I was so forlorn and depressed about the idea that cameras would soon be priced out of reach from all but photographers in the 1% that I was compelled to do a bit of research. What I found shocked me!!!

From a used Nikon D700 I bought for $400. 

12 megapixels and no frills. 

workable.

 Newsflash!!!

All the major camera makers have top of the line cameras that are very (relatively) expensive. They do miraculous things and operate very quickly but all four of the majors have models that are priced at $5000 and up. So.... according to some pundits, this signals the end as we know it of our wonderful hobby, passion, entry level runway for new professionals, etc. From what I've read recently only doctors, lawyers and hedge fund managers will be able to buy decent cameras. 

Another leitmotif in this conversation is the idea that while the new, Luxe (and luxe priced) camera bodies are wonderful they are all chocked full of features most enthusiasts don't need or want. Too many ways to set up the cameras are getting in the way of many peoples' enjoyment of photography and many are suspicious that the wildly inflated prices of the new cameras are partially caused by this horrific menu and feature creep. 

I was floored. This wasn't the camera industry I knew from a few years ago. Or....were a series of Chicken Littles busy prognosticating the collapse of the sky? Were fears of constricted choices and ever higher prices being overblown? I felt duty bound to find out. 

I wondered if it was still possible to get a decent camera for less than $2,000. How about under $1,000? And stretching a little bit... could I find a decent, workable camera for less than $500?

In the old days I remember buying a Nikon D3200 camera which came bundled with a small, 18-55mm kit lens for around $400. The lens was quite good enough to make great photos while out walking through the streets in daylight and the 24 megapixel APS-C sensor was amazingly detailed and quite good in low light. Basically, all one needs to make great photographs; especially if our final targets are small prints (11x14 inches?) and various uses on the web. But do cameras like this still exist or must we all drain our 401Ks and stand in a long line to await our shot at getting an elusive Nikon Z8 or Sony Alpha One? 

Well, rejoice my friends!!! For I have found many good cameras out in the retail space, all of which are capable of taking great images for you without banishing you into eternal poverty. 

None of these choices are grey market. None of them are used. None of the ones I've listed are backordered. You can go and buy these today. Someone might even be able to ship one to you by tomorrow. And none of the choices I found in my extensive 20 minute research crack the $2,000 ceiling I've set. 

I compiled this list of cameras (and sometimes cameras bundled with kit lenses, just to sweeten the pot) from a scroll through the offerings from B&H but I am sure the same basic choices are available elsewhere. Let's get started. 

Canon can offer you a full frame, mirrorless RP camera for $999. Yes. Full frame. 20+ megapixels. 4K video, etc for only $999. You say you need a wide-ranging lens to use with that camera body? How about a kit with the RP and the 24-105mm lens for about $1,299? Would that work?

Canon makes an R6 camera with a 20+ megapixel FF sensor for $1,999 that's supposed to be very good. It gets a majority of five star reviews and should be a good, basic picture taking tool for anyone needing Canon colors and a full frame sensor. 

If you don't exactly need a full frame sensor you could opt for any of a number of APS-C sensored cameras from Canon, including the 32.5 megapixel R7 which is fast and has good AF for about $1,399. Or the EOS M50 mk2, an APS-C camera with a 24 megapixel sensor and a 15-45mm kit zoom lens for the whopping price of $599? Or, if you want to stick with R series cameras how about an R10 with a 24+ megapixel sensor and an 18-150mm kit lens, brand spanking new for $1,379. Lots of focusing squares, lots of features. If you'd like to choose different lenses you can have the R10 body, solo, for $979. Yes, it has 4K video but you can always ignore that if you want.

But we could also circle back to the full frame cameras and look at the current R8 full frame camera for only $1,499. Sure, the battery life is a bit iffy but since you are saving thousands and thousands of dollars over the premium offerings I'm betting the cost of a few batteries is hardly a rounding error. Yes, that's full frame. 

