pizzaman

I've used all of them (Leica film, digital, Fuji X pro, Sony A7RII) and I've got to tell you after over a year with the Sony the 'computerness' of it has melted away and it actually feels like a better and simpler camera than the X pro ever felt to me - and professionally are in a similar situation as you. I use it mostly with Contax G lenses and the techart adapter that actually improves on the AF that the Contax G system had, though it is not flaw free it's mostly quite solid, especially with the 45 and 90, which I use most. Combine that with the superior sensor, that makes it's difference known in all of the pictures I've made that couldn't have been made with the X pro - well, I feel like the Sony design gets a bad rap because it doesn't match the nostalgia of old designs - but in real life use - for me - it actually is quite user friendly over time, has become quite intuitive to where it will not disrupt the flow of any shoots, and the results it gives are just hard to argue with. The Leicas are great but yea, the cost / quality equation - no practical justification these days, and the Sony still wins on IQ/resolution anyways.

For anyone who was following this or stumbles upon this trying to figure out their own situation with this I ended up selling of all my Fuji stuff and grabbing an A7rII with the techart 3 adapter for my contax lenses, though I'll eventually pick up that 55mm 1.8 as well. I would have kept the Fuji if money were no thing (but it is), since the Sony is a sort of different animal, but not all that different. In the end am not at all bummed about this, if anything I waited too long. There are some things to miss about the Fuji, but none of them really practical things. Mostly the form factor of the camera, which doesn't really have real world implications that I've found. Unless you're interested in it as a shoulder accessory. From IQ to IBIS to getting full frame back to the responsiveness/ AF of the Sony - this is noticeably better across the board in challenging conditions in my opinion. Cheers.

Photographers have different purposes depending on the line of their work or the nature of their assignment. It is not 'sad' when a photographer doesn't strive to tell the truth if that is not their job. Photographs are not truth, never have been and never will be. Reportage/photojournalism/whatever you want to call it is as much a practice of aesthetic training as commercial portraiture. 35 mm lenses on a Leica, Tri X and dodging and burning for drama were as much a visual style as a 3 light studio portrait with a Hasselblad. The methods of finishing a photograph are different now, but discounting that just reeks of grumpy old person resistant to change. My example of blurring a background was just one in a number of possible ways to manipulate the scene. There is no recreating it. A 35mm lens distorts an image. There is nothing that recreates the reality of a situation. A photograph subjectively cuts out a certain part of a real scene and therefore it already lies by omission. It often strips of context, which is most important. See this piece - by a very noted photojournalist - which I believe gets at the heart of some of these issues rather poignantly. No one is disputing the value of making a good image in camera - and I would say that most times I see examples of manipulate photojournalism it doesn't actually make the photo any better. The classic examples, like the removal of the fence in the Kent State protest are just silly aesthetic elements that have nothing to do with the relevant content of the picture (which is why it is any good). I'd also disagree that modern photographers are not capable of making images like the greats of the past. A lot of photojournalists still use the very same lens set up (not that this means anything) and make very strong work. If you can't recognize this I would say you're either romanticizing the past or you're not looking at the work that is being produced today. There are so many good documentary photographers out there risking life, limb and stability and yea, making images that are just at strong as those of the past - maybe even more so. Reuters and now World Press are trying to make rules around something that is ultimately a challenge to do. I understand and even sort of admire the motivation, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation in that news photographs have always been manipulated, but it in my opinion it has never really made them any better. Most tone manipulation is in pretty shit taste and heavy handed anyways. A lot of photojournalists don't know the first thing about aesthetic and narrative restraint and actively try to overly dramatize whatever it is they photograph.

As someone who still takes photojournalism assignments on occasion (but not from Reuters) I can say that this is, well, basically being lambasted as one of the most backward initiatives (aside from eroding pay and increasingly awful contracts) in news photography this year. Reuters is trying to get itself closer to objectivity in a world where that is simply not possible. 20 years ago your film choice manipulated the scene, now your raw curves do so. Or, now your curves layer on your jpeg does. Or now your in camera processing does the work. Whatever. Ridiculous. No photograph is truth. If you think that you're not already manipulating things by blurring out a background with a telephoto lens instead of in photoshop, well then you're already drawing totally arbitrary lines in the sand. Sure, that's the rule but the only reason it stands is because of tradition.

