Do I really need a semi-pro dSLR??

[ian-83]

After reading a few posts on here about people downsizing from full frame/crop sensor dslr to mirrorless systems. it's got me thinking do we really need the big expensive bodies as hobbyists?

Does what we do with our pictures dictate the best sensor size we require? Do we only need easy access to all the external controls and adjustments unless we're using it for paid usage where a delay might mean missing the picture?

I've sat and looked at my past cameras and there usage and found when I had a mirrorless system or entry level dslr I used them the most probably due to less weight meaning I was more likely to take them out.

Have I become a victim of my own thinking I need something higher spec when for my usage a entry level camera would be fine?

 

[Nod]

Depending on what you shoot, a Fuji X-T1 system could be the answer. The X-T2 is a fair bit better but it's also 3x the price (2nd hand X-T1s are pretty cheap at the moment.) ISO, shutter speed and aperture can all be controlled from the dials on the body as can the metering type and drive (single shot, continuous, self timer etc.). A lovely camera to use and Fuji lenses are pretty damn good (although not cheap...)

 

[ian-83]

Depending on what you shoot, a Fuji X-T1 system could be the answer. The X-T2 is a fair bit better but it's also 3x the price (2nd hand X-T1s are pretty cheap at the moment.) ISO, shutter speed and aperture can all be controlled from the dials on the body as can the metering type and drive (single shot, continuous, self timer etc.). A lovely camera to use and Fuji lenses are pretty damn good (although not cheap...)

I have looked at an X-T1 with 18-55, Olympus E-M1 with 12-40 or Panasonic G7 with 14-45.

I tend to find the smaller bodies without grip uncomfortable to hold. All seem nice and possibly within my budget if I trade in my D7000 and 16-85.

 

[Cagey75]

I'm one of those who has been pondering a change. It's been on my mind a lot. My D800E doesn't get used near as much as it used to. But, a few years back I was actually making some money using it so it felt justified. Now I'm back to being a hobbyist, I wasn't having fun doing paid shoots, I need to get back to photography being an enjoyment, not a chore.

The X-T1 is really attractive right now, I'm spotting them for very reasonable prices locally with extras to boot. I've had interest from some photographers in my D800E, and i think it might be time to let go. I've already sold most of my Nikon lenses.

You can get a grip for the XT-1: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fujifilm-X...77270386&sr=8-2-fkmr0&keywords=fuji+xt+1+grip

I would definitely want something like that for it too. Otherwise I like that it's so neat and light. ideally i'd love the XT-2, but I also want to get lenses if I switch. And glass before body for me every time. I really like the look of the Fujinon 35 f/2, and I'd probably go for the 55-200 to do some casual wildlife and distance shooting. I would be happy with that combination for a start.

Lugging around 5-6KG+ in a camera bag hasn't been fun for a long time. I don't like photography being a chore, and lately my back is too busted for all that so I have left the camera at home more and more when heading out. I miss the excitement of heading down to the woods or wherever, and shooting for pleasure. i think the Fuji system would bring me back. get a smaller bag, forget the heavy tripod, get a monopod maybe for landscapes, and just go shoot! In the end, the gear is the least important aspect of your photography. The journey, and end result are what matter most. better to be out and about shooting with a good camera than never shooting with a great one.

 

[ianp5a]

After reading a few posts on here about people downsizing from full frame/crop sensor dslr to mirrorless systems. it's got me thinking do we really need the big expensive bodies as hobbyists?

Does what we do with our pictures dictate the best sensor size we require? Do we only need easy access to all the external controls and adjustments unless we're using it for paid usage where a delay might mean missing the picture?

I've sat and looked at my past cameras and there usage and found when I had a mirrorless system or entry level dslr I used them the most probably due to less weight meaning I was more likely to take them out.

Have I become a victim of my own thinking I need something higher spec when for my usage a entry level camera would be fine?

As a hobbyist, it's about enjoying your hobby. So you are allowed to have any gear you want. Even the top pro stuff. You don't have to justify the cost or make a profit from it like a pro must do. If you can afford it and enjoy it, go for it.

