Fuji X-T10

So most of my current co-workers know that I was a photographer in my life before nursing.

I guess it's not surprising that they don't find it amusing or strange that I came from a photography background as most of them came from another background.  Many nurses choose it as a second career.  In fact the rarer find is a nurse who graduated from high school, got their nursing degree, and continues to work as a nurse.  I have to pause and wonder if that's a comment on the career of nursing or a comment on how our system of careers work in theses United States.  Hmm.... possibly another blog post later.

Anywho.

Like most groups of people there are various levels of photography experience within my coworkers.  Most of them say they take photographs too... on their camera phones.  I always fight the urge to puke when I hear that.  One nurse tried to defend their statement because they use an iPhone.  I suppressed the urge to slap that Apple arrogance (iArrogant?) off their smug face.  Three of them actually have real photography equipment, and one has a rally nice set of Canon camera's and lenses.

I've thankfully gone through most of the standard questions and answers about my photo career:

• Yes, I loved being a photographer
• No, I never made a lot of money as a photographer
• No, I won't take their portrait/wedding/senior/soccer photos
• Yes, I'll help them take better photos
• Yes, I'll help them get better equipment
• Yes, I'll look at their photos
• Yes, I'll critique their photos
• No, I won't hold back what I think just to be polite
• No, I don't have any camera equipment

That last one always seems to baffle people.  The easiest explanation as to why I don't have any equipment of my own is that I worked for several professional outlets and had access to their equipment.  I mean why bother spending thousands of dollars on equipment when I could already use their thousands of dollars worth of equipment?  The harder explanation is that I couldn't afford what I want.

That's a harder conversation since I then have to try and explain the difference between a $500 Canon EOS Rebel T6 and a $6000 Canon EOS-1D X Mark II.  For you, I'll give the short but accurate answer.... I want a camera that is designed for a professional.  That doesn't compromise on controls and features just to make it easy enough to use by an amateur.  I don't want the camera that you learn on, I want the camera that you use once you know how to use it.  Plus I want really good lenses.  I don't want a $200 15mm-300mm zoom lens... I want the $2500 200mm-300mm zoom lens with selective optical image stabilization and a straight 2.8 aperture.  Even if I went with previous generations of camera bodies I always figured my ideal kit would go for between $7000 and $10,000.

That IS a true statement.  But it's something that I often hide behind.  I know damned well that I could take fine photographs on that $500 Rebel.  I know damned well that I could take fine photos with that $200 lens.  I just know that if I have a twinge of being  unhappy with my purchase I wouldn't use it nearly as much as if I was enamored with my purchase.  It's something you may have caught on with some of my previous purchases... my tablet/laptop, my keyboard, my mouse, my monitor, my car.  I pick the category of what I want, and then get the very best in that category.  So if I was going to get a DSLR, I wanted to have the best one with the best lenses.

But something changed.  One of my fellow nurses didn't just ask for advise... she actually followed through with it.  She bought a Rebel and a couple lenses.  She started to play and take photos.  Not just snapshots... photographs.  And talking to her about how to learn and then hone her skills started to make that part of me ache.  I wanted to be doing that.  I wanted to go out and play with depth of field and cropping and different perspectives.  I wanted to play with the shutter speed and ISO and aperture and focus.

So I sat down one night and started to list out what exactly I wanted a camera to have.  First and foremost it had to have the ability to go into completely manual control.  I had to easily be able to manually focus... and that ability had to be on the lens.  Not just a couple buttons on the back of the camera, but an actual focus ring.  The other manual controls had to include ISO, aperture, and shutter speed, and those features had to be changeable with buttons or dials on the camera and not buried in some menu.  It had to have interchangeable lenses.  I would eventually want a fish-eye lens, a 50mm equivalent lens, and a long telephoto lens.  I'd like to have a macro lens and a portrait lens and a short range zoom, and.... yeah, interchangeable lenses was a MUST.

Something more ephemeral but just as important as these other objective things was that it had to be a 'good' camera.  The CCD or CMOS sensor had to be good.  I really don't care what the megapixels are so long as it takes photos that can print out in large format.  The Canon EOS-1D I used back when doing event photography was only a 4 megapixel camera but it took spectacular images.  So I don't need to get the 40 megapixel camera just to be satisfied.  The sensor size is also important.  Pro cameras have what's called a full frame sensor.  That 'full frame' is based on a 35mm negative size and is 36x24mm.  Other 'standard' sizes include APS-C (also based on a photo negative size), micro 4/3, 1, and 1/3.  There are actually many other sizes including larger (Medium Format) and smaller, but these are the primary sizes you'll see in major devices.

The Full Frame sized sensors are primarily in professional cameras.  The APS-C and Micro 4/3 are in a lot of Mirrorless pro cameras, while the 1/3 is the primary size in camera phones.  Now one thing to consider besides 'bigger is better' is lens sizes.  The bigger the sensor, the bigger the lens has to be to cover the sensor.  Also, when I say I want a 50mm lens, that's the size it would be on a full frame sensor.  Put a 50mm lens on an APS-C sensor and it's the equivalent of having an 80mm lens.  So to have that 'standard' 50mm lens when using an APS-C sensor, I'd have to have a roughly 33mm lens.

Yeah... confusing.  Basically with the smaller sensors I'd have to think of lenses in a different way.  Most consumer point and shoot cameras are the 2/3 or smaller sensors.  Most 'prosumer' point and shoot style cameras are the 1 or smaller sensors.  Most DSLRs are APS-C or Full Frame.  Micro 4/3 is the kind of in-between.  It can be either a GREAT prosumer point and shoot or a shitty DSLR.  To help me separate the wheat from teh chaff, I decided that I'd either want a full frame or an aps-c sized sensor.  With that simple choice I could elimate all the 'crap'.  Not to say that there aren't some very nice 4/3 sensor based cameras... there are just a few too many shitty ones.  There really aren't many bad aps-c sensor based cameras.

