[Durango Dude]

Originally Posted by justwheels

I moved from Nikon to Fuji before this whole Covid thing came up. Prime reason was form factor and size. The dslr's become quite cumbersome especially on family trips. Always was on the receiving end from family for all the bulk.

Moved over to Fuji XT30 (couldn't afford XT3). Love the transition. The Fuji output is brilliant even on the kit lens XF 17-50mm. The only issue I have is cost of lenses. I am planning to get a telephoto and the 100-400mm XF costs a bomb. Building lens portfolio will take a long time with Fuji unless you have loads of cash to splurge.

Also, I need to get some ND / polarizing filters seems. Huh, photography is a costly hobby, but very much satisfying for sure.

Main reason for me to sticking on to my kit, instead of Sony Alpha/ Fuji is the prohibitive cost of the body and lenses. Being a hobbyist, there's always a learning curve that you to go through when using new equipment. I'm more than satisfied with the results I'm getting from my present set. After all photography has become so much software driven that slowly equipment will be taken out of the equation. Plus service support has been good from Nikon in my city. I've 2 Nikon bodies and 13 F-Mount lenses and they're serving my needs beautifully, reliably and I've learnt to handle them to a some extent. My first choice would've been Sony Alpha had I gone mirrorless; more than the camera working around the menu system may be a daunting task. Know what during my last vacation, did a deal with my wife: You take the D3200 with telephoto (70-300mm) and I carry the Nikon D610 with the Tamron 15-30mm, got her also interested in photography and also my daughter. So there the porter's for the extra equipment.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

One good bird shot makes my day. ... ... ... an avid hobbyist.

There's a good pun in there somewhere, but I'm not clever enough to work it out Your photos are amazing. I really enjoyed looking at them.

Especially with the complete absence of travel for most of last year, just about all of my photography is carnatic-concert stuff. I enjoy it, as well as loving the music, and it is also good to be able to give something back to the artists. Yes, there has been a huge lack of public concerts too, but there have been recordings for internet streaming, and known photographers can get invitations. Even though the Chennai December season has been a washout this year, I've managed to attend twenty concerts. I've stuck to one venue, where I know the people best, and it also cuts down on number-of-people-mixed-with.

Now, to topic, gear acquisition!... most of my best shots are with my 85/1.8 (Sony on Sony a6500 APS-C body.) Whilst the image quality is easily good enough to make substantial crops, I'd like to get in closer in-camera.

I work without flash, and stages are usually not brightly lit. Musicians may not apparently move a lot (I avoid the major wavers of arms: their music is usually not to my taste either!) but actually they do: vocalists, even the slow and sedate ones do a lot of small head movements that are more than enough to motion-blur a pic. ISO 1600 is fine on my camera, but the next step, 3200, brings noise into shadows on skin. Sony full-frame models may do better, but I am where I am, at a level I could afford and a weight I'm ok with using. End result of all that is... even f2.8 doesn't seem fast to me: anything slower would be wasting my money.

Next GAS step? I'm leaving out manual-focus lenses: The camera is so much better at focusing than I am! Also only interested in native E-mount.

Sony 135/1.8. Every picture would be good. Or at least, only those with bad composition or otherwise screwed up by me would be bad. Over Rs.1.5 Lakh.

Tamron 70-180/2.8. Many pictures would be spoilt by motion blur or noise. Positive side is even greater reach, zoom (only using primes currently), much more flexible. Just over 80k

(Both would be super! But that is not going to happen in one year: a longer term aim would be the three Tamron 2.8 zooms)

[Durango Dude]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

There's a good pun in there somewhere, but I'm not clever enough to work it out Your photos are amazing. I really enjoyed looking at them.
...

