Photographic Advice Wanted!

I’m moving into a new job soon and while the focus of that job will be writing, every decent story benefits from a few good pictures. Especially when the stories are about cars. I need to develop my photographic skills (pun intended!).

As I’ve read on nearly every single photobug website, the single biggest investment I can make is time and practice. It’s the eye behind the camera that has the biggest influence on the quality of the picture.

Nevertheless, I also want to invest some money in making sure I have the right gear to cover most situations. I’ve spent a lot of time on Ken Rockwell’s invaluable website and I think I’ve come up with a kit that’ll suit my needs. I thought I’d post my ideas here and lean on the expertise of readers who not only know their cameras, but also know their cars (because cars are mostly what I’ll be photographing).

My kit so far:

  • Nikon D750 full-frame (FX) digital SLR
  • Nikkor 50mm f1.8G lens
  • Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm 1:4G ED lens
  • Tamron 18-200 f3.8-5.6 lens
  • Nikon SB-700 Speedlight (flash)

The Tamron lens is the one that came with my old Nikon F60 film camera. It fits the D750 so I figured I may as well keep it, though it’s nowhere near as sharp as I’d imagine a good Nikkor lens of similar length would be.

The big question is what other lenses – or other equipment – should I invest in to make sure I’ve got as many bases covered as possible?

nikon lens family

I’m thinking mainly about lenses here. It’d be great to have two camera bodies. It saves a lot of time changing lenses. I’ve only got one camera body at the moment but it’s a new one and a good one. I can’t afford to spend money on another good full-frame body right now. My D750 will become a good second body one day, but that’s a few years down the track.

I’ve got a good wide-zoom lens in the 16-35mm and I’ve got an adequate 50mm prime lens (though I’d love to upgrade to the f1.4 if my budget allows).

The lenses I would like to add to my kit include a detailed below, along with the objective.

The Distance Dilemma.

I’d like to have some good tele-zoom capability, ideally up to 400mm. Given that a dedicated 400mm lens costs megabucks, I’m looking at a few options.

Option 1 – 70-200mm + teleconverter

Nikkor 70-200mm VR II AF-S G ED – Apparently a super-sharp zoom with good vibration reduction. Current cost is around $2,400 new or just under $2K second hand. There are other decent Nikon zooms out there but this one’s key because of the f2.8 speed and the desire to use a…..

Nikon TC-20E III (teleconverter) – Current cost is around $450 new. This teleconverter works without restriction on the 70-200mm lens. On some slower lenses, it doesn’t work so well. The teleconverter basically doubles the focal length of your lens (supposedly) without compromising your optics. That means my 70-200mm lens could be used as a 400mm lens, suitable for track photography.

Option 2 – 80-400mm

The 70-200mm + teleconverter is one option for getting decent 400mm performance. The other option is a Nikkor 80-400mm tele-zoom. I can pick up a refurbished one of these for about $1600 at the moment.

I tend to worry about lenses that have such a wide range. Are they going to be sharp all the way through?

The advantage for the 80-400mm is great 400mm performance with vibration reduction. The lower cost is handy, too. The disadvantage is slow auto-focus. A new AF-S model is out, but that’s around $1000 more.

The advantage for the 70-200mm + teleconverter option is great 400mm performance with vibration reduction, as well as having a super-duper 70-200mm lens for other work, when not using the teleconverter. It gives me much greater versatility with what I think would be greater quality, albeit at a higher cost.

The disadvantage is that the 70-200mm + teleconverter option will cost twice as much as the basic 80-400mm option.

The 70-200mm vs 80-400mm question is probably the biggest one I’m facing right now. Any advice or stories of previous experience would be much appreciated.

Macro

Nikon 200mm f/4D AF Micro – Around $2K new but I’ve found one second-hand for less than half of this amount. This is widely regarded as Nikon’s best Macro lens, which would be great for getting close-in on vehicle details. Nikon also sell a 105mm macro lens, which is probably the more popular option because it costs a bit less and will do the job for most people. The argument for the 200mm is that it’s long enough to let you get out of the way of your own lighting, which is important for macro. And as with cars, I tend to try and buy the best whenever I can, to save regrets later on.

UPDATE: I tried the 105mm macro today and I think it’ll do the job I need just fine. And it’ll likely save me some money. Good result.

The other….

The equipment above is my main consideration at the moment but if I can get it all for a decent price, I’d like to sneak in a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 lens. This is the super-sharp and super-fast upgrade from the f1.8 version I’ve got at the moment and I can get one for about $400 second-hand.

