Thinking about adding a 3rd system, am I crazy?

At one time I had 9 digital camera bodies that I was actively using.

Panny LX3

Epson RD1, M8. M9 - M mount

Canon 1Dmark II, 5D - EOS mount

E-PL1, G1 - M43 mount

Pentax K10D -- K-mount


To the tell you the truth.... it was distracting.

 

To me, less is more.

I loose motivation if I have too much to choose from.

 

I had until recently both Nikon and M43 however once I got a G3 and its AF was good enough and IQ as good as the d90 I sold all the Nikon I just did not use it. I got enough from selling all the F mount stuff to round out my m43 lenses etc, that for my needs I have one I fancy getting. I find having too many mounts to be confusing I had Minolta Canon and Nikon at one point, it was partly by accident (gift) but I soon went down to one mount as it was really a pain in the ass. It is a lot easier to have one system and work with it accept its limitations if there are any for you, I did consider getting an M9 to go with my M3 but I have for now fought off that urge (bought a new car instead). If you are the sort of person that only uses say a 35mm equivalent or simple 2 prime kits it could be worth considering I guess.

 

what is your reasoning for wanting another system camera. Does it do something that your current one doesn't do? Is it really that important? If you just like playing with cameras....that's fine. But don't kid yourself.

 

Yes, I have three systems, but only because I don't sell my old stuff as I changed systems. My three systems are (1) the M43 stuff, (2) a 4/3 DLSR (E300) and its two kit lenses, and (3) an APS-C Pentax DSLR (K100D) the two kit lenses and a WA zoom. The two older bodies are obsolete even in their own universes.

Next time KEH makes a call at a local camera shop, I ought to take the non M43 stuff over and get maybe $100 for the bodies and kit lenses.

 

Makes sense to me battleaxe, as each system seems to serve a purpose. And while it may seem counterintuitive, what you are talking about is probably cost-effective as well, as long as you don't have a bunch of lenses for the A57 that you'll duplicate on the X system.

 

Why not add a Sony E mount camera instead? At least down the road you can adapt your Alpha mount lenses if you choose. Either that or look into other M43 cameras.

 

Follow the earlier suggestion and do not buy similar focal length lenses from different camera systems. There is otherwise a real danger of forgetting why you chose a particular system in the first place and becoming very indecisive. It's also a very expensive way to go about things. As a Pentax, Fuji, FT and MFT owner, I'd like to add that Fuji has a lot of things going for it. I'd suggest however that you choose one of its viewfinder cameras instead of either of the options you're considering at present. You will probably become dissatisfied with the X-A1 or X-M1 very quickly and that can become a pattern of behaviour if you're not careful. It's also important to realise that they have different sensors and as such, will produce varying results.

 

sure, if you like it and can afford it, why not! some people have multiple cars, houses, wives..... camera is the cheapest of all ..... indulge!

 

Bear in mind with the older X-series cameras that Fuji has improved the autofocus and other operational quirks and shortcomings out of all recognition, with a succession of firmware updates. I bought an X-Pro1 more than a year after its first release and it was not only far cheaper by then, it was also a much better camera than the one most online reviews were describing. I don't think I've taken a single out of focus picture in all the months that I've had it. Don't rule out the X-E1, which apart from its cheaper feel, functions at least as well and has a very good electronic viewfinder. If fast focus speed is particularly important to you, I wouldn't bother with any of Fuji's cameras other than the X-T1. We're only talking about fractions of a second, so what difference does that really make?

Viewfinders will completely change the way you compose your pictures because you will become increasingly aware of what's going on inside the whole frame, instead of just your focal point and the area immediately around it. If you are satisfied with a tilting screen, fair enough. But no-one is going to convince me that the X-M1 or X-A1 is a superior camera to either the X-Pro1 or X-E1. Both the former were intended as entry-level cameras to get people to jump on the Fuj bandwagon. If you do, rest assured that the prime lenses are mostly brilliant.

 

I'm not sure that focus "speed" is the real issue with Fuji bodies, its fast enough, most of the bodies are in the .2-.5 second range, the big issue with most is C-AF, it just does not work like it does on other makes, the X-T1 seems to have mostly resolved that, but I don't think its any better than the latest M43 stuff.

 

I've got 4 systems:

Pentax Q: Tiny, carry-all, rig-mount
Nikon 1: Fast AF
Panasonic M43: Video
Pentax K: IQ and AF

Each at the moment has a specific role. As systems evolve, I can see myself slimming down.

 

Depends on who you ask, but I think the consensus is still, worse than M43.

 

Fewer bodies, more glass.

 

Agreed. The AF system on the Fuji, including the X-E2 and X-T1 is the main reason why I got rid of my Fuji X system and went to m43.

To the OP original question, just look at my signature to see how many "systems" I currently have. Get what you want and what you can afford and like to shoot.