Wednesday, 10 November 2021
Friday, 5 November 2021
Wednesday, 27 October 2021
OMDS and Panasonic had big events advertised for today, both of which underwhelmed. OMDS announced they're dropping the Olympus branding in favour of OM System, a new slogan and a lot of clear focus on adventure photography. It's very clear where they're going and it's the right focus. But no lens announcements and only vague words about the upcoming 'wow' body that they've been hinting at in interviews.
Panasonic did even less. They had the 20th anniversary of the Lumix brand, a few weasel words about the GH6, but no announcement and a bunch more that basically come out as 'L is our future, we'll support m43 for video as long as it sells, forget m43 stills from Panasonic'. Not really surprising that pretty much every stills-focused Lumix Ambassador seems to have dropped either their Ambassadorship or their use of the Lumix system as a whole.
There were also some lens announcements. Tokina announced that they will now sell rebadged Viltrox lenses in E mount too, and their pricing is saner (only slightly more than Viltrox this time) and Samyang dropped their AF 12/2 in Fuji X mount.
Nikon's big day is tomorrow. Expected is the Z9, a new FTZII adapter addressing at least some of the complaints about the current one, plus 2 lenses and a development announcement for a third. The lenses expected are an f4 standard zoom (probably the 24-105 S on the roadmap), the 100-400 S and the announcement is expected to be the 400/2.8 S. This is a critical announcement for Nikon, their previous Z releases have all been very competent cameras, but have been overshadowed by their competition, even if they actually compare much better in the field than they do on paper. The Z9 is Nikon's first real attempt at making a body that truly is a world-beater and it needs to deliver. Nikon also needs to continue to build out the lens line, particularly at the long end where they remain weakest.
As for me, how does this affect things? I honestly don't know right now. I frankly like the Nikon body options better than what I can get for the same budget from Sony, but I like the Sony lens options better in general (the 24-70/4 being the big exception right now). I can't help but think that the Techart TZE-01 might be the real solution here, letting me use E mount lenses (Samyang excepted) on Z. Get one, a Z body and just use a mix of E and Z lenses until Z catches up.
Tuesday, 19 October 2021
The shot above demonstrates two things I do like about the Sony A7/A7R MkII's. The dynamic range and the Smooth Reflections App. Yes, this shot was taken in broad daylight at f11 and ISO 100 with only a polarizer. It's an 84-shot in camera stack using the Smooth Reflections app that Sony offered on the first two generations of FE Alpha bodies and sadly discarded on the newer bodies (these apps are also on the A6300 and A6500, I'm not sure about the A6000). With the Oly's I would not have been able to retain as much detail in the clouds while also keeping detail in the water in the foreground, and I would have been stuck using an ND filter where I could get away with just a polarizer on the Sony (that said, on a current Sony body I'd have been stuck with the ND filter as well).
Overall in terms of package size, the A7II/16-35 package is actually pretty reasonable in size. I didn't find it too big or heavy for hiking. It's definitely bigger than the Oly setup, but not too big. Same goes for the A7II/70-300 combo which I found much better to carry than the Z5/70-300E combo, unsurprising since the Tamron 70-300 is 135g lighter than and marginally smaller than the 70-300E alone, and I needed to add an FTZ to the 70-300E to use on the Z5, which made the 70-300E/FTZ package almost 30mm longer and another 135g heavier compared to the Tamron 70-300E. That's worth 1/3 stop penalty at the long end and no lens IS for me, at least on an IBIS-capable body.
Nikon really does need to round out its telephoto options on Z mount and it's not just the exotics that are missing. Actually, if Nikon could just get Tamron to release their FE lenses in Z it would go a long way to improving things. The telephoto trio in particular would be great in Z (70-300 f4.5-6.3, 70-180/2.8 and 150-500) although the 28-75 and 17-28 would probably interest some for their size/weight advantages while maintaining f2.8.
One thing that did drive me nuts however is classic Sony bad UI design. The Smooth Reflections app locks out BBAF, but if you don't have Shutter AF enabled and you do have the AF mode set to S-AF, you literally cannot focus while using the app. I lost a couple shots (and this one is web-size only) due to AF issues from this. I'll have to use the app in manual focus mode (which is an App setting and cannot be changed from the Fn button). Frankly, this is just one of many cases where it's clear that the firmware developers were not photographers but rather were building menus from a spec sheet. All the bits are there, they just conflict with each other and provide the world's least helpful error messages (aka the 'Invalid Operation' button issue, where one button on my A33 gave that error if pressed while the image quality is set to RAW)
Saturday, 16 October 2021
I've let some gear go as well. The E-M1 is gone, as are the 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 in m43 mount. The E-M1 was really only needed if I was going to run a 2-body m43 kit, and with those lenses gone I didn't have as much of a need for that. The 45 I let go because I barely used it at all. It's a REALLY good lens, but for the way I shoot the 12-40 at 40mm simply works better. The 75 I used as a faster alternative to the 40-150 f4-5.6R, but while the results were amazing, I always found it either too long, too short or too limited in MFD. All 3 of these went to get the Tamron 70-300, which is one half of a 2 lens Sony hiking kit.
The other lens is the Zeiss 16-35/4. I'd originally planned on getting the Tamron 17-28/2.8, but I was able to get a much better deal on the 16-35 and when working with only two lenses that 28-35mm range will give me more flexibility than f2.8 will for what I do. Biggest downside is the 16-35mm is 72mm filters while the 17-28 takes 67mm filters like the 70-300. I'm shooting these on my partner's A7II for now (actually, I expect she'll get the 70-300 long-term to replace her current telephoto, a Canon 75-300 on an adapter, I'll likely switch eventually to a 70-200/4)
For now, I'm not getting out of Micro 4/3rds. I've still got the E-M5II and 3 lenses, the 12-40/2.8 (which I love), the 17/18 (my webcam lens, also a nice street lens) and the 40-150R (the plastic fantastic of consumer telezooms).
As to why Sony, well there's two reasons.
1. My Partner already shoots it. We can share gear and for now I can just use her body, while she can use my lenses when we're out together.
2. All sorts of neat stuff available. Sigma's I series lenses, Sony's G compact primes, Samyang and Viltrox AF lenses, TTArtisans and 7Artisans manual lenses, etc.
I do like the Nikon bodies in my price range better, but the Sony ecosystem just works better for me right now. Of course, I could just get an AF adapter and use the Sony lenses on a Z6 or Z7 in the future. Who knows? It's not like I've settled on a body for myself in E mount yet, although it's basically down to an A7III or an A7RII at this point.
Monday, 11 October 2021
Nikon Z5, 50mm f1.8G
It’s times like this that I kind of wish I’d kept the Z5 even when I went all-in on m43. That would have given me an easy-out for my current GAS struggles, just get something for the Z5 and shoot it for a while.
I’m currently fighting off an attempt by my brain to argue that I should get rid of the Oly kit and go all-in on Sony. The reason being that I can get so much interesting stuff for Sony cameras. This of course ignores the reality that I already have the basics of a solid m43 kit and I’d be starting almost from scratch with Sony (I can borrow lenses from my partner, who has a basic Sony A7II kit)
What would Sony bring me?
1. Commonality with my Partner’s kit. She can borrow my glass, in a pinch I can borrow hers.
2. Better suited for adapting my solid selection of film lenses. I still have 24mm, 28mm, 2x35mm, 2x50mm, 55mm Macro, 105mm, 2x135mm, 200mm and 300mm options.
3. WIDE selection of available lenses. E/FE mount is the best supported mount today, especially for inexpensive primes, both manual and AF.
4. High-MP single-shot options. 36MP+
5. Fast AF if I get newer bodies (mkIII+)
What would it cost me?
1. Flip/Twist LCD. None of the bodies I’d be looking at would have anything other than a tilt LCD.
2. Multi-shot capabilities. If I get a MKIII body, I lose any in-body multishot capability. If I got an A7R, A7RII or A7II I’d at least have the Smooth Reflections app, which is actually better than Oly’s E-M1.3-only equivalent (LiveND). But going with the older body costs me the AF and handling improvements.
3. Lens selection. I currently have 5 m43 lenses covering 24mm-e to 300mm-e, and only one is at all weak (my little 40-150 f4-5.6R). While I still have gaps, it’s a pretty solid lens selection overall. I’d be starting from almost-scratch with AF lenses in any other mount.
One challenge is I know I just don’t love using primes when hiking. I get by, but I do prefer using compact, high-quality zooms like the m.Zuiko 12-40 f2.8 Pro. That lens is simply the hardest lens to replace in my kit and the biggest draw for remaining in m43. It’s quite literally why I sold the Z5 (which in hindsight might have been as big a mistake as selling the E-M1.2 was)
With regards to my other lenses, I’ve never quite gelled with the 75/1.8, it’s an amazing bit of glass but it doesn’t focus close enough and the focal length always seems either too long or too short. I continue to use it solely because it’s f1.8 and on m43 that matters a lot when I’m in darker areas of the forest, so it replaces the more flexible 40-150R due to that extra 2-3 stops of speed needed to make up for the noise limits of the m43 kit.