As you can tell, I don’t mind buying second-hand if I feel confident that the lens is good condition. You’ve got to treat these lenses with reasonable contempt to really damage them and a lot of people buy a specialty lens to use it just a few times before realising it’s not for them. Buying these lenses brand new just isn’t within my budget.

——

Over to you. If you’ve got any experience or advice, I’d love to hear it.

You may also like

39 Comments

  1. What about lighting? Off camera flash and remote triggers. You will need them. More than one.

    Job sounds interesting!!

    1. I’m hoping I can tap the employer for stuff like that, or that they might already have some. It’s an area I definitely need to learn more about.

  2. I second the query about lights and that depends if you are going to do portraits or not. Unless you are going to be taking a lot of long distance photos you’d be better off getting a decent tripod.

    1. I do have a tripod. I didn’t list it in the gear but I do have one. Like the other gear I mentioned, it’s something that I wouldn’t mind upgrading (a ball head, for instance) but that can come later.

      1. The hardest part I find is focusing. Anyway, since I’ve switched to mainly two lens, I think my quality has improved. Fuji 35mm 1.4f and a Fuji 50-230mm zoom (a bit slow but sharp). One perk I forgot to mention is that there is a lot of converters you can get for Fuji cameras, so I have an adaptor that allows me to stick Nikon lenses on the front (the adaptor was only $20). If you don’t want to swap out your Nikon gear, that’s a useful trick if you want something really small and light elsewhere (such as one of the Fuji cameras like my M1 or the holy grail, the TX-1).

  3. Hello, Swade. I’m a forensic photographer by trade. It’s clear that you’ve researched your lens selection thoroughly and have some good ideas. However, I don’t use telecoverters, so I can’t really provide advice there. What I would ask, though, is why do you want a 1.4 50 mm lens over a 1.8? It will allow a bee’s penis’ worth of extra light to pass but to what end? You can always dial up some ISO or, even better, use a tripod for shutter speeds below 1/60th for static work. That way, you can use smaller apertures and get much better depth of field than you would at 1.8 (or 1.4 if you did go that way).

    Actually, my advice would be to buy a good quality tripod (Manfrottos are great), irrespective of what maximum aperture prime lens you buy (though I think my position apropos the 1.8 being fine is sound). A tripod will allow you to use ambient light in way more situations, which will usually give more even exposures (just keep an eye on the lighting source and use white balance accordingly).

    Regards,

    Alastair.

    PS: Now that I’ve confessed my background, I’m a bit embarrassed by a couple of soft photos on my latest UMPH post. I still think they look ok, though.

    1. G’day Alastair,

      I’ve only considered the 1.4 because everyone said I should have got one when I got the 1.8. It’s reputed to be a bit sharper but I have to admit I’ve never tried one. I’ll only do it if the budget allows but I’ve got a feeling the budget will be tight.

      I do plan on upgrading my tripod, but the new job involves moving from Tassie so that’ll be something I’ll do when I’m on the ground.

      Love the pics from Tarraleah. Phil’s Fiat looks awesome.

  4. That sounds like a lot of camera equipment to haul around for “a few good pictures” to accompany an article. What about a compact system camera? I used to have a DLSR but swtiched to a Sony NEX-6 a year ago. Small, light, same sensor as a good DLSR and can be be paired with some good lenses. It’s a joy to shoot with compared to a heavy and large DSLR with lenses.

    Together with some good photography software like Aperture or Lightroom, you can get some amazing results. Are these pictures for print or web? Flickr is always a good site to search for pictures made with a certain camera. Do you currently havae an online collection of pictures you made? Here some of mine with the most recent stuff taken with the NEX-6: https://www.flickr.com/photos/frankwulfers/

    But I am just a hobbyist, never even considered buying a $2000+ lens. πŸ™‚

    Sounds like you found an opportunity in journalism you have been looking for for a long time. Very curious to hear more. Good luck!

    1. I haven’t used Lightroom yet but I will be. I did have Aperture on my Mac but it’s no longer supported.

      There are times when compacts are very, very useful but they’ve always frustrated me. I’ve never got results as good as the ones you posted on Flickr. Great stuff. Will have to look into one as they can be very handy.