If you need a bunch of lens range and you are okay with the Canon R series cameras you might consider the R100 kit which gives you a 24 megapixel APS-C  sensor in a compact body (one not overburdened with complex menus and unnecessary features) bundled with both an 18-45mm zoom and a 55-210mm zoom all for the low price of $829.99?

But you say you'd sooner fly economy class than ever having to buy a Canon camera? Okay. Well, how about looking at what Nikon can do for you in a camera for under $2,000? Sound good? Let's look. 

I'll start out at the ceiling because, from what I've heard, this is a pretty stellar camera. It's the Z6ii with a full frame BSI 24 megapixel sensor and lots of video goodies for $1996. Sure, it's not the 45+ megapixels of the $4,000 Z8 but I'm betting when you get your images up on Instagram no one will ever be able to tell the difference. This camera is a low light champ and focuses like a bat out of hell. No one really "needs" more....

But let's go downrange for a bit.

How about the Nikon Z50? It's an APS-C camera but a really good one with a 24 megapixel sensor and you can pick up the body only for about $856. Need a lens with that but shopping with a limited budget? Well how about we drop a 16-50mm Nikon Z zoom lens on the front of that camera and hold the price to $996.45? Or maybe we could outfit a whole system for travel and street photography. We can add a 50 to 250mm Nikon zoom to that 16-50mm lens and hold the price down to $1,246.99. Wow. think about the difference between this very modern offering and something like the old Nikon D2x at $6000. That one came with a pretty shitty 12 megapixel sensor and not much else. Sure, it was weather proofed but after a while you just prayed it would get struck by lightning. It was a dismal top-of-the-line offering. This set is complete with lenses ranging from 16-250, double the resolution and probably infinity between at high ISOs and it's less than a quarter of the price. Amazing. Right?

Need a wacky, retro  styled Nikon mirrorless to sport about and take to the pickle ball court for some nice (slow moving) sports shots? They have you covered with an APS-C, 20+ megapixel Nikon Zfc. It's got dials and buttons and stuff on the body and it kinda looks like that Nikon FM film camera you loved so much. It's also under $1,000 at $956.

Want a real camera but even the ones I've listed about will make your wallet bleed out? Let's dig down some more. Just about any of these cameras I could press into use for portraits and other assignments. I'm a sucker for the bigger bling but I could make any of these work. Honest.

Cycling back to Canon. How about the Rebel T2? A 24 megapixel APS-C camera WITH an 18-55mm zoom lens for the parsimonious price of $399? Sure, it's not a solid stainless steal and titanium body but thousands of parent with small children can attest that these cameras are surprisingly durable. And solid performers. But, if you need an additional 75-300mm lens for Sally's soccer game you can buy a two lens kit for $549. 

Too rich for your blood? (that's what my doctor tells me about bacon....). Then let's consider the Canon EOS T100 with the same kit lens as just above, with an 18 megapixel APS-C sensor for $379. Buy one and take it to Europe on vacation. If it gets swiped you'll cry less than Manny Ortiz who apparently took his eyes off the prize (the prize being his camera bag) and got relieved of over $10,000 in camera gear over in Venice recently. $379. That's some people's dinner budget. And it's for a camera that's completely capable of capturing 95% of all the photography you see on the web. Gonna print murals instead? You might need to match your budget to your expectations. I can't really do that for you. 

Able to spend a bit more over in Canon land? How about a Canon Rebel T8i? It's also APS-C with 24 megapixels of good resolution, it's pretty fast at shooting and focuses well with PD-AF, delivers 4K video, and you can pick one up for $749. Need a lens? You can pick up the 18-55mm lens bundled with the body for $899.

At this point you might have thrown up your hands and exclaimed, "None of this is relevant to me because I won't be caught dead shooting anything but Sony cameras. They are the best!!!" 

Well, we even have you covered there. Budget bargain Sony time: A Sony A7ii, a camera I personally owned and made good advertising work with, 24 megapixels and bundled with a 28-70mm Sony lens for ....... wait for it......only $998. You'll get hours of enjoyment just working your way through the menus.

