Nikon's Z5ii - Certainly the Best in Class.

Nikon Z5, Nikkor Z 24-50 f4-6.3

Nikon announced the new Z5ii last week.

It was exactly what I expected, a Zf in a lightly modded Z5 body. And it's exactly what I would have bought if it had been out a couple months before. I spent a lot of time debating between the Zf, Z6iii, S5ii and A7iv. I eventually settled on the A7iv, and I am happy with that, but if the Z5ii had been out already, I would have looked no further since it met all my original requirements for a body. The Zf only got downchecked because of the weight and ergonomics. 

So what is it - in short it's a pairing of the excellent Expeed7 processing system with the old but outstanding IMX410 24MP BSI Full frame sensor used in a number of different cameras including the Zf, Z6, Z6ii, S5ii, S9, SL3-S and IIRC also the A7iii and A7C. It's a great sensor limited really only by the inability to do full-width 4k50/60 (which I don't care about).

While the price does go up, it remains a huge value and handily the best body in its pricerange for general users, outperforming the A7III and A7C in all regards, the S5II in terms of AF & overall stills performance and the R8 in terms of basic features (better EVF, IBIS, better battery life, dual cards, but much slower and worse 4K video). The Z5ii simply offers the best balanced combination of features, even if most of those cameras (except the aging A7III) beat it in some specific area. 

That said, for my needs I do think the currently more expensive A7IV isn't really overmatched by the Z5ii, but it's currently at least 25% more expensive. I think I made the right choice for my needs, even if it's a choice I probably would have skipped if the Z5ii had been already available last month. 

 

A Couple Weeks Later - A7IV & Z7

A7IV, Tamron 17-28 f2.8

I've had the A7IV for a couple weeks now and put almost 600 shots on it in that time, vs around 800 for the Z7 since I got it 2.5 months ago. The difference in shot count vs time is mostly in being able to get out for one major photo trip after getting the Sony, and I only brought the Sony along for that trip.

Overall, they're both excellent cameras. I generally am preferring the A7IV in actual use for the more flexible control layout, vari-angle LCD and the ability to dedicate a dial to exposure compensation, plus the AF is significantly better. The Z7 however does have a better metering readout for Manual+Auto ISO (As it will tell you on the metering display when it's hit the end of its range for ISO and by how much) and a nicer EVF. Also the Z7 files are still nicer. 

Both are good cameras, both aren't perfect. If I could get the Z7's sensor, EVF, metering readout & Non-cpu lens data system in the A7IV's everything else, I'd be ecstatic. 

In general, if I have to pick just one, I'm usually going to pick the Sony here, it's just better at most of the stuff I care about and more importantly, the system brings me options I simply don't have in Z mount, notably compact bodies and a wider lens selection. But I still do enjoy the Z7 and am planning on keeping it around for now. It's a fun change, the files are nice and I don't have all that much value in Z7 specific stuff that can't also be used via adapter on the A7iv (since all but one of my Z7 lens kit are adapted lenses). 

So overall, my plan to largely dedicate the Z7 to adapted/manual lenses for around town shooting and the A7IV for everyday uses seems to be making a lot of sense. I'm going to continue that way for now. 

 

Full Frame and Every Day Carry - A Persistent Conundrum

 

Nikon Z7, 7Artisans 75mm f1.25 @f1.4

If you're going all-in on Full Frame, finding an Every Day Carry camera that isn't fixed lens and matches your system becomes a real issue.

Out of the 4 systems, Nikon struggles the most here, lacking entirely in an actually compact body. The Zf is actually larger than the Z5/6/7 series in 2 dimensions, and heavier too. It does pack down smallish with no lens or a particularly compact pancake due to the lack of grip though. Otherwise for current new bodies, the Z5 is the smallest (the original Z6 and Z7 are the same exact size as the Z5). But none of these are small and Nikon has exactly 4 compact lenses, the 24-50 and the 26, 28 and 40's. That does not make for a really flexible system and the rest of the glass tends huge (although the Tamron rebadge trio is pretty compact for f2.8 zooms). The most viable option really is going to be pairing the Z5 or Zf with the 26, 40 & 7Artisans 75mm f2 (which is quite compact) and maybe adding the 7Artisans 18/5.6 fixed aperture pancake as a decent cheap wide. That's a nice small & inexpensive lens set on a kinda chonky body.  

