eric_brody

<p>There is only one version of the Rx100III, with the pop up finder. However, there are many after market grips for the RX100's. Holding one without a grip has been described as like holding a bar of wet soap, hence the desirability of aftermarket grips. I had one made by Richard Franiec for my original RX100 and it worked really well. Hope that helps.</p>

<p>Andy, I do not know whether this is the full frame or a section crop but unless it's a REALLY small crop, the sharpness would be unacceptable to me, regardless of the camera or lens. It's just a soft image. I cannot tell much since you did not include shutter speed or f/ stop data but I'd be returning any camera/lens that produced such images. Just curious, not trying to be critical of the photographer, just the equipment.</p>

<p>I once went out on a workshop day with a 4x5 Arca, a Hasselblad, and a Nikon D200. The only place I went was crazy. However, if the machines fulfill a different niche, e.g. use one for stills, one for video and do not try to do both at the same time, you'll likely do fine. Many families own two cars; I suspect they are not often the same make. Good luck and just have fun.</p>

<p>As usual, Andrew has given you useful practical advice. If you follow it, you'll likely solve your problem. It is pathetic if anyone at Epson is really saying that the 3880 is not compatible with Photoshop later than CS3. It's a commentary on the sad state of support these days that our first response is not to assume the user misheard.</p>

<p>Over the years, I have used filters from Nikon, Tiffen, Hoya, and B+W. Other than the construction and the rare issue of IR with ND filters, it's pretty hard to tell the difference between the decent versions by each company. I'm with Shun. I'd stay away from truly "no-name" ones though. </p>

<p>I'm with those who recommend a good, solid tripod. I use a D800E and believe that this camera BELONGS on a tripod, almost like a 4x5. The results are noticeably better! Hand holding it for serious work is almost guaranteed to compromise the quality for which you paid good money. I know, I've done it, even with VR lenses. Which tripod matters little so long as it's SOLID. Anything less than the stability of a 3 series Gitzo (or equivalent in other brands) be it aluminum, basalt, carbon or unobtanium, is risking the camera as well as the image quality.<br> Good luck.</p>

<p>My nice loud D800E with 85mm f/1.8 caught the attention of my 6 month old grandson much better than the almost silent Fuji X T-1 with the 56mm f/1.2, AND focused quite a bit faster! I am among those who struggle with the big DSLR vs small(er) mirrorless question. There's no question I can get superb images from my Fuji at the sizes I print (up to 13x20), and when I want to hike with a few lenses it's a no brainer, but when I'm near the car or in the studio where I can take my time, the lovely Nikon and a PC-E lens is a joy. I am fortunate that I needn't choose, except when I leave the house. I have a rule that I NEVER take more than one camera system out. This rule came about when I was at a workshop in Monument Valley years ago and took, believe it or not, my Arca 4x5, Hasselblad, AND Nikon D200. It was a disaster as you can easily imagine. FWIW there's a similar thread on the Luminous Landscape forum, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=97513.0</p>

<p>Tim, I hope and expect you did not really mean what you said. I'm not offended, I'm used to inappropriate responses to well meant comments on photo forums, but unless you know Andy personally, maybe you do, his opinion is just that, his opinion. Making what will eventually be a multi thousand dollar investment should require a bit more than one person's opinion, regardless of their expertise. There are lots of stories about contrary opinions from well known photographers about everything from cameras to prints.<br> I'm done here, good luck to all.</p>

<p>I'm not Andy, but will chime in. I own a Fuji X T-1, do not own a Sony. They are quite different cameras. Fuji is APS-C, Sony is full frame; Sony has IBIS, Fuji has excellent OIS on a few zooms, the 10-24, 18-55, and 55-200. Fuji has a plethora of excellent lenses, both prime and zoom; Sony does not but many lenses can be adapted, with manual focus. People like the layout and handling of the Fuji but the full frame with IBIS is very compelling with the Sony. Sony seems to come out with lots of cameras quickly, Fuji is slower but has offered significant firmware updates which make the older machines almost into a new camera. You really need to either rent each or spend some time in a store which carries both. Either will likely lead to a sizable investment in lenses and other accessories. Cameras are almost disposable, lenses are investments. </p>

<p>On the Luminous Landscape printer forum there are a huge number of threads on Epson x900 series printers and clogging. Both the 4900 and 7900 seem to have more problems than most. You may want to check there before abandoning your machine.<br> Good luck. I use a 3880 which happens to be relatively well known for NOT clogging.<br> Eric</p>

<p>This lens sounds wonderful and I look forward to reviews by trusted sources. I had and foolishly sold an old 300mm f/4 non-AFS. It was slow to autofocus but I used it quite successfully in Africa in the film era. <br> My only concern is that as an E lens, it will be impossible to adapt to any of the mirrorless cameras, regardless of adapter. I was and still am unhappy that I cannot use my huge investment in the three Nikon PC-E lenses on my Fuji X T-1. </p>

