My 'dream' kit in 2021

I belong to several Facebook groups to do with buying and selling camera gear (surprise, surprise). Mostly it is people looking to upgrade, sell the occasional lens, or change systems. I've used it myself from time to time. It's actually how I found, and purchased, my Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 recently.

Most of the time I just flick through the posts quickly, especially if I'm not looking to buy or sell anything. But one recent post made me stop in my tracks, and almost made my eyes water! And it also got me thinking (and dreaming).

Someone was selling their entire Sony kit - for $16,000NZ! No, that's not a typo. $16k! That price is enough to make anyone stop and look more closely.

To be fair, this wasn't just some scam artist trying to dupe an unsuspecting newbie into paying way too much for outdated gear. This was a legit seller, with a LOT of quality Sony camera gear, who was hoping to sell it all as a package deal. And I'm sure it was good value, even at sixteen grand NZ. I didn't dive too deeply into exactly what he had in the package, but there were at least two Sony A7R III camera bodies, probably with grips, and about five or six G series lenses to go with it. As well as flashes and other accessories. And it all seemed very lightly used. I think one of the bodies had only done around 15000 shutter actuation's. That's nothing.

But, as much of a bargain as it may have been, it got me thinking about someone's ability to drop $16k on a camera system. Obviously it was being pitched at a professional photographer. And I assume (although I don't know for sure) that the guy selling it was a professional themselves. Although maybe not? I've known a few hobbyists in my time who had the ability to drop some serious cash on photography gear. And good on them, if they can afford to do so.

For me, however, that kind of money to spend on photography gear is dream territory. Although I'm sure if I added up all that I had spent on photography over the last 35+ years, that figure would also make my eyes water! But I have certainly never had the ability to spend that kind of amount all in one go. And I'm sure I never will. And yet, from time to time, I think we all play the 'what if' game in our minds. And this Facebook post, with the seller asking $16,000NZ for his Sony gear, got me thinking - and dreaming - about 'what if'? What if I had $16k to drop on photography gear. What would I get, in 2021?

Of course the very first question I would need to ask myself is "Should I stay, or should I go" (apologies to The Clash).

To be honest, I didn't really have to think about this for too long. I think I'd stay. Which might, for some, be a surprising answer. After all, if you had $16,000 wouldn't it be the perfect opportunity to 'start again' and buy into a completely new system?

And the answer is, of course, 'yes'. It would be a perfect time to buy into a new system. If you were unhappy with your 'old' one. Thing is, I'm not unhappy with my Olympus/Panasonic micro four thirds system at all. Just the opposite in fact. I still maintain that it is an amazing, incredible, fully featured and mid-blowingly capable image-capturing system. So why would I want to change?

But what about the future of micro four thirds - I hear you ask. Yep. Very good question. The future is certainly uncertain (to quote an obscure Rowan Atkinson skit). And yet, my honest (although perhaps somewhat flippant) reply would actually be - I don't care.

I'm not sure how long JIP (Japan Industrial Partners) is going to keep the micro four thirds Olympus camera system going for? Nobody really does. Will they produce another iteration of OM-D models? Will there be an E-M1 mk4, or E-M5 mk4? Or an entirely new E-M'something'? Will we ever see an E-M1x Mk2? I honestly don't know. 

And what of Panasonic? We know the GH6 is coming, which is a good sign. But if Olympus folds, will there be a GH7? Or a G10? Or any new lenses? Again, I simply don't know. We do know that Sony seems to still be developing micro four thirds sensor technology, which is a very positive sign. But this is Sony. So we also know that the development could cease at any time if it no longer becomes profitable. And fair enough.

But in the end, as I stated earlier, I just don't care. And why not? Well, quite simply, even if all production of micro four thirds stopped tomorrow (and it won't), there would be enough product - and probably enough spare parts - in existence already to see me through to the end of my photography days. I'm no spring chicken. I realistically only have about another 20 years of good photography left in me. If that. And barring accidents, I look after my gear. So I reckon, based on current technology, any new camera I purchased in 2021 would probably have twenty years of use in it - easily. I have, and use, a Nikon D70 - which was released in 2004. That's 17 years ago. And it's still going strong. And still produces great results. I have no doubt that the current technology would see me through to the end of my photographic journey.

