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. 

Z7 Gear Plans

 

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

So, what plans do I have for the Z7 in terms of what goes on front of the lens. 

Adapters:

The TTArtisan 6-bit M-Z Adapter is the first on my list. This is a major benefit if I want to expand my use of M lenses past my Nikkor-S.C 5cm f1.4 LTM and even worth it for just that lens as it enables EXIF data and trap focus. 

Second adapter will be an EF to Z adapter, for my CV 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar SLII in EF mount. This is second largely because of the fact I also have a Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro in N-AF form that I can use on the FTZ with the same functionality, but it's not as nice a lens to use even if it does focus closer. 

Third will be an E to Z electronic adapter, so I can use pretty much any E mount lens. Probably the MegaDAP unless the recently announced Viltrox gets rave reviews before I purchase it.

Lenses:

Nikon F mount Manual Focus - Likely not much here. I want a 135/2.8 AI-S, a 28/2.8 AI-S and either a 85/1.8K or a ZF.2 85/1.4 Planar. There's a handful of other lenses on my 'buy for the right price' list, largely Zeiss although another Voigtlander 58/1.4 SLII in the original rubber grip version would be high on the list (and a 110, 125 or 180 CV would be interesting for the right price). However these are larger and handle less well on mirrorless so while I do intend to keep acquiring some slowly, they are not a priority.

Leica LTM/M lenses - I'd like to build a small system here. Likely going to be heavy on the Chinese offerings, the 7Artisan Wen 35/1.4 is high on my list and has been for several years. This will be a slow buy as these aren't exactly cheap, even if they aren't expensive

Native Z Manual lenses - I'm probably going to go hog wild on the cheap DX stuff, it's one of the main reasons why I went with the Z7. All sub-$250CAD though, no fancy DX, only cheap & fun. I'll keep my eye out for interesting FX glass though, there's a couple Voigtlanders that are on my long-term interest list like the 40/1.2 and the 75/1.5. Oh, and Laowa has some fun ones too. Long term the FX manual primes will probably become the real core of my kit outside of hiking setups. 

Nikon F mount AF lenses - Not much will happen here. I'm only really interested in the f1.4's (aside from the 50mm's which are not impressive), the PF lenses and a couple telezooms (80-400G, 70-200's, 70-300E), with the latter as alternatives to expensive Z offerings for hiking. All cases have to be the right price before I'll look seriously. 

Canon EF mount lenses - Aside from the 135L, most interest here is for ZE or CV lenses if the right price is in EF mount instead of F mount. 

Native Z AF lenses - S 14-30/4, the two F4 midrange zooms, 180-600 all interest. For primes, the f1.4's again, the compact offerings and maybe the 20/1.8 and 85/1.8 S's (which are the most interesting of the f1.8 S line). Also the Viltrox primes and maybe the Tamron 70-300. We'll see how the lineup grows long-term. Plus there's a bunch of cheap AF primes coming out, they're of interest here (both DX and FX). 

Some Thoughts on 'Soul' in Cameras and Lenses

 

Nikon Z7, Z 40mm f2.0

One thing I dislike about a lot of modern gear is that it lacks Soul. But that's not always a bad thing as well.

In order to understand this, you really have to figure out first what 'Soul' is to you in regards to camera gear. Then you have to decide when you want 'Soul' and when you just want a tool that simply delivers the goods. 

For me, it's a fairly simple definition. It's the existence of flaws in an interesting but non-aggravating manner. Some of these flaws can even actually be pleasing.

The Sony A7RIV and A7II both have flaws and lack soul, because the flaws in question were either invisible to me for the way I work, or aggravating. A lot of the frustration here is just Sony's predilection for 'invalid operation' buttons (ie UI aspects that unexpectedly just don't. Some call this the S*ny effect for all the asterixes in their manuals calling out where settings conflict or disable items unexpectedly). Conversely the R6 didn't really have any flaws that aggravated me, it also didn't really have any that interested me. Same for the lenses, they were tools, nothing more. Good tools, but that's it (the R7 had both one interesting flaw, that weird rear control dial, and one aggravating one, the AF losing its shit when there's a busy background)

Conversely most Zeiss lenses have a specific rendering flaw that is exceptionally pleasing. This is a loss of contrast in out of focus areas as compared to the in focus areas. That creates the classic Zeiss '3D Pop' look, as opposed to the flat 'greenscreen' pop you get from a more perfect lens (such as the Nikon 135 Plena or many of the most modern Leica lenses). I prefer the rendering from the less 'perfect' lens, although I also see value in the more 'perfect' lens as it will never surprise you. The 'perfect' lens is a perfect tool, predictable and always delivering as expected. The less perfect lens gives some happy little accidents that result in more interesting images. 

