I totally agree. It seems like the strong suite for micro four thirds. If you’re willing to play the equivalence game a FF body with a slower prime (say f/2.0-f/2.8) is generally as compact as M43 body with a fast prime (say the Oly f/1.2s). Likewise, a number of the long Oly lenses, like the 100-400, are actually FF lenses with a M43 mount. Yeah, you get the 2.0 crop factor, but if you’re willing to shell out for a higher resolution FF body you can just crop.

That said, on pure size a rangefinder M43 with a somewhat slower prime can be truly compact. It seems like that’s where the M43 market would be, especially with the advent of high res FF bodies that crop well like Sony’s R line and A1, Nikon’s Z8/Z9, and Canon’s R5. Heck even Fuji’s X-H2 and XT-5. But since neither Panasonic or OM Systems are making these bodies anymore they must not have been very popular :(

Does the stacking software handle alignment as the earth rotates? If so, that’s pretty cool. I’m tempted to take a stab at this if that’s the case.

The GX9 is a rangefinder camera without much of a grip, so the body is pretty compact. The G9M2 on the other hand is a M43 sensor in a FF body. Here’s the GX9 vs G9:

The thing you’re asking about is an adapter. You could get f mount to: z mount (Nikon mirrorless), e mount (Sony), x mount (Fuji), etc. Not sure about Canon, they’ve been pretty protective of their new mount. It will add some overall length though.

If you’re looking for smaller gear, going to a mirror less system will result in a smaller body guaranteed. Modern glass can be smaller, but that’s not always the case. Especially for APS-C lenses. Most of the mirror less OEMs (Sony, Canon, Nikon) have been favoring FF glass. The glass will happily mount on a crop sensor body, but it will be physically larger than necessary.

If you want to save some size and mass, micro four thirds is worth a look. Something like the Olympus E-M5 or even E-M10, or Panasonic GX7/GX9 is pretty compact, and there are a bunch of compact micro four third zooms and primes out there.

No worries! It’s something I finally noticed in other people’s photos recently and now I’m trying to duplicate it in my own. I don’t want to tell you how long I’ve been dabbling in photography before coming to this realization.

For OCD symmetry, I would have walked a meter or so to your left and lined up with the bricks that lead to the light pole. This would let you be square to the building across the street too, assuming the bricks run at a right angle to it.

Nice picture otherwise! People are always interesting subjects.

https://www.campsnapphoto.com/

Homes in Detroit look awesome and are super cheap, especially for what they could be. They’re going to be a ton of work and if you have kids the schools are horrible though :(

The gentrified pockets look amazing, but drive quite a premium.

I wonder if it’s just the era of architecture. Detroit has some truly interesting looking homes. Here’s a random collection from a quick trip around street view:

Detroit or another rustbelt city?

I’m only guessing on sequential sensor readout. It seems like cost would incentivize sequential readout, but then again that would make it hard for the scanner to move horizontally in a continuous sweep. You could try photographing something provided a strobe with crisp edges (eg not an incandescent light source that’s blinking).

And you’re totally right, the effect on the water could just come from sampling horizontal slices at a fairly fixed time interval. It just seems a bit too… “nice”? It is a very cool effect though.

You might be surprised, especially if you find a busy multi-lane road. LED light on cars is generally PWM, so your camera will pick the strobing up. Add in strobes from multiple vehicles and it might even get interesting.

Thanks for giving me a name to go down a rabbit hole with!

I suspect, but it’s hard to find technical data, that the noise floor and dynamic range of vinyl are worse than cassettes.

You’re right that there’s a strong degree of interplay with other things though. Vinyl can really only be listened to indoors, which allows whomever is doing the mix to assume some things about the environment (it’s likely quiet for example). Portable media really kicked off the loudness war, which mean if you listen to a record (or tape or anything else) from say the 60’s or 70’s it will sound a lot different than the same album “digitally remastered” in the 00s.

I don’t have the time to write a well thought out reply, but CDs trump cassettes in terms of both dynamic range and noise floor. Records are worse than cassettes in both categories. I would personally trade a small amount of frequency response for the other two.

That said, people are… well people. Do what makes you happy.

In addition to scanning left to right, your scanmra must also have a decent readout delay for a given horizontal location top to bottom (or bottom to top?).

Excellent photo, as always. Water is a excellent subject for this type of camera. I wonder what a busy road at night would look like.

There’s absolutely zero wrong with older cameras, they really highlight that good photos are all about finding interesting subjects and framing (your first shot is tops). I say this as someone with an A9, but IMO the biggest benefit of a more modern body is the AF and potential the burst rate. It’s always nice seeing photos from my D40 pop up on our digital frame. Other than me knowing what camera took them, you would never know.

Totally agree, keep sharing!

Undesirable under normal conditions, but suddenly super interesting due to the mechanism at play. Leaning into it makes a lot of sense and helps make the photos you capture all the more unique.

Yes, the one with the horizontal wave. I remembered the fabric, but for some reason I thought it was there to help make the photo, not as a background element.

That rolling shutter, lol.

I appreciate every time you post your photos with your scanra. Were your prior posts projected into a sheet, or were the waves simply things moving around in the wind as the exposure was taken?

Do you mean an A7 III with kit lens for 500€ and A7 IV for 600€?

If yes, those numbers are way too low - at least for my market (USA). I would suspect scam/stolen/broken.

That said, if they’re close to you and you can meet up to try the cameras out you might score a good deal. If the post is legit, and the cameras aren’t broken, these will move fast. How long has the listing been up? If it’s been up for more than a day or two and you’re in a densely populated area then it’s not looking good.