You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I walk/hike a lot and I take lots of photo's but I end up deleting most of them. So I would like to take a look at photography, particularly landscape photography, but I have no idea where to start.
Any advice please?
What are you taking them with? Camera or phone.
A good beginner book would be a great place to start. Obviously there is a mine of info on YouTube but easy to get carried away on that. A book gives you time to read and try one core technique at a time.
Bear in mind a BIG part of landscape photography is light. If you want the picturepostcard images, anyway. You can hoik a mega-expensive camera around all day and if the light is rubbish, so will your photos be. But rock up to your vantage spot at sunrise and you can pop off a stunning shot with a ten year old phone.
There is/was a member on here that teaches photography so he should have some sage advice - @colournoise I think
Bear in mind a BIG part of landscape photography is light. If you want the picturepostcard images, anyway. You can hoik a mega-expensive camera around all day and if the light is rubbish, so will your photos be. But rock up to your vantage spot at sunrise and you can pop off a stunning shot with a ten year old phone.
This is very true.
You can learn about composition of the picture and the settings on a camera (or phone) from YouTube.
But a lot of of my best shots have been on my phone as the light was right and I was in the right place at the right time. I've had plenty of times when I've gone out with all my kit looking for a shot and the light has given a poor outcome.
If you're shooting street stuff, or urban stuff light is less important, but landscapes are heavily reliant on light and timing.
You can use any camera but for creative control, get a used DSLR or mirrorless.
Expect disappointment. Light and composition is key. As mentioned, best times are early mornings and evenings generally but not always. The conditions have a habit of not doing what you want.
Learn about shutter speed, ISO and aperture.
Borrow, buy or read some books. Or find some good photographers websites and see what they do. Get ideas and inspiration from them.
Practice taking photos and editing. Whatever anyone tells you, photos need edited especially if using raw format. Photos have been edited since the dawn of photography- see Ansel Adams for example.
Buy a tripod. Low light / small aperture/ low ISO means shutter speed of 0.5 seconds or longer.
Practice some more.
Don't do it!
I personally detest digital photography. By that i mean I do not enjoy the process. At all. So as much advice you get remember its up to you how you go about it/what type of equipment to buy etc.
I would agree that its useful at some stage to get to grips with ISO, aperature and shutter speeds but everything on auto and practicing composition still counts.
Bear in mind a BIG part of landscape photography is light.
Which is both the joy and the curse. Just schlepping about without a plan on your usual walk/bike with a camera in your pocket/bag is all very well but it's just pot luck that you'll get the light and composition needed to take a keeper.
My particular fetish with landscape photography is planning where and when good shots can be had and to find shots that can only be taken if you stay out overnight to take them - so sunset shots that are too far back to the car to get back after taking them or sunrise shot that you need to camp out to be there in time to shoot them in the morning. I use a couple apps (currently Golden Hour and Sun Position on Android) and OS maps to work out where and when. Glens that only get a sunrise down them a couple of weeks a year or bit of river in a gorge that only get golden hour evening light in October for example.
My other fetish is long exposure - and particularly with water. Using ND filters to get 5, 10 or even more second exposures to do devilish things to moving water.
Get a book or two - Mastering Composition: The Definitive Guide for Photographers by Richard Garvey-Williams is quite good.
Or subscribe to a few landscape orientated photographers. Thomas Heaton and Nigel Danson are both good.
My tip is to buy a film SLR camera. You have to adjust everything or it won't work, which means you'll get to understand what's going on. It also means you have "lessons" or "workshops" of 24 frames with plenty of time for reflection in between. Read books. Try stuff. You'll learn more from the shots that didn't come out like you hoped because you can take time to forensically work out why they are the way they are, so you'll love those shots because they make you better. Health warning: It can be more obsessive and frustrating than golf. You will never be good enough, but you'll get better all the time.
I'd suggest picking up a couple of mainstream photography mags. It's always a good way to absorb general information around new hobbies I find, and they're typically aligned towards landscape photography and always contain tips on fairly rudimentary stuff.
For actually taking photos and producing results, I'd just start on your phone but download some editing apps and learn how to edit them. It's a fairly fundamental part of the process for most photographers these days but will also get you thinking about the finer details of the images.
Once you start to establish an idea of the things you want to learn about, take a deep dive into YouTube..
