Camera systems

Over the years, I have used different video and photo camera systems, covering analog and digital, as well as full-frame and APS-C based systems, across different brands. On this page, I discuss the evolution of the systems I used, as well as the reason for moving to another system. Some of the initial moves between systems are tied to my troubled start with photography, but the more recent ones are more related to the "pixel to weight" ratio of the involved camera systems.

The early analog years

I started out with a "hand-me-down" Agfa Isopan camera, which was later replaced by a Super 8 Film camera, which I believe was by Canon. Around 1989, when I got back into photography I started with a Ricoh compact camera. During my Australian years, around 1996, I complemented this with an (analog) Panasonic video camera, to be able to send videos of my "adventures" back home to my Family in the Netherlands.

From analog to digital

After returning to the Netherlands, I initially stayed with video. Around 1999, I started using a digital video camera (with tapes) by Canon. As an experiment, to see if I wanted to return to photography, I bought a Canon PowerShot A40. This was actually my first digital photo camera. As the photos I made with this camera turned out to be fairly good, my partner at the time suggested that I use her Minolta SLR system during some work related trips to Uganda, which also resulted in a positive experience.

Transitioning to the Canon DSLR system

The positive experience with both the Canon PowerShot A40 and the Minolta SLR system, inspired a transition to a Canon DSLR system. This is when, around 2004, I transitioned from the video camera to Canon's EF-S DSLR systems. First a 300D, which was later replaced by a 20D and 30D. Once I was certain that photography was "there to stay", around 2006, I moved from Canon's APS-C based EF-S system to their full-frame system. More specifically towards the 5D series, together with an upgrade of the lenses from EF-S to EF. The latter, eventually, also resulted in a rather heavy camera bag ... burdening the "pixel to weight" ratio ...

Transitioning to Sony's mirrorless system

Early 2012, I found myself taking less and less photos. This was partially due to a busy work agenda, but also be I had just moved to Luxembourg to take up a challenging new job. At the same time I was also getting "fed-up" with the need to have to lug my heavy camera bag around. As a consequence, from 2012 to 2014, I only took sporadic photos with my iPhone. In other words, it was time to "lose weight"; or rather improve the "pixel to weight" ratio ...

Next to that, I thought it would be a good idea to try taking videos again. However, I wanted to keep my options open. So, in a "spontaneous" moment, I sold my Canon gear and swapped to a Sony NEX VG30 video camera, and a NEX 5 photo camera. These were much, much, lighter than my Canon gear, and could use the same Sony lenses. This was a strategic choice, as I wasn't sure if I wanted to really switch to video, do both, or stick to photography.

However, after editing my first videos, I realised that I wanted to stick to photography, so I decided to deepen my "relationship" with Sony's mirrorless ecosystem. This resulted in a gradual migration to Sony's full-frame A7R series, in terms of two A7R II bodies with associated lenses. As Sony's full-frame bodies and lenses still had quite a bit of weight, albeit certainly less than my former Canon setup, I also kept an APS-C based A6500 "around" with assorted lenses, for when I really wanted to travel light.

Starting in 2023, I found myself in a new situation. Work had brought me to Vienna, while my private life continued to remain firmly, and happily, in Luxembourg. As such, I had to "split" my camera gear across two locations: Vienna and Luxembourg. This resulted in a further investment in the A6500 based APS-C system, in terms of some new lenses, and a second (2nd hand) A6500 body. At the same time, it triggered some deeper thinking about a camera system that would better suit my travels and commuting behaviour in the longer term, once again with a "pixel to weight" ratio in mind.

Transitioning to FujiFilm's XF system

The "pixel to weight" ratio is clearly a simplified perspective on the resolution of a camera system. The overall resolution of the camera should be high enough in relation to one's desire to make (larger) prints. Cameras such as Sony's A7R II certainly allow for large prints, while my experience with Sony's A6500 are also positive in this regard. It, furthermore, does make sense to have a somewhat higher resolution than one would need for printing, as it allows for some cropping in post, while still ending up with an image of a high enough resolution to allow for large prints. The key point is that, once the resolution of the camera has reached a certain point, the "pixel to weight" ratio (for your camera bag as a whole) starts to weigh in as being the more dominant factor over pure resolution.

