QotW What is the one camera you hate on paper but love in real life?

I wouldn't say I hated it on paper, but it was underwhelming on paper for the following reasons:

1. "only" 20 megapixels

2. Contrast detect AF

3. BIG for a m43 camera.

But, I took a chance and bought it because I had no better choice for an m43 camera.

1. the 20mp sensor was adequate for what I was using the camera for ... mostly kids sports, e.g., cross country, tennis, etc.

2. the AF was adequate

3. But the biggest thing that I liked about it is the way it felt in my hands and the way it balanced with various different lenses from small ones like Panny-Leica 15mm, Oly 40-150mm f2.8, or Panny-Leica 100-400mm. The grip was a good size and comfortable. The controls were well placed. And the camera felt light and well balanced with all types of lenses. From the system perspective, all the lenses balanced well with the body and felt quite comfortable.

Also, the 20mp sensor has been good enough, I'm not in a hurry to upgrade to the new G9 II, especially given the change in grip shape/size. And I've also not felt the urge to get something similar in the Fuji line up like the X-H2S or X-S20 even though I also have similar lenses, except for the equivalent for PL 100-400mm, for Fuji also.

UsherFellig said:

tbcass said:

Alan Sh said:

The Fuji X-E5. On paper it has a low resolution LCD and a mediocre EVF. In practice, it is indistinguisable from the X100VI which has, on paper, better items.

Guess which one goes out with me now...

Alan

Click to expand...

The X100vi has a fixed 35mm equiv lens while the X-E5 is an ICL. I would take the X-E5 because a fixed 35mm lens won't cover my photographic desires.

Click to expand...

The X100Vl has a fixed 23mm lens, 35mm equivalent view. That very cool image was taken with the 50mm-equivalent-view 35mm f2, my favorite Fujicron.

Click to expand...

Correct which makes the X100VI unsuitable for most types of photography. That's why I would never want one.

Everything on paper told me that the Df was "wrong" (...and not just for me but for everyone... the hybris!).

Now I own one and it's the only Nikon that I have and I'll never sell it (...for a numerous reasons that I don't explain here 'cos it would be a long list).

remrebus said:

Everything on paper told me that the Df was "wrong" (...and not just for me but for everyone... the hybris!).

Click to expand...

Interesting: I thought the same when I first held one — it felt so unergonomic for my hands that I put it down and dismissed it rightaway. However, knowing how many love theirs and that nice 16Mp D4 sensor I was tempted again only yesterday when I saw one going for a good price.

remrebus said:

Now I own one and it's the only Nikon that I have and I'll never sell it (...for a numerous reasons that I don't explain here 'cos it would be a long list).

Click to expand...

I'd be really happy to see your list if you feel like typing it after all!

tbcass said:

UsherFellig said:

tbcass said:

Alan Sh said:

The Fuji X-E5. On paper it has a low resolution LCD and a mediocre EVF. In practice, it is indistinguisable from the X100VI which has, on paper, better items.

Guess which one goes out with me now...

Alan

Click to expand...

The X100vi has a fixed 35mm equiv lens while the X-E5 is an ICL. I would take the X-E5 because a fixed 35mm lens won't cover my photographic desires.

Click to expand...

The X100Vl has a fixed 23mm lens, 35mm equivalent view. That very cool image was taken with the 50mm-equivalent-view 35mm f2, my favorite Fujicron.

Click to expand...

Correct which makes the X100VI unsuitable for most types of photography. That's why I would never want one.

Click to expand...

Disagree, 35mm is one of the most versatile prime lenses around.

You can do street, landscapes, architecture, portraits, travel, ...

Of course stuff like wildlife and sports, it won't be able to do it, the lens is way too short. But saying that it can't do most types of photography is a straight lie.

Ultimately the Hasselblad X2D II 100C seems perfect to me on paper

But I hate him, because I cannot afford to buy it.

tbcass said:

musicshootr said:

Mathew Anderson said:

Welcome to the latest installment of our Question of the week! For the unfamiliar, this series aims to get you all talking about specific photography-related questions in our forums.