My tip is to buy a film SLR camera. You have to adjust everything or it won’t work
Not quite true. You can stick it on a mode just like a DSLR and it’ll work just fine. They’ll likely be crap though 🙂 and expensive - have you seen what a roll of film costs these days?
Instant feedback from digital is why they’re great. The hipster film phase comes later.
Instant feedback from digital is why they’re great
+1 to that.
And editing is part of the process...and unless you have a serious setup back at home that's not a thing for most with film.
Not saying film does not have it's own charm, but not convinced it's the best first step now digital is a thing.
Not saying film does not have it’s own charm, but not convinced it’s the best first step now digital is a thing.
I generally agree.
But i don't agree that rattling off thousands of photos is that good either. Very small memory cards or very strict limits on number of attempts definitely help focus the mond on putting effort into taking A good attempt rather than throwing enough shit that some of it sticks.
If it's landscape photography you're after, read up on composition and practice that on your phone. Learn the rules, understand them and when and how you can break them. This will help your every day phone photography no end.
Once you're getting better at that then look into what camera system you want.
You cannae beat a Canon. Just sayin'.
Don't listen to anyone telling you to get a film camera as a beginner.
Learn exposure, learn composition, learn the rest. Cherish your keepers, bin the rest, keep on learning.
Then when you've mastered that, learn some more
The kind of stuff that inspires me:
Alex Nail
Joe Cornish
Colin Prior
Even the old timers like Joe Cornish and Colin Prior have transitioned completely to digital.
Don’t listen to anyone telling you to get a film camera as a beginner.
How about 50 year old glass plates?
How about 50 year old glass plates?
I hear they're de rigueur these days.
Composition
Exposure
Focus (see composition)
Technology - whatever works for you
If you are using digital everything else you can deal with in 'post'.
Biggest thing is 'what kind of pictures do you want to take'?
Like any skill the important things are practice, reflective learning, and more practice. When you take a good picture make sure you critique its qualities - what makes it good? Is it the subject? Is it the framing? Does it match or break the rule of thirds? How does the exposure work with the subject? ...
It is NOT the gear - full frame, prime lenses with 'big' glass only guarantee high costs and heavy loads. They do NOT guarantee great pictures. Great pictures are more often the result of luck, thoughtful practice, opportunity, and more luck.
Way BITD my radiographs [sic] were not always perfect. After much practice I managed a very good first time 'hit' rate in most situations. I applied the same learning process to my snapshots. The 'hit' rate is not as good but the consequences of multiple shots and 'misses' are negligible. Especially now with digital images.
To illustrate, of 95,000 digital images I have 37,000 'picks' in Lightroom. Many did not make it to the 95,000. Some picks were chosen not for their artistic merit but for their subjects. A blurry, poorly proportioned, badly exposed picture of a pivotal event can be more meaningful and more exciting than any well composed non-event.
When I consider some of my old film/print photos, some 'disposable' camera images are far more entertaining and valuable than some 'great' portraits I've taken on DSLRs with fat prime lenses.
In terms of 'where to start'. First consider the landscape pictures you like. What do you like about them? I realise this gets into art criticism, but the critical eye and the language used can provide insight into what you want to achieve. For example, (early google hit) https://independent-photo.com/news/a-brief-history-of-landscape-photography/
As a contrast, here's one of my images of a flooded valley in Yosemite, taken nearly 20 years ago with a Minolta Dimage camera I subsequently lost outside the NIH in MD, with next to no 'fiddling' 
And this file is one my father took back in the 1950s when he was travelling for reasons 
Are these the best 'technical' photos? Unlikely. But both have aesthetic value. And both have content and meaning. Clearly, not equal content and meaning to all. But then that is what art, and photography, are about.
It is NOT the gear – full frame, prime lenses with ‘big’ glass only guarantee high costs and heavy loads. They do NOT guarantee great pictures.
This is so true. Unfortunately (like mountain bikes) it’s always too much about the stuff. It’s tough making a good landscape photo even with the best camera in the world.
A Quick Look on eBay and you can get an older DSLR with a kit lens or two for around 100 quid. An absolute bargain as everyone else wants mirrorless cameras. It will still have all the creative controls and although it won’t have the megapixels or dynamic range of a modern camera, so what? Use it to learn then if it’s something you enjoy, upgrade later.
