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).

 

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 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)

 

Third Time's a Charm

 

Olympus E-M1, Panasonic G Vario 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 OIS

I burned my remaining Henry's store credit yesterday to pick up another E-M1. This is the third I've owned, matching the D300 for the digital body I've owned the most copies of (the image above is from my first E-M1 in 2015)

I've owned many more bodies twice, including the Pentax *ist DS, the Nikon D7100, D800 and IIRC the D3200, as well as the NEX-7, one of the NEX-5R or 5N (I've owned 3 NEX-5's, but not sure if I had 2 of the 5R or 2 of the 5N), A7II and Olympus E-M5II

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)

X-T2 as a Manual Focus Body

 

Fujifilm X-T2, Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 AI, Acros+R Film Simulation

The image above is straight out of the camera, Acros film simulation with simulated Red 25 Filter and H+1, S-1 and Sharpness +2 for a bit of extra punch. Cropped down to 1:1 and slightly less than full width.

This is part of why I still love the Fuji's, especially for B&W and cityscape work. The film simulations just give a great starting point to get a great image. I took the X-T2 out with a bag full of primes, native & adapted, and just had some fun shooting in the city. 

I've largely settled on how I'm going to approach my kit for now. The Fuji's will stay and will be paired with manual focus lenses and mostly be used in the city. The Oly will be primarily zoom-based and backpacking/rough weather kit. The 12-40 replaces the XC 16-50 and a 40-150 Pro will replace the departed 55-200. I'll still need a UWA for the Oly, likely a Laowa 7.5mm f2 as I'm just not sure I want to spend on a 7-14 Pro with its lack of filter compatibility and likelihood to just get used at 7.5mm. Maybe I'll look at a zoom when Oly releases their new f4 option (they have 2-3 f4 zooms known to be coming, all of which are interesting to me)

So the X-T2 will mostly get used with the inexpensive Chinese manual focus lenses I've been buying. I really do find manual, mechanical lenses more fun to use than zooms on the Fuji bodies. I've ever liked focus by wire that much and the more I rely on just the physical controls, the more I like the Fuji's. The only physical control I never really liked is the M/S/C AF switch on the front, and shooting MF glass makes it irrelevant. I suspect I will continue to add inexpensive MF lenses to my Fuji kit, but right now I don't really see adding any AF lenses, although that could change, Fuji's primes are excellent and I could totally live with an all-prime Fuji kit if the Olympus kit handles my zoom needs. That also saves me from looking for a second Olympus body, as I'm quite conflicted as to what would be interesting there. No smaller body has battery compatibility with the E-M1.2. 

All of this will let me use the two kits at what I like best about them. Oly colours for landscapes, Oly tech for landscape & long exposure work, Oly sealing for rough conditions. Fuji Film Simulations for B&W and night work, classic Fuji handling & big beautiful finders for manual focus lenses and taking advantage of the fact that most manual focus crop lenses are designed for APS-C use (Laowa's MFT lenses being some of the rare exceptions). 

This also lets me continue to focus on the inexpensive lenses that I so enjoy, without giving up performance by settling on 3 higher-end lenses for my landscape work, where I need the absolute quality.

This won't stop me from shooting landscape on my Fuji's, especially while my only UWA option is on that system (I sold my Nikkor 20mm and my Laowa 15mm Macro is already spoken for, eliminating my UWA FF options, outside of my 7Artisans 12mm on Fuji, all my other systems are limited to 24mm-e at the widest for now). I ill just prioritize using the Oly when I have to go somewhere I don't want to carry 4+ primes to.

Playing Some More With The A7II

A7II, Nikkor 105/2.5 AI-S

I've had the A7II out a couple times more, and have been having fun with it and my Nikkor manual focus lenses. It's just a solid platform for those uses and somewhat nicer than the Fuji's for adapting old 35mm lenses. This is for a couple reasons.

1. Field of view. Because there's no crop factor, the lenses have the same field of view as they do on film. Since my current selection was largely built with FF in mind (film and the D800 and/or D750 I bought them for) this works better than they do on crop like the Fuji's, or even my D300

2. IBIS. Yeah, the A7II's IBIS is nothing to write home about, giving at best 2 stops of stabilization. But it's there and it does save shots.

3. Better handling in winter. Bigger buttons beat dials when you tend to leave things in Aperture Priority and are wearing gloves. I do retain a preference for Fuji's ergonomics when ungloved, if only for the joystick (Need a Mark 3 on Sony to get that).

It's not perfect though, the big issues as a MF platform are:

1. No focal length written to EXIF. This is key for figuring out which lens you used where. Even my X-T1 has this even though it gains no functionality beyond EXIF from that.

