 |
| Old Ford pickup truck in an equally old garage. (click to enlarge) Nikon Z7 II; 24-200mm f/4-6.3 @ 24mm; 1/50th sec. @ f/13; ISO 640 |
For several years I've been writing about wanting to continue with my high level of photographic activities but using gear that is smaller, lighter, less bulky, less expensive but at the same time keeping everything high quality—from image quality to camera features to gear construction to engineering. An impossible task? Not with today's gear. That desire seemed to increase as I aged and, if I'm right from what I've seen and read as well as speaking with other photographers I know, this is pretty common.
That desire set me on my journey in 2012 to buy into the Micro4/3 system. I've used it ever since and have always been very happy with it. Superbly built and engineered with more features than any other camera on the market and lenses that are pin sharp and smaller than lenses for larger formats, Micro4/3 fit the bill perfectly.
However, my thinking has evolved. (I'm allowed to do that, aren't I? Lol.) I'm not so sure that my issue any longer is just about smaller, lighter and less bulky. I need to add another word to those qualities. I'm thinking that a primary operative word for me now is 'convenience.' But don't mistake convenience for laziness. I still am as enthusiastic as ever about my photography and still get out as often as I possibly can.
As I have gotten older I find that in most aspects of my life I look to simplify things. I've dramatically downsized the number of my possessions (but not my camera gear), moved to a smaller house and I continuously look for ways to increase 'convenience' in my life. By convenience I mean less complicated and generally an easier way of living—and photographing. Convenience is now spilling over into my photographic endeavors. I seem to be moving from a smaller, lighter, less bulky philosophy to one that now adds convenience—a one camera/one lens philosophy. Ideally.
Contrary to how I felt in the past, I really don't mind carrying a camera, such as my Nikon Z8 or Zf, that is a little larger than my other cameras. I really don't mind carrying the larger lenses for my full frame kit over the smaller ones in my Micro4/3 kit—within reason and for specific kinds of photography. The difference in size and weight seems inconsequential if the convenience is there instead. One slightly larger camera with a slightly larger lens beats carrying a smaller camera with several smaller lenses. With today’s gear I think it’s doable.
A few years ago I made a road trip from Virginia across the United States and back and only took a Nikon Z7II and a Nikon 24-200mm lens. The Z7II is an excellent 46mp camera. However, the lens is not the top of the line, but I found it more than sufficient. It is (mostly) sharp enough and very versatile. For that road trip I was looking for balance between convenience and versatility coupled with image quality. A compromise. I did not take an ultra wide angle lens. No longer telephoto lens. No macro lens. No fast prime lens. …and I loved it! The convenience and simplification of that decision trumped the lack of additional focal lengths and, in reality, I didn't miss any photos that I wanted to make! To make up for any small sharpness deficits at certain focal lengths of that lens, a quick trip through DXO PureRaw improves the edges of the images nicely. As I've written many times, technology is the great equalizer.
To add to the Nikon experience, over the past decade, I’ve made several 2-3 week road trips only taking either an Olympus or OM camera and the 12-100mm f/4 lens. Same story. I was completely happy with my images and felt I didn’t miss any images or greater resolution from cameras with more pixels. The 20mp sensor had all the resolution necessary for my purposes. As a bonus, the 12-100mm f/4 lens provides excellent image quality, sharpness, color and contrast and there is no need to run files through DXO or Photo AI. Every major camera manufacturer should have an equivalent lens, IMHO.
When having one camera and one lens that can do most everything (not everything) I want to do, there is no ‘paradox of choice' which results in stress from too many choices which ultimately degrades the experience. It is not uncommon, myself included, to become frustrated when having to choose which kit to take as well has which lenses (plural) to take so "I don't miss anything." Analysis paralysis and fear of missing out (FOMO) also become factors. With one high quality, fully featured camera and one, let's call it a 'superzoom' lens, the choice is straightforward and easy. In fact, there is no choice. That camera and lens are it. Pull it out, turn it on and make your exposure.
I know my desire for 'convenience' won't work for many of you. It won't work for me when I'm setting out to photograph specific things such as birds and wildlife. Also, it won’t work if I’m traveling specifically for photography. For those kinds of specific photographic endeavors, I will need more than just one lens and a backup camera. But for non-photographic travel and general photography with no specific subjects in mind, the one lens solution, for me, provides that convenience I now want.
Now, I understand those of you who are much younger than me and don't mind carrying a 10 kilo backpack packed with two cameras and seven lenses. I've been there, done that. I'm now past that in my almost 54 year photographic career. I'll now gladly trade all that in for convenience. Easy. Relaxing. No stress. Straightforward.
Convenience seems to be the 'buzz' word for my thinking these days. I want to be able to carry a high quality, highly featured, well engineered camera—more or less a 'do everything' camera—with a single 'do (almost) everything' lens—well, a ‘do as much as I'll need’ lens.
