One bit of advice I'd give, is that you should only have one system. Trying to use more than one system means you need to duplicate gear and you never have the right system for any given situation (unless you carry it all - where you miss the shot lugging it all about).

When considering a change, depending how much you've already got invested (or how much cash you can afford to throw away), you need to be fully happy with a possible new system before changing. Don't pay any attention to anybody else's opinion (including gear reviews, youtube videos, this forum or similar), get hold of the gear, make sure you understand and are comfortable with everything. If you choose to switch, you should dump your old system and go whole hog in the new one, if there's a reason why that's a problem, it might be a reason not to switch.

I've been there in my film days which was a disaster for me (and a complete wipe-out financially). Don't assume that if you don't like something you can sell it on later for minimal loss. Likewise, don't assume your current gear has residual value until you've sold it.

Overall, be very clear what you expect to gain from the exercise, and if you decide to go ahead, be prepared to put in the extra effort you'll need to get that gain. If you don't put extra effort in, you're unlikely to get a noticeable gain. If you do decide to switch, buy the best camera in the new system you can (otherwise you'll be back to square one - looking to upgrade to a better option from day one).

John.

I stopped buying PP years ago. Magazines must find it difficult today with camera reviews as every man and his dog seems to be an expert on Youtube and various web sites and blogs.

In the '90s I had a KA Tokina 24-70 f/2.8-4 (I think?), my first really wide lens. I traded it in for next to nothing to buy something else at some point - can't even find any info about it on the web now

Much more careful about what I sell on now.

This forum didn't exist then, but there may be newsgroups from the '90s still searchable comparing cameras similarly before digital SLRs became available & affordable.

It was more feature specific than you'd think. Manual focus cameras had different specifications, some had advanced metering (matrix & spot), others off-the-film-metering and the OMT4i had spot metering with highlight & shadow buttons. Some had mirror lock-up and/or could take film winders or variously fast motordrives. Shutters had different max. speeds and sync speeds (and there were even debates about vertical run Vs horizontal run shutters).

Handling was important and the best had big, interchangeable viewfinders with various focusing screen options. Good ergonomics were important and better built bodies had smoother film advance mechanisms were more pleasurable to use (or faster to advance manually).

The camera body could influence IQ to some degree. Better built bodies were more accurately aligned with tighter tolerances. Film flatness (important for IQ) depended to some degree on the size & quality of the pressure plate and design of the film path. Contax used a vacuum pressure plate to try and get it as flat as possible.

The LX has a solid weather sealed body; big, interchangeable finders and screens; a large pressure plate; off the film metering; mirror lock-up; winder/motordrive options up to 5fps (with power rewind) and you could rewind to a specific frame for multiple exposures. It also had a hybrid electro-mechanical shutter (stepless electronic speeds but would operate without batteries from 1/75th to 1/2000th) - at a time when pro's shunned electronic shutters that wouldn't work without batteries.

A lot of the above doesn't really count if using them today. Winders & Motordrives stop working, their NiCd batteries no longer hold charge and the more unusual accessories are hard to find (or expensive on ebay). Some cameras have seen very hard professional use and some of the intricate mechanics seize up, jam or break.

I'm tempted to suggest the 'banquet' would therefore be so lavish (read 'expensive') that persuading the bride to drop a photographer would make up for the difference - but I won't as I don't know the facts...

I've shot one wedding for a mate as a favour for gratis (which I was happy to do) but otherwise have seen good and bad wedding pros.

On one occasion I was told by the 'pro' I wasn't allowed to take any photos of the happy couple drinking Champagne in the vintage car as he had 'exclusive rights' to that shot (I was tempted to point out that if he couldn't get a better shot with his 'blad than I could with my SFXn & 50/1.7 he was probably in the wrong business).

On another occasion I turned up to a mates wedding with my Bronica SQ-B, sending the official pro using 35mm gear, white. I've seen the official pro so engrossed with his 'complimentary' wedding lunch that he's forgotten he was there to photograph the event and one demanding a night's stay at the venue because he couldn't possibly be expected to drive home afterwards.

As already mentioned, the arrival of DSLRs seems to have made many 'photographers' think they can shoot weddings and hand out a CD at the end of the day. There are also loads of courses with fake weddings so 'togs can build up a 'portfolio' showing examples of their 'work'.

I was once lucky enough to attend a seminar given by a wedding pro, the hour of his time gave me the most inspiration I've experienced related to photography - but I still wouldn't want to do it as a day job.

Hi Horst, the difference I was trying to point out is that an APS-C lens of equivalent focal length, _could_ be formulated to be better across the APS-C image circle than the FF equivalent because it doesn't have to worry about the 'edges' of the FF frame. Granted many 'FF' lenses didn't worry too much about the edges either...

Obviously the FF lens is almost always better in the centre than edges and therefore provides its best performance in the APS-C image circle. But any APS-C lenses 'designed for digital' might be able to resolve more detail, and for the same focal length/max. aperture combination could be significantly smaller/lighter/cheaper than FF equivalents.

The M40/2.8 is halve the size of an M50/1.7 (the closest M lens) and protrudes only 18mm from the mount, even adding a UV filter makes it substantially larger. This makes a significant difference to an MX, but less so for a larger camera (i.e. a DSLR - even then it barely extends beyond the penta-prism overhang).

Things are different these days. Yes old 'designed for film' lenses would get their 'true' focal lengths back - great for wide-angles, not great for tele's. But the 18-55 (even if it didn't vignette) wouldn't be the general purpose lens it is on APS-C.

For photographers with a slew of old lenses, FF makes sense. Taking it to the extreme, the Leica M8 wasn't FF, the M9 was and sold in droves even at £5k because it was cheaper than the 'FF' equivalent Leica wide-angle lenses otherwise needed for the M8.

As someone who has shot medium format for years, the FF v APS-C argument is irrelevant. With film you basically needed a larger format to get increased resolution. This brought with it far better tonal graduation and decreased DoF (aperture for aperture) but at the cost of lens resolution (getting the same resolution over a larger image circle is much more expensive). Medium format was the format of choice for advertising etc. simply because on a light box, it blows 35mm into the weeds (LF was a bit too unwieldy to take advantage). Size matters, but in the world of the computer screen, they're all the same size now.

That's a lot of camera and lens for the money, I already have both otherwise I'd be interested.

On film, 40mm is my preffered focal length for a do-it-all-prime lens (I find 35mm a tad too wide). I bought my M40 because I like the focal length and there isn't another option (I might be tempted by the FA43 but can't justify the cost).