2. Over-sensitive EVF eye sensor causes inconsistent LCD/EVF switching when using the LCD tilted. The Fuji's suffer from this too, but much less due to a better tuned sensor

3. Crap battery life. The main issue this time is self-discharge. the Fuji's sit better with a battery in the camera and their batteries self-discharge slower when sitting. You always have to charge the Sony batteries if the camera has been sitting for a while, not so much with the Fuji's.

All in all, I'm really looking at a platform for shooting FF manual lenses, and it's GOT to be mirrorless this time. Need to be patient though, as a work award I received may result in a free camera (usually it's a trip, but this year they can't really do that, the question is how are they going to handle alternate prizes)

 

Grab The Classics Now, Before They're Gone

D750, Nikkor 20mm f2.8

I was talking to one of the owners of my local camera store the other day, and he remarked that he'd stopped buying used X-T1's.

That reminded me that some of the best classic digital cameras for the user on a budget are getting thin on the used market as their value has gotten low enough that stores can't make money re-selling them and users will just keep them as they're no longer worth the hassle of selling. 

The D200 and D300 are largely in this situation right now, and the D7000 and X-T1 are getting there as well. Even some FF bodies, notably the D700 and 5D classic are there, and I expect the original A7 to be approaching it. 

That doesn't mean these bodies are unworthy of acquisition, just means they're going to be harder to find. Personally I'd still rather like to own another D200 and D700, just for fun, I'd also be interested in the original D2X if I ever found one cheap enough. I'd also like to have a full set of lenses again for my D300, specifically the Sigma 10-20, 16-85VR, 70-300VR and 35DX setup I used to have. That's a good and inexpensive do-everything setup for DX (I still have the 16-85VR hanging around) that I'll look to build around as I run across deals. I may not shoot much with the D300 anymore, but that doesn't mean it's not still a very capable camera. That kit would actually support pretty much any DX body quite well (although I'd replace the 70-300VR with the AF-P DX on more modern bodies that support it, it's cheaper & better). 

These classic bodies are cheap and still very viable for folks shooting for web and print up to 16x20 or so. While newer bodies deliver better IQ for sure, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the IQ from these classics. Many of them are also surprisingly capable as cameras overall, although some, like the D200 and the 5D Classic, do have limitations like low max ISO or no auto ISO, that make them more of a fun camera that a serious primary.

We're living in a golden age of cheap cameras right now, and glass isn't too bad. The transition to mirrorless also leaves a lot of interesting kit on the market cheap.

Should You Buy a New Camera?

D750, Nikkor 20mm f2.8 AF

TL;DR version: No

The above image was taken with a 6 year old camera and a 26+ year old lens. The image speaks for itself.

The reality is that pretty much any DSLR introduced in the last 10 years or any Mirrorless body introduced in the last 7 years is perfectly capable of handling most photography with results that are more than good enough for all but the most demanding High ISO or Speed results.

If there's something you do and your camera is bad at it, then you have a good reason to upgrade. If I was a video guy, I wouldn't be using cameras mostly introduced in the 2013-2014 timeframe. Big DSLR's suck at light carry, all but the latest mirrorless kind of suck at fast action. Small sensors don't do high resolution or big DR well unless you exposure stack, big sensors have diffraction issues when shooting scenes with large DoF and need focus stacking for the best IQ.

So figure out what you need to do the photography you enjoy, and if your current gear doesn't match it, then figure out your budget. Only then should you look at a new camera, and quite frankly, you probably need to buy lenses or accessories, not a body.

This is why camera sales are in the toilet. We hit good enough 6-10 years ago and unless you're a video guy there just really isn't much need for a new camera unless the old one is worn out.

Now personally, I've bounced around a lot for a few reasons.

1. I like smaller & lighter cameras. The X-T1 and E-M1 are pretty much the ideal size & weight for me.
2. I like lots of DR in my RAW files. APS-C is the sweet spot for IQ for me though as I'm less picky on high ISO and resolution. (I'm much less picky about pixel count and high ISO than DR. 24MP is all I actually need, 36MP is overkill, 40+MP is just wasted card space)
3. I need a really good manual focus experience. Ergonomics are a big thing for me in general.
4. I'm on a budget, and even though it's reasonably spacious overall, I'm too cheap to spend large sums in one go. 

5. I like lens lines with consistent rendering. Consistent colour in particular. (Sony's APS-C line is particularly bad for this)

If money wasn't an object, I'd probably just shoot a Z7 or A7RIV and let that be that. As it is I haven't found the right mix of gear yet, although I continue to look.

