View from the Üsseres Barrhorn (Turtmanntal, Switzerland); the highest hiking summit in the alps (3610 m). The view stretches over the main valley of the Wallis (left of the small secondary summit in the foreground) towards Furka pass. At the left horizon are the Bernese mountains, to the right the beginning of the Wallis alps.
Most of the time, I am an "also photographer": The use of my camera is linked to other activities such as family trips and holidays, commuting, business trips. Only occasionally do I set out for dedicated photography outings. Often, "real photography" and "family photography" happen during the same trip. As an "also photographer" I seek a camera that is small enough to be carried around all the time, while for real photography image quality is more important. A situation that many enthusiast photographers are probably in.
For many years, we had a camera for "family photography" and another one, supposedly better one, for my "real photography". The family camera was usually a digital point-and-shoot camera. The "real camera" was first an analog Konica SLR, then a XPan (now sold), for a long time the Lumix GH1 (now destroyed), and shortly the A7r. Interestingly, the only one of these cameras that became THE camera for everything was the GH1. Why? Because it was small enough to be carried around all the time and good enough for my "real photography" (although I mistakenly doubted that sometimes).
Once the Lumix GH1 became the camera for almost everything, carrying a second, "better" camera (e.g., the A7r) became really a burden and contradictory. After all, the main argument for the micro four thirds (m4/3) format is the small size and weight of the cameras and particularly the lenses. How does this relate to the GX8, or the GX7? For me, there are no better cameras for everyday photography than the GX8 or the GX7. Using the GX7 is, at least to me, more similar to the GH1, but in many aspects it is of course much better. In contrast, the GX8 handles more like the XPan or A7r. The Lumix GX8 is the "better" camera in the body of a compact family camera. The GX7 is certainly a good enough camera in an even smaller body.
For many years, we had a camera for "family photography" and another one, supposedly better one, for my "real photography". The family camera was usually a digital point-and-shoot camera. The "real camera" was first an analog Konica SLR, then a XPan (now sold), for a long time the Lumix GH1 (now destroyed), and shortly the A7r. Interestingly, the only one of these cameras that became THE camera for everything was the GH1. Why? Because it was small enough to be carried around all the time and good enough for my "real photography" (although I mistakenly doubted that sometimes).
Once the Lumix GH1 became the camera for almost everything, carrying a second, "better" camera (e.g., the A7r) became really a burden and contradictory. After all, the main argument for the micro four thirds (m4/3) format is the small size and weight of the cameras and particularly the lenses. How does this relate to the GX8, or the GX7? For me, there are no better cameras for everyday photography than the GX8 or the GX7. Using the GX7 is, at least to me, more similar to the GH1, but in many aspects it is of course much better. In contrast, the GX8 handles more like the XPan or A7r. The Lumix GX8 is the "better" camera in the body of a compact family camera. The GX7 is certainly a good enough camera in an even smaller body.
Epilobium angustifolium (Fireweed, Schmalblättriges Weidenröschen), Val Ferret, Switzerland.