Do not expect the photos to look as impressive as your iPhone initially which just apply a lot of computational HDR, sharpening, saturation etc.
Take your photos in raw rather than jpeg. Raw will always looks “flat” out the camera so you need which is part of the fun and another part of the artistic process. I use lightroom which is subscription based but there are others out there.
I always like to leave something out of a photo to let the viewer’s imagination add it.
That might be something simple like colour or it might be giving the impression that there’s something just out of shot. Or perhaps that you’re only going to see the full vista once you walk further into not the picture.
It doesn’t always work, but when it does I like it.
I followed this course (normally on special offer), started off with the intro stuff then modules that interested me but have finished all the course now
I hear they’re de rigueur these days
Brilliant
Challenge yourself to take pictures you can't on your phone
Is this the best picture I've ever taken - no
Is it one of my favourite pictures - absolutely
Could I have taken it on a phone - absolutely not
f1.7, 1/30s, 50mm, ISO3200
That's me told, then.
Just more extremely lovely cameras for us Smiffy.
I almost tried to buy a linhof 6x9 the other day ? thank **** they pulled the auction.
olympus om1
Still got mine in the attic, can't think I'll ever use it again, but can't bear to throw it away....................
I found Michael Langford's books very good.
The older editions can be picked up for buttons.
Some of the tech may be a little dated but the underlying principles never change.
So lesson #1 that I so often fail to heed is 'the best camera is the one you will have with you'
But it's true.
I have some reasonably good camera gear but some of my best landscape photos in recent years have been on my phone. The reason for this is quite simple, I carry it all the time.
Yea, if I have a subject in mind, or if I want to plan a shoot then I am absolutely going to take the best camera, lense(s) and filters for the job. But for general bimbling around a phone with a decent camera is enough for most photos. I can still output onto a pretty big canvas from a phone shot if I wanted to.
It does help massively that I understand photography because it means I can work with the limitations of a phone camera to still get results. So the books that have been linked about photography basics are absolutely worth a read. The fundamentals of the exposure triangle apply to all cameras even when much of that fucntionality is masked from the end user.
The problem with specific trips to somewhere remote to catch the perfect light is that it invariably ends in disappointment (well up here it does). You are so geared up for a specific composition that when the light fails, you have no back up plan for the dull greyness and you go home disappointed . I used to make these trips a lot, driving hundreds of miles and that no longer sits well with me.
I’d prefer to make the walk or cycle the priority, make it somewhere photogenic and ideally somewhere local-ish. Bring the good camera along and if I get some good photos, great. Otherwise I still get a good walk / climb / cycle out of it.
Something else to bear in mind is that a great view doesn’t always mean a great landscape photograph.
it won’t have the megapixels or dynamic range of a modern camera, so what?
This. There's a lot of talk around what goes in, little about comes out. What are you going to do with the photos? There's little point in dropping four figures on a gigapixel camera if you're going to use it to share photos on Facebook, you might as well stick with your phone.
A dSLR gives you manual buttons, creative control and changeable lenses for wide/long/macro shots. If you don't want, need or understand those things then it's a waste of money.
So lesson #1 that I so often fail to heed is ‘the best camera is the one you will have with you’
Also this. I've taken more photos with an IXUS than I'm ever likely to take with my dSLR.
Brilliant
I'm so glad that gag didn't go to waste, I did wonder. Thank you. 🙂
Digital camera; (if you can) remove autofocus. Not because it doesn't work, AF is brilliant, but by not having it, it slows down your picture taking. It won't be point and shoot it'll be point and compose.
Then (if you can) remove auto exposure / program mode or whatever your camera calls it, and set your aperture manually. Again it will mean you have time to compose, and bring depth of field to your photo.
On dark evenings, read up about ISO, shutter speeds and aperture and how they all work together to form your image.
As above. shoot in RAW not JPEG, that said if shooting in RAW, you could probably do with decent editing software, but that's another topic.
Two most important things are enjoy your photography and take your picture with thought.
Digital camera; (if you can) remove autofocus. Not because it doesn’t work, AF is brilliant, but by not having it, it slows down your picture taking. It won’t be point and shoot it’ll be point and compose.
If I'm taking stills, one of my favourite lenses is a Sigma 105mm macro (f2'ish I think). Actually makes a great portrait lens if you can get the distance to subject.
