mark_amos

<p>Fred, I sound so opinionated only because I too was thinking the 28 FE is the no-brainer solution, especially when you consider that the Zeiss branded 24 1.8 is twice as expensive. It also gives you a full frame lens if you/OP later go that way. I just got discouraged because for now when I compared it side by side to the Sigma 30 actually on my APS-C 5n, it is much larger. Of course the Sigma is not full frame, and it is rather cheap in build comparison. I have the VC 28 /1.9, and I agree that overall the 28 FE is similar in size. That is about 2.5" dia. at base and 2 3/8" long. The VC is thinner on the end, which makes if feel more compact, but it is heavier. I just gravitate so much to the smallest lenses because in some situations, it makes them so much easier to have with you like in your pocket in a very thin non-bulky protective cloth for example as an extra lens. The APS-C 24 1.8 is 2 5/8" long, which does make the FE 28 seem compact in comparison. On an A7, the 28 is probably admirably compact, but for A6000 or especially a 5n/r/t, I wish there were more small options that take advantage of the crop. I realize that in the end, the e mount is designed for lenses that are about 2.5" in diameter, and the need to design lenses to get the light coming straight in to the sensor is going to make them longer than what I've been spoiled with by a few of the rangefinder lenses. To put my view on this in perspective, I've considered an A7 specifically because I could use it full frame with my Leica 40/2 Summicron C that I've read does fine on it, and then the overall package is really hardly bigger than an A6000 or 5 series with the 24 or 28 Sony lenses needed to get around equiv. 40 mm.</p>

<p>Fred, I have been inclined to agree, but I made a special trip to the camera store to look at that FE 28 f2 lens just last Saturday, and it is just too big! It is probably 3/4" longer than the Sigma 19 and 1" longer than the Sigma 30 that is the nearly equivalent 45mm. I'd say the Sigma 30 has to be the walk around choice. I don't know. I just find that we get lulled into accepting one feature or another and then you forget what you liked and wanted. The APS-C sensor has the capability to have very small lenses that really minimize the package size when putting the camera into a small bag. It is a shame that the Sony 20 2.8 might not be great. I wish I had one to test myself extensively because that would be a great "walk around" solution. I carry my camera to work everyday in a small messenger bag that is too small for a number of the lenses that some would probably suggest.<br> I consider the Leica 40 cron-C to be small. The Leica 28 aspherical 2.8 Elmarit is small. The pre-aspherical 35 crons were small. ...and all those lenses are full frame. It should be possible to have very small APS-C lenses, AND I UNDERSTAND the issue of the angle the light is approaching the sensor. I have a feeling Sony has understood the issue from the beginning. Of course they have. They need to design retrofocus wides and can't really take advantage of the short flange distance with symmetrical design wides. That's probably why the 24 1.8 is so big. Oh well....</p>

<p>Thanks Howard. Here is why I'm wondering. One of the benefits of APS-C cameras is small long/telephoto lenses of course. While it is easy enough to crop a still image from a full frame camera and while I know you can tell a full frame camera to shoot stills cropped to aps-c while shooting, it would be really handy to be able to crop the video while taking it since you wouldn't lose resolution anyway since 1080p is a lot less pixels than crop mode anyway. I wonder if the video quality might be better with the full frame even though it is still only 1080p, but I'm fine with 1080p from my 5n already. I just want to be able to shoot like a school performance on a stage without toting a "big" lens.</p>

<p>When using an A7, is it possible to shoot 16:9 ratio video but in a crop mode that simulates what my 5n does? What I mean is that could you for example use the 55 1.8 OSS lens on it but get video more cropped to about 82mm?</p>

<p>I don't think I will use flash because I only have the little flash that came with the 5n that fits in its accessory port, and I always use the add-on EVF. I never use this camera with flash. I have a Nikon SB80dx that is a very good flash with good manual settings, but I would probably have to buy a third party adapter to turn my accessory port into a hot shoe. Somebody has made something like that, but that is another topic. I'd rather just use daylight, but your comments about that are helpful too.<br> I do wonder this: My Sony 5n has HDR High Dynamic Range mode. It works very well to my eyes for certain situations. Might this be needed/helpful? Of course I will do some experiments. Many of my slides are Kodachrome 64 and 200. There is also Velvia 50 and some Ektachrome, but I don't recall which variety.<br> Most the slides I want to copy were taken with the best Leica and Nikon optics between about 1998 to 2008. They are not old 60s and 70s shots such that I will be glad to just have anything. It pains me to assume the quality of my dupes might not be great, but that is relative I suppose, and the whole point is that I don't want to buy an expensive slide scanner nor pay to have each slide copied. I actually have a plustek slide and negative scanner, but I have not been very pleased with the results from it, and it takes too long also. Is it unreasonable for me to hope that using my 16 MB 5n will be faster and better also? I've calculated that my16 MB 5n sensor is about the same amount of data as using the scanner. I am most concerned about capturing the dynamic range in the slide in a way that does some kind of justice to the care I used in taking those pictures.</p>

