Losing GAS? Happy with your kit?

I always have a bit of GAS - it never entirely goes away - but what I've learned over the years is this: I buy a load of lenses but actually shoot a 50/1.8 most of the time!
 
I like compact kit. I have a Sony A7 which is quite compact but the newer models are bigger. I have 35mm and 24mm f2.8's and they're very compact but the f1.8 lenses I have are much bigger and on the verge of being too big for me as I really do not like bigger kit and being more obvious when taking pictures. If there was a 35mm f1.8 only slightly bigger than my 35mm f2.8 I'd be over the moon as sometimes in low light f2.8 isn't quite enough. I do have a compact manual focus 35mm f1.4 but manual focus can be a bit of a faff especially if I'm with other people.

I could one day be tempted to get a new A7 series camera as the newer ones have an electronic shutter and mine doesn't but that'll have to wait until my A7 dies. Other than that I have a Panasonic GM5 which I just love as it's so small and light and it has an EVF too. If they brought out a new one I'd be very tempted to get one.

I'm still weighing up if I should try and move some of my film era primes on but it's a difficult choice as although they sit mostly unused I do use them all in rotation but it just takes a long time :D but moving them on could be a hassle and I'd possibly only get peanuts for them. So what to do?
 
I’m GASing for Leica right now. will never be able to afford it, so how do I stop GASing?
 
If it simply must be a Leica you can get a Leica film camera for under £200 and up so there's something for just about every budget and there's a lot of choice for lenses. Go for a Voigtlander lens and a cheaper Leica body and enjoy :D
 
Problem is, I want the M11 with a 50mm Noctilux + 21mm 1.4 Summilux :(
 
I'm not massively well clued up on Leica, but I'm starting to think I should take an interest in their monochrome cameras. I'm finding increasingly that a 50mm lens would be all I'd need and not a particularly 'fast' one either. Which means it's probably doable...
 
PJH99 said:
Problem is, I want the M11 with a 50mm Noctilux + 21mm 1.4 Summilux :(
Click to expand...

As another possible path to take... I use manual lenses a lot on my Sony A7 at the fraction of the cost of a digital Leica RF.

I can see the appeal in manual RF cameras and I've had them in the past and there is a lot to be said about the manual camera with manual knobs and dials experience but a similar if less metal camera with knobs experience can be had from mirrorless at a fraction of the cost and very probably with more accurate focus too.

All just things to think about :D
 
alexcarnes said:
I'm not massively well clued up on Leica, but I'm starting to think I should take an interest in their monochrome cameras. I'm finding increasingly that a 50mm lens would be all I'd need and not a particularly 'fast' one either. Which means it's probably doable...
Click to expand...

An obvious point to think about is that if you have a mono camera all you'll get is mono pictures but if you have a colour capable camera you can still get mono from it.
 
woof woof said:
An obvious point to think about is that if you have a mono camera all you'll get is mono pictures but if you have a colour capable camera you can still get mono from it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've got half an eye to it. The sharpness of those mono sensors is absolutely sensational, although of course, like most people who print, I'm aware that this sharpness is rarely visible out in the real world. And, indeed, extreme sharpness isn't always what you want, despite what some camera reviewers seem to think! ;-)
 
woof woof said:
As another possible path to take... I use manual lenses a lot on my Sony A7 at the fraction of the cost of a digital Leica RF.

I can see the appeal in manual RF cameras and I've had them in the past and there is a lot to be said about the manual camera with manual knobs and dials experience but a similar if less metal camera with knobs experience can be had from mirrorless at a fraction of the cost and very probably with more accurate focus too.

All just things to think about :D
Click to expand...
it’s the RF system that makes me want the Leica. I already have an A7R3 with 50mm and 21mm Zeiss Loxia and I do like the combo, but there’s something about the rangefinding and zone focusing technique that really appeals. I only know of the Pixii as far as competitors are concerned, but its such a new company, so the products are at the moment, untested. Also the price of the Pixii is close to that of a used M10, so I’m not that tempted. - also, the pixii is APS-C
 
Mr Perceptive said:
At a slight loss of sensitivity and spatial accuracy - if you are being picky!!!
Click to expand...

We're faced with choices.

I've never really been into B&W as that's just not how the world is and it's just not how we see and if we're restricted to B&W we miss out on so much. One thing I don't like is the overly dark B&W that seems common these days. As always good luck to those who love that or any form of B&W but modern B&W is a teen tiny part of what I want to see.
 
woof woof said:
We're faced with choices.

