Panasonic FZ80 Review

 Last year I shot and reviewed 52 cameras in one year (one every week).  It was a monumental task and now I've mostly been using this Blog to ramble about my thoughts about Photography in general and camera technology in general. 

I do enjoy doing these camera reviews and since there are far far more then 52 digital cameras ever made (think more along the lines of tens of thousands; far more then I could ever hope to review) and add to that there are some digital cameras so incredibly rare that they are priced well out of the funds I have to dedicate to my digital camera collecting hobby.

The camera I am going to review today is neither Old nor Rare.  It does mark the swansong era of the late 2010's with the end of the Bridge Camera; an odd niche camera for most to use in the current age as it doesn't have detachable lenses nor can it fit into a pocket.  

Bridge Cameras often try to be "prosumer" and offer some of the features found on higher end DSLR and MICL cameras, but at the price of having lower end pocket camera responsiveness and handling which I may delve into later as I could easily do a follow-up article just about the concept of bridge cameras and how they evolved and eventually met their demise.

I could ramble on and on about the history and evolution of the Bridge Cam; so that will likely be done in a seperate post. For context purposes we'll still identify where bridge cameras, the FZ80 in particular excel and where they fall short during the review.

So now, lets dig into the camera in this review, a late model Bridge Camera the Panasonic FZ80.

Before I get into the review I should preface this by this camera being currently on loan to me by a local fellow Digicam collector and enthusiast (who I have parted ways with several cameras with and also acquired several from). 

It's a neat camera but isn't one that I am currently oogling over and feel I need to find one for myself to keep at the price-point they currently sell for, and I'll discuss why later in the review.

Released in 2017 the Panasonic FZ80 was one of the last Bridge Cameras ever made alongside the FZ2500 and the Nikon P1000 a year later.  These cameras are new enough you can still buy them brand new in a box from retailers; which pushes the resale value for a used one higher then I'd want to pay for one at the moment.

It has a fairly standard 1/2.3" 18mp CMOS sensor, as most modern bridge cameras use a small sensor like this for the crop factor to get a superior optical zoom; allowing Panasonic to take a 200mm or so optical focal length zoom lens and translate it into "1200mm equivalent" with the small sensor that provides a 5-6x crop factor.

Much like the Nikon P1000 it uses this sensor along with a fixed super-zoom range zoom lens to give users a larger amount of Optical zoom then their phone or even in many cases DSLR would have without lugging around a 5lb lens. This was the one redeeming and selling point for these late model bridge cameras: you could zoom in to your hearts content and capture things at a distance in a lightweight goes everywhere package.

There are a few exceptions like the RX10 and Panasonic FS2500 which offer a 1" sensor instead; but the last real niche for the bridge cams from Fuji, Nikon and Panasonic into the 2010s was to pack as much optical zoom as possible into a relatively compact and lightweight camera with a fixed lens that anyone could easily use.

Turning the camera on there is a short but not terrible startup delay.  It's about in line with what I'd expect from a pocket camera; and fast enough I can still do hipshots in Street Photography without fully missing the moment.  

This delay is more noticeable when you try and do Nature photography. This tends to be the whole package of taking a photo however that is overall slower that will make you miss fleeting moments, from turning the camera on, to waiting till the optical zoom extends, and then dealing with a fairly sluggish AutoFocus system lock onto the subject.  

The Panasonic FZ80 is defiantly more responsive and quicker overall then many pocket cameras; but this still leaves it slow enough you can defiantly tell a huge difference after you've been shooting a DSLR or MICL camera.

Controls on the FZ80 are fairly basic.  It was definitely engineered with the casual shooter in mind.  It does have a single function wheel which you click in to toggle function of such as using exposure compensation vs holding another button down and spinning the wheel such as with entry level Mirrorless and DSLR cameras.  It's a design I don't mind but did find confusing as my brain was always trying to hold down the nearby AF switch FN button and spin the wheel to adjust shutter speed in Manual or exposure comp in AV, SV and P modes.

The Panasonic FZ80 does have three programmable FN buttons which is actually a lot more then most consumer bridge cameras offer: two on the top and one on the back which doubles as the trash button.

The lens on the FZ80 is remarkably sharp and low distortion for the entire focal length; but with a tiny image sensor it does not show distortions and imperfections in the glass as much.  It's a huge improvement in optics over any smartphone lens and a slight jump from what is offered in a lot of point and shoot cameras. It does have some Bokeh smudging and Chromatic Aberration (which you can see in the photo of the owl later), but overall the actual optics of this camera are pretty solid.

I did manage to get some pretty nice photos off of it so far, a few I will share SOOC and two edited pics which I will show at the end when I get into RAW editing and overall tldr on my thoughts.  I really haven't tried using this in anything outside of bright outdoor lighting; but since I know from past experience this is where all tiny sensor (smaller then 1") will fall apart, I felt it wasn't useful to add that in the review and just cover examples and instances when I was able to keep it under ISO 400.

One of the main thing the FZ80 lacks (which is sadly very common in bridge cameras) is a control wheel around the lens element.  This feature is standard on any focus-by-wire MICL lens (albeit not able to do anything other then manual focus in this case with a few exceptions namely Canon).  

The lens control wheel in premium pocket cameras such as the Olympus XZ-1, Canon Powershot S90, Panasonic ZS100 and ZS50 are really nice to have and make fine-tune MF on a subject a lot easier to do.  It is the one major feature that would likely sell me on bridge cameras like the FZ80 more if more modern bridge cameras had this feature even if it could only be used when the camera was in MF mode.

In terms of Optical Zoom IE the big selling point to this camera; what you gain from this camera over a superzoom pocket camera like the Panasonic ZS50 or Canon SX720 isn't nearly as much as the "numbers on the camera" leads you to believe, which is a big part of the reason it isn't higher on my list to purchase.  For an explanation of why that extra "30x" more zoom is really deceiving I've got some examples.

First off here is the lens at the widest setting which Panasonic states as 20mm FF Equivalent (but I feel like is actually more like 24mm; still fairly wide for a fixed lens camera)

Zooming into 30x which is where the Panasonic ZS50 tops out you can see a huge difference, and up until this point every little tap of the zoom lever has a noticeable effect:

When you push past this halfway point the optical zoom seems to "slow down" as it were, and holding the lever all the way to the end at 1200mm makes it feel like you really only got an extra 3x zoom out of the lens vs the 30x additional you were expecting.  

One would think that being at 60x zoom I could clearly read how much gas is per gallon on that pump there right?  Well...  that isn't the case. Here is all the more zoom you get from the pocketable ZS50 to this not so pocketable bridge camera, not that much at all.