<p>Hey Michael, thanks. Even the comment that you are using f8 is very helpful. I also appreciate the endorsement of the 55 micro, and I will check for the pre-AI 3.5 too because I don't need AI or 2.8 for this. I do want a lens in very good optical condition however. I've just got to get it and forget it. I'm just trying to make sure I've got a good plan before I get into this because with this approach, I think I can actually "scan"/copy all these 1000 slides in a couple weekends. If I am confident of my technique, I will move quickly. I certainly don't want to do this twice. Even a pokey 1 minute per slide is about 16 hours for 1000 slides, and that isn't too bad for what you get/reclaim. Thanks again Michael.</p>

<p>Cool setup Gerry, and the sample scan looks pretty good.</p>

<p>I think I understand the spirit of what you are saying Gerry, and you are probably correct whether I want to accept it or not. I just looked, and I can get the 55 2.8 micro Nikkor Ex condition at KEH for just $150, and I already have everything else I need, so I'm just crazy to be entertaining anything else I suppose. <br> I just have a kind of repulsion to having any more equipment on hand that I don't use. I have about 1000 "best" slides to copy, but that will be the end of that. But maybe my daughter would enjoy doing a little macro work with me. I'm still curious if anybody can offer me anything specific about these other e mount macro lens options for slide copying on aps-c format sensor. I have read a variety of blogs and such about slide copying, but I still don't have a great feel for how I will like the results. I'm just concerned I will buy a Nikon 55 that I otherwise just don't really want/need, and if I'm not happy with the slide copying results then I've just got some more lens baggage. </p>

<p>For example, Sony has just introduced their 90 2.8 macro for e amount, and it has image stabilization. That one would be useful for some event video work. I have many lenses in that range also, but they are not stabilized, so it is hard to use them for video without them being very jittery. I'm not sure however if the 90 would work for slide copying because I'm concerned the slide would have to be relatively far away from the lens, meaning much farther than the ES-1 can extend? I just don't know?</p>

<p>I have looked at getting a very reasonably priced used Nikon 55 2.8 micro from KEH and other options also for slide copying. I have determined however that I already have so many normal lens options to use on my Sony 5n with adapters that I really don't want to add a lens just for copying slides. I mean I have a Nikon 50 1.4, 45 2.8P and the original 45 2.8 GN too. I have Leica 50 f2 cron current, 40 f2...and more. My point is that having an autofocus equivalent 75 for portrait shots with my Sony 5n would be useful, so I would prefer to buy a macro lens that I can use for slide copying and as at least a slight enhancement to other situations also. <br> I already have an Nikon ES-1 slide copying tube and holder apparatus. On full frame (or film) with the Nikon 55 micro, you needed the PK-13 (27.5mm extension tube) also since the 55 only magnified to 1:2. On APS-C digital cameras, you also needed the K5 20mm extension tube to move the slide even a bit further away to capture the whole slide without cropping. <br> MY QUESTION is essentially which currently available lens you all would really recommend for slide copying understanding that I want a lens for other uses too. I don't want to assemble something with adapters with the Nikon 60 2.8 AF D lens for example. I have no other use for such a set-up. I'm thinking the Touit 50 2.8 macro with 1:1 magnification might be able to achieve what I am after, but I'm hoping somebody can tell me that indeed it works well for slide copying. It would be really great if somebody could say it works indeed with my ES-1 Nikon slide copy unit. <br> Thanks!</p>

