- Messages
- 2,470
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
Whilst it's nice to be in the fortunate position to spend a good amount of money on my hobby (photography), and be able to own / try a number of different camera systems and lenses, and currently I'm running 3 different systems (the most I've ever run), and all have their strengths and weaknesses. However, with the wife and I and our two best fiends due to set off on our summer holidays to the USA in a couple of months, I've started to plan out (or try to), what gear I'm going to take. Here's where the dilemma starts ( I told you firstworld issues)
Normally I would take my venerable Micro Four thirds system, which has served me well over the last 4 years or so, that kit being my Olympus OMD EM1 MK II body with the M.Zuiko 12-100 F4 IS Pro, Leica 8-18 F2.8-4 and my M-Zuiko 25mm F1.2 Pro for low light. I've been happy with this set up, although as we all know, low light isn't the M4/3's system forte.
Thus I was pondering taking instead either my Fuji X-H1 or X-T3 bodies, with the Fujion 10-24 F4, Fujinon 18-55 F2.8-4 (or the 16-55 F2.8), Fujinon 55-200 F3.5-4.5 and my Fujinon 35mm F2 for low light. That would give me as much coverage (actually slightly more) than the Olympus set up, albeit with one more lens. The thought with this set up being the slightly better low light performance (for example for Disney nighttime parades firework shows etc.).
But then I'm thinking, if I want low light performance, why not take my new Nikon Z6 with the 24-70, 70-300 AF-P and 50mm F1.8 G (note I don't have any ultra wide angle option yet for the Z system) which bests all the others for low light ?, in a package size similar to the Olympus or Fuji Set up.
Whilst pondering all this, it just got me thinking, as much as I love having the choices I do (and I do use all 3 systems very frequently), I got to thinking that sometimes having less choice is better.
For instance, I remember about 10 years ago, where I'd pretty much lost my mojo for photography and had sold off almost everything I owned except a Nikon D300s and a single Nikon 16-85 zoom, and to be honest the freedom this allowed me ensured I got some of the best memories of many holiday taken around that time, even if "technically" I'd taken better photos, (i.e. sharper, less noise, better DOF control etc).
As I say, I know in the grand scheme of things these are meaningless issues and real "first world problems", but anyone else think sometimes taking a simpler smaller setup is better ?
Normally I would take my venerable Micro Four thirds system, which has served me well over the last 4 years or so, that kit being my Olympus OMD EM1 MK II body with the M.Zuiko 12-100 F4 IS Pro, Leica 8-18 F2.8-4 and my M-Zuiko 25mm F1.2 Pro for low light. I've been happy with this set up, although as we all know, low light isn't the M4/3's system forte.
Thus I was pondering taking instead either my Fuji X-H1 or X-T3 bodies, with the Fujion 10-24 F4, Fujinon 18-55 F2.8-4 (or the 16-55 F2.8), Fujinon 55-200 F3.5-4.5 and my Fujinon 35mm F2 for low light. That would give me as much coverage (actually slightly more) than the Olympus set up, albeit with one more lens. The thought with this set up being the slightly better low light performance (for example for Disney nighttime parades firework shows etc.).
But then I'm thinking, if I want low light performance, why not take my new Nikon Z6 with the 24-70, 70-300 AF-P and 50mm F1.8 G (note I don't have any ultra wide angle option yet for the Z system) which bests all the others for low light ?, in a package size similar to the Olympus or Fuji Set up.
Whilst pondering all this, it just got me thinking, as much as I love having the choices I do (and I do use all 3 systems very frequently), I got to thinking that sometimes having less choice is better.
For instance, I remember about 10 years ago, where I'd pretty much lost my mojo for photography and had sold off almost everything I owned except a Nikon D300s and a single Nikon 16-85 zoom, and to be honest the freedom this allowed me ensured I got some of the best memories of many holiday taken around that time, even if "technically" I'd taken better photos, (i.e. sharper, less noise, better DOF control etc).
As I say, I know in the grand scheme of things these are meaningless issues and real "first world problems", but anyone else think sometimes taking a simpler smaller setup is better ?
Last edited: