When the time came to return to Thailand, I decided on Fujifilm. My experiences with the XPro2 let to overconfidence in the X-Pro3's abilities. I have invested a lot into Fujifilm, writing for the community for two years, working with third-parties such as ArtraLab and Laowa to bridge that gap between film (operation and aesthetic) and digital. It was this that let do me investing further and further into a broken system, with every article, every collaboration making escape that much more difficult. It also helped that for the documentary work I was doing a Fuji and small prime were inconspicuous — not in the gaffer tape your logo way, but in the “This guy probably isn’t local news” way. However, Temples, Castles, and centuries of monuments aren’t quite as camera shy.
For the most part I don’t subscribe to the format wars. I think there is a reason why 35mm (Full-Frame) is the standard, and why Super-35 (APS-C) has been prevalent for motion. Above these sizes you get shutter drag due to the distance between the top and bottom of the focal plane. With global shutter advancements this could be negated, but at the same time what constitutes as medium format in digital stills is far smaller than traditional medium format negatives, and even smaller than 70mm large format motion picture. I digress, but the point I am making is that both APS-C and Full Frame have a heavy catalogue of usable lens designs and are standardised capture formats. There won’t be any “I outgrew APS-C” narrative here, I camera from Full-Frame to APS-C due to the benefits of what was a cohesive ecosystem, I left because the ecosystem deteriorated, whilst Full-Frame mirrorless matured.
Everything I have said about Fujifilm remains true, the only part people miss is that generally only the positives that make it to print. No system is perfect, every camera has downsides but when an entire ecosystem pulls the rug from under you to service a growing yet unsustainable market sector of hobbyists and influencers, it is disrespecting me, and everyone else that gave that brand the reputation they carry. When the manufacturing of that company deteriorates to the point that you cannot trust a single camera in your arsenal fully then no amount of amazing legacy optics, no amount of community goodwill can tether me to a system that fundamentally fails the sole purpose of it existing — to ensure the work gets made. I don’t want this to devolve, but there is a lesson here for all of you, and a lesson I should have learned from Tatsuo Suzuki-san. If the brand fails to respect, defend, or promote a student of Daido Moriyama-sensei then they were never going to appreciate my efforts.
GFX was contemplated, and even adopted by my good friend, but realistically it was never my choice due to lenses. I toyed with the idea of a Leica SL2-S and Panasonic S1 II X, but after testing the Panasonic and evaluating the L-Mount ecosystem as a whole (and the benefits of Leica metadata), I decided that it was not the correct direction. I also toyed with the idea of Canon RF, with many I know using the system. I tried the Canon RF mount early, with the RP and 1.8/35 & 2/85 Macro lenses and seriously contemplated the Canon R5C. however, the decision was made easy when partnership with ZEISS materialised. I understood that ZEISS offered lenses in all modern mounts, Z, RF and FE but only one mount made sense. I’ve had first-hand experience shooting older Leica, Panasonic, and of course Sony cameras so this choice was still made out of familiarity. I could have easily have gone R5C (or even two of them), but the breadth of Sony’s offerings made me reconsider. Canon does have the C series line, and upward mobility within motion is a future aim of DRobertsPhoto but the R5C (at the time) was the ceiling for stills, and relatively unimpressive by 2025 standards. The draw was that it was a very powerful hybrid, where most are even more underwhelming for stills capture. Coupled with the fact that there would be no ZEISS autofocus options for run-an-gun capture, it made the choice easy.
Previous:
Fujifilm X-T5 x2
Fujifilm X-Pro2
My thoughts on the Fujifilm X system are prevalent and public, having written for FUJILOVE and Fuji X Passion Magazines on the subject. However, the system and infrastructure Fujifilm has built is adverse in extended field operations. Image quality is proven non-problematic. Durability and operation is proven lacklustre.
New:
Stills System: Sony Alpha 7RV
Motion System: Sony FX30
Initially chosen for the wide array of ZEISS optics (Sony-ZEISS, Loxia, Batis, Otus ML) and system infrastructure. Proven correct by having all failure points of Fujifilm now addressed, from reliability, upward mobility, and to lens choice. A backup body (A7IV) is currently under debate, but currently DRobertsPhoto maintains a singe X-T5 in this position.