On one of my photo expeditions to Namibia, I noticed how some of my photography friends were using FujiFilm's APS-C based XF system. Their camera bodies, and lenses, were certainly lighter than my Sony full-frame system. However, at that stage, Sony still had the big advantage of having a higher resolution.

When watching Elia Locardi's tutorials on photographing the world, I also noticed how he had gradually transitioned from Nikon to FujiFilm with arguments that resonated well with me. These argumentes centered on weight and a more tactile user interface experience. Of course, a counter argument against FujiFilm was (and still remains to some extent) its autofocus (for moving objects), which (for now) remains lagging behind Sony's autofocus. Nevertheless, for those of us that focus on landscape and cityscape photography, this is less of a concern.

Until 2024, I only kept a "passive" eye on the development of the FujiFilm cameras and lenses. Especially, since my Sony A6500 system, next to the A7R II system, was catering to all my needs. As the lenses across the A6500 and A7R II are basically exchangeable, albeit with some cropping effects, it provided me with a lot of flexibility. But ... then FujiFilm's X-T5 came along. This camera has a higher resolution than both the A6500 and A7R II.

These developments resulted in some deep thinking during the summer of 2024. Should I seriously consider moving to the FujiFilm XF system? The new Sony A7CR would also provide me with a higher resolution, albeit probably more than I need for my purposes. So, why not switch to using the Sony A7CR as the main camera system? Using the full-frame lenses it would outperform my (a that stage) aging A7R IIs in terms of resolution, and in crop-mode, such a body would even outperform my A6500's.

Eventually, and after careful testing of one of the X-T5 bodies, I decided to go for the FujiFilm option. My key reasons for finally making this transition were:

• A tactile user interface - One of the arguments that has been used by other photographers when trading off between FujiFilm and Sony is the fact that FujiFilm's X-T series takes its design queues from vintage cameras, with physical dials to select aperture, ISO, exposure compensation, etc, as opposed to a more "computer like" user interface of the Sony cameras. Those people would say "do you want to handle a camera, or a computer". Now, I'm a computer scientist by trade, so I'm not really impressed by the "computer like" argument. However, in the field, I do like to have a more tactile interaction with the camera, which is precisely what the "retro" dials of the X-T series offers. As such, for me, it is not so much about the "retro" style, but rather the tactile orientation of the user experience. And yes, accidentally, handling the X-T5 does bring back memories of the times when, as a teenager, I was day-dreaming about a full fledged SLR system with different lenses.
• Pixel to weight ratio - The X-T5 has, as an APS-C camera, a resolution of 40 megapixel, which is higher than my "old" Sony A7R II and A6500 offered, and is certainly enough to allow for large prints (even when doing some cropping). When I would have moved to one of the newer Sony cameras, the overall (i.e. lenses and bodies) "pixel to weight" ratio of these setups would be higher than for a FujiFilm X-T series based setup. The important thing here, is that it effectively also means that carrying the FujiFilm gear around (when travelling and hiking) is a lot easier than the Sony gear, and thus also more inviting to actually bring it along on trips.
• Euro per pixel ratio - For the price of one Sony A7RC, and certainly for a Sony A7R IV, you can easily buy two FujiFilm X-T5's. Also, with the current prices on the 2nd hand market, one can make some good deals in migrating from Sony "glass" to FujiFilm XF "glass", with equal (red-label) performance. Effectively, this means that FujiFilm's X-T series also has a better "Euro per pixel" ratio than the Sony cameras have.
• Unified user experience - When e.g. mixing a Sony A6500 and Sony A7R II (or A7CR and A7R IV) based setup, I would still need to use two different user interfaces. Moving to a FujiFilm X-T5 based setup, allowed me to standardise on one (tactile) user interface. A hidden "gem" with regards to the latter is the X-T5's ability to sync settings between my X-T5's using the associated iPhone App.