Rationalising my many cameras, lenses, systems, options

ok down to the brass tacks. So what if you have 3 cameras ? Really are your kids going to school in rags, are they getting enough to eat are they getting LOVE, do you even have kids ?

Its not what you have its your priorities, you only live once :)
I simply enjoy owning one camera more than three, if it’s the right camera.
 
Last edited:
I simply enjoy owning one camera more than three, if it’s the right camera.
But you said you don't want to buy/sell any longer?

There are many brands out there that you haven't tried that might suit you better.

There are several firms who will give you a trade-in allowance who will also offer you a wide variety of options.
 
Why do you feel like you have to rationalize anything?
Because it’s a mess. I don’t know how to use one of my cameras properly and barely use one other.
I have a whole bunch of cameras, and while I doubt anyone would call it a rational collection, they all have their jobs to do. My Olympus E-M10II is for being very small and light, especially when set up for garden macro with the Oly 60mm. Various Fujis are for being various Fujis and being workhorses for general shooting, and my Pentax KP is for having an optical viewfinder when I want one and for using the Pentax lenses I own that aren't duplicated in the other systems.
Glad you like that arrangement. I’m trying to find an arrangement I’d like more than the one I have right now.

Simplicity is very important to me, but I’ve allowed that priority to lapse in the hope of squaring various circles. It hasn’t worked.
 
I have a conundrum for you. It begins with my having too many cameras:
  • Panasonic GH5S
  • Olympus E-M5 Mark III
  • Sony α7C
I also have too many lenses. (You know it’s too many when you can’t recall what you have in the cupboard without thinking hard.)

What’s more, I’m not perfectly happy with any of these cameras.

I’m looking to simplify and rationalise. But how?

Let’s start with why I got these cameras in the first place.

I had an Olympus E-M10 Mark II for a long time and all was well. Really enjoyed that camera.

Then I got curious about video and learned that:
  1. the E-M10 Mark II shoots dire video, worse than my seven-year-old iPhone
  2. most mirrorless cameras have major flaws for video, a bit like stills cameras had major flaws for stills 15 years ago (and like stills cameras back then, each new model brings real improvement).
The GH5S had the fewest flaws at a price I could tolerate and also worked with my Micro Four Thirds lenses. So I got one.

Problem is, two flaws the GH5S did have turned out to be biggies: no IBIS and no phase-detect autofocus.

I figured I would upgrade my stills camera to an E-M5 Mark III that could be pressed into video service when I needed IBIS or phase-detect autofocus.

Well, the Olympus had mediocre autofocus but excellent IBIS. And that was enough to make me lazy about using the notionally superior GH5S for video.

But when I do break out a tripod or gimbal and set up focus pulls and all, I still love the GH5S and its results – though that is not often now that I have a toddler.

So, yes, my baby became a toddler and I discovered why people care about tracking focus. The α7C was about the smallest, lightest, cheapest, coolest way to get good tracking autofocus. And it was amazing. Wow.

However, my Olympus camera and lenses are still far smaller than my Sony system, equivalence be damned. The result is that I still end up packing the Olympus almost all the time. I’m still not comfortable with my Sony’s operation – not inside-out like the Olympus.

Although the Olympus is my most-used camera by far, it’s the very one I’m thinking of selling. That would force me to deeply learn my Sony and also use E-mount lenses better-suited to my laziness: small and light ones rather than optically ideal ones.

Why not sell the GH5S? It feels like a camera that will age better than most. Although it is compromised by its features, within those limitations it performs exceedingly well, almost flawlessly. I like that.

What’s more, the GH6 and Panasonic’s recent move to phase-detect have wrecked the used value of my GH5S, while the E-M5 Mark III is oddly expensive on the used market.

Why not sell both Micro Four Thirds cameras and the lenses? I love several of these lenses and feel like going down with this ship, should it finally heel over. Maybe the last Micro Four Thirds camera made will be worth hanging onto for a decade (the OM-1 is close).

The main things I dislike about the α7C, in turn, are its awful menus / display UI design (hardware UI is brilliant) and lack of 10-bit log video.

So I’m even wondering about selling it too before Sony releases an α7C II that might be perfect for me. But who knows about the European price of that camera or what fresh weirdness it will bring. Often the first generation of a camera concept is the purest expression of its designer’s intentions, in my experience. Besides, what would I use in the meantime? And what if Sony never makes this follow-up?