Items 1 & 2 are the main conflicts for me. I've yet to find a system that has both a really workable high-DR body and a really workable small compact body for me. The kicker has been my love for old manual focus glass. I'm trying to transition that to modern manual focus glass, which really would aid me in settling on a single system

Shooting Fuji on the Cheap

X-T1, Neewer (7Artisans) 25mm f1.8

And now back to my regular gear-related focus.

This is the first in a series of posts as I explore how to build a Fuji system on a budget. It will be focused on prime lenses, as frankly the answer to zooms is buy the 2 XC zooms, a cheap EF adapter and whatever EF-S UWA zoom you can afford. There's really not a lot of options around zooms beyond the obvious.

I'm going to make a few assumptions here.

The first is you have a 16MP X-Trans II body (X-E2, X-E2s, X-T1, X-T10) or an X-T100. What I say applies to Fuji in general, but these bodies are the cheapest really useful bodies in X mount. I'd generally avoid EVF-less bodies as primary bodies (X-A's, X-M1) and I find the X-E1 just too slow to use. The X-Pro1 is interesting as it's a very unique body, but I can't recommend it as an only body due to performance.

The second is the following. Cheap lenses sell for $200USD or less, inexpensive lenses sell for $200USD to $500USD. I'll be using these definitions throughout. The dividing lines are arbitrary, but accurate I think.

I'll be focusing on cheap lenses to start with, then move into the inexpensive realm.

To start with I'll be putting together a 5 lens kit covering UWA, mild wide, normal, mild tele/portrait/macro and moderate telephoto. 

Where to start? That was a difficult question until a few months ago. Now it's easy, there's one Fuji AF lens that is a given for a cheap system, the $199USD XC 35mm f2. This will be the only AF lens on the list, but buy it first. I have this one. There are cheaper manual focus options, but a first-class 35mm for $199? How can you go wrong. 

The second one for me is a mild wide. I went with the Neewer 25mm f1.8 here. Around $70-80 new it's proved to be a good performance. This is a rebrand of the 7Artisans lens, but there's 2-3 different options here that are all decent performers. None are exceptional, but we're talking lenses that retail for well under $100USD new. I may acquire a couple of the others for the heck of it.

For the third, today I'm using a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 AI on a Nikon adapter. It works well, but I will be exploring inexpensive native alternatives, midspeed, fast and macro options all abound here, all in the 50-60mm range.

The next one for me is the UWA. On the cheap side and wider than 16mm you really have two options, get the 7Artisans 12mm f2.8 or hunt for a deal on a used Rokinon/Samyang 12mm f2. I'll start with the first one. This is the one lens I don't have an entry into my kit for (the widest I have now is my Laowa 15mm f4, but that's not a cheap lens, and it's also kind of unwieldy on APS-C mirrorless as it's an FF DSLR UWA, I will cover it when we get to the inexpensive kit as it has a couple unique capabilities that make it truly interesting).

Finally the telephoto. Right now I have a Nikkor 200mm f4 AI on a Nikon adapter. That's just too long. I've also used my Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AI-S as an alternative, but it's a tad too short. A 135 should be just right. There's no cheap new 135's that I've seen, so I'll likely get a Nikkor 135mm f2.8 AI-S (why this one? It's got much better close focus capability than the other Nikkor 135's, otherwise I'd go for a cheaper 135/3.5). What you pick here is really dependent on what sort of shooting you do. Anything from 75mm on is viable if available cheaply. The go-to lenses I'd recommend here are 100/105's, 135's or 200/4's, all can be had cheaply in whatever mount you might desire and most in this space are at least quite good.

A Few Reminders - First Day with the X-T1

 
Nikon D750, 105/2.5 AI-S

I had to do a quick grocery run today, so I grabbed the X-T1+XC35 for a quick photowalk on my way down to the local No Frills.

I was reminded of a few things almost immediately:

1. Low weight. The X-T1+XC35 combo is 570g, an ounce (29g) lighter than the bare A7II and 290g lighter than the bare D750. That makes the X-T1 feel like a feather, which is ideal for light carry, although once I add a l bracket/grip, that will grow another 60-80g.

2. Really nice EVF. The X-T1 has the nicest EVF of anything I've owned. It's still an EVF and still washes out in bright sunlight, but it's excellent otherwise. The LCD is also quite nice, very high quality although it doesn't have the dual-tilt feature the X-T2 introduced.

3. AF is quite good. With newer lenses like the XC35, the AF is really fast in single-shot. I know the continuous AF is slower, but I don't really use that.

4. Battery life is adequate at best. Yep, it eats battery, especially if I treat it like the D750, the X-T1 likes to be shut off between shots.

5. Nice wifi implementation. Enable on a button, App is pretty decent. Only real issue is it doesn't transfer RAW's (I have LR on my phone, so I'd actually prefer to have RAW files). Fuji does great JPEG's though.

