make memories as well as photographs.</p>

<p>I am often amused that some people choose to express their frustration with a merchant here rather than simply contacting the merchant and trying to solve the problem that way. The OP said "I likely should have contacted customer assistance before--but did not." I wonder what a bunch of well meaning forum members can do about these issues. </p>

<p>Looks like a great lens, but be a bit wary of Sony's MTF curves. According to Lloyd Chambers, whose information is usually spot on, they are computer calculated from a "perfect" lens rather than from a real world test. </p> <h3>quote from www.digilloyd.com</h3> <h3><em>"Sony FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA MTF</em></h3> <p><em>The MTF charts are computed fantasy MTF, which means that a real lens is not tested—a computer simulation is used to compute the MTF that would be expected from a lens built to perfection. Also, the f/8 graph does not take diffraction into account."</em></p>