I prefer to use MFT for everything, on the other hand. And love the results you get. With a bonus that lenses and tripods etc. are that much smaller. I only need a small belt pack now. Freeing me from carrying a bag. Which makes a huge difference when scrambling over rocks or shooting in a crowd. You also don't stick out, or thought to be a threat or a pro.

 

[damianmkv]

Some of my best ( in my humble opinion ) shots were taken with a £130 Fuji xf1 - I really enjoyed shooting with that camera, loved the manual zoom, loved the way it rendered. Threw it in the car - it meant it was always to hand.

I do get a full frame itch every now and then but then I think about what I do with my photos. Generally, nothing in all honesty - I don't print them, they go on Flickr or IG or get deleted. And that gives me my answer - whilst I'm hyper critical, pixel peeper etc etc, there's not really any point for what I do. And that's what I need to remember.

When I look at some "wow" photos that I aspire to take, yes they're often taken with FF but there is also a lot of planning that goes in to them, often taken at sunrise or sunset so I think I can't complain if I don't make an effort to improve what I do.

 

[Phil V]

As a hobbyist, it's about enjoying your hobby. So you are allowed to have any gear you want. Even the top pro stuff. You don't have to justify the cost or make a profit from it like a pro must do. If you can afford it and enjoy it, go for it.

This^
Buy whatever gear you like, you only have to justify it to yourself. I never 'needed' a hifi or a nice guitar, I arguably didn't need over a grands worth of kitchen knives either (just nice to have). Even as a 'pro' I could get by with less than half the kit I've currently got. My studio gear gets only an occasional workout but I spend more time lusting over light modifiers than I do over cameras (or cars, holidays, TV's).

 

[Applemuncher]

I agree with the above- as long as you're getting out and enjoying yourself it shouldn't matter. I've seen some phenomenal photos taken worth basic kit, and some very average ones taking with top of the range kit IMO.

 

[rich_]

wise words

 

[ian-83]

I'm one of those who has been pondering a change. It's been on my mind a lot. My D800E doesn't get used near as much as it used to. But, a few years back I was actually making some money using it so it felt justified. Now I'm back to being a hobbyist, I wasn't having fun doing paid shoots, I need to get back to photography being an enjoyment, not a chore.

The X-T1 is really attractive right now, I'm spotting them for very reasonable prices locally with extras to boot. I've had interest from some photographers in my D800E, and i think it might be time to let go. I've already sold most of my Nikon lenses.

You can get a grip for the XT-1: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fujifilm-X...77270386&sr=8-2-fkmr0&keywords=fuji+xt+1+grip

I would definitely want something like that for it too. Otherwise I like that it's so neat and light. ideally i'd love the XT-2, but I also want to get lenses if I switch. And glass before body for me every time. I really like the look of the Fujinon 35 f/2, and I'd probably go for the 55-200 to do some casual wildlife and distance shooting. I would be happy with that combination for a start.

Lugging around 5-6KG+ in a camera bag hasn't been fun for a long time. I don't like photography being a chore, and lately my back is too busted for all that so I have left the camera at home more and more when heading out. I miss the excitement of heading down to the woods or wherever, and shooting for pleasure. i think the Fuji system would bring me back. get a smaller bag, forget the heavy tripod, get a monopod maybe for landscapes, and just go shoot! In the end, the gear is the least important aspect of your photography. The journey, and end result are what matter most. better to be out and about shooting with a good camera than never shooting with a great one.

Think that's the beauty of the mirrorless options so much more compact and lighter it makes it more wanting to take out.

As a hobbyist, it's about enjoying your hobby. So you are allowed to have any gear you want. Even the top pro stuff. You don't have to justify the cost or make a profit from it like a pro must do. If you can afford it and enjoy it, go for it.

I prefer to use MFT for everything, on the other hand. And love the results you get. With a bonus that lenses and tripods etc. are that much smaller. I only need a small belt pack now. Freeing me from carrying a bag. Which makes a huge difference when scrambling over rocks or shooting in a crowd. You also don't stick out, or thought to be a threat or a pro.