Canon's Rp and R8 are quite compact and Canon offers 4 truly compact lenses in the 24-50, 16/2.8, 28/2.8 and 50/1.8. Note that's a range which makes buying all 3 primes more viable since they actually gap well, unlike Nikon which clustered up the two wider ones since apparently Nikon is allergic to wide primes these days. Downside is mostly lack of IBIS, but Canon's 24/1.8, 35/1.8 and 85/2 primes are all 1:2 macro and IS, which makes for another good trio of smaller primes. Canon also offers a fairly small zoom trio in the 15-30, 240195STM and 100-400, all IS, compact, 67mm filter and inexpensive. The 24-105 is mediocre, but the other two are decent (15-30) to excellent (100-400) optically. No IS here actually helps for adapting, since it eliminates the worst part of the experience for Canon users (setting IS focal length). The viewfinder is a very consumer 2.36MP unit at 0.7x magnification. Pricing is very reasonable here, with the older and more limited Rp being the cheapest FF body most of the time (unless the Z5 is on sale) and the R8 also coming in at aggressive pricing. The Rp is also available new for some reason, but be aware it's a very limited body in capability unlike the R8 which is straight up an R6II electronically, in an RP body. Canon has essentially no 3rd party AF lens support though, so if Canon's offerings don't meet your needs, you'll be adapting or looking elsewhere. The R8 however is probably the least compromised as a do-everything body in this class due to the minimal handling compromises, it feels like a small SLR body.

Sony offers a lot of options in this space. On the used market the original A7 and A7R are tiny, but have a lot of compromises from being 10+ year old designs. However the A7R can be quite workable if you are using manual lenses only and can live with the minimal battery life. Don't expect usable AF from the A7R, it's CDAF-only. The A7 has pretty bad AF, but it's mostly usable unlike the A7R's AF.

Sony of course also offers their current A7C series. There's 3 bodies here, the OG A7C, which is fundamentally a A7III stuffed into an A6600 body. No front dial and the worst viewfinder ever in a FF body (2.36MP panel at a ludicrously bad 0.59x magnification). These are reasonably cheap these days, coming in at $200CAD more than an R8 or S9 for MSRP. They also offer the A7CII, which is an A7IV in an A6700 body, and features a now competitive for the segment 2.36MP 0.7x EVF and a front dial. But it's barely cheaper than the A7IV, which itself is overpriced for the performance compared to the competition at this pricepoint. Finally Sony has the A7CR, which is an A7CII with A7RV internals. It's easily the most expensive A7C variant, but is the best actual value since it's significantly cheaper than the A7RV. This is the lightweight hiking/landscape body and if that's what you are going for, the only competition is not much cheaper but has way more limitations (Sigma Fp L + EVF).

Sony also has by far the best selection of small glass between Sony's G series compact lenses, the Sigma 'i' series primes and a myriad of offerings from other manufacturers, especially including Samyang. 

In L mount there's options from Panasonic & Sigma. These are unique in not offering mechanical shutters on any of them, which can be an issue, but they're also by far the smallest options available.

Sigma offers the new Bf, the original (and discontinued) Fp and the current Fp L. The Bf is your choice if you are looking for looks over performance, it's a very good looking camera, but compromises handling for looks (sharpish corners) and basically has no accessories possible other than lenses and spare batteries (not even cards, it comes with 230GB of internal storage and a USB-C port). The Fp is not great unless you want the smallest possible camera and don't care about AF. It's CDAF only so AF performance is lousy. The FP L adds PDAF and a 61MP sensor, and without EVF is the cheapest high-res body on the market and also the smallest by a long shot. All these are VERY situational cameras, you will love them or despise them. No IBIS either on any of the Sigmas. Note the Bf has no EVF option where the Fp's both have an add-on EVF/

The Panasonic S9 rivals the Canon R8 for being the cheapest option with good performance, is the smallest option with IBIS, but lacks an EVF entirely. It's got all the S5II toys as well, so it's actually a very capable camera if you can live without an EVF and a mechanical shutter. This is by far the best video body of the lot and is marketed as a Creators Camera, selling up the video and the stills+social media workflow using the Lumix Lab app on your cellphone. NB - There's no hotshoe on this camera, only a cold shoe for an optical viewfinder or video accessory. 

L mount is second in terms of lens offerings, with Sigma's i series flashes and a decent selection of other lenses. Note Panasonic's 1.8 prime series (which includes the 100/2.8 Macro) are all identical in size and very close in weight, these are mid-size for the 24-50mm range, but the 18, 85 & 100 macro are compact for the specs, especially the 100 Macro which is by far the smallest such AF macro ever made (and it's good optically too). The 18-40 is also unique, a pancake type UWA zoom. 

Decision Done

 

Sony A7IV, Tamron 17-28mm f2.8

Well, as it happened I did run into a screaming deal, but it was on an A7IV, so that's the way I went. I also added 3 lenses to the kit, the Tamron 17-28/2.8, the Sigma 100-400 and the Viltrox 40/2.5. Both zooms are reasonably compact and perform well, at a cost well below what I'd pay for Z mount equivalents, and they share the 67mm filter thread (which I already have a good filter kit for as it happens). As I got the 17-28 used as well, I ended up paying right around the current on-sale A7IV new price for the body & 17-28 pair. 