A Few Additions to my Bag

 
Fuji X-T1, XC 16-50 OIS II


I got the chance to add a few interesting items to my bag today.

First off is a solid UWA addition for the D750, the Laowa 15mm f4 Macro. Yes, it's a real 1:1 macro in addition to being an UWA, with MFD less than 5mm from the front element. This is also a shift lens, although the image circle is small enough that the shift feature really is only useful on APS-C bodies. That said, I currently have a couple APS-C bodies right now, so the shift feature useful to me (the Laowa is a 22-23mm equivalent on APS-C, a very usable wide).

This wasn't the UWA I'd planned to get (I'd largely settled on getting an 18-35G), but I think it will work out very well in my kit long term. It's also compatible and a useful focal length on everything I own, even the E-PM1 (where it's a 30mm-e shift lens, not that I'm ever likely to use that somewhat ridiculous combo).

I also tripped over a ridiculous deal on a Fuji X-T1, and as I've been looking for a light carry setup, I grabbed it and the new XC 35/2, for basically what I paid for my X-T1 body only last year (which I'd thought was already a deal on a great camera). So now I'll run the Fuji for light carry and the D750 for basically everything else, and I've got the adapters to run my Nikon lenses on Fuji (and the Laowa 15 in particular is a great match for the X-T1)

Finally, I grabbed a $20 MB-D10 for my D300, which seems to have some issue with the battery itself, but all controls are working. That's probably corrosion somewhere in the battery compartment or on the tray, so a dose of contact cleaner should solve it.

The A7II, 28-70 and EF 75-300+Adapter have gone to my SO for now, if she digs them, she'll keep them, if not, it'll go back in the bag for now and work alongside the D750.

That leaves my working kit as the D750 and X-T1, with the D300 available if needed and the E-PM1 as a toy (I still want a tiny prime for it, for fun)

First Days With The D750

Nikon D750, Nikkor 35/2 AI


I've now had a chance to do a little shooting with the D750, well, around 200 frames from a nice photowalk plus a few incidental bits.

It's light enough that it doesn't aggravate my right shoulder any more than the A7II does (the A7II with an F mount adapter and the massive L bracket weighs basically the same as the D750). Ergonomics are very good, the only beef is the front buttons aren't well placed, but I've tweaked my usual setup to account for that (Put AE lock on the Fn button so it can be reached by my left hand, Pv is Non-CPU lens selection, which is only used when changing lenses, the movie record button is set to crop mode and AE-L/AF-L is AF-On).

It's actually amazing how small & light the package is when combined with the Nikkor-H 28/3.5 or 50/1.8D (my two smallest/lightest lenses). Rather makes me want to track down a CV 40/2 Ultron, Nikkor 45/2.8P, 50/1.8 E or maybe even another 35/2.5 E as they're just about the smallest lenses you can get for F mount. It wouldn't be pocket-able, but it would be a remarkably small combo with any of those lenses.

The grip is about the best I've owned. Marginally better than the D300/D700 which previously set the standard. The viewfinder is brilliant as well, it's the same size/coverage as the D800's but brighter which makes a lot of difference in how easy it is to focus.

LV is average for a DSLR. Not very seamless and slow focusing, but overall just a little smoother to operate than the older bodies like the D800, D600 or D300/700. Most annoying thing remains the slight but noticeable shutter delay that LV introduces.

File sizes are surprising. I was expecting smaller files than the D800, but at 14 bit lossless, the files are coming in around 25MB, half the size of the A7II files. Yes Sony, you need lossless. The D750 doesn't do uncompressed, but there's no reason to ever use it, so it's as vestigial a setting as TIFF (which the D750 also doesn't do).

I'm honestly not really missing AF, right now I only have the one AF lens (the 50/1.8D) and everything else in use is manual focus. I mostly just use the 35/2 and 105/2.5 and I expect I'll mostly round that out with a wide prime (17-21mm), likely manual focus. I will get an UWA and telephoto zoom for hiking, but long-term I don't see myself buying a lot of AF glass. I just don't really need it for most of my uses, really only telephoto coverage is what I'd use AF for a lot, plus 1-2 primes for street shooting. I'll get an AF UWA, but only because all the good ones are AF (hmm, wonder if I could find a 17-35 AF-S with a bad motor cheaply....great lens and I don't need the AF)

Solution Found

 
Sony A7II, FE 28-70 f3.5-5.6 OSS

Well, I think I've found my solution to the question of what body to use to cover all 4 of my use cases.

