No argument from me. After from years of shooting Canon and Nikon film rangefinders with quite small lenses, I’ve fully embraced Fuji. I’ve had a series of the x100 cameras and their f2 line of lenses are on my x-pro3 nearly always. Even the old, flawed and wonderful 35 f1.4 lens is quite compact.
I keep trying to find something to disagree with you on Bob, but not today. I do have 3 Canon L lenses, two of them f/4 and the 100-500 slower telephoto. I use them mostly for nature and wildlife when the weight is worth carrying. I really like the consistent ergonomics of these RF lenses. But I also have the 16 f2.8, the 28 f/2.8 and the 50 f/1.8 for street or casual vacation shooting. My favorite is that cute little 28 pancake lens. They are so inexpensive I had to try them and I use them. I never understood the need for fast wide angle lenses. Short lenses are not great for shallow depth of field in the first place. Build quality could be better but for the price and what I use them for, no complaints.
You may want to take a look at the 35 and 24 1.8 macro IS lenses... very small. Reasonably priced but not quite as cheap but the super-close focusing and IS which seem a bit odd are really interesting combined with the 1.8 aperture. I didn't realize how useful those features were until I bought the 35 1.8 macro IS. Both of those lenses are still very small and light.
Sony has what you want, a 20-70 F4 G lens that is compact and (relative to GM lenses) reasonably priced. I don't own one myself (yet) but people seem to like it.
Good luck getting a manufacturer to make a still-photo-only camera in this day and age. Leica could probably get away with it, but ... even they shoot video now.
I agree with you. The big (heavy) L lens were nice when young, 20 years later they are difficult if you are moving around and have to use a tripod to hold the lens still. I’m a traditionalist, use a video camera for video.
I agree, Fuji lenses on x-pro3 or x-t series are small, and wonderful. If you have a Leica M mount, you may want to check out lenses from MS optics. They are small and have a lot of character. https://phillipreeve.net/blog/overview-ms-optics-lenses/
Ps. I have an unbelievable TT artisans lens I had to buy just to compare to my Summilux 50. Honestly it's hard to tell the difference at anything but infinity wide open. Too bad they can't get the design and size and ergo "just right" Like the Summilux. Is it worth the better part of $4500 for those small things? Hmmm, depends.
I’ve had pretty good luck in the Fuji X line here. I used to shoot with their 23mm f/1.4 until I discovered their tiny, light, inexpensive 23mm f/2. Under $500 vs $900 for the f/1.4. Much better for street shooting, much less imposing, not to mention much faster focusing with so much less glass to push around. And while I haven’t purchased them all they offer a number of these options: big, expensive, heavy version that’s f/1.2 or 1.4 and a quite good smaller, lighter cheaper version that’s f/2.
I have had virtually all the Fuji glass, some of it is great, some even a bargain but... they to have huge lenses that make zero sense on a small camera. I still have one X camera, the Fuji X-pro 2 which I liked A LOT more than the x-pro 3. The only lenses I use on that camera are the OG 35 1.4 and 28 f 2 both of which I love.
I hate to say this but... I like my full-frame cameras more. My Canon cameras are my work-horses. My Leica M cameras are my favorite to use (for most things that I gravitate towards shooting) so the Fuji x-pro 2 is kind of my M substitute when I am too scared to take my digital M... That's the problem with the digital M cameras... I am scared to take them with me in many circumstances. I honestly cannot afford to loose $10K+ (literally with one body + lens due to a mishap). but I do love that camera and it's lenses both Leica and third party.
Maybe I'll do a cameras I currently own and use post with my rationale(-ization) on why given I could probably just have one.
Yes, I can understand this. But for those of us who have to make do with one main camera and one back-up or 2nd-lens camera, and aren’t making large prints for sale too often, the Swiss Army knife, all-in-one XTs are the ticket. Not, perhaps, the quality of the full-frames, but affordable all-rounders.
No argument from me. After from years of shooting Canon and Nikon film rangefinders with quite small lenses, I’ve fully embraced Fuji. I’ve had a series of the x100 cameras and their f2 line of lenses are on my x-pro3 nearly always. Even the old, flawed and wonderful 35 f1.4 lens is quite compact.
