Chasing the Dragon

Nikon Z7, Z 40mm f2

 Yeah, I'm bad for chasing the dragon. Legendarily bad in fact as I've been doing a constant round robin between Nikon, Sony, m43 and Fuji for over 15 years now since I got my G1 back in January 2009.

What is Chasing the Dragon though? It's when following 'the grass is greener on the other side' to the logical extreme. At one point I made 3 total system switches in a 1 year period. That's crazypants, but it's also a legacy of my unwillingness to accept that I both have bad Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS) and the perfect camera for me doesn't yet exist, nor does the perfect lens lineup.

Over the last few years I've been actively trying to stop and settle on one system. I almost achieved it with Canon, as I stuck with that system for 18 months (a recent record) and honestly only switched back to Nikon because I was unhappy with the adaptation experience for manual lenses on Canon, I was otherwise pretty happy with Canon (the bracketing UI aside). 

The other problem is that I just don't deal well with having 2 systems. Or more correctly, I want to have 1 system/2 bodies in the field ideally when I'm shooting landscape/nature. Ideally with shared batteries (I rarely swap cards in practice so while I used to select for that, it's no longer a requirement so long as I have enough 128GB cards so every body has its own card(s). )

The problem is that right now my sole body is a high mileage body I bought cheap specifically as a body to use with my old manual lenses. I like the body, but it doesn't meet my video needs without me buying several additional accessories to rig it out (external display for starters) and I'm always cognizant that a camera with 316k shots on it may die on me. Plus I'd like some more performance for bugging/wildlife/aviation. 

So what are my options?

I've really settled on 4 possibilities, and I'm about ready to narrow that to three. The plan really is to have 2 options when I'm ready to go to the local pusher. 

The first is to do the obvious, stick with the Z7 and just buy a bunch of interesting glass. The downside here is just the usual Nikon issue, the lenses are big & heavy unless I buy some of the few DX lenses, and those are very consumer. But I do have the option to get a bunch of lenses I'd always wanted. I also have the concern that my Z7 will die at a point where I can't just buy another body, but the flip side of that is that most of my lenses will work on DSLR's and a D610 or D800 is stupid cheap, so it's unlikely I'd be out a body more than briefly even if it died at an inopportune time. 

The second is to go Fuji. Keep the Z7 and use it primarily with my collection of manual focus FF lenses, even slowly adding to that collection, but the main system becomes Fuji. The biggest advantage here is that Fuji does have both compact offerings and all but 2 of their lenses are under $3k CAD, with the majority being under $1300 or so. Plus there's a wide variety of small lenses in the system, which is very nice. Biggest downsides here are processing X-Trans files (which I still don't love, but I can readily get good results from) and the pretty mixed selection of lenses in terms of rendering styles and resolution. The bodies available cover all my use needs, the X-Hx for fast PASM with good long-lens handling, the X-T series for retro/everyday use and the X-M5 as a small EDC/Webcam body.  Fuji also gives access to the ridiculous number of cheap & interesting APS-C manual primes (and AF primes too),

The third is to add the Zf and a couple zooms, which is in many ways the Nikon body I always wanted. But here the big issue comes down to the Nikon lenses not being well optimized for that body. Specifically the lack of aperture rings, as well as control dials on the handful of smaller lenses in the system. 3rd Party lenses do make up somewhat for that (both size & handling) but the best lineup of 3rd party lenses for the Zf isn't available in Z mount, so you need a MegaDAP adapter to use them (that's the Sigma 'i' series primes). Plus the Zf simply doesn't have as well sorted a UI as the X-T5. The other issue here is the Zf is best suited to the use I bought the Z7 for, old manual lenses, and I kinda want to keep the Z7 focused on those uses. There's a half-step option here of getting the Z50II instead of the Zf, and focusing on APS-C for most uses. The Z7 is a solid APS-C body to cover the Z50II's weak spots (and vice versa for the most part). This would be better if I could expect a higher-end APS-C body from Nikon. 