Many thanks, Thad, I've known for a long time you're a music aficionado from your handle. Glad you liked my pics. If you're into concert photography I think going full frame is the trick as APSC tends to get noisy indoors. That said a 85mm f/1.8 is perfect for those scenarios. I usually go manual and put in at least 1/125 to 250s (as this glass has no VR) shutter speeds and dial down the aperture to 2.2 to 2.5 and leave the ISO in auto with max ISO at 1250 to 1600 and do the rest on Lightroom. There is a lot of difference between APSC and Full Frame in any given situation. I've been driving around in the evenings and have seen Narada Gana Sabha and Music Academy dark & deserted where it should have been brightly lit and bustling with activity this Margazhi Season.

[Rangy62]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

You must have deep pockets to get that lens it's list price is Rs 8.5 lakhs! Are you a professional?! I can't afford it. All the same why not post some pics that you've taken with that glass!

Yeah for sure will post the pics I have had a chance to take with glass. As far deep pockets I had actually saved up to buy a car in India but then my 2 trips a year didn’t make sense to buy one( was convinced by BHPians in another post). So invested in this lens. Don’t regret buying this at all.
No I am not a professional photographer it’s my hobby.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

Many thanks, Thad, I've known for a long time you're a music aficionado from your handle. Glad you liked my pics.

Cheers!

If you're into concert photography I think going full frame is the trick as APSC tends to get noisy indoors.

I'm stuck with APS-C for now. I have a small collection of lenses, of which, offhand, I think only the 85 is full-frame.

That said a 85mm f/1.8 is perfect for those scenarios. I usually go manual and put in at least 1/125 to 250s (as this glass has no VR) shutter speeds and dial down the aperture to 2.2 to 2.5 and leave the ISO in auto with max ISO at 1250 to 1600

I set auto-ISO 100-1600 with "minimum shutter speed" at either 125 or 250 depending on who I'm photographing. It's a bit of a funny setting. I call it "advisory," because if I tried to use that in the dark, the shutter speed would be ignores and slowed right down. I generally keep the lens at 1.8 or 2. I only close down if I must have more depth of field, and then things get hairy. Or... for times that I want motion blur, I do a switch to S and use 1/60 or 1/80.

and do the rest on Lightroom.

The camera can still beat me on processing JPEG, which I just tweak in GIMP. I do not have a Windows computer. I have used Rawtherapee a bit. I'm sure that if I put more time into learning it I could make great pics --- but when a quick tweak to levels usually does all I need, and GIMP now has colour temperature too, it is hard to apply myself to Rawtherapee. I think this should be the year for that!

I've been driving around in the evenings and have seen Narada Gana Sabha and Music Academy dark & deserted where it should have been brightly lit and bustling with activity this Margazhi Season.

It's sad. Despite being less than 10km from Mylapore, I used to stay in a guest house for a couple of weeks, so I could roll straight from bed to the MA canteen, in the morning, without driving. And to have somewhere to rest up between concerts without driving home.

As my pics are on instagram, it is no secret that I have been hanging out with the camera at Ragasudha Hall. The other couple of regular concert photographers have covered more venues, but I preferred to stick to the one. I am a-little-bit-old, but even if I wasn't, I think I would have avoided the few public venues that are open this year.

[Durango Dude]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I am a-little-bit-old, but even if I wasn't, I think I would have avoided the few public venues that are open this year.

Yes, better to avoid places where people congregate. Don't worry about age, I'm also a senior citizen this is the time we get to do what we like; now or never. Have fun!

[fhdowntheline]

Bumping this up a bit- I am looking at replacing my Nikon D5100 with a mirrorless-but still not sure of moving significantly up the pro ladder. Based on my recent study, it appears that a few cameras listed below are good:
i) Sony Alpha 6600
ii) Canon M6 Mk2
iii) Fuji XT-30.

Of these, only the Sony has inbuilt image stabilisation it seems. How significant is that if I intend to use it only for casual/landscape/urban photography? Also which lenses amongst these are relatively light to lug around ?

[rjainv]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

Bumping this up a bit- I am looking at replacing my Nikon D5100 with a mirrorless-but still not sure of moving significantly up the pro ladder. Based on my recent study, it appears that a few cameras listed below are good:
i) Sony Alpha 6600
ii) Canon M6 Mk2
iii) Fuji XT-30.