Thus far, we've asked you about buying advice for cameras and lenses, and picked your brains on smartphone cameras. While there were some unconventional answers for each of those questions, we are shifting gears slightly this week and looking for potentially controversial opinions.

For this edition of our 'Question of the week,' we want to know about cameras that you don't like on paper yet love to use in real life, or vice versa.

We want some hot takes. We are curious what cameras you hate on paper, yet love in real life. Or, perhaps the opposite is true: you love a camera on paper but can't stand it in real life.

Was there a time you reluctantly picked up a camera you thought you'd hate, only to be pleasantly surprised? Or maybe one you were convinced would be perfect, but let you down on a shoot? We want to know the cameras that defied expectations – either in a good way or bad – and why that may have been the case.

We're open to even the most unpopular opinions, so don't hold back (within reason )!

Click to expand...

Sony ZV1. I hate the lack of viewfinder. I hate the lack of controls. I'm not a big fan of Sony SOOC colors. But holy crap, the pocketability. It's with me more than any other camera I think.

Click to expand...

One of the RX cameras would have been a better choice for you. Default Colors can be adjusted in camera if you shoot JPEG or better yet shoot RAW.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the better choice for my preferences, but definitely not the better choice for my wallet.

I typically shoot RAW and/or do some minor color adjustment in Lightroom. Adjusting the colors in-camera didn't really get me where I wanted to be but some editing does the trick.

Pierre Lagarde said:

Nikon ZF is a both sense answer to me, kind of a mixed bag then, as some Cons on Paper became Pros and some other stand as Cons but in a different way than I initially thought.

On paper :

• Cons :
  • The lack of FN2 button,
  • not much grip,
  • micro SD card slot,
  • and before firmware fix, the ISO management,
• Pros :
  • easy shooting modes usage thanks to dials and switches,
  • manual focus management,
  • the B&W switch,
  • IQ.

In the field, what comes out after nearly two years :

• Pros :
  • manual focus actually,
  • dials and switches actually,
  • micro SD card slot ending to be used as an internal memory (saved me at least once with failing SD card),
  • the lack of grip makes me hold this camera in a way I'm more involved in shooting. It's something to get used to, but in the end, it's rewarding.
  • more easily accepted in crowds, streets and events because of its look but also because of the way you hold it (so once again, the lack of grip becomes a kind of advantage in this regard)
  • the pleasure of using this camera every time, with all the above contributing
• Cons :
  • Using big lenses is still a bit more difficult than with "standard" modern cameras.
  • Addition of Fn2 button would be nice indeed.

The only thing I can't be discussing each time I look at it is, damned, it's beautiful.

Click to expand...

I admit that I also go for the aethestics quite often. It's why I love the look of Fujifilm X100V

gscotten said:

The Sony A6000 looked on paper to be significantly better than my Canon Rebel, but it was the worst camera I have ever tried to use. The grip was so small that my hand would start to cramp after a half hour holding it. Like holding a wet bar of soap. The buttons were tiny and fiddly, and in the end the pictures were no better than my Rebel. I was glad I hadn't sold the Rebel.

Click to expand...

Interesting, I hear a lot of good things about the A6700, so it seems they improved the series since the A6000. No surprise I suppose since the A6000 is from... 2014-15 I think.

Which Canon Rebel? I have the EOS T7

GeoffRG said:

Mathew Anderson said:

Welcome to the latest installment of our Question of the week! For the unfamiliar, this series aims to get you all talking about specific photography-related questions in our forums.

Thus far, we've asked you about buying advice for cameras and lenses, and picked your brains on smartphone cameras. While there were some unconventional answers for each of those questions, we are shifting gears slightly this week and looking for potentially controversial opinions.

For this edition of our 'Question of the week,' we want to know about cameras that you don't like on paper yet love to use in real life, or vice versa.

We want some hot takes. We are curious what cameras you hate on paper, yet love in real life. Or, perhaps the opposite is true: you love a camera on paper but can't stand it in real life.