The 17/1.8 is pretty much just a webcam lens for me. I do use it when walking around in the city, but that’s generally it. The 45/1.8 is something I just don’t use much, the length makes it a people/street lens for me and I barely every do that these days. At its current cost, it’s a keeper for sure, but it’s not something I’m really needing either. I bought it as much because I found the 105mm too long too often on the Z5 as anything else.
The gripping hand here is that Z6’s and Z7’s are comparatively cheap on the used market right now. As bodies, they will work well for me based on my experience with the Z5. The challenge there is glass, it’s very good, but doesn’t really feed my cheap/fun glass addiction the way Sony can.
What do I really want? A Z7 with FE lens selection, flip-twist screen and Oly software…
Saturday, 9 October 2021
I think I will be getting another body soon. But I’m going to try and do the right thing and get another m43 body, ideally an E-M1.2/3, but I might try a G9 as an alternative, the pricing is really good on them right now, enough so that it could outweigh the software features that Oly would give me by going E-M1.2/3
I still really do feel an attraction to shooting Full Frame though. Not sure how that will play out long term. But I could see also buying a cheap Z7 at some point just to play with. They seem to be dropping nicely in price. While I definitely am attracted to the Sony system, I’m just not that interested in the bodies that I could realistically get at the moment.
Friday, 24 September 2021
On the Photography Gear side, little has changed. I'm still using the E-M5.2 as my primary, mostly with the 12-40 Pro, and the E-M1 as a backup/long-lens body. Still want an E-M1.2 or E-M1.3, a 40-150 Pro and some wide option (probably the new 8-25/4), but those are mostly long-term plans, the current kit works well enough for now and Oly has one new lens coming that I want to see before I decide my priorities, a new 40-150/4 Pro.
Expect to see some Overland-related content here as I go forward, the journey is as much of the fun as the images I come back with and I now have a vehicle that can be setup to take me to places that were inaccessible with the Forester, at least running Solo as I so often do.
Tuesday, 29 June 2021
Thursday, 24 June 2021
Why did I pick it up? To minimize lens changes while I'm hiking. I noticed I kept losing shots when I needed a telephoto lens on the E-M5II and I had the 12-40 mounted, but I kept swapping to get wide/closeup shots with the 12-40. This will let me leave the 75 or the 40-150 on the E-M1 and the 12-40 on the E-M5II while hiking. This is the one spot where the Z5/E-M5II combo worked better than a single body with a full set of lenses. This will probably become the 40-150 Pro on the E-M1 and the 12-40 on the E-M5II. Long term goal on the lens setup is probably the 8-25/4 as the wide and the 40-150 Pro as the tele option, with the 12-40 covering the middle if needed.
Why the E-M1? I know the body, know it will deliver a better long-lens experience than the E-M5II, it uses the same batteries as the E-M5II and it's cheap. I fully intend on getting a newer 20MP body eventually, at which point I'll probably demote the E-M1 to webcam usage (which is where it will spend most of the time anyways, it'll come off Webcam duty only when I need it)
The main downside to the E-M1 is the tilt screen. Yeah, it's one reason I sold the Z5, but with the E-M1 I'm not limited to using certain lenses only with that body, I can swap between the two bodies as needed since they have identical lens compatibility.
There's a few other issues of course, the E-M1 lacks the level of control over the EVF/LCD switching the E-M5II has and I use that a lot, the control layout isn't quite the same (that's more an issue for the E-M5II, the E-M1 layout is better) and there's no way to fast-sleep the E-M1 (the E-M5II can sort-of do it when the LCD is turned in and the EVF is set to activate on the eye sensor)
Sunday, 13 June 2021
I'm very much digging this little gem. I will however get a 37mm to 46mm step-up ring so I can have consistent filters across my small primes. But I see this lens getting a lot of use around town.
The best part? It's so small that it can just be tossed in a pocket along with a battery when I'm out shooting with the 17mm. I could totally see eventually getting one of the Laowa UWA's (7.5mm or 10mm) for an ultra-compact and tiny 3 lens kit that fits in a small belt pouch or large pocket when paired with an E-M5 series body.
Saturday, 12 June 2021
Don't get me wrong, I still think the Z5's a great camera, and it's definitely a better low-light & long lens camera than the E-M5II. But I'm more a wide angle guy and the Z5's advantages (better AF, better sensor, better EVF) are less useful to me than the E-M5's advantages (better LCD articulation, better normal zoom, better IBIS)
So I traded in the Z5/24-50 kit, FTZ, 50/1.8G and 70-300E and came home with a 40-150 f4-5.6 R, 17/1.8, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8. That gives me a basic tele zoom for good light that I know performs well (it's copy #3 at least for me, maybe #4), and a fast and compact AF 35mm equivalent (the 17/1.8), I've owned it before and while it's not amazing, it's quite compact.
The other two lenses I've not owned before, but they give me a truly tiny 90mm equivalent and a nicely sized and extremely good performing 150mm equivalent, both with f1.8. Both have long been on the list of m43 lenses I've wanted to own.
I will need a second body though, the AF-C of the E-M5II is just not usable. That will no doubt be an E-M1 Mark II or III. An UWA is also needed, as is the 40-150 f2.8 Pro. And I'll probably pick up a fast normal as well.
But for now I have two really usable 2-lens kits with the E-M5II. The 12-40 can pair with the 75 very well, and the 17 & 45 pair well. One for really light carry, one for serious work. And the 40-150 can be thrown in the bag whenever I want a little long-lens coverage.
Plus the 17 can stay on the E-M5II when using it as a webcam, so when I have that second body I can have a kit ready to go while still having the webcam hooked up.
Friday, 11 June 2021
Laowa announced an updated version of their 7.5mm f2 UWA for m43 today. The main change is this is now a fully coupled lens with electronic aperture control and a linked focus ring (so focus ring movement can trigger focus assists like peaking or magnification). It's still manual focus, still 46mm filter threads, close focus is 0.12m and it now has 5 aperture blades (vs 7 on the older versions).
Laowa joined the m43 consortium a while ago and that lets them do fully-integrated lenses. This is the third one from them, after the 50/2.8 Macro and the 10/2 UWA. Of course they've done uncoupled manual lenses before, including two variations of the 7.5mm (the standard and an ultralight one for drone use) and those continue in the line.
It's good to see more functionality coming here. Laowa's one of the most innovative lens manufacturers today, specializing in UWA's and macro's, although they're starting to branch out into general fast primes. They are also offering something that's been really lacking in m43 since day one, which is primes wider than 12mm (24mm-e). As a bonus their stuff is small, optically good and has unusually excellent close focus.
It's no secret I'm very fond of my Laowa 15mm f4 Macro in F mount, and this really is the m43 equivalent, just without the 1:1 magnification. I can live without that for a much smaller lens and 46mm filters.
The size of this lens makes it an absolutely amazing small wide option for the E-M5, E-M10 or Pen shooter and it's practical on the regular E-M1's, although I'd expect a lens this small would be somewhat hilarious to use on the E-M1X.
Between this and the new 8-25 PRO, it's been a killer week for m43 wide shooters. It's great to see some movement in a system that has had so little action in terms of new gear over the last few years.
I'd love one of these for my E-M5II
Wednesday, 9 June 2021
OMDS announced the 8-25/4 Pro today, alongside the E-P7. The body is pretty much an E-M10 Mark IV stuffed inside a Pen body, with the neat color/mono switch from the Pen-F added. Small, inexpensive and really adjustable JPEG profiles, but aside from being dual dial (why it's an E-P body instead of an E-PL body) there's nothing particularly stand-out. Asia/EU only though, but that's the real market for these.
The 8-25 however is the real standout. CDN pricing is a bit better than I expected at $1399 (I was expecting $1449). It's a collapsing lens, which is unexpected. Good close focus performance, which was expected, what looks like excellent flare performance and a really solid range. 72mm filter size is also outstanding, it's the smallest filter thread on a zoom this wide and also allows shared filters between the 40-150 Pro and the 8-25, which is a really nice bonus. Unlike some makers (Nikon, cough, cough) Oly seems to be trying to minimize the filter size options, with the Pro lenses mostly using 62mm or 72mm filters (the outliers are the compact 12-45 which is 58mm like many of the non-Pro line and the 150-400 which takes 95mm filters, plus the 7-14 and 8mm fisheye which do not allow screw-in filters due to front element shape)
The press release however talks about the 0.42x effective magnification at 25mm and MFD, which has the internet up in arms as that's not the real magnification of the lens (which is 0.21x, and is actually in the tech specs for the lens). This complaint is technically correct, but useless for folks who are not doing the very few types of photography where knowing the reproduction ratio is key. For most photographers doing close-up work, including myself, the key aspect is filling the frame, and for that effective magnification allows you to readily compare with Full Frame, which has become everybody's standard point for comparison.
I've actually found this very useful, especially with my 55mm Micro-Nikkor, which does 1:2 macro (0.5x), and is much more useful on m43 for macro work than on FF, where working distance for a given framing is very limited. You effectively get more working distance for a given framing from m43 with a lens of a given actual magnification, which makes the 1:2 macros much more useful on m43 than on FF.
For comparison, at 1:1 magnification on my Z5, the new Nikkor Z MC 50mm has 16cm working distance, the Z MC 105mm has 31cm working distance and at the same composition the Micro-Nikkor 55mm has 24cm working distance on m43. Going from 16cm to 24cm for the same composition is a big gain in working distance which is a major benefit when doing macro work.
