Low-Light Underdogs of Modern Mirrorless Cameras: Ft. Nikon Z50 and Company

 A topic that very often comes up in the various Photography chats I am has been how "X Full Frame Camera I just spent $3000+ on is so amazing in low light!!". This phrase is nothing new and people who can afford to "Buy into" photography often feel they need to have a way to Justify their expense every single time they have a chance to talk about it.  It's a Tale as Old as Time...

Go back ten years and people would be saying the exact same thing about say a Canon 5D Mark III and how they validated themselves for "Buying the Best" and not simping and buying a more affordable Canon 70D.

In reality with every advance in photo sensor technology these advancements get applied to APS-C bodies and lower end Full Frame cameras as well. This is what people often have a hard time grasping.  

Afterall how can a $500-1500 camera be as good as the $3000+ camera I was told I needed to buy to get good?  Sorry to burst your bubble but they can and are just as good in many cases.

If you compare your new Canon R6 or Nikon Z8 to your "Old" Canon Flagship camera (let's use a 5D Mark III as an example) it is going to be a great upgrade and you will notice a difference immediately.  I think this is where people often get hung up on.  

Now I'm not saying a Canon R6 or Nikon Z8 aren't great cameras, nor was a Nikon D810 or Canon 5D Mark III at the time; but people who buy into the flagship cameras to have the better gear often overlook how small of a difference there really is in quality between a Flagship and a Enthusiast level camera of the same brand, vintage and mold.

Enter the more reasonably approachable and affordable Underdogs.  These cameras are often APS-C or sometimes FullFrame with a "lower end" sensor.  Often times they lack major features such as In Body Stabilization, have a slower FPS burst mode and overall less bells and whistles.  

They still have a range in price going anywhere from $1000-2000 new.  These are the "Enthusiast" range cameras that most people will turn up their nose at for their $3-5k full pro camera instead.

At $1000-2000 new (though you can often get them for up to half the price used depending on the model) these enthusiast level cameras are still really amazing and are still an investment, but depending on the person (such as myself) are a much more reasonable or attainable investment.

A few great cameras in this enthusiast range include the slightly higher end APS-C cameras like the Nikon Z50 (which is what I have), Canon R7, Any Fujifilm X-Trans APS-C body, any Micro 43rds Body (including the higher end G9 Mark II and OM-1) as well as the more budget Full Frame offerings like the Canon RP, Canon R8, and Nikon Z5.

When gear chasers go off about their newest $4k body they bought into it is admittedly hard not to feel a little intimidated or Jealous especially when they start pointing out "How their Flagship camera is so much better then the camera you have".  

The "camera measuring contest" is something I get really irritated with fast.  And admittedly I have a number of friends who even fall into this game.  It used to really infuriate me, and now I've learned just to take a deep breath and let it go in one ear, out the other and breathe.  But it still prompted me to vent about it on this Blog without being specific to any one person several times now.

Let's stop focusing on "How Overhyped the Flagship "Full Frame" cameras are and focus on the hidden gems of the photography world that don't receive nearly as much credit as they should.  The reasonably priced Workhorse Underdogs that can pull all of the weight at half of the price.

Enter the Nikon Z50 into the ring.  My newest and only "Current Generation" Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens camera (unless you count the Panasonic G9 classic).  But since the focus of this post is largely how good these cameras are at High ISO noise we will stick with the Z50: my low light photography Champion:

The Z50 becomes my Ace in the hole for "I don't always shoot at ISO 6400 but when I do...".  In my camera collection as the Z50 does one particular thing really well; and that is High ISO noise which isn't the end all be all most people obsess over.  But it still becomes a tool in my kit for when I need it.  

That said; I don't find any of my older Interchangeable Lens cameras as "Bad or Useless" because they can take some amazing looking photos still as long as they have a reasonable amount of light to work with.  This is a trait that often differentiates me from other photographers. Keep the ISO under 400 outdoors in street photography and they really pull some nice photos.

You can read the Full Review of the Nikon Z50 that I did last year as part of my camera review.  In that review I might have been a little harsh on calling it a "Flawed Masterpiece". Throw it into a ring for a low-light shootout however and it becomes a true Rocky Balboa style underdog story.