I've been playing around and so far I'm pretty happy with the A7IV. The grip is slightly less comfortable than the Z7's, which is acceptable in a body that's just slightly smaller than & lighter than the Z7. That's notable since the A7IV is nowhere near the smallest E mount full frame body, will the Z7 is in fact the smallest & lightest Z mount full frame body currently on the market (tied with the Z5 & Z6, all of which are dimensionally identical and 675g). The EVF is also worse, as Sony's implementations are worst in class for the specs, while Nikon's are generally bets in class if matching specs. But the A7IV's EVF is very much usable.

Getting the flip-twist screen back is definitely making me happy, the above shot was using it to get an easy low-angle shot in lousy conditions, no way I could have frames that on the Z7 without getting down on the  very wet ground. Plus the AF system is simply better, with the only complaint being that Sony still doesn't offer an AF-C+MF mode (DMF does that for AF-S, but there's no AF-C equivalent). The flip side is that I have so many more control points (4 dials, 6 custom buttons+AF-ON vs 2 dials and 3 custom buttons+AF-On, note I treat Record as a custom button on both cameras) and the Sony buttons are with one exception (C3) also easier to reach as they are either back right or top plate, vs 2 of the 3 Nikon buttons being on the front and more awkward to reach. And the Sony buttons are wildly more configurable with one caveat, as Bracketing is a Drive Mode on Sony, I can't assign it directly to a button, but since Continuous Bracket is in the Drive Mode menu, I don't need to dedicate 2 buttons to bracketing. I do have one button assigned to AF/MF toggle so it's under the thumb when I need it, 

The result is the Sony is pretty wildly more configurable and the items I adjust regularly can mostly be added to a wheel directly, so they don't eat buttons. Plus there's the 3 assignable D-pad buttons that I just leave as defaults (but which also can be customized). So I have a control setup I'm a fair bit happier with than on the Z7. I'm oddly happier with the A7IV so far than I'd expected to be, I hope that continues to be the case. We'll see how things play out in the long run, especially once I've got some real usage on the A7IV, but I suspect I might just have the body that meets my current set of compromises the best out of the options I had on the table. 

Tomorrow I'll get out and hopefully do some real shooting on the A7IV, looking forward to seeing how it goes. 

A Decision (Mostly) Made

Sony A7RIV, Tamron 70-300 FE

Well, I made my decision, for the most part.

After hemming & hawing a lot over the last week I went back to first principles and worked through what I actually wanted in a system. 

The first decision point was 'why not just double-down on the Z7, which I enjoy shooting'. That's an easy answer. The Z7 has a rated shutter life of 200,000 shots. My Z7 has over 316,000 on the clock. It's why it was so cheap and why I simply cannot rely on it as my hiking/landscape camera. It's fine as an Everyday Carry camera aside from size because if it fails, I'm not losing a large time or effort investment. 

The second was really 'what do I want in a system'. The answer is 3-fold. I want decent same-format options for EDC, a viable do-everything camera right now, an available high-pixel camera with decent performance and not too large a size and a good selection of lenses from the mundane to the downright weird, without the interesting lenses all being expensive (over $1500 CAD) or telephotos.

This disqualified Nikon (no EDC FX body, limited wide angle options, it only offers a lot of interesting glass from 35mm onwards, also nothing interesting in the gap between 105mm and 400mm for primes) and Canon (limited interesting lenses of any sort outside of some expensive weird 1st party lenses and a tiny handful of fully manual lenses, plus bad at adapting M lenses). But this also put Sony back on the table as it hits on all of them.

Next is simple, what exactly do I want in a do-everything body. And frankly, my ideal is the new Panasonic S1RII. Namely good ergonomics & viewfinder, ~45MP so I have usable crop and a nice to work with FF pixel count and a decent amount of speed (6-7fps is fine for general use, but I'd like to have over 10fps in my pocket for occasional use, especially with pre-capture). It would just barely be possible to do this, but unlike the S5II option, I couldn't add any extra glass or adapters until a later date. Plus it won't ship until next month. 

So do I compromise more on speed or on pixels. This really comes down to S5II vs A7IV here. S5II is more of a compromise on pixels, A7IV on speed. The other options in the pricerange all have single-axis tilt screens which is a real issue in the field for me (these are the Z7II, A7RIII and A7RIV). I could also stretch a bunch and get an A7RV, which has internally downsampled 26MP and 15MP modes, so it's both a very usable 26MP body and a crazy high resolution 61MP body, but that would very limiting on my lens budget (I can buy both of my planned hiking lenses for the cost difference between the two bodies). The A7RV has most of the same set of cost issues as the S1RII, but I do have access to a couple lenses plus the full set of adapters I'd want (at least in the case of borrowing them), but it's also a bit more money than the S1RII and I don't already have CFEa cards for it and unlike SD and CFEb, CFEa is still stupid money

So things just keep falling on 'get an A7IV' barring either tripping over a screaming deal on an A7RV or something else coming out of left field. 

 

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.