It has no AF, manual only and the extra input composing the shot feels rewarding in a way
Alternative opinion:
I see little point in making life harder for yourself unless it's a deliberate choice as a learning exercise, otherwise it's just one extra thing to worry about. With film sure, but the whole point of digital is you can barrel off a hundred shots with impunity and pick the two good ones even if they were only good by chance. You're only limited by the size and write speed of your storage.
I see little point in making life harder for yourself unless it’s a deliberate choice as a learning exercise, otherwise it’s just one extra thing to worry about. With film sure, but the whole point of digital is you can barrel off a hundred shots with impunity and pick the two good ones even if they were only good by chance. You’re only limited by the size and write speed of your storage.
Alternative opinions noted
I guess it's where to draw the line
Firing off hundreds of shots and hoping you get a keeper probably isn't giving the OP anything over and above what they said they were already doing
All aspects of photography are ultimately important - the general consensus is to learn exposure first. Of course yes it's important, but I put composure at the top of the list. Exposure CAN be rescued in post with digital unless you really screw it up - go auto and get the composure right and you might get a decent photo without 100's that need binning.
Then learn your settings and yeah manual focus is probably the last thing to learn and probably not that helpful to the OP in this instance - went off on a general photography tangent.
I guess it comes full circle to using film if you want to consider absolutely everything when taking a shot, but with digital it makes the learning process easier, as long as you do try and want to learn
Big benefit of digital is you can change the ISO per shot if desired. This helps you learn. Not possible with film. Don't get me wrong, I love film (worked on motion film post production for years), but I think starting with digital to learn the technical aspects makes sense.
but I think starting with digital to learn the technical aspects makes sense.
I don't disagree aslong as jist firing off a million shots with bo conscious efort to think isnt considered "photography" it doesn't tech anything other than fire off a million shots and hope.
All aspects of photography are ultimately important – the general consensus is to learn exposure first.
it doesn’t tech anything other than fire off a million shots and hope.
I don't disagree with either of these comments. Rather, I'm suggesting that you cannot learn everything all at once. You get a good shot by accident, you then go back and review what makes you think it's good.
Shove it in full auto, squeeze the trigger, learn how to frame shots. There is no shame in this. Learn how to control your camera, what all the buttons do, what the HUD is telling you. Some people never get past this point, they'll stare at the LCD screen rather than reading the same information through the viewfinder.
Then stick it in aperture priority, learn what the different settings do to your photos.
Then stick it in shutter speed priority, learn what the different settings do to your photos.
I've seen people advice beginners to start in full manual. That's nuts, they're going to get pissed off after an afternoon and shove the camera in a cupboard never to be seen again. Gotta walk before you can run. Gotta crawl before you can walk.
Got to love a photography thread. Honestly, just enjoy life. Stop faffing. F numbers, ISO, exposure meters, million different lenses, wake up before you went to bed... Not fun. Point, click, the end. Move on.
There will be 'faffing' while you learn but once you understand the 3 elements of exposure (which are pretty simple) then just a case of modifying at the scene with a quick turn of a wheel (if using DSLR) which is hardly 'faffing'.
As mentioned already, just try and stay away from the technical aspects of the cameras as people, typically men, get hung up on lens sharpness, ISO this and that when in reality (especially landscapes) what makes a good photo is the light and composition and not whether you can see the hairs on a spiders leg at 100% crop.
Shove it in full auto, squeeze the trigger, learn how to frame shots. There is no shame in this
Agree, i did say that very thing earlier.
Personally i learn much faster by "trying" to take a good photo though. Like making a concious effort to make the photo do something. Playing with depth of field, kneeling down to change perspective. Then reflect on how what i did affected the results good or bad. I just find it really hard to come back with 100shots and give enough of a shit to try and work out why one worked.
Fun games like "today i only will only use iso 100" "f8 day" "wide open day" i find quite useful to force a work around.
Still a shit photographer mind.
Bringing it back on track, what I did when I started out was buy a book or look at a website of good landscape photographer that I admired then go out and copy that photo. The photographer has already worked out the optimal time of year, whether it works best as a sunrise or sunset location and they very often put this in their book.
For me it was Colin Prior’s “Scotland the Wild Places” from 2001. I’d walked a lot of the mountains and was blown away by this book (still am).
If it works out well, then it gives you a boost and you start to understand why all the elements of the photo work well. You then take that knowledge and apply it to your own compositions.
