Rambling . . .

A point over which I probably elided yesterday, regarding weight and compactness, is the fact that even the most liberal cabin baggage limits mean that I have to select gear primarily for either shooting short or shooting long. The RF 100-400mm made that easier at first, but with the RF 100-500mm impossible to leave behind when there are critters to be stalked, short gear has to be small and light—like M gear is. For one thing, the lack of protrusions on an M body make it much easier to fit than, say, even the Nitecore charger for the a7 IV.

When it does come time to switch, I’ll surely hang on to at least one of the long Sony options, maybe both, and change back to an APS-C camera. They do okay in good light. So it’s starting to look as though that instead of straddling two brands, it’ll now be three.

There’s an article out by a pundit questioning whether Canon may have shot themselves in the foot by restricting third-party manufacturers from selling RF lenses. While I surely understand their move to protect their intellectual property and will happily continue to use their products, that move was a direct cause of my moving to Sony for the time being for shooting short. I owned and used a lot of the RF short glass and, the RF 85mm f/1.2L excepted, every piece had optical or functional limitations. They were lenses that I shot because I wanted to get some use out of the expenditure, not because I liked them.

When I gradually divested of my Leica gear previously, it was with an inkling that I might well change my mind at a later date when lighter gear started to become a necessity. All the Leica diopters, adapters, filters, and Elpros are still in the accessories cabinet, unmoved for some time now.

What’s that saying? The more things change, the more they stay the same. It’s all photography!

a7 IV/Sigma 20mm f2