Having just said all that... if I was 20 years old and just starting out in my photography career, then my decision would be completely different. If I was serious about a photography career, had my whole life ahead of me, and wanted to invest heavily into a system, it would not be micro four thirds. I would look, instead, at the Nikon Z (or Canon R) mirrorless system.

But I'm not (20 years old), so I'm very happy to stick with micro four thirds. And would still suggest that a hobbyist or amateur photographer give it serious consideration in 2021 as well. Despite what I've postulated above, I still think there's life left in the old girl yet 😉

Okay, enough already. If I had $16,000NZ to spend today, on photography gear, what would I get? Not allowing for discounts (but I'd want something taken off  - or included - if I was dropping $16k), and given my bias towards landscape photography, the list would go something like this:

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk3 bodies x2  $6,194.00

Olympus HLD 9 Power Battery Grip $498.00

Extra BLH-1 Olympus battery x2 $240.00

M.Zuiko 8-25mm ED F4 Pro lens $1,750.00

M.Zuiko 12-40mm ED F2.8 Pro lens $1,400.00

M.Zuiko 40-150mm EZ F2.8 Pro lens $1,800.00

Olympus MC-20 2x Teleconverter $785.00

M.Zuiko 8mm ED F1.8 Fisheye Pro lens $1,500.00

M.Zuiko 60mm F2.8 Macro lens $600.00

Olympus FL-700R Flash $650.00

Filters and Camera Bag $600.00

For a grand total of $16,000NZ (approx)

Prices in NZ dollars, rounded up, as at 8.09.21

I'm not going to go into great detail about why I've chosen what I have, a lot of it is probably self-explanatory. I will, however, clarify a couple of things...

First, I went for two E-M1 Mk3 bodies and one grip for flexibility over going for the E-M1x with built-in grip that can't be detached. If I want to travel 'light' I would simply use the E-M1's sans-grip. That's not an option with the E-M1x. I could have gone with an E-M1 Mk3 plus grip, and an E-M1x body for basically the same cost, but decided that two identical back-up bodies would be a better idea.

The lenses are probably all obvious. I opted for the 8-25mm f4 over the 7-14mm f2.8 as my landscape lens because a) I don't need f/2.8 for landscapes, and b) the 8-25mm allows for using filters, whereas the 7-14mm doesn't. And I think that the range of the 8-25mm is far more versatile as well.

The fisheye, and to some extent the macro, are in the list just because I can. They are very 'specialty' lenses that I wouldn't use very often, but are achievable within budget - so why not. I'm obviously not really a 'prime' guy, but these specialty lenses are an exception to the rule. I also don't feel the need to wait for the 100mm macro Pro version that OMD Solutions are said to be releasing soon. As already stated, I'm not really a macro shooter, so the 60mm will be more than sufficient for my needs.

So there you have it. My 'dream' kit. And as you can see, even purchasing all new, you can get a lot of gear for your money if you go with a micro four thirds system. And I didn't even look at any Panasonic lenses - even though it's what I shoot with at the moment.

I know that this has been a long post already - and thank you if you are still reading this. If you are, bare with me a little longer. I thought it might also be interesting, as a comparison, to see what $16kNZ would get you if you bought into the Nikon Z system that I mentioned above.

Nikon Z6 Mirrorless bodies x2 $6,380.00

Nikon MB-N10 Battery grip $450.00

Extra Nikon Z6 battery x2 $240.00

Nikon XQD Memory Card 64GB x2 $680.00

Nikkor Z 14-30mm F4 S lens $2,185.00

Nikkor Z 24-70mm F4 S lens $1,685.00

Nikkor X 70-200mm F2.8 VR S lens $4,300.00

For a grand total of $16,000NZ (approx)

Prices in NZ dollars, rounded up, as at 8.09.21

I have tried, as much as possible, to find like-for-like in the two systems. And as you can see, $16,000 buys you a lot less if you opt for a full frame Z series Nikon. I have even chosen the first generation Z6, as opposed to the latest model Z6 II. You could also save yourself some money by using the F series adapter and using the older 'F' mount lenses, instead of going for the Z mounts. But if you are 'investing' in the system long-term, why would you? Just get the Z mount lenses in the first place.