Something I have looked at a minimal and more compact system will suit me better I think.

Some of my best ( in my humble opinion ) shots were taken with a £130 Fuji xf1 - I really enjoyed shooting with that camera, loved the manual zoom, loved the way it rendered. Threw it in the car - it meant it was always to hand.

I do get a full frame itch every now and then but then I think about what I do with my photos. Generally, nothing in all honesty - I don't print them, they go on Flickr or IG or get deleted. And that gives me my answer - whilst I'm hyper critical, pixel peeper etc etc, there's not really any point for what I do. And that's what I need to remember.

When I look at some "wow" photos that I aspire to take, yes they're often taken with FF but there is also a lot of planning that goes in to them, often taken at sunrise or sunset so I think I can't complain if I don't make an effort to improve what I do.

I never had the full frame itch. My usage of photos is very similar to yours then end up on Flickr, instagram or on Facebook. I don't have a need for high iso performance or shallow depth of field.

This^
Buy whatever gear you like, you only have to justify it to yourself. I never 'needed' a hifi or a nice guitar, I arguably didn't need over a grands worth of kitchen knives either (just nice to have). Even as a 'pro' I could get by with less than half the kit I've currently got. My studio gear gets only an occasional workout but I spend more time lusting over light modifiers than I do over cameras (or cars, holidays, TV's).

I don't find myself lusting over the latest equipment thankfully just something that'd be best suited to my needs.

I agree with the above- as long as you're getting out and enjoying yourself it shouldn't matter. I've seen some phenomenal photos taken worth basic kit, and some very average ones taking with top of the range kit IMO.

Same I see pictures taken on "entry" level dslr which blow my efforts out the water. definitely more what you can do than what gear you have.

 

[Cagey75]

When I stand back and look at my situation honestly, the D800E is wasted on me. It really wants 1.4 or 2.8 glass attached at all times to pull the very best from it. I don't have the funds to buy all the exotic lenses I'd love to. I did have a bunch of great lenses but sold them all on over time ... because I wasn't using them enough! I had the 70-200 2.8 VR II, the 24-70 2.8, the 300 F4, the Sigma 35 1.4, the 85 1.8G [ok, that one is cheap enough, and also amazing for the money and I did use that and the Sigma a lot, in fact at one stage they were all I used] People buy this camera for ultimate detail, it's a beast for landscape and portraiture. You get the very best from it though using a tripod, and I hate tripods. I want something that can complete in terms of quality when viewing the full image, I don't care about 100% crops, nobody is ever viewing my images at that resolution. I also never print larger than 20" or so, and I don't tend to shoot above ISO 3200. I think it's ridiculous that modern cameras boast super high ISO numbers, when the reality is, many shooters will never go beyond the norm.

The only thing I would miss about the big dslr, is the ergonomics, it is really comfortable to hold and use despite it's bulkiness. Also the snappiness of the controls, and the ability to crop images down stupidly small while maintaining IQ. Like I said earlier, this often makes me lazy.

 

[snerkler]

As a hobbyist, it's about enjoying your hobby. So you are allowed to have any gear you want. Even the top pro stuff. You don't have to justify the cost or make a profit from it like a pro must do. If you can afford it and enjoy it, go for it.
.

Best answer I've seen for a long time

 

[HoppyUK]

This^
Buy whatever gear you like, you only have to justify it to yourself. I never 'needed' a hifi or a nice guitar, I arguably didn't need over a grands worth of kitchen knives either (just nice to have). Even as a 'pro' I could get by with less than half the kit I've currently got. My studio gear gets only an occasional workout but I spend more time lusting over light modifiers than I do over cameras (or cars, holidays, TV's).

Haha, me too. And why not? The problem I used to have with GAS is that I believed the marketing bull and actually thought it would make some kind of real difference. It doesn't. Not often anyway, but recognise it for what it is and all's good Not sure about the knives though - I've only got a few too many pairs of expensive scissors

The problem with DSLR outfits is weight, not size. And the problem with smaller format mirrorless is that a) they're often too small to use properly and then, b) when you up-spec the lenses to get some kind of FF equivalence, the bluddy weight goes back up too.

