Thread: Kirk Tuck Dumps Micro Four Thirds for NEX-7

Austin, Texas, pro photographer Kirk Tuck, author of the Visual Science Lab blog, has just sold off his micro four-thirds kit and purchased a Sony NEX-7. He's not down on micro four thirds but has apparently realized what it was about the format/system that he really liked. And it brought him to the NEX-7. Interesting reading whether you agree with his decision or not.

The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: The strange saga of the Sony Nex 7...

I saw that on his blog... did he actually say that he was selling his GX1 and G3? I would be surprised on that part, given how much he loved the m4/3 primes (and wouldn't necessarily overlap with the Nex offerings). I am impressed he was able to resist the OM-D!

You may be right... he specifically says he sold off his 12mp micro four-thirds gear - meaning all of his Olympus cameras.

IQ and all that kind of stuff is becoming so irrellevant (I used to be so much better at spelling) now with each successive camera generation that I think it gets to the point of choosing the camera that YOU interface with best. That varies from shooter to shooter. And even the variables change. For some, a specific way of holding the camera may make the difference. Sometimes it's even hard to quantify.

Looking at the Sony RX100 photos and those new Nokia phone photos (seriously...I'm the biggest cell phone photo hater...... but the photos are amazing) I wonder how much longer bigger cameras will matter enough in large enough numbers to justify so many companies making so many different lines of cameras.

I'm beginning to wonder about the guy, but then again... I agree with Luke that most of today's cameras are really good, and it comes down to other factors. I think the A77 got his attention and it makes sense to have a smaller camera from the same system for him to use as a walk around (and he likes to walk around).

I recently rented a Sony A77 for a wedding weekend and I was very impressed. Sony may be doing something right. I have been relentlessly comparing my Ricoh GXR A12s to a new E-M5, and it has left me impressed with the rather outdated GXR. I'll keep the E-M5 because I can get long reach with it, but at this point I think I prefer the GXR. For one thing, they are sharp corner to corner and colors are accurate.

I have also come to believe that there are unacknowledged tradeoffs in smaller cameras. The ever shrinking camera and lens is not always in our best interest. I remember except for dynamic range not being all that impressed with the NEX.

Originally Posted by Luke

IQ and all that kind of stuff is becoming so irrellevant (I used to be so much better at spelling) now with each successive camera generation that I think it gets to the point of choosing the camera that YOU interface with best. That varies from shooter to shooter. And even the variables change. For some, a specific way of holding the camera may make the difference. Sometimes it's even hard to quantify.

Looking at the Sony RX100 photos and those new Nokia phone photos (seriously...I'm the biggest cell phone photo hater...... but the photos are amazing) I wonder how much longer bigger cameras will matter enough in large enough numbers to justify so many companies making so many different lines of cameras.

Luke, I hear you. The new Nokia is another sign that the days of the traditional 3-4x zoom compact digicam are numbered. Many of us have realized this for a while. But big, heavy cameras may soon also be in trouble - at least in the consumer and enthusiast markets. And I think Kirk Tuck would agree with you about overall image quality in new cameras and the need to focus on what works specifically for you. In his case, the high-resolution EVF is what makes the difference.

Pretty hard to argue with ya, Luke, on that - pick the camera you actually enjoy using.

The thing annoying for me on some of these blogs, is the quick turn over in systems (and I don't think Kirk is one of the big offenders here). I mean, they know considerably more than me on photography and gear, but they also seem to be a little schizophrenic in their gear decision process. One day it is Nex, then it is m4/3, then it is the latest mega-pickels full frame, and then it is back to m4/3, just before a full switch to the X-Pro, and then finally a switch to a RX100 and D800e. Obviously, if they just stuck with one system for three years, it probably wouldn't drive much traffic to their blog.

I think viewfinders should be the size of cameras and cameras should be the size of viewfinders.

Originally Posted by Luke

I think viewfinders should be the size of cameras and cameras should be the size of viewfinders.

Wait, are you advocating using the iPad as a camera?

I don't really follow along with these "writers" or "reviewers" or whatever they are. But I'm quite sure that all that switching and rave reviews for every new camera that comes about is turning into money in some way. I'm sure that's not "news" to anyone, but I'm sure that has a hand in it.