Of these, only the Sony has inbuilt image stabilisation it seems. How significant is that if I intend to use it only for casual/landscape/urban photography? Also which lenses amongst these are relatively light to lug around ?

My 2 cents, I had bought A6600 few months ago.
1. Inbuilt stabilization is important if you are eyeing lens that are not stabilized. For a casual photographer, you would most likely buy mainstream lens which in all probability have stabilization.

2. Do compare cost of lens as well. I have been contemplating a 300mm range telephoto ever since I bought my camera. But given my casual usage, I can't justify spending 75K+ on it. If I had a canon ef-s mount, I would have happily spent 15K for lens that mostly sits around.


However, A6600 is pretty competent body ( except that I don't like type-B usb connector in today's age), and has all bells and whistles.

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by rjainv

My 2 cents, I had bought A6600 few months ago.
1. Inbuilt stabilization is important if you are eyeing lens that are not stabilized. For a casual photographer, you would most likely buy mainstream lens which in all probability have stabilization.

2. Do compare cost of lens as well. I have been contemplating a 300mm range telephoto ever since I bought my camera. But given my casual usage, I can't justify spending 75K+ on it. If I had a canon ef-s mount, I would have happily spent 15K for lens that mostly sits around.


However, A6600 is pretty competent body ( except that I don't like type-B usb connector in today's age), and has all bells and whistles.

Thanks- Did you think about Fuji before settling in on the Sony?

[rjainv]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

Thanks- Did you think about Fuji before settling in on the Sony?

I think comparable model feature wise would be xt3 and not xt30, what do you think ?

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by rjainv

I think comparable model feature wise would be xt3 and not xt30, what do you think ?

Maybe yes, but I think the XT-3 is now replaced by the XT-4. Also I understand that Fuji lenses are more expensive than Sony and also lesser in terms of variety?

[rjainv]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

Maybe yes, but I think the XT-3 is now replaced by the XT-4. Also I understand that Fuji lenses are more expensive than Sony and also lesser in terms of variety?

Yes, xt4 is the newest model, and yes Fuji is more expensive compared to Sony which as well is expensive compared to canon/Nikon. But Fuji does have few additional pro features that we probably don't care about ( except BSI may be).

And I felt the same is true for lens ecosystem. Sony atleast has options from Sigma and Tamron, I am not sure if Fuji does.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by rjainv

My 2 cents, I had bought A6600 few months ago.
1. Inbuilt stabilization is important if you are eyeing lens that are not stabilized.

It is important for the longer lenses. When I was using my a6000, I could easily do without it when using a 30mm lens, but I had a used, fully manual Tamron 90mm, and even focusing that was hard. I got an a6500, and things got easier.

However, A6600 is pretty competent body ( except that I don't like type-B usb connector in today's age), and has all bells and whistles.

Just being picky... it's micro-usb: the most common connector type on phones and most small things before type-C came along.

When I bought my a6500, I wanted IBIS, rather than the improved focussing system of the then-available a6400. I also liked the pop-up flash. This week, I got the Tamron 17-70/2.8, which is going to spend a lot of general-purpose time on my camera: it renders the pup-up flash useless, as it casts a shadow. Even my Sigma 30/1.4, with lenscap, causes a shadow. So now I am free to want the a6600!

Except I just spent about Rs.1.5 lakh on lenses. Hey, no international travel last year!

(new lenses:
Tamron 70-180/2.8
Tamron 17-70/2.8
)

[rjainv]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Just being picky... it's micro-usb: the most common connector type on phones and most small things before type-C came along.

You are right type-B written as is would refer to full sized connectors usually found behind usb printers

In my mind I was referring to micro-B connector. There can be other micro-A and micro-AB variants as well... All look exactly same from outside, however the usage (host vs device vs OTG) differ.


Btw, what would A6600 get you on top of A6500? You can still connect external flash to A6500, right?