Presently, I can do that with my Nikon gear. I can carry the Zf (or Z8) and the aforementioned 24-200mm lens (Nikon now makes an 28-400mm lens but I don’t think that is a good fit for me right now) and I can do it with my OM/Olympus gear. I can carry the OM-1 Mark II and 12-100mm lens. The OM-1 has more features than you will ever want to use. I've written about it several times. The Olympus 12-100 is an extraordinary lens. All I need is that camera, lens and a polarizing filter. Nothing more. The Nikon Zf isn't quite so full featured but it has a wonderful 24mp full frame sensor that provides better image quality than I'll ever need and the 24-200mm Nikon lens has, as I mentioned, a few shortcomings that can be overcome easily with a run through a plug-in.
Unfortunately, I can't do it with my Fujifilm gear. The 40mp X-T5 would work nicely but Fujifilm doesn't make a lens that has a 24-200mm equivalent focal range nor a similar lens of the quality I would want. That's a shame. The X-T5 is still my all time favorite digital camera and I’d love to carry only that camera and a lens when traveling.
So, there you have it. My thinking has evolved from smaller and lighter to adding 'convenience' to the equation. Wanting my photography to be more convenient seems to be the driving force for my general photographic future. If I have to carry a bit larger camera with a bit larger lens, I will, for the convenience of having one camera and one lens and not be saddled with complexities and too many choices.
One last thing, just to be clear. Just so you don’t misunderstand. I want convenience when I want it. I don’t have to have it. There are many times when I will carry multiple lenses for specific reasons. In other words, I'll take and carry whatever gear is necessary for me to "get the shot" but when I can, I will most likely grab one camera/one lens when I leave the house.
How about you? Especially those of you who are older? Do you strive now for convenience rather than covering all the bases all the time with your photography? Let the rest of us know.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2025 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
Dennis: I agree that convenience is important. I’ve been going back and forth between the 24-200 and 28-400 Nikon Z’s for an upcoming eight weeks overseas trip for vacation and work. I’m leaning 28-400 because I shoot telephoto a lot, but the 24mm beckons me for street photography in Italy. Apparently, the 28-400 is sharper at equivalent focal lengths, and it sure seems to be an amazing one lens solution for travel. Still, the 24-200 is lighter, faster (a bit) and cheaper. Thoughts? Doug
ReplyDeleteDoug, thanks for your comment. I cannot speak to the 28-400mm Nikon lens, as I have never used one or even seen one in person. However, from what I’ve read and watched all indications are it is a good lens. As far as which lens to take for travel, one consideration is the number of pixels in your camera. As you know, I have 46 megapixels in my Z8 which when used in DX mode gives me, with the 24-200mm lens, a 400mm reach at 19.4 megapixels. A camera with only 24 megapixels, used in DX mode, will result in your final images having less than half of that. For me, the 19.4 megapixels will suffice unless I am going somewhere specific where I know I will need 400mm or more quite a bit of the time and may want to crop in even further. For general photography, the 24-200mm lens is small enough and more than sufficient for 95% or more of the travel photography I think I would do. I guess, in the end, you will have to decide which one of those two lenses will serve you better. Let me know in the future if you would? ~Dennis
DeleteWhen I returned to the States after being overseas for 8 years, I was already disillusioned with my Nikon gear. Nikon disappointed me in their handling of the D600 splatter issue, coming out with the D610, which tanked the resale value of the 600. I picked up a D750 and began an attempt at downsizing. For instance, getting the 70-200 f/4 to replace the 70-200 f/2.8. But the market for that kind of equipment in Jordan ( I was there for 4 years) was very limited.
ReplyDeleteOnce I came back to the states, I wandered into the not so local camera store (a one hour drive on a good day) and ended up swapping all my Nikon equipment for a Fuji X-T2 and some lenses in March of 2017. I liked the size and weight differences, although the XF 50-140mm was not that small.
Fast forward to the present. I walked into the same store (they are the last full service camera store in Maryland) because I wanted to hold the Nikon Zf. My plan (ha ha) was to see how it felt. If it was good then I was going to pick up 1 or 2 lenses, and keep my X-T5 and a few lenses, sort of like you.
Well . . . . I ended up with the Zf and the 50mm f/1.8 S, the kit 24-70 S f/4, the 105 f/2.8 S macro. At the last minute I also added the Nikon 70-180 f/2.8. Nothing spectacularly expensive and greatly helped by the current Nikon rebates. By then I knew that my Fuji days were over for now.
I went back the next day and traded in all the rest of the Fuji stuff and added the Nikon 14-30 f/4 and the Nikon 40 f/2.
I will probably come back to Fuji for something small but with interchangeable lens capability. I will wait to see what they come up with. For now, I am busy with the Nikon stuff.
When the dust settled the store cut me a check for $1800. That helped me get closer to having less $$$ tied up in camera gear. Downsizing? In some respects, yes, in others, no. The size difference between the X-T5 and the Zf is noticeable but after a few days I am happy with my decision. I ended up saving $970 via instant rebates.
This is probably too long. I value what you do. Stay vertical.
