Reasons to buy into a system - fave photos or lenses ?

Messages
2,127
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
Yes
Like a few on here along with being addicted to photography I admit I am also addicted to buying and I suppose selling equipment.

Over the last 10 years I have bought into Nikon (very briefly) Sony NEX (even briefer) Fuji and now M43.

I thought I'd have a look at the photos I have put on Flickr - these being my favorite and see if I seemed to prefer one system over another...

So and this is my personal opinion I definitely seemed to prefer the photos I took with my Fuji gear - particularly the 16mp XE-2 and X-T10.

This fuelled my GAS and I started looking at Fuji cameras !

But then I remembered the reason I use M43 - Price and Size...

I really liked the Fuji XC 16-50 lens (although not as small as my 12-32 at the moment) I was always happy with the results. However, there is no replacement for my other M43 lens the 35-100 f4-5.6.

So to summarise whats the most important decision in chosing a system/brand ? The Lenses avaiable or the photos that you produce ?

thanks...
 
I've switched from Nikon to Fuji to M43, it was more about flexibility, weight reduction and the bonuses any system offers. I like M43 for the fantastic IBIS, I also thought I would use 4K video more [Pany G80] but I haven't really. So now it's just the IBIS keeping with it, but I am looking elsewhere because I'm having issues with the camera that are irritating me. As for images, well I only ever shoot RAW and process all my images to my taste in LR so tbh, there's not a whole heap of difference there. You can push or pull images from a FF camera more, and you have more crop-ability, but M43 images can actually be sharper and need less post work. ISO performance I guess is the other factor, M43 being weaker than the others, but then you have that IBIS to allow for slower SS, in turn keeping the ISO down - unless you shoot a lot of action
 
Like a few on here along with being addicted to photography I admit I am also addicted to buying and I suppose selling equipment.

Over the last 10 years I have bought into Nikon (very briefly) Sony NEX (even briefer) Fuji and now M43.

I thought I'd have a look at the photos I have put on Flickr - these being my favorite and see if I seemed to prefer one system over another...

So and this is my personal opinion I definitely seemed to prefer the photos I took with my Fuji gear - particularly the 16mp XE-2 and X-T10.

This fuelled my GAS and I started looking at Fuji cameras !

But then I remembered the reason I use M43 - Price and Size...

I really liked the Fuji XC 16-50 lens (although not as small as my 12-32 at the moment) I was always happy with the results. However, there is no replacement for my other M43 lens the 35-100 f4-5.6.

So to summarise whats the most important decision in chosing a system/brand ? The Lenses avaiable or the photos that you produce ?

thanks...
It's got to be the whole package for me. It's not good buying into a system that produces lovely images but doesn't have the lenses that I'd use, but likewise there's no point having a system that has every lens under the sun that doesn't produce images that I like. Then there's the whole size/weight thing to consider. I bought a Sony RX100-3 and then a Canon g7x as I wanted something small for travel, but I wasn't impressed with the images (especially corner sharpness) so now have m4/3 as my "light" setup. THere's always a compromise, but for me you have to consider the whole system/package as I said (y)
 
Ummmmmm.... I have a reasonable amount of gear 'thoughts' but I'm pretty good at keeping it thoughts & not actual purchases.....

As for systems, there are several reasons for why people chose as they do.

I tried a friends Canon 450D at Castle Combe while I was still using my Fujifilm S9500 complete with broken dial so I couldn't change stuff..... I then bought a used 450D kit which I had a year or two & then naturally I progressed onto a 5D2 kit & went through what I guess is the usual lenses - 50/1.4, 17-40L, 85/1.8, 135L. I traded the 24-105L, 85mm & eventually the 17-40L for a smaller 28/1.8. I ended up with the 5D2, 28/1.8, 50/1.4 & 135L & I must say, that done me pretty well in all honesty.

The reason I swapped over to Sony A7 was that I got myself into adapted vintage lenses...... Better/easier MF, EVF, Focus peaking, Magnification, etc The size was a second but I guess yes, it is a benefit over the 5D2 for sure. I think I weighed the A7, Voigtlander 40/1.4 & the Leitz 90/2.8 I had at the beginning & it equalled roughly the weight of just the 5D2.....

I did try Fuji at one point - XE-2 23/1.4 & 56/1.2 - but I just didn't gel with it like I was hoping to. Graphite so it looked lovely but it didn't handle well & I wasn't that impressed with the files/IQ either.

I've been with Sony FE for several years now & although I am happy, I'm not.... If that makes sense?

They don't have a fast 35mm - The Batis 40/1.4 is on it's way (but I don't like the look of the Batis range....) I have the FE35/2.8 & the Voigtlander Nokton 40/1.4 & they both have compromises.....
The kit zoom is okay.... The Zeiss is not much better for much more money. The 2.8GM is too big/heavy/expensive, the 24-105 is also on the large size & over £1,000......
The 85mm is more than good enough.