The fourth option is basically option 2, but Panasonic L mount. With the new S1RII arriving tomorrow with very aggressive pricing this looks even better than the third option for full frame for long term usage, with a wide variety of interesting glass existing in L mount, but we're still talking a large system, even if it's smaller than the All-Nikon Z setup. Could go S9 for a tiny body here, or S5II for all singing/all dancing with the view of adding the S1RII in the future as a resolution body to address the Z7's eventual demise. Lots of reasonably priced glass in the system, and some compact & excellent zooms as well. 

Now the reality is that I don't need better IQ than crop can deliver, and Fuji offers me a more compact option than Panasonic. Nikon just doesn't offer a compact/high performance option (only the Z50II which lacks IBIS and a good EVF, both items I'm sensitive to). 

What I really wish I could do is spend a week with an S5II, 20-60, 35/1.8 and Sigma 100-400, and a Week with the X-T5, 16-50 f2.8-4, 23/2 and Sigma 100-400 and see which I get along with better.

Regardless of what path I choose, I will continue to use the Z7 and add interesting primes to my system. I'll probably add 2-3 zooms as well eventually, likely F mount lenses I get for good prices.  

Ponderings about Retro Cameras

 

Fujifilm X-T2, XC 35mm f2

I'm very strongly attracted to Retro cameras, specifically those similar in design to Nikon's iconic FM & FM2n. This is largely because I shot most of my film work on those cameras, the F3 and a few other similar bodies (FA, FM10, FE, FE2). I still own an original FE and an F2a. 

With retro cameras I've seen 3 general approaches across the 4 brands that have seriously done retro cameras.

The first is 'Retro in looks only' with the new OM-3 being the classic example, but the essentially the whole Olympus/OM System Micro4/3rds line except for the E-M1/OM-1 series fall into this category. A few Fuji's do as well, notably the X-Tx00 series. Essentially this is a camera with retro styling, but a modern PASM+dual dial interface. Key items are no external shutter speed or ISO dials, although an external exposure compensation dial is OK (we've even seen that on non-retro designs like some Sony's). These bodies tend to work well and look good, but don't tend to become iconic as in use, they're just another camera with a small grip (The Pen-F being the exception)

The second is the fully integrated design. This is a design where you get an external interface with ISO & Shutter speed dials, intended to work with an aperture ring on the lens, but also two control wheels and you can readily switch between dial and wheel interfaces as needed. The Majority of Fuji designs are in this category. It's also what Nikon has tried to do, but not quite achieved with their 3 retro designs (the Df being an abject failure and the Zfc and Zf being near-misses). The key here is that these bodies allow you to work both like a fully retro body with the external exposure triangle (usually plus exposure compensation) and a modern body, and allow you to switch each corner of the triangle independently and seamlessly. Fuji also does a few bodies that are partially here, with ISO replaced by either some alternate control or nothing on some bodies that are either lower-end or more compact.

The third approach is to make the most minimal concessions to digital possible. The only real entry here is the Leica M digitals, although the X-Pro3 dabbles in this. Leica has simply taken their film body, stuck digital internals into it and added the absolute minimum required to make them a functional digital camera. It works very well, if you want a camera that works like it's 1985 and only that way. 

The challenge with Nikon here is they continue to half-ass the experience. The Zfc and Zf are excellent cameras. But they suffer from two significant issues, only one of which is at the camera level.

At the camera level, the core issue is that they work well when only using the external dials and when only using the internal controls, but when mixing the two experiences it's a study in gotchas, especially with ISO where you need a written guide to figure out how everything interacts (except in Auto mode, where it does exactly what you'd expect when moving the ISO Dial in and out of C, why can't it be set to work the same in PASM modes?). Some of this comes down to the choice to borrow the PASM switch from the old Nikon FA rather than use a Pentax/Contax style A positions (Fuji clearly borrowed their X-T series UI from Pentax's retro-style AF cameras like the MZ-5n). Ironically many Nikon film bodies use A positions on the shutter speed dial (the FA was the exception here) and even a P position on a couple bodies (like the FG). I'd bet whoever was lead designer for the Zf and Zfc used these cameras only in all manual or in Auto (which are the two good experiences) with minimal use of Aperture priority in particular.