<p>You might want to wait for the new A7II, available in a month or two. The A7II has 24MP and many improvements over the current series. Most impressively, it has in body image stabilization, IBIS, a feature probably worth waiting for. Go to the B&H website, they have terrific information. At Luminous Landscape Michael Reichman also just published a great first look article. The A7R does have 36MP but some have had problems with shutter shake, YMMV. See Lloyd Chambers' blog. <br> I had and sold one of the Olympus OMD bodies with IBIS and it's a truly wonderful feature. What is means is that any lens you can attach is an IS lens. I loved it with my old Leica 90mm Elmarit f/2.8. On that camera it was a 180mm f/2.8 stabilized lens! I preferred the image quality of the Fuji X cameras so sold the Oly but I do miss that feature. I fervently hope all the mirrorless cameras will have it someday, and someday SOON.<br> I do not own any of the Sonys so cannot honestly make lens recommendations.<br> Good luck.</p>

<p>I too went through deciding whether to keep or sell my full frame system, a Nikon D800E with a lot of excellent lenses. I still have the camera and all the lenses. Now I do most of my work, even landscapes, with my Fuji X T-1 and Fuji lenses. The Fuji is a lot lighter, especially when hiking uphill, the lenses are superb, and I seem to do well doing RAW conversions in Lightroom. I've come to love the EVF, no worries about front or back focusing. Unless you are making pretty big enlargements, e.g. >16x20, the Fuji holds its own quite well. I keep the Nikon for studio work, on a tripod, occasional work really close to the car, and because I've had Nikons since the early 60's and it's hard to give them up.<br /> Full frame certainly sounds attractive for a travel camera, but be aware that while the body can be made quite small, e.g. the Sony's, as others have said more eloquently, fast prime and zoom lenses for full frame start to get large (with the possible of Leica and Zeiss, but they are manual focus). A slightly smaller sensor, e.g. APS-C, makes for significantly smaller lenses. Put a 35mm f/1.4 Fuji next to a Canon or Nikon 50mm, even the f/1.8 and you'll see what I mean. The Sony 70-200 zoom has been said to be heavier than the Canon... My Fuji 56mm (85mm full frame equivalent) f/1.2 is minuscule compared to Canon and Nikon's versions. <br /> The most important thing is to enjoy your photography with whatever tool works best for you, regardless of what others think.</p>

<p>Were I the OP, I'd look carefully at Fuji, I have the X E-1 and the X T-1 and a bunch of lenses. I got the original X E-1 with the 18-55 f/2.8-f/4, and after buying a group of primes (all of which are just superb), have returned to the small zoom because it is sharp, small, light, flexible, and with the incredible low light capability of the X T-1, fast enough, and it's stabilized. Fuji has a philosophy of firmware upgrades which bring the older cameras up to the newer ones without having to buy yet another camera. When tested the X trans sensor and Fuji lens combination, come impressively close to the Leica M and Leica lenses, and at a fraction of the price.<br> If the Fuji doesn't impress, for some reason, the micro 4/3 cameras are quite good as well. I had an Olympus OM-D for a while and absolutely loved the in body stabilization. Any lens you can bolt to the front, and with the adapters available, that's a LOT of lenses, is a stabilized lens, even my old early 60's Leica 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit. I ended up liking the Fuji a bit more and sold the Olympus, but I occasionally miss some of its features.<br> All of this is an exercise in compromise, size, weight, flexibility and image quality. You cannot have all of them at a low price, or actually any price. Things are constantly changing but this is a great time to be an enthusiast photographer.<br> Good luck.</p>

<p>For starters Dave, it's a "retina" display, not retinal. And... any of the i7 Macbook Pro models will work just fine for Photoshop and Lightroom, the GHz is not terribly relevant, RAM and the SSD are. I use a MBP with a 500 GB hard drive and i7 2.3Ghz for travel and it's fine. At home I use a Mac Pro, 6 core with 64GB RAM and a TB SSD and it's fast. Tests on the new iMac show it's close, not quite as fast but a lot cheaper. The SSD speeds things up a lot and hard drives connected with Thunderbolt are also notably fast. I'm a Mac person for a long time, my first was purchased in 1984, but have spent time with Windows as well. Both OS's can be made to work well and both have their peculiarities. Why are you considering the switch?</p>

<p>I use either Moab Entrada Natural (matte) or Canson Platine Fiber Rag (glossy) for the majority of my work with my 3880, be it black and white or color and have been happy for some time. True breakthroughs are rare and the whole idea reminds me of the "latest and greatest" developer/film combos of the past. While it can be fun to try out new papers and I do occasionally, I prefer to get to know the characteristics of a couple that work for me. I have boxes of papers I thought I loved and then decided were not that great. YMMV</p>

<p>I'd work with content aware. This is exactly the situation where it should do the trick. Do work on a copy, of course. Good luck.</p>

<p>I cannot think of a good reason to leave the camera without a lens in a bag, regardless of one's fears about the sensor. I look at it this way. It's reasonably probable I'll use the same lens for the next image as I used for the last image, especially if it's a medium zoom, eg 24-70 on a full frame or the 18-55 on my APS-C. A lensless camera cannot make a photo. Even if you use only primes and guess wrong on the next shot AND you're in a hurry for some reason, it still makes sense to leave a lens on the camera in the bag. I did this even when I used a 4x5 view camera.<br> Good luck.</p>