But you are too advanced to use a 24 megapixel camera in 2023? Hmmmm. I see. Going for Instagram Platinum? Yeah. You'll want the Sony A7Riii. It's got the 42 megapixel sensor. Of course it's also full frame and the sensor features BSI (which stands for "bat shit insane" resolution) and it will still keep you under the magic $2,000 mark. How cool is that? 

I would also like to make you aware that Sony has a  bunch of APS-C cameras they can sell you that are all well under the $2,000 mark and many of them are sub-$1,000. I just lost interest in writing each model number down as this was only meant to be an opening salvo against the mindset that everything is getting too expensive. Not my fault if a new Honda Accord isn't good enough for a few trips around the block. You want a Bentley? You'll almost certainly have to pay more for it. 

But my point is that if all you care about is the image quality of the photographs you shoot, and you don't (for any reason) want to spend a lot of money on cameras and stuff, you still have plenty of great options for fractions of the prices of Sony Alpha Ones, Nikon Z9s and Leica Anythings. You do. 

So, the next time someone suggests that cameras are becoming insanely unattainable be sure to give them this list right after you tell them just how wrong they are. Well, unless we're talking about Fuji cameras. Those are unattainable. Just ask anyone who has been trying to get their hands on an X100V for the last year or so. 

Budget needn't be an impediment to taking great photographs. It never has been. People who can afford to buy expensive cameras aren't necessarily making any better photos than the people who are working with ten year old Canon Rebels or a five year old iPhone. They can just afford to waste more money...

Same as it ever was...

Cup half full? Not by a long shot...

 Photographers can be a complain-y bunch. I was reading the comments following a camera review on a camera review site. The camera under observation was Sony's new APS-C body, the A6700. One of the tests that DPReview does to find out how well the continuous AF of a camera works is to have someone on a bicycle ride toward the camera in a ziggy-zaggy pattern. The tester shoots continuously and then all the frames are evaluated in order to give the camera a score. According to the reviewers the camera did an excellent job. According the the "web experts" the camera was a complete failure because the plane of perfect focus was not consistently on the bike rider's pupils. These were not close up shots. They were full to half body compositions... Some people are just....crazy. 

A writer on another photo blog was unhappy to see that Nikon is charging $4,000 for a very, very capable 45+ megapixel, semi-pro, Z camera. He also states that recent cameras from Sony and Canon are  being priced out of reach for the mass markets for camera enthusiasts. 

Interesting to me on two points. First is the reality of both inflation and also the constant improvement for each generation of new cameras. My Kodak DCS 760, a six megapixel APS-H (not a typo) camera that weighed five pounds, shot to PCMCIA cards and got 80 shots from a fully charged battery cost $7900 in 2004. A Nikon D2X 12 megapixels APS-C professional camera I bought in 2005 cost about $6000 and was mostly useless for ISOs over 400. Or when using on camera flash. To my mind, paying less for a much better and much more sophisticated camera a decade later is little short of phenomenal. That's the definition of a product sector defying inflation. 

The writer sadly predicted that very few people in the USA would be able afford the ever escalating prices of new camera models going forward. That sentiment didn't match up with my experience or that of my peers so I decided to leave the realm of the anecdotal "data" and look at facts. I was stunned to find that in the USA the number of people with a net worth of over $1,000,000 USD (frequently referred to as "millionaires") is not numbered in the hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands. Nope. There are, according to the folks at Charles Schwab, over 21 million Americans in that category. Millionaires. Sure, not all of them are potential camera buyers but even if only 10% are interested in cameras that's a market of 2.1 million very affluent people. People who seemingly can well afford a $4,000 camera. Maybe even one or two every year.

I understand that there are many more people in the USA that have nowhere near that kind of wealth. In fact the millionaires represent only 8.8% of Americans (new data says 9.1%). But you hardly have to be rich to afford a nice camera. Even a pricy Nikon, Sony or Canon. If you aren't rich you might have to make choices. You might skip upgrading to an $80,000 SUV. You might stay in a house you can easily afford instead of aspiring to a new house you can barely afford. You might go out to eat at restaurants less frequently. Or less lavishly. Stop paying for five or six streaming services each month. Have fewer and less extravagant vacations.  Whatever. But with an average income of $71,000 per household per year one might just be able swing a good camera purchase from time to time. And if one is patient it's pretty routine that those $4000 cameras become $2500 used cameras rather quickly... Eventually becoming $500  used cameras... 

