Leaderboard

Synth reviewers on YouTube are plagued by copyright strikes when they demonstrate filter sweeps as someone has managed to convince the YouTube content review clowns that they own the copyright to the sound of a filter sweep. If I could convince YouTube that I own the copyright to the phrases "Hey, whats up, its your boy..", "with that being said", "lets get into it" and "I have been sent this for free but..." then I'd be rolling in it.

One but far from the principal and not anywhere near enough reason alone. But not to keep you in suspense, basically moving from what was a 4 camera plus back up camera plus 8 lens approach with L Mount (Panny & Sigma) to a 3 body + 4 lens Fuji system.

Decreased kit, more flexible, more focused, less fatigued, more creative. 4) Purchased 3/4 cameras used and about 1/2 my lenses. There will be a loss of course, but that’s partially against XX000 turnover. I’m expecting a ‘cost to change’ of around 3k and min 3 years use unchanged of the new system.

Yes, very true. I had the f1.8 trinity of: 17mm, 45mm, 75mm and all were good with the 75mm being excellent, but of very limited use. As a compact pairing, the 17 & 45 could accomplish most of my photo needs especially being like a full-frame equivalent of a 34 and a 90. I was very attracted to building a system earlier this year off the f1.7 zoom pairing of the 10-25 and 25-50 which would have given me even more (albeit for some extra bulk) or 20-100mm in a pretty compact package compared with a FF system. I would have done it had my needs been purely video because for my needs, that would tick every box. It was just the stills side I could not quite commit to, coming from what would be full-frame 47mp S1R! The 26mp XH2S and 33mp R7 both in APSC were/are 'kind of' just about acceptable to me and having come from XT3 (and many previous Fujis since the X line was introduced), I could have made a case for. But the 40mp XH2 sealed the deal really. Arguably, the bodies and lenses are not much different to many full-frame in terms of size & weight (it's 4/3rds for sure where there is a bigger difference) but enough as an overall package/system to work for me. Could I have made a 4/3rds system work? Absolutely and no one would have known any different except for one person. Me. And that is where/why I drew the line I did... My clients would 100% not notice any difference if I produced a result 4/3rd based, but part of my own 'creative process' would be lost by doing so and this is far more to me than simply running a business for financial gain. Where do you draw the line? Some might argue that, "well, why don't you stick with full-frame and not 'downgrade' to APSC?" or, "actually, why not go digital medium format and look at the GFX100s?!" And I have. I've looked at and made business cases for a GFX100s based system and even the new Hassie X2D, but what it came down to in the end was that 'overall system' and cost and what I could justify. If I had the money, I would 100% build a stills based system off that new Hassie, but arguably would need a pair and 3 lenses (and I don't have close to the 30k it would require) plus invest in the OM-1 + zoom based system I outlined above for another 8k making a total system cost of pushing 40,000!! Instead, I'm 'settling' for a Fuji based system of around 10k new cost, less the trade in of all my L Mount which will cover at least 50% of that. Economics has a large part to play!!

Native Z lenses give the absolute best AF performance so you should be set.

Makes it far more logical by a country mile to buy it in the PL mount version instead of the EF mount

Finally had the time to research this a bit more and you are right. My older Nexto ND2901 was able to backup footage via my Sandisk CF Express Type B reader. The caveat is it doesn't seem to be able to do it while running on batteries - it must be plugged in, so not as portable as I'd like it to be but a lifesaver no less. Either way these Nexto units have proven their worth - even as the company itself has apparently gone out of business.