Had I not already had something like a ZS50; something like the Panasonic FZ80 would be a lot more appealing.  Ultimately the ZS50 has similar output, low light performance, dynamic range and sharpness to the ZS50 and lacks the second programmable control wheel (that the FZ80 lacks) around the lens, and most importantly I can throw the ZS50 hard case and all in my jacket pocket.  

The extra 6mp on the sensor (12mp on the ZS50 and 18 on the FZ80) likewise does not get me as much real-estate as one would think either; and if I felt this resolution bump was what was holding me back I'd rather just upgrade the ZS50 to the ZS70 which jumps to a 20mp sensor in the same compact form factor.

In addition the size of a bridge cam like the FZ80 means needing to carry a small bag when not in use and while its lighter and more discreet then my mirrorless cameras still it fits a niche I don't often find myself needing and  I own older bridge cameras should the urge to shoot a bridge camera arise such as the Sony F828.

Overall the FZ80 hasn't been an experience that makes me feel the desire to go out and buy one of my own, especially as they still sell for over $300 Used.  For 1/3 of that price at around $100 I can get a used DSLR or older Mirrorless camera that is a lot more responsive with better image quality and superior analog controls. If the camera was under $50 sure I'd still think it was worth that to have one in my collection but I don't see this happening any time soon. And for that $300 I could upgrade my ZS50 to the ZS70 or just about buy a used ZS100.  Seriously, IMHO the ZS100 would be a much better use of that money.

So while the Panasonic FZ80 may not be a great fit for me and I don't feel any specific attachment to it especially after the realization that the "Double amount of Optical Zoom" in reality is only about 10% more; the Panasonic FZ80 still gets really nice photos even Straight Out of Camera. Add the fact that it can shoot RAW (which is something I like about Panasonic in their cameras over Canon on any pocket or bridge camera they released after around 2010) makes it have a fairly solid dynamic range potential which I do have an example I will share later.  For now lets start with the Straight out of Camera un-edited photos I took doing Street Photography at a small town in WI the other day:

Nice colors, fairly accurate exposure metering (even with subjects like the robin that were in shadows which is pretty impressive), and plenty sharp.  There really isn't a lot to say bad about the SOOC results with this camera. Someone who knew nothing about photography could easily take this out, zoom and shoot and have photos that are as good or better then what their phone could take with a reach much longer then what the limited lens on their smartphone couldn't achieve.

The real hidden strength of course is that the FZ80 can shoot RAW.  This is a real full Camera Raw file with all the information included and not the less featured "DNG" format that the Pentax Q10 and various Smartphones can shoot at along with "hacked" Canon Powershots using the CHDK utility.  I have two examples of edited RAWs from this camera, one which I can compare to the original image:

And the final image after some fairly heavy tweaks in LightRoom:

To end the review, here is one more photo on a subject that pushes the camera's limits.  This was taken at the full 1200mm of an Owl under very dark overcast skies.  If I was using my Panasonic G9 and $700 100-400 zoom lens I still would have had challenges with this shot.  

The original which I do not have handy was 1.5 stops underexposed with severe chromatic aberration (thanks to tree branches against a white sky, which you can still see some of- it was way worse before editing). I think it cleaned up pretty well and while it may not be something you would see on the cover of National Geographic but most people would be more then happy with a photo like this:

CCD Magic- Yes it Exists but not everyone can see it

There's a huge Hot-Potato debate going around everywhere on the internet since things "opened up" from the Pandemic, and that is "are CCD sensors Better then CMOS/Modern/Smartphone sensors?

In late 2022 as the world moved out of their Vault-like lifestyles and began living again many people, especially young people who had part of their impressionable months or years locked away from their friends behind a mask, looked for new Hobbies to explore.

For a large number of Zoomers, one of the prominent hobbies that exploded during the beginning of the "Post Pandemic" era was Photography.  Teenagers and young 20 somes decided to put down their phones and look at the world through the lens of dedicated cameras instead, but the twist of this is: they didn't hop over to Nikon/Sony/Canon (albeit a lot did jump over to Fuji but that's a different subject for a different day) and buy the newest greatest Mirrorless cameras.  No, they did what I have been doing since 2018:  Seeking out the Digicam.

In part this post is going to be Elder Millennial defending these Zoomers because for once its something we actually share in common.  I may not have any interest whatsoever to play Fortnite or be bawling tears because the US is going to join several other countries in finally blocking a major Security Risk on the internet (TikTok) but I can appreciate a common ground when it comes to Digicams.

Then there are those who "fighting back against digicams" on various channels on YouTube and other Vlogs/Social media.  Most of these people are from two crowds:  Film Hipsters (who believe that people are viewing Digicams as "Better then/same as Film" and I can see why they feel defensive over that).

On the other side of the anti-digicam team are the more "Serious" photographers who of course want to validate the thousands of dollars they spent on equipment and thus are going on a crusade to stamp out "Inferior Digicams" so will go full on the defense of why their $5000 Full Frame MICL is better etc etc.

I've done several posts regarding "Gear Snobs" and why they grind my gears.  So I am not going down that Tangent in this post.  

Needless to say you've got two camps of people just as you did with the Film vs Digital movement that started around the mid 2010s (and is still ongoing): Those for Digicams and those attacking/against them.

Let's clear the air right now by saying one truth about Photography that has been a long standing point of this Blog:  Photography is ART.  Art is Subjective.  What looks great and amazing to one person is going to look terrible to someone else.  

In that sense no, your $5000 Sony MICL Full Frame Monster is not "Better" then the person shooting a 60 year old Medium Format Film camera nor is it "Better" then someone shooting a Vintage digital camera with a CCD sensor in it. It is just "Different" because to an artist will paint with the "canvas, brushes and paints" that look the best to them.

Another example of how a Photographer can use a different tool to get some really unique results is from online friend of mine recently 3D printed some pinhole lenses for their modern Sony APS-C MILC camera.  They cut out a lens from a disposable film camera and put it into this 3D housing for a homemade lens that got some really cool effects. I may do a seperate post about this sort of "experimental" photography though my experience with it is pretty limited (as of right now anyway).

Because of the premise that Art means embracing differences I am going to state that CCD Magic or even Film Magic is not and should not be considered "Better" then a Modern MICL Camera, nor likewise is a $5000 MICL camera better because it costs more and is new.  It's all about being different and that is what makes the Magic and makes the Art.  

If your Film gives a different look to a photo then a Sony A9 with a $8000 lens slapped onto it that is where the Magic is.  Art should be about what looks aesthetically better to you and will vary person to person. It's not about staring at a zoomed in at full pixel level to determine "which image is more technically better because it has less sensor noise".

I'll admit, I've even committed this Digital Photography sin more then once.  It's extremely common when I am doing Nature Photography.  But maybe in that one case yes I do need that tool with the better camera and the better lens because I am looking for a very specific look.