There was a forum post I read recently. A photographer was asking the forum regulars what they thought of a certain Fuji lens for one of the Fuji medium format cameras. A lens I recently purchased. It's the Fuji 35-70mm zoom. To a person the regulars on the forum (one of the more civilized forums I've recently visited) stated that it was a really, really good lens and quite a bargain at the current sale price of $500. Basically, half price. The original poster ordered one and then found out that that particular lens doesn't have an external aperture ring. He stated emphatically that this was a DEAL KILLER, DEAL KILLER, DEAL KILLER. He told the group he would be sending the lens back IMMEDIATELY. 

There was not an issue with being able to set the lens aperture via one of the two control dials on any of the MF Fuji cameras. He just couldn't be bothered to try a lens with no aperture ring. Kinda weird. But no weirder than people who complain bitterly if a new camera model, which they probably had no intention of buying anyway, has state of the art video features included. Also = deal killer. 

On another forum, or in the comments of yet another blog (can't remember which), a photographer wrote that he'd been researching a lens for "months" and finally decided he needed it. Coincidentally, it's also a lens I bought this year; the Voigtlander 50mm f2.0 APO Lanthar. He wrote about all the wonderful things he learned about the lens. But he was back in the very next comment to tell us he was appalled that Voigtlander did NOT include a lens hood. It was..... a DEAL KILLER. By the way, a Hoage brand lens hood is a perfect fit at $49. 

The glass always seems half empty when it comes to everyone else's images. A poster might put up a landscape in which color or contrasting colors and shapes are the real subject only to be savaged for not having all the fence posts in the background rendered as precision vertical structures. Another person might decide that their eyes are perfect densitometers and their phone screen is in perfect calibration and so they feel justified; no, invited to critique the gray tones in another person's black and white image. Too light. Too dark.... Too flat. Too contrasty.

There are so, so many photography critics who can't or won't accept an unsharp image even if the intention was unsharpness and the image looks even more interesting unsharp than it would sharply rendered. 

There is one mad scientist style camera and lens reviewer who has probably never met a lens that didn't have tragic flaws in the far corners of each rendered frame. His analysis of most cameras and lenses is so bleak one wonders if there are any cameras that even come close to being satisfactory....in his universe. It's the same reviewer who constantly disparages the lens on the front of Leica's Q, Q2 and Q3 cameras. Three of Leica's most popular ever cameras in their line up. Perennially back-ordered and almost universally loved by Leica owners. And he'll tell you why all the computers you might want to buy are crap as well. 

Occasionally I find a reviewer I like. Mattias Burling, finds lots of cameras fun and usable. James Popsys is also a mostly optimistic and upbeat photographer and user of cameras. Both of them supply a generous collections of lovely sample photographs (no brick walls or cat whiskers) to shore up their reviews of cameras. Both are fun to listen to. 

Although I am told that James Popsys's landscape prints are beautiful, actual prints on nice paper. And his books are well printed too. Unfortunate for me that I'm not a fervent fan of landscapes. If I were I think I'd have some of his. Unless he wants me to pay for them and then I'm certain they cost too much!!! Not.

Matt Osborne (Mr. Leica) has a soft spot for older cameras and likes the rendering of some older lenses on his various cameras better than the newer and sharper ones. That can be a breath of fresh air. And you don't even need to "hold that thought" to enjoy his YouTube videos or blogs. 

A lot of photographers tend to treat the intersection of cameras and  the "craft" as something that can be measured and optimized. I'd rather judge a camera or lens by how much fun it is to use. And when it comes to price (and whining about prices) I have to say that while I'd love to drive around in a convertible Bentley automobile I don't have the money to splash out for one. But I can afford my Subaru Forester and I find that I like it very much. It gets me to photo shoots as well as I think a Bentley would but I can afford it and stay within my budget. I'd also like a private plane. But that's a whole other story. 