Sunday, 6 June 2021
I still do feel affection for the system, it's a solid choice but not for me for landscape work. I just don't get along with the colour science. Not enough deep blue. REALLY nice B&W output though, Fuji is probably my favourite for B&W tones out of the box. I still do think it's odd I can't get Provia colour from the camera made by Provia's maker and which includes a 'Provia' setting (which looks nothing like Provia btw)
At this point I've taken almost 1400 images with the E-M5 Mark II that replaced the Fuji stuff, that's in about 5 weeks with some hiking involved. That's reasonable, especially since I'm basically shooting with one lens welded on, namely the 12-40 f2.8 Pro.
I did use my Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 AI a bunch today, it's really nice on the E-M5 II, much more usable than on the Z5 where the working distance limits me more (in terms of filling the frame, the crop factor makes the 55 Micro at 1:2 actual magnification functionally the same as a 110 Macro at 1:1 on Full Frame)
The Z5 is coming up on 3400 shots, with 2 months more ownership. That's a solid increase since early May, but overall a lower rate than the E-M5 II so far. A lot of that is that the E-M5 II is just a better walkabout camera in most regards, with a much more flexible normal zoom, in terms of range, close focus ability and speed.
The close focus ability is the real game changer here, it just makes the 12-40 so much more useable for around the neighbourhood shooting than the Z 24-50 is. Even the 24-70/4 S cannot match the close focus of the 12-40 Pro.
The more flexible flip/twist LCD setup on the E-M5 II also contributes here. It makes low and odd angle shooting so much easier it's not funny, especially as I shoot a lot of portrait orientation work. If I did mostly landscape orientation the Z5's LCD would be way less limiting.
I would love a Z5-level EVF on the Oly's. The difference in EVF quality and transparency is immense. With the Oly's you are clearly looking at an electronic display, the Z5 however just seems to show what's going on, like a regular OVF with more data.
The Z5 also comes out ahead in terms of AF. More flexibility and more control than the E-M5 II. The one thing the E-M5 II does particularly well is handle when the scene is totally out of focus. The Z5 struggles, the E-M5 II pauses for a bit then starts racking through the focus range to try and find a subject.
A wildcard that's been thrown in on system selection for me is that Olympus/OMDS is no longer regular stock items at any major retailer. Henry's, Vistek and Downtown Camera all now treat it as Special Order. I need to figure out if I can live with that. That said, it's not like there's a lot of kit I'd be looking to add either way.
For now, I'm going to keep tracking my usage to see if a clear winner emerges between the two cameras. If not, I'll have to make some sort of decision later this summer.
Thursday, 3 June 2021
The first images of the upcoming m.Zuiko PRO 8-25mm f4 leaked today, along with the upcoming E-P7 body (the first new body in that line in years).
The E-P7 doesn't much interest me, although it looks competent at what it is, especially if it gets the PDAF variant of the 20MP sensor and is priced in a sane manner.
But the 8-25/4 on the other hand is extremely interesting as I pretty much am the target market for a compact UWA to normal zoom. In full-frame terms it's a 16-50mm lens, it's weather sealed, f4 across the range, reasonably compact and a 72mm filter thread.
In practical matters that means it's an extremely viable foundation for a 1-lens kit, and it matches extremely well with the 40-150 f2.8 Pro as a 2 lens kit, especially since both use 72mm filters.
I could do a lot of work successfully pairing the 8-25 with a 60 macro, 75/1.8 or the 40-150 f2.8 PRO as needed. Nikon does offer an excellent 14-30/4, but that is much larger and uses more expensive 82mm filters vs the much less expensive 72mm filters.
While I've been expecting this lens for a while, it's been on the roadmap since last year, getting some details means that the release should be soon and that means it should be out before I truly commit one way or another to m43 or Z as my future system.
I went over the hiking kits a couple posts ago, the 8-25 would let me drop a lens from that kit, the 8-25 would be the UWA and Normal zoom and could let me leave the 12-40 at home when I'm going really light, with a 2 body kit no lens changes at all would be needed when shooting, just switch bodies as I go. I wouldn't get rid of the 12-40, but I suspect it would get a lot less use.
The real gripping hand here is light carry. With m43 the E-M5 series fills that need very well, especially if paired with the ultra-compact primes available in the system. With Z, there is no really good option. The Z50 is not as small, Z has few to no small primes available and you're dealing with a split format system.
