You need a separate body+lens from a different system because your Sony system can't handle it?
Think you are making TG's point
Ha no, I just don't need to take more expensive gear when i don't need to. Because I know the prints that i make, the web sizes that I use. I know I only shoot in natural light too so I take the minimal that i need to get the job done.
If your job didn't involve any photography Raymond would you be happier with lower spec gear?
I would, would probably be happy enough with an APSC camera and a couple of decent lenses.
Probably not because when i started out I started with lower spec gear, I bought a 30D (good body at the time), but I had a kit lens and 50/1.8. What frustrated me the most wasn't the sharpness, it was the variable aperture in the kit lens, F/3.5 was only achievable at the widest focal length, the second you zoom it drops down and at that point anything ISO800 and over looks like crap.
Then I remember also getting a Sigma 24-70/2.8, the old one, thinking "sure", I can save some money in not getting the Canon. I returned it because it just didn't focus well.
I sold it all, which wasn't much and started from scratch with lenses (bought a 16-35L, then a Canon 50/1.4 (got rid of that….but it paid for itself), then 135L, 24-70L etc etc), basically I thought, whether I was right or wrong, knowing myself and I am a person who just have to get the top end model wherever possible for whatever thing that i buy, so when I buy my car (i am only on my second, but both I have the largest engine the model offers), when I got my iMac I got top spec that it offers, when I get my glasses I tick every option on the list (highest index, coating etc), so I know myself enough that I should just stop beating around the bush and I am not fooling anyone that if I get the lowest end version of the item offered, it will bug me constantly not getting the top end one and I know eventually I will just end up getting it. So it became both a psychological thing and also saving money thing, just buy the best in day 1, saves losing money upgrading bit by bit. My first guitar isn't a £100 Yamaha Pacifica, but a Taylor T5, and my first full electric guitar is a PRS Custom 24 with a 10-top, my first Les Paul style guitar isn't an Epiphone but a Gibson Custom Shop.
So I am fairly certain that if I don't shoot for work, I would still have nice lenses. I might get the Fuji system and be happy with that, as I don't drive a Ferrari, but I know I would get the top end Fuji model and I would get the fastest Fuji glass. It's just my personality. I believe that if you buy cheap, you buy twice. And ultimately you end up spending more. So in the long term it is cheaper to get something nicer to begin with. It's what hold me back from getting something like an Apple Watch, it just gets outdated and I will have to replace it. Whereas I am happy with an mechanical automatic that only tells time. It does nothing else but tell time but I know it is a quality product and will lasts years and decades. Although weirdly it doesn't apply to everything in my life, I am happy wearing the cheapest of T-shirts, or eat cheap bread with store brand sausages. Mostly though, I would keep the philosophy that I get good quality gear from the beginning. My experiences tells me that is the right way to go. My iMac still going strong from 2012, my guitars have not lost any money really from the price i paid for them amazingly, in part due to the Brexit (and my guitars are Made in USA, so pound weaken means all guitars gets more expensive), and even my car….only lost £3000 in depreciation after 3 years.
Yeah, that point doesn’t really apply when you have all the gear under the sun. If anything, why on earth would you use an x-t1 when you have everything else at your disposal.
Why? I explained why in the very sentence you quoted.