Finally back in New York after my trip to Seoul and all I can say is wow. Not even exaggerating when I say, I don’t think anything will ever surpass how surreal and fun it was. More details on that in a separate post.

I’ve decided going forward, gear talk will have its own postings. There’s generally too much to cover, especially technically, for it to fit in the musings category which is meant to be rapid, often non-photography related thoughts I wish to share.

So for all you gear heads, you can read my ramblings on gear in these sorts of posts. There is a technical component to photography which encompasses the tools we use, so simply not talking gear at all wouldn’t be true to the photography experience. But it’s certainly not all it’s about nor what the blog is all about.

Now with that out the way, strap in for a long post. Coffee ready? Let’s go!

The Continued Allure of Medium Format

Not gonna lie, despite my conflicting feelings about medium format, it still has an allure for me. After this most recent trip, I couldn’t help but feel like medium format probably would have been a better choice in some ways. What appeals to me most about the format is three-fold.

Aspect Ratio. Since I shoot Sony, the image is captured in the 2 x 3 aspect ratio. Which is the traditional 35mm film ratio. The rectangular frame. This is fine for most applications, especially if you’re a photographer who values storytelling. The wider frame is great for photojournalism, event work, etc. For portrait work, I find the frame too narrow and prefer more width to the image. Here the 3 x 4 aspect ratio of medium format is my preferred ratio. I much prefer the framing and compositional options at my disposal. The frame doesn’t feel as cramped and feels like I’m shooting the image for print as opposed to viewing on a screen. Of course I could just crop the Sony’s 2 x 3 image to get a 3 x 4(which I do), but this process of cropping post capture, has never seemed to net the same satisfying result versus shooting in 3 x 4 when the image is actually captured.

I know when I get home and look through the images, I will crop them to 3 x 4, but when I do, it never feels like the way I captured it. There’s a weird disconnect that occurs. A limb is cropped too tight or there’s not enough headroom. And it makes me question how I composed the shot in the first place. “Did I really compose it that bad?!” I think to myself. If shooting 3 x 4 natively, I would be much more aware of this and compose accordingly to avoid certain framing issues. Cropping to the desired ratio in post, while serviceable, still isn’t the ideal solution.

However, the flexibility of cropping later is nice to have, and worth considering. Sometimes you may crop too tight and wish for a little more space around the image. Shooting 2 x 3 then cropping later gives me somewhat of a backup, but if I crop too tight in the 3 x 4 there’s nothing to do about it.

Sharpness and tonality. Two prominent features of medium format that I sometimes miss are the sharpness and tonality. I guess sharpness is better described as clarity. There’s a certain crispness and pop to the medium format image when compared to its full-frame counterpart. Like a thin layer of film has been removed and now we can see the actual crispness of the image. I’d say it’s akin to looking through a window (35mm) versus looking through a window frame (medium format). Tonality is another. The way medium format renders highlights and shadows is second to none. Not to mention the tonality of skin, with its almost life-like rendering.

Kristina
Fuji GFX 50S II + GF 80mm f/1.7 Lens

Kristina
Sony A7RV + Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 G2 Lens
*Sony Native Color*

From viewing the two images above, the Sony does hold its own. This is the GFX 50 Megapixel sensor versus the Sony’s 61 megapixel, so keep that in mind. The GFX 100 megapixel sensor would produce a sharper image, but I don’t have an example of the same subject on both cameras, so we’ll use the GFX 50S II for this example. The lens choice in the Sony image(28-75) does have some distortion which gives the image a different feel as well.

However, when I look at the color, sharpness, and tone I prefer the medium format image. It’s subtle but a difference that I notice. When I look at the skin in the GFX image, the skin looks sharp, but supple. In the Sony image, the skin looks sharp but harder. Most probably wouldn’t care and for most the A7RV would be plenty. I use it daily so I value its good points. The image quality is stunning. But that color is bleh.

Oh, speaking of the Sony color, it’s way too saturated in Capture One. To the point the colors tend to smudge together and you get far lass separation. By changing the camera profile in the Base Characteristics Panel to a different camera model (my preferred is GFX 50S II), you get much better, more accurate color with much better separation.

Bad Sony color in Capture One? Change Base Characteristics to Fuji GFX 50S II Generic. I’ve also tried many of Canon’s ICC profiles to great affect as well.