Yes, I've bought into Sony but everything I now own has been bought used so cutting my loses at some point wouldn't be too crazy..... ;)
 
Went through a period of depression and sold a D7000, D7100, Nikon 105mm, fish eye lens, 17-55mm, 12-24mm. I'd told myself that I shouldn't sell any gear, ever. I regret selling any of the cameras and lenses apart from the 17-55mm which was too heavy for my sports shots. FOOL!
 
i think the lens is the real foundation of the photo.
i used manual nikkormats and nikkor AI lenses for years and found them to always give sharp detail on all manual nikon bodies
now we are into real body technology its has now seemed more important relative to auto and programmed speed/aperture choices via presets
the lens still has to effectively set the aperture which is noticeable in most extremes unless the photographer understands depth of field which is a first consideration
speed however isnt...unless you want slow or very fast exposure for reasons to suit creativity or necessity of subject matter
if you take a manual body and use a light meter to set speed and aperture with a well designed lens...irrespective of the number of elements
you will get first class images using the lenses dof graduations or body preview
the only advantages of auto bodies is the seamless speeds and apertures...and multi meterings/focus fields
i use spot metering and for a "serious" shot use manual focussing...
since i have a kit zoom i have a multi-moving element groups to make my lens lighter and smaller i have to accept that improvement
and of course my body is digital...and i think this is the real advance in photography coupled to sensor advances meaning full frame is not really necessary
i use M4/3 and glad of it as it has a friendly feel and suits my subjectivity...
the lowly tripod seen as a pain to carry can transform nearly all your shots...hand held is a compromise and steers one into higher speeds with no advantage...and loss of depth of field
its a complex subject lens selection due to many technical factors...simpler however is better...the prime lens will score imho over any zoom
i am changing over soon from my very aged lumix G1 to an olympus om de 10 II and keep the lumix 12-45 kit zoom...just personal choice
cheers
geof
 
Last edited:
There’s very little correlation between how ‘good’ most photos are and the gear that produced them, the common exceptions would be:
  • Specialist lenses like macro or super tele
  • The difference between carrying the gear or not (your smaller lighter gear)
A ‘good’ photograph is 98% what you point your camera at, the remaining 2% being whether the gear is capable.

I chose a brand based on a 20 year itch that needed scratching*, could I own ‘better’ gear? Of course I could. Would anyone looking at my pictures notice if I did? Would they hell

* and that’s as scientific a reason as anyone needs.
 
all modern kit is very good and able to produce great pics, the only people this "extra stop of dr, or slight res bump"" on the latest cams/lens really benefits is the various producers who make and sell the kit. but its fun to play with new toys, so what ever floats your boat really. I am off on hols soon so got a canon 6d and a 40mm pancake as my compact/light camera kit, but might go back to just film after-or who knows maybe the latest full frame from canon/Nikon:eek:. :p
 
One of my favourite cameras was the Fuji XF1. It was £130 new and a everything said it should be crap. Realistically it probably was, "high" ( 800+ ) ISO and it all fell apart but I loved that camera. It made me think about what I was doing, what the camera could achieve rather than " meh, I'll sort that in LR "

A fond memory...perhaps rose tinted glasses.

Systems are tricky. I'm back with Nikon now but I feel that they're more a " tool for the job " and less about the experience. I miss that, hence my m43 addition
 
I tried someones canon at a football matc (dag & redbridge). so i bought one and over the yrs invested in lens so it would cost too much to change

HOWEVER I know we all strive to be better and have beter pics and some believe a change of gear helps... i don't believe that.. had I tried a nikon all those yrs ago and invested in nikon gar then I believe i would be in the same boat as now.. just different make...
 
I bought my first Nikon off the grape vine stories I had heard that Nikon were famous and made good lenses.

Fast forward to today and I have both Canon and Nikon. I shoot a load of sport so the Canon cropped sport bodies and fast non IS lenses are good value. For everything else, it's Nikon, I shoot sport with Nikon too, but owning both showed me there really is nothing in it. It's all down to you in the end!
 
Pleased to see that view from a pro. I fail to see how some think a change of system will make them a better photographer, yet many do so. I could switch in theory from Canon to Nikon but I would still be poor compared to Kipax and Phil V etc. You need to be able to see a good shot, unfortunately I do not have that ability most of the time.

I tried someones canon at a football matc (dag & redbridge). so i bought one and over the yrs invested in lens so it would cost too much to change

HOWEVER I know we all strive to be better and have beter pics and some believe a change of gear helps... i don't believe that.. had I tried a nikon all those yrs ago and invested in nikon gar then I believe i would be in the same boat as now.. just different make...
 
Although I shoot mostly film, I have bought into several digital systems. I have been most impressed by Fuji and M43, the latter mostly for video. The Olympus EM1 Mkii is a lovely camera.

Sony is not quite there yet for me, and the battery life has been pants. I know fanboys might tune in about improved later models, and fairy muff, but I never found the system stood out to me. I am sure something will come out I like in the future.

I love adapting my vintage glass to digital cameras as well, and mirror less has allowed me to do it effectively.
 
Pleased to see that view from a pro. I fail to see how some think a change of system will make them a better photographer, yet many do so. I could switch in theory from Canon to Nikon but I would still be poor compared to Kipax and Phil V etc. You need to be able to see a good shot, unfortunately I do not have that ability most of the time.
I’m sure there are some that believe swapping gear will make them a better tog, but there are also lots that swap just because they fancy a change, prefer using something else or simply that their needs change. As long as they understand that it’s not going to make them instantly better there’s no harm in it (y)
 
Back
Top