The answer is a D750.  It's just about 250g lighter than the D800, has a nicer finder (same one as the D810 in fact), better handgrip, a flip-out LCD and Wifi. And it's faster at 6.5fps (vs 4 or 5 in crop mode for the D800) and has dual SD cards, instead of CF+SD (I don't own any CF larger than 8GB and don't intend to buy any as they're obsolete cards). Oh, and Auto-ISO respects Non-CPU lens Focal Length on later firmware versions.

The downsides are the loss of some physical controls & build, and the viewfinder dimming outside of the crop area feature.

The mixed blessing is the sensor. I lose the crop-ability of the 36MP sensor, and the useful DX mode, but the D750 has 1.2 crop (unlike the D6x0's) at 16.7MP and is better at high ISO's. And I've long known 24MP is more than enough for my actual needs.

So I traded the D800 for a D750. We'll see how it goes, but I expect it will work out pretty well. It feels better in the hand than the already excellent D800, and a few of the things I was missing with the D800 (flip-out LCD and Wifi most notably).

Evaluating Use Cases for Gear

 
D800, 105/2.5 AI-S

In evaluating what you should look at for gear, it pays to understand how you shoot and what gear you need to support that.

For me, I have pretty much 4 modes of shooting.

1. Daily carry. I try to always carry a camera to and from work, often shooting at lunch as well. This needs to be a reasonably compact & light body with 1-2 primes (I prefer not to work with zooms for this use).

2. Light landscape kit. This is my minimalist kit for landscape, and it's basically a UWA and a telephoto zoom. Body should be lighter as well, but bulks up a bit over #1 via adding an L-bracket.

3. Heavy landscape kit. This is what I use when working close to the car, I'll carry more lens options (often carrying everything in the car and just grabbing 1-2 lenses when working)

4. Fun kit. I'll take a body with 2-3 primes around the city or elsewhere to shoot. Weight doesn't matter, experience does.

Right now I don't have an answer for #1 but the D800 seems to be getting used the most although it's way too heavy to be ideal, am using the A7II for #2, the A7II+D800 for #3 and the D800 or FE for #4.

For #1, the best setup I've found was my Fuji kit, specifically the X-T1.Most of the crop mirrorless systems will do OK, except Nikon (no small native primes for Z/DX) DSLR's just don't work, and FF Mirrorless seems to be too close to smaller FF DSLR's in size/weight.

For #2, I've never really had a kit that's ideal. Closest was probably the D300+10-20+70-300VR, the Oly bodies with the 9-18 and 40-150 was a close second, but not quite there (the 40-150 was too slow for the sensor & the IQ was marginal if I needed to push).

#3 is easy, stick kits #1 & #2 in a bag and add anything else lying around. Stick bag in the passenger seat footwell and I'm set.

#4 has been all over the place, but I generally prefer a 35mm SLR (film or digital) with 2-3 classic manual focus primes. The D800 is close to perfect for this.

This keeps bringing me back to a few conclusions.

1. Sony doesn't offer the lenses I want at a price I'm willing to pay, and the 3rd party options just don't quite do it. Plus I don't like the ergonomics of their APS-C bodies and the FF bodies + lenses are bigger than I'd like.

2. m43 almost works. I like the lens lineup, it mostly works for me, the pricing is good. But the IQ just doesn't work enough of the time when I can't do HighRes or multishot HDR shots.

4. The Canon and Nikon lens lines in crop mirrorless aren't there and adapting DSLR lenses just doesn't quite do it. I'm actually more amenable to Canon here, because their cameras are cheaper, their adapters are cheaper and they have the 22/2.

5. Crop DSLR's almost work, but the small ones have crap viewfinders and the big ones are heavy. They're also physically less ideal for use #1, due to the mirrorbox size. But they'd be fine for use #2 & 3 with the right pair of lenses, and the lens options are MUCH wider.

That leads me back to Fuji. They're ideal for #1, an X-T or X-E body with the Fujicrons is my basic standard that nobody else has yet matched.

For #2 Fuji isn't ideal due to the relatively high cost of the 10-24 compared to something like Sigma's 10-20's in DSLR mounts or the Oly 9-18. But it's at worst comparable in cost to Tamron's 17-28 in FE mount and the Fuji is wider, longer and IS. Sony's 16-35's are significantly more money and either worse or massive in comparison. The X-T2, X-T3 and X-T200 give me screen articulation I want, the wifi implementation is excellent and they have the best USB setup on the market (power & charge), allowing you to charge on the fly from the car or while shooting from a USB power bank. Fuji also offers a 14mm prime option (21mm-e) and Zeiss offers a 12mm (18mm-e), which is more wide AF primes than any other crop system. The Zeiss is also available in E mount, but there's no 14, the next widest prime in the other systems are all 24mm-e (16mm in EOS M or E, 12mm in m43).