The other issue with the Nikon retro bodies is simply Nikon has not given users a lens selection to match these two rather popular bodies. Even the two SE lenses match in styling and size only, but as they lack an Aperture ring (or even a control ring) you can't use the lens as the third corner of the exposure triangle in manual focus. The two f1.4 lenses are a better experience as they do have a control ring, but you still can't see aperture on the lens, only on that tiny top LCD display. The irony here is that there is a good experience available, just not from Nikon. Many 3rd party primes come with aperture rings, so if you want the best experience just use Viltrox, Voigtlander, Meike, 7Artisans or TTArtisan lenses instead of Nikkors on your Zf. Nikon needs to start releasing lenses designed for these cameras in more than just cosmetics, as by all reports they are very good selling cameras and likely would sell even better if Nikon had thought out the lens needs of these cameras. 

So what can Nikon do.

In short - firmware updates. I'd like to see the following changes:

1. Setting in the Auto-ISO setup to disable Auto ISO when the ISO dial is not set to C

2. Setting in Controls CF's to 'have camera select shutter speed when dial set to C' 

3. Setting in Controls CF's to ' Use PASM switch for User Custom Settings' 

4. Setting in Controls that if setting 3 is enabled it allows the PASM Switch positions Auto, P, A & S to each be mapped to a Ux setting (U1/2/3/4) instead of AE modes. - This would also solve the loss of directly selectable user banks on these two cameras.

5. Add an A position after minimum aperture in the aperture range so you can dial into having the camera select aperture + respect A position on lenses with a physical aperture ring. 

Also, when the ZfcII comes (and eventually for the ZfII), give us a half-grip option with a shutter release and front control dial, like the OG E-M5 offered. That will be killer for these bodies with larger lenses. 

If you wonder why all the retro musings, well I can't frikking decide whether I want a Zf or an X-T5. Or to be more correct, I want a Zf, but I want some of the X-T5 experience (UI fully sorted and lenses with aperture rings). I keep digging in and realizing the two best kits for me would be X-H2+X-T5 or Z7+Zf, in both cases with the small creator camera added at some point for video/light carry (Z30/Zfc or X-M5/XT-30II). The question if I go Fuji is how do I align the body selection/acquisition as I ultimately would want two bodies, but do I get X-H2+creator or X-T5+creator first, then add the other higher-end body afterwards. 

More Musings - What Gear and Why

Fuji X-T2, 7Artisans 12mm f2.8 v1

I'm now less than 4 weeks away from receiving my yearly bonus, which will be finally used primarily to get what is hopefully my core working kit for the next couple years. 

The time gap has me going in circles, as I'm WAY too much of a gearhead and almost every option I've looked at has something serious going for it.

So first up - My quick takes on each option/system:

Sony - Great lens options, The FF cameras in my pricerange all have rough edges for my uses, I massively dislike the handling of their APS-C options. My Partner has an A7II so lens sharing is viable. Don't love how the files render. Poor software but good customization. Best pre-capture in larger formats, limited computational features. Poor experience for adapted non-CPU lenses. By far the worst JPEG profiles.

Canon - This would work for me, but lens options are limited. I like the cameras, I like the lenses, but they don't excite me. Canon is very much the image making appliance. Really good, but boring. OK software and customization. Latest bodies have mostly workable pre-capture, very limited computational features. Only 1 crop body has IBIS, poor experience for adapted non-cpu lenses. Limited JPEG profiles, but what you get is VERY good. 

Panasonic (FF) - In Isolation, this is arguably the best choice for me. Good bodies, good lenses, good handling, lots of interesting glass. But no APS-C options although the S9 is cheap enough to mostly cover the uses I'd otherwise look at a crop body for. Good software and customization. Best computational features in larger sensor formats and decent pre-capture. Good non-CPU lens experience. LUT support for JPEG makes JPEG profiles top-tier.