 

[Sejanus Aelianus]

I use big cameras and I use small cameras. It just depends how I feel about what I want to photograph. Some people don't like having to make a choice but I think it's part of the fun.

 

[realspeed]

Ian

Of course we need big DSLR cameras with great big huge lenses on them. How else are we going to be able to knock people out of the way when taking a shot? Big is better.

 

[Nostromo]

a) they're often too small to use properly

With my big clumpy manual workers hands, i find it hard enough holding my canon 1100d comfortably, a smaller bodied camera i think would be even worse.

 

[Norkie]

When I use my EOS M I feel like a tourist

 

[JJ!]

I have nearly made the move before, but I just keep holding on to my D750! Match it with a small light prime I can carry it round all day long.

 

[snerkler]

With my big clumpy manual workers hands, i find it hard enough holding my canon 1100d comfortably, a smaller bodied camera i think would be even worse.

Makes you wonder how we used to cope with SLR's and rangefinders doesn't it

 

[woof woof]

The problem with DSLR outfits is weight, not size. And the problem with smaller format mirrorless is that a) they're often too small to use properly and then, b) when you up-spec the lenses to get some kind of FF equivalence, the bluddy weight goes back up too.

Maybe for you but for me size is a part of the issue as size makes both me and the kit more obvious and I get more attention and that's not good. My mirrorless kit isn't too small, it's just the size kit used to be before it got all big fat and bloated.

I haven't found spec-ing up the lenses up to FF equivalence bringing the weight back up either. My MFT cameras and faster lenses are still significantly smaller than an equivalent DSLR setup but of course equivalence only goes so far and there aren't too many 12-35mm f1.4 zooms on the market. My Panny G7 and 12-35mm f2.8 is probably still significantly smaller than a DSLR and a bog standard 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens, it's really more the size of my old Nikon 35mm SLR and basic 28-70mm f3.5-5.6.

Makes you wonder how we used to cope with SLR's and rangefinders doesn't it

I went digital with a Fuji S602 and although it was about the size of a film camera the performance was awful and I quickly gave up and went for a Canon DSLR and that's when the bulk and weight went up so for years I hoped for two things from my kit...

1. For an interchangeable lens system the size of my film cameras.
2. For a digital compact the size of my compact and RF cameras with decent performance and image quality.

We got very compact digital cameras long ago but arguably their performance was pretty crappy (although the Panny LX series was better for me as it allowed manual setup and I could shoot it like an old film camera) but once MFT came along I saw the future. These days I have MFT cameras which are the size of my film cameras and a Sony A7 which with my 35mm f2.8 or 55mm f1.8 is the size of an old film camera and has adequate performance and offers much greater image quality.

At the mo I've never had it so good

 

[snerkler]

Maybe for you but for me size is a part of the issue as size makes both me and the kit more obvious and I get more attention and that's not good. My mirrorless kit isn't too small, it's just the size kit used to be before it got all big fat and bloated.

And ugly.

 

[Phil V]

Makes you wonder how we used to cope with SLR's and rangefinders doesn't it

I've got an EOS 5 with the grip attached, it's bigger than all my DSLRs have been, and heavy too.

This is one of those things where people remember the exceptions and pretend they were the norm. Not all SLRs were OM10s

 

[snerkler]

I've got an EOS 5 with the grip attached, it's bigger than all my DSLRs have been, and heavy too.

This is one of those things where people remember the exceptions and pretend they were the norm. Not all SLRs were OM10s

I don't think cameras the size of the OM's were the exception TBH, plenty of similar sized Canons, Nikon's and Pentax etc.

But my post was a little bit tongue in cheek Although TBH I have large hands and actually like the handling of the OM1, and many of the current CSC's as long as large lenses aren't used with them.

 

[Phil V]

I don't think cameras the size of the OM's were the exception TBH, plenty of similar sized Canons, Nikon's and Pentax etc.

But my post was a little bit tongue in cheek Although TBH I have large hands and actually like the handling of the OM1, and many of the current CSC's as long as large lenses aren't used with them.