Next up is brand.   I try not to be a snob.  When I tell most people to go with either nikon or canon based equipment it's because you can't really get a bad one.  It's about the same as eliminating the 4/3 sized sensors... it just takes care of the crap.  BUT there are other manufacturers that make good camera equipment.  You just have to know which particular models to get and what features you want to avoid.   I'd still want to stay with a company that I recognize as making quality products in the camera field.... so Canon, Nikon, Leica, Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, and Panasonic.  Realistically Leica is out.  They're just too expensive.

The last thing is the format. At first I thought this was an easy choise... SLR or Bust!  But then I sat back and really thought about it.  I'd LOVE to have a Leica.  If you don't know the name Leica, consider it the same thing as Ferrari.  It's the best of the best and beloved by photographers. But Leica is best known for rangefinder cameras.   Lemme give the basics....

In an SLR (Single Lens Reflex) the light comes through the lens then is bounced through a series of mirros and prisms to bounce it back up to your view finder.  That's why the viewfinder is above but in line with the lens.  When you take a picture, the mirror flips up and the light goes straight through to the image sensor (or film in the days of old).

Digital photography has changed the way this needs to work.  It made mirrorless cameras possible.  The light in a mirrorless camera goes through the lens and onto the sensor.  The viewfinder simply digitally shows what the sensor is seeing.  That means there's no need for the big hump on the camera (that's where the pentaprism is in an SLR), and it doesn't even need to be lined up with the lens.  It can be off to the right or the left of the lens.

The other format to consider is the range finder.  That's what leica uses and a lot of older film cameras used.  In a range finder the view finder is a separate window generally off to the left.  It does not look through the lens, so when you change lenses you either have to use crop lines in the view finder or actually change the view finder lens out.  It was great 'back in the day' because it made the camera much smaller.  But now a days it's just a throwback.  Leica uses it because... well it's Leica and it does whatever the fuck it wants to.  But there's really no advantage since a digital mirrorless camera can be just as small.

Now I'll admit that my heart still initially went to SLR.  It's what the 'pro' cameras are, it's what most 'pros' shoot... it's what I wanted.  There's even that satisfying 'click' of the mirror flipping up and back down when you hit the shutter release.  But then I thought about size.  Even the smallest SLR cameras are... well they're fairly big to huge.  I forget who said it, but "The Best Camera Is The One That's With You".  I.E. it doesn't matter how wonderful it is to shoot with a Canon EOS-1D X Mark II, you won't get any photographs if its too big to carry around.  I've experienced that before.  It took a trip to Chicago years ago with my buddy E and I brought my pro gear (Canon 1D)... and I left it at his apartment all the time because it was just too damned big to lug around.

So going mirrorless, so long as it met the other criteria, should be 'better'.

I decided to focus on digital mirrorless cameras for awhile and see if there was anything worth considering.  If there wasn't, then I'd move up and start looking at DSLRs and be done with it.  First thing I found out was that neither Canon nor Nikon took this format seriously.  They both offered a mirrorless camera system, but they were limited and low quality.  And I guess that makes sense... they want you to buy their DSLRs as that's their bread and butter business.  But those other brands.... Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic... they had some damned good cameras!  Most of them were straddling the divide between point & shoot and professional.

Once I got down to the APS-C, full manual, interchangeable lens cameras I was really down to just a small handful.  These were the pro quality cameras.  Their sensors were serious, their build quality was superior, and they offered the features to try and attract pro shooters.  I don't think any of these companies think they're going to knock Canon or Nikon of their thrones with these cameras... but they sure would like to be the backup camera in their kits!

Ironically the one that I settled on is considered 'retro' for the very feature that I wanted.  Easily controlled manual settings.  To me it's obvious... the easiest way to change the shutter speed is to just turn the dial on top of the camera.  It's where the control was on my Canon AE-1 of old, it's where it was on the Canon 1D I used years ago, and it's where the control is on the modern Canon 1D X Mark II.  But Fuji went the next step... they made the body look more like my old Canon AE-1 than a modern mirrorless camera.  Hell, they even have the 'pentaprism' hump built in.  The lenses almost all have the aperture control on them (there's a dial on the back of the camera for the ones that don't), they all have the manual focus ring, it has a dial for shutter speed, a dial for motor mode (single shot, fast continuous, slow eontinuous, bracketing...), it has a dial for exposure compensation, and a dial up front that can be programmed to control the ISO.

Instead of being all slick and black or grey plastics, it has the grey metal top and leatherette body of cameras from the 60s and 70s (i.e. my Canon AE-1).

It's actually quite a bit smaller than my AE-1, and even with three lenses, it's easy to carry around.  And the price?  Well it's a pro camera that carries a pro price.  The body all by itself goes for about $800.  I got it for $900 in a kit with two cheap zoom lenses that go from 16mm to 230mm.  I also bought a 35mm prime lens for it (the 50mm equivalent) that goes down to f2.0 for $400.  With some lens filters (to protect the lenses), and a 64 gig SD storage card, I ended up spending about $1400.

Now, I'm fairly sure I haven't shared my images on this blog before.  But seeing as it's private and I'm really quite happy with this purchase, I figure I should share some of my joy.  Here are a few of the images I shot on that first day.  Understand... none of these were meant to be good... these are raw out of the camera with no digital retouching.  They're just me walking around and playing like I was a photographer again:

And yes... that's me in the last one.