Now that the color is fixed in the Sony image, it even looks more medium-formatty. I’ve trademarked that word so if you use it I will sue. Kidding. Maybe.

Post-processing latitude. When working in post the medium format file with its 16-bit nature handles strong post processing techniques with aplomb. I can crush the shadows or pop the highlights to great degrees before a loss of detail occurs. When I’m working on files in Photoshop with lots of layers and changes, the medium format file can take more severe edits. I’ll often have to dial back some of my settings when working on a full-frame equivalent. Adding grain to an image, for example, takes a little finesse with full-frame, but adding the same amount to the medium format image blends well almost as if it was shot that way natively.

With those three things in mind, I’m strongly considering adding medium format back into my kit. There are a couple of hurdles however. Namely cost and options available on the market. I’m not going anywhere near Hasselblad or its options so let’s rule that one out. It’s just too limited for the costs involved. Phase One is impressive, but not mirrorless and also very expensive. That mainly leaves Fuji. Currently they have their GFX 100S II and the flagship GFX 100 II. The latter of which I’ve owned.

The 100 II is an attractive camera, but expensive ($7499) and heavy (2.271 lbs). Only thing that appeals to me is the higher resolution viewfinder with its larger 1.0x magnification. The GFX 100S II on the other hand has many of the same features but a smaller, lower resolution viewfinder and less video related options. No battery grip option either. Besides that, it’s cheaper ($4,999) and lighter (1.9 lbs) compared to its big brother. Then there are also lenses to consider, memory cards, etc. You can see how the cost of the system adds up.

And where does it fit? It would predominantly be used for my studio portrait work. I could use it on location in controlled environments, but probably not on shoots with lots of motion or movement (swimwear, nudes, etc.). It could be used for those things, but I think the speed and size of the Sony would be a better option. But can I really justify spending that much for a system with such limited usage? Depends on how much portrait work I’m doing really.

Sigh. I thought breaking things down like this would be helpful, but I still feel undecided. More thought and research needs to be done before I make a decision. Just from gathering images for this blog post, I found myself thinking “The Sony’s image quality is right there. It’s damn close. But I miss the 3 x 4 aspect ratio of the Fuji. Images just seem larger and more awe-inspiring.”

Everyday Carry is Overrated and Thoughts on the Fuji X100VI

Ah yes, the every popular Fuji X100VI. Sold out everywhere. Despite its beautiful styling, I just couldn’t fall in love with it.

Since the introduction of mirrorless cameras and their evolution over the years, there’s been the rise of the fabled “EDC” or everyday carry. You know, a camera and/or kit that can be your “everyday” carry around equipment while doing life stuff. I’ve had quite a few cameras over the years that I felt would fill this void. Can’t take your professional cameras out on the town right? So I’ve tried the Panasonic GX8, Panasonic G9 I and II, Sony A7C and A7CR, Fuji X100V, X-T3, X-T4, X-s20, and most recently the X100VI. No matter how much I try, I hate these cameras for their intended use case. They all have felt limited in some way. Too big(G9) or too small(X-s20). Great image quality, terrible ergonomics(A7C and A7CR). Or just not fun to use (X100VI).

Sony’s A7CR offers way more versatility than the X100VI but is still a hard sell. It’s more expensive, has a lackluster viewfinder, no joystick, and one memory card slot. $3,000. Yeah, no.

I know that last criticism is going to ruffle some feathers, but here me out. While I like the styling and simplicity of Fuji’s X100 series. My main issue is usability. I hate using the thing. There’s always some odd design quirk that annoys me when using it. For example, not being able to lock the focus point in place. If I’m not using the wide focusing mode and instead using single point, everytime I sit the camera down or return it to my side when wearing a camera strap, the focus point has moved whenever I pick it back up. The joystick will get nudged or touch screen gets swiped somehow and the focus point will be off in a corner somewhere. When there’s a spontaneous moment that happens in front of the camera, I raise it to my eye for the shot and the focus point isn’t in the center, but off to the side being dumb. Hopefully it will lock focus on whatever I’m pointed at in the instant it takes to get the shot. Usually it doesn’t. I have to recenter the focus point get focus then get my shot. This is annoying even when shooting slow moving things like friends sitting across from you at dinner. You raise the camera to your eye and the focus point is in some random place. Other annoyances is Fuji’s archaic menu system that they hardly get criticized for, but Sony on the other hand, gets raked over the coals for their’s every time there’s a product review. The Fuji menus are terrible by comparison.

