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.

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.