I could be pretty happy with an X-T2, 10-24 and 55-200 for #2, or any of the newer 24 or 26MP bodies with a 23+50 pair of Fujicrons for use #1.

What does this mean? Not sure, but I'm already planning on passing the Sony A7II to my SO as a replacement for her now over 10 year old G1, so I need a replacement anyways and the Fuji just makes a lot of sense. The other option that seems to make surprising sense would be an EOS RP with adapted EF lenses, that works fine for use #2 and has potential for use #1. But I just come back to the Fujis.

The Joy of Shooting a D800

 
D800, Nikkor 105/2.5 AI-S

In thinking about the image in the previous post, I was reminded about how enjoyable the D800 was to shoot when I wasn't fighting the focus shift issues I had with the Zeiss 85 Planar.

The D800 is simply a joy to shoot. The ergonomics are nearly perfect (only thing I'd change is a deeper grip), the control layout is dead-on, the viewfinder is really nice aside from needing a bit more tooth in the focus screen for good manual focus, the responsiveness is amazing, especially after coming from mirrorless, the D800 is just on, instantly. AF is very good, the IQ is amazing, producing the best RAW files of any camera I've ever owned.

The downsides really are that manual focus is simply better in an EVF and the body is big & heavy. Oh, and the Live View experience kinda sucks by current standards. No peaking, magnification is a bit flaky and it's basically useless handheld because of the shutter release delay and fixed LCD.

Recently I was made an offer I couldn't refuse on a notionally high mileage D800 (60k on the shutter, which is considered high, but isn't that high when you consider the official design lifetime is 200k). So I took it, and even had a cheap Canon telezoom thrown in for free to use on the A7II, specifically Canon's surprisingly not awful 75-300 f4-5.6 USM III.

So, after a couple weeks with the D800 again, where am I?

I'm clearly in better physical shape than 2 years ago, because carrying the D800 is not causing me some of the shoulder issues it did last time. Some of that is simply being more careful about how I carry it (less in the hand, more in the bag/on the strap), I have right arm issues and I need to be careful about it or I'll end up not shooting anything due to injuries.

The IQ and shooting experience is simply better than the A7II. There's two aspects to this really. The first is the grip, the D800's grip is further from the mount, so my fingers don't get squished by the lens/adapter (my Fotodiox EF adapter is bad for this, as is the FE 28-70), that just makes the D800 more comfortable to hold. The second is button layout, the D800's is simply more natural. As to the IQ, well aside from the range above ISO 6400, the D800's sensor is better and I like Nikon colour better. At high ISO the A7II comes into its own.

The other aspect is that the quality of the A7II's EVF and LCD is pretty low compared to similar cost bodies. It's just not on par with the Olympus or Fuji bodies I've also had over the last year. Don't get me wrong, it's not awful at all, in fact it's acceptably good, but an X-T1 or E-M5II's EVF and LCD are a step above, as is the D800's LCD.

Where does that leave me for now? I'll continue to concentrate on F mount lenses, I'm not going to get any native glass for FE. I'll adapt to the A7II for now and continue to use it as a carry camera (it remains a LOT lighter than the D800, even with an adapter in the mix). But I could really be tempted by another Fuji in the everyday carry space, especially with the XC35 that was just announced.

Pondering Nikon

 
D800, Zeiss ZF.2 1,4/85 Planar T*


I do have to say, when that combo was on, man I do love the results. The pity was it was a crapshoot as to whether or not focus shift cost me the image.

Nikon just announced what's likely it's last non-pro FX DSLR, the D780. It's a nice body, essentially a cross between the Z6 internals, D750 body and D7500 AF system. Loses vertical grip compatibility & a popup flash, neither of which is an issue for me, although the grip in particular is a loss for a lot of shooters (Nikon: your poor grip sales are due to wildly excessive pricing driving 3rd party sales, not a lack of interest. Price sanely and you'll move a ton of them but nobody wants to spend $400 on a plastic piece with a battery tray and a handful of buttons & wheels, especially when Velbon et al will sell a good copy for $80)

But that has me pondering Nikon again. Prices on used FX bodies have crashed, I'm seeing used D810's below $1500CDN (as low as $1250), D800's are solidly under $1k and D750's which were $1250+ used before thanksgiving are $500 cheaper now.

Thinking about it, I would not want to give up my A7II, which is working pretty well for me. But I could readily use it as the light body in a light/heavy mix, especially with a D800 or D810. It's not like most of my lenses aren't F mount anyways. The Z6 is tempting but as much as I'd like one, I'm not really sure whether or not it's worth it to me. The better ergonomics and EVF/LCD are the big things, but that's offset by the new (and expensive) XQD cards.