What blows me away just as much as how someone who has 5 times the money for something like a Nikon Z8 is just how hard it is to tell the difference between a shot taken at IS0 800 and a shot taken at ISO 6400.  At ISO 800 the camera does have some noise but it is pleasing and natural almost like a film grain.  The noise curve instead of going up from there just seems to level off until you hit 12800.  

If I shot any of my other cameras including my D7200 and G9 at this high of ISO they would either look like crap or be fixable with extensive de-noise work in POST.  

Considering I paid less then $1000 for this camera used with the Z to F mount adapter (about $1k in total if you throw in the one native prime lens seen here that I own for it) and well yeah. I can't argue with the results from this more reasonably priced champ.  

The following images were shot at ISOs between 800 and 6400 with no noise reduction applied.  Try to guess which one is 6400 and which one is 800.  The answer may surprise you...

Photography VS Video Game "Photography" - NOT the Same Thing

Lately I've had a lot of deep thoughts on the future of Photography and the competition it will need to overcome to stay relevant and felt I needed to share my opinions, observations and otherwise just vent.  

Photography is something I am passionate about and as such there is always going to be a part of me that is very defensive of the concept of it "going away" or being made "obsolete" and this is going to be the subject of a number of posts on this Blog.

As technology "improves" and our Society moves more and more into a Dystopian future we will see these changes more and more.  AI imagery taking over leading this change and evolution (which I already did another post about last year in This Post on AI Art.)

Let's start at the very basics of Art.  Photography is Art.  A Watercolor Painting is also Art.  But Photography and Watercolor Painting are NOT the same thing- I think we can all agree on this right?

The Britannica Dictionary defines Photography as "the art, process, or job of taking pictures with a camera".  

There are several different variations on the definition of Photography Including the most common, widely accepted and lazy definition: "The process of capturing a Photograph". As such I feel Britannica's definition is the most concise, simple and straight to the point answer without referencing part of the base word in the definition.

Let's take a step further and examine What is a Camera?  This is another Definition that changes depending on what Dictionary you pull from and some are just "A device that takes a Photograph" which again, not helpful.  

The best definition I can find that is not just referencing the output is from the Free Dictionary "A usually portable device containing a photosensitive surface that records images through a lens." 

Exploring this definition we have two devices pictured above: an Entry Level Canon DSLR (a European Rebel series model) and an X Box One X.  By the definition I posted above which of these devices has a "Lens and a Photosensitive surface that records images through it"?  I'll give you a hint it is NOT Both.

"Video Game Photography" is NOT Photography no more then playing Sim City or Cities Skylines is the same as building an Actual City.

As an example of Real vs Simulation another hobby and previous passion before I got involved in Photography is Fishing. I played a lot of Fishing simulator games as a kid and they are still a guilty pleasure for me.  

Even as a 10 year old kid however I was able to tell the difference between using a controller to "reel in" a virtual four pound bass on my Nintendo and pulling in the fish in real life.  

There are more "advanced" fishing simulators out there which pair a real rod and reel with line that is attached to a mechanically driven spool which pulls out line and creates tension just like a fish would in real life. This is still not the same thing as the Real Thing. 

When you "caught" the fish you got a pre-recorded video of someone else who caught a fish.  It was not something physical wet and slimy that you could reach into the water and pick up.

Photography simulation through "Photo Mode" is quicky becoming a common mechanic of modern games, and turns part of the game into a Photography Simulation Game. Simulation in Video games is NOTHING new even though so called "Video Game Photographers" are treating it like it is.

There are also full on Photography Simulation games. I happen to own one for the Nintendo Switch called Pokemon Snap.  This one is a great example of why a Photography Simulator is NOT Photography.

I've already defined the difference between "Real and Simulation" with my other example so lets dive into the subject matter: Pokemon Snap is in a Fantasy world that is 100% different from the one we live in. 

The day you can go outside with your camera or phone and take a Non- Augmented Reality Photo (which is a likely going to be another long post describing our Dystopian world) of a live wild Pikachu then I will redact this statement.  

But until that happens my stance on this is pretty firm:  There is a difference between something in the Real World and the Virtual World even if it is VR or Augmented Reality (IE photo mode in Pokemon Go).

Same goes with games that are based on Real life locations.  Lets say you go into photo mode on the PS5 version of Spiderman: a game that is based in New York City.  

You take some screenshots with the game's virtual camera that don't include any fantasy elements IE no Super Heroes in them.  Is this then the same as packing your luggage and going on a trip to New York City yourself to pull out your camera or even Smartphone to take photos?  Absolutely Not the same thing.