I say all that to say, everyday carry is overrated. After using all these cameras that should be good for the task, I’ve come to one conclusion. Use the camera you’re most comfortable with. In my case that the Sony A7RV. Is it as small as some of the other cameras? Nope. But it has everything I could possibly need. Great ergonomics, small size, interchangeable lenses, excellent image quality, a great viewfinder, competent video, and it uses all the lenses I already own. Even when carrying a smaller camera, you still may want to carry a camera bag. If I’m going to use a camera bag anyway, then I have more options available in terms of camera size. A relatively larger A7RV isn’t going to be that big of a difference versus the smaller, but ergonomically poor A7CR. And I’m not spending more money for the same camera with less features and worse ergonomics.

Don’t waste money on the fabled everyday carry kit. Use what you have. Weight be damned.

The “It Makes Me Want to Go Out and Take Pictures” Fallacy

I’m sure you’ve heard this one before. Some camera reviewer or another has uttered this phrase at some point. I’m guilty of it myself. And I’m here to tell you, it’s bullshit. Despite cameras being a smaller size, better ergonomics, faster shooting, more film simulations, more dials, more cowbell, more whatever, after the “newness” wears off, you’ll be searching for the next piece of gear to fill the void in your creative soul. The reason for this, if I had to guess, is that your motivation for shooting is based around gear and not the actual things you’re taking photos of. Let that sink in. Gear has become the deciding factor whether you can create or not. Mind you, I just wrote about medium format above, but whether I have it or not, I won’t stop taking portraits. I’m motivated by creating portraits, the equipment is secondary.

Whether you’re a portrait photographer or street photographer, the motivation has to come from the subject matter. If the subject matter inspires you, you’ll go out and shoot. Rain, sleet, hail, or snow. You’ll shoot on days when you’re tired or days when you only have a small amount of free time. Gear can excite you and sometimes motivate you, but I find that’s only in the short term. Newness fades. All the exciting new features become commonplace after you use the gear for a certain period of time. Then something new is announced. And you start thinking how that new feature will improve your work. It will make you want to go out and take pictures, you tell yourself. I say, if gear is the thing that motivates you to go out and shoot, you may need to take a long look in the mirror.

Own or Rent That is the Question

I’m not affiliated with them. They’re just a great company that has reasonable rental rates and have always treated me well.

I used to own a Sony FX3. I sold it and used the funds towards something necessary to grow my business. Since then I’ve considered owning another one from time to time. It’s not super expensive for the value it offers, but I’ll often ask myself, “Why?”. Why buy it when I do very little video related work at this time? If I want to vlog or when traveling, I use my DJI Osmo Pocket 3. It’s more than enough for such a task.

I think we often have this struggle with the idea of renting gear. As if owning it will make it more special. “It’s ours!” we think. In the case of the FX3, that’s almost $4,000. If you’re a dedicated video shooter who gets paid doing video related projects then it’s a no-brainer. If you’re a photographer like me, who dabbles with video, it makes absolutely no sense. And I like to have plenty of dollars to go with my sense. Wasting it on a camera I don’t need is…wasteful.

If one were to rent an FX3, you could get one for $210 for a 4-day rental. That’s not too shabby eh?! Compared to the $3,899 retail cost of the camera. As I spoke about the Fuji GFX 100S II above, it too can be rented for about $233 for a 4-day rental via Lensprotogo. $233 versus $4,999. Add in a couple of lenses and that’s $500 for the rental. But $500 is still only 10% of owning JUST the camera. I know, I know renting isn’t as exciting as owning. Getting the box and opening your new item for the first time is always a treat. But looking at your depleted bank balance, and now having to manage a Ramen Noodle budget for food, isn’t.

When in doubt or on a budget, rent the thing on an as needed basis. Your wallet will thank you. I’ll probably take my own advice and rent the GFX when needed. I’d rather spend that money on production, travel, etc. I could even offset the costs, by buying just the lenses initially on credit (0% financing and all that) and renting the camera till I can afford it. I’m not financial advisor, just throwing ideas out there. Maybe it’ll give you an idea.

Hope you enjoyed this week’s post. Feel free to like or leave a comment below.

Till next time.