Pretty sure I should just invest in more glass instead...

A7II - One Week on the Second Go

 
Sony A7 II, Nikkor 50mm f1.8D

So I'm a week and around 450 images into the second time through with the A7II.

Things are going a little better this time. A lot of that is simply in the fact that I actually own an AF lens this time around, the FE 28-70 OSS is getting a lot of use. Most of the rest is simply in the fact that I've managed to keep my shooting interest up for most of  the year. I'm at a little less than 1/3 of the images I took with the A7II last year, in only a week.

I'd had 3 main complaints with the A7II the first time.

1. Battery life. After a year shooting with the X-T1 and E-M1/E-M5II pair I have a different take on it. The battery life on the A7II is just enough better than the Fuji or Oly bodies that it's noticeable. Putting the on/off back where it belongs does help manage battery life, as does the relatively fast start time. Much different experience than coming from the long-lived D800.

2. The over-sensitive EVF/LCD switch sensor. Yep, still annoying. It triggers at around twice the distance it should and doesn't disable when the screen is flipped out.

3. The buried format menu option. Still mildly annoying but no worse than Oly or Fuji. Nowhere near as nice as Nikon though. Not really annoying after a year with equally bad menus on other systems.

I do have a new item to add though, Sony's horrid Imaging Edge Mobile app. Whoever wrote this needs to be condemned to actually using it as their only interaction with a camera for a year.

The workflow for image transfer is actually really nice, you hit Fn while viewing an image, pick the images you want to transfer, trigger the transfer, then select the wifi network on your mobile, start the app, watch everything flow over and go from there. This is much nicer than the Fuji and Oly apps.

The downside? 50% or more of the time, the images disappear after the transfer is concluded, meaning you have to repeat the process 1-2 times before you can actually do anything with the transferred images.

Now for camera remote control, it's just a mess. No real control over camera settings, lousy framerates, poor UI and poor focus control. And with the mkIII's and later you lose tap to focus. I guess there's a reason why there's a half-dozen alternative apps for this (one of which I will most certainly buy)

The app, which replaced the already lousy Playmemories app, is just a complete gong show. At a moment where the competition is very rapidly getting better Sony not only got worse, but managed to make the one thing the app did well almost completely unreliable.

Oops, I Did It Again

 
Sony A7 II, Nikkor 50mm f1.8D


Well, I succumbed to the lure of Full Frame again, for a few reasons. Traded in my Oly kit and came home with a new Sony A7II and FE 28-70 OSS and a little leftover store credit.

Why did I do this? A couple reasons.

For starters, we're going into the winter darks, and that means that all my after-work shooting will be after sunset. The Oly bodies are at their weakest here, especially when you get above ISO 1600. The reality is that is the real-world limit for getting really usable results from them, something I'd been hesitant to accept. The A7 is better at ISO 6400 than the E-M5II was at 1600. I needed something that was comfortable shooting in those conditions to get through the winter.

Second, I'd already been looking at what body I should plan for to get around the set of challenges I'd identified with the 16MP m43 bodies, mostly around short telephoto work in lowish light in the forest. What shocked me was the realization that the cheapest usable option was Sony FF, not APS-C or a newer m43 body. The A7II kit is actually cheaper than the E-M5III body only, and comparable in price to getting a Fuji X-T20 kit or Nikon Z50 kit. That's just insane. Combine the cheaper body with the fact that there's a surprising selection of modern, native and inexpensive glass for the Sony, with that selection being wider and cheaper than what's available in the crop systems and that just flips the whole FF cost/benefit ratio on its head. Most of these lenses have shown up in the last 18 months or so, with some being not even on the market quite yet (Tamron's upcoming f2.8 compact 20, 24 and 35mm lenses aren't yet out for example and the 20 at least is a must-buy for me). But Tamron and Samyang have been killing it here, and Sony's set of base FE lenses may be limited, but they're well targeted.

I'd not been looking at FF originally because I thought the economics didn't work. That remains true by and large for FF if DSLR's are off the table. The Nikon Z and PanaSigmaLeica L mount systems don't have any cheap entry level options and due to the poor lens line the EOS RP (a great handling little body for a great price) has no viable lenses without relying on the EF adapter for all your glass except the 35/1.8 Macro. But Sony's choice to keep their older A7 bodies in production and get aggressive on pricing has resulted in a value inversion compared to crop frame options. If you don't shoot fast action, and I don't, an A7II is just a lot more camera than an A6x00, Z50, X-T20/X-T30, or any EOS M or m43 body, and it's cheaper out the door. That's resulted in a boom in inexpensive but good enough glass for FE mount that has not followed to Z, R or L mounts as of yet.