I've never really been into B&W as that's just not how the world is and it's just not how we see and if we're restricted to B&W we miss out on so much. One thing I don't like is the overly dark B&W that seems common these days. As always good luck to those who love that or any form of B&W but modern B&W is a teen tiny part of what I want to see.
Click to expand...
Too dark and far too much contrast.

I like B&W though. There's no deep, philosophical reason for it, I just find it appealing.
 
PJH99 said:
it’s the RF system that makes me want the Leica. I already have an A7R3 with 50mm and 21mm Zeiss Loxia and I do like the combo, but there’s something about the rangefinding and zone focusing technique that really appeals. I only know of the Pixii as far as competitors are concerned, but its such a new company, so the products are at the moment, untested. Also the price of the Pixii is close to that of a used M10, so I’m not that tempted. - also, the pixii is APS-C
Click to expand...

I'm sure you know that with a modern camera you can go zone, hyperfocal or Merklinger to your hearts content and when not using those techniques you can focus very accurately without focusing and recomposing plus of course there are no parallax problems.
 
alexcarnes said:
Too dark and far too much contrast.

I like B&W though. There's no deep, philosophical reason for it, I just find it appealing.
Click to expand...

I really do not see the attraction of the overly dark stuff but I suppose a tiny percentage of the pictures would interest even me :D On the whole though it mostly looks like an over processed mess to me and I generally just don't see the attraction beyond the odd few.

I do do the odd B&W conversion, probably badly as it's only to my taste but it's a small percentage for me.

I can see the appeal though :D
 
woof woof said:
I really do not see the attraction of the overly dark stuff but I suppose a tiny percentage of the pictures would interest even me :D On the whole though it mostly looks like an over processed mess to me and I generally just don't see the attraction beyond the odd few.

I do do the odd B&W conversion, probably badly as it's only to my taste but it's a small percentage for me.

I can see the appeal though :D
Click to expand...
The same applies to colour these days, though - there seems to be a fad of processing rather dark, and because image editing software has lots of sliders, people seem to think you have to use them all, and at maximum!

I hate that bloody wide angle, foregroundy, saturated to hell photo one sees on the front of photography mags. I suppose in an era when there're so many photos out there it becomes a process of seeing who can shout the loudest!

I've got a very light touch in processing - probably why no one likes my photos! :-D
 
alexcarnes said:
The same applies to colour these days, though - there seems to be a fad of processing rather dark, and because image editing software has lots of sliders, people seem to think you have to use them all, and at maximum!

I hate that bloody wide angle, foregroundy, saturated to hell photo one sees on the front of photography mags. I suppose in an era when there're so many photos out there it becomes a process of seeing who can shout the loudest!

I've got a very light touch in processing - probably why no one likes my photos! :-D
Click to expand...

Well, I've just liked one of your pictures and more will probably follow :D It's tastefully and sympathetically done, IMO.

I suppose you're right, colour can be overdone just as B&W can. Some overly processed sliders to the max HDR shots make me wince.
 
woof woof said:
Well, I've just liked one of your pictures and more will probably follow :D It's tastefully and sympathetically done, IMO.

I suppose you're right, colour can be overdone just as B&W can. Some overly processed sliders to the max HDR shots make me wince.
Click to expand...
Thanks! :)

That one illustrates pretty well my normal approach to processing w.r.t. contrast, brightness etc. It's not the most interesting photo I've ever taken, although I don't suppose there's anything particularly wrong with it either. I'd stop down a bit more, given a second chance!
 
alexcarnes said:
Thanks! :)

That one illustrates pretty well my normal approach to processing w.r.t. contrast, brightness etc. It's not the most interesting photo I've ever taken, although I don't suppose there's anything particularly wrong with it either. I'd stop down a bit more, given a second chance!
Click to expand...

I can understand you saying that it's not the most interesting picture but I can see the appeal and I do think it's sympathetically done. I take a post quite a few pictures but I can only photograph what's in front of me, I only photograph people, things and scenes that mean something to me and I process pictures for myself. This all means that a picture that might mean something to me might mean nothing and be of no interest to someone else. Such is life.
 
I do think there ought to be a vintage equivalent to GAS. VAS, maybe?
 