While the above may seem a bit futile (I haven't got $16,000 to spend on photography gear after all) and pointless, it's still quite fun. No harm in dreaming - right? It may also be interesting to look back on this post in a few years time - say 2025 - and re-visit it, to see if my 'wishlist' may have changed?

What would be on your wishlist if you suddenly found $16,000 to spend on photography (and you can't say 'a world trip', it has to be on actual gear)? Go on, dream a little...

The limitation of 6 megapixels

I am still waiting to hear back from the camera store about my E-M1 repair (what, me impatient? Never!). I am really hoping that it coincides with our upcoming trip to Christchurch to meet our new grandchild because a) it would be very convenient to pick it up then, and b) I really want a camera to photograph the new edition to our family! And to make matters worse (or better I guess, depending on how you care to look at it), my Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 G lens has now arrived. Yay! Except I don't have a camera to try it out with. Aarrgghh!

Greymouth wharf from Cobden. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/8 @ 1/400th, ISO 200

In the meantime, though, I am still using my wife's Nikon D70. And I'm still enjoying shooting with it. I used the camera for a few years when I switched to digital in the mid 90s, so when I pick it up now a certain amount of muscle memory kicks in, and I find it very intuitive to use. Yes, there are a couple of things that 'annoy' me (exposure compensation +/- is flipped around from what I am used to now), but overall the shooting experience is still very enjoyable. And the images still hold-up, even at 6 megapixels. With one exception... cropping.

White Heron. D70 with 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/640th, ISO 200

Most weekends, my wife and I like to go for at least an hours walk together. This usually involves taking a stroll through our local Cobden Lagoon - an estuary that is home to numerous bird life. If we are lucky, one of those birds will be a beautiful white heron.

I usually take my camera on these walks, on the off-chance that something catches my eye, and I'll wan't to take a photograph of it. Most of the time the camera stays draped over my shoulder (or carried in my hand) and I never use it. But sometimes I get lucky, and a white heron (or some other worthy subject) presents itself.

That's what happened last weekend on our walk. We spotted it from across the other side of the lagoon, and from where it was wading I could tell it was very close to a bridge that we would cross eventually. Actually, it's the same bridge from which I captured the image 'Swan River' from my last post.

As we made our way over to the other side of the lagoon, and approached the bridge, I spotted the Heron again - in almost exactly the same position as when we had first seen him. He had hardly moved at all. And because we were slightly elevated up on the bridge, he seemed not to really even notice that we were there. Or if he did, he didn't seem to mind. He was only about 15 meters from us, probably the closest I have ever managed to get to a heron. And would you believe it - all I had was a standard 18-55mm lens!

The smaller image of the white heron, seen above, is the uncropped image - as close as I was able to get with the full 55mm end of the lens. As you can see, even though this was the closest I have ever got, the bird is still relatively small in the frame.

The larger image is cropped from the original. And while the bird is now a bit more prominent, it's still not filling the frame! But this was as close as I could physically get. So I knew I would have to crop in on the image later if I was going to get anything even half-way decent.

And in doing so, we run up against the D70s limiting factor - the 6MP sensor if you need to crop heavily into your image.

Curious Horses. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/1000th, ISO 200

Unfortunately, it didn't only happen once, but twice, on this particular walk. Heading home from the lagoon, we passed a paddock with some horses that I hadn't seen in there before. The lighter coloured horse especially caught my eye, and I went over to take a photo.

This scenario was even worse than the heron, since as you can see from the uncropped image at right, the horses were even further away from me, and they weren't that keen to get any closer!

So once again, I took the shot anyway - at the 55mm end of the lens (around an 80mm full-frame equivalent focal length) - knowing that I would have to crop out a lot of the image to feature my subject.