I like the smaller cameras too (chose a 6d because it was smaller than the 5dII), but by the time AF was mainstream most SLR's were very large.

 

[HoppyUK]

Film SLRs were really rather different. Olympus OM was small, Pentax ME Super even smaller, popular Canons, Nikons and Minoltas a bit bigger - but nowhere near as big or heavy as today's high-end DSLRs.

But film SLRs are held differently. There are no buttons for right-hand fingers or thumb to operate, and your left hand was often elbow-up to get a better grip on the focusing ring that was usually a lot less than one-finger light. I noticed Don McCullen in a recent documentary still holds his Canon DSLRs the same way, which is much more difficult - when supporting the weight of the camera in your right hand, it's much harder to use fingers and thumb for anything except clinging on to the thing.

And there's another difference too. With film, ie 36 exposures, you would try hard to make every shot count and usually only take one or two frames at a time. So you weren't holding the camera to your eye for long. With DSLRs, good ergonomics are much more important and IMHO, small mirrorless jobbies are only beneficial right up to the time you actually want to use them.

 

[Razor-BladE]

I've gone for the change myself. Originally had the 450D, moved to the 600D, then to the 5DII within a 6 year period. I was doing some little jobs here and there with the 450D/600D hence why I moved onto 5DII but since I bought it I stopped doing any work and barely used it apart from the odd family occasion so couldn't justify keeping it, plus didn't want to carry around a big camera for a few of the occasions.
After a LOT of reading up on different cameras, I'm set on getting the X100T as I love the look of it and very rarely ever used the 85mm that I had, so the fixed 35mm will be fine for me. I like doing landscape work but the 35mm will just force me to think differently, and for when I need true pocketability, I'll be getting the RX100. I have yet to get both cameras but I'm not it any rush.

 

[sk66]

I've tried downsizing a couple different times but always find it coming up short... but I don't always need the big kit capabilities ("need" being relative). So I *also* own a superzoom lens, a Fuji X20 P&S, and a Nikon 1 system.

 

[snerkler]

I've gone for the change myself. Originally had the 450D, moved to the 600D, then to the 5DII within a 6 year period. I was doing some little jobs here and there with the 450D/600D hence why I moved onto 5DII but since I bought it I stopped doing any work and barely used it apart from the odd family occasion so couldn't justify keeping it, plus didn't want to carry around a big camera for a few of the occasions.
After a LOT of reading up on different cameras, I'm set on getting the X100T as I love the look of it and very rarely ever used the 85mm that I had, so the fixed 35mm will be fine for me. I like doing landscape work but the 35mm will just force me to think differently, and for when I need true pocketability, I'll be getting the RX100. I have yet to get both cameras but I'm not it any rush.

I went the RX100 and G7X route and couldn't get on with either, far too small to use comfortably. You just end up using it at arms length using the LCD and it just doesn't feel right imo. The smallest body I can use 'comfortably' is the EM10, but I wouldn't want to use anything bigger/heavier than the 12-40mm on it.

 

[Razor-BladE]

Yeah I'd only use the RX100 when I really want to travel light. I wouldn't have it as a 'replacement' camera. Hence wanting to get the X100T as well, which is a touch bigger body wise compared to the E-M10 but a relatively slim profile otherwise.
It was a toss up between that and the E-M10 II but I figured the only 2 lenses I'd be interested in is the 14-42mm pancake (which apparently the RX100 is of similar quality and a smaller package) and the 17mm 1.8 which is a bit more protruding than the X100T. Although the IBIS and the better video quality almost swayed it for me.
I'm hoping that I won't miss the 17-28mm too much as the 17-40mm stayed on my camera 98% of the time. It'll make me think that little bit harder when it comes to landscapes.

 

[ian-83]

Thank you for everyone's response. My dilemma about if to trade in and downsize to a compact system camera has been made for me as my Nikon D7000 was away for a warranty repair by Wex and its turned out too costly to repair so I am getting a refund now and going for a Panasonic G7

 

[Ruffmeister]

From what I gather, the G7 is pretty decent. You never know, it may be a great move from your D7000 and you may end up shooting more. I know I did this when I left the D7000 and went to Fuji.