Yet some people are trying to make a point that it is the same and that really "Grinds my Gears" to coin a phrase from a TV show that was very hit or miss. 

Earlier today in a non-photography related chat I got into a pretty heated argument about what Photography is and what it Is Not.   

The Defense of "Virtual Photography" as "Real Photography" by the other person I had a debate with earlier today was three fold, so I will pick apart all three arguments from this defense.  

First they stated that "Not having 200 pounds of thousands of dollars worth of photography equipment doesn't make the person taking Photos in Forza any less of a Photographer" the second defense was "What about people who use Photoshop to remove objects from a photo" and last was "It's unfair to discredit a Virtual Photographer because their subject matter is perfect".

The first point is the easiest one to debunk. I'm not a fan of Smartphone Photography, I've mentioned this before but in this case they really save me the need to make a complex argument here.  Everyone owns a Smartphone.  

A Smartphone has a lens, an electronic shutter to "stop" the image and an imaging sensor on it that can take photos of actual real life things. As much as I struggle to admit it at times, Smartphone Photography IS still Photography and it becomes my Ace in the hole for this argument.  

So no you don't need to pack 200 lbs worth of Photography equipment on your trip to New York to make you different then the person using "Photo Mode" in Spiderman to take "pictures" of a place they have never been to.  All you need to do is take out your phone.

The second argument is probably the strongest point in their favor.  It is therefore the one that takes a bit more work to pull apart. That is what is the difference between a Photographer who uses an AI assisted program to alter and remove elements in a Digital Photograph?  We can also ask what is the difference between "game photography" and a Smartphone camera which makes these corrections automatically.

This is a complicated issue and it is one I partially discussed in my rant about AI earlier.  The line between "pure" photography and AI is beginning to become really really fuzzy.  

However if we come back at this from the "Definition" of Photography from the definition I posted earlier we still have a really solid case on how AI assisted photography is different from a screenshot in a video game.

With a Photo-manipulated image such as taking a photo of a crowded street in New York City and in Post processing removing every person except the one person you decide to make the subject; you still went to New York City, you were still standing at a spot at a very specific time and pulled out a device with a Lens and a Photo sensor whether it was a $5000 Full Frame Camera or your Smartphone and took a photo.  

That right there is what still makes it photography.  The canvas for your work of Digital Art was still based on an image you captured with a Physical Camera in a Physical Location.  

If you break it down the second counter-point actually answers all three points as a rock solid defense.  Photography is all about capturing a moment of time in the Real World and transfering that to an image using a camera, End of Story.

That said I can still offer a different counter-point to the third argument on "It is unfair to discredit a Virtual Photographer because their subject is perfect" and that is with a simple concept of Intellectual Rights and Copyright to drive this last nail into the coffin.

For this example I will take the game they mentioned which is one of the most popular games to do "Virtual Photography" in which is Forza Motorsports.

If you go to an actual car race and take photos as a Volunteer/Staff Photographer for the event each and every photo you take you automatically has a limited copyright attached to it as it is a tangible unique asset that you created by a unique moment with your very specific equipment.  

Even if the other photographer standing right next to you at the track got an almost identical photo on a different camera their photo would have its own unique copyright.  

A simple breakdown of understanding Copywright law in the US when it comes to Photography can be found at this source: https://www.copyrightlaws.com/how-to-protect-photos-you-post-online/ this article even goes on to explain how you can file for a higher level of Copywright for commercial photography through the US Copywright Office.

Now let's go back to the Forza "Virtual Photographer".  For those who don't know Forza is a popular racing game developed by Microsoft Game Studios.  It remains to this day one of Microsoft's most popular game IPs.

The lynchpin is that all the 3D models used in Forza which you are taking screenshots of already have a Copyright attached to them, you guessed it by Microsoft. This also applies to my earlier example of Pokemon Snap.

When you take a screenshot in Forza you have NO copyright to that image whatsoever.  Microsoft still retains all Intellectual Property rights to it however they will freely allow and encourage fans of their games to upload and share their favorite moments they experienced in the game through screenshots.  

This is 100% at Microsoft's discretion because it helps them promote their product.  The best advertisement is Free Advertisement afterall.

To wrap my final point up go ahead and take a screenshot in Pokemon Snap or Forza Motorsports and try and register it to the US Copywright office as a Commercial image that you can freely sell to others for a profit. 