Al
Al, thanks for the comment and well wishes. I appreciate it. I have all of the Nikon lenses you purchased with the exception of the 70-200mm f/2.8. I bought the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens instead as the two lenses are almost exactly the same size and I felt the extra reach was more important than the extra stop of light for the kinds of photography I normally do. Both are excellent lenses. One thing that really got my attention was, after using the Nikon gear exclusively for a few months then picking up my X-T5, the Fujifilm camera felt significantly less well-built, plasticky and didn’t feel nearly as substantial in my hand as the Nikon camera. I had never realized that before since I always used the Fujifilm cameras regularly. To me there is a big difference in feel and build quality between Nikon and Fujifilm cameras. ~Dennis
DeleteWhen it comes to paying work, I have a no holds barred approach to gear, whatever I need to make it happen. I use the 12-100 for bad weather shots outside, but otherwise regularly shoot with a 12, 25, 75, and sometimes either an adapted Canon EF 135 f2 or the Pana/Leica 200. And there are other lens ranges and configurations that get used based on what I know I will need.
ReplyDeleteHowever in my personal work, I used to be more wide ranging in my potential subject matter, necessitating more range of focal lengths. As I got older, my simplification process led me to pare down my potential subject matter. This allowed me to get really simple with regards to the gear I carry when shooting for myself. I don't try to shoot everything like I used to when I was younger. I just want to shoot the photos that matter to me. I have nothing left to prove, and am not interested in pretty pictures anymore either. I'd rather they be meaningful and interesting. Makes it easy for me to walk by a pretty scene and just enjoy it in the moment without having to make a photograph out of it.
For the most part when I'm out looking for photos in public spaces, or if I'm traveling, I'm perfectly well served with a camera and a standard range single focal length lens, mostly using either the OM 20 or PL 25. I usually bring either a tiny 12 or 42.5, but rarely ever pull them out. I get to shoot what works within the limitations of the lens that is on the camera. It's truly freeing and forces me to be more intentional about what I shoot, and where I stand. And it makes me get much closer physically, and work harder to find interesting compositions, rather than just relying on the zoom ring, I have to now move around, and maybe, think different about what I'm doing. That works for me because I mostly photograph people. If you shoot other stuff, probably not so much.
When I was traveling with family, I used my phone quite a bit to make photos just as a memory or a moment with family, but these were not something that needed the complexity or distraction of a camera and all of the distraction that it brings. I find it very difficult to photograph seriously when I'm with family, so I just use my phone.
When I go visit my 4 month old granddaughter, I bring a Lumix LX100II. It's light, simple, makes no noise, and allows me to get close. The quality is perfectly fine for what I want to do, and it doesn't get in my way or otherwise interfere with my ability to be present with her and my son and daughter in law. It's also my very simple EDC camera that I take when I go to the store, or when my dog takes me for a walk. He shows me a different world that I'd probably never see and I always want to have a camera. The next time I travel, I'll probably bring the LX and use it in place of the phone, it's that easy.
To be honest, I was inspired to get this camera after meeting Larry Fink. In the last few years of his life, all he used was a Sony point and shoot. The results were stunningly good and easy for him to use. It made me realize that it's not the camera, it's the mind behind it. I think he had the right idea.
I think just deciding what it is you like to photograph and allow yourself the freedom to just hone in on that, will make it easier to pare your kit down to the most simple kit possible.
Thank you for your thoughts and extensive comment. A lot to unwrap there. I cannot disagree with anything you wrote. I think, through many years, a lot of thought and much experience, you have developed a perfect system that fully meets your needs. Again, thanks for taking the time to share. I enjoyed reading your comment. ~Dennis
DeleteThanks for the photo of the '49 Ford truck. Brings back good memories. I learned to drive on one like that. The flathead v-8 was the smoothest engine ever. My every day carry is an OM-1 12100 with hand strap, in a kid's lunch bag or in my jacket pocket. Sometimes the tiny 7.5 f2 goes along, and sometimes a battery. There is little that can't be photographed with that kit and I am very used to the controls. This may be the travel kit to Colorado this year. Or it may be the Z7 14-30 and 24-70. I use the USB-C rechargeable batteries with each camera, eliminating charger and cords.
ReplyDeleteI once went to Ireland with a Crown Graphic 4x5, filmpack, and tripod. Today's choices are much better, less of a bother, and I make better photographs.
I couldn’t imagine traveling with a Crown Graphic, film holders, light meter, big tripod, etc. i used a Crown Graphic with a 135mm lens at work for a number of years, mainly for aerial photography from a helicopter, if you can believe it. The Olympus kit is perfect! Safe travels. ~Dennis
DeleteI like my S5 with the 20-60 +85/1.8. I'm happy with the Lumix 75-300, but the L system needs a smaller and slower 50-200ish; their 70-200 are 2.8 and 4 and the 70-300 is talented but bulky. More than one of us is using the old Minolta 100-200/4.5 for small but simple telephoto.. no auto features but a nice little lens!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Jim. The Lumix gear is top notch and I hope you enjoy using it. ~Dennis
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely love this photo.
ReplyDeleteThank you. ~Dennis
Delete