      1. If you hadn’t already got so many lens I’d be recommending a Fuji TX-1 and associated lens (I have the lens but I can’t afford the body yet)

    2. Aperture still works fine, even though there are not going to be any new versions. Sometimes you don’t really need the latest and greatest software with features you may never use. I use both Lightroom and Aperture and find Aperture easiest to work with. But professionals that have to use the software daily with thousands of pictures seem to like Lightroom.

      I suggest to try one of those compact system cameras or at least have as a second or backup camera. Most of the time pictures straight from my NEX-6 in RAW or JPEG come out rather bland but a few adjustments in Aperture makes all the difference.

  5. You’ve been a bit too mysterious as to WHAT you’ll be photographing. Architecture needs completely different set-up to live action and to performance and to product shots or portraiture .
    That said, the 70-200 f2.8 is a very good lens for many applications. A second slave flash unit is often useful as are reflectors. I’m not a fan of teleconverters, as you generally lose a stop or two, and sometimes generate unwanted distortion effects. There’s a long Tamron SP Zoom (150-600mm) but it’s very slow at the long end.
    I have a Tamron SP 24-70 f2.8 which is fantastic for travelling
    As I said, it all depends.
    Good luck, Swade

    1. Yeah, what Dan says. It depends on the type of photography you’ll be doing. Suggest you query workmates doing similar types of assignments.

      I was a stringer photographer for a weekly newspaper for 5-1/2 years back in the early 80’s. Was the only shooter on “staff”, but the reporters did take an occasional photo using the paper’s camera with only a couple of lenses. This was back in the day when film ruled and copy was starting to make the changeover to digital paste-up. Over time I developed a liking to fast lenses as we needed to use existing light, especially for action (sports) and meetings (City Council and the like). Zoom lenses ate up existing light at long focal lengths, Over the years, this added up to a 20mm f4, 28mm f2, 35mm f1.4, 58mm f1.2 (Noct-Nikkor), 85mm f2, 135mm f2 and 180mm f2.8. I stumbled across a used 300mm f2.8 for just under USD1,000, but thought is was too expensive for limited use. Each of the lenses had a specific use, the wide angles were mostly for news and sports close-up, short telephotos for close-in sports like wresting and volleyball. Intermediate teles for basketball and baseball/softball. The longer teles were for baseball and football. I normally used two motorized bodies with different lenses.

      At the same time I was doing field photography shooting wildlife and transportation, mainly railroads and aircraft. This wanted longer and “fast” teles.

      I’ve also done architectural photography and found Nikon’s two perspective control lenses 28mm & 35mm to be of use. I prefer to set-up the photo in the feid and fix problems in the “darkroom” A bit of preparation always makes things go easier. I’ve been told Photoshop will digitally solve the foreshortening problem. I’ve not been convinced of this tho…..

      Best photographic investment you can make is a monopod and couple of tripods. As with cars, these sort of collect themselves. Each of the ‘pods has a more-or-less specific use. Monfredo makes a good series/system of tripods. A stable & steady platform is necessary. I’m not a believer in those “image stabilzation” settings to overcome a correctable operator problem. I’ve muffed many a shot on my iPhone hoping the stabilization will correct for a shakey hold.

      If you’re more comfortable with a film camera use film and get it digitized when the negs are processed. This is more expensive over the long run, but you can find out what equipment you’ll use and comfortable with.

  6. I feel I’d only be doubling up on the already great advice here. The nikkor 1.8 lenses are almost as sharp as a faster alternative but editorial pictures wouldn’t gain any real advantage. Get an adjustable ND Filter for your lenses as it will allow you to stop up in day light. High shutter will only get you so far. Instead of lenses buy a D7100 or D7200 you’ll have 2 bodies and a 1.5 Converter. One of the sharpest nikkor lenses is the 85mm, again makes no odds on 1.8 or 1.4. Tamron and Sigma are Producing some really good lenses now so check them out before you look at more nikkor stuff. Throw that old Tamron you have away, you can’t write about sharpens with that in your camera bag. Lastly stop reading Ken Rockwell he generally contradicts himself, and talks crap. Get on FStoppers . It’s not the best but far more informative than Rockwell

    1. Fstoppers looks good, although it’s already got me considering more gear! That Radian panning thingy looks like a lot of fun!

      πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚

  7. Probably not the most useful advice, as I’m only a snapper-amateur, but I’d say “buy when it hurts” – i.e. start with a few pieces of kit and if you find yourself constantly needing to do something that what you have doesn’t cover well, look out for a bargain. That way, you may find you need something different to what you originally thought, and you may be able to afford a better example.