I'm in particular fond of lenses with some spherical aberration wide open, that gives that 'classic' fast lens rendering and few flaws. I also like lenses with good center performance and somewhat unique rendering elsewhere in the frame. 

I don't like lenses that are just unsharp overall, or are both expensive and not generally flaw-free at f8. The flaws have to be interesting, not aggravating. Handling flaws are the same for me. Weird handling? Sure. Sloppy zoom or uncomfortable focus rings? No thanks. 

I've long been fighting the draw of having a simple, effective kit and an 'interesting' kit. One part of this is I didn't until recently really understand when and where I preferred each half of that equation, or why that was the case. I think I understand it better and that means I know better how to build a kit that fits both needs I have.

In short, when I'm out shooting landscape/nature, I really want a kit that doesn't get in my way and lets me get the shot I need. That's generally a UWA that give 18-20mm or equivalent view, a normal-ish zoom and a close focusing telezoom capable of 300-400mm. The most wiggle room is in the first two, a UWA zoom and normal prime can work here, or a UWA prime and normal zoom. I think I prefer the latter these days. 

However in and around the city, I want a small kit of primes that have some interesting or unique aspect to them. 

The answer really is just two have 2 bags. One for Landscape/hiking, one for city work. The latter is the weird glass and the shelf cycles through it, the other one is the 'boring' lenses, or at least 1-2 'boring' zooms and 1 or 2 'interesting' lenses (UWA and macro or tele prime). Body-wise that could be either 1 or 2 bodies, but they have to be reasonably cross-compatible (mount yes, battery preferred, cards not so much a requirement so long as I'm not stuck buying weird or expensive cards)

Note I also do need a 'video' body for the Youtube tutorial videos I do, but that just needs a flippy screen or external display option, a reasonably close focusing normal zoom and a mic input, I don't need AF or anything else, so all sorts of oddball options can work there, even an old DSLR if it can take my Nikon lenses (so a Nikon or Canon)

Revisiting Old Takes on Nikon Z

 

Nikon Z7, Nikkor Z 40mm f2.0

I've been trawling through my post archives looking at some of my previous thoughts on Nikon Z as a system and some of its challenges.

It's no secret I think Z had significant issues early on due to the poor mid-range decontenting decisions that have plagued Nikon starting with the D7500 (arguably with the Df) and continued up through the Z6/Z7 at least (and arguably somewhat still on the Z6II/Z7II), only truly ending with the Z9's arrival and subsequent saner choices in decontenting in the newer Z8, Zf and Z6III. I'm still very strongly on board with that take on the system. These aren't bad bodies at all, but Nikon shot themselves in the foot with some poor decision making and pricing.

My second beef was the poor choice to use XQD (later CFe) as the primary storage on the Z6 line in particular. Only the Z5 and ZF have used UHS-II SD as primary in the FX lineup to this day. The two early Z6's should have been fast dual-SD setups. The original Z6 in particular doesn't exceed UHS-II write speeds in the first place, so the very expensive and hard to get cards were a poor choice back then. Today things are different, though CFe is still significantly more expensive than SD aside from the very fastest SD cards, you can now reliably get CFe cards for $100USD or less, making them much more viable than cards which cost 10% or more of the body cost as things were when the Z6 first shipped. Frankly, today SD is largely a dying format kept alive by the lower end of the stills camera market, with the rest using either CFe or MicroSD, so while Nikon certainly paid a serious price for moving too early and too low in the lineup on the Z6, they are now in a better position and one of the main blockers on buying into the Z6/Z7 used is largely gone. You still need new cards, but you aren't spending the cost of a lens on a card + reader unless you really want to. The card cost issue has blocked me from buying a Z6 or Z7 several times prior to my final acquisition of one last week (along with a $130CAD 128GB CFe card, a very reasonable price for the performance and capacity)

The third was the utter lack of 3rd party support for Z early on, with RF getting 3rd party lens support first. Oh how that changed in 2020/2021 when Canon locked their mount out and Nikon became the default second mount for lenses (except for Sigma, who continues to prioritize L mount as their second mount and only dabbles in Z). Canon has started to open things up again, at least for RF-S, but still lags massively (and for the widely available manual uncoupled lenses, Nikon's far better implementation of the support UI remains a major advantage). 