Nikon - Been a Nikon shooter since 1993. Love the lenses, love the ergonomics, Lacking in wide options and I'm a wide shooter. Lousy software & customization. (NB - Keeping my Z7 regardless for my legacy glass). Zf/Zfc have ergo/control layout issues but love the looks. Middling computational and pre-capture is crippled. No IBIS on crop. Good non-CPU lens experience, best manual focus aids (CPU lens only). Second best JPEG profile system, but worst marketed and limited community support. 

Fujifilm - I love the body design options, although I still don't like the chiclet buttons on some of the controls. Love the lens lineup, lots of oddball lenses. Best screen setups on less expensive bodies, lowish cost of entry. I'm not a fan of XTrans for colour files, but can get good results. Top-Notch B&W. Best marketed JPEG profiles. Very limited computational options, decent enough software, good non-CPU lens support.  Arguably the best selection of body styles for my uses in a single sensor size. Worst AF, but still usable. Good manual focus aids. Good customization, middling software. 

OM System - Nice bodies, Expensive, most bodies have crap viewfinders even at higher prices. Great glass, small size, sealed. The best computational features by a mile. Decent software. SOmewhat limited lens options due to more limited 3rd party support. Biggest problem is a lack of second body option. Good non-CPU lens support, poor manual focus aids due to software limitations. Love the files, but limited IQ vs other options. Overpriced bodies below the OM-1. Very good JPEG profile system, in 3rd place. Good software & customization

Panasonic (m43) - Lead body is excellent, combining all the features of its FF cousin with an excellent m43 sensor. Good webcam body (limited but small & cheap), no retro type body/compact body in between the two right now. Becomes viable when the GX9 gets updated with the current internals as the old internals suck by modern standards. Good lens selection. Kinda chonky for the sensor size. Best JPEG profiles (sae LUT system as FF), good computational support, good non-CPU lens support. Good software & customization

So, next up is what are my use cases.IE what do I use my cameras for, and how does that impact my gear.

1. Landscape/Nature photography. Bias towards reducing carry weight here. Need wide/normal, macro and tele options. This is my main zoom usage. 

2. Aviation - Mostly model aviation (I'm an RC'er) but also airshow. Good enough AF with long lens option and highish framerates. Takes a backseat to my other uses as I only do this a few times a year. 

3. Street/Cityscape/Urban detail - Very prime oriented, compact preferred. Don't care about AF. My Z7 will remain lead for this with my old lenses, but whatever I buy needs to be able to do this. I like weird and cheap glass, so that's a must-have for the system (it's largely why I sold the R6 which I got along with decently)

4. Video - I have 2 needs here, portable webcam for work and fixed video for my RC-related youtube channel. Latter is a 'pretty much anything with a flip/twist screen' will work, but for the webcam I greatly prefer a camera which supports direct USB webcam streaming instead of needing an app only my laptop (which has been a persistent frustration for me with the Nikon's in particular). I'd prefer this be a second/third body though so I can leave it setup most of the time. USB power/streaming is the best case here.

So where does that leave me?

I'm striking m43 entirely, Sony and Canon. Panasonic doesn't offer me a retro style body and I really like those due to decades of shooting manual focus film bodies. Too bad, because otherwise it's a great fit.

I'm sort of looping around to Fujifilm again. I've not owned a recent body (X-T2 was the newest) and if the continuous AF is noticeably better than the X-T2 it should work for me. I like the lenses, love the handling and the files are acceptable. Plus there's lots of neat glass available, which I missed when I sold off the X-T2 and X-T1 to go back to m43 & NIkon. You can get a Fuji to Nikon adapter with AF as well. The main thing is that the X-M5 + X-T5 combo covers most of my needs, and the rest could be covered by an X-H body. The Nikon alternative is slowly settling on Z7+DX body (either Z50II as a do-everything or a Z30+future FX body to cover video now and a second carry body long-term).