Was there a time you reluctantly picked up a camera you thought you'd hate, only to be pleasantly surprised? Or maybe one you were convinced would be perfect, but let you down on a shoot? We want to know the cameras that defied expectations – either in a good way or bad – and why that may have been the case.

We're open to even the most unpopular opinions, so don't hold back (within reason )!

Click to expand...

I've never bought a camera based on the specification alone. Last time I was faced with a choice, in 1990, it was between the Canon EOS1 and the Nikon F4. I made the choice on the fact that the Nikon used AA cells.

Since then the possession of Nikon lenses, and Nikon's continued use of a very similar form facto for its flagship models, has meant that I've pretty much known what to expect before ever picking up the latest camera in the line (DSLR line that is).

There have been plenty of cameras that I have considered fine on paper but on looking at them decided that I would have problems with handling, the Zf being but one example.

Sorry but that's the opposite of what you're looking for.

Click to expand...

Totally valid, too!

Ostetti said:

Sorry, but i cant deny the beaulty of the Sony a850. Its high res enough, decent DR, and slow as f*, perfect for landscapes.
And one of the most beaultiful camera ever produced

Click to expand...

I just looked it up. You're right, it has a nice design, quite nice given it's from the 2010 era.

EOS M, later on M3 with 22mm f/2

It was my low profile companion, during working hours.

Kept in a lowepro camera pouch on my belt.

In reviews the results were soso, but I loved it..

My other camera was an EOS 5 series.

MJ_Photo38 said:

tbcass said:

UsherFellig said:

tbcass said:

Alan Sh said:

The Fuji X-E5. On paper it has a low resolution LCD and a mediocre EVF. In practice, it is indistinguisable from the X100VI which has, on paper, better items.

Guess which one goes out with me now...

Alan

Click to expand...

The X100vi has a fixed 35mm equiv lens while the X-E5 is an ICL. I would take the X-E5 because a fixed 35mm lens won't cover my photographic desires.

Click to expand...

The X100Vl has a fixed 23mm lens, 35mm equivalent view. That very cool image was taken with the 50mm-equivalent-view 35mm f2, my favorite Fujicron.

Click to expand...

Correct which makes the X100VI unsuitable for most types of photography. That's why I would never want one.

Click to expand...

Disagree, 35mm is one of the most versatile prime lenses around.

You can do street, landscapes, architecture, portraits, travel, ...

Of course stuff like wildlife and sports, it won't be able to do it, the lens is way too short. But saying that it can't do most types of photography is a straight lie.

Click to expand...

I didn't say can't. I said unsuitable although less than ideal would have been a better way to say it. 35mm is less than ideal for landscapes. Many people consider 28 or wider necessary. 35mm is too short for portraits. 70-135 is better because wider angle lenses tend to distort faces close up. Travel requires everything from 24 to telephoto to cover all your possibilities. As you stated Sports and wildlife are out of the question. My point is I would never want a fixed lens prime lens camera. For me it has to be an ICL camera or a fixed lens zoom. Other people of course disagree with that.

tbcass said:

MJ_Photo38 said:

tbcass said:

UsherFellig said:

tbcass said:

Alan Sh said:

The Fuji X-E5. On paper it has a low resolution LCD and a mediocre EVF. In practice, it is indistinguisable from the X100VI which has, on paper, better items.

Guess which one goes out with me now...

Alan

Click to expand...

The X100vi has a fixed 35mm equiv lens while the X-E5 is an ICL. I would take the X-E5 because a fixed 35mm lens won't cover my photographic desires.

Click to expand...

The X100Vl has a fixed 23mm lens, 35mm equivalent view. That very cool image was taken with the 50mm-equivalent-view 35mm f2, my favorite Fujicron.

Click to expand...

Correct which makes the X100VI unsuitable for most types of photography. That's why I would never want one.

Click to expand...

Disagree, 35mm is one of the most versatile prime lenses around.

You can do street, landscapes, architecture, portraits, travel, ...

Of course stuff like wildlife and sports, it won't be able to do it, the lens is way too short. But saying that it can't do most types of photography is a straight lie.

Click to expand...