The fourth is one that has both been addressed and certainly remains. That's the Z5's pricing problem (which also affects the Zf to an extent as that's now Nikon's other real 'entry level' FX body offering SD cards, 24MP and a $2000USD or less price). While the 28 and 40 muffin lenses, and the newer 35/1.4 and 50/2.4 mostly address this for the normal to wide prime range, the zoom issue remains. Nikon NEEDS a good consumer UWA zoom (replacement for the under-appreciated 18-35G) and a consumer grade 24-85 zoom to slot in between the small but limited 24-50 and the more pricey and huge 24-200, or just a fair bit more expensive S-line 24-70/4. It's simply very difficult for a budget-oriented user of the Z5 to put together a zoom lens kit that is workable and isn't just a single super-zoom (albeit the 24-200 is remarkably good at what it does). The Tamron 70-300 covers the consumer telezoom needs just fine. Nikon also needs 1-2 smaller, slower telephoto primes to round out the inexpensive line (I'd say a 105/2.5 in the Muffin line along with an 85/1.4 to match the 35 & 50) and also UWA options, maybe a 20/4 muffin and 16 or 18/2.8 in the bigger but not as expensive as S line series (can't see this being f1.4). A 24/1.4 in the f1.4 line would be nice too. Although to be honest, the Viltrox 16/1.8 really covers the need for a good AF UW prime in the 15-16mm range for reasonably money. 

Looking Back at Canon After 18 Months

Canon R7, EF-S 10-18 IS STM

After 18 months with Canon RF, what's my take on the system.

First off, if you are looking to get into FF mirrorless and cannot afford high-end glass or bodies, a used R6 or new R8 and Canon's consumer lens lineup is hands down the most complete offering available under $2K USD. Both Nikon and Sony offer mixed bags of body/lens selection while Canon not only has reasonably-priced zooms from 15 through 400mm including both super-zoom offerings, a super-compact kit zoom (24-50) and a normal kit zoom that's actually pretty good (24-105), and well-featured bodies. Only Canon offers a fully rounded consumer lens lineup for FF mirrorless, which is ironic since they also need it the least as they had that in EF mount and EF adapts very well to RF. 

Nikon simply doesn't have anything zoom-wise except 1 super-compact offering (also a 24-50) and several super-zooms (notably a 24-200 and a 28-400), but no inexpensive UWA zoom, no inexpensive mid-range zoom and the only inexpensive telezoom option is a Tamron (70-300). 

Sony has the better filled lens lineup, but their general mid-range zoom (28-70 OSS) is not nearly as good as the Canon 24-105 STM (shorter range, optically inferior), still relies on a Tamron option for that inexpensive telezoom and the UWA option really relies on finding an old ZA 16-35/4 cheap (which is VERY doable so I don't consider that a real limiter)

In terms of primes, all 3 systems do pretty well, except Nikon lacks an inexpensive UWA AF lens to compete with the Canon 16/2.8 or the Samyang 18/2.8 FE, and Nikon also lacks an inexpensive short tele like the Sony 85/1.8 or the Canon 85/2 Macro, but there the S 85/1.8 is not that much more money (used cost is about the new cost of the competition) and it's simply a better lens. Nikon also has some good 3rd party lenses here, so it's only really inexpensive & decent AF UW primes where there's a real gap. Sony's biggest issue is that their 28/2 and 50/1.8 are pretty lousy, but there's a wealth of better 3rd party options in the same price range (some of which are also in Z mount, none are in RF except a long out of production Samyang 85/1.4)

Nikon's got good body offerings though. Sony's body offerings are pretty much terrible in this price range (the A7C line is a disaster ergonomically despite goo dinternals) unless you track down an used A7III which is already inferior to the R6 or R8 in most regards. The Z5 is also better than the A7III as an all-purpose camera (better handling, better IBIS), but slower in AF and frame rate (I'd rather use a Z5 than an A7III, but the A7III is a better action camera, but the R6 is far better as an action camera than either Nikon or Sony offering). You can also readily get used Z6's and even Z6II's in the price range I'm talking about (essentially sub-$2K CAD, or $1599 USD or so, the cost of a new R8) and Z7's are also available here used, as are A7RIII's now. So for used, you have good enough options from all 3 makers, but new the best options are Canon followed by Nikon (given I cannot recommend the A7C series to anyone due to handling issues)

So in short, I think Canon does offer a lot at the range I was playing in. I tend to do mid-range gear for the most part, augmented by higher-end MF glass. Canon does really well at the first, but lousy at the second half. 

I think that if the camera is a tool for you to get great photographs, and/or you want a solid selection of 1st party lenses that covers your needs at a diverse set of price points, Canon is hard to beat. The RF system from the R5/R6 onwards is just quietly competent and Canon offers the best all-round performance options at the lower end of the price range for FF bodies. 