This also allows you to develop a style in your photography. You might realise you prefer telephoto landscapes over wide angle (tip: telephotos are great for landscape, especially in the hills) or you might decide you like ultra simple compositions or abstract.
Ninety nine percent of photography is what you put in the box and when you push the button, what you keep out of the frame is also as important as what you put in, this is advice I learned early in my career from Reuters chief UK photographer and it served me well for thirty years shooting news and sport.
Modern cameras will help with exposure and focus etc, so first concentrate on learning to make pictures that please you, the technique can come a bit later, there are lots of books out there that will help.
Do not go down the film route to learn photography, having a screen that gives you feed back on what you're doing and what results that's giving you is an invaluable tool that will help enormously.
it doesn’t teach anything other than fire off a million shots and hope.
There is a gulf in thinking between that and the ability to take enough variations to learn what might work.
Finding what you think looks like a good photo composition - and setting up your tripod. Maybe take 5 photos bracketed 2 half stops either way of what the light meter suggests to see what works to see what really is best (or stacking them). Or shot with both a landscape and portrait orientation to work out what works better. Move back or down to include a focal point of interest in the foreground and see if that works better. Wait another 20 mins to see if the fading light gives a moodier image or too much detail is lost in the shadows. etc etc.
You might end up with 20 or 30 images of the same subject taken over 30 mins to an hour - with the intention of keeping just one (or none) after an evening with a good whisky on Lightroom. That might be your idea of 'millions' and consequential hell. For me it's all part of the joy of it. And a very long way from going for a walk with a camera swinging round your neck pointing and shooting at everything as you go. It's also why I never bother trying to mix photography with a trip into the landscape with others, especially my wife! Anything to puts external time pressure on doing it as I'd want to do it just ruins the experience totally.
It’s also why I never bother trying to mix photography with a trip into the landscape with others, especially my wife!
Best tip ever! It’s a solitary thing for me. I have a chuckle when I see 10 old men standing next to each other with tripods out all taking the same thing. That’s a nightmare for me.
What you’ve got there is a hobby like fishing or stamp collecting. It’s not really about photography, it’s about doing zen stuff by yourself.
Take lots of photos, in whichever way works best for you and you’ll get better at it. Like learning to play any instrument.
I started as a young teenager by spending my paper round money on a Truprint envelope to get that weeks roll developed and another roll back by return. I would say it took my many, many years to reach a professional level, but that’s not necessary to get a great deal of enjoyment out of it as a hobby.
What you’ve got there is a hobby like fishing or stamp collecting. It’s not really about photography, it’s about doing zen stuff by yourself.
You might be right. It's also a hobby that I think meshes well with being into biking or epic kayaking etc. To my mind the best photography happens in the worst months for those pastimes. The long days and clear skys with lots of bright light of the summer work brilliantly for epic biking adventures but not so well for photography. A bit like the 30mins of exercise for 100 days of Christmas thread, I see my photography 'hobby' keeping me getting out when I might not otherwise bother. And the night with the whisky and the lightroom works well for long dark evenings.
And there’s nothing wrong with that!
Namechecked on an STW thread as a potential expert? That's a first!
I do teach Photography but tend to bump heads a bit with other teachers as they approach it from the technical angle and I really don't...
My advice would be similar to what a few folks have already suggested.
- Find a few photographers whose images you like and nick their ideas. You're not copying, more using their work as a jumping off point. Your own style(s) will soon emerge.
- Forget about kit and settings (just find a camera you don't mind carrying around and that you enjoy using, even if it's your phone) - 90% of photography happens using just your eyes and your brain - look around you and practice 'seeing' the image before you even pick a camera up. Use a cardboard viewfinder or your fingers if it helps, but you'll soon develop the mental ability to frame stuff just by looking.
- If you like knowing the 'why' of things, by all means start to read around exposure, depth of field, colour theory, composition, etc. BUT this is in no way necessary to create decent images. Nothing wrong with sticking to automagic settings until you understand enough to move away from them.
- Digital and film are both photography but they are wildly different beasts. Unless you have a real hankering for film (and the patience and resources to use it), stick to digital to start with.
- Don't worry about raw vs .jpg. Shoot whichever you find easiest to work with. FWIW I very rarely shoot in raw (but then I'm admittedly a bit of an edge case in that I quite like digital artifacts).
