Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Over my many years of photographic involvement, I have owned and sold at least one version of just about every camera ever made in both the 35mm, video and medium format varieties, and have engaged in many photographic genres.  In recent years, however, I have coalesced my imaging interests into a combination of landscape, people and occasional macro and very little, if any, video.  That said, the first sentence in this post should make evident the fact that I am very much the gear-hog, and am constantly on the lookout for the latest and greatest photographic gear.  Due to a burst of common sense, I have managed to whittle down my harem of cameras to a Fuji GFX 50s, Sony A7RIII, an older A7R,  and a Leica M10.  As a relative old-timer, I like the availability of the external/mechanical settings afforded by the the GFX and am intrigued by the newly announced Xt3.  However, despite the fact that I could easily preorder(read: money is no object) said new release, I am finding it difficult to justify the purchase given the quality and capability of my existing cameras.  In the past, the APS-C cameras were smaller and lighter than other mirrorless models, but that's no longer true to any significant extent.  And while the Xt3 has the surface mounted controls that I enjoy, it may tend to hobble my photographic endeavors, which often require significant cropping, due to its diminutive sensor, as compared to the already owned—for example—Sony A7RIII.  Am I missing something in my evaluation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think that you don’t need any other camera than the ones you already have, in fact, I believe that you have already too many cameras.

Use the ones that you have and be happy, go and sin no more.If there is any way for you to be happy with what you have, please be. I have a friend whom is forever buying cameras and audio equipment, but he also buys clocks. They are fetishes of some sort for him.You can only use one at the time and as you get older your ears are absolutely not capable to enjoy the finesses of yet another stereo system.

I see pictures shot with expensive cameras and lenses which could have been taken with cheaper ones to no detriment of the outcome. In fact I see very poorly processed pictures shot by people whom ruin them (and possibly don’t ever realize they do).

It is not that I  am jealous of his or yours capability to spend but is there anything that you will want to do and can’t because you don’t have the extra camera?

When I was younger I was buying clothes, for example, just for fun and because I wanted something new. These days I often question myself reasons to buy yet another jacket every time I see one that I fancy.

If you really don’t have any use for your money set up a scholarship which would award a camera to a deserving poor student whom cannot afford one. 

Good Luck.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

“ money is no object” does seem to suggest that OP doesn’t need to chose between any particular camera or optics , he can clearly afford both. The thing is that you can only use one at the time and most importantly, it is not the camera you use but what you do with it.

 

Maybe he prints large prints for his exhibitions in the museums around the world of very important and unique subjects or maybe he looks at his pictures on the screen of a computer to pictures of his grandchildren, who knows...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I appreciate all of your responses.  And thank you, Milandro, but I already have more than enough high-end glass to fulfill my needs.  A few of your comments seem to question the need for the degree of resolution my current cameras provide, and while I did mention the cropping ability aspect, I neglected to note that I often produce large, gallery quality prints or Giclee's and, therefore, the A7rIII is not superfluous, although you might assume so given the GFX 50s large sensor.  That said, they represent different tools for diverse purposes, the most significant differences being represented by the Sony's IBIS, lesser weight and more diminutive size.

But, in the end, you have all managed to quench my desire for yet another piece of equipment that I clearly do not need.

Thanks again

Edited by ron777
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Thank you. I will research it.
    • Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...