If you want some quirks or 'soul' in your setup, and/or want access to oddball & interesting lenses that are fun to shoot as much for what they do badly as what they do well, a better manual lens experience, inexpensive higher-MP bodies or the camera itself is part of your hobby, there's other, better options. Unsurprisingly, the Z7 hits on multiple aspects of that second list compared to the R6, and I'm definitely more of a category 2 shooter. 

Z7 First Impressions

 

Nikon Z7, Z 40mm f2.0

So my Z7 is a high mileage unit in relatively good condition, very similar to my original D800 (even paid about the same, a low, low price). The idea behind buying it was half in getting something that could really spark some passion about using the camera, something the R6 didn't quite do (being boringly competent rather than quirky like the Z7) and something at a cost that made it not really worth selling if I decide to go elsewhere as a primary system (ie even if I did go Sony or back to Canon, I'd keep the Z7 as a crop/manual lens body)

Overall, it hands EXACTLY like the Z5. It does feel smaller to me though, as I'm coming from owning a series of relatively chonky bodies over the last few years (G9, then A7RIV, then OM-1, then R6 with the somewhat svelte R7 in between the last two). The Z5 had been larger than most of the bodies I was shooting before or alongside it, while the Z7 is actually on the smaller side of what I've been used to.

I still don't like the tilt-only display, and the front command dial is poorly located and somewhat hard to engage, especially with gloves. The rear controls are excellent and the two front Fn buttons are chunky and easy to feel/actuate. 

Button assignment is a mixed bag, the R6 had more options overall, but lacked several critical ones for how I shoot (notably bracketing), but I do lose 2 buttons to bracketing (1 for the setting, 1 to engage burst). Overall it took much less time to get the basic button assignment sorted although I still wonder why there's an 'i' touch button on the screen right next to the physical 'i' button, both of which do the exact same thing. ISO and exposure compensation are also not assignable, which is two wasted buttons for me since I use Easy Exposure Compensation only (ie on the subcommand dial when in AE modes) and ISO is a rare enough change for me that I'm fine with it on the 'i' menu (I tend to just flip auto ISO on & off and otherwise let ISO drift within my preferred range). I'd probably leave ISO on the button though, it is useful unlike Exp. Comp. 

The EVF is the excellent experience I remember from the Z5, distinctly superior to other similar spec panels and lagging only my OM-1 in quality (and the OM-1 is a higher spec panel). The R6 was good (better than Sony's equivalent for sure) but not this good. 

I dunno why 1.2x crop mode disappeared. I rather liked that feature on the D800 and used it alot when I wanted speed or a touch more reach and didn't mind only getting 25MP (down from 36). Apparently it's not a thing anymore with Nikon as the Z8 seems to lack it as well. 

AF performance is perfectly acceptable for single shot work. Don't think I'd want to shoot most action opportunities with it, but for most of my real-world uses it will do fine. A bit better than the Z5 from memory, which is to be expected (The Z7 has a faster sensor than the Z5, but otherwise very similar AF system). 

Overall, I'm pretty impressed, this 'slow & unusable' body from 6.5 years ago is actually a pretty solid option. I rather wish it had been a viable option in the past, the card cost had always killed the Z's for me other than the Z5 due to the extra cost over an A7 series or R6 series, and the Z5 wasn't quite enough camera for me to re-buy as a primary. Having reasonably priced CFe options really changes the math there (especially now that I own a decent CFe card and won't have to buy another if I swap bodies around)

Oops, I Did It Again

Nikon Z7, Z 40mm f2 SE

Well, turns out my Canon adventure ends at 18 months or so in.

Some of this is just my brain being terrible to me, every so often it seems to push for irrational changes. This was totally one case of this. Some is real usage complaints and some aspects of the Canon UI not working for me.

So the R6, all my RF lenses and my two Canon EF lenses were traded in last night. Not sure what I'll do with my EF mount CV90/3.5, either a trade-in or a coupled RF mount adapter (the latter allowing me to again adapt EF lenses).

What came home? A Z7, 128GB CFe card, Z 40/2, FTZII and the big surprise, a Zeiss ZF 21/2.8 Distagon (the OG non-CPU version). 

I generally got along well with the R6, my main complaint with it was how annoying bracketing was to access since it couldn't be assigned to a button directly. Aside from that, the main complaints were lack of interesting 3rd party lenses in RF mount and the poor adaptation experience for non-EF lenses (particularly the very Sony-like IBIS and EXIF info limitation). The combo essentially tied me to EF and RF lenses, and it turns out that while that covered my light hiking/simple AF system needs, it really didn't feed my love for weird/odd/interesting lenses to shoot around town.