Whilst the Sony A7RV is the ceiling for stills in the Sony ecosystem, it is a far higher one at almost a 50% increase in resolution over the Canon R5. Even the A1II, that is an autofocus and tracking first hybrid still out-resolves Canon’s dedicated resolution platform. I can’t predict what may come in the future, nor can I claim parity with the 100 megapixel GFX systems, but operationally the Sony A7RV is more performant than the X-T5 despite the larger sensor, higher resolution, and its massive file sizes (important - this shows how much data the sensor actually captures for post). In fact the A7RV is more performant than the 33 megapixel A7IV. Again, I am not comparing it to the global shutter A9III, because for my usage a mechanical shutter and high resolution are desired. Even with my ZEISS partnership not going as planned (starting to see a pattern here aren’t we?), the Sony system has no lack of choice for optics, and even continued use of ZEISS would be a creative option (if not a great business one). I have yet to be proven wrong in my choice of the Sony A7RV, with it surpassing every expectation in every single category unanimously. Even the larger size I consider a positive, it is truly ergonomic and despite the dials being unlabelled it has two top dials for Shutter Speed and Exposure Comp. similar to most Fujis, and one rear dial for the ISO. just without the little bit of white paint telling you which is which…
Despite this the Sony A7RV was not my first choice. I had intended to go with a singular A1II, but luck was on my side and when I went to Bangkok to purchase the systems Sony was running promotions. The A1II was not in stock, and full retail at 225,000 Baht. On the other hand, the Sony A7RV was reduced to 125,000 from 160,000 with points back (enough for spare batteries and dual charger). That was a 100,000 Baht discrepancy, or around five months average Bangkok salary, nearer to eight in Isaan. more importantly, the FX30 was reduced from 85,000 to 65,000 (with points back). What this allowed me to do was separate my stills from motion systems for less than the cost of a hybrid camera. I would have a better stills system, that’s undebatable. And I would have a debatably better, certainly dedicated motion system. This isn’t just “David got a good deal.” No, this bit of luck allowed for a net-positive project management decision to be made for the Discover Temples of Thailand project and a further lesson in opportunity cost. Would ordering and using an A1II have sent a message? Certainly so, it is the Sony flagship. Was the A1II the right piece of infrastructure for DRobertsPhoto? I think it was a compromise, one separating systems eliminates.
And no, I do not think the FX30 was a compromise over the FX3 or A7SIII. For a marginal difference in price budgeted for the A1II, I could have purchased an A7RV and the Full-Frame motion oriented sibling. This decision was based on lensing. As I mentioned above, the barrier to creating run-and-gun documentary work is heavily reduced by having a system that is just ready to go, for me or for Dararat to use. I had purchased the Batis lenses, and the 25mm and 40mm focal lengths compliment the Super-35 format perfectly — with legendary DP Roger Deakins famously fond of both the focal lengths and classic ZEISS designs such as the Distagon. People (influencers) use the term cinematic the same way office workers use the term depressed, very rarely for its actual meaning. I think that by embracing traditional focal lengths, traditional senor formats and traditional optical designs of the Distagon, the motion component of Discover Temples of Thailand will inherit cinematic DNA, and with Dehancer Film Emulation partnering on the project being able to assign the specific LUT (be it Portra, Aerocolor or Vision3) in-camera brings the barrier from conception to execution down one notch again — vital when the motion component is an emergent arm, not a central pillar.
As I touched on, upward mobility for motion was desired most, hence why a concession of using the A1II over A7RV was contemplated in the first place. Sony E allows this. I went in at the stills ceiling, but I entered at the motion floor. If motion becomes an integral component to DRobertsPhoto the jump won’t be to an FX3, but an FX6 (standard issue at NHK) and from there? Burano is likely achievable, Venice if Sony ever supports. I’m not limited in scope to grow within motion, and with stills the ceiling is still higher than competitors without incurring large sensor trade-offs of Phase One, Hasselblad or GFX.