So putting this into context the question becomes not "Is Photography with CCD sensors Better?" to "Is Photography with CCD sensors different?".  That will determine if the Magic or Art is different with different tools.  In my opinion it is; but not everyone may see the difference.

Rather then ramble on about the science and technical specifications I'll provide some examples from 2 different CCD based cameras and 2 different CMOS cameras.  I am sticking to APS-C DSLRs for my "Test group" simply because the lenses I use on these cameras are the same.  I will also be throwing in a curveball at the end with the Fuji Super CCD sensors; but for now let's put two single layer CCD sensors vs two Single layer CMOS sensors.  

I wanted to keep this initial comparison small.  I could have easily thrown in a 1/2.5" Canon Powershot CCD sensor into the pot along with the unique properties of the Sigma Foveon sensor; but that sensor is unique enough it really deserves its own post to explain just how different of a tool it is.

Smaller sensors, Vintage Digital and Digi-cams will likely get their own future blog post, because I feel there is enough to cover just in the CCD aspect alone to put two comparable cameras with different technologies toe to toe and show off how it can differ.

In the APS-C CCD Corner we have the Sony a290 and the Nikon D200.  And in the CMOS corner we have the Sony a37 and the Nikon D7000.  Color science is a little different on newer cameras, so I thought it was more appropriate to keep this limited to cameras older then 2015.

These photos have been touched up minorly in post.  Mostly for exposure and sharpness.  Contrast, white balance, and contrast were mostly left alone.  I may do a SOOC comparison for a more "clinical" approach to this at a later date but for now I am just using 4 photos I really like shot on each camera.

First up for the CCDs the Sony a290:

Compare this to the Sony a37, a very similar (16mp vs 14mp APS-C) but CMOS sensor:

And now we move onto the Nikon camp.  Nikon uses Sony sensors.  So maybe the argument is we are only comparing Sony Sensors to Sony Sensors but I digress.

Nikon D200 (CCD)

Nikon D7000 (CMOS)

Overall in my personal experience the Sony a290's sensor is so vivid that it really steps ahead of the pack even over the D200.  It's a camera limited in so many ways and can be very frustrating to shoot but when I see how the images turn out I wind up holding onto it tight for well reasons.

The Nikon D200 is more subtle of the "CCD Effect" but it is there if your eye is trained enough.  Likewise the a37 and D7000 (which use similar 16mp APS-C CMOS sensors) have a more noticeable orange/yellow shift overall.

To sum my thoughts up: every camera sensor whether it is CCD or CMOS will have a different look.  They all have slight differences in how the processor outputs the data it receives and differences in how the photsites themselves capture light.  

So yes, there is merit in also saying the Canon 5D classic will get a more "Classic" or different look then a Sony A7 is valid as well since even though they are both Full Frame CMOS sensors they have different processors and way they output their files, yes even in RAW they will look wildly different.

Putting everything up to this point aside, many people may not be able to see much of a difference at all between different camera sensors;  Old, New,  Full Frame or Smartphone Sensor, CMOS or CCD.  

Many will see all of these photos as the same or "equally as good" and that is fine.  There are some factors that can influence not being able to see these subtle differences as well. 

For Example:  If you look at these photos on a standard computer monitor you should see some differences.  If you look at them on your Phone or a tablet however: those devices have vibrant OLED screens which tend to "even out" colors and contrast to make any photo taken with just about any camera pop and look good.  

That may be a reason why Smartphone photography is so hard to break out of, because those taking photos with their Smartphone are most likely going to view these photos on the phone and their friends are also going to look at them on their phones as well, which will often muddle the subtle differences you will see if you look on a computer screen.  They may not be able to see the differences you will see on a larger monitor or color print from all these different sensors.  

When you are trying to see the differences between these 4 cameras, I strongly encourage you to put down your phone or tablet and open up a browser on your Laptop or Desktop computer instead.

The Magic of Art is such a fickle thing:  some people can see it, while others can't.  I can see the Magic, and as such I can appreciate the photos from all of these cameras in a different way. 

I can still enjoy photos taken with my CMOS cameras while still admitting there is "Something different about the look you get from CCD and Older CMOS sensors that makes it Cool and Unique"

To end and summarize this blog post:  If you can appreciate the Art of having a different look to your photos, even if it is subtle and you really have to look hard to see "Oh hey CCD sensors tend to have a slightly more green/blue color shift vs a yellow/red shift that CMOS sensors give by default.  Then great! If not, use the tools you enjoy using and don't rain on someone else's parade simply because they see a different canvas with what is in front of them then you may see.

If you want to argue "well I can make my CMOS sensor look like that with a Filter in post" sure, obviously you can.  But at that point you are still using a different tool to make your Art so why not leave the CCD camera enthusiast alone and let them use the tools that work the best for them to create their own art with?

To end this post as promised, here is the Bonus or Preview as it were of some photos from the Dual Layer Super CCD sensors in the Fuji S1 and S2 Pro. A sneak peak at what the subject of one of my upcoming blog posts will be about.

The Challenge of the Wild: Is my future of Wildlife Photography in Micro 43rds?

As anyone who has read this Blog knows I pride myself in taking great photos with older equipment and various sensor formats ranging from "Digi-cams" AKA point and shoot cameras from the early 2000s up to older now overlooked Full Frame DSLR cameras as my last post was about.

For street photography I can take just about any camera and focus on easily. Street Photography often has the advantage of working with a defined well-lit subject that the camera can lock onto and make look good without having to worry about challenges of autofocus at extreme distances or extreme focal lengths.  

With experience and a camera you are comfortable with it's easy to get great street photography shots with just about anything.  There are other types of photography that are a lot more challenging and taxing to get right then street or events for me; one of which I have for now given up on (Astral Photography).

If you miss a shot doing Street Photography, another one that is going to be just as interesting will make itself appear.  You are not waiting for a split second reaction of getting an Owl taking off from a branch where if you miss it there is a chance you won't see anything else worth taking photos of all day.

I've had very much a love and hate relationship with Nature Photography. There are far more terrible or "missed" photos of wildlife in my collection then there are ringers, and I tend to be a lot pickier on how sharp and detailed my Nature photography is when I decide to share it. I do a lot more "pixel peeping" then I do with my street photography which I can take with a lot less need for Technical Perfection as long as the photo tells a story or gives me a sense of place.

Nature photography that features mostly flora vs fauna is of course a lot easier. Both in the availability of the subject themselves and that you can take all day setting up a photo of a flower.  

Wildlife on the other hand you have maybe a minute tops with a subject before it moves on if you get lucky with a few exceptions (namely an animal that is on a Nest).  More often then not you only have a split second to raise the camera up, frame, focus and take the shot. 