I don’t relish any more selling and buying either.

Two recent cameras have even made me wonder if I bet on the wrong horse with Sony: the S5 II and R8. I know from experience how well Panasonic does video, and now they’ve fixed the focus. And although the R8 lacks IBIS, it’s an amazingly potent camera elsewhere for the asking price, most unlike Canon’s usual cynical hobbling. But then I compare those lens systems to Sony’s and remember why I wanted a flat-top rangefinder body in the first place.

Ideally I’d have one true camera for the next five years, as I did with my E-M10 Mark II before video broke everything for me.

Thoughts? Strong opinions? Brickbats?
To anybody who has ever contemplated working the counter at a retail camera shop, read this 5 times. You are welcome.

Hey, you asked for brickbats....LOL.

And good luck, I am a Nikon guy for 40 years so I got nothin'.
 
I have a terrific collection of pictures of my daughter and her friends growing up and never wanted for better autofocus. When I browse those photos, it's hard to imagine I've missed anything.
Interesting. Do you think you’d still feel that way after experiencing Sony’s focus? The focusing is genuinely impressive, like a late-model iPhone but with better control. Focus just works, even wide open at large apertures in low light. This capability creates new possibilities.
I hate to make a recommendation, as we're all different, but reading the lines and in between the lines, it sounds to me like you ought to ditch the Sony gear, buy an OM-1 and then sell off extraneous bits from the m43 kit (no need for an OM-1, GH5 *AND* EM-5 III. But I'm looking at it as a stills shooter - I have no idea what you want/need and how these cameras perform for video.
I struggle to believe the OM-1’s focus is really as good as my α7C’s. Would love to try it for a week to see.

The camera does lack a load of video features that Panasonics have, too.
Two recent cameras have even made me wonder if I bet on the wrong horse with Sony: the S5 II and R8.
Sounds a little like GAS and more compromises.
Sure!
You already mentioned you dislike the GH5s lack of IBIS - why invest more time/energy/money into going down that same road ?
I won’t, but I was surprised to see Canon of all companies make such an attractive camera. They usually charge a large premium while cynically restricting some aspects of performance to protect their next camera up. Not my style.
 
So, yes, my baby became a toddler and I discovered why people care about tracking focus. The α7C was about the smallest, lightest, cheapest, coolest way to get good tracking autofocus. And it was amazing. Wow.
I read over and over about tracking focus and how every camera basically sucks unless it's the latest & greatest Sony or Canon.
You are overstating it. Nobody says anything sucks. Some cameras don't track at all while among the ones that do some are better than others. While tracking isn't a necessity the better the camera is at it the fewer out-of-focus shots you will get. The first cameras that had tracking were the $6,000 plus sports DSLRs from Nikon and Canon. You tell those professional sports photographers that use them that they are wasting their money.
 
... I was surprised to see Canon of all companies make such an attractive camera. They usually charge a large premium while cynically restricting some aspects of performance to protect their next camera up. Not my style.
I thought that was common practice among lots of companies, How would they be able to sell the next camera up otherwise?
 
Sell it all to MPB in one lump and buy a top-of-the-line cell phone and just take pictures again. But this advice will be like poison to you because don't love photography, you love cameras, you love talking about them, holding them, looking at them, coveting them, discussing the minutia of hating menus etc...

--
Thanks,
Mike
https://www.travel-curious.com
 
Last edited:
IMO you need to figure out what you need from a camera system and work backwards through process of elimination to arrive at what you should buy. […] That kind of narrows it down a good bit there. The obvious first place to look IMO would be Fuji.
LOL. Fix your problem of too many camera systems with just one more!

I won’t do that, in part because I can’t stomach selling all my stuff (which I would need to do to fund such a move).

Besides, I love the E-mount lenses and think Sony will eventually catch up with cameras I like. They’re basically there with the α7 IV minus the flat-top style and a faster sensor.
 
...I have a conundrum with having too many cameras:

...I don’t relish any more selling and buying either.
Your two assertions seem to preclude a solution.

You don't seem in love with any you do have and you don't want to buy or sell - so what is it that you want?
Obviously I want to make sure I sell and buy the right thing this time, since I don’t enjoy the process. Hence this discussion.
 
Rationalizing a ton of photos taken can actually lead one to Rationalizing different systems from which to ultimately reach your goals. So you are hardly alone.