Nikon, Canon and Sony all make good and expensive cameras. They also (all three of them) make and sell much less expensive models, not just high end cameras. When one factors in the reality that nearly every one of the reviewers and bloggers aim much of their work to the web it seems like all the hand wringing and misguided desires are Much Ado About Nothing. 

Maybe we can start a new trend. Of photographers feeling that their cups are more than half full. If I were not able to buy expensive cameras I'm pretty sure I could be happy with cheaper cameras. I've done it before and the down market experience didn't seem to hamper my enthusiasm. I liked knowing about the pricey cameras because, if I was patient, I know that one day they'll be sitting on the used shelf of a camera store at a price I could well afford. Lenses too. 

Price of a camera is like a biographical fallacy in reviewing art or music. We should meet the camera on its own terms. It's good or not good. Only after that should we look at the price.

Just a reminder to myself that early (2002) vintage digital cameras were already good enough for real work twenty plus years ago.

 This is an image of Ray Anderson. He's a professional magician who has worked his act for decades at Esther's Follies, a comedy club in downtown Austin. Every year or so I do a big photo shoot with the current cast of the club. I bring some flashes and big umbrellas and light up the stage. We shoot tons of frames and cover everything from Ray's individual performances to quick, set up shots of skits with multiple actors. 

I've been doing their shoots since the film days and it's always fun. Sometimes they'll hit a joke so well that I'll be in imminent danger of laughing so hard I fall off the ladder I sometimes use to get level with actors' eyelines when they are up on stage.

I got an email today from the troupe. They were looking for a link they'd lost to last year's photo sessions. Since i am somewhat organized it took about 30 seconds to hit their overall folder on Smugmug and then drill down by date to the last session. 

While I was nosing around in the overall folder and looking at individual galleries I came across an archive folder I'd put together with about 2,700 of my favorite Esther's Follies images done over the last 25 years. I found this one of Ray onstage. 

It was shot on a day where we photographed probably 30 setups in an hour and a half. Back then I was shooting (at least on that day....) with a Fujifilm S2Pro camera. Essentially a 6 megapixel camera with an interpolation scheme that yielded about 12 megapixels in the finished files. 

As you can see, the flesh tones are perfect, the white shirt has no burned out highlights, the shadows are open enough that you can differentiate the pleats in Ray's black trousers and the overall balance/contrast of the frame is about as good as it gets. 

I got the camera in 2002 and this image was done in September of 2003. Yeah, it's only six or twelve megapixels (depending on how much faith you put into interpolation) so you can't blow it up quite as well as you can when using a 50 or 60 megapixel file but you'd be surprised at how quickly viewing distances flatten the field.

I liked the Fuji S-Pro series and had a number of them, including the S3 and S5. All great cameras as far as color and human skin rendering was concerned. 

An unintended, morning reminder that digital imaging was good 20 years ago. Add in some experience with lighting and some understanding of technique and I'm pretty sure you could use the same camera in 2023 with professional results. Back then we were still going to print and posters. It's easier now since nearly everything goes to the web. The need for high res has actually (for this kind of work) shrunk. 

Now a 6 megapixel file is probably the sweet spot for just about anything you're marketing on the web. No video in the cameras back then ----- probably just as well.

Ray is still doing magic. He's just more famous now.

EDC. "Every Day Carry." I'm not able to carry the same camera day in and day out. Others can't conceive of doing it any other way. What's your protocol?

Nikon 35Ti. A small and very capable compact film camera. 

Paris. A long time ago.

I've lately come to understand that EDC stands for "every day carry." As in the stuff you pack up and take with you to work or to play as a daily routine.  Amongst those who've made EDC a lifestyle thing the articles usually mentioned include nice pocket knives, appropriate cellphones, wireless ear buds, cool pens and note pads, multi-tools, sunglasses, small but powerful "tactical" LED flashlights, a cool watch --- maybe an automatic?, and I would also include a corkscrew for opening wine bottles; even though that might comes as part of one of your EDC pocket knives. We would, of course, add an "EDC" camera and lens. Perhaps some extra batteries and a back up memory card. And finally, part of your EDC inventory is a great, small bag or backpack in which to stow all this stuff. Because you'll have it with you most of the time. That's strongly implied in the basic idea of....The Every Day Carry.

