Leaderboard

Well I for one would love to see them make one that looked like the ones they used to make.

I think Nikon/RED discounted because Nikon will come out with a cinema camera that will fill the Kimono space (something in lines to the C70 / FX3 FX6). I’ve heard Nikon will take those entry camera sales and RED will stick to high end lines. I’m interested to see what a Nikon cinema camera looks like.

I probably won’t though for stills for a couple of reasons. First one is it can’t really replace my current line up of; 20-40, 28-75, 70-180. It’s a near perfect line up for me with the 28-75 being my all day workhorse, the 70-180 being my ceremony, speeches and couple lens, with the 20-40 being my after dark dance floor lens, so it’s not like I am continually lens swapping all day long, just at a certain points. Could I swap all 3 for the 28-105? Maybe, but with compromises at both ends plus having a lens which yes, does weigh less than all 3 combined, but individually makes for a relatively heavy unit with the Sony A7RV compounded further because I’d want to swap my baseplate for a battery grip. I think the system I have is a better one. For video though, yes. The compact and lightweight 28-70 has been my sole workhorse now for 2 seasons, but with a criticism. Shooting 4k 50p last year, it was perfectly long enough at 105 equiv but too tight at 42 equiv. This year shooting 6k 30p, it’s plenty wide enough at 28, but 70 is a bit short for my outdoor needs, which is about 70% of any job. 28-105 constant aperture f2.8 is both of the above use cases solved immediately so this lens is a no-brainer really for next year. I had the Leica 24-90 last year but too big, too heavy and not constant aperture. It was a great photo lens but less so for video. The weight of the 28-105 is just within my self-imposed limits and the only thing I do not like is the external zoom, but hey ho. The next thing I’d like to see is Sigma make a sibling to the 28-45 f1.8. That WOULD change the game for me, for stills at least. The 28-45 for indoor work paired with something around 50-100 f1.8, also with internal zoom, on a 60+mp sensor body and that’s it, I’m done for the remainder of my career, whether that be on my current A7RV, or on a potential future Lumix S2R. Ideally, an S2R so it’s all within one single system, but either way I would not be too fussy as both options would be unbelievably good.

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but some of the smoke signals from the Dolomites have been talking about the possibility of an upcoming Fuji X-M5. That put me in a rabbithole of "What other X-M" bodies were there? Seems to just be X-M1 previously, but then somebody mentioned that X-M series are X-Trans processor unlike the X-A series which have basically the same body, but Bayer sensor. That led me to learning about the X-A7 which looks really pretty tiny. According to the pictures on cameradecision, it's even smaller than the GX85 (barely - 3mm in each dimension, but surprisingly about 25% lighter). They're also not horribly expensive at about $600 used. Has anybody here used one / have feedback on it? I'm guessing not since I couldn't find any reference to it when re-skimming this thread (and putting x-a7 in the search box got no results). I'm just about to start poking around in YouTube to see if it's worth keeping an eye out for a good deal on a used one. I keep thinking about getting a little Fuji X camera as a daily carry sort of thing - maybe a really little one could be an option.

Phones was one the missus and I were discussing just the other day and how, other than some photo/lens options, there hasn't been anything we have been slightly interested in with the last 3 or 4 iterations of the iPhone. Nope, nothing, nada. I think I have peaked for my needs on all things tech whether cameras, audio gear, laptop, phone... Now it's not even a case of 'want', but rather 'might like' at some point if it floats my boat. I'd rather see innovation now rather than incremental steps of 'progress' of essentially 'the same thing'.

I've often made the observation that for many years (I'd say arguably since roughly the Nikon D7100 era, and even arguably even earlier since say the D7000 or D700) that dedicated stills cameras have got "good enough" for many photography users. Thus even without the rise in smartphone photography capabilities, then we'd have seen a steep decline in stills camera sales due to the average consumers no longer needing to have a strong driving push to upgrade. The same thing has now happened with video and hybrid cameras as well, they've reached for most people "the good enough" stage, that upgrades for many people are no longer strictly necessary to do so frequently. (we can leave it to another thread to debate exactly when did that happen.... S5mk2? a7Smk2? P4K? X-T3? GH5? GH4?) Perhaps something has similar has happened for PCs. Ages ago it used to be every couple of years the leap forward in computers was so huge that it made sense to consider an upgrade, even for "average joe consumers". Then PCs of the past got "good enough" that consumers might happily go a five years lifecycle with them. Until now these days, you could get an ancient ThinkPad T440 for next to nothing, spend a hundred bucks on an extra stick of RAM and a new SSD, then put a fresh OS install on it, and you'll have a laptop that's perfectly fine for the needs of most average users. It shows that the lifecycles for PCs these days are easily over a decade plus years. Which is likely also linked to the big drop in interest in people building their own PCs, which is much less common these days. (And I haven't even touched on the massive rise in popularity of smartphones and tablets, meaning many people don't need need their desktops/laptops, or at the very least use it far less than they otherwise would have)

Last night I went around town with the GX85 and 12-35mm F2.8 testing if F2.8 was fast enough for "well lit" places at night. Turns out it was fine, and most scenes were at ISO 400-1600 with a 360 shutter, but unexpectedly, DR was a challenge. I posted about it in my other thread, so I didn't dilute this one too much. There's sample pics over there too. Obviously the low-light performance of the camera makes a difference, and some might not be wanting to be shooting at ISO 3200. From that perspective, the F1.7-1.8 lenses being mentioned seem like a great aperture - not so much as to make the lens huge but not so little that quality suffers.