- Spend time learning your processing/editing tool of choice. Processing/editing is as much a part of photography as pointing the camera at something. Just like with the taking of the actual photograph in the first place, go in with an idea about what you want the outcome to look like rather than just loading the image up and playing (although sometimes there is a place for this too). Avoid presets unless you built them yourself for whatever specific use case.
- If you're not enjoying it, stop doing it and find another way.
- Don't worry about what others say (or don't) about your photography. Unless you need to make money from it, none of that matters.
@Mounty_73 I'm no photography god (mainly because I follow that last piece of my own advice), but by all means message me if you have any specific questions.
There is a gulf in thinking between that and the ability to take enough variations to learn what might work.
Um thats what i have been saying! Go oit and make conscious decisions and see what happens. Rather than go out and fire off hundreds with no real thought, hope you get a good shot then wprk out why it was a good shot and realise the next time that the conditions are different.
It will work but it will take ages becasue you are waiting for accidental success and working backwards. 25bracketed photos will teach you loads. Its also worth noting what you are doing or trying to do and generally what led you to wanting to take a particular picture. Because thats the bit that improves your "whats a good photo"
Nobody has mentioned the fundamentals yet which are learning to look and the desire to capture or create images that communicate how you feel about what you see in front of you.
Start shooting and fail to get the results you wished for will make the understanding of fstop/shutter etc something that needs mastering to the point there is no longer a barrier to realising the images you wished to make.
These essentials are however redundant if it’s cats and sunsets that float your boat, mobile phone cameras do this very well.
Whether I’m any good at photography is a question i can’t answer.
But i did get better. Here are my tips
Try and find a forum for sharing a critiquing photos. I learnt so much from honest feed back. I also learnt loads deciding what i thought of other peoples photos.
Set up some projects. Say made an annual photo book. I’ve also done calendars. Its a huge motivation to take photos. I’m hoping to upload this years book tonight
learn to post process
Don’t expect to great photos very often
One other thing to remember....
Take photos for yourself, not likes - if you have a penchant for posting on social media that is
What you might see as a brilliant capture (and it may well be) may not always be seen that way by others. Then the next dude posting a poorly composed, over saturated picture with excessive HDR gets 100's of likes. The majority of viewers without a clue will be attracted to the one that burns their eyes without necessarily seeing the intricacies of a really visually artistic or well taken shot. If it pleases you and you are going to still look at it a decade later, that's what matters
This was the first photo I took (and I have posted it before with a similar comment) that actually made me think about photography. Shot on an old Olympus Trip compact and was my first go at editing a photo too. I obviously didn't compose it that well when taking it looking at the subsequent crop and there's really nothing outstanding about it at all, but....
It's the photo that started my journey and the fact that I'll still dig it out 13 or so years later means that it's special to me
– Don’t worry about raw vs .jpg. Shoot whichever you find easiest to work with. FWIW I very rarely shoot in raw (but then I’m admittedly a bit of an edge case in that I quite like digital artifacts).
I don't know if it's commonplace but "both" is an option on my camera.
I shoot in JPG. The argument goes that if you shoot RAW then when you get better you can revisit old images. Personally I shoot JPG because a) I'm crap at post-processing and b) I cannot be ringed to spend hours learning how to get better. If I shoot something I particularly like then I might spend a couple of minutes with cropping or sliders but, meh, what comes out the camera comes out of the camera.
But as you say, I'm probably in a minority here also.
I prefer RAW, because I actual enjoy the Lightroom experience.
What I enjoy most about RAW is the mockery it makes of the #nofilterrequired moniker/brag....that photo you took on your phone - you might not have got busy with the filters, but your phone sure as hell did!
I don’t know if it’s commonplace but “both” is an option on my camera.
I generally shoot raw only on my camera as I'm always going to edit in LR
Raw + jpeg also an option on my phone though
What I have noticed with my phone, even if I'm not fussed about shoving the raw file through LR Mobile, the associated jpeg it creates comes with much less processing applied by the phone than if I were to shoot in jpeg only
OP, for your needs, you need to get a Fujifilm GFX100. Nothing else will do.
Ha! And big pockets, both types.
I prefer the GFX50s because of its larger photosites - more headroom to push and pull in post processing. If only it was the size of my phone.