I didn't say can't. I said unsuitable although less than ideal would have been a better way to say it. 35mm is less than ideal for landscapes. Many people consider 28 or wider necessary. 35mm is too short for portraits. 70-135 is better because wider angle lenses tend to distort faces close up. Travel requires everything from 24 to telephoto to cover all your possibilities. As you stated Sports and wildlife are out of the question. My point is I would never want a fixed lens prime lens camera. For me it has to be an ICL camera or a fixed lens zoom. Other people of course disagree with that.

Click to expand...

35mm is my least favourite FL because it’s harder to create a landscape narrative without any expansion or compression as clues.

By buying 35mm primes, I’ve found that you can use subject isolation (at a distance) to provide clues. I find 35mm is quite useful for environmental portraits and group shots, where perspective distortion is less because you are further from the subject.

If you have a strong structural narrative in your image, it can also work well by eliminating any confusion caused by expansion or compression.

It’s still not my favourite FL, but a 35/1.2 and 35/2 have me shooting my zooms more often 30-40mm f3.5-7.1. Not often enough for a fixed 35/3 equivalent lens to be attractive but enough that humping the 35/1.2 LAB is worthwhile.

A

Mathew Anderson said:

Ostetti said:

Sorry, but i cant deny the beaulty of the Sony a850. Its high res enough, decent DR, and slow as f*, perfect for landscapes.
And one of the most beaultiful camera ever produced

Click to expand...

I just looked it up. You're right, it has a nice design, quite nice given it's from the 2010 era.

Click to expand...

In my experience and knowledge the A900/A850 (and in general all Sony DSLRs) were something of the opposite. Great on paper, almost useless in work.

They had the highest resolution in the class and it was the only full frame with IBIS and Sony had a big marketing campaign around their Zeiss lenses, but I knew several die-hard Minolta fans whose faith in Sony/Minolta was broken by this camera.

Back then, Sony stubbornly refused to make a proper dust shaker, and their dust-shaking system, using a stabilizer, was useless. Basically, the sensor had to be cleaned of dust every day. The cleanest place in the home of a professional photographer who believed in Sony was his camera backpack. We tried to clean out all the dust back then and shared secrets for achieving it effectively. I used a lint roller and a car vacuum cleaner, but by the end of the shoot day, closer to the banquet, it was still dangerous to shoot at f/8 or slower.

Sony's quality control was terrible. Many cameras came out with faulty AF, and they didn't have in-camera adjustment. (We even had a conspiracy theory that Sony was sorting cameras and sending the defective ones to us in Europe. And the good ones were left for the American market. Some people believed in this and ordered cameras from US. I still don't know what to think about it.) Anyway, adjustment was done with those damned three screws, accessible through the bottom of the camera. But folks in Sony's service centers weren't very trained back then, and you often ended up taking a problem to a private repairman, even if you had a warranty. I knew a guy who really wanted to love his A900 and 135 1.8 Zeiss combo, but it drove him crazy because he couldn't get a sharp shot even when it was completely static scene. And there is no live view to do it at least manually.

The camera had a good control scheme, for example, it had a dedicated AF mode switch. But no one touched it because Sony's tracking AF was useless. People have criticized the Canon 5D2 AF, but the fact is that its center point is quite responsive and at least tries to track. In Sony DSLRs, continuous autofocus was no better than simply half-pressing the focus frequently in single-shot mode.

I was very deep into the local Sony/Minolta crowd. Perhaps somewhere in the depths of this forum there are 15-year-old comments in very bad English, from a forgotten account, about how good Minolta/Sony is and what plebeians Canon users are. But none of us in our local Minolta community really lasted until the years when Sony cameras could be used seriously again. Everyone simply switched to Canon much earlier. And one of the reasons for that is how bad the A900/850 really was.

The complaints about AF tracking were so rampant that I honestly thought it was a dud.

Took me a long time to see lot of practical videos showing the actual performance. When I got a good deal on a lightly used copy, I jumped on it.

The real-life story is something else. I often shoot fast action (classical dance) and Z7ii keeps up. The key is to get used to the AF modes and where it can lag. There are times when Z7ii fails and there are times when the G9ii fails. So, it's not bad by any measure. It was just one iteration behind the competition and not far.