In both images, I've probably only kept around a third of the image, cropping out two-thirds. That's left me with file sizes of around 1MB - not great in terms of resolution. Enough for a sharp 5x7 print, but probably not much more.

Does that mean that the D70 is no good as a camera? No, of course it doesn't! If you don't crop the 6MP files, then you can easily print up to A3 sizes. But, if you do need to crop - heavily - then resolution (and print sizes) will suffer. Dat's a fac u'all.

Bus Barn. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/1000th, ISO 200

So what to do? Well, if I was going to be shooting a lot with the D70 (I'm not), then I would invest in a zoom lens. Something like the Nikkor 75-300mm. Then I wouldn't have had any problem filling the frame with the heron, or the horses, and I wouldn't have had to crop-in later. Thereby taking advantage of all those 6 million wonderful pixels! Easy....

And to be honest, the same should be true no matter how many megapixels your camera has. Yes, it will be easier to do a super close crop of a bird from a 50 megapixel sensor and still be able to get a decent A4 print. But should you? There is a reason why bird, wildlife and sports photographers carry around those massive 600mm lenses with them (and newsflash, it's not just to look professional). They need to get as close to their subject as possible, and fill-the-frame so they don't have to crop later on. This gives them the absolute best IQ they can get. I'm sure there is certainly some cropping going on later in post. But they certainly don't all own 100 megapixel cameras and shoot with standard lenses, thinking that they'll just crop-in super tight later on! And neither should you or I. 

I'm not advocating that we all shoot with 6 megapixel cameras and resolution be damned! Of course not. But... we also probably don't need as many megapixels as we think we do either - and we certainly shouldn't be going out with the intention of cropping out two-thirds of every photo we shoot because we couldn't/didn't get close enough. Wildlife photographer's know they will be shooting nervous animals, from a long way off, so they invest in super telephoto lenses. Comes with the territory I'm afraid. 

I'm not a wildlife photographer, and never intend to be. I do know, however, that on the odd occassion, I will want to take a telephoto image or three. That's why the only lens I kept when I was selling all the others to get the 12-35mm f2.8, was my Lumix 45-150mm. A while that's not super-telephoto by any stretch, it does equate to 300mm focal length on a full-frame system. And boy, could I have used a 300mm lens last weekend when I was photographing a white heron and some horses. Maybe next time...

Taking the Nikon D70 for a spin in 2021

While my Olympus OM-D E-M1 is away getting repaired (see earlier post), and my E-M10 is packed up for its new owner (yay), I thought I'd take the opportunity to use an old friend. The Nikon D70.

Who, me? Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/800th, ISO 200

The Nikon D70 was my first ever DSLR - back in 2004 I do believe? That makes this a 17 year old digital camera (in 2021). It's a 6.1 megapixel beast with a 'massive' (kidding) 1.8" 130,000 dot lcd screen. It takes the somewhat outdated Compact Flash cards, has 5-area focusing, and shoots at a blistering 3 frames per second. Not flash specifications by today's standards I guess?

Cobden Beach High Tide. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/5000th, ISO 200

And yet, this is the camera I used for my first year as a wedding photographer. With excellent results. Because it is a damn fine Nikon camera, with excellent ergonomics, and excellent IQ. So what if it's only 6 megapixels? So what if the lcd screen is only really an indication? As long as it shows the histogram overlay (and it does), do you really need to 'chimp' your images after each shot!? (That would be a 'No' by-the-way).

When I first purchased the D70, it was streets ahead of the all-plastic Canon offering (the 300D?) - with better handling, superior specifications, and just an all-around better user experience. And really, that's still the case all these years ago. As a photographic tool, the D70 handles like a dream.

Swan River. Nikon D70. f/8 @ 1/400th, ISO 200

I don't need to go into great detail about the D70. I've written about using it on and off in this blog over the years. And I've championed using 'older' cameras and not upgrading 'just because' you want to have the latest and greatest.

But hey, I'm also not here to tell you that the D70 is going to be my main digital camera going forward. Because it's not. Although it could. But it's not.