I've been researching, seeking and buying old film era lenses since I got into mirrorless and discovered I could focus very accurately but I must stop now and should even move some and maybe most on.

It's all mass market stuff though, Minolta Rokkor, Olympus Zuiko, Canon FD, NIkon, Takumar and a few in various compatible mounts. If I sat and added it all up I'd probably find I've probably spent a couple of thousand or so or maybe more but that's over a period of years and is only the cost of two or three modern lenses so all in all not too expensive a hobby and I have used them all.

I've no real interest in old film cameras though. I did briefly try and go back to film but it didn't last.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I've been researching, seeking and buying old film era lenses since I got into mirrorless and discovered I could focus very accurately but I must stop now and should even move some and maybe most on.
Click to expand...
I've come to realise that I actually shoot standard lenses - usually a 50/1.8 - and yet I already have six or seven lenses for the L-mount system I moved to only a couple of years ago. I just don't learn! :ROFLMAO:
 
I probably have in the region of 15 or 16 old film era 50's. They're all slightly different and give a slightly different look at their widest apertures which is maybe where the differences show up the most and of course they all look physically slightly or even a lot different and can handle differently.

A while back I was mostly a 50mm guy but these days I'm mostly 35mm.
 
There's a case to be made for the 35. In some compositions, my beloved 50 can render ever so slightly telephoto with a hint of compression. To my eyes, anyway!
 
One pairing I do like is 24 and 50 or even 24 and 35mm. I sometimes take a pairing like that.

50mm is often thought to give a pretty natural perspective but with compression and perspective it's important to remember that this isn't a lens thing it's a camera to subject distance thing and that's the reason why "zoom with your feet" isn't always the answer :D

There are a couple of things we can do though if we find ourselves "stuck" with just a 35 or a 50mm. We can alter the camera to subject distance and crop later and modern kit can give us scope to do this and we can also do panoramas.

I'm sure you know all that :D but these things are worth keeping in mind if we ever feel limited by our beloved prime focal length :D
 
Last edited:
I keep a Fuji XF10 (eq 28mm) on my belt, formerly a Ricoh GR. But I don't often reach for it these days. At least 90% of the time, the fifty is right for me. I wouldn't be without a 28, although it's an unpopular focal length and there aren't many options. Most manufacturers make a 24mm prime instead; Sigma make an Art series 28/1.4 but it's huge. I won't buy a 24 for my Panasonics, I just can't get on with it.

Incidentally, I've been dipping my toes into the 40mm pond with the Sigma Art 1.4 but it messes with my head, I can't get used to it at all! :eek:
 
I did read some time ago that more pictures are taken with 28mm equivalent lenses than with anything else due to smartphones. 28mm isn't exactly a favourite of mine like 35mm is but I do have several old film era ones and a modern AF one too. I have a few 24mm film era primes and recently bought a very compact modern AF 24mm f2.8 and it's an amazing lens and easily better than any of my film era 24's. It does have quite epic distortion but this clears up with a lens profile and I'm yet to see any bad side effects.

I have a 40mm f1.2 for my A7 and also a 40mm equivalent lens for Micro Four Thirds. I find them ok, I'm sure I can see that it's not as wide as 35mm and not as tight as 50mm but they do seem to be a happy medium between the two and they're liveable for me. I recently got a tiny Panasonic GM5 and I use a 20mm f1.7 with it (40mm equiv) and often take it out when I don't want the bulk of the Sony A7.

GM5 and 20mm (40mm equiv) snap :D

Z46RAkv.jpg



40mm f1.2 snap.

FPC3Rm4.jpg


24mm snap.

wEk9LQg.jpg
 
Last edited:
alexcarnes said:
Nice photos! You can obviously make it work for you.

I've had a few successes with it, but the problem seems to be that my brain expects to see 50mm when I raise the camera to my eye! :ROFLMAO:

https://flic.kr/p/2mJfBBP
View: https://flic.kr/p/2mJfBBP


https://flic.kr/p/2mJ6i7W
View: https://flic.kr/p/2mJ6i7W


The Sigma 40/1.4 is the 8th wonder optically, however!
Click to expand...

Yup. I loved 50mm but somehow migrated to 35mm and have the same feelings but 40mm is something I could live with. I do feel a bit disappointed when I have to crop pictures but this is I admit a bit silly :D

Again, nice B&W pictures from you there and I'm sure stuff of that quality will get you plenty of likes :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top