<p>Some people were just bitter that it was really a pretty good solution at such a cheap price, but since we all like and know camera gear around here, it is easy for any of us to pick at it and act like it isn't good enough. Some people like to feel like they are important because they are experts and can tell you what you should have. They would say you should want a more expensive camera. No, you have to have a more expensive camera, and Sony is ripping you off if you accept that camera. Sony shouldn't even be able to sell that a3000, they would say. You know, it is kind of like how it was for those of us that were happy with our private insurance policy(s) before Obamacare. Now my policy has been cancelled because it doesn't meet the "minimum requirements", and I can't afford the Obamacare policy that replaces it. I hope the a3000 meets your minimum requirements, and it is awesome you had a chance to buy it.</p>

<p>Dave, I too am curious about the answers you get, and I don't know the answer. A similar question would be if a person is an architect but works for another firm, and he designs a building and then takes photographs of it because he takes pride in his work, can he later show those pictures on his own company site one day and say he designed those buildings?</p>

<p>I have used my Nikon 75-150 E constant 3.5 zoom for stage shows, and it is versatile, but not quite fast enough, and the push-pull and focus collar all in one is a bit fiddly. I've tried many lenses as most of you probably have, and it turned out so far my best solution may be the good ole Nikkor 105 2.5 on adapter for aps-c Sony. Mine is a pre-AI gaussian design. It is beautiful and plenty sharp already at 2.5. My 5n won't shoot higher than ISO 3200 for video, so I have to have that speed sometimes for correct exposure I find, and of course there are SS and lower ISO advantages for still shots. That lens is just really an all-time value. When you consider that something like an older 90 Summicron is probably twice the cost at least, and I doubt it is any better. Its value is further realized considering Sony doesn't offer anything like it for e mount. They are only just announcing the 90 2.8 macro for $1,000. I will admit that for video, I need stabilization at that field of view, but I'm mainly hoping for an optically stabilized aps-c sensor body at this point. How nice would it be for the 85 1.4 to be an equivalent stabilized 127.5 1.4. Actually though, the 105 2.5 still has an edge in some ways because it is quite compact for what you get. As far as af, I hardly trust it anytime with the 5n, and especially for stage, I would rather focus it with magnification and get a feel for the small range of movement of say a performing subject and manually adjust and at least know that I'm not going to find out later that the curtains were tack sharp.</p>

<p>I'm not sure it is easy to differentiate our needs for improvement versus our desires, but I think Arthur could make the point that while we enjoy many benefits of digital, the products of the film era offered some benefits that have not yet been met with digital. Specifically and surprisingly to me, perhaps because I was and still am naïve with respect to some facets of manufacturing, is the fact that the analog physical and chemical nature of film had "size" or physical advantages over the tiny yet not insignificant mechanical and physical construction of digital sensors and the glass layers that seem to be often installed over them. With film you could have the tiny wide angle lenses that projected the light at very extreme angles onto the film, but that doesn't seem possible with digital sensors. We can settle for big lenses, but that isn't a benefit.<br> Edward, I have to take your example of the Nikon 20 2.8 specifically because I recently made my own study of the 20 2.8 ais that I own and have and still value. I have been using that lens on a 5n for a couple years, happy enough with the results but not with the handling. Only when I finally bought the amazing little bargain Sigma 19 2.8 to improve my handling option for an equivalent 28ish lens and tested it against the Nikon 20 did I see that the Nikon 20 clearly has smearing at the edges even on the 5n's aps-c sensor. I tested it about 5 times over a week and found the same thing every time. My wonderful 20 2.8 ais is still a fine lens and more than serviceable with my 5n. It has an aperture ring and mechanically linked focus ring and good feel, and I like that, but I can't choose that Nikon lens over the humble little Sigma anymore with respect to image quality.<br> You are saying that there are many options to use the Sony 7 series if you don't mind manual focus, and you are certainly right, and you can get really good results, but that doesn't mean that the results are not compromised by engineering issues that have not yet been solved. Specifically, the distance required for the mirror presence in retrofocus wide angle lens designs doesn't completely negate the problems of how light hits a digital sensor. <br> When Sony's 24 megapixel cameras, full frame and aps-c, can take a Leica 28 f2.8 elmar aspherical or Voigtlander 21 f4 on adapter and exhibit no color shift or smearing, then we will indeed experience yet another plateau of digital photography achievement that many of us sorely "desire" now. </p>