You probably won't get far, and even if you do manage to take a realistic looking game screenshot from Forza that is realistic enough to fool a Copyright lawyer it may at some point get audited, found out as being a screenshot from Forza and you will receive a really nasty letter from Microsoft asking you to show up in court or pay a settled fine for doing so.

To wrap things up: I will concede that "Video Game/Virtual Photography" can be and is Art.  Especially in cases where you have for example a custom VR model that you created or had commissioned for you. I can 100 percent respect that.  

But it is NOT Photography. Just like Apples and Oranges it is a totally different form of Art then Real Life Photography, and this is what this whole post was about.

The Future of Digital Photography - Not a Fan in where it is headed but maybe I shouldn't care.

When I first started becoming serious in Digital Photography, that is owning more then a cheap low-end point and shoot camera I maybe used to take a few photos at a family event or on vacation in I had a very different outlook on the Photography industry then I do right now.

Things back then were very different. You had pocket cameras that gave somewhat limited "ok for family pics" cameras, Bridge Cameras which were slightly better but still not great, and the all powerful DSLR.  I joined during the era where DSLRs were finally becoming more then just for Professional Photographers who had 10k in equipment, namely with a Canon Rebel.

I did a recent post about the newest Rebel I own and why these cameras are so special to me.  So I won't dive too far into that.  However my mindset when I started out was very focused on when the next camera would come out; was there a new lens that would expand my capabilities?

My first decade of Photography from 2008-2017 my mindset was locked a 3-5 year "camera upgrade" cycle. At the time where Digital Photography was evolving and advancing this was a very solid plan and it gave me something to save up for and look forward to every few years.

Ten years after my first advanced digital camera; 2018 was a transitional year for both the Photography industry and myself.  This was the year I got "ahead of the Digicam Trend" and started collecting Digital Cameras (many which I no longer own as some were later sold or traded off).  

This was the year I made the realization that not only did I take some great photos with my older camera equipment but that it was a lot of fun to use them. I broke out of the mold of needing "One camera as expensive as I could afford" and started to embrace other unique cameras most photographers would see as e-waste.

Digicam collecting offers the ability to "try something different" instead of just looking forward to what is new. Prior to 2018 I was excited to save up and look forward to what was "new and better".  From this transition point and forward I look forward to using something  "new to me" that I have never shot before and Digicam collecting is a great way to do just that.

The decision to move into Digicam collecting was perfectly timed.  Not only did I get ahead of the "craze" as it were and got a lot of my collection when used camera stores were dumping older used equipment in droves for dirt cheap (some cameras I used in 2018 I wish I wouldn't have sold since they are nearly impossible to find now) but I also got ahead of the camera marketing splintering and going off into "finding new ways to make things Cheaper or force people to change lens mounts and get people Excited for being "innovative" for doing so.

This of course happened when Nikon and Canon both stuck up their middle finger to their older mounts (Canon moreso since they forced an existing established mirrorless mount into Oblivion) and created the R and Z mount Mirrorless system.

Sony had already done this to their A mount users five years prior in 2014.  This was the beginning of the end for the DSLR but since Canon and Nikon were slow turning ships that waited for one to make a move and didn't care what Sony was doing; they took a few years to catch up.

When I first started digital photography I had a pretty clear "upgrade" path.  Like clockwork Canon would put out a Rebel or XXD body every 2-3 years with a brand new sensor that would tempt me into "upgrading". To a lesser extent my Secondary system Micro 43rds fell into the same pattern albeit for a lot shorter amount of time.

In 2024 the camera industry has moved out of a stable predictable industry back into a Wild West much like it was in the early 2000s but different.  Sensor technology more or less peaked in the mid 2010s so in order to make cameras more "appealing" camera mfgs can no longer rely on the sensor to carry them alone.

How do you force people to stop using a pretty much perfect camera?  You stop making and supporting them. Which is pretty much what Canon and Nikon did by shutting down the EF and F DSLR mount cameras and lenses.  Now whatever remaining stock remain in warehouses are all that is left and let the smart people (like myself) fight over the leftovers in the used market.

It doesn't stop there however, as in a move that is considered "brilliant" by a lot of marketing and kool-aid drinking camera fans both Nikon and Sony are being praised on high for taking out the old "antiquated" Mechanical Shutter out of their high end cameras.