    Congrats on the new job – can’t wait for the “reveal” πŸ˜€

  8. So it’s writing and photography? And I thought you were going to replace Clarkson at Top Gear… πŸ™‚

    My interest in photography is probably somewhat above average, but I don’t have an extensive knowledge about the gadgets. For me, good photography is mainly about the composition of the photo and what it is telling the viewer. For that, your main equipment is your brain. Expensive equipment can turn a low quality photo into a high quality one, but it usually can’t turns photos into artful pictures that tells a story. From what I’ve seen in the past, you have an artistic eye for how to take nice photos. I think you should consider that your main tool.

    I’m a little confused about all the equipment… You really want to carry all that around? How much time will you spend fiddling with the settings instead of just letting the scenery to the talking? At work, we do need to take photos and short movies (often slow motion ones of physics experiments) from time to time. Money for expensive equipment is not a problem, and in the past we had some nice DSLRs and video cameras. Today, we usually just use our iPhones. It’s faster and easier, and it’s always with you. We spend the time trying different things in the scene, instead of spending it on finding camera equipments and setting it up. Sometimes, the small phone also makes people relax more. It does not intrude on the moment the same way as when you bring a DSLR on a tripod and try to set that up.

    Then it’s about what to use the photos for. We publish them on websites – not in glossy high-quality coffee table books. Those extra DSLR megapixels are just wasted for web publishing. Occasionally we print them on large advertising materials, flyers etc. But guess what – they are good enough for those as well. Again, the most important thing here is not some extreme picture quality or cool artistic filer or what software you use to post-process it in. It’s about what the photo actually communicates. That is what people will remember.

    1. My mate Stu the lens genius has a great eye for composition. I wish I had it. About 1 in 100 of my shots looks passable. Everything he does looks great. It’s a gift, I think.

    2. I have to agree with pingu. Your main asset, or detractor for that matter, is going to be your skill. Read up on photographic theory such as gestalt theory. A lot of people can recognize a good photo but they don’t know why it is good. Learning the theory is really learning how the human mind perceives the world and playing off that to make images that captivate.
      If doing video and stills I’d have suggested strongly you go with a full frame Sony A7s. Its high ISO capability is out of this world good and opens up new areas for creativity in low light that no other camera can match. Pair that with the Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS and it is unlikely you would need anything else for the type of photography you’d be doing.
      If you are like me and learn best visually I’d suggest watching Matt Granger’s YouTube channel.
      I’ll leave you with one tip that I wish I had done earlier in my photography career. Shoot in RAW. It will allow far more post possessing.

      1. Swade, do you have access to books from like the 40s or 50s that learn amateurs how to photograph? They are usually very good. That was before color photography became mainstream for amateurs, so they really teach you the basic in composition of pictures regarding angels, pattern, depth, light, were to have objects in the picture frame, etc. Today we see all the fancy colors in the viewfinder and too often (me included) find those enough for it to be a “nice photo”. Try making some good photos you took black and white, and see if they are still interesting. πŸ™‚

  9. I am not a professional so can’t give any advice on gear and such, but I would suggest to check out what the masters do.
    Have a look at people like Lee Brimble and Webb Bland, and others who have done work for magazines like Evo, CAR and Top Gear. Always great car photos there.
    Maybe you already visited the site inmybag.net , it seems to be an interesting place for info about gear.

    Good luck with your new adventures!

  10. Swade,

    To be perfectly honest, that is way too much equipment. You should be weary of the photo web sites, they are in the gear business, not the photography business.

    You can do 90% of your work with two lenses: one wide, and one short telephoto. Heck, if you stick to one visual style, you can probably use only one lens. Check-out The Sartorialist for instance. It’s the most popular photo blog on the planet, and last I checked he only ever uses one lens (an 85).

    No good picture has ever been taken with a lens longer than 135. That’s an old saying, but it’s still true. Unless your job involves stalking-out camouflaged prototypes in the Nevada desert, you definitely do not need a 200 or 300 or a teleconverter.

    The Nikon 105 micro is a great lens, but you there’s not enough space for a 105 inside a car. The 200 you looked at would have been completely useless in a car, you wouldn’t have enough space to shoot anything bigger than a postage stamp.