But here's where it falls apart a bit for me. I have few things that I want to carry everyday. I'm not so sold on giving up variety. 

I have a small collection of pocket knives. What guy doesn't? But I vacillate between a cute little Benchmade folder and an equally cute Kershaw Leek spring assisted folder in the "stonewashed" finish. And then there's always the Victornox, fully equipped Swiss Army Knife... or do you always bring them all? 

And it's the same thing with cameras. I know some of you out there have one camera that you cherish like an only child. You'd elect for that camera and that camera only to be your EDC. You have an inanimate object preference of mastering one tool and using it exclusively --- for a long time. Got it. One and done. You'll be efficient and effective if you pursue the EDC lifestyle. You might even become an EDC influencer...

I'm just not wired that way. Today's morning camera might be a Leica CL with a zoom while this afternoon's camera would probably be an SL2 with some fast prime. And tomorrow, with a couple portraits to take care of I'll almost certainly jump over to the new MF camera and lens combo. A true EDC pro would bring along the MF cameras for work but alway have, tucked away in the EDC bag, his daily carry camera. I'm betting it would usually be something like the last available  Fuji X100V or maybe the Ricoh GR111. Small and light. Always there. 

If you are truly a single all encompassing choice photographer you've sorted out your everything camera and you're carrying it. Calling it your EDC camera is a bit redundant. But at the same time it's right in line with the basic philosophy. 

If I put together an ECD bag it would have to be both expandable and collapsible. I'd want the option to change cameras all the time. Yes, I would "every day carry" but the emphasis would be on "carry" and there would be NO implication that I'd be carrying the same thing every day. Hope that bag can expand to carry a fully configured medium format camera and lens but shrink down small enough to make packing a Canon G15 look appropriate as well....

At the core of this train of thought is the distilled idea that I do carry a camera every day. And I'm betting that if you enjoy photography as much as I do you are probably carrying your camera with you as well. But which variety of photographer are you? The same camera for extended periods of time? Or the guy who can't make up his mind and keeps repacking every morning? Or worse, repacking a couple times a day?

The camera goes over the left shoulder because it's easier, quicker and more effective to be able to grab with your right hand that way. The strap goes over your knee and the camera hangs down to ankle level when you are seated at a restaurant or coffee shop. Doesn't matter how you carry one as long as it's with you. Even phones count. Just not as much. 

Options are fun. Certainty is fun. It's the most fun when the two ideas meet up. 

EDC. Novel? Not for most photographers. 

 

Playing around with the heat. Black cameras can really soak it up!

 

Summer sale. Leica CL. Carl Zeiss 35mm f2.0 ZM.

Ah. Here we go again. An "Excessive Heat Warning" issued for the city of Austin. The air temperature was 102° while the heat index/feels like was pegged at 107°. 

I was rational in the morning hours. I got up and drove over to Deep Eddy Pool at 7:45 a.m. to secure my place in the line. You need to get your swim bag positioned right so when the gates open the committed lap swimmers can proceed to the lanes in an orderly and fair fashion. The bag secures the place in line. First there, first lane choice. Keith and I were the first two in line. He took the nice lane in the deep end and I took the lane next to him. My lane is dicier because it's up against the side of the deep end and there are three ladders that protrude into the space. You want to make sure you don't accidentally slam your hand into a metal ladder while you are swimming. Right? 

I choose that lane mostly because it's in shade for nearly all of my morning swims there. No sunscreen lotion needed. It's so nice not to have to "grease up" and to be able to do at least one swim per week in a "no chlorine" pool. A cool one at that. 

Interestingly, Dr. Keith Bell was my kinesiology coach for the swim team at UT Austin in 1975. His wife, Sandy Neilson-Bell, was a three time gold medalist, at age 16, at the 1972 Olympics. It's an elite swim family! 

