What gear are you using now, and why?

[Vivek]

Steen, What is "FX"?

 

[Steen]

Shh Vivek ... I have no idea, but people rave about it so I thought I'd better want it ...

 

[jonoslack]

Shh Vivek ... I have no idea, but people rave about it so I thought I'd better want it ...

:ROTFL::ROTFL:

I've heard that FX means

full frame

but I could be wrong!

I moved on from my Nikon gear to the fx A900 - the viewfinder is lovely, and so are the lenses, but they aren't small (the body isn't bad though). It's all rather simple and 'good olde days' after the Nikon stuff, but I like all that.

 

[Godfrey]

You're probably right . . . Mind you, does my M9 and A900 count as the 'Goode Olde Days' already?
...
Anyway - back to the thread - I'm using an M9 and an A900 because only cameras with a 9 in the name are any good.

Incidentally - just been looking at your website - lots of goodies - I especially like that Tate Modern shot.

For those with GAS, whatever they saw ten minutes ago could be the "Goode Olde Days". ;-)

Thanks ... I presume you meant www.gdgphoto.com ..? It's *way* out of date ... I really need to put up almost an entirely new set of galleries. But I also like the Tate Modern photos. I have a bunch more from there that I should render.

 

[sinwen]

Jorgen, I don't see why manufacturers couldn't sell as many cameras with simple settings than with hundred buttons, proof is many would be happy with it and even look for it , I am one of them.
It is just another product in the line up.

I read most of what is written in this site because it is mainly gear orientated and it gives me an idea of how you guys are coping with these new cameras.
If you struggle there is no reason I won't, I take all the pro and cons wich are important to me and deduct what gear could interest me..... and up to now, I haven't find any.

It doesn't matter really, dreaming is important also

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jorgen, I don't see why manufacturers couldn't sell as many cameras with simple settings than with hundred buttons, proof is many would be happy with it and even look for it , I am one of them.
It is just another product in the line up.

I read most of what is written in this site because it is mainly gear orientated and it gives me an idea of how you guys are coping with these new cameras.
If you struggle there is no reason I won't, I take all the pro and cons wich are important to me and deduct what gear could interest me..... and up to now, I haven't find any.

It doesn't matter really, dreaming is important also

Important point: Discussing gear is one thing, and pointless if we don't aim for the ideal solutions, at least for me. Using it is a completely different matter. Then we make the best out of whatever we have. The "good old" OM-1 wasn't perfect either (I was never able to see that metering needle in low light or on any dark background), but it's simplicity made it such a joy to use.

But I do not trust the electronic giants when it comes to catering for the needs and/or wishes of the customers. It's interesting how smaller manufacturers like Leica and Pentax often come up with equipment that work better for photographers. Unfortunately, they also have less resources, which sometimes influence the end result in a negative way, like with the M8 and K7. But they work hard and evolve. Just look at the M9, and soon, there will hopefully be a K9 as well

I have improved btw. This is nothing compared to my rants before I went digital. At that time, and it's just some five years ago, I couldn't really see the point of taking photos using a plastic container filled with more or less reliable electronics :ROTFL:

 

[Professional]

Which formats?
Film or digital?
I don't have much as Guy and his friends have but at least i try to have some good enough gear that i am so happy enough for years, also i am new to Photography, so until the time i can in same age of Admins here i may have same or more than what they have [i hope].

 

[David Schneider]

A couple of Canon 5D's (one of which will be sold when my 5dMarkII get here next week), 70-200 f2.8 IS, 70-200 f2.8 non IS, 17-40mm, 24-105, two 2x converters, one 1.4x converter.

Seriously considering mf digital for portrait studio work and hope to add it within next six months. Then I'll probably sell the remaining 5d and one of the 70-200 lenses.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Mamiya 645 with a ZD back. Ricoh GX100 to toss in a pocket. Leica M6 and M8 for travel. Mamiya 7II or 4x5 for film.

 

[Vivek]

:ROTFL::ROTFL:

I've heard that FX means

full frame

but I could be wrong!

Oh, the Nikon innovation! :ROTFL:

Thanks Jono for interpreting Niko speak.

While everyone used the convention- APS-C and full frame (35mm), Nikon brainwashed its customers with "DX" and "FX".

Those designations, unfortunately, do not apply to other brands.

 

[Steen]

(snip) unfortunately, (snip)

It's just me.
I have actually come to like the FX designation simply because I see the "X" as the illustrated diagonals for the frame which then can be either "D" for Digital Only or "F" for Goode Olde Full 35mm.
Otherwise I have a hard time seeing why an X would make sense on that place

So obviously you are right, Vivek, my brain has been totally washed out with great success (highly recommended, such a relief :thumbup

Maybe the X designation for the frame diagonals is a Nikon invention.
But who cares, I don't think Nikon deserves to have monopoly status on this visually useful letter.

Join the illustrative X movement, get washed :thumbup:

 

[Vivek]

If "D" is digital only, no wonder when I tried to load a 35mm film on the D3 I did not succeed.

That was the time I realised that I needed "unwash" what was left of my brains. :ROTFL:

 

[jonoslack]

Oh, the Nikon innovation! :ROTFL:

Thanks Jono for interpreting Niko speak.

While everyone used the convention- APS-C and full frame (35mm), Nikon brainwashed its customers with "DX" and "FX".

Those designations, unfortunately, do not apply to other brands.

Well, APS-C means fairly different things with different brand too.

I guess we could all devise much better terminology, but it seems unlikely that we'd agree with each other about it :ROTFL:

 

[Godfrey]

Well, APS-C means fairly different things with different brand too.