More than that, the camera's feel and shooting experience are just great. Once I start shooting with it, I don't want to let go unless I need the G9ii with its long tele lens.

I shoot a lot in silent mode too. It has not been a problem except under some LED lights (produces banding).

I don't need a second body (one-to-one substitute/backup) for my hobby. Otherwise, I would buy another one for consistency and the same experience shooting side-by-side.

--
See my profile (About me) for gear and my posting policy. My profile picture is of the first film camera I used in the early 80s, photo credit the internet.

The one that fits best is my A7C. I resisted buying one for a long time because of all its problems: small and dingy EVF, terrible grip, old BIONZ X processor, mediocre IBIS...

But after the Panasonic S9 and Sigma BF launches, I took the plunge. Reluctantly, I must say. Any EVF is better than no EVF, and any IBIS is better than none, after all. I'm pleased to say that the AF works very well, the battery life is amazing, the image quality is solid, and the E mount has tons of relatively small and light lens options. It's obvious that, as the industry in general moves away from EVFs for brick cameras, only Sony and Fujifilm are bucking the trend, and I refuse to buy another Fuji ever again (of the four that I've owned, three developed faults). I love the A7C despite all its shortcomings, because in practice they don't impact me that much. It's one of those devices that just works.

The Canon RP would be another one. Despite the crusty sensor and wimpy battery, it's a very nice camera to use, head and shoulders above any of the first-gen Nikon Zs in usability. It's very snappy in operation, has all the basic functionality that one expects, and is quite light and comfortable. As for the cons, insert the obligatory comments about Canon's closed mount, and also about the prehistoric sensor. It's not hyperbole that even an MFT camera can lift shadows better than that dog.

On the other hand, the Fujifilm X-T3 was probably my biggest disappointment. It was supposed to be the ultimate Fuji at the time, with great performance in all areas. And everything inside this sexy and robust retro body. I could never gel with the controls, however, or the menus, which are worse than Nikon's. People love to crap on the old Sony menus because of their jargon, but I found Fuji's worse by a mile. And then mine developed a busted control wheel, and the exposure compensation dial simply died. It proved to be extremely delicate, far more than any other camera I've ever (ab)used, even the cheapo entry-level ones. The AF was not so great, nor was the battery life, and the video output barely caught up to the competition. The IBIS got in the way of sports and wildlife photography, so I needed to turn it off (and then I'd lose some other shot because I had no stabilization, later). Also, X-Trans is a scam, the only thing it does is slow LR down even more. I decided to never get another Fujifilm after that experience. Some of the Fujinons are fantastic, however, I'll give them that.

D135ima said:

Mathew Anderson said:

Ostetti said:

Sorry, but i cant deny the beaulty of the Sony a850. Its high res enough, decent DR, and slow as f*, perfect for landscapes.
And one of the most beaultiful camera ever produced

Click to expand...

I just looked it up. You're right, it has a nice design, quite nice given it's from the 2010 era.

Click to expand...

In my experience and knowledge the A900/A850 (and in general all Sony DSLRs) were something of the opposite. Great on paper, almost useless in work.

Click to expand...

That's a shame. I had an A850 for a while, back in 2019, and I was quite impressed with it, despite its age.

D135ima said:

They had the highest resolution in the class and it was the only full frame with IBIS and Sony had a big marketing campaign around their Zeiss lenses, but I knew several die-hard Minolta fans whose faith in Sony/Minolta was broken by this camera.

Back then, Sony stubbornly refused to make a proper dust shaker, and their dust-shaking system, using a stabilizer, was useless. Basically, the sensor had to be cleaned of dust every day. The cleanest place in the home of a professional photographer who believed in Sony was his camera backpack. We tried to clean out all the dust back then and shared secrets for achieving it effectively. I used a lint roller and a car vacuum cleaner, but by the end of the shoot day, closer to the banquet, it was still dangerous to shoot at f/8 or slower.

Click to expand...