<p>Fred, thank you for taking the time to look at my post. The size of the 20mm bothers me a lot. I also already have a 24 2.8 as I stated. It is about the same size. It is fine to use on the adapter when you need that focal length, but it isn't ideal as the daily user in size or balance for the tiny 5n. I know there isn't a lens on the market that fits my description. My post question was not to ask people to propose lenses. It was to stimulate people to speculate intelligently about why a lens like I describe isn't being made. Of course I realize the forum doesn't have corporate mind-readers. I thought maybe there is a technical obstacle to the creation of such a lens. Perhaps such a lens would adversely affect sales of other lenses by a company that would consider it. Sometimes people enjoy speculating about such things. I do.</p>

<p>Fred, my original reason to mention the Nikon equipment I have was purely to make the point that in the past I have gravitated to equipment like the FM3a about year 2002 that I immediately saw as desirable, that was discontinued but that was actually popular and later valuable. Once again I was saying that I think I want something that a lot of others want that isn't being made and will become valuable later...or now. I made this point to say that the lens I have described would be successful. I did not in any way give the impression that having a lens in that Nikon system offered any benefit to me. Read what I posted if you care. In fact, I made the point in my initial post that I think that the size of the adapter makes all the SLR lenses unacceptable for the best every-moment carry all lens. There are many lenses that are GREAT as specialty lens options but not ideal for take-every-freaking-place-small high quality aps-c sensor camera options.<br /> Let me add that I understand the cost-schedule-quality triangle extremely well. I am not asking for anything that violates that principle. The Fuji lenses achieve that extremely well. I chose Sony when the 5n came out because it was better and cheaper than the Fuji Pro-1 offering then, or else I might have chosen Fuji, but what I read is that video is still better with Sony, and that is important to me in shooting video of my 6 year old daughter's shows. The 5n does everything so well; That is why I chose it then too. It was very good, very small, and reasonably priced compared to the alternatives.<br /> I guess I'm wondering why Cosina Voigtlander doesn't take the opportunity to make an old school manual control 23mm f 2.8 retrofocus economical small lens for these e mount cameras! I guess I already know the answer, and I don't like it; I bet they won't/can't do it because of honoring contracts on what they will develop while promoting/offering Zeiss lenses.</p>

<p>I think the Nikon 24 f2 has a 52mm front filter instead of my 20's 62mm, but the barrel and overall size is about the same (lens on far right in my picture): not particularly small for a camera that only needs an aps optimized lens. The VC 28 Ultron is notably smaller and probably better than the Nikon 24 f2 (take too much to explain why I say that), but the Ultron is a little big too frankly as the go-to put-anywhere daily carry lens.<br> <br />I wonder if there is a problem taking advantage of how short and small the lens could be because of the issue with the sensors and oblique angle light rays? For example, I think I've read that the Leica 28 elmar aspherical doesn't do great on the a6000 for example. </p>

<p>Edward, thank you for that suggestion. I have a pre-AI Nikon 24, but mine is a little hazy, and I consider it too big. Andy, you can use lenses with an aperture in aperture priority on Sony, and it is quite handy. Even the new Zeiss Loxia lenses have an aperture ring. I like the little X100, and I've never ruled it out because they offer the "perfect" focal length on it for me, but it is pricy.<br> I think I worded my question poorly. Here is my point: In full frame, the "normal" lenses relative to the diagonal of full frame like 35 and 40mm lenses could be very small, and on a camera the size of the 5n, that makes them very handy. I know I'm being picky, but I carry my camera everywhere all the time and part of the fun is finding the "perfect" daily driver to which you can add an additional lens to expand your capability for something special. The picture below I've posted is a Leica 40-C, Leica 35 cron aspherical, Voigtlander 28 1.9 Ultron, and a Nikon 20 ais. I have always gravitated to the 40 and 35. The field of view felt right, and they are the smallest. I end up using my Sigma 30 2.8 (equiv 45) most of the time because is is the closest to the right FOV, small and great optical quality, but it feels pretty cheap, and it is cheap, but too cheap. The closest lens to what I'd say we (I) need is the Leica 28 elmar aspherical: a very tiny equiv 42mm normal lens, but it is just too expensive. I also use my 40C a lot because it balances so perfectly on the tiny 5n. So why is there no very small APS optimized APS-normal 23mm 2.8 lens from Cosina/Voigtlander? I would think it would be the first choice for anybody using a Fuji or Sony aps camera wanting old school handling, and that isn't that unusual.</p> <div></div>