 

The Most Dangerous Activity

 

OM System OM-1, m.Zuiko PRO 12-40 f2.8 II

Trawling through my Archives is a dangerous game. But the results are increasingly predictable. I really like my output from my Nikon and Olympus shooting, and everything else rates as 'good but not quite great'. 

My OM-1 ownership was bookended by an A7RIV and  Canon R7. I actually shot some of my all-time best work on that A7RIV, but that really was from a single trip to Algonquin Park and some shots with the SLRMagic 18/2.8 on an absolutely amazing cold February morning. The rest of the work is good, but not great. A fair bit of that is simply colour profiling though. I don't love the default Sony colour rendering and never quite built a profile that overrode it when the light wasn't golden.

Same for the R7, just without the 'best work' part. A solid body of work, nothing spectacular. Ditto the R6, although I didn't shoot landscape seriously enough with it to really get to know it.  

The OM-1 work, as a whole, was simply more consistent. It is clear I did need to spend some more time with it as I wasn't getting quite what I wanted from the multi-shot modes and I think that's entirely a case of I didn't know them well enough.

The flip side is I also see the weaknesses in the files vs larger sensors. While I do love the results I got from the OM-1, I'd much rather work with my Z7 files and I like the Nikon results pretty much equally. 

So did the trawl through the archives tempt me to go m43? Yep. But not quite enough this time. 

OM-3 Is out - My thoughts

 OM-1, 40-150/4 Pro

OM System announced the OM-3 today, their new compact vintage styled camera.

And it's a brilliant camera overall. But it's got one screaming issue for me. The EVF is simply not up to snuff for a camera that costs more than $1500USD. It's an old 2.36M panel at an unacceptable low 0.69x magnification. Overall a worse spec than the E-M5II from a decade ago. 

The good? Excellent build, it's the cheapest stacked-sensor camera on the market by far, which makes it also incredible in terms of performance, there is literally nothing at its pricepoint which compares except a used OM-1. 

Control layout gives up a few items, but that's inherent to a size reduction. The new CP button allows direct access to all computational features (which I very much like), the on/off switch is still in a bad position (and I'm NOT giving up the Fn switch to fix that), JPEG dial is neat if you like that and like the OM-1II, the profiles are very tweakable even if not up to the real-time LUT system of Panasonic. Oh, and it shares the OM-1 battery and has a proper SD card slot (not in the battery compartment like the Zf/Zfc)

Cost is too high, as is usual for OM at launch. It will come down in 6 months. 

No grip options, which is a pity, a 2-part grip like the early E-M5's offered would have been great here. 

Also launched are updates of the 25/1.8, 17/1.8 and 100-400. The primes get sealing and the 17 loses the focus clutch, the 100-400 gets SyncIS but not saner pricing (as it's a Sigma rebadge and the Sigma version is half the price)

The verdict? A very solid effort and a great camera if you can live with the low-spec EVF that's the only real stripper aspect of the OM-3.

No, I don't plan on getting one. I skipped the E-M5 series after the MkII over the EVF and the OM-3 has the same EVF as those bodies. 

Future Landscape/Hiking/Video Gear Pondering - Full Frame Edition

 Sony A7RIV, FE 28-60

OK, so we covered crop options for Landscape/Hiking/Video uses.

Now let's do Full Frame.

First up is Canon. This would be a re-buy situation to some extent, as I just sold off my Canon gear. I'd definitely rebuy the RF100-400 and probably the 24/1.8 as well. I'd want the new 16-28 or the 14-35L and some mid-range option, plus a macro (likely the 100L in EF mount). Body would be either the R6mII or an OG R5. This would work pretty well for this, but I'd still struggle a bit with the lens line overall. Plus the limitations on assigning Bracketing to a button would annoy me just as it did on the R7 and R6. Possible only if I got a screaming deal on the body. R8 is an option for light carry here too (but limited/no IBIS and small battery).