The Z7 on the other hand is a really good adaptation platform, between the non-CPU lens data system (which gives both a table of 20 lens data slots that even write the selected focal length to EXIF, and has IBIS and Auto ISO both respect that database), the optical stack on the sensor is thinner, allowing old rangefinder lenses to work better and there is a WIDE selection of interesting 3rd party manual and AF lenses, from pretty much everybody except possibly Sigma. 

What am I losing? Speed mostly, the R6's AF and frame rate are wildly better than the Z7, plus the RF100-400 (a very unique lens in terms of size, cost & performance). The rest of my lenses were pretty ho-hum. Good lenses but nothing I don't have comparable options for aside from the uniquely low cost, but average performance RF 16/2.8. Also the R6's grip is still the best of every camera I've owned. And I lose the flip/twist LCD I prefer (gonna suck for video work in the short term). Oh, and compatibility with SD cards (boo).

What am I gaining? Sensor performance (that 45mp sensor is a beast), better 3rd party options, MUCH better adaptation of lenses, a usable set of crop modes (the R6's APS-C crop was WAY too low MP to be usable, the Z7's crop mode is almost as many pixels as the R6's FF pixel count), a few UI bits that work the way I prefer.

Since I have a literal storage bin full of old manual focus glass, it is pretty much a case of 'buy a camera & 2 lenses, get an instant system'. I have a very workable 3-lens system right now with the ZF21, Z40 and the Tamron 90/2.8 Macro N-AF (which I'd been adapting to Canon for my macro needs, it was my sole adapted lens in regular use on Canon). While I have no AF support on the Tamron, it is fully coupled otherwise so it's more usable on Nikon than it was on Canon. The one real gap in my bin of lenses is that I'd sold off anything wider than 24mm, so the ZF21 covers most of that need, and the 40/2 is perfect as a small, AF walkabout/do everything lens. The 21/40/90 kit really does cover my core needs right off the bat. 

Off the top of my head, I also have very usable Nikon MF glass in my 24/2.8K, 28/3.5 AI'd, 35/2 AI, 55/3.5 AI and 105/2.5 AI-S. I also have a 200/4 AI that needs the aperture mechanism cleaned up and a craptacular 300/4.5K AI'd that will likely never see use due to the lousy optical performance. I also have some FD lenses (28, 50 & 135), at least 2 M42 lenses (135/3.5 and one other I don't remember off-hand), a couple C/Y mount lenses (Vivitar 70-150/3.8 and possibly one other), my legendary Nikkor-S.C 5cm f1.4 LTM and IIRC a DX 16-85VR which should be a usable walkaround zoom on the Z7. So yeah, instant system. Plus my Partner has a couple Sony E lenses, one of which could be real fun on my Z7 (Samyang 45/1.8)

What do I need to add? Top orders of business are a 70-300E or 70-200/4G VR. Oddly with both now out of production, the 70-200/4G VR is easier to find and even sometimes cheaper. Then a Z28SE for an AF wide-ish lens (and I really want the SE version, the cosmetics are totally worth the extra $20 to me because they both look better and IMHO handle better with the more pronounced control/focus ring) and some sort of mid-range zoom for hiking, probably the Nikkor Z24-120/4 as that would pair perfectly with my ZF21 as a do nearly everything 2-lens Hiking kit (and there's several telezooms that would fit in well as a 3rd hiking lens). Also I need to figure out what Z adapters I have in stock other than the FTZ and then start adding. I'll want to have M, Sony E, M42, C/Y and FD at a minimum to cover the lenses I have available to me, and probably add EF as well (for my CV 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar)

 

2024 Review and 2025 Goals

Canon R6, RF 24-105 IS STM

I had 3 goals for 2024

1. Shoot 10,000 images with one camera system (split)

2. Take 7 major photographic outings (pass)

3. Get my post/like percentage up to 66% on Fred Miranda (fail)

For #1, I'm still shooting Canon RF, but I only shot 3,827 photos in 2024, so it's really still in progress

#2 is a pass, I just managed to achieve this by September

#3 is a fail, I wasn't really all that active on FM, so I was only able to raise my ratio up to 63.2%

So for 2025, my goals are going to be largely similar.

 1. Reach 10,000 images shot on one camera system without a system change

2. Take 7 major photographic outings

3. Get my post/like percentage up to 66% on Fred Miranda

#1 is something I keep trying and failing to do. We'll see about 2025. 

#2 proved reasonable, so I'll repeat it.

#3 remains my FM engagement goal. It will stay until I either stop my involvement on FredMiranda or achieve it (and then set a higher goal).