I'd love to see a mf Fuji / Sony - whatever. Some sort of digital mamiya 7 ish thing would be perfect for me. But as someone who has used plenty of modern cameras depending on where and what job I'm working and owns an admittedly showing its age 645D - besides ISO and in some instances dynamic range the 645D sensor still beats the D810 and Canon 5DS in most practical terms. It is sharper with more detail and holds up in print at bigger sizes better when used as a normal MF camera is used. It shows it weak spots in reportage/low light but for studio, landscape and portrait work I'd take the 645D over any 35mm sensor out today. The sensor size makes a noticeable difference.

.

Oftentimes it's for one of three reasons: 1: This is the internet, images are small, many and if not immediately captivating we don't waste our time. Maybe in a gallery we would see this. 2: Things that make a picture to you just do not speak to other viewers. We don't care and/or it is not that interesting as a viewer. 3: It is not photographed effectively. If you care so much about this, how can you better make a viewer care? Seems a better photograph is in order, or maybe it is not something that lends itself to this particular medium so well. I often find that photographers would probably be better off writing.

Your quote: "Without curiosity and questioning, there cannot be good photos." Okay - true - but if the photos do not inspire curiosity and questioning in the viewers then it is possible that the photographs fail in their intended function. If people are getting drawn to cliches (homeless person) - this isn't the viewer's fault. This is the photographer's fault for presenting such easy bait for criticism. I don't see any of these images as particularly controversial. To me it looks like you are trying to inject controversy into some images that do not read that way. The kids in the image of the man with the stick, they all look like they are playing. Maybe that's not the case but that's how you photographed it and because of that it doesn't read as controversial. I see one or maybe two images that strike me as exploitative (the picture of the obese woman - it's basically a one-liner - it says 'oh hey look an overweight woman) or a little bit calloused (as many street photographs/photographers can be), and the rest as pretty normal b/w street photography that, for the most part, doesn't grab me because it is derivative of images I have seen done better many times. But none of that should matter, if you love to shoot, then do it. I like to shoot street photography too, so I'm not knocking it, but at some point though you may face the fact that your work isn't contributing to an advance in the cultural dialogue. You want to call out social issues through imagery? You need to put in a lot of time getting to know people and into really understanding their story and the cultural and social implications of their story. You can't just look at something on the street and snap a picture and think you are really doing much to talk about social ills. Personally, I don't think these types of images have advanced in any significant way since the 60s/70s. Actually, to be cliche, I don't think it has really advanced since Robert Frank's The Americans. Winogrand was an obsessive snapper with a great eye and wit but his images were more insight into his own soul than into the cultural dialogue of the time. The color street photographers of the 80's/90's advanced the dialogue more (Alex Webb, Costa Manos), but even that work at times is over calculated and can leave a viewer marveling at compositional aspects and forgetting the humanity in the photograph.

Thanks for posting your experience. Similar shoes over here, wanting to downsize and get rid of the Nikon kit but came to the conclusion that if you are a working editorial/wedding photog it's not a good idea - and the repair center experience is a new addition to that list. There are people on the forum that will argue that but I think there's a variety of reasons you should hang on to your Canon stuff for the time being, as I am my Nikon, as much as I would rather use something else sometimes.

Probably obvious but Robert Adams (also an amazing photographer) and Susan Sontag are some of the best writers on photography from the past 50 years. Anything either of them have written is probably worth your time. They talk about photography from a more philosophical point of view - its' place and function in society - motivations for making different kinds of work. For me, it is one of the best ways to advance how you think as a photographer. There are a ton of good photo books out there, but I think you'd be doing them an injustice by looking at them in ebook form, if they are even available in that way.

That's pretty awful. But is it that big an issue - why not just use the RAW? I'd be fine if Fuji tossed out their JPG processing altogether, or every camera manufacturer for that reason. With LR RAW is no more inconvenient than jpg these days no?

...

...

It's pretty silly to resort to personal attacks when talking about cameras. And where did I say I have never used the tools described? Because I have, and those are my conclusions. Just because I don't own a tool doesn't mean I have no experience with it. And what if you want to shoot low light with a 35 or 56mm lens at 1.4 or 1.2? I still think you'd have better luck using a 50/85 and the AF on a dSLR. That's my experience. You can choose to think whatever you want but when someone is paying you upwards of 3-5 grand for pics of this day why would you chance it? The poster asked, and I gave my opinion.

This is why I don't think the Fuji's are the best tools for these situations. MF can work if you're very well practiced at it, but I don't think it's very efficient with the EVF. The real solution here is to take your losses if you won't fathom another tool, or use a canon/nikon and get more keepers. That's just how it is at the moment.