Second is Sony. The most wide-ranging lens lineup, most lenses can be readily adaptable to my Z7 via the MegaDAP ETZ21 Pro adapter, and my partner still shoots an A7II. The downside is which body. The A7IV and A7RIV are really the two options here and I don't really gel with either of them. If forced, either would work adequately though, so I wouldn't be unhappy, just occasionally annoyed (especially with the Dust. Why hasn't Sony figured out sensor cleaning yet....). 

Third is of course Nikon. There's two real problems with Z mount for me. The focus is on long lenses, not wide (and mine is the opposite) and none of the bodies quite fit my needs or wants. The Zf and Z6III are acceptable though and I could probably get away with either adapting some FE lenses on the wide end or getting the 14-30. One annoyance here is it seems Nikon is dead set on ensuring you have every single possible different filter thread you could possibly own needed for their lenses. Only the Tamronkors have consistent thread sizing (the 17-28, 28-75 and 70-180 are all 67mm). 

The wild card is Panasonic. Over the last couple of years L mount has emerged as a real contender since finally introducing PDAF and addressing the AF issues for action shooting. They're still not top-tier AF, but they are at least as good as the non-stacked sensor Nikons. Plus the lens options are excellent and pricing is aggressive. The S5II covers my needs for a 24MP hiking body, and I can easily and relatively inexpensively put together a kit of 20-60, 100-400, 100 macro and 1-2 f1.8 primes, and every single lens on that list has 67mm filter threads. The bodies are very customizable, the S9 works as a light carry/B-cam and I have access to the top-tier Sigma lenses if needed (plus Leica if I want to be insane). The only real lack is high-MP options, and they're there just not cheap. The S1R update however should drop prices of the original and that would give me a 47MP option for tripod shooting. Plus the ability to load LUT's and apply to JPEG's gives the possibility of my post workflow dropping dramatically (you can convert LR presets to LUT's, then load onto the S5II, the S9 and the upcoming S1RII). Also the S5II costs as little as a Zf, except it includes the brilliant little 20-60mm in the package (and often adds the 50/1.8 for a very small upcharge). Get the 2 lens kit (20-60+50), add a Sigma 100-400 and the tiny and excellent 100/2.8 macro and I'm set. I could add the 18/1.8 later for a native fast UWA too. 

End result, Panasonic seems to cover most of the requirements. Nikon is #2, Sony and Canon both viable if the right deal is found. Clear leader, but unlike in Crop, none of the options actually fail out. 

Future Landscape/Hiking/Video Gear Pondering - Crop Edition

Nikon Z7, Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Macro N-AF

I've been thinking more and more about how I build out my gear. 

 That's got me considering the possibility of a different system alongside the Z7, rather than just going all-in on Nikon.

One of the obvious options here is Fuji. While I nave a very mixed history with them, the X-T1's and X-T2 were great cameras to work with aside from the AF issues I encountered with the 55-200. The X-H2 actually has quite good ergonomics (no Chiclets) and the X-T5 reverts back to a more X-T1/X-T2 style body rather than the larger X-T4's more hybrid-oriented setup. Plus the lens lineup is solid, including lots of interesting 3rd party lenses. Fuji is the one maker other than Nikon which will give you a traditional UI and a dual-dial UI in roughly similar bodies. 

The downsides are the AF is at best rivalling my OG Z7, Fuji's been breaking stuff on firmware and that simply put, 40MP APS-C struggles at higher ISO's and many of the most interesting Fuji lenses don't play well on the 40MP bodies. I honestly wish the X-T5 had stayed at 26MP (for the X-H2, I'd just get the 26MP X-H2S if I decided it was an issue for that body). 