I don't think the equipment matters, as long as you are getting out and enjoying it. It's hard to get an idea of what works best for you too on places like here (think Nikon vs. Canon argument) - as it's mostly down to personal choice and what you prefer in terms of use and ergonomics.

I've left the Fuji camp now and gone to Canon FF and I'm happy with the move But many on here have done the opposite and wouldn't go back. Again, whatever works for you. A lot hype the Sony system but I couldn't get into it when I used one. It's each to their own as far as equipment goes IMO and as already said, regardless of wether you are making money out of it or not, if you can afford it and enjoy it, go for it.

Anyway, enough gear talk - enjoy the G7!

 

[woof woof]

From what I gather, the G7 is pretty decent....

A lot hype the Sony system but I couldn't get into it when I used one. It's each to their own as far as equipment goes IMO and as already said, regardless of wether you are making money out of it or not, if you can afford it and enjoy it, go for it.

Anyway, enough gear talk - enjoy the G7!

I have a G7 and it's a little sports car of a camera with some really nice features and just the one glaring elephant in the room, shutter shock. If you choose your lenses carefully and avoid SS it's a good camera. Gotta say that the Sony A7 series suits me very well, never has such image quality been available in such a small interchangeable lens package, it's just the size of the G7, and of course some of the lenses are simply superb.

 

[woof woof]

And there's another difference too. With film, ie 36 exposures, you would try hard to make every shot count and usually only take one or two frames at a time. So you weren't holding the camera to your eye for long. With DSLRs, good ergonomics are much more important and IMHO, small mirrorless jobbies are only beneficial right up to the time you actually want to use them.

Rubbish. Or being more polite a highly coloured, personal, subjective and sweeping generalisation. But I suppose that's the point. As they say YMMV and in this case mine does and drastically so. The only way I'd go back to a big fat bloated DSLR would be with a gun to my head

 

[ianp5a]

Rubbish. Or being more polite a highly coloured, personal, subjective and sweeping generalisation. But I suppose that's the point. As they say YMMV and in this case mine does and drastically so. The only way I'd go back to a big fat bloated DSLR would be with a gun to my head

Yes. That comment seems odd. To me it doesn't reflect the situation with recent cameras that I have experienced.

 

[Ruffmeister]

I have a G7 and it's a little sports car of a camera with some really nice features and just the one glaring elephant in the room, shutter shock. If you choose your lenses carefully and avoid SS it's a good camera. Gotta say that the Sony A7 series suits me very well, never has such image quality been available in such a small interchangeable lens package, it's just the size of the G7, and of course some of the lenses are simply superb.

I'm not against the A7. I've seen some cracking results from it and like you said, its a good sensor in a small body. I just didn't get on with the feel of it when I used one.

 

[HoppyUK]

Rubbish. Or being more polite a highly coloured, personal, subjective and sweeping generalisation. But I suppose that's the point. As they say YMMV and in this case mine does and drastically so. The only way I'd go back to a big fat bloated DSLR would be with a gun to my head

Yes. That comment seems odd. To me it doesn't reflect the situation with recent cameras that I have experienced.

Maybe I'm not being clear. I said small mirrorless, meaning mainly M4/3 Pansonics and Olympus, some Sony's too, that are ultra-small pretty much for the sake of it with lots of buttons and sometimes without any hand grip and tiny batteries that don't last. Thankfully the trend for mirrorless today seems seems to be getting bigger and in fact the Fuji X-T1 is a very nice handling camera - compact, and I love the easy analogue knobs and dials. And it's totally gorgeous

Small size is very different to low weight, that is (almost) always welcome. I never complain about the size of my camera bag, but the weight - that really is just a pain in the neck. Then again, if you compare like with like DSLR vs mirrorless in equivalence terms, a lot of the weight simply packs back on with heavy lenses. Those people that have swapped to mirrorless and talk about substantial weight savings are simply not comparing like with like and have compromised a lot of performance aspects too.