<p>Cheapest? Best? Those are usually mutually exclusive. Beware of cheaper to buy but more expensive to operate, like a bargain on a gas guzzler auto. I'd look at the ink cartridge size and price and figure out how many $ (or whatever currency) per ml you choose to afford. For me, the sweet spot was the Epson 3880, large, but not huge cartridges, tolerable if not wonderful price. The smaller printers are cheaper to buy but have much smaller ink supplies, which, of course cost quite a bit more to run over time. It's not as simple as we'd all like. Good luck.</p>

<p>We can all complain about Epson, yet, realistically we have only two choices as photographers, Epson and Canon. Each have their proponents and their detractors, and each for good reasons. Unless, like Lenny, you're willing to undergo the considerable hassle of avoiding them and really vote with your dollars, we're all sort of stuck.<br> This is an open forum, so even though I have not used third party inks in any of my many Epson printers over the years, I feel free to comment. You may choose not to read my post if you wish.<br> You say you print infrequently but want a "pro" printer, whatever that is. I'd listen to Andrew, were I you. He has a lot of experience with Epson and there is an entire thread on the Luminous Landscape printer forum about the x900 series Epson, their clogging, and different people's solutions. Some people are lucky. I have a friend with a 4900 who has had no problems at all, but to go with the majority opinion, the 3880 is the way to go unless you need wider printing REGULARLY, and/or need to use roll paper. It's pretty rare for me to even consider anything larger than 17x22, so my 3880 does essentially all my printing. Were I to want something larger, I'm fortunate to live where there are a number of people who can make 24'' or even 44" wide prints.<br> I wish you the best, but only you can figure out what will work for your printing needs regardless of the evils of the marketplace.</p>

<p>There is a huge thread on the Luminous Landscape website on clogging problems with the x900 Epson printers. I do not own one, nor do I work for Canon. While it's not a "pro" printer, whatever that means, my 3880 seems clog-proof, though I hesitate to write that lest I invoke the wrath of the gods of clogging. Good luck.</p>

<p>From one Eric to another, to say that a single hard drive failure means hard drives are an inadequate back up system is simply unreasonable. As we all know, or should know, ANY of our systems could fail at ANY time. That's why we have MULTIPLE backups so that the failure of any single drive means that you chuck it, buy another, and keep going. Hard drives did not "fail" Virginia. She suffered a simple, common event that multiple backups would solve and should solve. I have multiple 4TB drives each of which holds my current 2.5TB of data. One is at my in law's, (and I get along with them,) the rest are in various places in my home, one is in my bedside table so that in the even of a fire, I'll get my wife, my dogs, and my drive out FAST. I'll not run upstairs to my computer room to get a hard drive when my home is burning. This is so compulsive as to make me laugh at myself but it does fulfill my OCD need to be thorough.</p>

<p>I'm with Andrew and the others who recommend hard disk drives. The good news is that they are fairly reasonably priced per GB, reasonably reliable, and fast to use. A good thing is that once you have 3-4 backup hard drives, the issue of reliability almost becomes irrelevant since a single hdd failure is not a disaster. Some of us have enough OCD to do complex backup schemes, some do not. Many people who are not super serious photographers tend to fall into the latter, eg most of my non-photo-wacko friends. For them, the only system that will work is a simple one. With no backup scheme at all, data loss is essentially inevitable. Hard discs with a decent auto backup program such as Carbon Copy Cloner, which I use, or Super Duper, which I used to use, are the way to go.</p>

<p>Images made with film are intrinsically different from those made with digital cameras but in this case, the comparison is too different to be useful, in my opinion. I have used everything from 4x5 and Hasselblad to Nikon 35mm in my film era. I now use full frame digital (D800E) and Fuji APS digital (X T-1). There is no question that the D800E files, to the extent they can be compared, are the equal or superior to the Hasselblad film images, scanned on a Nikon 9000. While I love my APS Fuji, it's really not fair to compare it to either full frame digital or Hasselblad film files.<br> <br />The comparison is a bit like comparing a Lexus (Hasselblad film) to a Miata (APS digital). </p>

<p>I think I resent a bit being accused of being "totally uniformed," with or without the "sorry." :-)<br> Seriously, I'll be the first to admit that Lightroom is not for everyone but, with all due respect, except for some relatively special circumstances, eg medium format backs and, for some, Fuji X-trans files, Lightroom will convert RAW files rather well. While I've not spent time testing many alternatives, I'd rather be making photographs than struggling learning new interfaces. Wouter admits Raw Therapee, despite its interesting spelling, has no catalog, duh? Capture One is probably the closest alternative, but I've looked at it and personally do not like it's interface either. I guess for me, LR is the default, another program would have to do everything at least as well, with some areas of superiority to make me switch. There are reasons there are so many books, courses, and experts who use LR.</p>