The more I look at Fuji, the more I realize that while another X-T body would be lots of fun, it's not as well suited to my other uses. I need decent higher ISO for dark woodland shots when hiking, and want decent AF-C for wildlife grab shots, again while hiking. Plus Fuji is very nearly the only option without built-in Focus stacking (they do offer high-res multishot, but it's 20 frames instead of 8 on other systems due to the X-Trans filter pattern)

Fuji's lens line is also pretty inconsistent, the changes in design style over the 13 years of its existence leads to a lens line where different era's of lenses render differently and you only sometimes can cover each slot in your kit with a lens that behaves as you want. That said, a XF 16-50, 70-300 o 100-400 and an 8/3.5 would be a good hiking kit. No point in buying a macro since there's no automated focus stacking/bracketing so I could just adapt my current Macro's as both work well on crop bodies. 

The next crop offering I could entertain is of course m43. Again a system I have a LONG history with, being an early adopter with the G1 back when it was literally the only mirrorless camera in existence. It's possible I can get a pretty good deal on another OM-1 kit (and I did rather like that setup for the most part), but the kicker is the second/backup body. Lens selection has gotten somewhat better with all the manual 3rd party lenses now so I can say the 'System of One' comments I had are now really limited to the body. The OM-5 is just too little body for me, literally. The complaints are tiny battery/tiny EVF. If it was cheaper, I'd be more interested. But on February 6th OM System will announce a new body, known to be the OM-3, which will be some sort of Retro body, clearly a compact one and is largely expected to be essentially an original OM-1 in a new case, but with less decontenting than the OM-5. I'm guessing good finder/small battery unless they decide to bring back the BLN-1 last seen on the E-M5II, or manage to squeeze in the OM-1 battery (props if they do). I know I can quickly put together a lens system that works for me here so this is very on the radar. The multi-shot modes make up for the IQ limitations, when I need more than it can deliver at low ISO's, I can almost always multishot my way out of the situation. 

The biggest challenge with OM System is complexity. The OM-1 was not a camera where I could ignore the camera's complexity and just shoot, I found myself needing to engage the complexity constantly due to the need to take advantage of multi-shot to get the IQ I wanted. 

The next offering is Sony. That's a Nope for a cropper for me. I dislike all the Sony APS-C bodies and for some reason they refuse to stuff their current top-end cropper into an A7 body and make the obvious A7000. The lens lineup is inconsistent, but generally comprehensive. In other words you can usually get the lens you need in a given focal length, but it probably renders and handles differently than your other lenses unless one of the 3rd party options (notably Sigma or Viltrox) matches up exactly to your needs. 

Canon comes next. I mostly liked the R7 and only really sold it because I had the R6 and needed the 100-400. But I'd probably prefer to wait to see what the R7mII looks like and even then suspect another R6 series would make more sense (even more so now with the new 16-28/2.8 out). Canon makes solid crop bodies, but the combination of good and inexpensive FF bodies make their croppers a hard sell except the R50 as a webcam/b-cam. Lens selection is a bit of an issue, but so many of the inexpensive FF lenses work well on APS-C that it's less of one that most think. 7Artisan 12/2.8 II, 18-150 and 100-400 would be the working set here most likely.

And finally there's Nikon. The new Z50II is actually a pretty decent camera, with very good AF and video, but lacks IBIS for some reason (and it's not body size since the competition does it in smaller bodies). For some reason the older Zfc is still $50CAD more than the newer body despite the latter being higher performance in all regards. The Zfc is kinda neat, but I'd think I'd probably go Z30 if I didn't go Z50II, it's by far the cheapest option, performs identical to the Zfc and while it lacks a viewfinder, it's a viable camera for pure LCD shooting, something I haven't really had since I sold my last X-A1. Since my Z7 can be a pretty good APS-C camera already, any of the Z DX bodies could pair as the low-end in a 2 body split, albeit I'd probably not want the OG Z50 if only because of the lack of the vari-angle LCD, which I'd really want in my second body since the Z7 is also tilt-only. 

When I work through this, really only 2 crop options make any real sense. m43 and Nikon. And I already have a good Nikon crop body in the Z7. So It doesn't make a lot of sense to switch things up.