The reality is that as much as I like Z, m43 is a far more mature system. Unsurprising as one has been around for 13 years and the other for 3. Nikon's done an amazing job so far with Z and you can cover the gaps with F glass (at a size/weight cost), but if I pick on maturity and flexibility, m43 delivers far more, and even more if I look at size and weight alongside that. I just need to do more work to get the same level of IQ for landscape work and I lose a decent amount of high ISO capability, offset by a better availability of fast glass for more reasonable cost.
When comparing costs, for the base hiking kit, Z makes more sense for sure, even if I go dual body I'm a lot closer to completion.
However for a full kit, the m43 can get there quicker and cheaper, as pretty much everything except the 8-25 is already available and most of it is decidedly cheaper than the Z options.
So yep, back in analysis paralysis.....If I could just stick to a system that would be nice....
Wednesday, 2 June 2021
Today Nikon finally launched some new gear. After a long drought since last fall's Z6II & Z7II, Nikon announced both of the Macro lenses on their Z roadmap, the Nikkor MC 105mm f2.8 S VR and the Nikkor MC 50mm f2.8, which will be shipping in the next few weeks.
The 105 is looking very good. Nikon launched it at a lower price than I expected ($999USD, $100 more than the somewhat unimpressive 105VR it replaces) and delivered a lens that they are promising to deliver both excellent macro performance and excellent performance if using as a portrait lens. Still no real VR/IBIS integration though. This lens is on my wishlist for sure, I love doing macro and close focus work and often find my current options too limiting. 62mm filter size, which is somewhat annoying (Can't Nikon settle on a standard set of filter sizes? Right now it's almost one of each size in the Z lineup)
The 50 also looks good. It's $50USD more than the 60mm f2.8G it replaces, which is reasonable. Interestingly it uses 46mm filters, same as the 16-50DX. not a cheap lens, but it would be a great gap lens between the 14-30/4 S and a 70-300 for a lightweight and mobile kit. Interesting, but not a must-buy for me. I do like that it's 50mm rather than 60mm, as that gaps better (although I'd rather have 55mm or 60mm on DX).
We also got pictures and a couple specs on the 28 & 40mm Muffin lenses. Yes, they aren't pancakes. The 28 is f2.8 and the 40 is f2, the filter size is 52mm (yes!) and the mount is plastic. No pricing, optical specs or ETA beyond 'before end of 2021'. The plastic mount suggests some nice aggressive pricing on these two lenses and they're both pretty much must-haves for me. Love to see a 85/2.8 or 100/2.8 to round out a nice trio of inexpensive primes for the Z5. I don't care about plastic mounts as long as the pricepoint isn't too high. Rather trash a $200 lens than a $1k+ camera.
The 40/2 in particular goes a LONG way to addressing my biggest issue with the Z5, which is 'cheap body, expensive glass'. A Nifty 40 is perfect for this, without being too close to either the 35/1.8 S or 50/1.8 S.
Actually, that reminds me that a 55/2 Muffin would be a nice choice to round out this line as well, as it would be a great portrait lens on the Z50 while being a nice long normal that a 40/2 user might consider as well. But Nikon needs to get the 28 & 40 into stores first. They've promised a LOT for FY 2021 (30 lenses released in Z mount, do note that due to Nikon's fiscal year, their promise is for the period of April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022, not by end of calendar year 2021)
Monday, 31 May 2021
Did make a few errors, mostly prior to leaving. First off, I forgot to charge my Z5 and had 52% battery when I got to the trailhead. Big takeaway there is that I need a USB-C PD capable adapter in the car, either a small power USB power panel or a 12V car adapter widget, my current unit just isn't delivering the power necessary to charge my Z5 (or my iPhone and iPad Pro for that matter). I also forgot one charged battery for the E-M5II, and of my 2 spares there, one wasn't charged either. Luckily I caught this early enough that I could use one of my USB charging docks to half-charge the spare BLN-1 on the drive (these docks don't pull a lot of power from the USB port, so they work with my current car adapter, but they're also very slow to charge, ~4 hours to full). Finally I forgot my PD Leash wrist strap, which I really like having for security when working in places where a dropped camera would be a catastrophic loss.
I spent the first half of the hike shooting both bodies, with the 70-300E on the Z5 and the 12-40PRO on the E-M5II. That mostly worked well, although to be honest I was really missing the Z5's better AF system control for some of the work I shot with the E-M5II. I did a bit of long-exposure work on the E-M5II here, and it mostly worked pretty well. The only real issue I had was one really nice shot that could have worked better if I'd bracketed it and merged the two images in post and I didn't think to do so. I took a break about halfway in at a nice shoreline rest spot and did some long-exposure work with both the E-M5II and the Z5. I did not have a re-occurrence of the issues with getting a usable display with ND filters on the Z5, I think now that it was a combination of the polarizer (I did notice both bodies displays darkened more with the polarizer than with a 10-stop ND fitted, but exposures were generally good) and the sun position (shining directly into the EVF sensor)
After the rest stop, I stuck the E-M5II in the pack and shot the rest of the hike only with the Z5 as a test. I used all 3 lenses, the Laowa 15/4 Macro, the Z 24-50 and the 70-300E. This worked generally well, but swapping lenses between the Z 24-50 and 70-300E is a pain when trying to work quickly (the 15 really doesn't suit quick work in the first place, so it's not so much of an annoyance). I really did appreciate the generally quicker control of the body, especially of the AF system. For all that there's some really valid complaints about the limited AF controls on the Z's vs the F mount bodies, they do generally do better than most comparable mirrorless bodies once you get used to the setup.