35mm 1.4 original lens is one of my favorites. So is the tiny pancake 18 f/2
I keep trying to find something to disagree with you on Bob, but not today. I do have 3 Canon L lenses, two of them f/4 and the 100-500 slower telephoto. I use them mostly for nature and wildlife when the weight is worth carrying. I really like the consistent ergonomics of these RF lenses. But I also have the 16 f2.8, the 28 f/2.8 and the 50 f/1.8 for street or casual vacation shooting. My favorite is that cute little 28 pancake lens. They are so inexpensive I had to try them and I use them. I never understood the need for fast wide angle lenses. Short lenses are not great for shallow depth of field in the first place. Build quality could be better but for the price and what I use them for, no complaints.
You may want to take a look at the 35 and 24 1.8 macro IS lenses... very small. Reasonably priced but not quite as cheap but the super-close focusing and IS which seem a bit odd are really interesting combined with the 1.8 aperture. I didn't realize how useful those features were until I bought the 35 1.8 macro IS. Both of those lenses are still very small and light.
Sony has what you want, a 20-70 F4 G lens that is compact and (relative to GM lenses) reasonably priced. I don't own one myself (yet) but people seem to like it.
Good luck getting a manufacturer to make a still-photo-only camera in this day and age. Leica could probably get away with it, but ... even they shoot video now.
I don't want to admit it but I have a digital M... may be my favorite if not most used camera
I agree with you. The big (heavy) L lens were nice when young, 20 years later they are difficult if you are moving around and have to use a tripod to hold the lens still. I’m a traditionalist, use a video camera for video.
I agree, Fuji lenses on x-pro3 or x-t series are small, and wonderful. If you have a Leica M mount, you may want to check out lenses from MS optics. They are small and have a lot of character. https://phillipreeve.net/blog/overview-ms-optics-lenses/
Ps. I have an unbelievable TT artisans lens I had to buy just to compare to my Summilux 50. Honestly it's hard to tell the difference at anything but infinity wide open. Too bad they can't get the design and size and ergo "just right" Like the Summilux. Is it worth the better part of $4500 for those small things? Hmmm, depends.
I love all of my M lenses, from Leica, and everyone else.
I feel the same way. The times I use lenses wide open in a year I can count on one hand. I'm for slower but very good from wide through f11.
I’ve had pretty good luck in the Fuji X line here. I used to shoot with their 23mm f/1.4 until I discovered their tiny, light, inexpensive 23mm f/2. Under $500 vs $900 for the f/1.4. Much better for street shooting, much less imposing, not to mention much faster focusing with so much less glass to push around. And while I haven’t purchased them all they offer a number of these options: big, expensive, heavy version that’s f/1.2 or 1.4 and a quite good smaller, lighter cheaper version that’s f/2.
I have had virtually all the Fuji glass, some of it is great, some even a bargain but... they to have huge lenses that make zero sense on a small camera. I still have one X camera, the Fuji X-pro 2 which I liked A LOT more than the x-pro 3. The only lenses I use on that camera are the OG 35 1.4 and 28 f 2 both of which I love.
I hate to say this but... I like my full-frame cameras more. My Canon cameras are my work-horses. My Leica M cameras are my favorite to use (for most things that I gravitate towards shooting) so the Fuji x-pro 2 is kind of my M substitute when I am too scared to take my digital M... That's the problem with the digital M cameras... I am scared to take them with me in many circumstances. I honestly cannot afford to loose $10K+ (literally with one body + lens due to a mishap). but I do love that camera and it's lenses both Leica and third party.
Maybe I'll do a cameras I currently own and use post with my rationale(-ization) on why given I could probably just have one.
Yes, I can understand this. But for those of us who have to make do with one main camera and one back-up or 2nd-lens camera, and aren’t making large prints for sale too often, the Swiss Army knife, all-in-one XTs are the ticket. Not, perhaps, the quality of the full-frames, but affordable all-rounders.