    Here’s what I suggest:

    Keep the D750 and the wide zoom. They are both solid pieces of equipment. If you want a backup camera, get something lighter like a D610.
    Keep the 1.8/50. It’s a good backup lens. You don’t need a 1.4.
    Get a short macro. The Nikon 2.8/60 is excellent, although the Zeiss 2.0/50 is even better (and manual focus, which you want in a macro).
    Get a short telephoto in the 85-105 range. If you must get a zoom, stick to a lighter 70/80-200.
    Get a decent but not extravagant tripod. Get a good video head if you will be shooting video.
    Get a bubble level that attaches to your hot shoe. Use it whenever you’ve got the wide zoom on the tripod.

    Get some reflectors (white cards, really) for macro work. An iPad makes a decent light source for small stuff, you can get some inexpensive LED panels for bigger stuff.
    Forget about lighting a whole car with portable gear. Use sunlight (and a car’s ability to move to where the light is good).

    Assuming that you are shooting for web use (as opposed to billboards), you really don’t need the “sharpest” or “fastest” lenses. That’s like picking a car that’s 0.1 seconds faster to 100 km/h. You can crop-out a tiny portion of a frame from your D750 and still be sharp enough for the web.

    1. Thanks Bernard.

      Yes, the vast majority of stuff will be shot with web in mind, but I’d also like to have the quality to print at a decent resolution if need be. The more options, the better.

      And yes, video will be part of the ongoing assignment, too.

      So much to learn, but it’s going to be a blast!

  11. I haven’t got to every comment, but I just wanted to say a big THANKYOU to all for your considered advice and the time taken to share it.

    There’s so much to learn here and while it’s not the central part of my job, photography will be important. I really want to learn and to get it right.

    There’s a lot of good advice here.

  12. My old photography mentor used to say “there are two rules in photography: light against dark and dark against light.”
    In other words, watch you backgrounds. Place light objects against dark backgrounds and vice versa.
    Rules are made to be broken, of course, but only with good reason. Light-on-light is called “high key,” dark-on-dark is called “low key,” grey-on-grey is called “Audi.”

    Direct sunlight is almost always bad for pictures. Look for open shade, or shoot during magic hour (dawn and dusk).
    Don’t approach subjects with a camera in front of your face. Walk around, look at the light and the background. Stop when it looks good and then grab your camera. With a little experience, you will know what lens to use (or zoom setting) before looking through the finder.
    The best shooting angle is almost never eye-level. Don’t be afraid to get down on your knees to get to your subject’s height (especially important for cars and children).

    If you are shooting video, get a fluid head. It’s almost impossible to get a smooth pan without one. Don’t zoom during shots, that only worked for a brief period in 1966 (and only in B movies).

    Most of all, keep it simple. No super-telephoto, no ultra-wide, no graduated colour filters (something that Top Gear often abuses). Photo gear sites make their money by convincing you to buy more stuff. That’s good for them, but it’s just extra luggage for you.

    1. Good tips there!

      One of my photo-mentors many years ago liked to talk about “dancing the three-step”.

      i.e. When you see a potential picture, take three steps both forwards and back from where you’re standing to see how best to frame it.

      His other favourite saying – “fill the frame”.

      The other thing I’ve enjoyed doing from time to time is carrying a step-ladder (I think someone’s mentioned this in comments already). It gives a perspective that you won’t get any other way. We can all shoot at levels we can physically reach, or crouch to, but sometimes it’s good to have a boost and get beyond what you can physically reach on your own.

  13. The Ken Rockwell sight is a great resource. He really doesn’t push expensive/complex solutions – there is something there for every requirement.

    Our three fave Nikon lens – that cover everything for us from boat & home interiors to outdoor action events:

    Nikon 18-200mm VR. The go-to can do anything lens.
    Nikon 12-24mm. Wide angle pics, not distorted (at least to the non-pro eye) that make interiors & details come alive.
    Nikon 70-300mm VR. A not too expensive zoom that makes sporting events or whatever needs some zoom – pop.

    We have several Nikon bodies… D90, D40, now older but still valid (except for contemporary video perhaps). It’s the lens that matters. We always take one body with the 18-200 and the other with one of the above depending on the job.

    Congrats on your new mission.

    1. Thanks Keith.

      I’ve been surprised by some of the hostility I’ve encountered in the last few days WRT Rockwell’s site. Esp on Facebook. I’ve found it to be a great resource.

      I used the 12-24mm a few weeks ago. Amazing lens. Probably a little wider than I need but incredible detail (I think 16mm is wider than I need but I bought the 16-35 anyway).

