Viltrox APSC Lenses destroyed my A7 II
So this time last year I was on the verge of selling my Sony A7 II, I love vintage glass and was using the body to adapt glass from Takumar, Pentax M, Voigtlander, Canon and Minolta. My only AF lens the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 had already been sold after it underperformed against a Ricoh GR III, Pentax K-70 and Lumix GH5 on a trip to a volcano. However in November a miracle happened...I became a Dad. Suddenly the A7 II along with several vintage lenses came into use more often, the results were great...sale postponed. However come April things changed my little girl became more alert and agile, manual focus became difficult, I got a great deal on an Olympus 45mm F1.8, but it focused horribly on my GH5.
The above along with living in a dark low rise unit (in a big city), plus wanting a simpler camera with good autofocus that anyone could use lead me to getting a ZV-E10 and eventually two Viltrox lenses, first the 56mm later the 23mm F1.They've performed excellently. So much so that I realised just yesterday I've barely used the A7 II since. Back to square 1 it seems.
First 2 taken with the A7 II w/Takumar 50mm F1.4 (M42 mount)
Next 3 with the ZV-E10 first 2 of those w/Viltrox 56mm and lastly the Viltrox 23mm
Being honest I prefer the look of the first 2, but that Takumar lens is a legend. However you can't beat the hit rate of the modern AF glass.
Anyone else bought gear that made other gear redundant even indirectly?
Uploaded files:
Those photos are excellent. Well done! Superbly captured life-long memories.
Congrats on becoming a Dad. Many photos ahead!
A tale of two cameras:
I have a love hate relationship with my Sony a6000.... it's my second one actually. These days, it seems many are in search for the perfect compact travel camera and for that, the a6000 should be a run-away favourite. It is small, light, big sensor (APSC), good autofocus (ground breaking when it was released), has an OVF and I can adapt any lens to it. I have a focal reducer to use it with my vintage Canon FD lenses and it all works wonderfully.
The first a6000 I had, I sold as I just couldn't "get into it". In short, I wasn't feeling inspired to use it. I always wanted a Pentax after holding a K-7 in a camera store many, many years ago. It stuck with me. I always had Pentax DSLR envy. So using the funds from the a6000 I began acquiring Pentax gear and after some time I now have a Pentax K-5 II, K-3 II, K-1 II and a pile of K-mount lenses. I love Pentax... I'm sold on the brand. There is nothing to debate. I get excited to shoot with my Pentax cameras. There is no envy.
But from a practical standpoint, with all these DSLRs I didn't have anything to chuck in a bag and go on a walk or bike ride. So, I did some research to find my perfect every-day-carry camera and wound up falling victim to the same trap. On paper the a6000 with a 16-50 kit lens should pretty much stomp anything else of the same size/weight. So I bought another one. It has the same sensor and produces similar results to my beloved Pentax K-3 II but in a much smaller package. Makes perfect sense right?
Except I don't use it much. It's just so damn plastic-y and un-inspiring. I can't really pin point my gripe with it. I'm about as attached to it as I am my toaster. I can't fault anything with the camera but the thing is, there is nothing special about it. It's just really good... and nothing more.
So in a moment of weakness I bought an Olympus OM-D E-M5 II with a 20mm lumix lens. I took a risk because even though the Olympus and Sony have a nearly identical use case, I knew I needed to take the chance on something I might actually be inspired to use more often.
My Olympus and Sony are nearly the same size, they both have an OVF, and they both have a flip/tilt screen. The Olympus has a smaller sensor but makes up for it in other ways. It is all metal, it has a touch screen, retro film era styling, in-body shake reduction, is weather sealed, and just feels well put together. Designed by an enthusiast you might say.
So, here I am again with a Sony a6000 that doesn't get used unless I have the itch to shoot with my old Canon FD lenses. Otherwise, I grab my Olympus when I want something smaller than my Pentax(s).
Uploaded files:
Understand where you are coming from with the Sony APSC line, on paper is makes sense but they lack soul. I did briefly consider switching from MFT to Sony for my own photography but their better APSC lenses seemed to be geared towards vlogging (I'm not shooting large expensive FF glass on a small APSC body). The zooms are by and large pretty pricey too.
The Lumix cameras in particular have so much versatility compared to the Sony bodies. I like how the GX line feels in the hand and there is nothing quite like the little GF line of cameras from any other brand, hopefully Lumix bring these ranges back.
As for the lenses, yes I know the Leica lenses aren't "true Leica" but they do have a look, there is nothing quite like the Leica 9mm F1.7, 15mm F1.7 or the much underrated 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 in the Sony line up. Sony lenses are for me are a little too sharp and clinical, they lack the pop of some of the Lumix/Olympus lenses and definitely the character of the better Pentax glass. The Viltrox lenses do have a vintage vibe, the transition from out of focus to in focus areas in the image are nicer for me than the Sony/Sigma alternatives and you can't beat them for value. The ZV-E10 has really just been a family camera for me as it's so simple to use plus the AF is way more reliable than the Lumix, but I never consider picking it up when going out for my own photography walks.
Ultimately cameras should be enjoyable to use, my breakdown of cameras that make up my portfolio shots showed me that, Lumix dominated. I suppose the other lesson there is the importance of good glass, as my best glass is definitely in MFT.
The Olympus EM5 II is a great little camera, can't really go wrong with any of the Olympus OMD line, my next camera will be a EM1 II/III as I'd like to do sports photography again