In this you're absolutely right. They supposedly used an "anti-static coating" on their sensors in the DSLR era that was the complete opposite, as it worked like a dust magnet My first camera, a Sony A290, forced me to learn all sorts of advanced sensor cleaning techniques.

D135ima said:

Sony's quality control was terrible. Many cameras came out with faulty AF, and they didn't have in-camera adjustment. (We even had a conspiracy theory that Sony was sorting cameras and sending the defective ones to us in Europe. And the good ones were left for the American market. Some people believed in this and ordered cameras from US. I still don't know what to think about it.) Anyway, adjustment was done with those damned three screws, accessible through the bottom of the camera. But folks in Sony's service centers weren't very trained back then, and you often ended up taking a problem to a private repairman, even if you had a warranty. I knew a guy who really wanted to love his A900 and 135 1.8 Zeiss combo, but it drove him crazy because he couldn't get a sharp shot even when it was completely static scene. And there is no live view to do it at least manually.

The camera had a good control scheme, for example, it had a dedicated AF mode switch. But no one touched it because Sony's tracking AF was useless. People have criticized the Canon 5D2 AF, but the fact is that its center point is quite responsive and at least tries to track. In Sony DSLRs, continuous autofocus was no better than simply half-pressing the focus frequently in single-shot mode.

Click to expand...

This I simply can't understand. I managed to track go-karts, indoors, with a slow lens on the A850 very well, for example. It's not a fast camera, of course, and not ideal for sports or action, but it was capable of doing it when needed. For years and years I've read about how Sony's reflex AF was garbage and that even a basic Canon Rebel could beat them, when my experience has been the complete opposite. I had an A77II for a while and it was the best focuser I owned until I got an A6500, years later. None of the Canon DSLRs that I tried could match it. Admittedly, I've never used one of the 1D-series, or a Nikon DSLR, but there's undoubtedly a matter of approach and technique involved as well.

D135ima said:

I was very deep into the local Sony/Minolta crowd. Perhaps somewhere in the depths of this forum there are 15-year-old comments in very bad English, from a forgotten account, about how good Minolta/Sony is and what plebeians Canon users are. But none of us in our local Minolta community really lasted until the years when Sony cameras could be used seriously again. Everyone simply switched to Canon much earlier. And one of the reasons for that is how bad the A900/850 really was.

Click to expand...

Maybe I got an American market one, I don't know (I bought it used). But I'm sad to read this, because it doesn't match my experience at all, except for the part about sensor dust.

I try to know what I am buying before I do it so usually I pretty much like what I bought.

I own 2 that in my opinion are truly underrated:

1. Canon EOS M3
2. Panasonic Lumix G100

Both have great IQ and the Panasonic is a pretty fast camera. M3 has a totally unique colour rendering, the closest cameras to it are Powershot G7 X II and EOS RP.

The 3rd possibly underrated camera that I own is Panasonic Lumix TZ95D, the IQ in the 80-800 iso range is pretty good, the downside is the slow lens.

Jefenator said:

For certain metrics, my old Sony NEX-7 & A7 have been pitifully, laughably outmoded

Click to expand...

I don't think "outmoded" is the same as "hate on paper." Folks don't stop liking things just because they're old. That's a fact I appreciate more as I've been getting older too. ;-)

The NEX-7 and A7 were both awesomely great on paper at introduction, and they were best-in-class to use when new, so it really isn't that surprising that they are still appealing. Although I now shoot mostly with an A7RV and A7CR, I still use my NEX-7 and A7 on occasion. In fact, I don't use my A55 much, but when I do, it still feels pretty good, although the EVF looks pretty coarse by modern standards. Heck, my Sony F828 still gets occasional use because it works great for NIR.

I haven't used it in years, but my Minolta XK still feels darn nice in my hands... and I do still regularly use lenses that I originally used with it. ;-)

Jefenator said:

for quite some time now. But here's the thing:

1. They're nice and portable.
2. The IQ still holds up.
3. They're paid for.

Click to expand...

Those attributes just add to the familiarity, comfort, and pleasant memories we associate with our beloved old equipment...