Because I'm also not going to deny that advances in technology are helpful. and useful, and also sometimes just plain fun. I'm very much looking forward to getting my Olympus OM-D E-M1 back from repair. I love that thing, and it's full of crazy-good tech! But it's also not the latest and the greatest in the OM-D line either.

Flax reflection. Nikon D70. f/8 @ 1/13th, ISO 200

I've said it before (and I'll say it again), nobody really makes bad cameras. Probably haven't for a very long time. We consumers (fueled by marketing hype) get hooked up on X, Y and Z. But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter much what you use to take a photograph. And that goes for film as well as digital.

We are, as a species, quite tribal - sometimes in the extreme. We like to cheer for our team. Unfortunately, sometimes this gets out of hand, and we loose perspective. Can anyone say dual card slots?!

YouTube is rife with 'Is 'X' camera still good in 2021' type videos, and I have to say that they 'do my head in'. The answer, in ALL cases, is YES! Every camera is still good in 2021 - depending, of course, on your use-case. The D70 will be no good for a sports shooter in 2021. But it was also no good for one in 2004. There were better choices then, and there are better choices now. Just use some common sense people! Please!!!

Alas dear Fuji, I knew you well.

It's been a while since I posted on nzdigital (about three months), but I haven't been quiet during that time - anything but. I've been posting, instead, on my 'other' blog; The Fuji X-Files. It made sense, since I had invested heavily into the Fuji mirrorless system with the X-E2, and had a Fuji-centric blog waiting and ready to go.

And I enjoyed the Fujifilm X-E2, I really did. Well, at least I thought I did - until recently. Let me explain...

Lake Kaniere. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm. f11 @ 1/80th, ISO 200.

A few weeks ago I decided to film a video for my Youtube channel, comparing images taken with a full frame, APS-C and micro four thirds camera. I just happened to have all three sensor sizes together at one time, and thought it might make for an interesting video? And it certainly was interesting, and enlightening, but not quite in the way I had envisaged it would be. 

I went into the 'experiment' with a fairly clear idea of what I thought the outcome would be (not very scientific, I know), since I've shot on all three sensors over the years and know that they can all perform fantastically. All can produce clean, clear and sharp (more on that soon) images - at least at the sizes I need to print or display my work at. I took all the images at the same focal length, with the same effective aperture, and all in RAW so I could get the very best out of each sensor.

The three cameras I tested were the 24MP full frame Sony a99, my 16MP Fujifilm APS-C X-E2, and my son's Olympus OM-D E-M5 16MP micro four thirds. Above is the edited RAW images, with a 100% crop from the extreme left edge of the frame, from each camera. The full frame 24MP image has the edge in sharpness and clarity - of course it does. But having said that, the Olympus E-M5 micro four thirds image gives an impressive performance - with the very cheap 14-45mm kit lens no less - and isn't that far behind. But what shocked, surprised, and upset me, was how poor the Fujifilm X-E2 result was! It might not be quite as obvious from the images here on the web, but compared to the Sony and Olympus, the X-E2's 100% crop from the left edge is horrible! Soft, mushy and just plain horrible! Bugger 😞

On closer inspection, it looks as if the Fujinon XC16-50mm kit lens that I've been using has a slightly de-focused left side of the image, since the right side edge was indeed sharper. So chalk that up to a lens issue and move on. Whew!

Things will surely get better if we look at the central portion of the image - all shot at an f11 effective aperture, all on a tripod. Well, hang on there Bucky. Not so fast. Once again, it might be hard to tell from these web images, but - once again, the Sony and Olympus look very sharp, while the Fujifilm X-E2... not so much.

This time the result is not so much blurry, as just every so slightly 'mushy'? Detail just isn't as distinct and 'crisp' on the Fuji as in the Sony and Olympus images. On-screen, they all look fine. Sharp and clear enough. But pixel-peep at 100% and the Fujifilm X-trans sensor is definitely more 'mushy' in rendering detail. If I was being kind (hey, I'm trying), I'd say it produces a more 'painterly' image - maybe more filmic, than the other two? Great if that's the look you're going for.

