This is a most informative article which confirms my personal opinion after handling the Sony A7Rii and A7Riii at photo shows and camera stores. While the camera body is compact, it is terribly unbalanced once a lens is attached. My hand is probably normal sized, and yet my fingers become pinched between the body's grip and the lens barrel. While so many seem to be in love with the camera's specs and IQ, I just hated the way it felt in my hands. Two years ago I made the switch from Nikon's FF with all pro glass to the Fuji X system in order to save weight and reduce my overall kit's size. But one has to be careful here, too, because some of Fuji's lenses tend to create an unbalance as well. While I wound up owning almost all their lenses, I have found that their small, fast primes and reasonably priced 18-55 mm f/2.8-4 (24-80 equivalent) and 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 (80-300 equiv) are nicely balanced with the XT-2 body. (Even these slower zoom lenses are surprisingly sharp.) Their faster 16-55 f/2.8 and 50-140 f/2.8 are much bigger and heavier, and when I feel a need to use these lenses, I use the XT-2 battery grip for better balance – which now defeats the system's size and weight advantage. So I tend to use Fuji's fast primes most of the time, which are very small, light and razor sharp. Overall, I am very happy I made the switch from Nikon's FF. And I'm so glad I didn't buy into the Sony mirrorless FF hype. It's really not smaller!

Based on my research and hands on experience (pardon the pun), I'd say the Olympus and Fuji systems (with the above caveat) offer the best performance to weight/size ratio. If you are tempted by the specs and rave reviews of the Sony FF mirrorless system, be sure to try holding it and shooting with it before you invest.

I don’t think you understand all the benefits of mirrorless. LV is not the same, especially with its slow focus system. As a retired pro who shot Nikon FF (and film, too) I switched completely to Fuji and have never looked back. I still take some pro assignments and the Fuji XT-2 with fast zooms or primes is pretty amazing. Size, weight, IQ are all major benefits. But most of all the quality of Fuji’s EVF now gives me all the info I need BEFORE I snap the shot. No, LV is simply a poor substitute for mirrorless.

Very clever! I have done something similar with the inside of a paper towel roll, painting it black and attaching it to a Speedlight fitted with a flexible Rogue light modifier. It acts as a "snoot," directing the light into a narrow beam. Handholding the flash off camera, it is fun to use for shooting flowers or plants in a darkened forest.

I agree. This is one of those "best kept secrets." While I now shoot with the Fuji XT-2 system after selling all my Nikon FF gear, I've kept the Nikon P7800 for those times I want a very small, but capable, camera. I can keep this in my pocket, and its 28-200mm f/2.0-4.0 (equivalent) lens is surprisingly sharp. I've had two-page spreads published in national magazines using this little gem. I assume you could pick one up at a low price on e-Bay. I'm not sure if Nikon has continued to develop this series, but I would certainly consider a used P7800.

I think that is a matter of opinion. After selling my Nikon FF gear I have travelled extensively by car, bus, train, plane and boat with my Fuji XT-2 and three of its small, sharp lenses.

IBIS will be an important feature for video shooters. In fact, this new Fuji seems to be designed more for videographers to compete with the Panasonic GH5. But it will also appeal to those who shoot stills who have been considering the Olympus system that has IBIS. Having moved from a Nikon FF system to the Fuji XT-2 with their primes as well as fast zooms, I haven't felt a need for IBIS. And by the way, Fuji lenses are much, much better than "aren't half bad" as previously posted.

Take a look at the Godox brand. It offers a complete line of flash gear that is fully compatible with Nikon, Sony, Canon or Fuji. All very well built, good performance at a fraction of the price.

Consider a Chinook, originally bred as sled dogs for Admiral Perry's expeditions. Now bred in the Pacific Northwest and New England. They never wander while hiking and never bark unless provoked. Gentle, quiet, loyal, and loving. I often can take "Schooner" on shoots with me, and he simply stays by my side. Also very smart. He runs out to the curbside every morning and gets our daily newspaper, and my wife has even trained him to play hide 'n seek. He's a riot and a wonderful companion. Typically around 60 lbs.

You may be too close to your subject. Check the small manual that came with the lens or check it’s specs online for “more minimum focus distance.”

I have the Fuji XT-2 and use several Pentax lenses with it. Fuji’s “focus peaking” helps with manual focusing.

Yes, a very good resource that I take with me on my tablet either when on a shoot or just to browse when I'm traveling. I had been shooting with the XT-2 for a year but learned a lot more about this great camera after buying his book.

Just an FYI that I own the P800 and sometimes do not print anything for two months while I'm away on a shoot. I've never had a problem of starting it up and printing with it when I've returned. Perhaps you're referring to older Epson printers?

Very good point. In fact in planning a future trip to Ireland I spoke with a popular tour company, explaining that my wife is a painter and I'm a photographer. She very honestly told me NOT to book one of her typical tours because we would not have time for ourselves. Instead, she is working on setting up a private tour with our own driver. The total cost is only a bit more than the larger bus tours, as the airfare, hotels, food, etc. are all the same cost. And yes, the shopping and history lessons offered by most tours can get very tiring very quickly.

I have heard that the older Epsons may have been ink eaters, but my relatively new P800 is no such thing. Considering the high quality of what it prints and the flexibility of being able to print on site, I think it's a bargain. While my old HP used less expensive and fewer ink cartridges, there is no comparison in quality. Also, after reading a number of threads here about using 3rd party cartridges, I'm just not sure I'd want to risk lowering the quality of my prints or gumming up the heads of my expensive printer. After all, if you've spent thousands on a high quality camera and lenses, why try and save a couple hundred bucks on 3rd party ink?

After my HP gave out, I stepped up to the EPSON P800 and am extremely happy with it. I've since added the roll paper adaptor and can now create 17x26" prints and even 5-foot wide panos for exhibits. Not sure what the difference is between the 600 and 800, but I can recommend the 800. I also believe EPSON has lowered its price from its original price.