Moving between the two dissimilar interfaces in the E-M5II and Z5 is an exercise in aggravation, as the UI's are different enough and the capabilities also different enough that I have to context switch too much. The E-M5II has a lot of nice extra features, but I do have to work to access them, most are menu dives, the Z5 is a much faster body to work with and while the Super Control Menu is a lot more capable than the 'i' menu, the 'i' menu is more configurable and quicker to access.
This shows me that I really would be better off with 2 bodies in the same mount when working in the field, not 2 dissimilar bodies. Nikon is probably the easier to do this with as all the FX Z bodies are essentially identical in UI aside from the mode dial location and presence of a top LCD. Olympus would require two E-M1.2/3 bodies to get full benefit of a similar UI between both bodies, the E-M5's have the same basic menu structure as the E-M1's, but the body control layout is quite different with the E-M1's actually being closer to the Z's in control layout.
If I was to go to a 2 similar body setup on the Z's, I basically need the 24-70S (on my list already as long as I keep the Z5) and a new body to get all the basics covered. That could be a Z6 or Z5, or I could save up a bit more and get a used Z7 and get that glorious 45MP sensor and some extra crop capability. The Z50 is a non-option here as it can't share batteries with the Z5 and the UI is just enough different to make it a less than ideal change from the Z5.
On the Olympus side I'd need an UWA, a 40-150 Pro and eventually 2 bodies (as the E-M5II doesn't match up well to the E-M1's for UI, so the E-M5II+E-M1 combo runs into a lot of the same issues as the E-M5II+Z5 combo). That's more glass, but on the body side I can add one, get the glass, then add another body later. But here I need the glass too, and relatively quickly. Costs are the same short term (a 40-150 Pro + E-M1.2 costs the same as a used Z7, but I could get another Z5 for about the same cost as an E-M1.2) and a 9-18 or Laowa 7.5 cost on par with a 24-70/4 S.
The more I look at this, the more the Z system seems to draw ahead. As much as the computational photography extras help m43, the ones I have today really only serve to match what I can get single-shot with a Z, and the extras on the E-M1's are things that would be nice, but I don't need all that much (like ProCapture and Handheld high-res). LiveBulb is the real kicker here, but I've not used it that much at all. The long shutter limit of the earlier Z bodies (before the Z6II/Z7II) is a real annoyance, I can just use bulb, but then I need to math and hand-time. But I can do that if needed.
Wednesday, 26 May 2021
Got out yesterday for another hike, same setup as last time, mostly shooting with the Z5/70-300E and E-M5II/12-40PRO combos. I spent a little time with the Z24-50 on the Z5, but I got frustrated with it quite quickly. I was shooting in bright sunlight and wanted to use my 10 stop ND+ Polarizer, but I could not get the Z5 to give me a workable display. Ended up using the 5 stop instead, which was just barely enough. I was a little surprised, as I've used the 10 stop successfully on the Z5/24-50 combo before, but I suspect I was running into a combination of LCD auto-brightness, limited max shutter speed and LV Settings simulation.
I didn't yet have any ND filters that fit my 12-40 Pro, so I couldn't swap that in for long-exposure work, although somewhat ironically, I got home to find that Amazon had delivered a 62mm 10 stop ND a day early. Really could have used that on the hike.
I'm using Gobe/URTH ND filters, which are a decent budget option. They do have a colour cast (regardless of advertising, all but the most pricey ND filters have colour casts), but it's a relatively easily corrected warming effect. I do want to get a high-end ND/Polarizer setup, but those are expensive enough that I want to know exactly what set I need before investing, which requires my gear setup to settle down.
That means I really do need to settle on my landscape kit. If I continue down the m43 path there I get a much more mature system, a smaller one and a lot of very useful features available right now. Plus if nothing else the bodies are a lot cheaper, especially once the Z9 ships (which should cost double what an E-M1X costs, that's the closest comparable m43 body).
If I go down the Z path, I'll be waiting for stuff and have to carry more weight, but the basics are in place today, the glass is every bit as good and I can go up to 45 or more MP right now and get a lot of flexibility in terms of cropping that way.