      1. Rockwell’s site fills the same niche that the generalist photography magazines used to. It provides basic information that you will eventually outgrow, while trying to convince you to buy lots of gear. It’s a decent-enough place to start, but keep in mind that you don’t need five Nikkor lenses that cover the same focal length, even if he gives them all great reviews and tells you that three of them are “legendary.”

        I suspect that the hostility you’ve encountered comes from people who’ve outgrown the site, and from people who disagree with the equipment-centric approach. I can’t say that they are wrong, but it’s a bit like being hostile to the books you were reading when you were twelve years old. They served their purpose at the time.

      2. Interesting re Rockwell hostility. He may be kinda corny, and perhaps some don’t like that he makes some $ off his site (I’m fine with that). Our photography may be similar to yours. We are not professional photographers, but photography is part of what we do professionally. Maybe we are rubes, but checking out Rockwell’s site once in a while when we are camera or lens shopping helps.

  14. I read the advice for a 12-24mm zoom lens. Good lens, I have it, BUT it is a DX lens, so not really suitable for the D750 (although it would work from 18mm upwards).

    Regarding the telezoom, I think the 80-400 (the newest version) is a good lens. Not as sharp as the 70-200, but good enough for most work I guess.

    Same as many others before, I would recommend to stick to the 50mm f/1.8. The f/1.4 is a bit better, but not enough to justify the higher price.

    And finally, about Nikon advice websites: I don’t like Ken Rockwell. He seems to give nice and concise advice, but very often it is not really thorough (at least in my opinion). Better read Thom Hogan (www.bythom.com). Ok, he is very critical sometimes, and keeps hammering on his favorite subjects, but he is very knowledgeable, reliable, and accurate.

  15. Dx lenses leave a black border around a center circular image. If you switch an FX camera to Dx mode it cuts it out just like a normal cropped sensor leaving a cropped normal looking image like you would get on a Dx body.

  16. Steven, you’re getting a lot of good advice here….but the best advice echoed by several people, is don’t overdue it….You don’t want to carry too much around and you don’t want to have to keep changing lenses. My thinking is unless you’re going to need a long telephoto for sports photography you can easily get by with the two Nikkor lenses you already have plus Nikons 18-200 VR zoom lens. Is it the best at anything, no, but it sure will handle an awful lot of shots unless you’re in a very low light situation….

    On the other hand, unless what you’re doing involves mostly going to an event or something and taking pictures, and not walking around town or the country, you may want to consider a light weight compact camera. I purchased a Fujifilm X-E2 with their kit 18-55mm lens, It’s a fabulous little camera with a terrifically sharp lens, and amazingly low noise at high ISOs (6400). Since then, I’ve barely used my Nikon D-200. It’s not so good where a medium to long telephoto is needed, or where super fast focusing is needed on a moving subject, but for everything else, tis great.

  17. So, if you are going to be writing Automotive stories, are you going to write about the 100 plus deaths related to the GM ignition recall?

    1. I’m thankful for the fact that I’ll likely never have to write about GM ever again.

  18. Hey Swade, long time.

    Did you know Ken Rockwell used to have a couple of Saabs? (OG 9-3 and 9-5 is memory serves me correct).

    I digress…

    I’ve been shooting Pentax since the beginning (just cause I’m the left of the field for choices kind of guy, Pentax feels like the Saab of cameras), but recently I dumped all my K-mount and 645 gear for a CSC – I have been resisting mirror-less for the longest time. Arguing that optical finder is better yadda yadda.

    Well, Ted’s camera had the last generation of OM-D E-M5 for a huge discount ($499 for a bosy + 14-42mm kit). So I decided to pick it up as “a toy” to try it out.

    1 month later, as I mentioned I sold ALL my Pentax professional level gear (K-3, 645D, pro lens, FA Limited lnes) and fully adopted the Olympus M4/3 mount.

    For something that is 1/4 of the size and 1/3 of the weight of a DSLR, I get 90% of the image quality AND some really advanced nice features that can not be achieved on a traditional DSLR.

    As I do most journalistic and travel photo shoots, size and weight is a HUGE factor for me. And as they say, the best camera is the one you have with you at the time.

    On my last expedition trip, I enjoyed using my Android phone more than the DSLR. now with a CSC, I’m enjoying taking photos again.

    Anyway that is my story on camera equipment…

    BTW, if Pentax is Saab, I wonder who Olympus is? It’s also a left of the field choice… Maybe Mazda? The only Japanese maker that has some passion building cars.