The need to be quick for Wildlife photography taxes equipment to the extreme. You have to have fast, accurate Autofocus since most of the time your subject will be gone before you get it in focus manually and a slower AF system will also make you miss the shot.  You need as much reach as possible meaning long, heavy lenses and teleconverters; and even when you have these long lenses you will always find yourself "Wishing you had just a little more zoom".

Most people who are serious about Nature Photography will buy the most expensive Full Frame kit they can find and likewise the biggest lens they can buy as well, often still having to crop their photo in even more in spite of the massive 500mm prime they lugged with. 

Some FF photographers will rely on a Teleconverter which is a tradeoff, because in order to get that extra optical reach they have to sacrifice Autofocus Speed and Accuracy, any semblance of a relatively fast  aperture and will take a hit on the actual sharpness of the image itself.

There are those like me who know the secret to Wildlife Photography is not in Full Frame, regardless of what the mainstream will have you believe.  This is the one time we can let our Crop sensors really shine.  

What if, and hear me out, your "Full Bestest Full Frame Camera" had a built in Teleconverter that didn't darken the image, take a hit on autofocus or clarity of the image itself?  What a concept! That 300mm lens becomes a 500mm.  A 600mm lens becomes 900mm.  This is the one time APS-C shooters can make Full Framers jealous of the places we can reach with our lenses...

Then comes Micro 43rds.  The sensor format who looks at Full Frame, looks at APS-C and goes "Hold My Beer".  The underdog power of a 2x crop factor being a powerful IYKYK secret among M43 Nature Photographers.   

Before I swoon too much more over the "Secret magic" of Micro 43rds for Telephoto reach as a whole I should show off my own little secret weapon; the Ace in the sleeve in an incredibly demanding art of Wildlife Photography:  The Panasonic G9

I started my journey into Micro 43rds back in 2011, where I bought a refurbished Olympus Pen EPL-2. It was also my first experience with a Mirrorless camera as well. 

Originally I bought into m43 only for a smaller kit to take with when I travelled, leaving the DSLR at home to use for "more serious event photography".

From there I upgraded to a Pen EPM-2 which had the newer sensor and shortly thereafter went to the Olympus OM-D EM5 (original) in 2013.  

The EM5 was my first serious M43 camera. It was well built with rock-solid weather sealing and two well placed control wheels.  At this point I started taking Micro 43rds seriously and went from the system being a camera I only took out on vacation to my backup and alternative kit for more serious event photography as well.

When the next generation of 20mp M43 sensors came out, which would remain the defacto standard till just recently, I switched from Olympus to Panasonic (but kept mostly Olympus lenses; something that would only change after getting my latest M43 body).  The Olympus Pen F's controls felt too cramped, and the OM-1 Mark II was well out of my budget.  

So along came the Panasonic GX8 a camera that would be my workhorse M43 camera from 2015 to 2023; the longest amount of time I would keep a main camera: a solid eight years. During this time my "main" system would shift several times from Canon to Sony A, Back to Canon and then to Nikon.

As I flipped back and forth between APS-C and Full Frame, my M43 kit remained in play as my control camera that I could fall back on at any time when I got frustrated with my Canon 6D.  It came into play again as my fallback when I gave Full Frame a second chance with the Sony a99 and once more when I dumped Canon and switched over to Nikon as my "Primary" system.

When 2022 rolled around I picked up a Nikon Z50 to be my "main" most modern Mirrorless camera. For the $500 I paid for it it's still a really solid camera.  

The Z50 is amazing for High ISO performance but in some ways it just has a lot of things stripped out of it that I have been used to having with my other Mirrorless cameras; namely having IBIS. I had to adapt my F mount lenses to it and some of those were a little too heavy for the body. It felt more like a sidearm camera then my "Main" camera and essentially replaced my Canon M3.  In that niche, the Z50 excels.

Last year used prices on the Panasonic G9 crashed as the G9 Mark II was announced.  The market was still strong for used Micro 43rds equipment so I was able to trade in my GX8 and only be $200 out of pocket to upgrade it to the "Flagship" Panasonic G9 and man does this thing have just about everything on it.

The GX8 itself was solid.  There is a reason I held onto it for almost a decade, but the G9 felt like I took the best aspects of my Nikon DSLRs, the best aspects of the GX8 and merged them into one camera; and for me this makes shooting with this camera a joy even if there are some limitations I need to overcome in Post.

After struggling all year last year for trying to find a super telephoto reach lens I was happy with from the Tamron 18-400 all-in one which had great Autofocus but had issues with adding noise and distortion, to a Sigma 150-500 which was extremely heavy and very slow and inaccurate to AF and to a Nikon 80-400 (which I still have but am now once again having second thoughts on the quality of the optics even though the build quality; I decided to double down on Micro 43rds and along with the G9 bought the Panasonic 100-400mm lens.

The Panasonic Lens weighed half of what the 80-400 I settled on "compromising" with for Nikon and 75% lighter then the "Bigma" lenses (either the 150-500 or newer 150-600 that my friends all use).  Handholding the Bigma made my wrists physically hurt, while I could shoot the G9 and 100-400 all day.  It was perfectly balanced, and a match almost made in heaven.

When I say "almost perfect" I must admit there are some shortcomings to the G9 and by proxy the GX8 and anything older. The most noticeable place the G9 falls short is ISO noise. The newer generation of both Full Frame and APS-C sensors leave the sensor that is in the G9 in the dust.  

The G9 is amazing SOOC when it is shot at ISO 200. You start to notice noise at 400 and it becomes "visible on the zoomed out "social media sharing" scale at around 1600.  I would have been happy with this level of ISO performance in 2015.  Nine years later however things change, especially realizing that when you have to shoot wildlife with high enough shutter speeds to get rid of motion blur (1/800-1/2000 of a second) that ISO gets bumped up quickly when your max apeture is F6.3.

On the flipside I use Adobe Lightroom, and Adobe's Noise Reduction software has gotten a lot better in the last two years with the addition of AI de-noise (one of the few good uses for AI IMHO but I already made an earlier rant about that topic so I am not going to delve into it again).

So the biggest shortcoming to the G9 is easily overcome in software.  The other shortcoming is harder to "correct" for hower and that is AF Accuracy.

When you hear reviews about the G9 classic the biggest complaint is that "It lacks PDAF so the Autofocus system is Slow and Terrible!!!" which is a bit of a stretch.

In the field however the G9's Autofocus is actually extremely fast.  Its faster then my D7200 and D610.  It's faster then my Z50.  Where it does struggle sometimes however is AF Accuracy.

If left to autofocus using face or animal tracking modes, a mode I once thought was a "gimmick" but am now finding to be more useful especially for Birds in Flight the Autofocus does occasionally misfocus.  But it is manageable and still has a higher hit rate overall then my DSLR cameras which are the defacto I compare my own metrics to.  So yes, something like a Canon R7 or Sony A9 which have incredibly fast and accurate Autofocus are going to bury a first generation Panasonic G9.  But I own neither of those cameras so I can just compare it to a DSLR from 2015, which the G9 still outperforms.

