Is more always better? Aren't we Americans prone to super size too often in search of the good life? How many huge lens, big cameras, full frame sensors, huge raw files produced by tons of megapixels do the great majority of photographers (pro and otherwise) really need to produce excellent photographs for publication online and in prints smaller than billboards? The Fuji X-T2 micro four thirds would seem a great choice for the vast majority of photographers, combining terrific quality and value. An even better choice for combined value and quality with fewer megapixels but with features covering a greater range of photographic situations would be the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II and its versatile pro quality 12-100mm lens. What do you think?
Unless you are printing oversize prints or selling professionally, and if most of what you do is sharing digital photos online, I think you cannot do better in terms of quality and value than the Olympus M5 Mark II with the new Olympus 12-100mm f4 lens. I might even say it would handle large prints and professional work quite well.
I should have said that the m5 mark II has 5 axis stabilization and not just 3 axis like the m10. It's the lens that is f4. I must say that it is the best camera-lens combination I have ever used -- it is noticeably superior to the m10 with the 15-150 mm lens I used previously. It is well worth the increase in weight, which is still smaller and lighter than my Canon 60d!
I'm sure it would work well, but perhaps not as well as the Olympus M5 Mark II that is f4 and 5 axis stabilization. I've had great results in low light since buying the combination! It is sharp handheld even at low shutter speeds.
They are known botanically as Lamprocapnos spectabilis. Quite a spectacle, aren't they?
What "grey market" do you use? I might want the 2.8
Bleeding hearts are one of the first perennials to bloom in our home garden after our long Montana winter!
Does anyone on the forum have travel experience with this combination?