The real challenge is every time I go out with the E-M5II, I'm reminded how good and small the E-M1II setup was, and every time I go out with the Z5 I'm reminded how good the performance is there. But when I carry both I get annoyed at the AF of the E-M5II (seriously inferior to the Z5) and how limited the Z5 is on the tripod (seriously inferior in LCD viewing angles and multi-shot capabilities to the E-M5II)
Wednesday, 19 May 2021
The last couple weeks I've been struggling with motivation again. Not to get out and shoot, but to get out and shoot with my film cameras. After a very active March & April where I shot 20-ish rolls of film, I'm just reaching for the digital bodies every time I leave the house.
Some of this is just my usual addiction to shooting flowers in the spring. I don't like doing that on film, but love it on digital, especially with the E-M5II/12-40PRO combo which is a nearly perfect setup for flower photography. Some is that I've pretty much shot everything there is close to home at least 5 times and I only really enjoy constant revisiting when shooting flowers/insects.
The challenge here is that my Film Instagram gets a lot more interest than my digital one does. I generally see 25-30 likes on the first 24 hours of posting to the film IG, and 6-7 likes on the regular IG. This is despite having 50% more followers on the regular one.
So I sort of want to chase Likes, but on the other hand forcing myself to make photographs is a prescription for even more motivation loss. If I push myself too much to make film work, I'll just end up sticking everything in the bag and leaving it alone for a while, and that while might end up being years.
That said, I think I'll just grab the F2a and 35/2 AI today, along with a spare roll of HP5+. I need to run out and get some milk at lunch and that's always a good walk for film (east on Eglinton Ave West between Allen Rd and Bathurst St)
Sunday, 16 May 2021
5. I don't regret owning the Z5, even if I regret buying it. It does work very well for me regardless of whether or not the alternative would have worked better.
So what am I going to do? For now, I'll be looking to get the 24-70/4 S for the Z5, as a 24-50 replacement with better range and better weather sealing & low temperature performance, then I suspect I'll concentrate on building out the m43 kit to where it needs to be to be a complete standalone system.
The big kicker for me now is what do I do as an UWA for the m43 stuff. Do I go with the obvious and get a 7-14/2.8 (and pay through the nose for filters and a holder), do I wait for the upcoming 8-25/4, or do I get an alternate option like the Laowa 7.5/2 or the Leica 8-18/2.8-4. This will probably be the last hurdle I solve, and it may end up with multiple options (I could readily see having the 7-14 for rough conditions and 1-2 Laowa primes for compact carry)
Thursday, 13 May 2021
I don't see any high-end lenses short term, they're just too heavy and too expensive.
Wednesday, 12 May 2021
If I do build my m43 kit back out, and that's looking very likely, this is what it would likely look like.
E-M5.2, 9-18, 40-150R, either a 14-42 EZ or a 25/1.8
Around the city:
E-M5.2, Laowa 10/2, P14/2.5, 17/1.8, 25/1.8, 45/1.8
E-M1.2/3, wide, 12-40 Pro, 40-150 Pro, 1.4x TC?
The good news is that there's really only 3 major investments here, the E-M1.2 or 1.3, the 40-150 Pro and a backcountry wide (if I go for a zoom rather than the Laowa 7.5mm). Almost everything else can be acquired cheaply except the 9-18 and Laowa 10/2, and frankly I could get away with only one of those for a good while and they're not that big an investment in the first place.
What about the Z5? To be frank, I'm not sure. I'm leaning towards keeping it, because if I sell it I'll just buy another Full Frame body because I can't resist the idea of FF and using all that lovely classic FF glass on it, and if I do that I'll probably do something silly like sell the m43 kit like I did to get my last A7II and also to get the Z5. What I really need to decide is if I'm going to add a 70-300E to my kit so I have a fully working hiking kit with the Z5. There's an insanely good sale on that lens this month, so I could grab one on Friday and then have a Z5 hiking kit of the 15/4, 24-50 and 70-300E for now (and eventually the E-M1 kit would semi-replace it with something that's better for bad conditions). Plus the Z5 could continue as a fun lens/bad light system long-term as well as being the digital in the film bag, a role m43 simply cannot do for me. I'd probably see the Z system grow with a few M or LTM lenses.
My film kit doesn't need much, I need a better 35mm, a small 20mm, a 85/90mm and a 135mm. Oh, and the tools I need to clean up my 200/4 so it can be used on film again (it's got a stuck aperture and I only use it on digital as a result, but I really do like the lens). The lenses will get added slowly over time but I really don't need much investment in my 35mm film kit, it's pretty complete even now.