This said, when the G9 doesn't misfocus the AF is a lot more accurate and sharper then any of my Nikon equipment.  The same kind of birds at the same distance under very similar lighting conditions that looked blurred with my D7200 and 80-400 at the pixel level are tact sharp where you can see individual plumes in feathers of songbirds instead.  

Yes the G9 has more noise but more detail, and at the end of the day you can correct noise especially when it is very fine grain noise as is the case with the G9.  It is much more difficult to recover detail from a photo that is a smidge out of focus, which seems to be the case with my 80-400 lens at anything taken at infinity focus.  So in the end "Less High ISO Noise" means very little when the photo is out of focus.

Nikon, once one of the companies best known for their APS-C powerhouses (See Nikon D7200 and Nikon D500) has been very wishy washy and non committal to the format compared to Fuji, Canon and even Sony. With Nikon's insistence that "Full Frame is the Future for Everyone" and seeming to mostly turn a blind eye to the APS-C enthusiasts who flock to Fuji in droves, it leaves me in a tight spot.

Crop on the Nikon platform is very much in its Swansong unless Nikon does a complete 180.  While the Z50 is solid, there is no upgrade path for that camera, just a dead-end and a wishy washy non-comittal response from Nikon.  Forcing people to either "Get Good and Go Full Frame" (which is what Nikon wants you to do) or ditch Nikon and either go to Fuji or buy a Sony A6400 or Canon R7.

Meanwhile the OM-1 and Panasonic G9 II breathed new life into the Micro 43rd; so while Nikon may be wanting to drop APS-C like a wet sock there's a definite future and upgrade path for the Prosumer/Hobbiest photographer in M43 who doesn't need "The Best" but still wants a solid camera that corners weren't cut on to make it more appealing to Bloggers or encourage people to "Just buy a Full Frame Camera" in 3-6 months as both Canon and now Nikon have been guilty of doing.

M43 photographers have access to some amazing quality lenses by both Olympus/OM and Panasonic but are constantly belittled by others for not shooting Full Frame, yet they still carry on and keep this underdog camera system alive to this day, a system some of the other big camera brands tried many times to kill and failed.  

Every time I see a Micro 43rds shooter show up surrounded by a sea of Nikon, Canon and Sony Full Frame photographers sporting massive, stupidly overpriced lenses I get a nice warm feeling inside.

Recently I've come to enlightenment that maybe, just maybe Micro 43rds has been my Main System for a decade now.  While I have the least amount of lenses for Micro 43rds; I have everything I really need and I haven't once dropped the system to "go to something else" as I had done with Canon, Sony A and Nikon F.

I have a camera I can aspire to save up for and eventually "upgrade" to with M43, whereas I'm at a dead-end currently with Z50.  It's always nice to be able to see that "next step" even if you currently have no reason or no means to take it.

In the end, maybe saying I main Micro 43rds and dabble in other formats is the ultimate truth. I'm not the type that ever felt they needed "the best Full Frame Camera to be the best!!!".  Micro 43rds shooters are their own breed, and among all the camera communities I've been a part of they seem the most interested in just talking with each other, and appreciating that they met another fellow Micro 43rds enthusiast instead of competing with each other.  

I still plan on shooting APS-C, my small sensor pocket cameras and yes even Full Frame from time to time. For the longest time I had believed that my "Anchor" format was APS-C but the more I think about it the more I realize it was MFT all this time instead. I'm happy to consider the G9 my main Wildlife Photography camera at this point.

So with another long post of my ramblings about the Photography industry done, enjoy a few photos I've taken from the Panasonic G9 in the six months I've had it so far; as I look onwards to my journey with Micro 43rds for another decade to come:

Re-Evaluating Full Frame and "Budget Photography"

If you haven't noticed by now one of the biggest cores of this Blog is related to how you can get amazing photos on used equipment including those that are overlooked (Like the Nikon Z50).  

This is my major hobby: to buy camera equipment a lot cheaper then what marketing wants you to rush out and buy to become a "Better Photographer" and prove that you don't need it.

Since this is going to be a very long thought-dump post I am going to do the TLDR version of it up front. We are now in an age where Full Frame is no longer the sole driving factor of an "expensive camera" it once was. 

In 2024 I can quite easily put together a used Full Frame DSLR camera kit with lenses for it for $500-750 which is a feat which would have been pretty much impossible a decade ago. 

Infact I now have two Full Frame cameras in my collection myself, one of which I now consider one of my main cameras; which is something the past me ten years ago would ever think I'd do again considering I got burned the first time I bought into the "Full Frame infrastructure".

But before we get into the full story of my Full Frame journey I'd like to share a few examples from both of my Full Frame cameras in my collection: the Nikon D610 and Sony a99. Two cameras that can both be picked up used for a fraction of what they once sold for:

When I started in Photography some fifteen years the big De-Facto "Buy into to Get Good" thing to aim for was very prominently to have a Full Frame camera as your end-goal as a Photographer.  Almost everyone in the hobby you would meet would push to convince you to save up for "Full Frame" or else you couldn't be good at Photography as APS-C was only for Beginners. 

A younger more impressionable me fell into that trap in 2013 when I felt coerced into really stretching my camera budget and putting down $1500 for a Canon 6D and lens. But when I finally got this camera it felt slow, limited, stripped down and frustrating to use for what I paid for it. Suddenly that Full-Frame Appeal vanished and I asked myself  "Why do I need this when it doesn't feel like an upgrade?".  

I had bought it because everyone was saying I needed to have a Full Frame camera to get Better at Photography, but when I had finally got a Full Frame camera I felt like I had a worse tool then the premimum APS-C DSLR I had before.

This put a bad taste in my mouth about Full Frame cameras for years to come. (I would not put together that it was just that very specific camera that I did not enjoy shooting; so it was the camera itself not the format I really should show my dislike for).

Five years later in 2018 I decided I would give Full Frame another chance and buy (a camera I still own) a Sony a99 during a year when my finances were better IE I was making bank and not a home owner yet so taking another more expensive jump into photography was once again plausible. 

I specifically went for the a99 as I wanted something "Different" then all the Canon and Nikon Full Frame bodies everyone was shoving in your face to say "Look at this camera that makes me a Good Photographer!!!!".  

The Sony a99 seemed like that little outcast in the corner no one paid attention to so I felt a connection to it, and perhaps in a way I still do feel some connection for this Full Frame camera outcast no one knows or cares about which makes me hold onto it inspite of it being far from the best camera in my collection at this point.

This is a camera that I have been lamenting on selling or trading off several times but in the end decided to keep. 