Yes you heard me right.  Sony has removed the Mechanical Shutter from the A9 Mark III and Nikon has removed it from both the Z8 and Z9 cameras.  Now before you "But Global Shutter is Better"! hear me out here.

What we are witnessing is the concept of paying More in order to get Less.  For the mass public who are excited about "global shutters" they are missing the point of what is happening here.

Electronic Shutters are nothing new.  They have been widely available on Mirrorless cameras and DSLRs as far back as 2009 or even earlier.  Most modern cameras you can go into an electronic shutter or "silent shooting" mode which will disengage the mechanical shutter and let you shoot with the electronic shutter instead.

Even Global Shutter is it not "new technology" Nikon had a global electronic shutter in the Nikon D70s as CCDs captured everything at once just as the new global shutter do.  Several Micro 43rds based cinema cameras also beat both Sony and Nikon to the punch and for video it makes a LOT of sense why a global shutter would be great.  That said, a shutterless Cinema Camera designed only for video is far different from a stills-focused interchangeable lens camera; at least I think so.

I've gotten into quite a few arguments already on how "electronic shutter is not superior in every situation" so I'm not going to go into that now.  That might be another blog post however.

In the end, the removal of the mechanical shutter becomes only a small part of the reason I am currently unsure in what direction the camera industry is going. "The Big 3" seem to be making a lot of choices that don't make a lot of sense right now and there is no real consistency.  

From Canon blocking 3rd parties from making Autofocus lenses for their camera system, to Nikon releasing an APS-C mirrorless camera but then not making a single meaningful update to this camera in 5 years and Sony being well... Sony it doesn't instil me with a lot of confidence in picking one lens system and "sticking with it" and looking forward to getting a "better" camera body every 3-5 years.

I do own a Nikon Z50.  It is a very underrated and very capable camera in its own light especially for what I paid for it used. I will most likely do my own review of this flawed masterpiece of a mirrorless camera in the near future so I won't spend any more time on the details of this camera.

At this point however, I am not sold that Z mount will be my path forward.  Nikon keeps going in a direction that I sure as hell don't want nor could even afford.  My future is not a $3000 Full Frame camera with No mechanical shutter.  I'm sorry but no just no.

Normally I could argue that I could jump ship to Fuji as I don't like the direction the "Big Three" are headed and Fuji's APS-C cameras often check every box of what I want but ultimately I can't afford this path. 

Switching systems is painful and expensive.  Nikon Z was more doable because of the Z to F adapter which works with most Nikon F first party glass (which I have a good deal of) just fine. This was the reason I bit the bullet and got the Z50 when I did.

Now however, I am not convinced there will be an upgrade path; but at the same time maybe their doesn't have to be.

The perfect camera I can pick up and just shoot in pretty much any condition without any real thought is not the Z50.  It's the Nikon D7200 DSLR.  I still get much more consistent output from a nine year old DSLR then I do from a 5 year old current generation MICL camera that is still being produced. 

Don't get me wrong, the Z50 is a fun camera to use, and there are defiantly some things it does better then the D7200.  Can I say that the Z50 is a full upgrade from the D7200 however?  My answer to that is No.

Watching my friends get brand new cameras and new lenses is still difficult. While Nikon has dragged their feet in making a pro APS-C camera to compete with Fuji; Canon has released one: The Canon R7.

I have a friend who has a Canon R7 and there is still a part of me that wants to jump ship back to Canon so that I can have the R7 and still use mostly older Canon EF glass on it.  A voice in the back of my head wisely tells me its only a matter of time before Canon pulls another stupid and I'd want to move onto something else.

Taking a step back I realize that I have several great cameras which take amazing photos mixed in with a larger collection of more challenging to use cameras that can still take some really cool shots, just under very specific conditions.

I could sell my entire collection and likely have enough to jump ship over to Fuji for "One Modern high end APS-C camer abody that does everything I ever needed or wanted" and a few lenses that cover most situations.  

However as the only Fuji shooter in my local camera club I'd have no one to share lenses with or otherwise bond with either, and I would miss the comradery that goes along with being familiar with a more popular brand of camera even if its an older or lower end model then the current flagship monster.

In the end for me having access to a variety of different cameras makes my journey into photography more special and unique.  This is what I should be focusing on rather then trying to have a proverbial "Long Lens" competition with another photographer to decide who has "The Best Camera and Lenses" (sadly its all far far too common).