Those that say, well do more as a Photographer as opposed to thinking about your Gear as well, might not ever get that. Maybe they have not taken enough photos yet to understand that concept which happens to many creatives as they grow.

Which is apparently why we keep seeing the same Old same old. Not enough creatives out there. Just mostly duplication and not nearly enough innovation.
 
I thought that was common practice among lots of companies, How would they be able to sell the next camera up otherwise?
By putting more expensive components in the more expensive camera, such as better viewfinder optics, a stacked sensor, faster processor, better shutter, magnesium alloy body, built-in ND filters, etc.

Canon does this too of course, but they specialise in artificial segmentation, like needless overheating, micro HDMI ports in four-grand cameras, hot shoes missing contacts, etc.

Olympus shows that even great IBIS need not cost much, but Canon omitted it from the R8 presumably to make the R6 Mark II make sense.
 
Sell it all to MPB in one lump and buy a top-of-the-line cell phone and just take pictures again. But this advice will be like poison to you because don't love photography, you love cameras, you love talking about them, holding them, looking at them, coveting them, discussing the minutia of hating menus etc...
You’re wrong about my love of photography, but I invited brickbats so don’t blame you for this one.
 
Last edited:
Get a really nice, large cabinet. Finished with a wonderful wood grain, glass doors, black felt lining. Display everything you got. Take out what you need when you need it. Get another cabinet after you get your Nikon and Canon gear.
 
I think you should just learn to use your current Sony. Are you comfortable with the ins and outs of photography in general? Shooting in manual and all that?

If you have three different systems and none of them are satisfying you, I don't think switching systems is the answer. Everything you have is perfectly capable. Pick one of them (the Sony is probably the most versatile and will allow you to grow within one brand), and really work with it.

When I get a new piece of gear, I use it pretty much exclusively for a month or so to learn it and get to know it (body or lens)....sometimes it just doesn't come naturally and the inclination is to put it away and "try later." Often later never comes and then you think you need different gear, when really all you needed is time.

You may well find after a month that the Sony really doesn't fit you, but by then you will have concrete reasons why and know what to look for. Right now to say the menus are too difficult is kind of a cop out. I've never used Sony, but plenty of people love them and create fantastic images despite the menus, so I feel like that's just a lazy excuse on that front....

Good photography takes effort and work. Put in the time to the camera, rather than here.
 
... I was surprised to see Canon of all companies make such an attractive camera. They usually charge a large premium while cynically restricting some aspects of performance to protect their next camera up. Not my style.
I thought that was common practice among lots of companies, How would they be able to sell the next camera up otherwise?
By putting more expensive components in the more expensive camera, such as better viewfinder optics, a stacked sensor, faster processor, better shutter, magnesium alloy body, built-in ND filters, etc.

Canon does this too of course, but they specialise in artificial segmentation, like needless overheating, micro HDMI ports in four-grand cameras, hot shoes missing contacts, etc.

Olympus shows that even great IBIS need not cost much, but Canon omitted it from the R8 presumably to make the R6 Mark II make sense.
I've never owned a Canon or Olympus digital camera, but I'll bet Olympus has its own set of artificial segmentation behaviors, as other camera companies do (Sony and Nikon being in my list of personal examples).
 
Last edited:
Sell it all to MPB in one lump and buy a top-of-the-line cell phone and just take pictures again. But this advice will be like poison to you because don't love photography, you love cameras, you love talking about them, holding them, looking at them, coveting them, discussing the minutia of hating menus etc...
You’re wrong about my love of photography, but I invited brickbats so don’t blame you for this one.
Good to hear, but you still love the wold of cameras more as evidenced by all that you've accumulated. One more won't hurt you to add to the collection. As the world of dedicated cameras keeps shrinking you'll be doing your part to keep it alive awhile longer.

--
Thanks,
Mike
https://www.travel-curious.com
 
Last edited:
My only recommendation would be to get to know all of the cameras you have now pretty thoroughly before you make any decisions, in the light of what you want to do today. You may find you like one of them much more than the others, which will make your choice easy. Or you may find that one of them is very good at one thing you want to do, and another is very good at something else you want to do and you can see roles for both going on. Or maybe none of them are right, and you can use what you learned from the experience to select something else.

Deciding later to buy back something you sold is endlessly frustrating. The cheapest camera is always one you already own.

Instagram: @yardcoyote
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top