Now normally I'm not a pixel-peeper. Really, I'm not. And I'm also not someone who has to have the 'cleanest' image possible with zero noise/grain present. In fact, with the Fujifilm cameras, I'm actually purposefully going the other way and introducing grain into the image. I like the fact that they can produce very film-looking images straight out of camera - when I want that look. But I'm also not the first to have noticed a general 'softness' with Fuji RAW files that aren't there with other systems.

This image softness has mostly been attributed to Adobe Lightroom's handling of the Fujifilm RAF files (yes, I'm using Lightroom). It's a common, and oft discussed issue, with a couple of work-arounds.

First, third-party plug-ins can take over the RAW development engine inside of Lightroom to process the RAF files. This is the 'fix' preferred by those who wish to stay within the Adobe ecosystem.

Second, ditch Lightroom all together and move to Capture One for processing RAF files in the future. Capture One has worked closely with Fujifilm, and are known to have a much superior RAW processing engine for RAF files than Lightroom. People have reported much sharper images processing in Capture One than Lightroom. So fortunately, there is a fix.

Having said all that, I'm not laying the blame only at the foot of Adobe. I have to at least consider that the lens has something (a lot) to do with IQ and sharpness. I've been shooting the X-E2 mostly in jpeg, and letting the camera process the image. If you do this, then a lot of the inherent lens issues will be 'minimised' by the processing software. So that what you get out of camera should be fairly sharp, corrected images. Not so with RAW. The RAF's are unadulterated data - warts and all - and it seems that maybe the XC16-50mm has quite a few warts?

So, having established this, I made two decisions immediately. One - get a new lens, and two - start processing RAF files in Capture One.

And that's exactly what I did. I purchased the 23mm f2 prime (35mm equivalent fov) and downloaded Capture One Pro for Fujifilm (which just happened to be on special). Problem solved - right?

Well actually, no. On the lens front, I'm sure that I am getting sharper results with the 23mm prime than I was with the XC16-5mm kit lens. No doubt. It's a lovely little lens, and a joy to use.

But, when I went back and re-processed the RAF file in Capture One, I got the exact same result as I had when I used Lightroom. The Fuji file still looked 'painterly' rather than crisp and sharp. Bugger (again) 😢

After that, it was a bit like one of those inkblot tests. Once I had seen it, I couldn't 'un' see it. I started going through my back catalog of images and looking at photos at 100% (I really am NOT a pixel peeper!). If I clicked on an image at random, then I could almost always tell if it had come from the Fuji because of the painterly pixel structure. If I clicked on an image, enlarged it, and thought "great, that looks better" then it was invariably from another camera sensor (usually a Nikon). And once I started playing the 'spot the Fuji fuzziness" game, then that was really the beginning of the end for me and Fuji.

Motukiekie Beach. Fujifilm X-E2 with Fujinon XC16-50mm

I've had a lot of fun using the Fujifilm X-E2, and made a lot of amazing images with it. It's been another piece of my mirrorless journey puzzle, and shown me that I can get along with smaller cameras. But it's also been a bit of a struggle, I'm not gonna lie. The X-Trans sensor is a unique beast, and many struggle to tame it satisfactorily. It's especially difficult if you're an otherwise satisfied Lightroom user. 

Shooting jpegs and using images SOOC (straight out of camera) is a serious option to consider with Fujifilm - their film profiles are really that good. And boy, have I had a lot of fun (and wasted a lot of time) with custom film profiles. The combinations are almost endless. Which again, unfortunately, presents something of a problem. I've programmed, changed, and reprogrammed the custom film settings on the X-E2 dozens of times - tweaking, reshooting, tweaking and reshooting again - only to end up changing them all later anyway. They are fun, but for me they've also been time-wasters, and something else for me to obsess about with my photography (me, obsessive? never!?).

So I've decided - for better or worse - to move on from Fujifilm (what a shock). I've used it for about a year now, which is fairly good going for me and a camera system historically 😕 I haven't really been a one-camera-one-system guy for years now. Variety is, as they say, the spice of life.