Third, the Sony files let me get in a single shot the same sort of DR I needed to use HDR multishot to get with Oly. I generally didn't mind that, but I can definitely work more efficiently now. I liked the results I was getting, but I was mildly frustrated by the shots I was missing that I probably wouldn't have missed with APS-C or FF. Now I recently described the A7II files as kinda crappy, but before I made the decision I did take a close look at them. The out of camera colour is definitely a big miss, but the dynamic range and detail most certainly is excellent and the colour is fairly easily tweaked in CaptureOne, the files are actually noticeably easier to work on than the Olympus files because of the better data quality. They really look worse at first glance than they actually are. The D600 and D800 files are still better but the A7II to D600 gap is pretty much down to just the default colour rendering.

What am I giving up? Really good sealing, some ergonomics (the E-M1 is just better sorted ergonomically than the A7II), lens size (FF is just bigger in most cases), the touchscreen UI and that brilliant little 9-18 zoom.

What am I getting? Around 3 stops more working room in ISO (2 at the high end, 1 at the low end due to the lower base ISO), 1.5 to 2 stops of DR, my old lens collection becomes much more usable as the wide-ish lenses are now viable for adaptation (28/2.5, 35/3.5) plus my 50-135/3.5 is a more useful range. Oh, and a pretty solid system future. I don't need to worry about whether my investment will still be viable in the future, Sony is the dominant player in FF mirrorless and will remain a viable player for years, while m43 is really on the cusp of becoming a stagnant system with very little development going on since 2017.

So yes, the A7II has become the first FF digital body that I've owned 2 copies of. I even actually bought new this time, they're so inexpensive that going used made no economic sense. Lets see if I manage to take 7500+ images with it, like I did over the last 4 months with the Oly kit. And this time I got an AF lens, so I think I'll take a miss on my biggest frustration with the A7II last year. I like shooting manual lenses, but I don't like being stuck shooting manual lenses.

And on another note, 200 shots into the A7II's career and I've now exceeded my stretch goal of 10233 images for the year. I'm very happy with that.

Cheap FX for Nikon Shooters

 
D600, Nikkor 24-50mm f3.3-4.5 AF



 
D700, Series E 100mm f2.8

Today, the D600 and D700 have gotten decidedly cheap on the used market. So if you are looking at them, what are the pro's & cons  of each?

D600

Pro's:
Image Quality. The 24MP Sony sensor is simply better in all regards than the older 12MP sensor. It's also semi-usable in DX mode at 11.5MP
Live View. While neither of these two bodies has a great live view experience, the D600's is more useful
Battery. The D600 uses the newer and larger capacity EN-EL15, if nothing else this battery is future-proof for now as pretty much all the enthusiast bodies from Nikon use it, including the Z6 and Z7.
UI. Most people prefer the model dial to the mode buttons, and The U banks are a lot easier to work with than the dual banks of the pro bodies
Lens compatibility. It can use the 70-300E AF-P, the D700 can't.
SD card slot. Yeah, you can use modern cards in it, not obsolete CF

Con's
Ergonomics. The grip is poor and the handling inferior to the 'Pro' style D700. Also there's no AF-On/AE-Lock split, they're a single shared button
Robustness. The D600 is built like a D7100, it's good but not great
AF. None of the bodies with the 39 point unit is known for great AF performance.

D700

Pro's
Build. It's built almost as well as a D3, being essentially a full frame D300
Speed. With the grip and an EN-EL4 or AA battery set it's an 8fps body, only the D850 can match it for speed in the selection of gripped FX bodies
Accessories. It uses the 10 pin interface that all the higher-end Nikons since the F4 and F90 have used.
Ergonomics. They're simply excellent.
AF. The 51 point AF unit is well known for its excellent performance. Even today it's a great performer.


Con's.
IQ. The 12MP is simply limited in DR and resolution compared to modern sensors. Even a DX camera today delivers better IQ in most situations.
Live View. The LV experience sucks. It's basically useless except for manual focus on a tripod. The D600 isn't great, but it is better
Lens compatibility. You get E lenses, you don't get any AF-P. That writes off the excellent 70-300E AF-P, Nikon's best value in a telephoto zoom.
Battery & Cards. Uses the long obsolete EN-EL3e and CF cards. Not great unless you're sitting on stock (which admittedly I am, I have 5-6 perfectly good EN-EL3e's and a bunch of decent CF cards)

As to the D610? Well it comes close enough to street price on the D800 that I'd just suggest getting a D800 instead. It's really just a D600 with the shutter fix guaranteed to be included, but any D600 with the shutter oil issue should have had the free fix from Nikon by now.