It has some strange quirks like the shutter in A mode prioritizing to 1/60 of a second (which cannot be adjusted) regardless of the focal length or focus mode used. Additionally the camera control buttons are squishy and it is by far not the fastest camera either.  

But the nail in the coffin for it becoming sidelined as a main camera was that seven months after I bought it (one month after its warranty from Adorama expired x.x) the IBIS unit on the Sony a99 gave out.  

While the camera is still functional it nags at you every 10-30 seconds with a message you need to manually clear before taking another shot that the "Steady Shot has Malfunctioned".   

Occasionally this message will go away but it always came back.  I even tried to get it repaired once but the camera repair store sent it back to me because it worked for the short period of time he tested it. It's just a cursed camera.

The a99 shares a similar place in my collection to the Pentax Q10.  Both are weird, funky, picky and finicky cameras that frustrate me to no end to use but yet when I actually sit down and look back at the photos they take and how unique they are; I have second thoughts about letting either go so they sit on my shelf waiting for me to be in a very specific and patient mood to take one out again.

But at the time the Sony a99 and its broken IBIS was Strike two against myself and Full Frame cameras after I also found out that the "Great High ISO Noise" that I was told "Full Frame Cameras Had" wasn't actually that great and the a99 was on par or slightly worse for Noise then my Canon 80D which was a Crop Sensor. It didn't live up to the Hype, but it still took good photos and was fun to use in spite of its imperfections from time to time so it didn't get traded and I just moved on.

This personal outlook on Full Frame changed late last year when I fell for the Nikon D610. When I got ahold of it this camera was what really changed my perspective on the whole "crop vs full frame" argument.  

I used it for a few weeks before buying it and had a lot more positive experience with it then either the Canon 6D or Sony a99 out of the gate.  After two Strikes I finally managed to score a hit and drive the winning run across home plate.

Overall the D610 reminds me of a Full Frame sister to my D7200; which is a Good Thing as that camera was what got me to cling onto my DSLRs and not want to let go of em.

While I no longer have the general "distaste" for Full Frame as a general all-inclusive stereotype I once had I still hold a certain amount of this against people who "Buy Into" photography. 

It has shifted from "Full Frame" being the big baddy to a certain price point in my mind of "How much I think an Affordable camera kit should cost" regardless of the sensor form factor and shake my head at anyone paying over that price.

This mantra probably won't ever change. I will always be someone who looks for a Bargain when it comes to Photography; becoming a sort of strange used camera hypocrite of owning thousands of dollars of gear over dozens of cameras and an entire shelf full of lenses instead of thousands of dollars into one camera and a few choice lenses. The investment is likely the same, but I feel I get a lot more Value out of it.

When we really break my mentality down it no longer becomes the old standard "Crop vs Full Frame" battle as it was in the past. Now it shifts to "Used vs New" and "A Bargain vs Putting all your money into one basket and Going Broke on a camera you don't need when you can get something almost as good for a lot cheaper".

The first factor that changed my mentality and what this article is about is Full Frame is no longer an Exclusive to the high-end high priced market (especially used) as it once was. With Mirrorless taking front and center stage that is leaving a hole for Full Frame DSLRs on abandoned or Sunsetting mounts at very affordable prices now. 

While you still can't go out and buy a used FF body and lens under $70 as you can do with a used APS-C DSLR; you can get one with a lens for $300-700 which still puts it into that budget photography range I chase after and fits in what I have historically paid for my "serious" equipment. 

The second thing that changed is APS-C cameras are no longer the "Definitive Cheap Interchangeable Lens Camera" either. Enter Fujifim and X-Trans sensors: a high end professional camera body that make cameras like the Nikon D7200 and Canon 90D look like value kits. 

Fuji managed to make an APS-C camera for the cost of two arms and two legs: the X-2HS. No longer is the $2500+ camera restricted to full-frame.

Same can be said for Micro 43rds with the Panasonic G9 II and OM Digital OM-1 as the higher end lenses for these are no cheaper then their Full Frame counterparts either. 

It is now quite possible to be a Gear Snob and not even own a full frame camera; which is a wild concept that would have been completely foriegn a decade ago.

And then you have the Elephant in the Room: Medium Format Digital which throws a wildcard into the mix. Now if you want to be a "True Pro" you really should have something like a Fuji GFX 100 instead (an $8000 Medium Format Digital Camera).

The last factor in the viability of Full Frame for the average hobbyist now is the return of entry level Full Frame cameras which when you compare them to the cost of say a Fuji X2H becomes an argument of its own.  Something like a Canon RP or Nikon Z5 which retail for around $1,000 a piece.  This still falls out of my current price range but it is no more expensive then what my Nikon D7200 would have went for when it was new.

But enough about comparing New vs New as this blog is about finding cheap bargins which delves into the used market. 

Both of my Full Frame DSLR (or DSLR Like) cameras that I own have a "market rate" of $450-650 but if you know the right person or look at the right craigslist ad at the right time they can be found for up to half of that going rate as the market is filled with them and they don't have the popular nostalgia that Digicams demand (atleast not yet). 

As a result a lot of these older Full Frame DSLRs (anything short of say a Nikon D850 which can still go "toe to toe" with mirrorless) are stockpiling in used camera stores and on private sales on Craigslist or E-Bay as more and more people want to upgrade to Mirrorless.

The main lens I bought from a friend (The Nikon 24-120 F4 VR) for this camera for $300 and I got the body itself for $200.  So for $500 I managed to get a pretty versatile Full Frame kit that still to this day holds its own alongside the Nikon D7200, Panasonic G9 and Nikon Z50.  I could take any of these four cameras out for a serious outing and be very happy with the results.

While I've only had the D610 for a few months and the weather hasn't given me a lot of chances to seriously use it I am now considering this one of my "Primary" kits which consists of: 2 DSLRs (One Full Frame, one APS-C) and 2 Mirrorless bodies (One APS-C and one Micro 43rds).

Between these four cameras I can be ready for any possible photography situation; leaving the rest of my collection for fun when I plan on challenging myself or just getting out and using something different.

Before I conclude this really long thought dump and post as to why Full Frame is now a viable Budget photography option and tool in my box that I am no longer afraid of using; I will circle back and end with a Nod and Honorable Mention to the camera I ripped on earlier: the not-perfect camera with a unique personality Sony a99.

Like my Pentax Q I have very much a love-hate relationship with the a99. I almost sold it a few times, but the buyer in both cases backed down and I couldn't bring myself to sell it to a used camera store for what they would give me for it because of its major issue.  

In the end however the Sony a99 fits a very specific niche and to me that is not at all a bad thing. It is a cult camera highly prized by some very dedicated fans and as such has kept its value higher then most Full Frame cameras of its age (as opposed to say a Canon 5D Mark II which can be bought for a steal right now).