<p>The Samyang lenses seem to offer an emphasis on lens speed and relative quality for the price with size being a lesser consideration. I use the 5n and have stuck with it because its sensor quality and body size is remarkable. The Samyang 35 1.5 at 1.5 pounds and the 16 at 1.3 pounds, typically with 67mm and 77mm filter sizes, are much heavier than what I would hope for, . A lens like I have described (about a 35mm equivalent and that's important too) should be achievable for a weight more like 7 to 10 ounces with a 39mm or 46mm filter and perhaps even smaller if it is made only for the APS-C size sensor. For reference, the Zeiss ZM design approach creates smallish lenses, but they are typically a little larger than their Leica counterparts, but they could be smaller if they were designed for APS-C.</p>

<p>I think it is bigger than it needs to be since they aspire to f1.7, and/or I'm not sure that at f2.8 it is as good as it could be if they had gone with a less ambitious design for speed from the start. I find it a little biggish, and my read of the reviews of the performance is that it isn't extraordinary at 1.7. Have you read that it is excellent by 2.8? I have not found many reviews of it. There is an old Steve Huff review of some first version that I think was withdrawn from the market/cancelled, but then they put out a later version finally that is still available at Amazon for example at least for the Fuji mount. I don't find a clear consensus on the performance of the lens.</p>

<p>I have a Sony 5n. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a compact Sony E mount semi-economical well made equivalent 35mm lens with old school handling, and I would be fine for it to be only for APS-C? I don't even care about auto focus. The SLR lenses from neither Olympus nor anybody are small enough with the biggish adapters. What I mean is a $500 lens with a physical focus ring and an aperture ring. I think I am familiar with all the options currently. I have the Sigma 19 and 30. I know there is $1,000 Zeiss expensive 24 1.8 without three of the features I mentioned (not economical and no physical focus or aperture ring.) What I am talking about is probably the SLRMagic 23 1.7 for $399, but why not just make it f2.8 and have the image quality be really good? What I am asking for could be achieved in a Loxia 23 2.8, but that would probably be made for full frame and bigger than it needs to be and very Zeiss-like expensive if it is like the ZM line. I know there is the Sony 20 2.8, but again, it doesn't have a physical focus ring or aperture ring, and for the right thing I would pay a little more than that one costs. I mean, the image quality might be fine, making it acceptable if it had those other handling features. And no, a Voigtlander 21 f4 isn't a substitute. That would be fine for the Sony 5n, but has issues on the A6000 , and f4 isn't fast enough; it's not 2.8. <br> I think you guys know exactly what I'm describing, so where is it? I'm describing the ideal solution for somebody that likes to shoot with the very familiar equivalent 35mm focal length on these APS-C digital cameras in a lens that is very small and feels well made and like you have complete control of what you are doing. Again, I would say that a Loxia lens at 23 2.8 made small for APS-C would be perfect. They probably think it would be a niche market item, and they would be wrong. I'm describing a Fuji approach like they did with their X mount 35 1.4, but I'm fine with 35 2.8 if it could be smaller because the high iso is so good on even my 3 year old 5n. What gives?<br> Also, let me point out that I own a Nikon FM3a, 45 2.8P lens, 85 1.4 ais and other items: all items that might supposedly have been low-demand items that now demand very high used prices at KEH or anywhere else because people actually wanted them and don't quickly get rid of them. The lens I'm describing would sell pretty well I think. </p>

<p>Darin, I read about the Sigma 19 2.8 for two years before I finally bought it, and frankly I don't think I could hope for a much better quality image this wide, and I have plenty of fine lenses. I've read that it is sharp in the center and not as sharp at the edges, but in my comparison to my Nikon 20 2.8 AIS on adapter, the Nikon might maybe-but-its-so-close be sharper in the center, but it smears towards the outer edges on my NEX 5n such that the Sigma is clearly better in the outer areas. The Sigma is already very good at f2.8 and really doesn't change much as you stop down. The DOF is already substantial at 2.8, and that is where I often leave it to get the benefit of better ISO and shutter speed. I also have the sister Sigma 30 2.8 in the prior plastic barrel, and the newer metal smooth barrel design does indeed have a more usable smoother manual focus feel. (The focus ring easily binds on the older plastic design.) The Sigma 19 is a nice light weight, but I wish it was a little shorter like the Sony 20, and the Sigma quality seems almost like a well optimized nearly disposable approach, but in my opinion the optical quality needs no excuses of the low price. The mechanical aspects reflect the compromise, but as I've said, even that is well executed for $199. My sense from canvassing the reviews was that the Sigma has slightly better overall image quality than the Sony 20 that costs $350, but I've never compared them directly. I believe the Sony 20 consensus is that it is not stellar, but it can be endearing for its own merits too.<br> In general I feel there is still a lack of a very small very well made affordable fast wide normal lens for NEX in the equivalent 28-40mm field of view. There are not many native Sony options, and the sensor crop makes it hard to find a clear winner amongst the rangefinder ranks as there are no tiny 21 f2.8, 24 2.8, or 28 2.8s for that matter except for the Leica 28 2.8 aspherical, which is still very expensive used, and I'm not sure it works well on the edges on NEX except for on the 16 MP models.</p>