There is, however, one love that I have returned to time after time. And I think she is calling me again... 

I'm pretty sure I was using a Nikon before I switched to Olympus, and I know I was using a Nikon D300 before switching to the Fujifilm X-E2. My first digital 'love' was the Nikon D70, tearing me away from my 20 year affair with Canon. Nikon has been the stable home in my system-swapping career, and I hear her calling me again... 

I've also thoroughly documented my struggle (love and hate relationship) with 'going' mirrorless, since I'm still convinced (as are many) that mirorrless is the future of photography. But... having grown up using SLR style cameras, the DSLR has a strong emotional, and physical, attachment to me. As soon as I pick up a solid, hefty, magnesium alloy DLSR body, it feels like coming home. They just feel so 'right'. So wonderfully good in the hand. And try as I might - and I have tried - mirrorless cameras, with all their bells and whistles, just do not feel as good to hold and use. This is a hugely underrated part of enjoying photography. How does the camera 'feel' in you hands. Does it make you want to pick it up and use it for long periods of time? For me, Nikon's just do.

Of course all of this would be moot if money was no object. It would, of course, present a whole new raft of problems - but if money was no object, then I would definitely be buying a mirrorless camera. But not a tiny wee thing like a Fujifilm XT30 or Olympus E-M10III - something solid like an Olympus EM1x or Fujifilm XT4 with grip attached. Actually, what I think I would do is wait for the new Nikon Z9. I think that's going to be a stellar camera for Nikon. But alas, I haven't won lotto (that I'm aware of anyway), so budget is, as always, a major factor.

I'm going to Christchurch this weekend (as I write this). I've sold my Fuji gear already, have a few other bits and pieces to sell, and with the money I am going to buy another camera and lens(s). I don't know exactly what I will get, but at the moment I'm thinking it will be a Nikon DLSR. Something like the D7000 pictured above. Or maybe, if my budget can stretch and I can be convinced that its sensor is clean, a full-frame Nikon D600? It will all depend on what the store has in its secondhand department at the time.

Then again, there's a very nice black and silver Olympus OM-D E-M1 for sale as well. And, as we all know, the future is mirrorless! 

And the Winner Is...

A few weeks ago I wrote about trying to decide on the 35mm film system that I would use going forward. I had decided logically to go with Canon – more specifically the EOS 300V. But what I really wanted was a Nikon F80 (which I eventually found two of). It all arrived a couple of weeks ago, I’ve shot with them, and the verdict is in.

What did I end up going with? If you’ve read my earlier posts, you can probably already guess the answer, so I’m not going to beat around the bush. I’m keeping the (black) Nikon N80 – surprise, surprise.

The Nikon N80

I did use both systems, side by side. And having done so, the clear winner – for me – was the Nikon F80. It’s a superb camera. It feels (and looks) superior to the Canon in almost every way, and most importantly, handles better than the 300V.

The Canon only has one command dial – that doubles as the on-off switch! So every time you turn the camera on, you have to rotate the dial to the mode you want to use. Seems like a small thing, but it drove me nuts. The Nikon, on the other hand, has the on-off switch separated from the mode dial, so you can simply leave the mode set all the time, and flick the camera on very quickly with one finger. Easy.

The F80 (or N80 in my case) also feels better (more solid) in the hand, and has the sweetest sounding shutter of any camera I’ve ever used – period! I’m not kidding. The shutter feel, and sound, on the Nikon F80 is just pure perfection. Again, maybe a small thing to some, but it all adds up to a superior user experience.

I also decided to get a 50mm f1.8D Nikkor lens to enhance the ‘classic’ film shooter experience. The 50mm f1.8 is a stellar lens, and can quite easily take the place of the 35-70mm if I ‘zoom with my feet’. So I sold the Nikkor 35-70mm without even taking an image with it – along with the black and silver F80 body that was surplus to requirements (I really only need one 35mm body), and the Canon 300V. So my auto focus 35mm film camera system going forward will be a Nikon N80 with 50mm f1.8D and 70-300mm f4/5.6G lenses. Nice.