Maybe I really need to just take a step back from what the photography industry and realize that Canon and Nikon making a mount they have supported for two decades "no longer supported" is actually an opportunity as many will rush out to get rid of and sell all of their old "useless" equipment so they can keep up in the Arms race with their competition and have "the best camera equipment money can buy" again.

Ten years from now I will still likely be shooting equipment from 2015.  Will it honestly look any worse then what the next generation of cameras will bring?  I honestly doubt it at this point.

I may not have an "upgrade path" anymore but you can pry my Mirrorflipping and Mechanical Shutter cameras out of my cold dead hands.  I am not giving them up any time soon.

A discussion Dedicated Subject Photography vs Street Photography: Why I much prefer the Street.

 A fair number of photographers I have come across, both within professionals and hobbyists alike will stick to a single subject and rarely ever sway from it.  Some do this because X type of Photography is their Profession (IE a Wedding Photographer) and they don't have Photography as a Hobby IE they don't take their work home with them, which is understandable.

Others however will be dedicated even as hobbyists to be proficient at taking photos of only one thing.  Two examples I run into a lot is Train Photography and Automotive Photography.  

I've seen plenty of photographers who will only take photos of cars or trains and absolutely nothing else. Internally I am going "Nice photos, but have you ever tried to take a photo of something else?".

One could argue that Nature Photographers can also put themselves into a niche, however I feel that Nature photography as a whole is a lot more diverse of a subject since there are billions of different animals and plants out there.  Now a photographer that only took photos of one animal, say Bald Eagles I would lump into the same category as dedicated RailFan photographer however.

The big draw to Street Photography to me is that you never know what you are going to see or even focus on for a subject when you are out and about and I find this prospect the biggest draw.  One day you may be focusing on candid portraits.  The next day Architecture shots, then Signs, old cars you see in town, domestic pets or even urban wildlife such as pigeons fighting over a piece of bread.

I will dabble in doing more focused photography, for example if I go to a Car Show I will obviously take a lot of photos of cars.  However as a mindset of a street photographer I won't solely focus on only the car details themselves or only taking photos of the car if no one is around.

Having a photo of an owner of a classic car showing off what is under the hood to a few curious onlookers is a great and amazing story piece.  Sure, I may also take a photo when no one is around as well, but to me having a great story in a shot is great to have. That is where the mentality of a Street Photographer comes in.

Street Photography is all about focusing on capturing a photo that captures the essence or a story of the moment.  Putting together a diverse range of subjects in a set also tells an overall story of your entire day.  It's the same mindset used in Vacation Photography.  If you take a week long vacation to Rome you aren't going to just take one photo of the Coliseum and then call it good.  

Instead you are likely to take photos at any tourist destination you go to.  All the artwork you see, food that you eat, photos of the family and friends you went on vacation with and maybe a photo or two of how insane the crowds or traffic was to document the trip.  

Travel Photography and Street Photography share this common element, the difference is that Street Photography is something that doesn't need to be done on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to some exotic place far far away.

To me, Variety is the spice of life.  I have taken photos at everything from Non-Profit fundraisers to photos of my dog playing in freshly fallen snow.  I don't pass up any excuse to take photos and document my life and the world around me.

I have thousands of photos of my street photography on my Flickr; and most of them tell a story vs "Here is another static photo of the frontside of B&N's Engine 5474".

Don't get me wrong, I have seen some amazing Railroad photography pics. But I have always prefered that my "filler" content is of many different subjects and would quickly get bored of searching through 1000 photos of the exact same subject to find the one that really makes me go "wow".

Not every photo outing is going to be exciting, and not every photo is going to be an incredible shot you are going to say to yourself "Man this would look great as a print on my wall".  Those moments are going to be few and far between.  

However, I feel that the "filler" shots in-between these great pieces tell a story of themselves especially when they are diverse and put together. Nothing makes me smile more then going through a set after a day of street photography and picking out a set of photos to upload.  Not one, not two but ten, twenty, or a hundred.

With that, I will leave you with a small sampling of some of my "filler" Street Photography taken over the last few years.  Some of these shots are nice and well composed but nothing really dramatically amazing. Put them all together and you have one really cool story and look into what I've seen out and about.  

To me it is really amazing that I can share these experiences in my life, even those that seem mundane to me with other people from all over the world.