I jumped into the cold water and got my mile swim in quick. I hung out in the water for ten minutes or so afterwards, feeling my core temperature drop nicely. Cool for half the day after that. 

After some busy work in the morning and a quick lunch I just couldn't stand the cabin fever any longer. I grabbed the closest Leica CL, put the Sigma 18-50mm lens on it and headed downtown. My intention was to take a short walk through the usual terrain and then head back home to the air conditioning. For all my macho bluster I just couldn't stand the heat in the mid-afternoon today. I tromped over to Mañana coffee and got a large cup and some dark chocolate. I figured I'd sit outside under the wooden awning to at least try to acclimate. I thought I'd be all alone but weirdly there were four different young women, each sitting at their own tables under the shade. All of them were exquisitely beautiful. Tall, thin, dark and athletic. All glued to their phones.... Interesting as it's usually a more typical/varied demographic seated outside (see below). The thing about young, thin, gorgeous women; at least here, is that they seem impervious to the heat. The young men I saw out today? Sweating like pigs. These women? Every indication was they loved the heat. Who knows? 

I started a walk but when I could see heat waves coming off the asphalt a block away I just "threw in the towel" and trudged back to the car. I can't kid myself in heat like this. I have to accept that I am actually 67 years old and no longer completely bulletproof. Sad. 

As I walked back to the car I snapped a few photos on the way. Nothing spectacular but I continue to be impressed by the sensor and the color science in the CL and I continued to be somewhat impressed by the performance of the Sigma Contemporary zoom. It's a nice package. 

When I got back to the office there was an email from the radiology practice. They have two new doctors who need to be photographed for marketing and website use. Another reason to use the Fuji GFX camera and to try out that wacky TTArtisan 90mm manual focus lens. And taking portraits is so much more fun than being bored, staying inside and checking out new novels from the library. 

I took this yesterday. Again with the CL+35mm ZM. It's Mañana Coffee. Midday.

Cooler than today...

All over Austin our grass is turning this stunning shade of yellow brown.

The path of the Summer Pedestrian. A tourist in my own town.

The oppressive heat seems to make me stop and point my camera at different stuff.

A building blowing smoke rings. Naw. Just a cloud.

the quasi industrial landscape of downtown shopping centers.

Tomorrow I swim at the usual pool. The six days a week pool. I'm praying the water is around 82° or lower. But any excuse to swim ---- I'll take it. 

New Gear alert: Ordered a new Godox flash trigger for the Fuji camera. I have a universal trigger but I thought I'd play around with HSS flash via the Fuji 50Sii and the Godox AD 200 Pro flash. Who knows? It could be a lot of fun. 

Now off to water trees so we'll have some left for next year...They do a great job shading the house. I think I should repay them with enough water to survive.

Hey! I think this global warming stuff is real. Maybe time for everyone to decide that for one day each week no one drives their car? it's gotta help. At least a little bit. 

Too hot to think straight. Way too hot to go out for a run.

seems hot.

98° by lunch time.

Last week wasn't too bad. Sure, it was up over 100° in the afternoons but the nights cooled down. Mostly into the high 70s. It made the pool water bearable. But I'm looking ahead to this coming week and I can see the forecast trending back toward the high discomfort range. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not in any danger here unless I decide to do something stupid like going out for a ten mile run in the middle of the afternoon. Or undertaking a new job in the roofing industry. 

The house is well insulated. The new windows are absolutely amazing. In fact, we just got our electric bill for the last month (which was the hottest on record here...) and the bill was lower than last year's in spite of our new plan to make the house comfortably colder at night. The main refrigerator is working as it should and the smaller, back-up refrigerator stands ready to jump in should a refrigeration emergency arise. If I stay inside life goes on as happily as usual. It's just that, by nature, I really love to be outside...