The biggest thing that makes me to hang onto the a99 is the lenses.  This is a camera where you can buy vintage Minolta Auto Focus glass from the 1990s and still use it at peak performance including having autofocus. 

Minolta made a few lenses during the 90s such as the 70-210 F4 "Beercan" which were built to last and can still provide vibrant sharp images on a 24mp Full Frame sensor. It's really impressive and a pleasant surprise to get quality like this on cheap lenses that are over 30 years old. Minolta lenses are often the diamond in the rough when it comes to vintage glass.

The a99 is great for the fact that you can slap on a vintage lens that you paid $40 for at a used camera store or thrift store and still get shots that look like they were taken with a lens that cost 15 times or more what you paid; and that what gets me to keep a special place in my collection for the a99.  

So while because its somewhat rare and sought after the a99 won't be as cheap or easy to find as say a Canon 5D Mark II/III, Canon 6D or Nikon D610 the fact that you can get away with spending around $100 for a kit of lenses for it evens the playing field of being another option for a budget full frame kit. 

Dedicated Photography: The Unknown Everywhere Hobby in Small Town communities

Living in a Rural area and having photography as a Hobby is an extremely rare thing. Especially if you use something other then just a Smartphone to do it.  Doing street photography in small towns unless they are specifically "Tourist Traps" often gets a me a lot of strange looks from people and 95% of the time I'm the only one doing it.  

Seeing another street photographer in an Urban downtown setting is fairly common. I manage to see someone else doing it almost every time I do photography in a major Downtown district on a nice day.  

A Street Photographer in a small town on the other hand is incredibly rare occurrence as in my 5 years of living in a rural area and ten years of doing street photography I have never run into another street photographer in a downtown area of a city of less then 19,000 people. 

Street Photographers are really missing out on a lot of really cool opportunities for Photography in small towns, however instead of going off the beaten path to explore most seem to be content on having their "usual route in their usual area in the busiest part of a big city".

To preface this: Small towns in the Midwest are my favorite venues for Street Photography for a number of reasons, even if I am the only one out doing it. 

First and Foremost small towns are often chock full of Historic 2-3 story buildings that were constructed in the mid 1800s to early 1900s. This type of architecture is a lot rarer in a large Urban Downtown district unless its a preserved "historical area" to make way for more modern office buildings and apartment complexes.

Next while you may have a lot more "confused" interactions of people on the streets in a Small Town overall it is a lot safer to be out in one alone.  I've had far less "hostile" encounters doing street photography vs inner city alone especially when I just avoid taking photos around the local "Watering Hole" which is where the few more in-your-face encounters doing Street Photography in smaller towns have been: Drunks.

And last but certainly not least, Small Towns make fantastic subjects during local Carnivals, City Days, County Fairs and Festivals.  Here you will get a mix of Car Shows, street vendors, Carnival Rides, live music performances and livestock exhibitions and events all in a much more reasonable sized crowd then events of similar type in large urban centers (IE a State Fair).  Taking photos during a Town Festival can make for some great photojournalism photos.

So having this aside of why I enjoy doing photography in small towns: the big picture of this blog post however is about how Hobby Photography which includes but is not exclusive to Street Photography is perceived and nearly non-existent in a Rural or Small Town community.

When you look at "Commonly accepted Hobbies" in Rural areas you can put them all into one of the following interest groups: Fishing, Hunting (which also includes gun collecting, range/trap shooting, etc), Agriculture (County Fairs, 4H, FFA etc), Cars/Automotive, Winter Sports and Powersports (IE Skiing and Snowmobiles), Summer Activities and Powersports (Golf, Camping, ATVs, Recreational Jet Skis and Boating) or "Crafts" which is a catch-all hobby for any sort of Handmade item including Crocheting, Soap Making, Baking, Bead-work etc.

If you have an interest in any of these hobbies in a Rural area no one will bat an eye and you will find large support groups where you can share your passion with others. 

So what do I mean by Photography being an "Everywhere and Anytime Hobby" well the catch with many of these listed "normal" hobbies is that they are also restricted to being applicable to only a certain place or a certain time of year as well.  Which makes Photography more special to me as it can be done Anywhere at Any Time of year.

Hunting and "Gun Hobby" for example has set seasons on when you can hunt for what and set places where you can go out and shoot.  (IE designated Hunting grounds, a Rifle Club or Private Shooting range)

Fishing needs to be done on a lake or river that contains Fish and for some type of fishing there is also a season, much like hunting, which restricts the When.  Additionally there is several weeks during both ends of the year, a "transitional phase" where open water fishing is not available or severely restricted and the Ice is not safe enough for Ice Fishing (though some die-hards into the Fishing hobby still try to go out and regret it later...)

Agriculture Hobbies relies on having access to a Farm, Ranch or County Fairground where you can raise and show your animals and/or crops. Crops also have a set season when they can be raised and a very narrow window during the summer and fall where they can be harvested and either sold or displayed as well.

Winter activities and power sports hobbies (Snowmobiling/ Cross country Skiing) have both a very short window of when they can be partaken in during the Late Fall into Early Spring and this season can vary from only a few weeks to at most 5 months out of the year.  They also have a restriction of where as well- needing to stay on marked Snowmobile or Ski trails.

Summer Powersports and summer hobbies such as Camping are the mirror of Winter outdoor hobbies; requiring either access to designated ATV trails, Golf Courses, Campgrounds or a body of water similar to fishing. The when is likewise restricted as well especially for water power sports as its kinda hard to move a boat across a frozen lake.

Of all these "Normal" rural hobbies the only "Anytime/Anywhere" hobby is Crafting. However this hobby is "most socially accepted" in a certain age demographic; and while there is no actual restriction of Age with crafting it is going to be harder to connect with that community if you are in your teens or early 20s then if you are over 60.

The reason I am so passionate and invested in Photography is because it is a hobby that has so much variety and no "restrictions" on when and where you can go out and do it.  You can take Still Life photography indoors right inside your house on a mid January day that it is -30F with a -50F windchill outside.  You can take photos of the night sky outdoors (something I struggle with but I digress) in the middle of the night.  With the right equipment (weather sealed camera or protective sleeve) you can even go out and do Photography in the pouring rain.

As the title of the post states Photography is also an anywhere hobby.  You can do it at a Nature Trail taking photos of Wildlife; it can be done from the deck of a boat, around a campfire, on the street of a small town (which is perhaps my favorite venue for doing photography) or during a Town Festival or County Fair.  

It boggles me to see events such as local fairs, car shows, etc go un-documented in photos minus the "selfie with a smartphone" or the "photo of my kid in the Marching Band (also done these days with smartphones)" during these events.

