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).