<p>Mervyn, I have always wanted the best quality for the camera size while also having a usable interface with the camera. What I mean for example is that I always loved the little Rollei 35 (size of a pack of cigarettes but thicker), but it had only a viewfinder and not a rangefinder, so you had to estimate distance, which was no problem in the daylight outside at f4 or 5.6, but it wasn't ideal. The point is that you could put good quality 100 speed film in it, and it had a really good Zeiss designed Tessar or Sonnar lens. Right? There were the 35mm Minox cameras. Contax had some handy models in the 1990s and 2000s. Of course there were the 1950s folders like Retina and Contessa of course. In my opinion, you have to be reluctant to compromise on sensor size just like you wouldn't want to compromise on film choice, but you want the smallest camera. The sensor size is a big issue IMO for low light shooting. I settled on using a Nikon FM3a and Leica M6 most of the time, but they were actually a little bigger than I preferred. My point is that the full frame A7 and A7II are amazing, but the APS-C size sensors are also amazing and may be perfect as long as the camera body and lens can be small enough to make that worth while, and I think they are, particularly in the case of the Sony NEX 5n,5r, 5t series even using the add on electronic viewfinder. You can buy a 5n for not more than $200 used at KEH, and get a brand new EVF for it now discounted to $225. Go to camerasize.com and look at how the 5n is smaller than the Panasonic GX-7 even though the Pani has the much smaller 4/3 sensor. True, finding lenses that are also small isn't automatic for the 5n, but you don't need many tiny lenses for a go-everywhere camera. You need a couple small lenses, and then just use whatever else with other adapters for when size isn't that big a deal. When I'm using my 5n with my Leica 40mm Summicron-C (TINY)(as an equiv. 60mm fov), I really feel I have a professional quality short portrait AND low light camera/lens in the palm of my hand. I take it everywhere.</p>

<p>Hello Simon, I appreciate your thought, but I think you misunderstood. When I mention "zooming" and second level zoom, I actually am referring to the digital magnification feature that the camera has to allow you to see the subject of your intended focus up very close to confirm that it is in focus. I don't use any zoom lenses. I'm usually using Leica and Nikon primes, and I also have the Sigma 19 and 30.<br> What you are saying is interesting to me if unrelated to my posted issue. Even though the Sony prime lenses are "focus by wire", you can still set them to manual focus, and then they don't automatically re-focus if you press the shutter half way down to lock exposure. Are you saying that if you put a Sony e mount focus-by-wire zoom lens in manual focus mode and use its optical zoom capability to look at your subject closely that when you zoom back out then the focus will necessarily have changed because of how the optical elements have moved in relation to one another in the act of zooming? </p>

<p>I kept thinking there is no need to answer on this thread, but I have to. I used a Nikon F and then an FM3a. I've not had a Nikon since then. I wanted smaller, not bigger. I carry a Sony 5n everywhere, lately with the very tiny Leica 40 Summicron C. It gives APS-C quality, fabulous optics and weighs less than a pound. I carry it on my shoulder everywhere: grocery store, dentist, walking my daughter to class, everywhere; it's easy. When my hands are full I can even hang it around my neck. This isn't really about gear, but it is about the mindset regarding the gear, and then it does kind of end up being about gear again. People didn't carry their phones with them in stores when the cell phones were the size of small shoe boxes. My friends know I always have my camera. I have explained that it is like them always having their cell phones. They might need to take a call; I might need to take a picture.<br> Still I will commiserate. I have still gone in a store and left it in the car or had it in the case in the car seat and missed a shot, but that is why I seldom let that happen.</p>