When I sit and reflect on this it is hard for me to understand why Photography is not more popular then it is in both Urban and Rural communities; but it is overwhelming Non-Existent in Small Town and Rural settings which really baffles me, because it really is such a neat hobby that anyone can go out and do regardless of where they live. 

As much as I hate to admit it sometimes, yes you can even go out and do Hobby Photography with your Smartphone.  And in rural areas I very rarely even see people going out and taking photos with their phones.  To them "Smartphone Photography" is still restricted to "Taking photos of the Family at a Family event or at a place where my Family is going and my Family is in the picture front and center".

The only exception to this seems to be On Vacation. The average person seems more willing to take a random photo of their cruise ship, the airplane they are boarding, the drink or food they are having, etc while "On Vacation".

This perhaps is what baffles me the most why more people don't do photography as a hobby: the gap between Vacation Photography and Street Photography is so small that all you have to do is put one leg length over to hop from doing "Photos to remember an exotic place we once visited on a cruise" to "photos of where I have been recently and seen Interesting Things I've come across close to home".  

That gap is so incredibly small yet... 99% of people are content just staying on the "I only take my phone or camera out when I am on Vacation" side of that incredibly short fence and it boggles me how they can't see the potential of doing more with it. 

For them bridging the gap between taking photos "once every five years when we go to Alaska/Europe/etc" and doing it every month whenever they go to a fun event such as a Local Fair or Carnival outside of getting "One photo of me and the family to show we were there" is impossible.

I think a lot of the resistance to hobby photography especially in rural communities comes down to public perception; and the only way to change that perception is for more people to do it. 

In the end it boils down to, especially in rural areas, that no one wants to be viewed as that "Weird creepy person going around taking photos" and while this is by far most applicable to Street Photography I have had encounters doing other types of photography where people just can't understand nor accept why I am pointing a camera or a phone at something that isn't related to me, isn't my Pet or my own Car, or isn't 3,000 miles away from where I live.

Many Street Photographers are very used to in general being approached and asked "What are you Doing?" or "What are you taking photos of?" by random people on the street.  Easily 1 in every 3 Street Photography outing I go on someone will come up and ask one of those two questions with a blank look in their eyes.

Occasionally it can lead to a positive encounter where it clicks with them after you give an answer; but 9 times out of 10 you just get a blank "Deer in Headlights" stare back a shrug and an "Oh..." and then they move on.  

Another odd encounter relating to my Hobby Photography out near where I live I had was at work (I work in IT; again Photography is a Hobby not a Profession). Said person came up to me with that tell-tale deer in headlights look "Uh I saw you on the way to work today why were you taking photos with a camera????"  

In this case, I wasn't even doing street Photography. I was doing Nature Photography of some ducks, geese and doves along a river on my way into work and just happened to be on a public sidewalk where they passed by and recognized me before they confronted me at work about it.  When I told them what I was taking photos of they did a dis-interested shrug and walked away.

Regarding small town Street Photography: it simply does not compute in most people who live in a Rural area that taking photos of random signs, buildings, art, Urban Wildlife and yes even people (but I make it a point that Street Photography is not centered on people for me.) can be Art. 

It doesn't register to them that Photography can be as valid as a Hobby as wetting a line in a river, going on an ATV trail to get muddy, taking a gun out to a range to sight it in or knit something at home to sell at the town craft sale.

I've shown up to small-town car shows before where I was the only there one with a dedicated camera. As in, Primo Photography outing material.  All other attendees were only taking photos with a smartphone and even then just taking a single quick photo of one car from one angle (probably someone they know who owns it) taking a quick wide-angle selfie with the car show in the background and then stuffing their phone in their jeans for the rest of the show. 

Another reaction I will get, primarily when I am out taking photos of a carnival, parade or local car show is dozens of overheard comments "Oh that guy must be from the Town Paper!!!!".  No...  

While technically when I am at a local event taking photos of a Parade, car show, etc I am doing a form of Photojournalism and I have a lot of fun doing it; I am no more a professional or making money off of it then someone's mother cooking dinner for the family without needing to be a Professional Chef at a Restaurant.  I think most people can make a distinction that not everyone who cooks a homemade meal for someone else is a Professional chef, right?  

The same applies to someone out taking photos.  Even with the Smartphone dominated "camera" market the vast vast majority of "people out with a camera" are still not professionals.

A second relatable example would be someone going to a car show, points to the owner of someone who has a car in it and says outloud "Oh man, I bet he drives for Nascar!".  I guess I don't see the connection at all. Having a collector car doesn't make you a professional driver any more then having a camera makes you a professional photographer for the Newspaper...

But I digress; maybe the reason more people don't have a hobby for photography in Rural areas, or atleast leave their own property with a camera unless they are on vacation is they've had too many people giving them the stinkeye for it that they never learned to embrace it.  

I can certainly see this.  What your Peers do both growing up and in your Adult life influences what you like and enjoy and it is really disheartening having a hobby or passion for something that no one else seems to care about. Hence this rant.

The communities for the "Accepted Hobbies" in a Rural area are all very tight knit.  I went to a funeral benefit for a late cousin in law of mine and it was all about trap shooting (I came late to miss the actual shooting portion of the benefit as firearms make me jumpy) but here was a memorial event of 200+ people all coming together to pretty much only talk about one thing "Getting Kids into Hunting and Trap shooting".

It made me pause for a moment and think "When that eventual day comes and I pass on or get diagnosed with a Terminal condition; if I decided to do or have my family do something to share my knowledge or passion of Photography with people would anyone who showed up actually care?  Or even have an interest in "Getting Kids interested in Photography"?  And the only answer I could come up with was "No".

My family may find and post up photos I've taken.  Or a photobook I made.  But almost everyone would maybe glance at a few photos and think "Oh that's kinda pretty I guess..." without making a connection of what Photography meant to me and yeah.  That kinda stings a bit to think about.

I'll admit out of the "Acceptable Rural Hobbies" listed above I do share one, and that is Fishing. I used to be obsessed with it as a kid and it is likely because I was heavily influenced by my Grandfather to enjoy it.  There is nothing wrong with this at all and I still enjoy wetting a line from time to time (Mostly in the summer.  Ice Fishing can be pretty miserable).

At the end of the day Fishing is now a passing hobby.  Its something I can enjoy but take or leave in most cases. I no longer pass by a lake on a road and go "Man I wish I had my rods with me..." though I did have this strong passion for it before I got into Photography fifteen years ago.  

The number of times I've said internally to myself "Man I wish I had packed a camera" or "Man I really wish I could pull over and get a photo of that but I can't..." are unmeasurable however.

I leave this post with a few of my favorite photos taken in the small town I live in, the town I work in, and other small towns I've actually went out of my way to visit because I thought they would be a neat place to take a walk with a camera in, and generally I have never been disappointed in finding something interesting to photograph on the street of a Small Town.