The trees are struggling a bit but I try to rotate through a deep watering cycle for them, individually, in the wee dark hours of the pre-sunrise morning. So far they are hanging in there. I'm lavishing more attention on the Japanese maple by the front door, but only because the edges of the leaves exposed to sun all day start to turn brown when the afternoon temperature crests the 107° mark. I have actually considered constructing an 8x8 foot scrim to put over the tree to try and ameliorate its obvious discomfort but early attempts have shown me that it will take more sandbags than I own to anchor a scrim that big ten or twelve feet up in the air --- when the breezes pick up. 

The real issue for me, as a photographer? The endless heat is a bit paralyzing. Not just for me but for everyone. People have escaped by never going outside. Sometimes I'll head over to Barton Springs Pool, or someplace like that, to try and kickstart a photo project only to be tormented by the heat, hampered by my sweating hands on the cameras and ready to retreat to the air conditioned spaces. Oh, and the fact that most people have opted to stay home too...

So, I spend way too much time in the office playing with cameras, lenses and lights. Speaking of cameras...

I have high hopes for the Fuji GFX50Sii combined with the scary fast (max. aperture) 90mm lens, but I've had little luck finding talents to sit for me, and about as much luck finding my own motivation to move forward and recruit people. 

I do have some observations to make about the 50Sii. I wish I hadn't waited so long before buying one because even the modest increase in the sensor size makes a difference to me when it comes to the way depth and focus ramp is represented in photos. Even though the frame is only 70% bigger than a full frame sensor the ability of a lens to drop backgrounds out of focus is more obvious. I'm convinced that the bigger format has a much different look than smaller formats. Not necessarily better for many subjects but more interesting to me for portrait subjects.  

I can report that the Fuji, combined with the 35-70mm f4.5-5.6 lens, is a lighter package, overall, than a Leica SL2 with the Leica 24-90mm zoom attached. I can also report that the battery life of the Fuji, with its bigger sensor and more aggressive in body image stabilization, is at least as good as the battery life in any of my Leica cameras. That's encouraging. 

From my point of view the camera delivers best in two types of photography; maybe three types. It's a sure bet, with the right lens, for making great portraits. I've shot three different portraits so far for clients and if I use the raw files and add the Fuji Color Neg. Std. profile in post production I get long tonal ranges, well behaved highlights and great color. So, check one box --- for portrait work. 

I don't have all the lenses I would need to use the camera for a range of studio product shots but with the right lens options, combined with the high res mode, the camera should be a monster at making product shots easy. If that was my primary business I'd buy one of the bellows accessories on offer for the GFX line  that allows for tilts and swings with the right lenses, and use that all the time. 

And then, of course, there is landscape photography. In fact, the camera inspires me to give landscapes a try. BUT... all the state park landscapes that are within a pleasant drive have turned from green to brown as the sun relentlessly bakes them. I'm not in good enough shape to climb Mt. Everest or K-2 in order to make landscape images so I guess I'll wait until the Fall hurricane season hits the gulf and then pray for rain to arrive here. In anticipation of landscapes to come I have considered buying the Fuji GFX 100-200mm zoom. It should be very nice for some images with nice compression. Even some portrait images. Still pondering because, well, it's really big.

I did buy one more light recently. It's another LED fixture. This one is from Nanlite and it's the model, P-200. It's daylight balanced and the feature that differentiates it from other, similar lights I have is that it can accept a fresnel lens accessory which turns the light into a tight spotlight without the hard edges supplied by snoots. I haven't bought the fresnel lens yet but I did put the P-200 into a big soft box and made some quick tests. It's a nice, clean light with a lot of power. It's oversized because it's engineered to dissipate the additional heat created by having a glass lens in front of the emitter. 

Don't get me wrong, it's not a heat demon like a tungsten fresnel fixture would be. It's just that in the potential configuration that one usually buys this light for (using with fresnel...) there is a need to wick away more heat. But it looks incredibly industrial. Love the look. And the look of the light... Couldn't resist a bargain price at B&H.

We have largely abandoned the idea of having coffee outdoors after 10 a.m.

Looking forward to the arrival of Fall. I hope it comes before Winter this year. If winter comes at all...

Heading back to the pool. Ready for a second workout today. Actually, any excuse to float around in cool water.... Now, where's that sunscreen?