There are quite a few small and light APS-C DSLRs, so it can be done, but nothing really high end. I think that's because enthusiasts looking to build a high performance system know that mirrorless size and weight savings are often either illusory or disadvantageous, and mirrorless still lags behind on some vital aspects of performance. That will change, as focus tracking improves and when someone comes up with a totally electronic global shutter* but until then there's a lot of life yet in DSLRs.

*Canon actually has a sensor with global electronic shutter capability, but it's in a video camera and very expensive. That will be the final nail in the DSLR's coffin - a truly solid-state camera. That's when I'll be changing

 

[woof woof]

The thing is handling is highly subjective and personal and in this case what stuck me was your generalisation and certainty. This is something we see a lot on man dominated forums but in reality one mans certainty may well be in complete opposition to anothers and I'm therefore much more comfortable with personal opinion being presented clearly as such. For example, I find CSC's suit me and my style and I have no handling issues... or... I prefer DSLR's because I like the heft and handling... "small mirrorless jobbies are only beneficial right up to the time you actually want to use them" just seems a bit too carved in stone for me perhaps because I worked in an environment in which precision and fact were the norm and there was little room for highly personal opinion.

I'm a real mans man from Up North where men are men. I do manly things. I've owned flash cars, I like women and I've drunk the world under the table, I'm no shrinking violet or metrosexual but I prefer smaller and more unobtrusive kit which I also find to be more precise. More of a Swiss watch to the DSLR grandfather clock. A rapier to the DSLR battle axe


Maybe when Canikon make a DSLR sized mirrorless camera you'll be happier as the handling will be pretty much the same but you'll gain the advantages of the more digital camera but for me a DSLR sized camera and lens set up would remove much of the advantage as I like the small and unobtrusive form factor. I it came to it I'd much rather drop some finite quality to keep those aspects. Not that the Sony A7 drops any quality for me

 

[Cagey75]

I actually can't wait to make a switch to a smaller, lighter system. I often feel when I turn up with my D800 and a big lens attached, that I stand out like a sore thumb. I prefer to blend in more, and get those candid shots I love to capture without drawing attention. I'm sick of the weight of the gear too, and over worrying every time I leave the bag down to go shoot. Smaller, lighter system, smaller lighter bag. And like woof woof, I consider myself a 'manly man' A 6'2" chunk of Irish hunk! but I still desire a tidier little cam set up for the casual photo-work I do occasionally, and for my own health in general. When big guys get injured, they really get duffed up! And, well, you only get one back per life ...

Just wish someone would buy my D800E now. Got it posted in the classifieds for trade against a fuji system but nobody is biting Also have it up for sale locally. Last resort I'll take it to a camera store and let them ride me with their low ball offers.

 

[Jelster]

As a hobbyist, it's about enjoying your hobby. So you are allowed to have any gear you want. Even the top pro stuff. You don't have to justify the cost or make a profit from it like a pro must do. If you can afford it and enjoy it, go for it.

Listen to this man......

I have spent so much on photography over the years, changing systems (in the pre digital era) but I eventually settled on Canon, ending up with my 6D & 7D2. I felt I needed the 7D2 because I enjoy shooting both wildlife and motorsport. However, I just never found the time to use it - the 7D2 have NEVER been to a circuit..... Then, in a moment of insanity, I bought a Fuji X-T1 and oh dear, my "mojo" was back and I couldn't put it down. It now has an X-T2 for a brother.....

So, do we need the pro level kit as a hobbyist ? Certainly not, but part of my enjoyment is using good kit and getting a kick out just handling/setting up the gear. I now know I don't need a 5D3/4 or a 1D series. The Fuji seems just fine and after I've hired the 100-400, I'll see how it gets on with wildlife and if it ticks the boxes the Canon gear can go.

It's a hobby, so do whatever floats your boat....

 

[HoppyUK]

Didn't mean to question anyone's manhood

Basic ergonomics is a science, not subjective. We all have fingers and thumbs.

Do hobbyists need pro level kit? That's not the question - it's what you shoot, the situation and results you're after that defines need.