I guess we could all devise much better terminology, but it seems unlikely that we'd agree with each other about it

You can stand with me in my fight against all this stupid equivalence horsepucky:

For formats try:
6.6x8.8 vs 13x17.3 (FourThirds) vs 15x21 vs 16x24 vs 19.1x28.7 vs 24x36 (35mm Film) mm ...
vs 645 vs 6x6 vs 6x7 vs 6x9 cm ...
vs 4x5 vs 5x7 vs 8x10 vs 11x14 inch

What meaning does "full frame" have? or "APS-C" (nominally a film format with 16.7x25.1 mm sizing)? or "crop factor"? FX and DX at least mean something specific in the context of Nikon's delineation of their two digital SLR sensor sizes.

 

[LJL]

Actually, Canon uses an APS-C designation for its 1.6x cropped sensors, which is a bit smaller than Nikon and Sony and others where the APS-C has a 1.5x crop, but then Canon makes its own sensors. And they also have the APS-H for the 1.3x crop size found in the 1D series bodies, and of course the FF sensor in the 1Ds bodies. (BTW, Leica also used a 1.3x crop in the M8/8.2, but not sure if they like using the APS-H designation for that size, as you do not see it used too much.)

It all does become a bit of a blur when you start jumping around from system to system by different manufacturers, but there has to be some way to more easily codify the sizes than rattling off the dimensions all the time.

LJ

 

[Godfrey]

It all does become a bit of a blur when you start jumping around from system to system by different manufacturers, but there has to be some way to more easily codify the sizes than rattling off the dimensions all the time.

I don't know that there is a generic way of codifying it that's simpler, if you want to be precise and allow others to truly understand what you are talking about. I don't see much problem in talking about FourThirds, 16x24, 645, 24x36, 6x6, 4x5, etc. Photographers usually understand what I'm referring to.

But then, jumping around between a bunch of different cameras and consequent format changes gets back to the original thought I had: that people on these forums jump around between different gear at a frightening and almost silly pace.

I've settled on FourThirds format gear, been on it since 2007, and I'm quite happy with it, for my work. I don't feel I've fully exploited what it can do as yet (nor do I feel I will in the next few years), and I happen to like the balance of FoV vs DoF and the lenses available. Bodies sized from the diminutive GF1 to the pro-grade E-3 currently available, all with the same format and capable of utilizing (mostly) the same lenses, make it a good choice for me. The image quality it's produced has satisfied me, my clients, etc.

It may not be "the best" in any technical sense, but it's quite good enough. I like shooting with it, and I find so often that, presuming the equipment is 'good enough', when I concentrate on the photography instead of constantly looking for better equipment, I get better and better photographs.

..."Equipment often gets in the way of Photography." ... ​

 

[PeterA]

I use the following gear - Nikon F3 and D3 | Leica MP, M8, M9 | Hasselblad XPan, 205TCC, 500CWD, H3D | Sinar Hy6 | Alpa 12WA | Mamiya RZPro11D | Contax 645 |

each piece of equipment has a different use some bodies are there to use just one lens with - a lot of my bodies I use both film and digi backs with

for me - camera gear is cheap compared to my time - I have regretted selling every camera every time I did it - the last time was selling a complete set of Leica R lenses and an R9 - but that was an act of rebellion and revenge.

Photography for me is as much about the gear as the photograph or print.
I have the same attirude towards cars | motorbikes | tractors



cheers

 

[Vivek]

Actually, Canon uses an APS-C designation for its 1.6x cropped sensors, which is a bit smaller than Nikon and Sony and others where the APS-C has a 1.5x crop, but then Canon makes its own sensors. And they also have the APS-H for the 1.3x crop size found in the 1D series bodies, and of course the FF sensor in the 1Ds bodies. (BTW, Leica also used a 1.3x crop in the M8/8.2, but not sure if they like using the APS-H designation for that size, as you do not see it used too much.)

It all does become a bit of a blur when you start jumping around from system to system by different manufacturers, but there has to be some way to more easily codify the sizes than rattling off the dimensions all the time.

LJ

APS-C, APS-H and APS-P designations came from film APS (Advanced Photo System) cameras (the standards were agreed upon by all the major manufacturers), these were used by camera manufacturers for digital sensored cameras when the aspect ratios closely matched the designation.

 

[bensonga]

If the kids who stole my Canon 40D are reading this.....:cussing:

I'm on to you....AND I have a new home security system in place...plus, my car is locked and there's nothing in it....so, move along, move along.

Alright, here goes. First...what am I actually using now and why? Lately, the Canon 5D (when I'm serious), Panasonic G1 (when I'm serious but don't want to lug around the 5D) and a Canon G10, when I'm taking a camera with me on a motorcycle or just want a simple, decent P&S.

So....what about all the other cameras sitting in my closet? The Leica R8, Canon 1V, Pentax 67 (3), Pentax 645N II, Hasselblad 503CWD, 501CM, 553ELX, Nikon F3HP, Nikon F2 (2), Mamiya TLR, Ebony 45SU, Cambo 4x5, Sinar P, Graphic View (2) and countless lenses for each? Not to mention the accessories, cases, tripods etc etc. Darn good question.....what the heck am I doing with all this stuff? I really, really, really hate to part with it. But.....maybe it's time to think about thinning the herd. Never thought I'd say that. Gotta remember....like Peter, almost every time I've sold a camera or lens, I've regretted it later. Maybe I'll just stop buying any new stuff.....that's a start anyways.

Gary

 

[bdickers]

My Leica X1 my only camera. It's simple, requires absolute involvement and produces quality images.